It is a 160+ pages essay. It would have helped if you could provide some more substantial incentive to dig into it, than the glowing tribute to David Hirsh's undisputable intellectual greatness.
If the paper "aims to disentangle the difficult relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism." I'd have appreciated a hint or two as to the way in which the paper brought greater clarity to your understanding of these issues.
Hi Noga,
The Elders are not in business of providing learned commentary. We are rather in the business of enforcement 
Seriously, though, this post was intended as a teaser. And it was updated now to include the interview that gives a heads-up. We hope, that is.
@Noga,
You can read the just the conclusions for starters.
@Snoopy,
Most of it is almost as good as had I written it.
I do have to question why the author did not use the same method to analyze whether the left is anti-Semitic (he says "No") as he used to analyze whether people who support boycott are anti-Semitic (he says a qualified "more likely than not").
Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-semtism. "Palestine" is simply a codeword for the wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people (G-d forbid).
PS Have you signed in support of the Jewish Declaration to the Nations? Its very important so please pass it on.
I know there's lots written on this subject but i would urge anybody who is interested to print out the whole paper and read it at your leisure. It's by far the best paper on the subject. Too much to go into it , so read it.
Well, I read the first 30 pages and the conclusion.
Snoopy: I read the first 30 pages and the conclusion.
I was going to ask you, btw, why there is a blue strawberry instead of the Star of David in your Israel's flag and then I had another look and realized this was no strawberry...
One hundred sixty pages? When the title already sounds redundant? I'll opt for the interview, when I can find the time.
Shlemazl - I tend to agree with David, who is against blind generalization. The left is by no means a homogeneous group, so is right, and being careful is important at least for scientific credibility.
Bar Kochba, thanks for the tip, it is new to me.
Shachtman (which one?) - true. Best.
You are right, Noga, it is not a strawberry, if you want to know the reason why, click at the second image of same flag.
It is really worth your while, Dick!
Just do as the enforcer tells you, folks - it really is worth it. I know, I know, it's 164 pages, but there's lots of space between the lines, and the bibliography starts at p. 150. As an ex- rather than practising Leftie I have one or two reservations, but for analytical clarity on the relationship between the two Antis it could hardly be bettered. And I love the way he lays into Concentration Camp Ken!
"Shachtman (which one?) - true. Best."
CIF one !
A poster on CIF attampte a rather poor critique of Hirsh's paper and went rather quiet after my reply. His lame comments followed by my reply as follows :
JonathanWest
Comment No. 989970
December 14 14:42
GBR "However it seems you're conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel - which i don't believe it is."
You have admitted that you don't read much of the stuff by the "Israel defenders" where this kind of connection is routinely made, and almost all criticism of Israeli government policies is claimed to be motivated by antisemitism or linked to the kinds of conspiricies you mention. My own contributions on CiF regularly attract such accusations, which I routinely ignore and (through long experience of other forums) have a policy of not dignifying with an answer. It is this kind of crying "wolf" that means that a significant number of people find it increasingly hard to take claims of antisemitism seriously. Which is a pity, because there is no doubt that antisemitism still exists.
"So if you would care to have a look at the paper i linked to by Hirsh then it would help to try and iron some things out and understand antisemitism a bit more."
I dipped into it, 164 pages is too much for the purpose of just answering a question on CIF. But I'll give you my first impressions.
First of all, he doesn't attempt to define antisemitism, anti-Zionism or anti-racism. I searched the document for definitions of all three terms and didn't find them. Now you might say that the dictionary definitions should be understood as being used, but for a serious academic paper (and I've read enough of them) on a highly contentious subject where multiple different definitions are flying about, this really isn't good enough. If you want to talk in a learned way about such a subject, you must get your definitions commonly understood right at the start, otherwise you use a term with the meaning you apply to it, and others read it with the meaning they apply to it, and much confusion results.
That by itself renders the paper largely worthless in my eyes. But there is more. In the abstract, he says "On one side, antisemitism appears as a pressing contemporary problem, intimately connected to an intensification of hostility to Israel." That initial sentence makes the assertion that antisemitism is "intimately connected to an intensification of hostility to Israel." which he seems to take as a self-evident fact. Moreover, by choosing that order of words, he leads the reader to assume that the second is primarily caused by the first - in other words that hostility towards Israel is primarily motivated by antisemitism. This is a causal connection which he fails (as far as I have read so far) to demonstrate.
In addition, as far as I can tell he makes no attempt to compare hostile comment against Israel and/or Jews/Jewish influences with hostile comment again
Continued
In addition, as far as I can tell he makes no attempt to compare hostile comment against Israel and/or Jews/Jewish influences with hostile comment against other groups. Supposedly antisemitic comment is sui generis and apparently not to be compared with criticism or hostility to anybody or anything else. Without comparison with the nature and extent of hostile criticism towards other groups, there can be no justification for concluding that antisemitism is a particular problem at this time distinguishable in extent and expression from ordinary racism.
For instance, you mentioned before the idea that a there are theories that a government can be influenced by lobbying in order to act against the interests of the country it governs, and that the "Israel lobby" is instrumental in achieving that. But there are many other such claims unrelated to Israel. There are lots of similar theories which try to explain by means of covert American pressure and influence why Britain took the mad decision to participate in the decision to invade Iraq. Is there an anti-American equivalent of antisemitism at work here? Americans frequently claim that foreign criticism of the present administration's policies are motivated by anti-Americanism, and that domestic criticism is motivated by lack of patriotism. And yet the paper makes no comparisons and can therefore draws no conclusions.
Hirsh makes two claims about the Livingstone, formulation, first that it "denies the distinction between criticism and demonization by subsuming both into the simple category of 'criticism'." The claim that Livingstone was denying a distinction is not supported by any evidence, but is is asserted as self-evident. Secondly, that Hirsh claims that the Livingstone formulation accuses anybody concerned with antisemitism of acting in bad faith "a secret, common plan to try to de-legitimize criticism with an instrumental use of the charge of antisemitism". Again, this is asserted without evidence. This is putting the cart before the horse. It is certainly true that almost all public criticism of Israeli policies attacts claims of antisemitic motivation. But the mere fact that this is claimed doesn't make it true, and to claim that the Livingstone formulation is inherently antisemitic is completely unjustified.
AND MY REPLY WAS AS FOLLOWS.
Jonathan West. As you say you only had a quick glance at the paper.
You say : "First of all, he doesn't attempt to define antisemitism, anti-Zionism or anti-racism."
Hirsh in his paper says : "In this paper antisemitism is taken to mean racism against Jews..." p 16
"I am acutely aware that within the general rubric of anti-Zionism there are different streams and traditions." p 9
"I am using the term 'anti-Zionist' to denote a variegated set of movements which do not coalesce around criticism of Israeli policy or criticism of racist movements within Israel but rather around a common orientation to
............
"I am using the term 'anti-Zionist' to denote a variegated set of movements which do not coalesce around criticism of Israeli policy or criticism of racist movements within Israel but rather around a common orientation to the existence or to the legitimacy of the state of Israel itself." p 22
You say: "If you want to talk in a learned way about such a subject, you must get your definitions commonly understood right at the start, otherwise you use a term with the meaning you apply to it, and others read it with the meaning they apply to it, and much confusion results."
Hirsh in his paper says : "...Zionism is racism (by this definition) because it necessarily builds a state which defines belonging according to a prior notion of ethnicity; anti-Zionism is racism (by Matas' definition) because it denies the right of Jewish self-determination while defending self-determination for all other nations. By this methodology we can understand the world by looking carefully at the definitions of words; in contrast this work has employed a methodology of understanding which starts with an investigation of the world as it exists; concepts yes, but also discourse and also their actualizations in social movements." p 142
You then say : "But there is more. In the abstract, he says "On one side, antisemitism appears as a pressing contemporary problem, intimately connected to an intensification of hostility to Israel." That initial sentence makes the assertion that antisemitism is "intimately connected to an intensification of hostility to Israel." which he seems to take as a self-evident fact. Moreover, by choosing that order of words, he leads the reader to assume that the second is primarily caused by the first - in other words that hostility towards Israel is primarily motivated by antisemitism. This is a causal connection which he fails (as far as I have read so far) to demonstrate."
Hirsh says : "Opposing accounts downplay the fact of antisemitism and tend to treat the charge as an instrumental attempt to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. I address the central relationship both conceptually and through a number of empirical case studies which lie in the disputed territory between criticism and demonization."
You then say : "Supposedly antisemitic comment is sui generis and apparently not to be compared with criticism or hostility to anybody or anything else."
Maybe you missed Hirsh when he says : "The struggles against Islamophobia, antisemitism and anti-Arab racism, the struggle against the occupation of the West Bank and the struggle against the project to smash the state of Israel - these are all potentially democratic struggles and although they are distinct, they can be understood in a cosmopolitan way as belonging to the same family." P 16
You say :"there can be no justification for concluding that antisemitism is a particular problem at this time distinguishable in extent and expression
............
You say :"there can be no justification for concluding that antisemitism is a particular problem at this time distinguishable in extent and expression from ordinary racism."
But Hirsh says : "Contemporary Europe is in many ways one of those good times and places for Jews. Although the frequency of antisemitic attacks has been rising sharply in the last decade, you are still more likely to be beaten up on the street, excluded from society, excluded from the economy, excluded from education or demonized in the media, if you are black or Muslim, for example, than if you are Jewish." p 21
You say : "Hirsh makes two claims about the Livingstone, formulation, first that it "denies the distinction between criticism and demonization by subsuming both into the simple category of 'criticism'." The claim that Livingstone was denying a distinction is not supported by any evidence, but is is asserted as self-evident."
Hirsh says "Livingstone does more than 'criticize the policies of the Israeli government'. For decades, he has been part of a movement in the UK that sees Israel as a pariah state with a menacing and malign influence well beyond its borders. In the 1980s Livingstone was associated with the Workers Revolutionary Party, an extreme anti-Zionist group, and was the editor of one of its front organizations, Labour Herald. This exaggerated hostility to Israel perhaps, is connected to the fact that Livingstone treats the antisemite Qaradawi as an honoured guest; and to the fact that Livingstone is content to employ low-level racist abuse against a Jewish journalist even when he has been told that the journalist finds this offensive; and to the fact that he chose to make a big issue out of this story rather than to back down pragmatically; and to the fact that he reacted with a critique of Ariel Sharon to claims that his own conduct had been offensive. His exaggerated hostility to Israel is, connected to the fact that he opposes the suicide bombing of buses in London but equivocates about the suicide bombing of buses in Tel Aviv." p 61
You say : "Hirsh claims that the Livingstone formulation accuses anybody concerned with antisemitism of acting in bad faith "a secret, common plan to try to de-legitimize criticism with an instrumental use of the charge of antisemitism". Again, this is asserted without evidence."
Hirsh says : "There are a number of elements to his case against the Board of Deputies. First, they use a charge of antisemitism instrumentally. They do not really believe that Livingstone has done anything antisemitic nor that he has ever behaved in such a way that may have contributed to the propagation of an antisemitic way of thinking. They use the charge disingenuously in order to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli human rights abuses. This charge, of 'crying antisemitism' is necessarily a charge of dishonesty and also of conspiracy. Conspiracy, because to believe otherwise would mean
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Conspiracy, because to believe otherwise would mean that all of the diverse political currents, campaigns, lobbies and writers who make accusations of antisemitism are being dishonest independently but in the same way." p 60
At the risk of sounding like a boob, I will say that the tortured prose of this lengthy whatchamacallit could only have been crafted by an academic. I got lost in it several times. Yes, Mr. Goon, I actually read some of it. Mostly skipping around. It nevertheless seems to me that anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are one and the same, UNLESS you can effectively make the case that the Palestinians are anything but terrorists or fellow travelers of terrorists. What else do they actually do, after all? It doesn't surprise me that the boycott began in Britain which, despite its posturing, has had an anti-Jewish streak for centuries. As for the arguments about the Left or the Right, I guess I really don't care enough about either one to get exercised, much less involved. I'll shut up now and leave this argument to others more interested.
Generally it's not worth responding to racist posts such as Dick Stanley's, which assert that Palestinians are "nothing but terrorists or fellow travelers of terrorists." But it should be said that Stanley's statement is miles away from David Hirsh's explicitly anti-racist political position, and many of ours who oppose both racism and antisemitism.
And this is quite important. Because those of us who criticize the attraction of open antisemites to left antizionist political discourses, should be equally as upset about the articulation of openly racist statements against Palestinians which appear in discourses about antisemitism.
contested-terrain,
Accusing people of racism with no evidence is a strong indication of unwillingness to answer what these people are saying. Be so kind and point out what in DS post caused this conclusion of yours.
Snoopy: Hirsh's paper is just too long and convoluted to be attractive reading. It is 160 pages, about four times the size of an average paper. Paul Berman's very readable and excellent TNR article about Ramadan was 50 pages long and even there, I read some complaints about its excessive length. Seems to me that Hirsh wanted to emcompass all aspects and all nuances of what he considers the Engage project. He should have written a book. The essay needs a good and ruthless editor. There is some extremely valuable stuff in it, but it gets lost in the labyrinth of Hirsh's tortured understanding of AntiZionism and antisemitism.
Two tiny points:
I cannot make up my mind if he means it ironically when he says that Hamas Charter is a critique of Zionism.
To the question of whether the Left is antisemitic, he gives a categorical No. And then goes on the point out all the exceptions to this "No".
So which is it?
I suppose there's a little racism in all of us. But I have to ask, when was the last time you ever saw any MSM tale about the Palestinians that was about anything but either a) their terrorism, or b) their various grievances? And the MSM, by and large, is as pro-Palestinian as you can get without being one. I mean what do these people do otherwise? Well, I know they take a lot of handouts...
Dear Snoopy the Goon,
In response to your view that my characterization of Stanley's post as racist was baseless:
Please note that I quoted directly from Stanley's statement, the line which I find racist. If you want to disagree with me, then please dispute my claim.
And please try to avoid playing the ignorance card. A defense of Stanley's statement seems quite difficult. Basically you'd need to claim ignorance -- that is, to argue that Stanley didn't know that there were Palestinians who were not terrorists or terrorist fellow travelers.
But it is not simple ignorance of the Palestinans which leads to such broad generalizations. Just as it is not simple ignorance that leads people to make generalized statements about Jews. Racism is involved in the first, and also an effect of the it. And antisemitism is involved in and an effect of the latter.
But this is all pretty basic, isn't it?
And in response to Stanley again, of course "there's a little racism in all of us." Just as there's a little antisemitism in all of us. That's one of the reasons we engage in critical thinking, to change this. An, the palestinians have many grievances with the Israeli state, and this simple fact does not make them antisemites.
Maybe you should try reading Hirsh's paper. He's a sophisticated scholar with a lot to say.
Dear contested-terrain:
I am not trying to defend Dick, by the way, he is perfectly able to do it by himself.
I have ignored the quote from Dick's post on purpose. The reason is that if it is the best you can claim as proof of Dick's racism, you are pushing it. Saying that "Jews are my enemies" or "Turks want to kill me" is a poor generalization, but not yet a proof of racism. Unfortunately, the "racism" card is too abused lately, as it is clear from your example. We all need a reminder on the definition of that term from time to time, since it became as abused as "Nazi", "commie" etc lately in certain circles.
Doris Lessing with her "Americans are naive" could be classified as more racist than Dick with his opinion, too generalized as it may be.
And try to answer the following: Gaza dwellers' overwhelming support for Hamas - doesn't it justify a bit Dick's opinion in your eyes?
Re your advice to read Hirsh's paper: it comes through as overly snooty. Consider this too.
Snoopy,
It simply does not follow from Hamas' widespread support by Gazans, that "Palestinians are nothing but terrorists and terrorist fellow travelers." Generalizations are sometimes harmless, and sometimes harmful. In this case, Stanley chose to employ a politically potent weapon given today's context, the "terrorist" label, which he used against an entire population. This could be understood not as critique or analysis, but rather as demonization, a topic Hirsh explicitly analyzes and critiques in his text. I suggested returning to Hirsh's text because 1) this thread is supposed to be about it, and 2) because his text addresses these issues specifically.
I guess it's better to come off as "snooty" than to not call bathroom graffiti for what it is.
Snoop:
Funny how when Shlemiel asks the question "to analyze whether the left is anti-Semitic (he says "No")" you answer with "[...] I tend to agree with David, who is against blind generalization", yet with DS comes up with the rather priceless "UNLESS you can effectively make the case that the Palestinians are anything but terrorists or fellow travelers [sic] of terrorists", you start dithering about whether that last statement is actually racist or not.
This dithering clearly shows your own bias, as a broad, sweeping, incorrect and pejorative statement like to "UNLESS you can effectively make the case that the Palestinians are anything but terrorists or fellow travelers of terrorists" cannot really be categorised as anything BUT a clear racist statement.
How about the statement "[...] that Israelis are anything but religious West Bank settlers or fellow travellers of religious West Bank settlers"? Anti-Semitic enough for ya? I thought so. Yet it only mirrors DS's absurdity...
You've read and praised a 164 page in-depth essay on the relation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, yet remain incapable of seeing DS's statement as anything but blatant racism. What a waste of time for you...
If what is constantly being bandied around about Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims would be said about Jewry or blacks there would be hell to pay...
Well, enlighten me on one point, oh noble critics. Where is the "racism" here? Are the Palestinians a race? No more than an ethnic group, I would think, at most. Y'all bandy that word around too much. Like some other folks I can think of closer to home. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear what these Palestinians, so-called, do besides protest and bomb. Is there a product or a service they are identified with that I'm unaware of? Probably so, I'm willing to concede. But, so far, I have yet to hear of it.
Gert and contested terrain: the way you freely use the term "racism" is symptomatic of the political correctness gone overboard.
To start with definitions:
Terrorist: A radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
Fellow traveler: One who sympathizes with or supports the tenets and program of an organized group, such as the Communist Party, without being a member.
As I mentioned above, I did not agree with Dick's generalization: definitely amongst Gazans there is a lot of people who could care less about Hamas, Jihad and such and want to be just left alone to live their lives normally.
But from here to "racism" in Dick's sentence is a very long chasm. And the chasm was easily crossed by the awful PC advocates. For whom it is normal to deride any religion but Islam or defend "the little brown people" no matter what kind of atrocity they are up to or excuse any vile behavior as long as it is not perpetrated by a white person.
No Gert, I wasn't dithering, I have said two things in fact:
1. Dick's statement was wrong as a generalization
2. It was not racist in its letter or even in its spirit.
And I still stand by the two statements above. There was no dithering I can see, but if you can, please point it out.
And Gert, you have dug yourself a logical grave by that example:"Israelis are anything but religious West Bank settlers or fellow travellers of religious West Bank settlers".
I don't see anything antisemitic in it, just another generalization.
Oh, and the last, but not the least: there mere use of "racism" to relationship between cousins is a blooper. Enmity - yes.
More in the next comment.
Now, Gert, to racism which is defined as "The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races".
Let's do it the easiest way, by example. I stand by the statement that there is a huge difference between saying (for example) that a certain ethnic group is enamored by terrorism (which does not imply any inferiority - all races are implicated in this vile behavior equally) and saying, to take few examples, that:
1. Arabs are big-nosed money-loving liars
2. Arabs are using Jewish babies' blood for ritual cooking.
3. Arabs are a source of most of the humanity maladies and problems.
Three statements above are clearly racist, I hope we agree.
As for your statement
"If what is constantly being bandied around about Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims would be said about Jewry or blacks there would be hell to pay..."
I was really flabbergasted by it. With all the vile drivel being spewed by Muslim MSM and other groups and persons about Jews, Hindus, Christians, atheists you are saying what? Just check out this (microscopic) example of what is going on under your nose and is perpetrated daily by your compatriots:
http://theymadeitup.squarespace.com/
Sheesh, Gert, I was sure your eyes are open more than that...
Oh, and one important point: it is not Shlemiel but Shlemazl - as they say in Brooklyn, two big differences. And yes, I didn't agree with his generalization too, but he is generally a good guy.
Shlemiel - an inept, clumsy person
Shlemazl - unlucky person (from Yiddish shlimazl, from German schlimm 'bad' and Yiddish mazl 'luck'). The difference between a shlemiel and a schlemazl is described through the aphorism, "A shlemiel is somebody who often spills his soup; a shlemazl is the person the soup lands on."
STG:
You're copping out by using a more narrow definition of the term racism and by playing the "political correctness gone mad!" card.
In my book there are no "human races": the concept is a social construct, a remnant of colonialism and slavery, and like so many terms has taken root in our language. Its literal meaning is actually non-existent but the word does derive meaning from context. Broad, usually pejorative generalisations of one group (usually ethnically defined but not necessarily so) are considered racist by many.
"Israelis are anything but religious West Bank settlers or fellow travellers of religious West Bank settlers" doesn't qualify as anti-Semitism in your book? Wow! I'd love to hear the opinion of several Jews and non-Jews alike on this one... But I'll give you points for broad-mindedness...
"[...] and is perpetrated daily by your compatriots:"
I didn't claim innocence on behalf or on the part of these groups. But institutionalised racism in the West vis-à-vis Muslims and Arabs does exist and is widespread. The West, broadly speaking, treats the Arab world with contempt.
Re Shlemiel/Shlemazl: the term Shlemiel was used deliberately, trust me on that... Actually, I can easily see him spill his soup accidentally quite often...
Dick Stanley:
To try and enlighten you on anything would take up far more of my time than I can afford. Be a good boy and keep up the Christmas wars...
Gert,
I really don't even think of copping out. While English is not my mother tongue, I was brought up in precise sciences and hold a healthy respect for correct usage of terms. Verbal untidiness can easily cause a mental one. And the definition of racism is quite clear in all dictionaries. I really believe that the "expanded" meaning you use comes from being enamored with PC in its rather loose omnipotence.
And thanks, I do indeed try to be as broad-minded as possible.
Re Shlemazl - he is not allowed to be a shlemiel, he is in nuke stuff. So him spilling something could be hazardous for all of us
Snoopy:
I believe I've already clarified my position on PC on this blog. All this "political correctness gone mad!" business is at risk of throwing the child away with the bathwater. Any idea can and will of course be carried to its illogical extremes by some and PC is no exception.
But we only need to go back twenty years or less to see what vile stereotyping of minority groups looked like. In that respect political correctness has actually achieved wonders, no question about it.
As regards Dick's statement, we could keep squabbling forever about what this attitude should be called most effectively, yet we would be missing the point completely. The point is that Dick's characterisation of Palestinians isn't only incorrect, it's also either borne out of ignorance or it's an acquired form of enmity towards something he doesn't understand. Most forms of xenophobia are based on that. Characterising Palestinians the way he did is really no different from that comparison between Nazis and Israelis some virulent anti-Zionists love to make.
One of the most virulent anti-Semites (he also turned out to be a Holocaust denier, White supremacist and homophobe - some just can't help themselves it seems), a blogger going by the handle of Sentinel (truthatsentinel.blogspot.com), I've ever met also refuted my denunciation of his rabid anti-Semitism as "Political correctness gone mad!". Scott George McCombe, (former, I believe) Holocaust denier and 'religious anti-Semite' also told me that me calling him an anti-Semite was nothing more than Leftist Political Correctness.
Well, you sure told me. Didn't answer me. But I get the drift. You have no answer. Just insults. As you say, a very old technique.
Dick, you'd find the answers wherever you look, if you'd care to look for them. Anything I would say would be immediately dismissed by you. That's because of the nature of prejudice: it blinds people; that's what so pernicious about it. Talking to you would be like talking to a brick wall: with respect to the little conservatives of the world (like you) that's what I've done all too often. Forgive me for passing this time.
Gert,
I would appreciate an absence of flaming on this here blog. I hope you will take it into account.
Oh, it's okay Mr. Goon, Mr. Gert is obviously too important and too brilliant to be troubled with the likes of petty little prejudiced me. Meanwhile, hear the brick wall speak: I did do some searching and found that the Pals are into minor shopkeeping, some light manufacturing (shoes, clothes, olives, fruits, etc.) and dreams of car building with the Egyptians--if the handouts from USA and EU keep coming and aren't siphoned off too much for explosives and other weaponry. Meanwhile, of course, they seem to be specializing in mortars, rockets and bomb belts. Something tells me they are destined to have little impact (so to speak) on the world economy. Which is what I thought to begin with. They certainly don't need a state to run a retail economy and I hope they never get one. And discounting the poor, who never have options where ever they may be, I still think most of them fit into the aforementioned two generalized categories (see above) that give Mr. Gert so much gas. Further affiant sayeth not.
Snoop:
Where are the flames? But I'll bear it in mind. Especially when sooner or later the flames will of course be directed at me.
Dick:
Do you also discard other countries or ethnicities that "are destined to have little impact on the world economy"? In which case you'd rather have your work cut out, of course. Let's pull out of Afghanistan for starters, as they're not likely to make much impact on the world economy either any time soon, well, apart perhaps from poppy production...
I suppose your own magnificent contribution to the world's economy justifies the near-complete absence of any historical perspective in your "thinking"?
I have to agree with Gert that no nation is obligated to prove its worth in terms of serving the rest of humanity in order to deserve a right to exist. But it would have done a great deal for Palestinians if their name were less associated with terrorist attacks on athletes, school children, perfecting the human bomb, celebrating the death of innocents, educating their young that Jews are apes and pigs and need to be wiped out, and electing a terrorist organization dedicated to bring about a second Holocaust, etc. It would also have helped their cause if there was less violence assiciated with their advocacy and protest, as in the case of Concordia, Montreal 2002. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/
CTVNews/20030115/concordia030115?s_name=&no_ads=)
As generalizations go, of course not all Palestinians are terrorists and many do not even support terrorist attacks, because it gives Palestinians a bad name. It is unfortunate that those many many Palestinians who are opposed to violence as the way to settle the conflict are hardly ever heard from.
Noga,
I don't know how it is that we came to discuss the subject raised by your first sentence, and I don't recall having trouble with it.
I cannot help but to remark that the second sentence that starts with "But" puts a heavy burden of proof that chips away seriously at the first sentence
And re "those many many Palestinians who are opposed to violence" - in Gaza it amounts to about 40 to 30 %% of the population, depends on whose polls you are reading. Unfortunately, not an overwhelming majority...
"I cannot help but to remark that the second sentence that starts with "But" puts a heavy burden of proof that chips away seriously at the first sentence".
Well, it is exactly as I intended. It is the tension between rights and practices. A nation has a right to assert its nationhood but it will still need to cope with a bad reputation and negative image, especially if that image is not due to lies and defamataion but to correctible behaviours.
I like to quote this statement, that Rights begin where love ends. When you love someone, you care about them and their good name and would say nothing to compromise their well being. The problem begins when you don't love someone and still you have tp preserve their rights. It is a tough moral challenge, to suspend thinking about all those reasons that prevent me from exonerating the entire Palestinian people from complicity in terrorism, while keeping in mind that many of them, even if they are not the majority, are indeed innocent.
It is tantamount to Abraham's dispute with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomora. Abraham won God's consent to forebear punishment if he, Abe, could find only 10 righteous persons among them.
Cannot say that I see anything to disagree with, Noga.
BTW, are you The Contentious Centrist, Brad D. or Noga who uses a convenient homepage
I am Noga, the contentious one, as BobfromBrockley likes to say. Brad is the very silent partner, who helped me set up my blog. He is very helpful, not at all contentious, and he is presently expecting a new baby. I only mention it because the thought of new babies makes me smile.
Commenting by HaloScan
