« United in joy | Main | Gaza commentary: sane and insane »

Friday, January 02, 2009


"The intelligent audience watching the footage will know that people killed did not have peaceful intentions toward Israel. ... I don't believe they'll be disturbed."

The smug solipsism of that is incredible. It's a hallmark of people who have chosen wrathful stupidity. They convince themselves that others are lacking in discernment, and where not lacking discernment, lack the moral courage to call bullshit.

Dennis Perrin has a surprisingly hopeful post up about how he perceives a greater openness in the U.S. to criticism of Israel. It's hard for me to judge whether he's right, since most of my online and off-line life is spent among lefties who've been criticizing Israel for years. What do you think?

Well stated, Harold M!

I followed a long comments thread at Glenn Greenwald's blog, hosted by the otherwise execrable Salon.com. I don't wish to gratify them by Naming Nyms, but indeed there was one extreme Zionist apologist who apparently strapped himself to his keyboard and spouted Reich of Zion doctrine from dawn to dusk, not backing down an inch from the "wrathful stupidity" of his (?) core beliefs in the face of rigorous and thoughtful (and yes, occasionally counter-snarky) counter-argument.

He was accompanied by an equally smugly solipsistic remora, who expressed his (?) wrathful stupidity with what he imagined is cutting and devastating snark and sarcasm. Instead of the usual technique of inventing straw men, this commenter tirelessly responded to criticism of Israel's reprehensible conquest and indiscriminate slaughter by hurling one flaming bag of excrement after another.

I've noticed that such defenders of rogue-state terrorism and ethnic cleansing are good at constructing close arguments one tree at a time, thus excluding and denouncing any insight predicated on the realization that hundreds of trees in close proximity constitute a forest.

Can someone tell me where they are getting this honest news reporting? Internet or tv?

SteveB: I think it's probably true. And I think the almost inhuman cruelty of this particular assault (which is getting out there much more clearly than it would have a few years ago thanks in large part to the Internet, alternative media, blogs, etc) may push a lot of people over the edge. Within governments as well—whether or not they're currently expressing it.

KDelphi: If you mean the IDF video, I caught it on a few mainstream news stations (CNN and CBS, or something like that). It was exhibit A for the "Israel is killing only bad guys" argument, so the mainstream media was all over it.

If you weren't being ironic, the honest information I've seen is exclusively on the Internet. I've seen some decent segments on TV, but they're all fatally flawed by the kind of "balance" that says we need to treat the viewpoints of both the rapist and his victim equally. But you just treat them like you do any reports from mainstream media—take the useful information and ignore the predictable chaff.

I wasnt being sarcastic--I hadnt seen it, but, when I watch MSM I seem to "switch around alot" and, as Jon Stewart says--not understand a damn thing...short attention span for bs--lol

I wouldn't comfort myself too much with the thought that all online defenders of Israeli behavior are obvious crazed lunatics--I've seen a couple in the past few days at a center left blog who are civil and polite. One politely discussed why he thought Israel's military action might have a good effect on the Palestinian political situation. Nobody politely discusses whether terrorist acts against Israelis have helped the Palestinian cause, but one is supposed to be polite and calmly analytical when discussing Israeli violence because, after all, they don't try to kill civilians. Another person has been giving most of the standard Israeli talking points of the past 60 years, claiming that Israel seeks peace, is within its legal rights in forming settlements on the West Bank, did its best to offer a peace deal to the Palestinians in 2000-2001, etc..... What really interests me about such people is how calm they are and how they offer up their opinions with the air of people stating the most obvious truths.

Civility is an overrated quality, I think. I don't want people shrieking at each other, but a civil discussion about war crimes can be a way of making evil respectable. If you're civil enough and you are defending someone culturally similar to middle class Americans, you have a huge advantage over some flaky leftist who gets angry or sarcastic (nevermind how an Arab would be perceived.)

The problem, I believe, that we find ourselves in, is an electoral system, bought and paid for, by the rich, many of whom are Zionist supporters, as well, as a sitting "president" who is a war criminal.

I went to a protest, here in a rather small city, and there were about ten on each side. In EU, they are hanging our flag , with the Israeli flag. It is not a fricking compliment!

The Israeli reps are "parroting" Bush--"no opccupation", "regime change", etc. If anyone thinks that we can "move on", without legal justice, I think that they are mistaken...

I don't want people shrieking at each other, but a civil discussion about war crimes can be a way of making evil respectable.

Agreed; that's often my beef with Democracy Now! these days (as in this abysmal segment, in which a UN spokesperson is asked to "debate" a rabid Israel apologist).

The comments to this entry are closed.