I don't know how many head-of-state nut cases arrived in New York for the annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly. But surely there are many others besides Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muamar Gaddafi. There is a class of rulers from Africa, for example, who govern recklessly in behalf of themselves but under the cover of one or another form of millenarianism. (The brutal clowns of South America are a bit different. They still believe that Fidel Castro is a model for building the good society.) This is, I suppose, the revenge of ideology over the London School of Economics. Two of the worst dictators on the African continent could not come. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan might be detained on standing orders of the International Court of Justice. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is barred from travel to the U.S., except for visits to the U.N. I suspect that he just does not want to compete with two more odious tyrants. Not more murderous, mind you, but more odious. Some day the Lord's Resistance Army will ascend to power in one or another country, and its commander will arrive on the East River and also take to the podium. He will be absolutely stoned.
Still, he may even abide by the 15 minutes allotted to for these addresses. Which, of course, Gaddafi did not, speaking instead for a full
95 minutes. Or rather rambling incoherently for 96 minutes, yes, one hour and 36 minutes until he shuffled down from the rostrum. No one interrupted him, and certainly not the president of the assembly. Who is Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, delegated by Gaddafi as Libya's candidate and elected by acclamation, by acclamation, mind you, in June of this year. Maybe he didn't interrupt his master's speech because he has children in the home country. (According to the Miami Herald, this was far from the record of the longest U.N. speech. Castro spoke for four and a half hours in 1960; in 1957, the foreign minister of India, V.K. Krishna Menon, delivered an eight hour address defending his country's possession of Kashmir.) The Libyan head man was tender to Obama, terming him "our son." I hope the president doesn't have any more bad dreams from his father.
Dr. A'jad's talk was mostly about the iniquities of capitalism and Zionism. But he did not mention nuclear weapons (more on this later) or the Holocaust that wasn't.
The U.N. is a joke. If it weren't in New York no one would come. As an instrument of peace it fails every time. At its best, it is mostly charade, like Ban Ki-moon designating Bill Clinton as the organization's special envoy to Haiti. "Special envoy," my foot.
But Susan Rice seems to feel at home at the United Nations. "Google" her and read any of her nonsense about the organization. Any of it. If you don't laugh you'll cry. Either way your response will be appropriate.
The president chaired a session of the Security Council, "unprecedented," "blah, blah...". The Council voted unanimously to begin universal disarmament in nuclear weapons. Sure. A unanimous council means something of which the New York Times will approve. It also means that nothing will happen.
Print
COMMENTS (27)
Marty,
Basically it was a lot of people blowing hot air including our beloved President. Everyone except Bibi Netanyahu who got it absolutely right. "Have you no shame?, "Have you no decency?," he addressed the General Assembly. He wasn't speaking just to Ahmadinejad. He meant EVERYONE. I still love Sen. McCain's idea during last year's campaign of creating a League of Democracies.
Marty,
Basically it was a lot of people blowing hot air including our beloved President. Everyone except Bibi Netanyahu who got it absolutely right. "Have you no shame?, "Have you no decency?," he addressed the General Assembly. He wasn't speaking just to Ahmadinejad. He meant EVERYONE. I still love Sen. McCain's idea during last year's campaign of creating a League of Democracies.
THe UN a joke? Served USA very well in Gulf War 1991 and Korea and any other number of occasions. If Hitler/Mussolini had spoken in such a forum they would have been revealed as a farce, just as Qadhafi. Do not blame the UN for bad actors, of which we have had a few of our own. Alternative of no UN is worse. The UN supports the USA position at least 95% of time.
THe UN a joke? Served USA very well in Gulf War 1991 and Korea and any other number of occasions. If Hitler/Mussolini had spoken in such a forum they would have been revealed as a farce, just as Qadhafi. Do not blame the UN for bad actors, of which we have had a few of our own. Alternative of no UN is worse. The UN supports the USA position at least 95% of time.
Marty, the UN is not a joke, it pumps billions of dollars a year into the local NY City economy. Think of it as a giant drunken lechorous frat house that likes to blow through money. The company I used to work for did a nice chunk of printing for the UN.
Marty, the UN is not a joke, it pumps billions of dollars a year into the local NY City economy. Think of it as a giant drunken lechorous frat house that likes to blow through money. The company I used to work for did a nice chunk of printing for the UN.
"...But Susan Rice seems to feel at home at the United Nations. "Google" her and read any of her nonsense about the organization. Any of it. If you don't laugh you'll cry. Either way your response will be appropriate.
The president chaired a session of the Security Council, "unprecedented," "blah, blah...". The Council voted unanimously to begin universal disarmament in nuclear weapons. Sure. A unanimous council means something of which the New York Times will approve. It also means that nothing will happen...."
Right on, right on, right on.
"...But Susan Rice seems to feel at home at the United Nations. "Google" her and read any of her nonsense about the organization. Any of it. If you don't laugh you'll cry. Either way your response will be appropriate.
The president chaired a session of the Security Council, "unprecedented," "blah, blah...". The Council voted unanimously to begin universal disarmament in nuclear weapons. Sure. A unanimous council means something of which the New York Times will approve. It also means that nothing will happen...."
Right on, right on, right on.
As far as I recall, the UN has been the only body legally validating our presence in Iraq the last six years. Other than that, it would have been a war of aggression against a country that had not attacked us, and an illegal occupation.
As far as I recall, the UN has been the only body legally validating our presence in Iraq the last six years. Other than that, it would have been a war of aggression against a country that had not attacked us, and an illegal occupation.
I generally agree, Marty.(And usually when I agree with you, your biting sarcasm and derisive tone goes down like fine wine)
However, it's not as bad as it seems, they do some good work especially in the Third World. And until somebody can come up with a better alternative, the UN is it.
I generally agree, Marty.(And usually when I agree with you, your biting sarcasm and derisive tone goes down like fine wine)
However, it's not as bad as it seems, they do some good work especially in the Third World. And until somebody can come up with a better alternative, the UN is it.
Jesus, Marty, I thought you had infiltrated all the way into my padded cell. Now that Jackson is in the cell next to mine I've become increasingly, well, paranoid. ; o )
Come on, what about all the brutal clowns we installed in South America? You know, throughout the entire 20th century? Or our authoritatian clowns okay if they are just brute thugs....and not wacky.
Has Israel ever worked with tryants? How about clowns?
I'm no psychiatrist but I'm starting to feel some real concern here. You seem to be, I don't know, getting closer and closer to the edge.
I'd hate to see you get stranded out here with me and Jackson.
Try those breathing exercises I sent you. Only this time remember to breathe o ... view full comment
Jesus, Marty, I thought you had infiltrated all the way into my padded cell. Now that Jackson is in the cell next to mine I've become increasingly, well, paranoid. ; o )
Come on, what about all the brutal clowns we installed in South America? You know, throughout the entire 20th century? Or our authoritatian clowns okay if they are just brute thugs....and not wacky.
Has Israel ever worked with tryants? How about clowns?
I'm no psychiatrist but I'm starting to feel some real concern here. You seem to be, I don't know, getting closer and closer to the edge.
I'd hate to see you get stranded out here with me and Jackson.
Try those breathing exercises I sent you. Only this time remember to breathe out between the rants.
gw
Surely NY City will survive without these loony tunes just as TNR would survive without the silly and nutty rants by loony George Waltunes.
Seriously what makes the UN a joke is that every time it meets breaks its own founding principles by hosting speakers who spread Jew hatred and deny the Holocaust.
What is bizarre about condoning such behavior (and all the delegations who stayed to listen to Ahmadinejad’s rant did just that) is that one of the main reason the UN was founded was the fact of WW2 and the Holocaust.
Had there been no Holocaust does anyone believe that an organization like the UN would have been allowed to take shape?
Surely NY City will survive without these loony tunes just as TNR would survive without the silly and nutty rants by loony George Waltunes.
Seriously what makes the UN a joke is that every time it meets breaks its own founding principles by hosting speakers who spread Jew hatred and deny the Holocaust.
What is bizarre about condoning such behavior (and all the delegations who stayed to listen to Ahmadinejad’s rant did just that) is that one of the main reason the UN was founded was the fact of WW2 and the Holocaust.
Had there been no Holocaust does anyone believe that an organization like the UN would have been allowed to take shape?
Robert Moses' two worst ideas: the Cross Bronx Expressway and getting the United Nations to come to Turtle Bay. I agree with Marty and Gadaffi that it should be moved somewhere else to test the strength of its members' devotion to peace and the defeat of poverty and injustice. I vote for Harre, Tripoli (Libya) or Peshawar. The Saudis and Iranians should especially like the latter.
Robert Moses' two worst ideas: the Cross Bronx Expressway and getting the United Nations to come to Turtle Bay. I agree with Marty and Gadaffi that it should be moved somewhere else to test the strength of its members' devotion to peace and the defeat of poverty and injustice. I vote for Harre, Tripoli (Libya) or Peshawar. The Saudis and Iranians should especially like the latter.
"I vote for Harre, Tripoli (Libya) or Peshawar. "
What a brilliant idea.
"I vote for Harre, Tripoli (Libya) or Peshawar. "
What a brilliant idea.
Once again, has anyone any suggestions as to what body might have made our invasion of Iraq legitimate, other than the UN? They hadn't attacked us, and the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors were in fact the ones whose reports were either supporting or weakening the case for military intervention. As it turned out, there weren't any weapons -- removing one justification -- but at least the UN could give our occupation legal status.
Likewise the IAEA, an agency of the UN, is the body whose assessments of the Iranian nuclear program have the force of international law that can either buttress our political aims at the Security Council, or not.
Once again, has anyone any suggestions as to what body might have made our invasion of Iraq legitimate, other than the UN? They hadn't attacked us, and the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors were in fact the ones whose reports were either supporting or weakening the case for military intervention. As it turned out, there weren't any weapons -- removing one justification -- but at least the UN could give our occupation legal status.
Likewise the IAEA, an agency of the UN, is the body whose assessments of the Iranian nuclear program have the force of international law that can either buttress our political aims at the Security Council, or not.
ironyroad
"Once again, has anyone any suggestions as to what body might have made our invasion of Iraq legitimate, other than the UN? They hadn't attacked us, and the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors were in fact the ones whose reports were either supporting or weakening the case for military intervention. As it turned out, there weren't any weapons -- removing one justification -- but at least the UN could give our occupation legal status."
Is this supposed to be your best argument for the legitimacy of the UN, Irony?
Yes, the UN has been used to legitimize military actions. On the other hand, do you really think that without the UN the US could not have created another forum for the same pur ... view full comment
ironyroad
"Once again, has anyone any suggestions as to what body might have made our invasion of Iraq legitimate, other than the UN? They hadn't attacked us, and the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors were in fact the ones whose reports were either supporting or weakening the case for military intervention. As it turned out, there weren't any weapons -- removing one justification -- but at least the UN could give our occupation legal status."
Is this supposed to be your best argument for the legitimacy of the UN, Irony?
Yes, the UN has been used to legitimize military actions. On the other hand, do you really think that without the UN the US could not have created another forum for the same purpose?
jd:
Yes, the UN has been used to legitimize military actions. On the other hand, do you really think that without the UN the US could not have created another forum for the same purpose?
george:
What, you never heard of the Council On Foreign Relations? Aren't you in it?
gw
jd:
Yes, the UN has been used to legitimize military actions. On the other hand, do you really think that without the UN the US could not have created another forum for the same purpose?
george:
What, you never heard of the Council On Foreign Relations? Aren't you in it?
gw
Norm Geras of Normblog profile has a a weekly Friday morning feature, in which a blogger is given a set of questions to answer. On eof the questions asked is:
What would you do with the UN?
Here is just a sampling of the answers provided to this question:
I'm opposed to the attempts being made in the UN Human Rights Council to outlaw religious defamation.
I would replace it with a League of Democracies.
Have the UN Human Rights Council disbanded and replaced with representatives from countries vetted by a group like Amnesty International on the basis of their perceived respect for such things.
Expand Security Council membership and end the unilateral veto; but domestic political change in China ... view full comment
Norm Geras of Normblog profile has a a weekly Friday morning feature, in which a blogger is given a set of questions to answer. On eof the questions asked is:
What would you do with the UN?
Here is just a sampling of the answers provided to this question:
I'm opposed to the attempts being made in the UN Human Rights Council to outlaw religious defamation.
I would replace it with a League of Democracies.
Have the UN Human Rights Council disbanded and replaced with representatives from countries vetted by a group like Amnesty International on the basis of their perceived respect for such things.
Expand Security Council membership and end the unilateral veto; but domestic political change in China would do more to change the UN than any institutional reform.
Move them to Sierra Leone or Rwanda.
I'd appoint Susan Rice as US ambassador - strike that, wish also granted.
Rename it as the Nearly League of Nations.
Reform it to reflect a non-Post-War era, perhaps better reflecting population trends right now, rather than who won the Second World War.
Make it rent its offices in downtrodden areas of town, and generally make it more of a humble organization. I'd like to decrease its bureaucracy by about 95 per cent, but don't know how to go about that.
I think the UN should be dealt with in the spirit immortalized in the words of former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick's deputy Charles Lichenstein. Shortly after the Soviets shot down KAL 007, murdering all those people, legislatures in New York and New Jersey denied Soviet aircraft landing rights. Some at the UN raised the question of whether that body should remove from the United States. And Lichenstein, fed up and in no mood for 'diplomacy', said, 'We will put no impediment in your way. The members of the US mission to the United Nations will be down at the dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail off into the sunset.'
Scrap it. It's an obscenity. Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Committee? I ask you! It once served a purpose, I suppose, but the majority of UN representatives do not even speak for the people of their own countries, let alone articulate their interests.
Send them all packing and turn the building into condos.
Shrink it and keep it in a snow globe.
Turn it in to an international talking shop. Er... wait...
The biggest criticism of the UN, that it doesn't get things done, that it's useless, is false because it's committing a category error. The UN isn't an actor on its own behalf in world affairs, it is merely a forum through which actual actors (countries and the like) can co-operate if they choose to do so. So I'd leave the UN alone. It may be that there's a case for making a new club that only democratic countries can join. (But who counts as democratic?)
I would convert its headquarters into New York's most striking shopping mall. The murderers and thieves who rule over many of the countries represented there should be dressed in ridiculous costumes (I mean more ridiculous than their current ones) and made to stand behind a display glass. The oppressed people of their nations should then be flown into town to point at them and spend the contents of the human mannequins' Swiss bank accounts under their noses
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/09/the_normblog_pr_3.html
Loony George Waltunes is mumbling to himself again.
Somebody, quick, give him his meds.
Loony George Waltunes is mumbling to himself again.
Somebody, quick, give him his meds.
It's not my best argument, JD, but I just wanted to give you something to practice on!
Ok joking apart, I don't know if I have a better set of arguments because the premises on which I view the question may be very different to yours, so my 'argument' may not sound like one. I don't expect the UN to "do" stuff in the normal sense becuase it's not a world government, it's an international treaty organization. Its capabilities and authorities are generally dependent upon the power relations at any given moment in the Security Council.
For example, the UNSC was generally pro-American when it came to the first Gulf War. We got a unanimous vote (I think the Chinese abstained) but one should also ... view full comment
It's not my best argument, JD, but I just wanted to give you something to practice on!
Ok joking apart, I don't know if I have a better set of arguments because the premises on which I view the question may be very different to yours, so my 'argument' may not sound like one. I don't expect the UN to "do" stuff in the normal sense becuase it's not a world government, it's an international treaty organization. Its capabilities and authorities are generally dependent upon the power relations at any given moment in the Security Council.
For example, the UNSC was generally pro-American when it came to the first Gulf War. We got a unanimous vote (I think the Chinese abstained) but one should also say that -- in contrast to 2002/3 -- James Baker did a magnificent job of putting together a transnational coalition that included Arab countries, which in turn helped at the UN.
It was down to the skill and the smarts of the Bush 41 administration that we were able to capitalize on the assets, both tangible and intangible, that the UN vote offered. But you can't divide it up like a grapefruit. The situation, the recent history of the end of the Cold War, the diplomacy, the death-wish audacity of Saddam Hussein's act, the attitudes -- they all meshed.
One could think up an organization that only had people we like -- it's one way of securing support, I guess. But in 1990-91 even governments that didn't particularly like us voted the way we wanted. That's what our UN diplomacy looks like when we hit the target.
PS I like this new tweak with the whole thread readable on the same page and the bigger font. Thanks guys!
"...because the premises on which I view the question may be very different to yours"
This is obvious. Speaking for myself, I see a UN in which the General Assembly has issued over the years hundreds of "resolutions" condemning Israel, and none even mentioning terrorism or aggression against Israel.
I see the UNHR Commission devoting 90% of its resources and time to the villification of Israel.
You see James Baker being Machiavelianly clever in manipulating the body to fit US interests.
I suspect the same premises are at work in the way you view Carter, Tutu, Brzezinski and ilk and the way I see them. Nothing done or said to harm or slander Israel is ever bad enough so as to merit the thwarting ... view full comment
"...because the premises on which I view the question may be very different to yours"
This is obvious. Speaking for myself, I see a UN in which the General Assembly has issued over the years hundreds of "resolutions" condemning Israel, and none even mentioning terrorism or aggression against Israel.
I see the UNHR Commission devoting 90% of its resources and time to the villification of Israel.
You see James Baker being Machiavelianly clever in manipulating the body to fit US interests.
I suspect the same premises are at work in the way you view Carter, Tutu, Brzezinski and ilk and the way I see them. Nothing done or said to harm or slander Israel is ever bad enough so as to merit the thwarting of a pragmatism a la Mearsheimer and Walt. I'm certain that somewhere in your mind you have an objective word to say for their theories.
Why did it take me so long to realize this simple clarity? You are very charming and witty (which is why everyone likes to agree with you) but ultimately quite indifferent, when it comes to Israel.
As it happens, Noga, I'm reasonably satisfied to be the person I am, with the opinions I hold, rather than the person you imagine me to be with the opinions you imagine me to hold.
A small fudge in your comment: I didn't claim that Baker was being machiavelianly clever in manipulating the UN, he was however remarkably effective in marshalling the international political alliance that backed up the victory in 1991, which helped with the UN votes. Somewhat in contrast to Colin Powell, who in his own words couldn't leave Washington because of what Cheney and the nutcases might do if his back was turned for a few days.
I'm already on record as saying that I disagree with Walt and Mearscheimer on ... view full comment
As it happens, Noga, I'm reasonably satisfied to be the person I am, with the opinions I hold, rather than the person you imagine me to be with the opinions you imagine me to hold.
A small fudge in your comment: I didn't claim that Baker was being machiavelianly clever in manipulating the UN, he was however remarkably effective in marshalling the international political alliance that backed up the victory in 1991, which helped with the UN votes. Somewhat in contrast to Colin Powell, who in his own words couldn't leave Washington because of what Cheney and the nutcases might do if his back was turned for a few days.
I'm already on record as saying that I disagree with Walt and Mearscheimer on roughly the grounds that JD does -- there is nothing wrong or conspiratorial about Jewish Americans organizing and using their political assets to advance a cause they care about. They aren't the first, and they won't be the last.
All I ever said about Tutu, Carter, Zbig et al (often very different cases) was that I, personally, do not think their comments about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- even if one uncompromisingly disagrees -- should be seen as voiding the other positive things they have done and said in other contexts. I'm hard put to see how that constitutes either (a) agreeing with them -- indeed, it's clearly about DISagreeing -- or (b) being indifferent.
noga1, you completely wrong about Irony. I have been sparring with him for more than a year and he is not indifferent about most issues that concern me (and I assume you) deeply.
noga1, you completely wrong about Irony. I have been sparring with him for more than a year and he is not indifferent about most issues that concern me (and I assume you) deeply.
I can no longer ignore Ironyroad's habit of "explanating" Israel's vilest critics. And his explanation that "there is nothing wrong or conspiratorial about Jewish Americans organizing and using their political assets to advance a cause they care about." sounds hollow. Walt and Mearsheimer are on record saying the same.
The question is not whether something is not wrong. The question is whether something right. I have a hunch that Ironyroad is not so sure. It's like Seinfeld going to a great deal of effort trying to prove he is not gay, "not that there is anything wrong with it".
Just the other said he was hoping that J-Street would provide "balance". Don't we know what J-Street is about? C ... view full comment
I can no longer ignore Ironyroad's habit of "explanating" Israel's vilest critics. And his explanation that "there is nothing wrong or conspiratorial about Jewish Americans organizing and using their political assets to advance a cause they care about." sounds hollow. Walt and Mearsheimer are on record saying the same.
The question is not whether something is not wrong. The question is whether something right. I have a hunch that Ironyroad is not so sure. It's like Seinfeld going to a great deal of effort trying to prove he is not gay, "not that there is anything wrong with it".
Just the other said he was hoping that J-Street would provide "balance". Don't we know what J-Street is about? Can the very knowledgeable ironyroad not know what kind of "friends to Israel" they are? Mearsheimer& Walt also pretend to be Israel's greatest friends.
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000714.html
Look, I don't think I'm not wrong about IR. I think he is wrong in the way he has allowed himself to be persuaded by these kinds of arguments. I'm not exactly heartbroken about it; only sorrowful.
Just to clarify (as I don't appear to belong to the privileged "we" who know stuff), I read first about J Street in the following recent magazine article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13JStreet-t.html?scp=1&sq=%22...
I had never heard of them before (to be more precise, I had read the name in some of the threads over the summer on The Spine but didn't know what it meant), although I knew something of the American sister organization to the Peace Now moveme ... view full comment
Just to clarify (as I don't appear to belong to the privileged "we" who know stuff), I read first about J Street in the following recent magazine article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13JStreet-t.html?scp=1&sq=%22...
I had never heard of them before (to be more precise, I had read the name in some of the threads over the summer on The Spine but didn't know what it meant), although I knew something of the American sister organization to the Peace Now movement, which my then-partner had been involved with intermittently.
Other than that, I'd prefer not to be the person who, no matter how distinctly he says X, is accused of saying Y, except when the irony thing is running, and most people spot that. I don't think I've been cagey, disingenuous, or deliberately vague in stating my position on the range of issues we take up.
There was nothing wrong with what Irony said, Noga. Give the guy a break.
I have argued against his stance on many issues but never felt that he had some hidden agenda.
So he didn't use the same phrases you would have used (or me), so what?
There was nothing wrong with what Irony said, Noga. Give the guy a break.
I have argued against his stance on many issues but never felt that he had some hidden agenda.
So he didn't use the same phrases you would have used (or me), so what?
Irony, the NY Times Mag article on J street was a puff piece, which basically bought into their polling distortions & Orwellian self-labeling as "pro-Israel" (for one of many critiques of the Times puff piece see here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/disecting_the_nyt_article_on ). J Street counts among its donors & supporters individuals (including Walt & Mearscheimer) who are far far far from being pro-Israel, including various prominent Israel-hostile Arabs (see here: view full comment
Irony, the NY Times Mag article on J street was a puff piece, which basically bought into their polling distortions & Orwellian self-labeling as "pro-Israel" (for one of many critiques of the Times puff piece see here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/disecting_the_nyt_article_on ). J Street counts among its donors & supporters individuals (including Walt & Mearscheimer) who are far far far from being pro-Israel, including various prominent Israel-hostile Arabs (see here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShow...)
The Jerks at J were to the left of Meretz and even peace now when it came to Cast Lead, wanting Israel to negotiate with Hamas over the Qassams. Not only are they against any sort of military option vis a vis Iran (not surprising), they even oppose the use of sanctions to get Iran to stop enriching Uranium. That the Obamanauts use J Street to provide a fig-leaf for Obama's problematic attitude toward Israel is a stroke of political genius. For more on J Street & white house see here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418678387&pagename=JPost%...
Shmu'el Rosner (who isn't Gd forbid suspected of any Likud (ptooi, ptooi) leanings has published regular dissections of J Street polls & demonstrating why they are worthless. See the following pieces: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1003097.html ; http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/j_street_s_survey_is ; http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/j_street_tries_to_spin ; http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/why_you_can_t_trust
TNR published a few pieces critical of J Street back when but I have it from well informed sources that attacking J Street or exposes about them is now off limits. TNR was even offered to publish the expose on J Street's contributors (in the spirit of HRW's contributors) and they turned it down. It seems that in the spirit of the Obamanauts' elevating of J Street to its special protected status, J has been coated with Teflon by the White House. I suspect that some of MP's investors that enabled him to buy TNR back from CanWest this past March may have been a factor in TNR's refusal to do any more stories on J.
גמר חתימה טובה
Hershel Ginsburg
Efrata / Jerusalem
A great cartoon on Jimmy Carter's accusations of racism:
http://blog.nola.com/stevekelley/2009/09/18_september_2009.html
hg
A great cartoon on Jimmy Carter's accusations of racism:
http://blog.nola.com/stevekelley/2009/09/18_september_2009.html
hg
"I don't think I've been cagey, disingenuous, or deliberately vague in stating my position on the range of issues we take up."
Did I suggest you were? This is not about your character or your moral standing, Ironyroad, which as far as I know, are unimpeachable. It's about your reluctance to express support and understanding for Israel's impossible plight in this world.
I'm not sure you realize how maddening it can be to have Carter's, or Tutu's antisemitisms repeatedly brushed aside (with some rhetorical throat-clearing) because they are basically good people, and then to go on explaining just how good they are. Or to give credence to an organization which acts like an anti-Israel lobby whil ... view full comment
"I don't think I've been cagey, disingenuous, or deliberately vague in stating my position on the range of issues we take up."
Did I suggest you were? This is not about your character or your moral standing, Ironyroad, which as far as I know, are unimpeachable. It's about your reluctance to express support and understanding for Israel's impossible plight in this world.
I'm not sure you realize how maddening it can be to have Carter's, or Tutu's antisemitisms repeatedly brushed aside (with some rhetorical throat-clearing) because they are basically good people, and then to go on explaining just how good they are. Or to give credence to an organization which acts like an anti-Israel lobby while it wants to be taken as a pro- Israel lobby. For you, with your keen eye for detail and the absurd, to miss that is nearly astonishing.
_________
And as for this "(as I don't appear to belong to the privileged "we" who know stuff)" I
think you know very well who I meant by "we", and that no privilege was implied in my use of the word: It means those of us who are genuinely and committed to Israel's security and who are outraged by attempts to slander and minimize Israel's concerns because it is the current fashion to do so.
I did not insult you, ironyroad, or mocked you in any way. Quite the contrary. Why would you would respond with a sneer?
Noga, I responded with a sneer (it was more like something that in older novels would be be concluded with the phrase "he observed tartly") because I had been stung by the accusation that I was lining up with antisemites and was indifferent to Israel to boot.
It also came to me that the antisemitic label is getting somewhat too elastic around here, and I don't think that's a good thing.
But if that's the meaning of "we" then clearly you have already decided I don't belong.
However, I would point out that -- whether you like hearing this or not -- if you draw the borders of "geunine commitment" too narrowly, or set the bar for outrage too high, one possible outcome is that you tell people, who t ... view full comment
Noga, I responded with a sneer (it was more like something that in older novels would be be concluded with the phrase "he observed tartly") because I had been stung by the accusation that I was lining up with antisemites and was indifferent to Israel to boot.
It also came to me that the antisemitic label is getting somewhat too elastic around here, and I don't think that's a good thing.
But if that's the meaning of "we" then clearly you have already decided I don't belong.
However, I would point out that -- whether you like hearing this or not -- if you draw the borders of "geunine commitment" too narrowly, or set the bar for outrage too high, one possible outcome is that you tell people, who thought they were on your side, loudly and clearly that they are in fact against you.
And if Israel's plight is "impossible," shouldn't we all pack up and go? Why bother engaging in long and occasionally fraught and emotionally loaded discussions in the hope of finding some common ground if the matter at issue has already been declared beyond the scope of human possibility. Indeed, "plight" seems an odd term to describe one of the most successful nation-creating experiments of modern times.
Ironyroad:
I don't get how you can be stung by an accusation that was never made. If you don't like it that when you say X you are accused of saying Y, then you should not try to pull this trick on your interlocutor. I don't need to keep defending myself that I do not accuse you of anything, least of all "lining up with antisemites".
Anyway, I don't like the underlying warning in your observation that "if you draw the borders of "genuine commitment" too narrowly, or set the bar for outrage too high, one possible outcome is that you tell people, who thought they were on your side, loudly and clearly that they are in fact against you."
Firstly, I think I allow very wide margins for genuine co ... view full comment
Ironyroad:
I don't get how you can be stung by an accusation that was never made. If you don't like it that when you say X you are accused of saying Y, then you should not try to pull this trick on your interlocutor. I don't need to keep defending myself that I do not accuse you of anything, least of all "lining up with antisemites".
Anyway, I don't like the underlying warning in your observation that "if you draw the borders of "genuine commitment" too narrowly, or set the bar for outrage too high, one possible outcome is that you tell people, who thought they were on your side, loudly and clearly that they are in fact against you."
Firstly, I think I allow very wide margins for genuine commitment. I will quote Jeffrey Goldberg's question to Obama as a possible measure:
"JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don’t know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect."
The problem with J-street type of commitment is that one feels genuine commitment on their part to their own levels of comfort in a world increasingly hostile to Israel. They are what Hannah Arendt would call "exceptional" Jews. It is not a compliment.
Secondly, support for Israel should not depend on poetry to nourish it and certainly should not dwindle because someone expressed reasonable scepticism about the depth of your commitment.
I do not think you are against me but, I think you are drifting fast away from me. Not that there is anything wrong with it.