WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2023
How about some cable news stars? It's a proven fact! College students often show limited judgment.
Of course, we adults routinely show limited judgment too. Reportedly, that can even happen, on the rare occasion, among upper-end mainstream journalists!
Still, college students may sometimes be inclined to go all in. In yesterday's report, we cited some shouting which one college student heard during a recent demonstration at Northwestern University. We quoted from this lengthy New York Times report:
HARTOCOLLIS AND SAUL (11/11/23): In the days after the Hamas attack on Israel, Max Strozenberg, a first-year student at Northwestern University, experienced a couple of jarring incidents.
Walking into his dorm, he was startled to see a poster calling Gaza a “modern-day concentration camp” pinned to a bulletin board next to Halloween ghosts and pumpkins.
At a pro-Palestinian rally, he heard students shouting, “Hey, Schill, what do you say, how many kids did you kill today,” an echo of a chant from the anti-Vietnam War movement, now directed at Northwestern’s president, Michael H. Schill, who is Jewish.
With apologies for the language, had Northwestern's president actually killed any kids that day? At times of very high partisan feeling, college students, like everyone else, can perhaps show somewhat limited judgment in very large, very loud ways.
What might such behavior tell us about the shouters? According to the Times report, the Northwestern freshman who heard that shouting seemed to think the shouting amounted to, or had stemmed from, a form of antisemitism.
On the other hand, the Times reporters quoted a "pro-Palestinian" college student in California. She had offered this general rebuttal to that general charge:
HARTOCOLLIS AND SAUL: Pro-Palestinian supporters are quick to push back, asking whether any criticism of Israel and Zionism is acceptable.
They say that the cries of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle speech and divert attention from a 16-year blockade of Gaza by Israel, backed by Egypt, that has devastated the lives of Palestinians. They point to the uprooting of 700,000 people during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. And they rail against Israel’s current invasion of Gaza, which has killed more than 10,000 people, according to the Gazan health ministry.
“We stand staunchly against all forms of racism and bigotry,” said Anna Babboni, a senior at Scripps College in Claremont, Calif., and one of the leaders of the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
Ms. Babboni said her group is not antisemitic, but it is anti-Zionist...
In the present-day context, it isn't automatically clear what "anti-Zionist" means. But this California college student denied the claim of antisemitism. Indeed, she staunchly said that her group stands against all forms of racism.
Why is that student "pro-Palestinian?" According to Hartocollis and Saul, some such students cite that "16-year blockade of Gaza." Reaching all the way back, they may also "point to the uprooting of 700,000 people during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War."
They'll say that they aren't antisemitic. That said, were the Northwestern shouters antisemitic? How about that senior at Scripps College?
In theory, such questions are very important. They're also hard to answer.
In this morning's New York Times, Alan Blinder offers a lengthy news report about the loosely-organized nationwide group to which that Scripps senior belongs. Headline included, Blinder starts like this:
BLINDER (11/22/23): After last month’s attack on Israel by Hamas, Students for Justice in Palestine promoted a “tool kit” for activists that proclaimed “glory to our resistance.” The group has been banned or suspended by Brandeis, Columbia and George Washington University. And it was recently the target of thundering speeches on Capitol Hill and blistered during a Republican presidential debate.
In the six weeks since Hamas attacked Israel, there may be no college group that has drawn more scrutiny than Students for Justice in Palestine, perhaps the most popular and divisive campus organization championing the Palestinian cause.
But unlike many national campus groups—whether they are sororities, fraternities, religious or political—Students for Justice in Palestine is by design a loosely connected network of autonomous chapters. There is no national headquarters and no named leader. There is a national student steering committee, but it is anonymous. The group has never registered as a nonprofit, and it has never had to file tax documents.
[...]
That deliberate lack of hierarchy has been crucial to the network’s ascent, allowing chapters to spring up with few obstacles, according to interviews with 20 people and a survey of videos, academic writings, archival news accounts and public records. The network’s constellation of tactics and rhetoric, including theatrical demonstrations with “apartheid walls” and mock Israeli checkpoints, has been replicated on campuses across the country.
The flat structure, though, has also fueled worries among pro-Israel groups that accuse the network of driving antisemitism on campuses, often with little accountability...
“Glory to our resistance?” Given the nature of the events of October 7, it's hard to find a way to locate that statement within the broad range of acceptable American political thinking.
On the other hand, would that college kid in Claremont subscribe to some such framework? According to Blinder, the national student group to which she belongs is very loosely organized. Indeed, there's no way to know, from Blinder's report, who made the quoted statement.
Would that college kid in Pomona see some type of "glory" in October 7's act of "resistance?" We have no idea, and it seems that she wasn't asked.
Meanwhile, it's also true that today's New York Times offers a guest essay by "a Palestinian writer living in the West Bank"—an essay with which that Scripps student would almost surely agree.
The Palestinian writer is Ali Awad. Headline included, his essay starts like this:
Many West Bank Palestinians Are Being Forced Out of Their Villages. Is My Family Next?
I was born in February 1998 in Tuba, a rural shepherding community of 80 Palestinian residents in the South Hebron Hills of the West Bank, where my family has lived for generations. Over the years we have suffered repeated attacks by Israeli settlers, part of an ongoing campaign to remove us from our land. Still, nothing prepared me for what our life has become since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7. In the last six weeks, the raids and harassment by settlers have become so intense that I do not know how much longer I and the other members of my community will be able to live here.
Under the cover of war, settlers have been storming villages in the West Bank, threatening Palestinians and destroying their homes and their livelihoods. International attention has been mostly focused on the atrocities in Israel and in Gaza, including the internal displacement of more than half of the population of the Gaza Strip.
In the West Bank, increasingly violent assaults on villages have forced at least 16 Palestinian communities—more than 1,000 people—to flee their homes since Oct. 7...
Awad is the age of a typical graduate student. His essay may serve to remind us that there are imaginable reasons for college seniors to be "pro-Palestinian"—to feel the bulk of their sympathy aligned with people like Awad.
Can a college student be "pro-Palestinian" without being antisemitic? Could such students even engage in a type of "shouting" in which they may seem to exercise limited discernment?
It seems to us that the answer is a fairly obvious if unfortunate yes. That doesn't mean that every other college student is somehow required to adopt the first student's overall view of this matter.
It simply means that Person B can disagree with Person A's view—can even do so rather loudly—without necessarily being racist or misogynist, or without being antisemitic.
That doesn't mean that no one holds views or feelings which are antisemitic, since some people plainly do. Also, it doesn't mean that there aren't American college students whose reaction to October 7 are almost impossible to square with the most expansive framework of American belief.
As we close today, we direct your attention to one such student—a junior at Penn. Especially on the right, a speech by this student on October 28 has gained a substantial amount of attention. On November 10, a report in Penn's student newspaper quoted part of what had been said:
DILWORTH (11/10/23): Recently, online reports citing a clip of a speech from a pro-Palestinian rally in Center City on Oct. 28 suggested that [the student] called the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 “glorious” and said she felt “empowered and happy” when Hamas invaded Israel. [Her] theft of [an] Israeli flag was reported the same day.
“How about the photos of the bulldozer breaking through the deadly border? Do you remember that picture? And the several other joyful and powerful images which came from the glorious Oct. 7?” she reportedly said in the video circulating online.
To watch the video clip of this student's speech, you can just click here. It's hard to place this student's reactions to "the glorious October 7" within even the broadest framework of American political belief.
Is that student antisemitic? We'd be inclined to say that, within the framework of American thought and belief, she is currently lost to the world.
That said, it shouldn't be especially hard to see why some other students might be "pro-Palestinian"—might principally sympathize with people like Ali Awad, or with the people of Gaza.
That doesn't mean that such students are "right" in some ultimate way. In our view, it does suggest that people who are seeking solutions shouldn't rush to call such students names, or to assume the worst about their mentality or their motives.
Over the past many years, our own blue tribe has formed the habit of name-calling others. Some of our thought leaders may not be especially good at hearing the actual voices of some such actual people.
You don't have to agree with that Scripps College student. We're just suggesting that you probably shouldn't rush to call such people names. They'll do plenty of that on Fox without our team joining in.
We'll make a shocking suggestion:
For the many people within our own blue tribe who (quite understandably) are "pro-Israel," it's even possible that there are some things that student knows which some older people don't! This brings us to the statements by certain "cable news" stars to which we've referred of late.
How should those "pro-Palestinian" students be seen? In our view, some blue tribe leaders have been inclined to take the more simplistic route—the road more traveled by.
In our view, these thought leaders have appeared on our blue tribe's "cable news" shows and adopted a very odd, if perhaps understandable, stance:
They can't seem to understand why anyone would disagree with their own (plainly perfect) understandings and views. There is no knowledge but their knowledge, no facts but the facts they cite.
In fairness, we humans are wired to react in such ways, major top experts have said.
Coming Friday: Unabashedly clueless! ("Teach your parents well.")
"Somerby says he is not a Gore man, and neither, for goodness’ sake, am I. "
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenation.com/article/archive/seven-year-old-snitch/
The Seven-Year (Old) Snitch by Eric Alterman, The Nation, Nov 4, 1999
Democrats voted for Al Gore, whether they liked him or not. Did Somerby? When he told The Nation that he wasn't a "Gore man" was he telling the truth? How many times has Somerby returned to defend Gore over the years? Was he a "Gore man" when they were pals in college? Or did Somerby fib to The Nation in order to seem more balanced?
I am a Corby man.
DeleteIn general, Somerby's 'defense' of Gore consisted of critiquing the logic/factual basis employed by Gore's attackers.
DeleteSo yes, he can consistently claim not to be a "Gore man" and still write what he has written.
For many TDH commenters, this distinction is mind-blowing.
What person who isn't a Gore man spends decades going back and rehashing what happened to Gore? If this were 1999, Somerby might plausibly claim to have no special feelings about Gore and just be responding to the media's treatment of him, but Somerby has been obsessed with Gore since then, to the point of ignoring the same treatment of other candidates while repeatedly bringing up Gore over and over.
DeleteThis isn't the simple distinction Hector makes, which is easy for anyone to grasp. It is the obsession of a person who then disingenuously claims to have no special feeling for Gore, despite their having been roomies at Harvard back in the day. But more than that, Somerby has never since claimed he is NOT a Gore Man, so this one denial to Eric Alterman is the one that seems to stick out and be wrong, not all the defenses of Gore through the ages since Gore lost.
Somerby has repeatedly said people are dead because of how the press treated Gore, his reference to the Iraq war.
Delete"disingenuously claims to have no special feeling for Gore, despite their having been roomies at Harvard"
DeleteOne may or may not develop a "special feeling" for a roommate assigned by the college you're attending.
Bob's persistent writings on Gore more probably stem from Gore being a presidential candidate who suffered more than his share of personal attacks by the media, which were ripe for comment at a blog focusing on the logical failings of our political discourse.
They roomed together in an 8-person suite after the first year, which means they picked each other. Gore shared his room with Tommy Lee Jones, not Somerby. Gore was treated no worse than other candidates.
DeleteSomerby has ignored most personal attacks on politicians by the media, focusing his attention on little more than the case of Gore. A few notable exceptions being Roy Moore and Trump.
DeleteFurthermore, Somerby generally does not critique the logic of those attacking Gore, in fact he whines that the attacks are emotional appeals.
Hector, your logic does not hold up. Indeed, your attacks on commenters seem more a function of your own emotional attachment to Somerby than anything. Which is fine, more power to you, it’s fine to be a loyal fan, just do not pretend or delude yourself you are engaging in good faith discourse.
Thank you for giving me the gift of insight. I realize now I've only been fooling myself.
DeleteAnytime.
DeleteWish it were true @5:43.
Delete"just do not pretend or delude yourself you are engaging in good faith discourse" LOL!!!!! No way!!
DeleteHoly shit balls!!! Oh sweet motherf'in irony!! This from one of the two Somerby-hating axe-grinding trolls who are the very embodiment of "bad faith." Words fail me. Peak irony has scrambled my noggin.
Damn, 4:22! 10:09 just laid down a bad faith bonanza on top of you!
DeleteIf we assume for a moment that Somerby actually is liberal, then he is a major proponent of this behavior, described by Digby, of talking down Democrats and ushering Trump into office by his continual petty whining and criticism of Biden, including the claim that he is too old to govern:
ReplyDeletehttps://digbysblog.net/2023/11/22/talking-ourselves-into-fascism/
With supporters like Somerby, who needs enemies?
I’ve always known that Digby is the anonymouse coven high priestess.
DeleteHow does it help this situation to call the people who read Digby names implying they consort with the devil? Somerby wants to know.
DeleteTo be fair, Cecelia probably doesn't know what the word coven means:
Deletecoven definition -- a group or gathering of witches who meet regularly
witch definition -- a person thought to have magic powers, especially evil ones, popularly depicted as a woman wearing a black cloak and pointed hat and flying on a broomstick
Does Cecelia think the rest of the commenters here are female like she is pretending to be? Obviously, if commenters are anonymous (note correct spelling) she has no way of knowing anything about gender. Obviously, she also has no concerns about misgendering people, as most on the right do not.
Somerby's concern about name-calling has nothing to do with whether the names are right (correct) or deserved, but Cecelia clearly thinks that calling other people satanists is OK, something she no doubt learned by watching Fox News. This is extra odd because Digby isn't even a satanist and she is not anonymous and has never done anything bad to Cecelia, to motivate such name-calling hatred.
So, we must conclude that this is Cecelia's problem and that she is not a very nice person. But we already knew that, right?
Cue Cecelia's attempt at a snappy comeback, which will include more name-calling, largely incoherent, proving she didn't understand a word of Somerby's essay today.
DeleteNot a rodent, you just read six paragraphs of dull witted pomposity from anonymouse 12:45pm. A guide to building a water heater would sound snappy as compared to that.
DeleteWho said comments are supposed to be fun? Yours aren't.
DeleteSo in order to avoid fascism, never criticize the most powerful man in the world. Doesn't sound very inspiring.
DeleteIt makes sense that if you want someone to win an election, as liberals want Biden to defeat Trump (assuming they run against each other), then you should talk up your favored candidate and reserve criticism for his opponent. Liberals seem to think they can say endless bad things about Biden and still defeat Trump.
DeleteI disagree. The water heater guide comment was inspired , and "dull witted pomposity" was also enjoyable.
DeleteIn order to prevent fascism, we need to suppress criticism and silence dissenting views. Seems kinda weird.
DeleteEither you believe in free speech and self expression or you don't. I find it offensive to suggest one limit those under any circumstance.
DeleteIt is actually a huge red flag if agents of the most powerful man in the world suggest we limit our free speech and refrain from criticizing him.
DeleteFUCK THAT.
This isn't about free speech at all. Free speech (1st Amendment) prevents the government from interfering with individual speech. I am suggesting that if you want to elect Biden and not Trump you need to do more supporting and less criticizing. I assume that Biden is who you mean by "the most powerful man in the world"?
DeleteYou obviously weren't going to vote for Biden anyway.
DeleteI don't advocate anyone suppress their thoughts or limit what they want to say. If Democrats are suggesting people do that, they don't deserve to win.
Delete12:45’s comment is well written and coherent, in stark contrast to the right wing fanboys and trolls.
Delete2:50 etc., you are challenging speech in the same way you claim to be defending speech; there’s no coherency to your claim.
Digby is not suggesting criticism of Biden be censored, but that there is a lack of promotion for accomplishments achieved by Dems.
As a leftist, it’s trivial to recognize that Trump/Republicans are a threat to democracy and a threat of fascism; while the neoliberalism of Clinton and Obama was disappointing, Biden represents a significant shift away from that misguided experiment.
Given the options, I am highly motivated to vote for Biden.
In order to prevent fascism, leftists need to praise the only option they have more. That sounds fascist.
DeleteFascism operates by coercion through force of right wing goals.
DeleteConflating the notion of lesser evil/harm reduction with fascism is nonsensical. Doing so may indicate mere ignorance, or, more likely in this case, an interloper’s weak attempt at manufacturing circumstances that benefit their personal agenda.
Classic DNC rhetoric!
DeleteIn order to not be rounded up and mass murdered, you must sing the praises of the unpopular, uninspiring, only-choice-you-have more.
You are presenting a straw man argument with an overly simplistic binary circumstance that no one is suggesting.
DeleteEven so, your faux proposition seems fairly logical and reasonable; between a kidnapping murderer or a progressive leaning status quo leader, most would rather suck up to the latter. Duh.
It is asking critics of an unpopular, joke of a candidate to be silent. I understand that is what you want but that will never happen. It's a fantasy request from an organization of corrupt losers.
DeleteWho exactly are you talking about?
Delete"Either you believe in free speech and self expression or you don't." Or you believe in free speech and self expression as one good among many, but not always the greatest good in every circumstance.
Delete"I find it offensive to suggest one limit those under any circumstance." Then you're an unbelievably shallow thinker. As if voicing any thought at anytime is more important than, say, people's safety. Childish.
Somerby, referring to pro-Palestinian students, says:
ReplyDelete"That doesn't mean that such students are "right" in some ultimate way. In our view, it does suggest that people who are seeking solutions shouldn't rush to call such students names, or to assume the worst about their mentality or their motives."
The problem with this formulation is that Somerby doesn't similarly allow that pro-Israeli students may be right and shouldn't be called names either.
For every report of Israeli settlers harrassing Palestinian olive pickers of sheep herders in the West Bank, there is a report of Palestinian terrorists attacking Israelis outside of Gaza, as they go about their daily lives. Such events are reported in Israeli newspapers and described by those who support Israel. Someone reading about those might have strong pro-Israel feelings, just as someone reading the propaganda from pro-Palestinian sources might develop for Palestinians.
There is a propaganda battle going on within the US, not just the battle on the ground in Gaza. Somerby's description of this somehow nationwide student organization that has no actual structure, and thus no way to trace its funding, describes how pro-Palestinian adults outside of college influence student minds and hearts on campuses nationwide. We are seeing the result of that.
Somerby is suckered into believing that this is nothing more than youthful exuberance. He defends the students right to say ridiculous things, accusing a college administrator of killing children. This is exactly what Hamas wants, because the demonstrations in the US put pressure on US politicians to back off of its staunch support for Israel. Articles about Biden's softening support by young people in the 2024 presidential election are part of that pressure.
Somerby pretends this is just about letting everyone have their say, as if these were independent views arrived at by thoughtful young people. Somerby is not only naive, but he seems to agree with the college kids, if not with their over-the-top expression, and he himself has put his thumb on the scales on behalf of those poor suffering Palestinians who are suffering reprisals due to a brutal attack by who? Palestinians! on 10/7.
Somerby cannot write about media and American discourse without acknowledging that a fierce propaganda battle has been waged against Israel on American campuses and these kids are the result of that effort.
Erecting a Jewish state in Palestine was a mistake.
DeleteNo, the Palestinian refusal of a territory set aside for them in 1948 was a mistake. So were the various wars since then, all lost to Israel. Big mistakes. Electing Hamas was another mistake. Violation of this upcoming ceasefire will be yet another mistake.
DeleteWe’ll said, @11:06!
DeleteDavid in Cal
The queston isn't the size of the respective territories but how much of it is arable land useful for agriculture. Israelis began coming in the 1920s but the main influx was in 1936 due to Hitler's persecution of Jews. Where do you expect them to go? The Balfour decision incorporated into the Palestinian Mandate explicitly set aside the areas as a Jewish homeland. Palestinians do not have the right to set that aside, especially when Jews originated in that area before being dispersed by religious persecution. Note the 800,000 Jews expelled by the Arab nations created at the end of the mandate.
DeleteIt is not traditional for the victor of a war (in this case, a series of wars) to give back land taken during that war. Of course Israel refused. Meanwhile, none of the adjacent Arab nations have been willing to accept Palestinian refugees from the wars they helped fight against Israel. Why? And now Hamas has tried to sabotage the peace agreement between the Saudis and Israel. Why?
"For the many people within our own blue tribe who (quite understandably) are "pro-Israel," it's even possible that there are some things that student knows which some older people don't!"
ReplyDeleteFirst, that student supposedly knows that 700,000 Palestinians were "pushed off" their land in 1948. Does that student know that many of them left voluntarily, advised to do so by the surrounding Arab nations ahead of their attack the day after Israel was declared a nation? Others were "pushed off" because they supported that war against Israel. Does that student know that 800,000 Jews were pushed off their land in those adjoining Arab nations in 1948, because they were Jews?
That student knows that settlers in the West Bank were attacking Palestinians like the one in the anecdote Somerby recounts. Does that student know how frequent and deadly the terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Israel have been? I listed the accounts from Israeli news sources in the months leading up to 10/7 yesterday. Anyone can find them in Israeli newspapers, but are students in American pro-Palestinian groups informed of the Palestinian terror attacks and the activities of Hezbollah that are ongoing, even as Israel tries to destroy Hamas? Does the student know that Israelis too go through checkpoints and live with airport-style security measures, and live under constant fear of random violence?
That student may "know" that Palestinians want a two-state solution, but does that student know that such a solution has been offered several times in the past and rejected by the Palestinians? That student may call for a ceasefire, but does that student know how often the Palestinians have broken ceasefires and peace agreements in the past?
Maybe there is a lot that Somerby doesn't know about ths conflict? Maybe Somerby should stop blaming the left for name-calling when the pro-Palestinians have been referring to genocide and calling Israelis horrible names. Somerby tries to frame this as a young/old or red/blue issue but it doesn't cut along those lines. I think it depends on where you get your news and how much you know about BOTH sides in this conflict, which ultimately must be settled by Palestinians, other Arabs and Muslims abandoning their jihads and learning to live with other religions, including other sects within Islam, or there will be ongoing religious war into the foreseeable future. Somerby ignores that this is an religious war in which fanatics who believe in martyrdom for their faith are persecuting those who believe differently. Somerby, so far, has never mentioned religious beliefs fueling Palestinian extremism. That means he doesn't have a clue about why there is still fighting in the Middle East.
I wouldn't worry about it.
DeleteJewish Israelis should emigrate.
DeleteZionists should also pay reparations to the indigenous population.
DeleteTo Gaza?
DeleteThere is no indigenous population.
DeleteTo all of them. Those in Gaza, in West Bank, in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, end everywhere else.
DeleteWhy is it that no surrounding Arab nation was willing to accept Palestinian emigrants before, during or after the war in 1948?
DeleteThose in Gaza, West Bank, refugee camps, in Lebanon, Jordan, and everywhere else, are not indigenous to Palestine. They moved there just like Jews did (who also originally came from the area now occupied by Israel, in Biblical times, before the Jewish diaspora). It makes as much sense for Palestinians to pay reparations to all of the Jews not currently living in Israel, since they were unjustly driven out of their indigenous land.
DeleteThat's why this is a stupid argument concocted to gain sympathy from ignoramuses by stealing the language (genocide, indigenous) of actual indigenous people, like those in Mexico, Canada, the US, and elsewhere, who have a valid claim but have made far less trouble attacking and killing people than the Palestinians have. No wonder no one wants them anywhere near their own countries.
Corby is adorable.
Delete2:48
DeleteThe war in 1948 displaced roughly 700,000 indigenous Palestinians from their homes, of which 250,000 found residence in Gaza. Roughly 80% of Palestinians in Gaza today are the result of that displacement. The Palestinian population in 1947 was 1,300,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jewish or Zionists. The Jewish population at that time was referred to as settlers. The specific name they went by was "The Jewish Colonization Society". You don't get to make up history to serve your agenda.
"The war in 1948 displaced roughly 700,000 indigenous Palestinians"
DeleteActually, the 1948 war started because of the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Zionist militants. 100,000 people were already displaced, and many murdered before the war. Major Zionist massacres (see the Deir Yassin massacre) happened before neighboring nations decided to intervene and try to put an end to it.
That is not true. The war in 1948 started the day after the establishment of Israel as a nation. How could there have been any ethnic cleansing in that short time? Further, Palestine was established as a territory as part of that same agreement
DeleteUnamused, what about the 800,000 Jews expelled from neighboring Arab nations when Israel was established? Do they not count? You also neglect the Palestinians in Israel who left voluntarily ahead of that war, urged to do so by neighboring Arab nations who told them they would get their land back after Israel was demolished. If you leave voluntarily to fight a war against your home nation, do you really have a "right of return"? And if you remain in place but fight for the enemy attacking your nation, do you have the right to stay or should you be expelled or put in a camp? Every country at war has handled this situation the same way -- by rounding up enemies within their borders and putting them in camps so they cannot work against the war defense effort.
DeletePalestinians left Israel. They have turned down subsequent efforts to achieve a two-state solution. They have no rights to land going back to 1948 because of their own actions. I posted a lengthy description of the 1936-1939 Arab war against Jews in the Palestinian Mandate (before the 1948 establishment of Israel). The assertion that Jews were persecuting Palestinians is contradicted by that war.
From Wikipedia:
Delete"A popular uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against the British administration of the Palestine Mandate, later known as The Great Revolt (Arabic: al-Thawra al- Kubra)[10] or The Great Palestinian Revolt (Thawrat Filastin al-Kubra),[11] lasted from 1936 until 1939, demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home".[12] The uprising coincided with a peak in the influx of immigrant Jews, some 60,000 that year – the Jewish population having grown under British auspices from 57,000 to 320,000 in 1935[13] – and with the growing plight of the rural fellahin rendered landless, who as they moved to metropolitan centers to escape their abject poverty found themselves socially marginalized.[14][a] Since 1920 Jews and Arabs had been involved in a cycle of attacks and counter-attacks, and the immediate spark for the uprising was the murder of two Jews by a Qassamite band, and the retaliatory killing by Jewish gunmen of two Arab laborers, incidents which triggered a flare-up of violence across Palestine.[16] A month into the disturbances Amin al-Husseini, president of the Arab Higher Committee and Mufti of Jerusalem, declared 16 May 1936 as 'Palestine Day' and called for a General Strike. The revolt was branded by many in the Jewish Yishuv as "immoral and terroristic", often compared to fascism and Nazism.[17] Ben Gurion, however, described Arab causes as fear of growing Jewish economic power, opposition to mass Jewish immigration and fear of the English identification with Zionism.[17]
The general strike lasted from April to October 1936. The revolt is often analysed in terms of two distinct phases.[18][19] The first phase was one of spontaneous popular resistance which was only, in a second moment, seized on by the urban and elitist Arab Higher Committee, which gave the movement an organized shape and was focused mainly on strikes and other forms of political protest, in order to secure a political result.[20] By October 1936, this phase had been defeated by the British civil administration using a combination of political concessions, international diplomacy (involving the rulers of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan and Yemen)[21] and the threat of martial law.[22] The second phase, which began late in 1937, was a peasant-led resistance movement provoked by British repression in 1936[23] in which increasingly British forces were targeted as the army itself increasingly targeted the villages it thought supportive of the revolt.[24] During this phase, the rebellion was brutally suppressed by the British Army and the Palestine Police Force using repressive measures that were intended to intimidate the whole population and undermine popular support for the revolt.[25] A more dominant role on the Arab side was taken by the Nashashibi clan, whose NDP party quickly withdrew from the rebel Arab Higher Committee, led by the radical faction of Amin al-Husseini, and instead sided with the British – dispatching "Fasail al-Salam" (the "Peace Bands") in coordination with the British Army against nationalist and Jihadist Arab "Fasail" units (literally "bands")."
Cont.
Delete"According to official British figures covering the whole revolt, the army and police killed more than 2,000 Arabs in combat, 108 were hanged,[8] and 961 died because of what they described as "gang and terrorist activities".[26] In an analysis of the British statistics, Walid Khalidi estimates 19,792 casualties for the Arabs, with 5,032 dead:[b] 3,832 killed by the British and 1,200 dead due to intracommunal terrorism, and 14,760 wounded.[26] By one estimate, ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population between 20 and 60 was killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled.[28] Estimates of the number of Palestinian Jews killed are up to several hundred.[29]
The Arab revolt in Mandatory Palestine was unsuccessful, and its consequences affected the outcome of the 1948 Palestine war.[30] It caused the British Mandate to give crucial support to pre-state Zionist militias like the Haganah, whereas on the Palestinian Arab side, the revolt forced the flight into exile of the main Palestinian Arab leader of the period, al-Husseini."
@9:56 AM
DeleteIt is true; go read something. The date of declaration of statehood (May 14, 1948) has nothing to do with it. By that time, terrorist Zionist militias were perpetrating ethnic cleansing for months already. Certainly since November 1947.
Palestinian attacks on Jews go back to the 1920s. The Jewish claim to a homeland in Palestine goes back to Biblical times, despite Arab efforts to exclude Jews from the region. The main influx of Jews to Palestine came during and after Hitler's ethnic cleansing of Europe. The point of the creation of Israel was to create a homeland for Jews. Palestinian objections are on the grounds of religion and the desire to create a united Arab nation. Despite repeated negotiations, Palestinians have never reconciled themselves to Israel's existence. The invention of grievances to justify their continued enmity changes nothing about that original and basic objection to Israel, which is religious and nationalist, not due to Israeli encroachment. It is why the Palestinians refused several two-state proposals over the hundred years since the Palestinian Mandate was created.
DeleteYou can call these "Zionist" militias because that emphasizes your belief that Jews do not belong in Palestine, but Jews have now been in Israel long enough to have established themselves as Israelis, not Zionists. That makes your wording a clear statement of bias toward Palestinians, who have continued to attack Israel no matter what the agreements they have signed.
Palestinians do not want peace and they inflict suffering on themselves by continuing to provoke and undermine the safety of Israelis. The greater the suffering of their people, the closer their goals, Palestinian extremists seem to believe. They have never won a war but they believe they should be given territory or return to conditions before they instigated violence against Jews. War doesn't work that way.
The Palestinians clearly hope that by appearing to be victims they will gain sympathy with other nations who support Israel. That isn't going to happen because they continue to use terrorist tactics and they have yet again brought this military reprisal down on their own heads with their brutal attack on Israel.
There is no "right of return" for people who long ago abandoned their homes/land in order to attack Jews.
Here is Somerby's goofy formulation:
ReplyDelete"They can't seem to understand why anyone would disagree with their own (plainly perfect) understandings and views. There is no knowledge but their knowledge, no facts but the facts they cite.
In fairness, we humans are wired to react in such ways, major top experts have said."
No, humans are not "wired" to react in such ways. Somerby has never sited a single expert saying that, much less a "major top expert".
Humans do tend to invent religions to explain mysteries that are important to their survival. However, in a world where science has increasingly explained such mysteries, people have shifted away from strong religion and adopted a secular view with the belief that science will eventually provide more answers and religion doesn't help much.
The fanaticism of religious people in the Middle East has clashed strongly with secular approaches. Somerby should hear the names that religious people call infidels and non-believers. It is not just happening the Middle East but also in our American South (across the Bible Belt) where right wingers have co-opted the Republican party with views about satan (Democrats) and threats of hell, while behaving like hypocrites in sexually perverted ways and pretending that lying, stealing and cheating are God's way.
But Somerby thinks we on the left should be worried because people call names? Names are how people denote things in the world. There are people who are sexists, misogynists, racist, bigots of all kinds, anti-semites who hate Jews AND Israel because it is full of Jews, and there are evil people who consider the world a place to plunder and oppress others. These groups all exist, so they have names and we call someone one of those names when we correctly identify their behavior.
Somerby does the world no favor when he tries to cover up and excuse away the wrong behavior of such people. Our world prospers when we defend truth and fight against wrongdoing. Not when we appease bullies and encourage stupidity (as Somerby does every time he mocks expertise).
I wonder where Somerby's concern about name-calling was when he called Stormy daniels a grifter and con artist? And where was that concern when he labeled ALL of the Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination "horrible candidates"? And he has called Rachel Maddow a liar too many times to count. And Kamala Harris -- for citing Dept of Labor stats about the gender wage gap. Is liar not a name? Remember the days when Somerby tried to tell us we couldn't call Trump a liar because maybe he believed what he was saying, long before he lied about winning in 2020 and having the election stolen from him?
The namecalling isn't the problem. The lies are. Including the lies now being told by pro-Palestinian lobbyists, to subvert American college students.
People are wired to troll blogs.
Delete"People are wired to troll blogs," according to a major top expert.
DeleteInteresting how Somerby has failed to persuade anyone of anything.
DeleteWell Bob reminds us here that this is a situation that is very complex, and that young people sometimes are emotional in their response to things. All fine.
ReplyDeleteBut oddly (except that it’s Bob) he has to throw his own disingenuous prejudice into the mix. Is the liberal side (“our blue tribe”) more likely to make dubious, emotional generalizations on this subject than anyone else? Who has had more to say about the plight of Gaza over the years, liberals or conservatives? Thanks for the lecture Bob, now stick it.
"In our view, it does suggest that people who are seeking solutions shouldn't rush to call such students names, or to assume the worst about their mentality or their motives."
ReplyDeleteDoes it really seem likely to Somerby that anyone seeking a solution to the Middle East crisis, in a serious way, is going to consult those students? That unlikelihood makes their mentality and their motives irrelevant to anything happening in the real world, off campus.
Meanwhile, the students are embarrassing their future selves and their parents while carrying out the main function of rebellious teens. Humoring them doesn't help them grow up.
College is a prime recruiting spot for white supremacists. Why? Because college kids have poor judgment still (their frontal lobes don't develop fully until age 25), they are away from their support systems of relatives and high school friends and in a new place without any social standing, they are continuing to develop their individual sense of identity, they are still ignorant of the larger world, the more so if their parents have been overprotective (as tends to be true in those elite highly selective universities).
ReplyDeleteAsserting something that will piss off their parents is part of the process of separation and individuation that occurs in adolescence. White supremacists appeal to young men with flattery and social "love bombing" (lots of attention) and by telling them how stupid the rest of the students are to believe what they have been fed. They provide an instant approving social group to affiliate with (like a fraternity does, except Frosh cannot pledge until after Christmas). Demeaning women (who young men may fear) is a male bonding ritual for such groups. Activist groups around issues like Gaza, animal rights, gay rights and other civil rights, serve the same purpose. This is when Scientology and evangelical religious groups, cults, also get their hooks into young people.
Somerby takes the statements of these kids at face value, but they are mostly exercising their individuality by engaging in slightly thrilling civil disobedience (or what feels like it to them). For American kids it is mostly safe to do this.
In Gaza, teens at about the same age go through the same process and are recruited to engage in terrorist acts and even suicide bombings. Occasionally they will attack Israeli soldiers with rocks, proving their manhood and solidarity with the God-endorsed cause, and be shot by Israeli military or armed settlers (you don't really think it is only the settlers who are engaging in violence?). For them, there are real-world consequences for engaging in extremism, even when the motives for youth are similar. As in the
US, there are adults who cynically mobilize these young people to make sacrifices they themselves will not make.
Somerby stupidly criticizes "name-calling" when there is so much else that is wrong in this situation.
Hearing others? I'm not sure that listening to college students is going to do anything helpful in this situation, other than to make their Thanksgiving meals with relatives more pleasant. Nor do I agree with Somerby that what the students are saying reflects what is actually happening. Even Awad, the college age author of an editorial about Palestinian villages, has no idea what Palestinians are doing to the Israelis in the West Bank. He certainly does not include that info in his essay.
ReplyDelete"Have You Listened Lately to What Trump Is Saying?
ReplyDeleteNovember 22, 2023 at 12:43 pm EST By Taegan Goddard
Peter Wehner: “Trump’s rhetoric is a permission slip for his supporters to dehumanize others just as he does. He portrays others as existential threats, determined to destroy everything MAGA world loves about America. Trump is doing two things at once: pushing the narrative that his enemies must be defeated while dissolving the natural inhibitions most human beings have against hating and harming others.”
“It signals to his supporters that any means to vanquish the other side is legitimate; the normal constraints that govern human interactions no longer apply.”
This is what the right wing is doing -- not the bothsiderist nonsense that Somerby keeps claiming is happening. Biden isn't doing this. It is all Trump.
Perhaps Somerby's constant rants about people listening and hearing others is just a very personal complaint about his own standup comedy audiences not listening to his performances.
ReplyDeleteYou are on to something, keep going.
DeleteI am vermin and you're fascists. We have a beautiful friendship.
ReplyDeleteAfter extensive discussions, I have been unable to convince Corby that the State of Israel is a mistake.
ReplyDeleteWhat other nation on our earth has anyone worked so hard to convince others that its establishment was a mistake?
DeleteThis is what antisemitism against Jews looks like. It says that the Jews cannot have a homeland (in the area where they originated in Biblical times) because it upsets Arabs and Muslims. Everyone else gets one, but not Jews. Why? Because they are Jewish.
DeleteEthnostate are bad, regardless of which ethnicity.
DeleteEthnostates
DeleteAs I pointed out yesterday, many states have a state religion, including all of the Arab and Muslim ones. Judaism is a religion. There are sephardic and ashkenazi Jews, so this is not about a single ethnicity. This is another form of slander in which Israel may not do what other nations do routinely.
DeleteThose nasty scandinavians with their blue eyes and blond hair! How dare they form a Lutheran ethnostate!
DeleteEthnostates are bad, so are theocracies.
DeleteThere is no coherent defense of Israel in its current state: an ethnostate being overrun by theocrats engaging in apartheid and, some say, an ethnic cleansing genocide.
This is how most Jews in the world view the contemporary circumstances in Israel. Most Jews live outside of Israel, mostly in the US. Furthermore, while Judaism is a religion, most Jews are secular and consider themselves as either part of a single ethnicity, or just part of humans in a general sense.
(Us Ashkenazis denote ourselves with mock pride due to the myth of high IQ, but, in reality, our commonality is stomach pain caused by Crohn’s.)
Israel should not be singled out, other nations that have similar circumstances should also be criticized. Arab/Muslim ethnostates/theocracies are not off the hook. It’s repugnant how the Trump Crime Family has cozied up with the Saudis, paid off to the tune of $2 billion.
Religious indoctrination, typically occurring in childhood, is child abuse; a trauma that often spurs a later obsession with hierarchy and dominance.
The root conflict in Israel is not ethnicity or religion, it is left versus right, equality versus dominance.
Israel is being called a genocidal ethnostate in order to justify what Hamas did on 10/7.
DeleteState religions are bad.
Delete2:50,
DeleteAnd the USA can't have reparations to blacks for slavery, because it upsets too many white people.
ReplyDeleteTo the anon who likes to talk about Mr Biden's Big War against Russia in Ukraine.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsDPDIx8bPY
The video is a segment from The Hill highlighting a Putin apologist (the same ignorant moron spewing Covid lab leak conspiracy garbage) offering ahistorical nonsense - The Hill being a right wing media outlet owned by a personal friend of Trump’s, it solely promotes a right wing agenda. If you’re not a right winger consuming The Hill content, then you’re being conned.
DeleteIt’s not Biden’s war, it’s Russia’s invasion of a sovereign country after the citizens of that country threw out a Putin puppet authoritarian ruler and elected a leader defiant of Putin’s fascism.
The world came to Ukraine’s defense, including most Republicans. In doing so, Putin was exposed as a paper tiger. The Hamas attack has served as a tool by Putin apologists bent on having the world acquiesce to Putin’s assault. Were the West to roll over in Ukraine, Russia would continue its takeover of other countries.
Going back 1500 years, Russia has always been a right wing country determined to gain imperialistic power. This is why an attempt at socialism in the country immediately failed, as the USSR quickly devolved into an authoritarian state operating under state capitalism.
In reality, Ukraine continues to rack up outsized gains in defending against Russia’s imperialist attacks.
My fortune cookie says, “Apply your imagination to any problem that arises.”
ReplyDeleteWas it accompanied by a gong sfx?
DeleteGong sfx are racist.
DeleteYou can’t fool Kevin Drum.
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/donald-trump-is-slipping-cognitively/
Drum is late to the party, the media has been notating this for months.
DeleteDrum: “Hardly anyone seems willing to say it”
What?
It’s all over the place, even on Fox News, their token liberal was allowed to do a whole segment on it a month or so ago.
Can someone disapprove of Israel and not be antisemitic?"
ReplyDeleteTry this question: "Can someone disapprove of MLK and not be a racist?"
In theory, maybe one could. One could fault MLK for cheating on his dissertation and for being unfaithful to his wife. One could fault him for not being sufficiently anti communist.
In practice, that dichotomy seems impossible. Furthermore, it's difficult to believe. If a person said he wasn't a racist, but MLK was a son of a bitch, could you be convinced that this person really was not a racist?
When you analyze it, your feelings are matched by reality IMO. To consider MLK to be a SOB, a person would have to ignore all the good things MLB did and the difficult circumstances he had to deal with, and focus only on the flaws. Ignoring the good things is racist.
Israel is parallel. To strongly object to Israel one needs to ignore all the good things Israel did and the difficulty of Israel's circumstances. Focusing only on the negatives is antisemitism
I agree.
DeleteStupid, meaningless analogy.
DeleteHaters gonna hate.
DeleteAnyone who disagrees with David is antisemitic. And anti-actuarial.
DeleteDavid is not MLK.
Delete
Delete"Can someone disapprove of Martin Luther King Jr. and not be a racist?" is not a direct or logical answer to the question "Can someone disapprove of Israel and not be antisemitic?" They involve fundamentally different contexts and subjects.
Let's answer the question directly: Yes, one can disapprove of the Israeli government's policies or actions without being antisemitic. Criticism of Israel doesn't automatically imply bias towards all Jews. For God's sake, some Israelis disapprove of Israel!
Support of a group that wants to eliminate Jews is antisemitism.
Delete10:49-
DeleteYou might want to tell that to the Netanyahu regime. Their Finance minister, named Smotrich, stated publicly in 2015 that for their government Hamas functioned as an asset. In 2019 Netanyahu advocated the funding of Hamas to his Likud party. It is rather pathetic when leaders of a country consider a terrorist organization an appropriate means to their ends, which in this case serves a twofold purpose:
1) Keeping the leadership of the West Bank and Gaza separate in order to make a 2 state solution unlikely if not impossible (the source of Netanyahu's comments).
2) In the world of public opinion, maintain a terrorist organization that is conflated with the larger body of Palestinians (as many commenters here misunderstand), and create the impression that Israel is an ever constant victim of the Palestinians (the source of Smotrich's comments).
The atrocity here is the cruel cynicism of the Netanyahu government.
"It is rather pathetic when leaders of a country consider a terrorist organization an appropriate means to their ends..."
DeleteThe Proud Boys have entered the chat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCriticizing Israeli leaders and by extension the people who elected them does not translate into antisemitism anymore than, say, criticizing Mussolini and the Italians at that time was a criticism of Catholics. Judaism is a worldwide religion. Any confusion about the difference between a country’s citizenry and its predominant religion is the fault of those who have perpetrated that misconception, and does not make Israel’s critics antisemitic by definition. That should be self-evident.
ReplyDelete