Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
As a whole is definitely a synonym for most. I did not put the words "as a whole" in quotes, when I described your post, and therefore, by the generally agreed-upon rules of discussion, I was paraphrasing, not quoting you. The paraphrase was fair and accurate, I stand by it, and no retraction will be forthcoming from me.
Actually you both got me on one point: I hadn't read Steele's comments about "pussies," etc. Once the thread balloons to over 30 pages, it is hard to read the whole thing. I read the last few pages and then go from there.
I don't defend Steele's comments. I disagree with all the generalizations, the sloppy use of racist/elitist labels, and the use of "pussies" and "whiners" and so on.
That said, it seems to me that accusations of anti-Semitism preceded the Steele comments. It also seems to me that, Steele's comments aside, the charge of anti-Semitism *IS* used as a weapon to invalidate criticism of Israel's actions.
As for comparisons to statements about blacks, I see some non-parallels in the analogy. But mostly I see the same problems that always occur when generalizations are used sloppily, or with ill intent.
Whatever Steele has said, does it help anything to go around calling him "Jew Hater" over and over? How about we all stick to the subject of whether Israel's actions are justified, what can be done about Hamas, what Israel expects the average Palestinian citizen to do, and so on?
There's a lot of misdirection going on. The conversation gets diverted into generalizations about a group of people, or into accusations of racism, and pretty soon nobody is talking about anything meaningful at all.
Here's a question: Why is Salon's coverage of the situation in Palestine so weak?
Aluf Benn's analysis is shallow and unsubstantiated. Look at this crap:
Aluf Benn: "Israel's military operation against Hamas in Gaza, now in its 10th day, is an excellent example of this rule. The war enjoys strong public support among Israel's Jewish majority. Only Israel's Arabs, identifying with their Palestinian brothers, and the far political left, which is all but pacifist, have protested against it. All the rest have united behind the government, including the more established left."
Where is the substantiation? Benn claims that the "established left" are in lockstep with the Israeli majority in supporting the war. Benn later writes that there's a "lazy" call among other nations for a cease-fire, and that globally there is little outrage at Israel's actions.
Where is Benn getting this?
The protests against Israel's actions are all over the globe. I read the Guardian UK and Haaretz, among other publications. There's one article after another about protests against Israel's actions, and these articles began appearing the day after Israel attacked.
Over 2,000 protest in Haifa:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052897.html
Haaretz protest picture gallery:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052878.html
Here's a Haaretz article that contradicts many of the assumptions in Benn's analysis regarding Israel's goals and future actions:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053122.html
Here's another illuminating analysis:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053121.html
Note the numbers: Over 550 Palestinians have died from this conflict, with at least 2,700 seriously injured. Compare to Israel, who have lost nearly as many soldiers to "friendly fire" as they have to enemy fire.
More...
It's all about EMOTIONS...
"Israel's post-traumatic war is not just about stopping Hamas rockets, but about repairing reputations -- and erasing the stain of failure."
IN OTHER WORDS: WAR MAKES US FEEL BETTER
"Nevertheless, beyond its immediate political-military context, the current war serves a deeper need for Israelis: recovering from the trauma of our debacle in Lebanon in 2006."
IN OTHER WORDS: THIS WAR MAKES UP FOR THE LAST ONE
"We grew to believe that our military is invincible, and whenever it fails to fulfill our expectations, we feel defenseless and doomed. The only way out of it is to go for another round and hope for better results."
IN OTHER WORDS: WAR MAKES US FEEL TOUGH
"The opening move of the Gaza operation, on Dec. 27, reminded Israelis of their glorious military past."
IN OTHER WORDS: WAR GIVES US NICE PATRIOTIC FEELINGS
"The first day was exhilarating. Israelis saw the IDF as they want to remember it, smart, daring and vengeful."
IN OTHER WORDS: WAR HELPS US LIVE VICARIOUSLY THROUGH OTHERS
"The enemy ridiculed Israel for relying on its air power, fearing the inevitable casualties of ground war. The military wanted to smash this cowardly image."
IN OTHER WORDS: WAR MAKES US FEEL LESS LIKE COWARDS
I knew you'd reconsider your statement, and, as always, I appreciate your honesty.
Whatever Steele has said, does it help anything to go around calling him "Jew Hater" over and over?
The point is that, in the context of this discussion, Jew hatred is not irrelevant. If you start from the position of believing that most Jews are racist and elitist, it calls into question everything else you've written, does it not?
How about we all stick to the subject of whether Israel's actions are justified, what can be done about Hamas, what Israel expects the average Palestinian citizen to do, and so on?
I find that your suggestion is frankly impossible, and I'm not saying that flippantly. From my side of the aisle, it seems that if I try to engage in a discussion, a single sentence is invariably cherry-picked from my post to crucify me, all criticism I make of Israel is ignored, and I'm painted as a neocon Bush acolyte. So many Strawmen are set ablaze all around me that I begin to choke from lack of oxygen. It seems to go with the territory.
There's a lot of misdirection going on. The conversation gets diverted into generalizations about a group of people, or into accusations of racism, and pretty soon nobody is talking about anything meaningful at all.
I'll give it a shot.
I have kind of a radical idea (surprised?). The Geneva convention should be modified to define acceptable engagement versus an enemy who engages in illegal guerrilla war.
It seems to me that Israel is being held to an impossible standard, because there is no standard of engagement when your enemy launches attacks from civilian areas, doesn't wear a uniform, etc, etc. These things are illegal under Geneva, but Geneva doesn't exactly spell out any alternatives, other than to sit back and wait to die.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
