- Series – Anti-Zionists and The Israel-Right-or-Wrong Crowd Have Much In Common: Part 1
- Part 2: Anti-Zionists and The Israel-Right-or-Wrong Crowd Have Much In Common
- Part 3: Conclusion to the Common Characteristics shared byAnti-Zionists and The Israel-Right-or-Wrong Crowd
This is the second installment in this series. Click here to read part 1.
So, what else do the Israel-Right-or-Wrong and anti-Zionists groups in Australia have in common?
Fury at dissent within own ranks:
For our non-Jewish readers, let me tell you about a communal treasure.
He’s a tireless letter-to-the-editor writer, and apparently an avid mass emailer about matters he considers very important – such as any suspicion that someone or some group may not be backing every single Israeli action to the hilt, and the importance of blackballing such a person, or group.
People joke privately about his extremism, and he is not in any official position of leadership, yet he seems to have some influence. Few in the community wants to be labelled, “anti-Israel,” and everyone wants to appear to be as loyal to the homeland as possible, so few people will publicly take this man on.
The nastiest example of this occurred recently with the Naomi Hazan/NIF affair. I urge readers unfamiliar with the case to go to the AJDS site linked, and also the New Israel Fund site in order to familiarise yourselves with a level of intolerance for dissent (even dissent that comes from well within the Zionist camp) within Melbourne’s Jewish communal Centre. The story itself is somewhat murky. It is unclear exactly where the Melbourne Israel-Right-or-Wrong hysteria truly began.
What is certain, however, is that the letter-to-the-editor writer/mass emailer sent out an email that, while privately derided by “leaders”, may have contributed to a climate that ended up libelling people and organisations and shut down debate. Even people purporting to suport liberalism allowed themselves to be intimidated into acquiescing to the most extreme communal political views.
This all took place in shadowy, non-transparent circumstances with misreporting in both the Jewish News and The Age – something that is inevitable when opacity dominates.
This episode has left many of us are wondering if our organisations will only be inviting right-wing Zionists to speak at functions in the future for fear that an angry mass email might be sent out and another wave of hysteria might threaten the delusion of unity our “leadership” tries to perpetuate.
As noted a couple of posts ago, the flourishing Jewish Australian blogosphere is potentially a powerful antidote to the impression in wider Australia that Australian Jews are monolithic in their opinions – a view often encouraged by our “leadership.” Galus Australis’s two most recent posts are an important example of the nuance and complexity that characterises our community. In dealing with both the Hazan affair, and the community’s response to the passport scandal, Galus clearly demonstrates that this “unity” our leaders so often call for is nothing more than an exhortation that people not express an opinion that differs from the official line.
As for the anti-Zionist camp – because I am not personally involved with them, I can only assess from reading their material that they might not appreciate dissent either. There is a sameness to the language, tone, and cadence of everything that is written or said publicly. There is a single line from which there is absolutely no deviation and certainly never any originality of thought. If ever there were an example of group-think – Australian anti-Zionism is a singular example.
And when we look at how dissent is managed in Palestine itself, well – give me furious emails, murky dealings, and communal hysteria any day!
Disregard for overwhelming evidence:
Do anti-Zionists know that Palestinians live a dual misery: one created by Israel, and the other created by the Palestinians’ own corrupt, violent leadership that has no truck with anything resembling liberal democracy?
Are they are aware of the utterly kleptoratic nature of Palestinian leadership that exists alongside ordinary Palstinians’ poverty?
Do they know that Palestinians target civilians (including children), indoctrinate their own children to be suicide bombers, and use their own civilians as human shields?
Does Israel-Right-or-Wrong know that Palestinians currently suffer under occupation and that some settlers perpetrate shocking crimes against innocents?
Is it aware that not every single Israeli action that is to the serious detriment of Palestinians’ quality of life is entirely necessary to the survival of the Jewish state?
I ask these questions because despite the overwhelming evidence everywhere, neither camp seems ever to admit their “side” has any culpability in the conflict.
Australians might be in grave danger of taking someone from either side seriously should they ever attempt to admit their own folk are imperfect.
Dehumanising the “enemy”:
Both Israel-Right-or-Wrong and the anti-Zionists seem incapable of admitting that their own side may have caused suffering on the other side. A complete lack of empathy with the human aspects of the other side is very apparent. This renders any talk – from either side – about human rights, completely hollow because it is obvious to observers that the “rights” referred to, only apply to the side of the particular advocate.
Coming up in the final part:
Disregard for the welfare of the people they purport to represent
Misuse of historical events that diminish the horrors suffered by those actually involved in those events
Two state deniers are actually advocates for ethnic cleansing
No related posts.
Well, as I’m one of the two people named as anti-Zionists, I thought I might compare your claims to reality (bearing also in mind your previous charming claim: anti-Zionists have an “indifference to Israeli civilian suffering”).
You write: “There is a sameness to the language, tone, and cadence of everything that is written or said publicly. There is a single line from which there is absolutely no deviation and certainly never any originality of thought. If ever there were an example of group-think – Australian anti-Zionism is a singular example.”
Well, I’ve written an article on newmatilda disagreeing with Antony Loewenstein on Salam Fayyad (incidentally, also revealing your connection with reality on the subject of anti-Zionist admiration for Palestinian leadership). Who’s disregarding relevant evidence, Ms Fein?
Another article disagreeing with anti-Zionists on some issues is forthcoming. These sentiments can also be found on my blog, where I’ve repeatedly opposed the blanket BDS campaign, and support an end to the occupation (ie, a two state agreement). Have you noticed attacks on me by the anti-Zionist left? As opposed to say – the responses I’ve received from AIJAC’s Bren Carlill (a Christian who compared my opposition to settlements to Nazism), Michael Danby and the ADC (who called me anti-Semitic).
There is much else that could be noted – such as the obvious fact that the anti-Zionist left welcomed the Goldstone Report (I’ve written about it extensively), which condemned human rights violations by Israel, Hamas AND Fatah. Who condemned it? Yet for some people, evidence is plainly irrelevant when holy truths are at stake.
Support this comment
0
Brull, an exception does not a rule make.
You have there some isolated examples of your own dealings. I dare you to go to an AFP meeting and start pontificating about how Palestine must also bring the militarist faction of Hamas into line in conjunction with Israel freezing its settlements.
Even a moderate statement like that would draw you some pretty rabid abuse.
Support this comment
0
Dear Sensible Jew,
I thought you might be interested in having a psychological perspective on some of the issues you’ve been discussing in your blog.
I noticed you recently discussed the process of dehumanising the “enemy”.
There’s a growing field of research on dehumanisation within social psychology, which might be of interest. So I thought I’d provide you with a link to a relevant article:
http://www.in-mind.org/issue-8/human-or-less-than-human.html
The above link is to a very short and simple introduction to the psychology of humanness and dehumanisation with references to more in-depth reviews and empirical studies.
On another topic, I recently saw a very interesting study reported in Psychological Science (a top-ranking general psychology journal). The authors (from the University of Bonn, Germany) sought to explain ’secondary anti-semitism’ as resulting from reminders of Jews’ ongoing suffering relating to past atrocities (i.e., the Holocaust). The link to this paper is below:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/12/1443.full?sid=39f1f91e-a0c9-4e50-856f-1a900266d757
I’m very interested to know what you make of these articles, especially the second one.
Please let me know if you have any problems accessing the links and I’ll happily send you a copy of the articles by e-mail.
all the best,
Pete Koval
Support this comment
0
Pete, the links work, and they are fabulous! Thanks so much for that.
Michael Brull needs to take a chill pill.
I do not and have not compared his opposition to settlements to Nazism. He has repeated this denigration of my character on numerous occasions and in numerous fora.
This fallacy comes from a throwaway line I wrote some time ago – a throwaway line I have subsequently come to regret writing, due to the mileage it has given Brull in his ongoing – as yet futile – quest to gain infamy as the next Loewenstein.
For the record, I wrote (in http://blogs.crikey.com.au/crikey/2009/04/23/israelpalestine-cage-match/#comment-215) a response to a long series of accusations Brull made against me:
“Brull writes: “He also seems to think over 450 000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a military occupation has no relation to the non-existence of a Palestinian state.”
“Darn tootin’! There was no Palestinian state when Israel arrived in the West Bank in 1967! Israel has offered Palestinians a state on numerous occasions since then. The final status agreement, when it is signed, will deal with issues such as troop redeployment and the settlers. The settlers and the soldiers are not the reason there is no Palestinian state. Don’t worry, Michael Brull, the new Palestinian state will be Judenrein enough for you.”
For the record, I do not believe Michael Brull is a Nazi, supports Nazi tactics et cetera ad nauseum. Nor do I believe his opposition to any and all Israeli foreign and domestic policies is akin to or reminiscent of Nazi wants, desires or tactics.
I simply noted and note that Brull wants the West Bank free (rein) of Jews (Juden).
Support this comment
0
Bren Carlil’s “reply” to Michael Brull exactly makes the point about smearing. For carlil’s information Amira Hass and Uri Davies are Jewish and are live in the occupied Palestine.
The Judenrein smear is the nazi tactic refered to. Even the PLO charter in the past called for a secular state.
If Carlil’s fear is Juderein, he should support a single secular state where all groups have equal rights.
Support this comment
0
An interesting article, Alex, and your passion is very evident … nice to have it back. In some things I think you’re stretching. I certainly applaud the multiple outlets for views represented by the Blogoshphere … yet am a bit bemused by terms like “shut down debate” and “intolerance for dissent”, when, on opening any edition of the AJN, the letter pages contain, on average, around 40% letters of “dissent” from the AJDS, an organization commanding perhaps 2% of the Jewish population. With such over-representation of views, how can anybody truly use those terms? If you are focussing on the letters critical of their views and arguing against them, then surely that is the nature of healthy debate, and “dissent” in its own right. I really am not sure where you’re going with this. I certainly have no idea who your “mass emailer” is, but you seem to give him an inordinate amount of power, and bring the reasoning faculties of the community, and the ability to make sound judgements, down to nil.
As to Naomi Hazan, I remember reading an AJN piece by the organiser of her tour, who made it clear that he and Naomi had decided to cancel the tour. Perhaps that’s what you mean by AJN misrepresentation, and perhaps it happened in the wake of the AZC removing its sponsorship … surely they were free to do that. I’m not entirely sure this is an Israeli-right-or-wrong issue, or anything to do with Israel at all. It seems to be a very local flurry.
With your “the evidence” I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m am appalled and shocked at the intolerance displayed by a handful of settlers, and I want them locked up. Some are, but I often wonder if enough effort is being made to bring these intolerant, violent, unJewish (don’t care about their payes) hoons to justice.
The Palestinians are indeed suffering, and that is heartbreaking. You are also right that not every single action by Israel is warranted, and the fact that Israeli courts have stepped in to change those that aren’t, including the route of the separation fence, is a clear indicator that this is so. At least there are checks and balances in place to right these inequities.
This conflict has been going on for a century. The major difference I find in discussions with members of the AJDS (and yes, I am no fan of their position) is one of narrative. Whilst for me, the history of the conflict begins after WW1, for them it begins in 1948. If you consider an analogy of two children fighting over a ball, their approach is to believe the smaller child when he claims the bigger one stole his ball, mine is to go back to the receipt of when the ball was purchased, and by whom.
In my mind there is no doubt that this conflict is driven by people seeking to destroy Israel, and if they stopped tomorrow, the conflict would end. The two sides, and the two narratives, cease to be equivalent when you take the trouble to investigate. But our society is suffering from an almost terminal case of “confirmation bias” in all issues, and it is this which makes your article so relelvant and important. The truth is that it matters very little what I may say or prove on the subject, the same ideas will remain entrenched in the same people, undoubtedly on both sides of the divide … as you say.
In any democracy, it’s a very serious problem when emotion trumps rational thought.
Support this comment
0
Thanks Morry.
We don’t agree on everything, but you are so obviously a person of good faith and it’s always a pleasure to read your comments.
”What is certain, however, is that the letter-to-the-editor writer/mass emailer sent out an email that, while privately derided by “leaders”, may have contributed to a climate that ended up libelling people and organisations and shut down debate” M/s Fein.
============================================================
Some one sent me a link to comments [ above] you have made on your blog site about my opposition and emails relating to the visit of left wing activist Naomi Chazan. I am flattered you read my letters to the Ed, which are mainly in response to the daily anti- Zionist propaganda that appear in our media. It appears by your condescending remarks that you think only the left & opponents of Israel should write letters and unopposed. I would like to respond to some of your remarks, this will be my only response if I had to respond to all the Israel /Jewish community bashing bloggers I would have no time for my others pleasures in life.
Firstly I do agree with your above point there would be leaders of Jewish organizations and groups that may have derided my emails exposing Chazan and the NIF as supporting the Palestinian /Arab campaign to demonize Israel and her fellow Israeli Jews. The leaders of say AJDS, IAJV, UIA Progressive Trust, TBI, Shira Synagogue , Academics at ACJC/ Monash would all have derided my emails however why you say ‘privately’ that puzzles me?
It is obvious the leaders of the mainstream Jewish community those leaders which count for the majority of Australian Jews not the small fringe agreed with my views and that’s why after reading all the material and hearing complaints from the majority of Jews they ended up canceling their sponsorship of Chazans visit. I wonder how many Anti -Palestinian activists have been invited by lobby group Australians For Palestine as guest speakers m/s Fein? Any way Some how I doubt the fringe Jews the ones that make all the noise would contribute to any Zionist causes so If they want to hear Chazan, Harper, Chomsky, Finkelstein who ever why don’t they pay for their airfares and not try to bludge on other Jews who are just not interested in listening to peddlers of hate and prejudice.
It puzzles me why Jews that advocate for Israel are demonized by the left yet there are so many Palestinian Lobby groups, support groups, Left wing anti Zionist activists far too many to list that do exactly what Israel advocates do but they root for the Palestinians ‘’ no matter what”
Have we ever read a letter , Op- ed by Sonja Karkar, Moamar Mashni, Michael Shaik, Maher Muhgrabi, Loewenstein, Brull etc unreservedly criticize the Palestinians or Arabs of course not they stand up for the Palestinians right or wrong, that’s what advocate’s do.
Yet the left believe they have the moral authority and only they can have a opinion and their opinion is what counts, God forbid if any one like this letter writer dares to express his views.
Ha s any one ever wondered why there isn’t any Palestinian ‘Loewensteins’ or Palestinian ‘AJDS’ imagine a Palestinian claiming he has been fighting for Israeli rights for 35 years { Sol Salbe’s claim to fame he has been fighting for Palestinian rights for 35 years according to the Web sites ] .
Are there any Palestinian peace groups like Peace Now, Gish Shalom etc unlikely , if there are no body has ever heard of them and they are certainly not quoted on a daily basis in the media. There are certainly no local Palestinian/Arab/ Muslim blog sites set up specially to criticize the local Palestinian/ Arab/ Muslim leadership and its community.
There are Israeli lobby groups and there are very hard working Palestinian Lobby groups who write letters to the editors, letters to our Politicians on a daily basis, they hold demonstrations like the Israel Apartheid Forum with the help of many Jews, so why is it the left don’t have a problem with their Lobbying and only object to Israeli lobbying?
The Palestinians in Australia have it pretty good they have the Socialists, media, Trade Unions and Academia many of them Jews on side working hand in hand for their cause, it’s a bit rough calling the Palestinians the underdogs.
Support this comment
0
Michael, I am not sure whether the bulk of your comment is a form letter because it appears to bear little relation to anything actually argued in the post.
Regarding your defininition of “fringe” versus “mainstream” – you claim a good number of organisations and individuals, including an entire academic department at one of Australia’s top universities, “derides” your views. By what measurable criteria do you decide that such derision is fringe and your views are mainstream?
I would also like to inform you, if you are not already aware, that the criticism of your emails goes far beyond the organisations you mentioned and includes those that you would most certainly consider “mainstream.” While such critques have not appeared in any public outlet, they are well known within the community.
A final note, Michael: you are fearless in your mass emails in denouncing un-Jewish activities – urging the ostracism, firing, disinvitation, or other exclusion of people with whom you disagree. On this site, however, you only use your first name. I am quite surprised you do not have the courage of your convictions to append your full name. I therefore offer to assist you in revealing your identity: the next time you comment here, write your full name, or I will do it for you.
Daniel: you’ve missed the obvious point. SJ lectures on intolerance of dissent in anti-Zionist ranks. I quite obviously dissent on various issues: what intolerance have I been subjected to? Disagreements with the Tel Aviv lobby, on the other hand, have been treated very differently. The most obvious case in point is that Mr Carlill – a Christian writer for AIJAC – continues his juvenile ad hominem attacks on me, and writes in angry bewilderment that I would be offended at his attributing to me Nazi ideological goals – achieving a Judenrein West Bank. And it is also telling that these same organisations that are so mortally offended at comparisons of the Israeli government and soldiers to Nazis do not consider anything worth noting in Carlill attributing to me a desire for a “judenrein” West Bank. (Mr Carlill of course does not consider it at all inappropriate to write such an outrageous and offensive thing about me – even now he only regrets that it may have been counterproductive for attacking me or whatever his goals were).
You go on to say what would happen if I attended an AFP meeting. I wouldn’t know – I’ve never been, and don’t live in Melbourne. It is however striking that whilst I’ve heard of AFP organising various debates, AUJS has consistently rejected requests for debates.
Support this comment
0
Michael Brull is correct. The problem for AFP et al is getting Zionists to agree to a debate. There was the possibility of a debate at a multi-faith conference in Melbourne. Dvir Abramotitch who spoke on the Palestine issue chose to leave the meeting, after Michael Shaik of AFP spoke, rather than answer questions and reply to Shaik.
To my knowledge AUJS has rejected invitations to open debates by Palestinian supproters.
Support this comment
0
Michael, just to satisfy my curiosity and round out my understanding of this debate, offensive language aside, do you not actually advocate the removal of Jewish settlers from the West Bank?
Support this comment
0
Daniel Levy I have been at a few AFP meetings and even debates with ZIonists. AFP has never endorsed Hamas nor did it oppose criticism of Hamas or Fatah or any other group. Please take the trouble of reading their publications or going to their meetings. Michael Shaik of AFP had debated Zionists several times and answered questions – no where did he smear supporters of Israel’s policies as you smear AFP.
AFP merely endorses a two state solution that allows the establishment of a Palestinian state accepted by Palestinians which is sovreign – I.E. with control over its borders, air space, communications, economy and foreign policy.
Support this comment
0
Daniels Levy’s exception – please refer to the transcripst of the debates between Palestinian supporters and Zionists ( very few because the Zionists refuse to debate) or speches by Palestinians supporters such as Michael Shaik, Tanya Reinhart, Uri Aveneri, Jeff Halper, Noam Chomsky, Anthony Lowenstien, Norman Finkelstien et al and writings, speches by Melanie Philips, Bren Carllill, Efraim Karsh, Ted Lapkin, et al see who is smearing whom.
Support this comment
0
Ben Carlil is at it again – stating a falsehood that Israel had offered a Palestinian state several times. The closest was Barak’s offer of a “state” where Abu Dis would be re-named “East Jerusalem” and given to the Palestinians to from a state where Israel controlled large swathes of territory and the borders and air space. With some modifications, Netanyahu is offering the same and at the same time has announced 1600 new settlements in East Jerusalem while US vice President Joseph Biden is still visiting him.
Presumably stating facts on the ground is not “extremism”.
Support this comment
0
Let’s ignore the Israeli account for the sake of argument. Clinton and the other American participants all concurred that the Palestinians would have between 95% and 97% of the territory of the West Bank and Gaza in the Barak deal, after appropriate, agreed land swaps.
Mohan, that leaves 3% of small. With even the wildest stretch, this would make “where Israel controlled large swathes of territory” a laughable, gross exaggeration.
But you’re right, the borders and the airspace would be controlled by Israel. Why in the world, after what happened with Gaza, would you think for a second that Israel would, or should trust the Palestinians to fly airpalnes, or with all the missiles being currently smuggled in, to freely cross borders. Do you really see Israelis as such foolish stupid people? Let them earn that trust, as all of us must on this world, and things will ease very quickly. How different would things have been had the Palestinian leadership set up the national entity the world expected in Gaza, rather than the despicable military base, complete with civilian hostages, that it is today? Then they were trusted. Then they were given every opportunity. Then they decided this was the day they could destroy Israel.
If you don’t understand what I’m saying, look to the Egyptians and Jordanians who have earned Israel’s trust, despite once being bitter enemies.
Support this comment
0
Mohan and Brull, you are lying, at least about the Monash chapter.
I was hoping you’d begin to laud the AFP in your blind ignorance of their dogma so I could tell you my little gem of a story
Last year, a few months after the Gaza war, I saw some AFP’ers campaigning at Monash. I was approached by one of them, and began to have a conversation. He was actually quite a reasonable fellow, and we began to talk about how Hamas was doing more damage to its citizens than Israel ever has. It was a sore point for him, I believe. I think his family got the wrong end of the stick with that terrorist group.
As we were talking about a two-state solution, one of his superiors swept on him and told him to stop talking because it was “embarrassing”, and said that he should talk to me because he could “argue the case better”. He told me I was a zionist wanker who didn’t care about palestinian lives
I have never been more disgusted in my life. That poor guy, victim to such intense bullying. I’ve seen the ugliness of what happens to dissenters in your ranks who *dont’* have a supporter base, as you do, Brull.
The little guy who isn’t well known, who, if they publish dissenting views will be shouted down because they don’t have the strength in numbers to stand on.
So as I said, you’ve provided some isolated examples of your own dealings. Give me an example of somebody who isn’t well known, who doesn’t have any political currency within your movement whatsoever who would DARE to publish dissenting views.
I don’t think you can.
Support this comment
0
Michael Brull, you are correct.
Well, at least on one issue. It was inappropriate of me to use the judenrein comment, both when it was used originally, as well as yesterday.
Attempts at genocide have happened, and probably will happen again. The Holocaust stands out in my and many people’s memories as the very worst example of genocide, because it was organised ‘top-down’ by a competent and supposedly civilised country, using all the industrial technology available to it.
I have realised that by associating the term ‘judenrein’ with your views on the Arab-Israel conflict, regardless of my intent, the outcome is that some may perceive I am linking your views to Nazi ideas.
As such, allow me to apologise unreservedly for using the term. I will never use the term again outside of its correct historical context.
I make three final points. First, as much as this is a mea culpa, I continue to believe your views on the Arab-Israel conflict are blemished by wilful ignorance, and will not hesitate to criticise them in the future, when and where appropriate.
Second, various anti-Israel critics take great delight in comparing Israeli actions to Nazi actions, despite this being highly inaccurate and highly insulting. That I used the term judenrein inappropriately may, as you pointed out, weaken the arguments of Israel’s supporters that comparing Israel with World War II-era Germany is outrageous. This I also regret.
Third, your concocted moral outrage when asserting that I have played the man, not the ball, rings hollow given that you have called me ‘vulgar’ and ‘racist,’ among other ad hominem attacks.
Support this comment
0
Sorry Mr Carlill comparisions with nazi germany are apropiriate if backed up with detail and evidence. If Israel finds it offensive that need not stop one from speaking facts. Interestingly AIJAC does not allow similar debates in its pages.
Support this comment
0
Daniel Levy . Sorry to puncture your hasbara. There is no Monash chapter of AFP. So where is their dogma ? Please quote from their website or publications and we will be enlightened.
Support this comment
0
Are not Students For Palestine the student offshoot of AFP?
The http://www.australiansforpalestine.com website lists “SFP Melbourne” under its “Australian Groups” list of links. That would indicate affiliation.
Next, actually going to the SFP website shows a Monash chapter. Once more, Mohan, you have been rather disingenuous.
Support this comment
0
Sorry Daniel Levy you are pulling a very long bow. SEnsible Jew has mentioned many web sites and individuals in her column – obviously that does not indicate affiliation. Please read the organisational structure of AFP before you comment. To the best of my knowledge students for Palsetine is a rather crude adventurist grouping floated by some quite sectarian student sgrouping in Melbourne.
Support this comment
0
The web site of AFP clearly mentions it as groups and links in Australia.
Support this comment
0
I am laughing at this pissing contest that proves SJ’s point – the more unbending and dogmatic a poster is towards “their” view the more foolish you look. And the more harm you do to “your” Cause.
Support this comment
0
I’m a little surprised that a day after saying I should “take a chill pill”, Mr Carlill has decided he was wrong and has apologised for comparing me to the Nazis.
I’m a little pleased that it seems he won’t compare me to the Nazis anymore.
I am a little underwhelmed by Mr Carlill’s sincerity. If he believes my “moral outrage” is “concocted”, I’m not sure exactly why he is apologising. Nor am I clear on precisely who he has directed his apology towards. I wrote almost a year ago that he didn’t seem to “realise that Jews with family exterminated in the Holocaust in particular don’t enjoy comparisons to the Nazis.”
In fact, he even has the audacity to apologise for comparing me to the Nazis – whilst in the same breath, complaining that I called him vulgar!
It’s also interesting to note that whilst Mr Carlill now believes he was at least slightly in the wrong, Sensible Jew (and AIJAC and others) apparently did not.
Support this comment
0
[...] AIJAC apologises to me Bren Carlill apologised to me. It seems strikingly insincere to me – he wants to “apologise unreservedly”, before going on to explain that I was only pretending to be offended anyway. His comments are on the Sensible Jew blog. [...]
Support this comment
0
It’s comical that in a column on people disregarding evidence, Ms Fein disregarded all of my comments. It is also comical that Ms Fein considers it important to attack someone for proposing Nazi comparisons, yet did not consider a similar response appropriate when Carlill compared me to Nazis. Even Carlill now thinks it was wrong – Ms Fein apparently never did.
Support this comment
0
Michael, perhaps you do not read the comments (or indeed the posts themselves).
I have made it clear that it is impossible to respond to every comment. I therefore only reposnd to comments when I feel there is an overriding neccessity.
I notice that you’re quibbling over whether or not SFP is an offshoot of AFP.
I guess it’s a nice distraction for you to argue a rather irrelevant and moot point and avoid the crux of the issue. Clearly AFP at least endorses SFP if they link to them as one of the first links on the page (they have a dedicated spot right up the top). Therefore, the group is clearly a part of the “pro-palestine movement” along with AFP. And after all, this blog post is targeting all groups in both dogmatic sectors of the debate. So why are we only talking about one group in the movement?
You still haven’t answered my calls to provide the publication of a person with little political weight who has dared to speak out and not get shouted down. I’m sure you were meaning to get to it
Support this comment
0
Mr Levy – your comments seem to be directed at me. Yet this can only be based on what seems to be on an almost fanatical indifference to what I’ve actually said.
So firstly, you say an exception does not a rule make. Okay, but I never proposed a rule. Ms Fein did: she said anti-Zionism is marked by groupthink and rigid ideological orthodoxy. It should be perfectly obvious this isn’t true, except Ms Fein is more interested in calling people she disagrees with names rather than actually examining what they have to say.
You disagreed not with this position: you simply claimed that AFP is intolerant. Maybe, maybe not: as I’ve said, *I don’t live in Melbourne*!! I’ve never been to an AFP meeting of any sort. I didn’t claim anti-Zionists are all angels and so on and so forth. The only relevant question is if it’s all so dogmatic, then why haven’t I been subject to public criticisms? The ranks of those who support BDS include Curthoys and Docker, Jake Lynch, Loewenstein, AFP, CJPP, and I think JAO may have just adopted this position. I don’t know if CJPP is explicitly anti-Zionist – ditto Lynch and JAO. If they insist on orthodoxy, why am I not subject to any attacks for unorthodoxy? You say I have some base of support, and so this doesn’t count. Even if I do have some sort of fanbase (a dubious proposition), aren’t you simply conceding diversity among anti-Zionists? That some adopt one position, and some adopt another one? If so, you’re simply conceding what Ms Fein stridently denied.
I won’t reply again. I’ll just note that you’ve said I was “lying” about the Monash chapter. I’ve obviously said nothing about this subject at all. That really is revealing enough.
Support this comment
0
Sorry daniel Levy
I am not familiar with the members of the SFP and hence cannot trace the individual whom you accuse of abusing you. And I dont nor does AFP claim “neutrality”, they oppose Zionism and colonisation. They claim honesty and objectivty in their methods – what they say report be cross-checked against sources and reality on the ground.
As for other comments about gas chamber and the like, I might be pointed out that the Nazis tried several methods of victimisation and persecution – including discriminatory laws, confining to ghettos, destruction of homes and properties, attacks on individuals, curfews, etc before trying concentration camps and death chambers.
Some aspects of these are similar. Netanyahu or his successors need not try gas chambers – after all Rajapakshe in Sri Lanka is carrying out a genocide without them. Darfur, Chechenya, Kosovo do not have them.
What is important is the action carried out with the aim at total or partial death of a national group. Individual might survive and be displaced but the nation dies out in part or completely.
No two events in history are identical, they could be similar.
Support this comment
0
Morry
I am not a member of either organisations – if you provide details I might be able to pass it on to the and demand an explanation.
It might be helpful if we do not indulge in personal scores and discuss issues.
Support this comment
0
Morry seems to forget that sovereignty cannot be at Israel’s pleasure. And The Camp david talks were inconclusive becuase barak would not make any written committment – sorry Clinton and the Americans were merely the go betweens. And incidentally, Netanyahu attacked barak from the right and Barak’s government ended.
And one would see that occupation and colonisation are the engines of violence and once there is an independent Palestinian state the cause of conflict would be largely removed. Even if Israel feares violence, it is the fourth largest military power in the world, has a monopoly of WMDs in the region and has the backing of American arms, cash and UN vetos. A fledgling Palestine would be no match for this combination of military, economic and political power.
Support this comment
0
Moderator’s note: Mohan, you have been warned a number of times to consolidate your thoughts as much as possible rather than to post multiple missives unnecessarily. Your current behaviour is akin to spamming and one of your comments has already been deleted for this reason.
Alex
Sorry Morry
The UN definition does not stipulate sucess or any one method. Populations grow in backwards societies because people have large families because of the risk of surival. And Genocide does not mean just depletion of numbers but the death of a certain nation or group – they may surivive and grow as refugees and displaced people but their society and the material basis of it – cities, towns, villages, farms, ports, trade etc are lost.
You have to only read Moshe Dayan’s speech to the students of Technion to see the exent of the displacement and destruction.
Support this comment
0
Hello Morry
As you can see this is not a dbate about Palestinians’ “arguable standard of living”. It is about the fact that they ae being colonised and dispalced by Israeli settlements and imprisoned into small pockets of land.
As for one’s personal experience, presumably one has to disregard the voluminous reports by Israel Shahak, Uri Avneri, Jeff Halper, Tanya Reinhart, Uri Davis, Israeli human rights lawyers fighting against administrative detentions, torture and demolitions.
Support this comment
0
[...] here Carlill defends his comparison almost a year later, before apologising the next day. (he still held [...]
Support this comment
0
My understanding is that genocide involves depleting a population, specifically by killing them. Rhawanda, the Armenians and of course the Holocaust seem to be appropriate examples.
Your understanding of what the crime of genocide involves or might involve, Morry, is therefore erroneous. You need to read Article 2 of the UN convention on genocide.
Support this comment
0
OK.
Please back up with evidence:
Israeli gas chambers or equivalent
Large scale Israeli methods (ie crematoria) for disposing of millions of bodies
Detailed Israeli blueprint explicitly planning for the extermination of the entire Paletinian population
Israeli Concentration camps (metaphors are not sufficient – actual concentration camps)
These are only four criteria – there are many more. But I have a feeling you’ll get stuck at the first one.
You are proving the point of my posts for me, by the way, as the very wise, non-Jewish and Zionism-neutral commenter, Sisu, has stated previously.
To Alex Fein
As you can see, you are only looking at absolute identities in methods not policies and aims. The barrier, the blockade of Gaza and continued deaths because of lack of resources, the expansion of settlements in the West bank and Jordan Valley, the use of army and armed forces to suppress protests against displacement, the armed settlers attacking civilians and destroying crops, the impossibility of free movement, the use of administrative detention, torture, maiming, armed raids and war against civilians – from Sharon’s Unit 101 to the bombing of an enclosed Gaza.
And decades of talks about a non-existant solution while announcing new settlements – call it what you will but one description is genocide if you accept the UN definition.
Support this comment
0
If Israel’s policy is genocide, then Israel must have the most inept army in the world, with the Palestinian population growing in leaps and bounds. My understanding is that genocide involves depleting a population, specifically by killing them. Rhawanda, the Armenians and of course the Holocaust seem to be appropriate examples. Israel has certainly failed miserably on that score.
I have no idea about Mohan’s background only the ideology worn on the sleeve, but as somebody who lived in Israel and spent many years travelling the West Bank and Gaza in the good times when, thanks to Israel, Palestinians had, arguably, the best standard of living in the Arab world, I can state unequivocally that most of Mohan’s list came, ironically after Oslo, in the form of defence measures against terrorist attacks. Those attacks began when Oslo allowed groups such as the PLO, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP etc to enter both the West Bank and Gaza and to begin attacking Israel.
Where I do agree with Mohan is that attacks on Palestinians by a handful of settlers is totally unacceptable …. I’m sure I’ve said it before. I’m also sure that I’ve pointed out that it is also illegal by Israeli law, that perpetrators are caught and prosecuted, but, in my own frame of reference (I have no evidence) I would like it to be more of a priority, and suspect that some individuals are dragging their feet in some of these investigations. As inappropriate as that may be, it hardly qualifies as “a crime against humanity” much less “genocide”.
The temptation would be to say that the Palestinians brought it upon themselves, but that would be largely untrue. In reality, Arabs, many of them Palestinian, all committed to destroying Israel to the point where they just don’t care what happens to the Palestinians, with many hoping to see civilians die because it furthers their aim … they are the ones who have wrought this on the Palestinians. I can say this with authority because I have seen the changes firsthand.
Support this comment
0