Debate vs Hate?

[Richard]

Applies to a number of on-going issues.

Richard

Holocaust Remembrance Day
Kathy Young, RealClearPolitics, 30 Jan 2010

Wednesday's Holocaust Remembrance Day, which this year commemorates the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, was marked by customary calls to combat anti-Semitism worldwide. Yet resisting bigotry is not as clear-cut an issue as it might seem at first glance, at a time when the very definition of anti-Semitism is shifting and constantly questioned. Where some see the cancer of Jew-hatred, others see the charge of anti-Semitism being used to stifle discussion of issues particularly in relation to Israel and the conflict in the Middle East.

Anti-Semitism is probably the world's oldest still-extant form of group hate. But where does legitimate opinion end and bigotry begin? Earlier this week, Israeli Information Minister Yuli Edelstein told the media that the recent United Nations report harshly critical of Israel's military operations in Gaza in December 2008-January 2009 was a type of anti-Semitism despite the fact that its author, South African judge Richard Goldstone, is Jewish. Plenty of commentators have criticized the Goldstone report as tendentious, particularly in downplaying the Hamas fighters practice of hiding among civilians. But if the anti-Israel bias is real, is it based on anti-Semitism or on a left-leaning prejudice that favors Third World people over Western democracies and their allies? The latter seems more likely.

Yet, if it too simplistic and unfair automatically to equate critiques of Israeli policies with anti-Jewish prejudice, the truth remains that critiques of Israel often serve as a convenient smokescreen and vehicle for genuine bigotry. Attacks on the Israel Lobby have a tendency to descend into nasty insinuations about Jewish control of major American institutions and American Jews as disloyal citizens who always put Israel first.

A striking demonstration of this occurred earlier this month. Policy analyst Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIAs Bin Laden unit, has portrayed himself as a victim of the Israel Lobby. Scheuer charges that he was fired by the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington, DC think tank, over a caustic remark about Barack Obama doing the Tel Aviv two-step pandering to Israel backers during the 2008 campaign. Scheuer is also a vocal proponent of the view that the United States should end its support for Israel in order to improve relations with the Muslim world.

On January 4, Scheuer appeared on a C-SPAN program where a caller from Franklin, New York declared that he was sick and tired of all these Jews coming on C-SPAN and other stations and pushing us to go to war against our Muslim friends and went on to say, "They have way too much power in this country. People like Wolfowitz and Feith and the other neo-cons they jewed us into Iraq." In response, Scheuer not only failed to condemn this blatant bigotry but seemed to agree with the caller, saying that whether we want to be involved in fighting Israel's wars in the future is something that Americans should be able to talk about.

Elsewhere in the world, Polish Catholic bishop Tadeusz Pieronek marked Holocaust Remembrance Day with a statement to a Catholic website accusing Jews of using the Holocaust as a weapon of propaganda to obtain unjust advantages such as American support for Israel and to treat Palestinians like animals. And hostility to Israel in the Arab and Muslim world often manifests itself in updated versions of ancient, vicious libels against Jews. Thus, the medieval blood libel claiming that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood for ritual purposes finds new life in a story peddled by government-run Iranian television station charging that Israeli doctors helping earthquake survivors in Haiti are really there to harvest human organs for sale.

There are, of course, spurious charges of anti-Semitism made for political advantage. Recently, conservative radio talk show king Rush Limbaugh accused Obama of appealing to anti-Semitic prejudice by going after Wall Street and the banks, since many people equate banker with Jew. Ironically, the Anti-Defamation League, which tends to focus on enemies on the right, then accused Limbaugh of anti-Semitism for these comments, compounding one groundless claim of bigotry with another equally groundless one.

Yet real anti-Jewish bigotry not only exists but seems to be on the rise. Traditional right-wing anti-Semitism, based on religious and cultural prejudice and on the perception of Jews as rootless and subversive, coexists and often overlaps with a new left-wing anti-Semitism that sees Jews as proxies for Israel, and Israel as a carrier of Western imperialism in the Middle East.

Combating these trends from the bully pulpit is important. Yet President Obamas recently appointed special envoy and head of the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, has been largely quiet, reserving her most outspoken criticism so far for the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, whom she blasted in December 2009 for his harsh remarks about pro-peace Jewish groups.

Fear of being labeled anti-Semitic should not stifle debate about Israeli policies or U.S. policy in the Middle East. But no debate should ever be allowed to become a cover or an excuse for hate and, in this particular debate, theres plenty of hate to go around.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ay_100101.html

[T-Rock]

Applies to a number of on-going issues.

It does and I think the following is an example of pure unadulterated anti-Semitic hate:

http://www.youtube.com/user/PalestinianWatch

Wonder where his bigoted philosophy originates from


Edited due to google censorship - below was the link to the original video
http://www.youtube.com/index?ytsessi...uMd3lcm651sq_8

[Richard]

IMO - a man full of either faith or hate is someone who has lost the capacity for clear and realistic thought.

Richard's $.02

[T-Rock]

IMO - a man full of either faith or hate is someone who has lost the capacity for clear and realistic thought.

So if only athiests ruled the world, then the world would be capable of clear, rational, realistic thought - Oh, I see

[Richard]

I didn't say that - although it is a concept upon which you and Ernest Hemingway seem to find agreement - however - it seems reasonable to me that such a view is not possible as experience has led me to believe the last god will only expire with the last man.

Richard's jaded $.02

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

So if only athiests ruled the world, then the world would be capable of clear, rational, realistic thought - Oh, I see

Perhaps you missed the word "full", as in no room for anything else.

[akv]

If you as George Friedman believe there are no friends in geopolitics only shared interest. Israel though an ally, isn't as important to the US now, as during the Cold War. Also, since the last Arab Israeli war in 1973, they have become more self reliant in terms of defense, and we have cultivated relations with allied Muslim countries.

I wonder if this makes pro-Israeli groups more touchy about perceived bias?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

When Ronald Reagan got shot but didn't die, he viewed it that God had saved him specifically to defeat the Soviet Union and end the Cold War, and he did.

MOO, it is too soon to say that (a) President Reagan or the United States defeated the Soviet Union, or (b) that the Cold War is over.

Questions centering around (a) will not be resolved until researchers gain access to a wider array of archival sources.

In regards to (b), I think we are too soon to discount the influence of the remaining communist countries in Asia and the Americas as well as the enduring sentimentality for communism in Russia and parts of eastern Europe.

YMMV.

[Dad]

I read full of faith as self righteous. There is plenty of that running around and I think it can destroy democracies.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Comments regarding the Reagan administration and the erosion of Soviet power.

Broadsword2004--

IMO, the history of the U.S. Soviet rivalry is much more complicated than your post suggests. While I agree that America's re-armament during the Reagan administration was necessary and proper, that re-armament was not solely due to President Reagan's vision or leadership.

In regards to Solidarity, was it President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Lech Wałęsa or, maybe, the Polish people themselves that gave Solidarity international legitimacy? (A point a senior historian of Poland made to a room full of graduate students long ago: Consider the possibility that central Europe--and not western Europe--is the pivot of European history.)

It is entirely possible that re-armament and the other measures you mention delayed the collapse of the USSR and/or set the stage for Russia's current political climate. For example, hard liners may have used AirLand Battle as "proof" that NATO was going to start a war and used that "proof" to discredit moderates who wanted to explore more options for diplomacy and internal political reform. Until researchers get their hands on documents that will remain unavailable for decades (if not forever), we will not know for certain.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

(A point a senior historian of Poland made to a room full of graduate students long ago: Consider the possibility that central Europe--and not western Europe--is the pivot of European history.)

Historically, for centuries the strategy and actions of European statesmen would have agreed wholeheartedly with this Polish gentleman. Also, recall Mackinder's Heartland Theory, often considered the basis of modern geopolitics,

Who rules Eastern Europe rules the Heartland

Who rules the Heartland rules the World-Island ( Eurasia)

Who rules the World-Island rules the world

Unfortunately for the Poles, both the Nazi's and Soviets bought in to this theory lock stock and barrel. I believe Reagan was a great president, and did influence the demise of the USSR, but if one considers the human tragedy of events experienced by the Russians the past century, and their political and economic infrastructure it's amazing the USSR lasted as long as it did.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Also the Star Wars program, the concept of which scared the daylights out of the Soviets

IIRC, neither President Reagan nor any members of his administration nor advocates of the Strategic Defense Initiative ever called SDI "star wars." That sobriquet was used by Reagan's critics.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

True, although I would still think Reagan's supporting it was an aide.

You say "true" when I've suggested numerous different interpretations.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Comments about hardliners versus moderates in the USSR.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "hardliner" or that they'd been in control for "decades." Do you mean in an ideological sense, in regards to Soviet domestic policies, or in regards to international relations?

FWIW, based upon my reading of the declassified documents available at the National Archives and Records Administration facility know as "NARA II" (specifically, RG263 Records of the Central Intelligence Agency, National Intelligence Estimates Involving the Soviet Union, Second Set), discussions within the USSR over U.S.-Soviet relations sounded as if there were moderate views calling for both indirect competition and beneficial cooperation--that is, a continuation of detente--rather than direct confrontation well into the 1970s.

Originally Posted by akv

Also, recall Mackinder's Heartland Theory, often considered the basis of modern geopolitics.

AKV--

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. While George F. Kennan, Thomas Spykman, and Walter Lippman probably would have agreed with the importance of Mackinder, and John Lewis Gaddis might argue for the continuing relevance of Mackinder and Spykman, I would point to the Peace of Westphalia (1648) as the basis of modern geopolitics.

This disagreement aside, it goes without saying that Mackinder et al were all wrong. It is all about sea power.

To return to Ms. Young's editorial, I think she may be overstating slightly the recent resurgence of anti-Jewish sentiment in political and strategic discourse. IMO, insinuations about "New York intellectuals" remain unabated from some elements of the political right and I remember claims from some elements of the left that Israel is responsible for the "Palestinian question" during the mid 1980s.

I find Ms. Young's observation highly problematic.

But no debate should ever be allowed to become a cover or an excuse for hate and, in this particular debate, theres plenty of hate to go around.

How does one "not allow" arguments one finds hateful without compromising the concept of free speech?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

This disagreement aside, it goes without saying that Mackinder et al were all wrong. It is all about sea power.

I knew you would find a way to drag Mahan into this.

TR

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

My mistake, I thought it was just a nickname for the program; my point though was that the SDI struck a lot of fear into the Soviets.

Was it just SDI that inspired the concern or were the Soviets mindful of SDI within the strategic concept of "escalation dominance"?

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

International relations (although I think "hard" was their domestic policy as well!).

I think your definition of "hard" may merit significant reconsideration. As an example, within context of Soviet-Polish history, which reflects a "hard" policy--the temporary and unsuccessful oppression of the Solidarity movement in the early 1980s or those bleak days in early 1940?

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Comments about the U.S. Soviet rivalry.

With respect, I think you are making a teleological argument that compresses too many events, actors, and developments in a thumbnail sketch that ends up being a portrait of Ronald Reagan triumphing over the Soviet Union.

I think that disciplined historical inquiry is the best way to celebrate his legacy.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I think that disciplined historical inquiry is the best way to celebrate his legacy.

Nah. This is America. We prefer legends to fact.