Our World: The bothersome, annoying truth

[shira]

The author is a nutball rightwing 1-stater, but she nails it here.

The constant lies and demonization is what pro-Palestinian (actually anti-Israel) advocacy is all about. We see it here in this forum constantly. The propagandists here cannot defend or justify their accusations. I doubt there's one anti-Israel participant here who has a problem with Teddy Katz's Tantura blood libel (see article). The goal is delegitimization, Israel's destruction...via demonization, hate literature, libel. Palestinians are justified sending kids to blow up Israelis due to evil (mostly bogus) Israeli actions....

Israel’s rights and justness are grounded in truth. But today truth isn’t worth as much as it used to be. Those who fight for it find themselves routinely maligned as close-minded extremists.

....As Pappe sees it, truth is only important if it is aligned with his ideological goal. The French newspaper Le Soir quoted him saying, “The struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers.”

For his part, Lerner, who has dramatized Katz’s blood libel, was quoted by The Washington Post saying that his purpose wasn’t to tell the truth, either. “The play is trying to suggest that these historical memories [of what happened at Tantura] have to be explored and revised continuously in order to create a solid basis for reconciliation between the two people.”

The “revised” – that is, false – memory Lerner seeks to create serves a clear purpose. By portraying the Jews as murderers and as the aggressors in 1948 and the Arabs as their victims, he wishes to convince everyone that it is okay for the Arabs to continue seeking Israel’s destruction, and for the world to keep pressuring the Jewish state for more unilateral concessions. Only if justice is solely on the side of the Arabs is it possible to promote “compromises” in which the Jewish state makes endless concessions to the Arabs, and in return receives terrorism, war and hatred.

The true history of Israel’s War of Independence in which local Arabs, assisted by invading Arab armies attacked the Jews of Israel with the declared purpose of annihilating them, is inconvenient for the likes of Lerner and Pappe. They have no use for the fact that every area conquered by the Arabs was rendered Jew-free, by massacre or expulsion. They certainly don’t want anyone to know about the heroism of Jews who defended themselves and their nascent state, and prevailed, albeit at great cost.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Our-World-The-bothersome-annoying-truth-328715

[Scootaloo]

1. Out of curiosity...

Do you know what COPMA's stance might be regarding the film "Exodus"?

[shira]

2. Lemme guess, you don't have a problem with the Tantura massacre hoax or the play 7 jewish children

Is that correct?

If you're interested in COPMA's stance on "Exodus", here's their contact info:

Citizens Opposed To
Propaganda Masquerading As Art
10507 Tanager Lane
Potomac, Maryland 20854
301-468-2726
[e-mail]

[Scootaloo]

5. I have a problem with hoaxes, Shira. It's part of why you and I don't get along.

And this is the first I've heard of this one.

A play "about" it, however, doesn't bother me especially (nor does the film I mentioned.) It's dramatic fiction.I can understand why people would be upset about it, sure - especially if it pulls that Hollywood head-slapper, "based on real events" (which COULD be pulled off, since the criteria is so low that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter could use that tag). But for an injury lawyer to whip up a "citizens group" solely to remove this one play, from one theater, and get the theater defunded... well, that strikes me as a little much.

Seven Jewish children isn't bothersome at all from any perspective. Have you seen the play, or read the script? It's seven families, arguing over what to tell their children, over seven periods of Israel's history. This is represented through seven individual characters who have, of course, seven distinct personalities (or, at least, as distinct as a ten-minute play allows for, revealed totally through the dialogue.) One of these characters is a mean-spirited bigot, and another is cloyingly overprotective of the unnamed child. That leaves five more characters to the play. Of course, all the "outage" about the play focuses on these two characters, who are specifically written to be uncomfortable, even unbearable people. If these two were the only Jews in the room, if they were like Dickens' Fagin, yeah, that'd be a problem. But they're expressly not, they're two perspectives in a group of seven Jews.

But thank you Shira, for again helping demonstrate the gulf between liberalism, and liberal zionism - this time, as regards freedom of the arts

[shira]

10. The Tantura hoax serves one purpose only. To demonize Israel & justify murderous terror....

...vs. its civilians. It's a blood libel whose goal is to incite hatred and the delegitimization (elimination) of the Nazi/Apartheid Jewish state. What other reason is there to concoct such poison?

Seven Jewish children is w/o question antisemitic. Had there been a similar play called Seven Muslim children, you'd be howling Islamophobic bigotry:

Seven Muslim Children
http://www.bluetruth.net/2009/04/seven-muslim-children.html

Read that and tell me that's not bigoted either.

In addition, there's the CST and they're a serious organization that says Seven Jewish Children is antisemitic:
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/cst/

Howard Jacobson wrote about this too. It's worth reading...
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/why-jacqueline-rose-is-not-right-howard-jacobson/

[Scootaloo]

13. Well, point of fact, there ARE such plays, Shira.

For instance, "Seven Palestinian Children" written by Deb Margolin. And before you leap up to claim that this piece "hasn't been shown" or something similar... it has. In point of fact it's been shown at the very same Theater J this thread starts off talking about - as a direct response to "Seven Jewish Children."

There's also "Seven Other Children" by Richard Stirling, and breaking the seven theme, is "What Strong Fences Make," written by Israel Horovitz (I can't find script or video, maybe you'll have better luck). Seven Other Children falls behind Jewish / Palestinian children in quality, as it seems to lack the diversity of opinion and perspective that make those two "work." And like I said, I can't say about Horovitz' piece, since I can't find it.

I notice that, for the reader's convenience, your link has both the script of Seven Jewish Children, and this Seven Muslim Children thing together on the same page. I want you to compare the two. You're right that the latter is undoubtedly bigoted; can you tell me why this is? And can you identify the differences between the two?

There's no time limit, but you WILL be graded

[shira]

15. Do you think Seven Palestinian Children or Seven Other Children are hate literature?

As for Seven Muslim Children, it's bigoted for the same reasons Seven Jewish Children is bigoted.

But before we go further into that, what do you make of the CST argument that 7 Jewish Children is antisemitic? The CST is a serious organization. Do you disagree with them?

[Scootaloo]

23. Nope. In fact I rather like Seven Palestinian Children

Like I said, Seven Other Children seems rather flat and stale. It reads like it was written without anything to say other than "I want to make a rebuttal," whereas 7PC actually captures emotion and poignancy and perspective.

And at this point, I really wonder if you've bothered reading the script of Seven Jewish Children, Shira. It's right there in your own link.

And yes, I disagree with the Community Security Trust - or at least, two Directors of communication for the Trust, who seem to be writing a personal opinion rather than speaking for the organization (hard to tell). Your question seems redundant. However, i will agree with this statement from Rich and Gardner:

By presenting the play with just a single performer, speaking every Jewish voice in each time and place, the Guardian distils the play into an internal conversation inside the head of every Jew – the increasingly manic neuroses of a screwed-up people.

The play is written for seven characters, according to the author. It could be more, and I suppose it could be less. But shrinking it down to one person ruins the concept and indeed creates the image of a manic, disjointed all-encompassing Jew. With fairness to The Guardian, I really doubt this was at all their intention with the staged reading htey presented, but Rich and Gardner do have a point there.

[shira]

24. The play portrays Jews as the new Nazis, from victims to oppressors over a period of 70 years....

....deceitful bigots who lie to their children, & reveling in innocent children's blood.

The play is about Jews, not Israel. It's ridiculous how some defenders of the script argue that it's anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish.

As the CST wrote:

The words Israel, Israelis, Zionism and Zionist are not mentioned once in the play, while Jews are mentioned in the title and in the text itself. We are often told that when people talk about Israel or Zionists, it is mischievous to accuse them of meaning Jews. Now, we are expected to imagine that a play that talks only of Jews, in fact, means Israelis.

Howard Jacobson sums the play up....

Howard Jacobson identified this as “a fine piece of fashionable psychobabble that understands Zionism as the collective nervous breakdown of the Jewish people”. All the “tell her/don’t tell her” answers in the play are really attempts to answer one simple question: what do those Jews learn as children that they behave like this as adults? The end result of this “psychobabble” is to slander Jews as being psychologically compelled to become the new Nazis. Not so much a blood libel perhaps, but certainly a deadly new libel for a new millennium.

It's not that it's about 7 characters, only 2 of whom are FUBAR, as you put it. It's Jewish progression from victims of the Holocaust to deceitful, relentless, bloodthirsty oppressors in Gaza. Jews, the new nazis...

It's obscene antisemitism.

==========================

The Tantura libel is more of the same. It stokes hatred, portrays Jews as Nazis. More lies intended to incite, justify Arab aggression vs. Jews, prolonging the conflict....

[Scootaloo]

27. Except it doesn't.

It's very obvious that you've read plenty of editorials about the piece, Shira - you're even repeating them verbatim, looks like. But my earlier question remains, have you read or watched the play itself?

Let's take this one claim, that the "Jews" are "reveling in innocent blood." The claim is based off the 18th stanza in Act 7, the "monologue." This stanza is essentially an angry, hateful rant by one of the voices - presumably, one behind other angry and hateful statements through the play, one of the two that I mentioned. Here's the particular line:

tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it's not her.

This voice is angry. The voice is defensive. The voice is even hateful. But it's not happy. It's not taking joy. It's expressing anger at the Palestinians and at the world, and leaves the stage with that line I excerpted above. You might take it as a sort of grim satisfaction, but that's still a long, long ways from "reveling." It's supposedly being spoken in a time of war. Now, you tell me... Do you think any parent in a war situation - perhaps hiding in a bomb shelter and listening to rockets explode - is likely to have a different sentiment? It's not an admirable sentiment, but it's certainly an understandable one. It even injects a final note of vulnerability into this voice; for all its bluster and anger, this speaker's priority is still the safety and well-being of their children - whatever misguided attitudes this speaker has, they still love and fear for their own children, and that combination of emotions may even be the impetus behind the anger and hate expressed by the voice at the outside world, which they see as dangerous for and uncaring towards those children.

This is further reinforced by the next two lines, rebuttals from other voices:

Dont tell her that.

Tell her we love her.

This piece isn't only not anti-Jew; it's not even anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. The writer certainly has her own opinions on the subject, but nowhere in the piece itself is judgement cast upon any of the attitudes expressed by the voices in the play, for praise or for ill. The angry ranter is equal with the wide-eyed idealist voice. Neither is condemned, neither is praised, nor are the others.

Now. I'm certain if you try, it can be read as some sort of "Jews metamorphose into Nazis" thing. You can also read Harry Potter as a Young Adult introductory guide to Satanism. Or, if you want, you can imagine that a doll is trying to convert your children to Islam (personally, I hear "The Cake is a Lie!" from that doll.) Point is, if you look hard enough for something, your mind is going to conjure it up.

Especially after someone makes up your mind for you.

[shira]

29. You're missing the point....

The play shows a progression over time....Jews from the holocaust (victims) to lying, deceitful butchers in Gaza. I've read the script and acknowledge it for what it is. You're trying to see it as 7 disconnected POV's where only 2 of the 7 are problematic. It's a progression....the same shit most anti-zionists pull about the victims becoming the oppressors. Jews are the new nazis. Lying and deceitful even with their kids, oppressors stealing water, bulldozing homes, chosen to be their in that land, dehumanizing Arabs, laughing at dead policemen, wanting to wipe the Arabs out, and all the Jew feels when he/she sees dead Arab children...all she feels is that she's happy it's not her own child? That's all she feels? Really?

How else to view this as anything other than that these Jews are monsters? This isn't a sympathetic look at Jews.

Obviously you're the one reading someone else's review (who was it btw) and you can't be convinced otherwise. The last part is supposedly spoken during a war? No, it's the Gaza war. The voice isn't happy? Sure it is, happy and taking joy in the fact that Palestinian policemen are dead. Of course it's anti-Jew, we're the chosen people and it's our fucking land!



Come on.

[azurnoir]

3. Geert Wilders supporter Caroline Glick my hats off to you you've truly out done yourself here

I knew you had it in you

[shira]

4. Like I wrote, she's a nutball 1-state rightwinger but she nailed it in this one.

I know you hate staying on topic while discussing it in detail.

Wouldn't want to challenge your most cherished beliefs, now would we?

======

You don't have any problem at all with 7 Jewish children or the Tantura massacre blood-libel, do you?

[Scootaloo]

6. And like I've written, you seem to do a lot of shopping at the Rightwing nutball store.

That this one is far enough out there to make even YOU acknowledge her nutballness really makes me wonder if she makes coats out of puppies or something.

[shira]

7. Sigh...anything to avoid the topic. She nailed it. Might as well admit it. n/t

[Scootaloo]

9. I'm just responding to the posts, Shira

Also, when in an argument you demand someone "admit it," you're pretty much making an admission that you've got exactly squat supporting you.

So here, we have a writer who is so right-wing that even you call her a right-wing nut, who's citing a postmodernist view from Ilan Pappe, and trying to spin this into some all-encompassing thesis about something something something ISRAEL ROCKS.

The only thing she's nailing was manufactured by Bad Dragon. She's all over the place here, and isn't so much making a point, as throwing jello at the wall and hoping some sticks.

[shira]

11. Exactly what I expect from you. Ad hominem smears, avoidance of the topic....

...and agreement with any and all slanderous, anti-Israel hate propaganda.

[Scootaloo]

14. What?

1) Yup, ad hominem against Caroline Glick. Though to be quite honest, I'm not sure that an accusation of ad hominem can be made, when there's really not an argument being made, either - or for that matter, when the facts being cited are actually relevant to the discussion. And to be fair, you sort of started that by calling her a "right-wing one-stater nutjob," you know

2) I'm addressing the topic, or at least what topic i can identify, upthread. I(n this subthread, the topic is the rightwingeriness of Caroline Glick, which i am also addressing. Do you know what "avoidance" means, because it's pretty much the opposite of what i'm doing.

3) I'm agreeing with what, now?

[azurnoir]

8. actually I think she's more of a 2 stater Israel and Jordan

but that's another story

[shira]

12. No, she's a 1-stater like yourself. Both your visions would lead to Israel's end.

I can't figure out what there's not to like about her, from your perspective

Same goals.

Two peas in a pod.

She's for more settlements that would result in 1-state...which you're for. She's for taking in all W.Bank Palestinians, giving them citizenship and equal rights. What's not to like from your perspective?

[azurnoir]

16. so I'm for more settlements news to me

but you do seem to know things that people think even when they themselves do not-have you ever thought of becoming a professional physic, I hear the field is wide open

[shira]

17. You're for 1-state and that's what more settlements would result in...correct?

Seems to me the only difference b/w you and Glick is that she's willing for Israel to take in all Palestinians from the W.Bank while you would also include Gaza in the mix. Beyond that, what other differences are there in your visions?

[azurnoir]

18. Read the Daily Beast article did you and decided to parrot that

but you're mistaken I'm not part of the Harvard crowd

[shira]

19. Another deflection. Sorry that u have problems with people challenging your views.

I should remember never to question you.

[azurnoir]

20. No I have a problem with people making false assumptions about what I think

myself I think the settlements should be cleared out of the West Bank period

[shira]

21. Why should they be cleared out when you're in favor of 1-state? n/t

[azurnoir]

22. shira you've been told repeatedly but if you wish to look foolish then go right ahead

with your accusations or are you trying to get to me use the L word then on to the alert button- she called me a l**r

[shira]

25. Right, you're not for 1-state but you're for BDS which is for 1-state & full RoR.

You support FreeGaza and the ISM, both anti-zionist orgs for 1-state and full RoR.

You defend the worst anti-zionist 1-state advocates.

But oh yeah....we're now supposed to believe you're not a 1-state advocate.

[azurnoir]

26. lol so it's guilt by association but

I don't post articles from Caroline Glick like this one or gush about my admiration for the "scholarship" of a guy who told people NOT to vote for President Obama

the sub-thread starts here it's a well ........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=47869


so if we're going to play that game well hmmmm........

[Scootaloo]

28. Sometimes, all I can do is stare

Shira never struck me as the type to have a deep interest in christian millennialism.

Do you think perhaps she's confusing "scholarship" with "shit on a blog"?

[shira]

30. You are politically in sync with BDS, FreeGaza, & antizionism which are movements for 1-state

Not the same as guilt by association with Glick or Landes. I don't support their political views. I agree with their analysis sometimes but that doesn't mean I support their political views. You, however, do support the political views of the aforementioned movements for 1-state.

If you want to hang the guilt by association label on me, you need to show how I'm in sync with some 1-state movement. Can you do that?