Jeremiah Haber http://www.jta.org/user/profile/68589 en-us zsilberman@washingtonjewishweek.com Copyright 2012 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, I already had checked the postings and saw that Shabbat observance was a pretty lame excuse...if she presented herself to her editor as strictly observant. On the other hand, who am I to say that if a Jew partially observes shabbat, or spottily so, that shouldn't be a good reason. So she "cheats". Big deal. The question was whether she had a good reason not to post (like maybe she went away from her computer for whatever reason. I bless Hashem for allowing me 25 hours away from the web and my trivial, insignificant, and time-wasting blog. And I can only hope that Rubin becomes even more observant 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, I am sympathetic to your basic point. And I posted something similar today. But your statement: In Norway or in Istanbul, extremists are going to seek out their hated targets whatever the state of multiculturalism or the actions of Israel. is simply not accurate. There is considerable correlation, for example, between the frequency of anti-Semitic acts in Europe and Israel's actions; this has been shown time and time again, and is not disputed by scholars of anti-Semitism, or even the ADL. That doesn't mean that the perpetrator is not responsible for his actions, or is determined to do what he does. But in explaining what brings someone to commit violent acts against civilians, context is clearly relevant, and we neglect it at our peril. For then we simply attribute to the perpetrators some baseless, irrational hatred (which we call anti-Semitism) and neglect to deal with the broader context. Israel's Occupation, and the unresolved plight of the Palestinians, provides fertile ground for anti-Semitic actions outside of Israel. That may be the price Zionists are willing to pay for a Jewish state. But it is undeniable. The context of Breivik's actions is not the state of multiculturalism in Norway, but the state of rightwing, ultra nationalist xenophobic ideology. And, frankly, there is considerable difference between the state in which, say, the Gazans find themselves, and the state in which Christian Norwegians find themselves. Condemn all actions against civilians -- so do I -- but admit distinctions in circumstances -- not in order to justify, but to help tackle at the larger issues. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Hamas-Fatah Unity -- The Illiberal Case Against James Kirchik advocates disregarding the results of a fairly-conducted election, jailing elected officials of a party recognized as legitimate by the world community during those elections , splitting a people in two, and imposing sanctions and siege on a million and a half people. for the reasons that the party that was elected a) does not recognize the State of Israel; b) takes illiberal social positions; and c) employs violence to achieve its aims. And he criticizes liberals for excusing these points. True liberals, however, though they despise narrowminded religious fundamentalism, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, realize that in many countries there are religious political parties, and the way to fight against them is not through jailing their leaders or outlawing them, but through insisting upon democratic institutions and their playing by the rules of that democracy. Mr. Kirchick may regret the suffering brought on by Palestinians who, sick of Fatah corruption, voted for a credible, albeit ultra-nationalist and illiberal, alternative. I understand that. Whenever Shas gets posts in the Israeli government, I, an orthodox Jew, weep. But it is not liberal to want to give Palestinians a demilitarized state on a fraction of Palestine. It is also not liberal to demand one side forswear violence when the other side in the negotiation has one of the most powerful armies in the world and uses it frequently. And it is certainly not liberal to bully one side by asymmetric demands that will considerably weaken its already weak bargaining position. Nobody told Ben Gurion that he wouldn't get a state until he recognized the Palestinian's right to a state and forswore violence. Mr. Kirchick doesn't like Hamas? Then why does he advocate US policies that ensure its growth and survival? Why does he allow Israel to elect religious fundamentalists that drag its country to the right, but not the Palestinians? Sorry, Ron, this is not a liberal argument against the unity pact. This is a Zionist argument against ceding control of the Palestinian destiny to the Palestinian people. A true liberal believes in equal fairness to both sides. Kirchick is a Zionist hawk in liberal's clothing. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, you misunderstand Kushner's point -- and you also lapse unthinkingly into Hasbara spin about Israel as a ethnic democracy. It is not. Let me explain. Israel is the only one of the countries you yourself mention -- and many others -- where the state is defined as the state of a particular religious ethnic group, no matter where the members of that group are born -- and of no other group. You don't become eligible for Polish or Irish citizenship through baptism; you do become eligible for Israeli citizenship through circumcision and signing on to a religion. A 100 bucks contribution to JTA for any other country you can find where that is the case. Even Saudi Arabia, which requires you to be a Muslim in order to be a citizen, doesn't guaranteed citizenship to Muslims. The issue is not whether some countries have religious or ethnic traditions associated with it. The issue is also not whether some countries give preference in immigration to ethnic groups, as in Greece or some of the new former Soviet republics. Israel is not like Greece in its immigration policy, despite what the hasbaraniks say. And why not? In Greece, Greek nationals get preference in immigration. In Israel, Jews (defined by the criterion of the Nuremberg laws) are considered returning natives -- whereas the natives of Palestine are considered as aliens with no rights to return to their homeland. No other country in the world is like that, despite the facile analogies you read with Ireland or Poland. And your second point is simply bizarre. If being a Jew were simply a matter of voluntary identification, like being a fan of the 14th amendment, that would be one thing. Then there could be Muslim Jews, and Palestinian Jews, and Christian Jews -- all equal before the Israeli law. But Israel does not recognize voluntary affiliation or identification as sufficient. Let me put it this way: would you make the same point if a country defined itself as representing the white nation? Could a black person who thinks himself white be represented. Kushner's views are radical for Jews who have been conditioned, by faulty analogies with ethnic states, to consider Israel normal. But you know that there are many thinkers in and outside of Israel that consider its version of ethnocracy to be very abnormal. Of course, one common response is -- just as the Jewish people are unique, so is the Jewish state unique -- and so what? But if Kushner wants to explain his views as deriving from his understanding of American democracy (and remember -- many Americans consider it to be a Christian state -- would that Israel be a Jewish state in the same way), then what is wrong with that? Most liberal American Jews I know check their liberal values at the door when it comes to Israel. They are willing to dupe themselves into thinking that Israel is a Jewish America, or like Ireland or Greece. Until they think harder. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Actually, Judge Goldstone did not say that Israel did not commit major war crimes. He still asserts that Israel committed major war crimes. So Uriel, you are out to lunch. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Rabbi Glazer is right. We are indeed a very strange people. We get very upset when Helen Thomas suggests that the Israeli Jews go back to where they came from. Yet many of us have no problem with the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes when Israel refused to let the refugees return, or with expropriation of Arab lands within the Green Line after 1948 for Jewish settlemetn. Even today, some of us contemplate a solution involving a transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel against their will out of Israel for security and demographic reasons. Heck, many of us don't even believe that the Palestinians have a right to a state in their native homeland or a right to a military that defends the state. I look forward to the day when a Fox News commentator who denies that the Palestinians have a right to a state, or suggests that Jordan is Palestine, or advises the Palestinians to leave Israel, is booted out as unceremoniously as was Helen Thomas. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Mike, Your reasoning is fallacious; your premises are false. Premise 1. "The barrier has saved Israeli lives." In fact, there is no evidence that a single Israeli life has been saved by the barrier. Read my post, "On Exploding the Myth that The Israeli "Security Barrier" Saves Lives" http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-exploding-myth-that-israeli-barrier.html But there is abundant evidence that the security barrier has destroyed thousands of Palestinian lives -- and added more land for settlements, which was the real reason for the fence in the first place. 2. "If there had been on intifada," etc., Palestinian land would have still been expropriated for settler roads and settlements. Just look at how much was taken before the intifada. 3. Conclusion: "the Palestinians are responsible for their own olive tree uprooting." By that reasoning, the Israelis are responsible for their being blown up by suicide bombs. And, by the way, since the last suicide bombs, how many Palestinian lives and livelihood been lost? Only one people is being held hostage without self-determination, and basic human rights. Were thousands of Jews blown up by suicide bombers (God forbid), the equation would not be altered. As long as one side has no self-determination, the other side has no right to self-determination. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, I just saw you left a comment on my blog. Thanks for the change. I realize we are still probably in disagreement on one or two things. One reason for my writing so much about the Goldstone report lately is that Goldstone-bashing has become the favorite sport in the Jewish world. For me, Judge Goldstone is a profile in personal courage, and, yes, a Jewish model to emulate. Here is a man with great personal integrity, love of Israel and passionate commitment to human rights, who has become the number one enemy of the Jewish people after Ahmadinejad -- and for what? For criticizing the IDF's conduct of the war in Gaza? Ribono shel olam, he is not even an anti-Zionist (not that there is anything wrong with that!) Even if he is wrong, is there any indication that he acted from malice? Ah, but he will have given ammunition to the anti-Semites, some will say. To which I reply, not a fraction of what the IDF's behavior has given. When asked how would he feel if Israel could successfully refute the accusations, Judge Goldstone has said, repeatedly, that this would make him very happy. Is it too much to expect that some prominent Jewish liberals will stick up for him the way they have stuck up for the New Israel Fund, which supports the groups from which he culled much of his data? Granted, the right will bash them all, fine and dandy. But why should the Goldstone supporters be coming only from the usual suspects of the far left (I mean supporters of the Judge, not the report.) Is it because he is too much the outsider, somebody who doesn't have the extensive Israeli track record, family and political connections, that Naomi Chazan has? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Thanks, Ron. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Bill, The claim that interests me here is Ben Dror Yemini's claim that Zokhrot, by insisting on the right of return, in effect wishes to do away with the Jewish state. Yemini could have saved himself some trouble (if he wanted to be intellectually honest, at least) by reading Zokhrot's website, which has a question in its F.A Q. and answer as follows: האם זכות השיבה איננה בעצם שם קוד לחיסול מדינת ישראל? זכות השיבה היא זכות-אדם בסיסית, שאינה אמורה להיות מותנית בפיתרון מדיני זה או אחר. אין ספק שעם יישום השיבה, בין אם במסגרת של 2 מדינות או של מדינה אחת, ישראל תשנה את אופייה. אופי השינוי והיקפו תלויים, בין השאר, בהסכמות שיגיעו אליהן הצדדים במשא ומתן. 'זוכרות' מאמינה שהשינוי הזה טומן בחובו סיכוי גדול לריפוי הפצע העמוק בין ישראלים לפלסטינים, ולראשונה להשתלבות אמיתית של הישראלים במזרח התיכון. My quick translation: Questions: Isn't the Right of Return a code word for the elimination of the State of Israel? Answer: The right of return is a fundamental human right which is not conditional upon this or that political solution Certainly if the right of return were implemented, whether in the framework of a two-states or one state, there would be a change in the character of the State of Israel. The nature and extent of that change will depend, inter alia, on an agreement arrived at in negotiations between the two parties. Zokhrot believes that this change contains within it a great opportunity of healing the deep wound between Israelis and Palestinians, and, for the first time, the true integration of the Israelis within the Middle East" What, I think, Zokhrot is driving at, is the transformation of Israel from an ethnocracy with some democratic institutions to a liberal democracy of all its citizens, in which the Jewish and Palestinian culture would play predominant roles. Now the transformation of Israel to a liberal democracy with Jewish heritage, culture, and calendar in public sphere may be what Ben Dror Yemini calls "the elimination of Israel." But as Bernie Avishai argues in the Hebrew Republic, such a country would be very similar to what Israel looks like today: Hebrew culture, Hebrew calendar, Jewish history taught in schools, etc. Now, after all this, you can say, "this is naive bullshit". But if you do, then you be in fundamental disagreement with Ben Dror Yemini. Because he doesn't claim that Zokhrot naively and wrongly thinks that Israel can survive the recognition and implementation (in negotiations) of the right of return. He says that they agitate against the existence of the state of Israel. That is because Yamini, a tribalist, cannot understand the idea that humans have inalienable rights that trump the concerns of states. What concerns Zokhrt is the human rights of the people who were barred from returning to their homes not because they because they were a security threat, but because of their ethnicity. . 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 All right, Bill, if it is a lie, and a big one at that, then I have a challenge for you. Go to their websites and post where they have anything to say about opposition to Zionism. Then go to real anti-Zionist websites and compare what you find. Even Zokhrot -- which is not a human rights organization -- takes no stand whatever on Zionism or the State of Israel. It calls for implementing the right of return but doesn't accept the extraordinarily dumb claim that says that this would spell the end of the Jewish State. That claim, my friend, is the Big Lie. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, I won't argue about you over Saperstein. But you are way off the mark with regards to B'Tselem. Nowhere has B'Tselem criticized the Goldstone Report as "deeply flawed", at least not in the link you provided, nor in what I read. It criticized two conclusions but endorses its recommendation and supports many of its findings. Here is what B'Tselem wrote. The Goldstone mission held that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. The report demands that each side initiate criminal investigations into the suspicions and prosecute the persons responsible for these war crimes. Israel’s response was to immediately condemn the report as erroneous, tendentious, and biased. B'Tselem rejected these claims, and stated in many forums that the report was the result of a serious, professional investigation, reflecting a deep and genuine commitment to ensure that justice is done. B'Tselem indeed criticized some of the report’s findings. Among other things, B'Tselem argued that the criticism of the way that Hamas members chose to fight did not reflect the severity of their acts, and that in some of the cases the threshold of proof demanded by the mission for determining that Hamas violated international humanitarian law was a higher threshold than that applied to Israel. Also, the mission’s conclusions regarding Israel’s overall objectives in carrying out the operation were not sufficiently supported by facts arising from the mission’s research. However, B'Tselem declared that these faults do not nullify the report’s main recommendation, that Israel must investigate the suspicions that its army acted in Gaza unlawfully and immorally. The suspicions go beyond the acts of individual soldiers, and center on questions of policy relating to rules of engagement, selection of targets for bombing, and the degree to which civilians were protected, among other issues. At the last meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, Israel and the United States argued, each for its own reasons, that the peace process is not consistent with an international investigation of the suspicion of war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead, and that the diplomatic process should take precedence. B'Tselem does not accept this argument, and believes that neither a peace process nor any other reason eliminates the moral and legal obligation to do justice and ensure accountability for infringement of human rights. During and after the fighting in the Gaza Strip, B'Tselem documented and brought to the attention of Israelis and the world at large many cases that raised suspicions that the army breached international humanitarian law, and in some cases even its own orders. B'Tselem sent more than twenty cases to the Attorney General and the military prosecutor with a demand to investigate the actions of soldiers in the field and the responsibility of the command echelon. To date, B'Tselem knows of only three of said cases in which witnesses were interviewed. B'Tselem provided assistance to the investigative staff of the Goldstone mission from the beginning to the end of its research. Since the report was published, B'Tselem has advocated in Israel and abroad to promote an independent and effective investigation of Israel’s actions during the operation. The organization will continue these efforts. End of quote. Let's face it; there is no way that the Israel can seriously go after the NIF, and the NIF will only reap benefit from the publicity. So there is no need to toe the line and repudiate Goldstone in order to have influence on the Israeli government, because you don't need influence here. The human rights NGOs will continue to divide their labor; they are all in constant contact with each other, and there are no major divisions. If B'Tselem wants to be the "prettier face" of the Israeli NGO's, that's fine, but that wont help them in the eyes of those who think they are collaborating with the enemy. And they work closely with the others. The big story here that so many of the journalists covering Israel are missing is the emergence of a the human rights NGO's -- and more generally, the discourse of human rights -- as a third force in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist nor non-Zionist; they are pro-human rights. And while the right wing (correctly) perceives the danger of this third force, those commentators who are schooled in the status (such as yourself) don't really get it. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, Any reason why you didn't bother to contact Breaking the Silence. for a response? Do you need their email? BtS is not a political group. Most of your commenters have never read the testimonies, most of which JUSTIFY the Gaza war. Some of the members have left wing view; big deal. Show me anything *political* about the group on its website. John Kerry led Vietnam Vets against the War. BtS doesn't even call for an end to the Occupation. It is focused entirely on getting the IDF to do a better job of living up to its own Code of Conduct. There are members of the group who vote Likud. It pains me to see a good reporter as yourself just accepting a right wing government's spin to discredit a bunch of combat veterans as leftwingers. These guys are not anarchists against the wall; they are not Jeff Halper's ICAHD. They just saying to Israeli society -- know what your children are doing and don't bury your heads in the sand by saying, what goes on in Gaza (or in the Occupied Territories) stays there. Maybe the IDF was justified in doing what it did. But the first step in any democracy is to know what the army did. Quick responses Why give interviews to foreign press? People in Israel only pay attention when the story is picked up by the foreign media. BtS tried keeping their soldier testimonies in Hebron internal in 2004. The story died after a week. *Why anonymous testimonies? Of the 700 testimonies collected, only around 40 were published after verification by two sources and the interviewers. BtS's methodology is more stringent than JTA, the Washington Post, the New York Times. or the Jerusalem Post, all of whom rely on anonymous sources. *How trustworthy are anonymous sources? Ever read a newspaper? Without anonymous sources whose identity is protected they wouldn't exist. Why are all the people who diss BtS for protecting their sources -- some of whom are still on active duty -- readers of Makor Rishon, Jerusalem Post, and the Wall Street Journal. *Why get foreign government funding? Because foreign governments support Human Rights NGO's all over the world, as well as other things. Why should evangelical Christians who think that the End of Days is around the corner and the Jews will die or convert to Christianity be allowed to fund settler groups who support illegal outposts. Isn't what BtS is doing treasonous? BtS has never violated a law and none of its testimonies has ever been discredited. Personally, I think it would be a good idea if Israel passes a law outlawing all foreign funding -- government and non-government, Jewish and gentile -- of groups within Israel. The hardest hit will be the settlers. *Will Israel pass a law banning foreign funding. No, it won't. Because such a law could not be crafted to ban groups like Breaking the Silence without hurting other groups. Download the testimonies at http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/ENGLISH_oferet.pdf 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, good piece, not just because I support HRW, but mostly because I support moderates who ask legitimate questions, and are willing to listen to replies - and to let the reader judge whether they are satisfactory. This is particularly so in this case, when folks like Steinberg of NGO Monitor are publishing lies about HRW, calling it a "subsidiary of Saudi Arabia" a "Saudi-supported human rights organization" (direct quotes from NRO, July 21). But Steinberg is known for his instinctive ability for tarring by association (in the same piece he writes that "HRW's annual income grew as fast as Bernie Madoff's balance sheets," i.e., HRW=Madoff. Your post brings needed perspective here. Yasher Koah. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 NGO Monitor is an ultra right wing organization funded by right wing Jews in the US that fund Stand with Us and the Israel Project, together with evangelical Christians. It never has shown a single testimony of Breaking the Silence to be false; instead it goes after the fundraiseing. NGO Monitor has had to retract several of its claims because it never checks its facts. It doesn't have to -- it just discredits with cheap shots. But more than that -- according to NGO Monitor, all human rights organizations are biased against Israel. Yet it has never done a serious study of any of the same human rights organizations' reports on other countries. Fortunately, NGO Monitor has no standing in any of the communities and can be safely ignored as a knee-jerk ultra rightwing site. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Amos Oz, David Grossman, A. B. Yehoshua, Nahman Shay, Avishai Margalit -- all of these are mainline Zionist intellectuals and writers -- and all have supported Breaking the Silence and have called for an external and independent investigation into Operation Cast Lead. Is the New Israel Fund out of line in supporting BtS after these people express their support.? Or is anything to the left of Labor considered a red line, accordning to Heilman? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 All of the BtS testimonies published were verified by double-confirmation, i.e., more than one soldier confirming that an event had taken place. BtS collected over 700 testimonies from Gaza but only published thirty of them. Two of them were confirmed by Amos Harel, who published the stories in Haaretz. Harel met with the soldiers. More testimonies will be forthcoming in the media after being checked my reporters. And as a result of the publication, more soldiers are coming forth to give testimony to the group. Why anonymous? Simple. Some of the soldiers are still on active duty and they are violating IDF policy by going to the group. Others who have given their names and detalis in the past have been questioned and interrogated by the military police. In other words, the IDF will do anything to make sure that soldiers do not tell the Israeli public what they have done or seen. If the testimonies are not anonymous, then there will be no testimonies. On the other hand, there is more than enough identifying material in the testimonies for them to be taken seriously. In the five years of BtS publishing hundreds of testimonies, not a single one has been shown to be false. The truth is that much of the Israeli public is lying to itself about what goes on in the army. It doesn’t really care what the army does. And many of the soldiers don’t care. But soldiers with a conscience who witness the use of human shields and the use of white phosphorus, both illegal, who wish to tell their stories to an unbelieving public, are faced with being considered “enemies of the people”, as the comments above will prove. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Eric, I am confused by your confusion. I am not a member of J-Street, nor do I in any way speak for J-Street. But let me try to explain to you my confusion. 1. If J-Street strongly opposes something that has been said, why is saying that a problem? J-Street didn't demonize, threaten, or call for the suppression of Pastor Hagee. It didn't call the opinion he expressed "radical" or "controversial". It simply expressed its strong opposition, calling it "extraordinarily unhelpful." If Abe Foxman or David Harris says that he strongly opposes some of J-Street's positions, would that confuse you? Were you confused when Eric Yoffe called J-Street's statement on Gaza "appallingly naive"? (By the way, Yoffe's defense of the IDF's conduct of the war has been rejected by Amos Oz, David Grossman, Yossi Sarid, and a bunch of Israeli intellectuals, artists, and writers, who called this week for an external investigation of IDF conduct -- showing that it is Yoffe, not J-Street, is was out-of touch with the Israeli left.) 2. J-Street did not "allege" (and you should apologize to them for saying that they did) anything about Christian support for Israel. They wrote about Hagee's support, and Hagee, while he does not call for the conversion of Jews now, believes that we are standing before Armageddon As Sarah Posner wrote in the American Prospect in 2005 "Hagee doesn't fear a nuclear conflagration, but rather God's wrath for standing by as Iran executes its supposed plot to destroy Israel. A nuclear confrontation between America and Iran, which he says is foretold in the Book of Jeremiah, will not lead to the end of the world, but rather to God's renewal of the Garden of Eden. But he also reveals that he is ultimately less concerned with the fate of Israel or the Jews than with a theocratic Christian right agenda. When Jesus returns for his millennial reign, the righteous are going to rule the nations of the earth." Do you really thing that American Jews would be enthusiastic about somebody like Hagee influencing American or Israeli policy? Why did John McCain, hardly a left-winger, distance himself from Hagee? And finally you write "But even if one doesn't want to believe that, why would you want to alienate thousands of motivated supporters of Israel? No one says you have to work with them today, but if Israel is seriously threatened in the future, wouldn't they be valuable allies to have on your side?" Yet according to J-Street, and according to many Israelis, those well-intended supporters are a serious threat to Israel today -- by supporting policies that are destroying the viability of Israel right now. If a group of Chrisitans believed that all the Jews will convert to Christianity in the future, but that in the meantime, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have to work to create a just and equitable solution for both Israelis and Palestinians, then I doubt J-Street would reject their support. Israel's survival depends, among other things, on its making peace with the Muslim world. How can Hagee's crowd of Islamaphobes ever help them with that? So, if I were J-Street, I would not consider these folks friends of Israel, either now, or in the future -- regardless of their eschatology. Jerry Haber 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Thanks for your cordial response. Well, I agree with you that folks should return calls. But I wouldn't put that in the category of no transparency or no accountability. Frankly, Ken Roth spends a lot of his time answering criticisms, as his email exchanges with Goldberg and NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg show. (I once spent an hour going through the back and forth emails that Gerald posted on his site.) I think HRW should hire somebody just to deal with that business. I wasn't questioning the practice of linking to blogs; I was simply wondering why you spent more time in repeating Goldberg on HRW than dealing with Daniel Levy on HRW. By the way, Levy links to a whole bunch of bloggers who have "apologized for" HRW. From all the hype from the neocons and liberal hawks, you would think that HRW is obsessed with Israel. And yet if you go to the HRW website, it is hard to even find Israel, even in the Middle East section. So even if Whiston went to Saudi Arabia and begged for money to publicize the crimes of the Zionist entity (which she didn't), it doesn't seem that it makes much difference when it comes to the integrity of its reporting. Were I a Saudi anti-Zionist, I would invest my money elsewhere. As an Israeli Jew, I wish that HRW would focus more on Israel's sins -- but apparently, money can't buy coverage with those guys. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, Two points for the archaic use of "apologizes for" in the title. But aside from that, what did the post have to do with Daniel's "screed" as you call it. (Daniel called Goldberg's piece "thoughtful" -- is that what you meant by "screed"?) You didn't refute any of Levy's arguments because you didn't cite any. In fact, the first half rehashes Goldberg (what, is his site-traffic down?), the second half takes up your hate-crime question. Now, hate-crimes is a serious issue, to be sure, but isn't it a little silly to blame a group for not tracking hate crimes if it doesn't see it as part of its mission? And hate-crimes is not as obvious a human rights issue as the things that HRW and Amnesty International cover, is it? But...it seems that you are not really interested in tracking hate crimes, as much as you are interested in tracking anti-semitism. It's as if you are saying to yourself, "Damn, the Jews' human rights aren't violated that much, so we are not invited to the HRW party. But if they could only include hate-crimes, that sure would balance criticism of Israel." Or did I misunderstand the screed? 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Who said it is about Israel? Did you read my comment? It is about American Jewish kids -- and not all of them, of course -- on various programs in Jerusalem. This is not how fratboy yahoos talk. I teach at at state university which is a party school Every night fratboys get wasted, but if anybody spouted that stuff on camera they would be get disciplined for hate speech. What country do you live in, Michael? And something else -- I bet most of those guys don't talk like that in the US. No, they come to Israel, where they feel cool about themselves, they can spout off because hey, nobody messes with Israel, right? It's not about Israel. It is about some Jewish kids who come to Israel, and what they allow themselves to do. In a climate of tribalism and racism (as you point out, Israel have their own racists -- according to polls, a large percentage), they don't mind about spouting off for a camera. Only one of them asked, "Is this going to be on National TV?" I can bet that their parents would be more upset by them if they started taking off their shirts and pants then if they spouted racist talk. That, Michael, is what fratboy yahoos do. 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00 Ron, Now that Max's "immature video" has been witnessed over 100,000 times in the last two days, maybe you can take a deep breath and think a bit. Let's assume that 90% of the viewers just stop at Max's video. That leaves 10% who look into some of his other posts from Israel-Palestine, including his interviews with David Grossman, with members of Liberman's party, with Israeli activists on the West Bank. That means that more people will get significant information about Israel because of the "immature video" in two days than read your blog in months. Ron, you're in denial Even Jeffrey Goldberg was disturbed by the behavior of the students, who were drunk more with the power of being a Jew in Jerusalem than the booze (and some of them didn't sound drunk at all. These are not just drunk kids. These are Jewish kids, orthodox kids, who are full of hate when drunk. If you were an orthodox educator, could you just dismiss that? Hey a lot of people beat their wives, why pick on the frummies who do? Denial, denial, denial 2012-02-09T;22:54:00-05:00