Shouldn't Sweden just condemn Aftonbladet? No, not really.

[shaayecanaan]

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/09/shouldnt-sweden-just-condemn-aftonbladet-no-not-really.html

The term "blood-libel" is randomly hurled against Israel’s critics, both abusive and legitimate. The play "Seven Jewish Children" has been ludicrously called so. The Aftonbladet story comes much closer, but still falls short of a blood libel. For one thing, it doesn’t charge all Jews, or all Israelis, with the alleged crime.

snip

But would Israel be right to demand a condemnation, even if the story had asserted that the claims were true? Here’s where the context must be factored in. If making outrageous allegations about other countries were exceptional in the world media, Jerusalem’s demand would make sense. In the real world, however, the most nonsensical and offensive things are said by newspapers without the relevant governments being asked anything.

A good example is Israel itself. Earlier this year, this blog denounced a Jerusalem Post online article (later taken down from the web) in which it was stated that Norway’s finance minister had marched at a rally in protest of the Gaza war shouting "Death to the Jews." A follow-up article also described the Norwegian Jews’ state of anxiety over the increasing antisemitism in the country.

When it became clear that the whole affair was a hoax, Norway did not call on the Israeli government to condemn the Jerusalem Post over its egregious irresponsibility, nor did the Israeli government issue such a condemnation by its own initiative, despite the high profile of the media outlet involved.

And here's where it gets really good:-

In a more recent and stunning case, Israel National News, an online periodical representing the religious right, published a story that purported to report a Q&A session with Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazd, in which the Iranian cleric allegedly justified and provided Islamic guidelines for the raping of prisoners.

The story turned out to be a satirical piece first published in a Farsi-language site, which became a hoax after being taken seriously by INN (the kind of things that happen when you hate too much). While Iran has no diplomatic ties with Israel and can’t demand anything, the story is clearly a blood libel, and the Israeli government, so concerned with such offenses, should condemn INN (a site with a huge audience) without prompting ( which, of course, it hasn’t done and won’t do) before the story becomes viral. (It may be too late: over 460 Zionist and wingnut sites have already bought into the hoax).

Fancy that! It was a hoax all along. I suppose you really can believe just about anything if you hate Muslims enough.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alamuti Lotus]

3. but it makes perfect sense!

Sure, on the surface it seems like there's nothing that the IRI hawza despises more than drugs and sodomy -- so OF COURSE they would equate them to hajj at Karbala.

[shaayecanaan]

6. Apparently there was some exhaustive research conducted...

and according to the first hit that came up in Google, the story about the man-hungry ayatollahs is all true. So its not like they're some garden-variety racists ready to believe any anti-Arab spiel that crosses their screen. And Google is a pretty reputable company, I guess.

[Kurska]

8. edit n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

15. X

[Kurska]

4. Good to see I have a fan (stalker).

Maybe I said exactly that because I have heard allegations of being raped first hand from people I KNOW over there you heartless bastard.
I'd say the most sadomasochistic cultures are the ones that treat their women like dirt and kill their homosexuals, Islamic, Christian or even sadly some Jews.

You really seem to believe I hate Arabs, I don't there are plenty of Arabs and Muslims successfully living in the 21th century and there are plenty of Christians and jews failing at it.

Also Iranians aren't Arabs you idiot, how can I be Arab-baiting a culture that isn't Arabic?

edit: notice How I said "aswell", implying what I was saying wasn't exclusive to Arabic culture.

[shaayecanaan]

14. You're right, and I apologise...

I'm sorry I called you a barely literate, gutless, anti-Arab bigot.

I now realise I should have called you a barely literate, gutless, anti-Muslim bigot.

Please accept my apologies.

[Kurska]

16. edit n/t

[shaayecanaan]

21. This actually made me laugh out loud....

I've never seen a human sink so low to insult someone on a forum.

That has to be up there with Nixon's "Checkers speech" as the most sanctimonious statement that I have ever read in the course of my natural life.

And what is a "double blood libel" anyhow? Is it like "dare, double dare, physical challenge" or some shit?

[Alamuti Lotus]

2. thanks, actually roaring back with laughter for a bit there

The fact that there's a large section of people who actually are dumb enough to believe anything often makes me wish I was selling something.

[Kurska]

5. Reminds me of the people hear demanding "Investigations" of organ harvesting claims.

Do as I say, not as I do.

[Alamuti Lotus]

7. That's some lousy spin control you have there

Please, try again. No really, it'll be fun.

[shaayecanaan]

9. I agree, that was absolutely shithouse...

there was no mention of Hamas in there at all. Probably the shittiest attempted deflection I have ever seen on this board.

[Kurska]

11. edit n/t

[Kurska]

10. edit n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

12. Yes, this is mocking; fairly shallow on the debate scale, but perfectly warranted right now

I'm just odd, I thought the new low came when ya'll (and not just you) took that official love of cake & sodomy bullshit seriously.

You're embarassed and defensive, I get that. That's to be expected. But you've been caught in a flimsy con and the best thing to do at that time is just shut your goddamn mouth (preferably before I steal more words from it and turn them back your way). TTFN.

[Kurska]

13. edit n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

17. Just thirteen minutes before you were complaining about personal attacks..

that 'higher ground' facade didn't last long, did it..

[Kurska]

18. edit n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

X

What is actually unfortunate is that the real vile hypocrites (they know who they are, and so do we) are rather quiet at this time. Their presence would be (for once, perhaps) preferred. I do recall agreeing with you on a number of other, unrelated matters at least.

[shaayecanaan]

19. May I suggest a slight degree of contrition might be in order?

For example: "I am sorry. I am indeed a gullible racist. I will try not to be such a douchebag in future."

You know, I tend to appreciate that sort of thing.

You should realise that, this being the internet, claiming to be bosom buddies with Iranian rape victims is a fairly easy and straightforward thing to do.

You should also realise that rape by prison guards is a fairly common thing across most jurisdictions. About a quarter of female inmates in US prisons state that they have been raped by guards. Many Iraqis, particularly women, claim to have been raped by US guards whilst in detention. And many female Palestinian prisoners claim to have been raped by their Israeli captors.

Unfortunately, the mere fact that rape exists does not give you license to peddle your racist shit without being checked on it.

[Kurska]

20. edit n/t

[shaayecanaan]

22. The stupid fucking choice...

was trying to argue with your pants down. You'll notice that all of the posters (Hi Shira!) that were prepared to entertain the initial story are carefully staying away from this post. Trying to escape an inescapable fact is a bit of a piano-catching exercise. It never ends well.

Oh and the other stupid fucking choice was going along with a racist story in a newspaper run by a movement that is listed as a terrorist group by the US State Department.

Things to bear in mind.

Cheers.

[Kurska]

23. You know what? The story was wrong.

And because I believed the story, I was wrong. Because I equated incredibly sad personal knowledge with a story I didn't know could be trusted I'm reprehensible.
I was wrong, I admit this, I was entirely and utterly wrong and now I just feel horrible. In some ways I even smeared your people by bringing up something I had heard from many places and then added insult to injury by sourcing it with a right wing rag. This is probably my greatest sin on this front and made even sadder by the fact I didn't man up to not having a good enough source to back up what I was saying (Which means I never should have said it at all).

All I've done with this is dig myself further into a hole that I had no business in in the first place and that I share with some of the most descpicable elements in the middle east.I think this has gone far enough, but if you want call me a rascist more you can, because I've earned it by blundering my way into this. I apologize to you, I apologize to someone I don't want to name and I apologize most of all to anyone I may have insulted or outraged.


Do you accept my apology?

And if I you don't feel like reading everything I wrote I understand, the gist of it is that I'm wrong and I'm sorry.

[shaayecanaan]

24. Thank you...

Of course I accept your apology; actually I appreciate it immensely.

I understand that you're a young man and that you're contemplating moving to Israel. I wish you all the best in your endeavours. The Levant is a beautiful place. You could cry for the fucking pity of it but nevertheless it is a beautiful place.

During the first Lebanon War, my particular "tribe" killed more Palestinians in a single afternoon than the Israelis managed to kill in a whole intifada. I saw people close to me wearing necklaces of human ears. I realised that ordinary people have the capacity to do truly terrible things and that we are never so far from that potential as we think we are.

But still, we are not a bad people. Neither better nor worse than anyone else.

I think that is also the chance for me to step aside for a while, as this place probably generates more heat than light.

Again, many thanks.

[pelsar]

25. shaayecanaan and Kurska just a few notes.....

this forum thing can be tricky....we can't see each other, don't have any facial expressions, body language to read and its really really easy to "read a post wrong.".......and its even easier to "polarize" ourselves and place ourselves in to corners and stereotype the other posters....and then really "lay" into them.....

i just though you two did a nice job of working it out...and deserve the recognition.......

[bemildred]

32. I saw some pictures of necklaces of vietnamese ears that my marine friends had back in the day.

Nice enough guys to work with too.
:thumbsup:

[shira]

26. I never gave credence to the original story, did I?

You were the one doubting Iran sanctions rape of men in its prisons, and I showed you recent articles in which men were raped during interrogations by the government.

And BTW, Mondoweiss is an especially nasty site run by a rabid Jew hater:
http://sadredearth.com/key-posts/feeling-the-rage-in-new-york/

In fact, the article you just posted is a sorry piece of hate trash as well - for example its treatment of Seven Jewish Children:
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/05/therapists-to-the-jews-psychologizing-the-jewish-question-by-shalom-lappin.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. Psst... newsflash Shira.

Phil Weiss is Jewish. He's not a Jew hater at all.

[LeftishBrit]

28. It's possible to be both..

would you not agree for example that Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan are anti-Arab and Islamophobic, despite coming from Muslim Arab backgrounds? Or that quite a few women have been virulently anti-feminist?

I don't feel as strongly about Phil Weiss as Shira does, but I do find him a bit over-the-top.

I will make another post about the content of the OP, which I agree with largely but not totally.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. Phil Weiss a "rabid Jew hater?" Talk about over the top!

Anti-Zionist yes.

Self-hating Jew? ... if you want to use that language.

Rabid Jew hater? That's absurd.

[LeftishBrit]

31. I didn't call Weiss a rabid Jew hater, and wouldn't.

Your other terms are more appropriate in his case. In fact, I would probably just call him 'rather prejudiced' and leave it at that.

I might, however, call Gilad Atzmon a rabid Jew hater; and he too is Jewish.

[shira]

33. to ProgressiveMuslim and LeftishBrit

I know LB read this earlier....

http://sadredearth.com/key-posts/feeling-the-rage-in-new-york/

...but I'd really appreciate if both of you would try to give just 2 specific examples from Weiss' article that are 'over the top'. It's possible PM sees nothing wrong with it, and if so, I'd like to know. I think part of the problem we have is how to properly identify clear hatred/bigotry or antisemitism.

Thanks.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. I read Phil Weiss every day.

I think he's an instrospective, honest, decent human being who is trying to make sense of what he sees, how he was brought up, and what he used to assume.

I judge him by his body of work as a whole.

And Shira, it's absurd to call him a rabid Jew hater. When you use that language about Phil, you lose all credibility. Period.

[shira]

35. do you see any problems in his article that I cited?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. Phil is a decent man who traveled to Gaza to report on carnage, in constrast to

Hasbara apologists, who worked daily to legitimize it.

THere are indeed rabid haters in cyberworld. Phil isn't one of them.

I refused to play your game.

[shira]

40. so you see the multiple problems but you think he's generally a good guy?

there are those who believe Dan Pipes is a good guy generally and that some of his comments can be forgiven.....do you have a problem with those people?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

41. Not at all. Refuse to engage in your games over one piece. Judge the man by his body of work.

I see a good man who is unstintingly honest.

I also judge Pipes by his body of work. No self-hating Jew Pipes. He's clearly psychopathically hateful of Arab Muslims.

[shira]

44. okay, how about Wafa Sultan or Nonie Darwish? should they be judged by their bodies of work because

...they're honest too?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. I don't follow neocon stooges, but I can see how you're attracted to them.

[oberliner]

36. That explains a lot

Your honesty is appreciated.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. Really? What would that be?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. I do hope you will show me the courtesy of explaining your comment above.

I have no interest i discussing with Shira, but I am very curiuos as to your attitude toward a blogger like Weiss.

After regular reading for more than 2 years, what I read on that blog is someone honestly reckoning and soul-sick over what is going on. I think his analysis of US policy is right on. There is a lot of intra-Jewish "stuff" that I don't always find compelling. I don't care who in J Street is mad at whom, for example. But the blog always unstintingly honest, sometimes painfully so. I always find that interesting. I don't disagree with much of PHil's ME analysis, and I generally don't have an opinion on what he says about being Jewish.

Do you really find what he says so abhorent as a Jewish person?

[oberliner]

48. Explanation

It is helpful to know that his blog is one that you respect.

As for me, I do not share that perspective and I find his blog to be quite the opposite of what you describe - specifically where you use the phrase "unstintingly honest". I think it is one of the most dishonest blogs I have come across and I almost never agree with any of his analysis.

I think he is paranoid (specifically with respect to "Jewish power") and his willingness to be associated with publications such as National Review and The American Conservative are also at odds with my political beliefs.

If you find his analysis of US policy to be "right on" then that would go a long way to explain that chasm that often exists between our perspectives.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. That's very curious to me because

must of what Phil writes is intensely personal. How can that be dishonest?

Phil has come a long way from his conservative past.

I can certainly see how as a Zionist who supports Israel you would be at odds with Phil's perspective.

[oberliner]

59. You've got it backwards

He has actually come a long way from his liberal past and now sits very comfortably in the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism.

You will find that he has contributed articles to the right-wing magazine that was founded by Pat Buchanan himself several times in the past year.

[LeftishBrit]

49. Over the top...

I think that this article is analyzing his own emotions, some of which are pretty negative, esp. toward other Jews. 'The Hebrew sounds as bad in Miriam's ears as German did in the 1950s when people hated the Germans' (did they all by then?) 'I don't want to talk to some smart Jew who thinks he knows everything' 'You can't help but feel hatred' 'He (a Congressman) has a Jewish name. I feel anger at him'.

Sometimes acknowledging your own anger and prejudice is a step toward overcoming it, and toward the end of the article Weiss possibly is beginning to acknowledge that he and his side can be blinkered by emotion, e.g. not acknowledging the violence and thuggishness of Hamas. But no real resolution is reached, and one is left with a feeling of self-indulgence in anger which breeds bigotry and negativity.

Most of Weiss' articles are less emotional, but still have a recurring theme of blaming American pro-Israelis, and by implication American Jews, for American policy, and attributing disproportionalte power to them. This is one of the things that I consider to be at least borderline-antisemitic.

I think Weiss *is* probably honest (in the sense of saying what *he* believes to be the truth), decent (in the sense of wishing to do the right thing) and well-meaning (in the sense that he thinks that what he advocates will be of benefit, and is willing to work hard and make sacrifices to achieve these goals). But the same could be said, for example, of some right-wing activists: being personally honest and well-meaning does not necessarily make your work or views constructive in the long run.

'Rabid hater'? No. I think he's prejudiced and sometimes blinded by emotion, but in a world where there are so many truly rabid haters, I don't think he quite makes that team.

[shira]

53. thanks - how about the part at the end where he hopes for Israel's destruction?

do you really believe he is an advocate for peace, or more war - with statements like that?

[LeftishBrit]

55. My reading of it is that he was not actually calling for (military/terrorist) destruction of Israel.

but saying that if the conflict and the hate ever ended, Israel would lose its raison d'etre and would simply disband. I.e. that Israel's sole purpose for existence, at least nowadays, is hate and war. This is an incredibly stupid and bigoted statement, even though probably partly meant sarcastically, but it isn't actually *calling* for war.

No, I don't think that Phil Weiss' general attitude is particularly constructive or in the direction of peace. As I've said before, I would much rather read the Bitter Lemons or Good Neighbours blogs. I would equate his blog with right-wing blogs, or such bigoted blogs as FresnoZionism. But as regards 'rabid Jew haters', I am more worried about all the conspiracy-theory blogs that encourage impressionable people to believe that Jews/Israel organized the 9-11 attacks, got America and Britain into Iraq, own the banks and are wrecking the economy, etc., etc.

[oberliner]

38. There are many Jewish Jew haters

Bobby Fischer being one of the more unfortunate examples.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. Don't read his blog.

I didn't say there weren't. Phil Weiss has become anti-zionist. Doesn't make him a rabid Jew-hater.

[shira]

45. Weiss is not just antizionist, but an advocate of the destruction of Israel

it's at the end of the article I cited.

That end result is what he's all about - calling into question all his humanitarian concerns. He doesn't work in the interest of peace at all.

Not to mention that he gets angered when he hears hebrew or any jewish sounding name.

Classy guy.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. Bullshit.

How sad that you equate disassembling apartheid with "the desstruction of Israel." Boy... is the existence of Israel predicated upon the subjugation of Palestine? Take away the oppression and everything falls apart?

Not much of a foundation, is it?

[shira]

54. so that's how you discern Weiss' statement?

bbl.

[LeftishBrit]

56. That is exactly, however, how I interpret Weiss' article.

'is the existence of Israel predicated upon the subjugation of Palestine? Take away the oppression and everything falls apart?'

That's exactly what Weiss is saying. I don't agree with him.

[Vegasaurus]

57. Weiss is such an idiot that he doesn't understand the first thing about Zionism

or Israelis.

[shira]

58. well how about this....

from the same article:

Emily and I go out on West End Avenue, and a blonde mother goes by with two kids. I hear her talking Hebrew and I feel anger toward her. The kids are in cute outfits. They must have some money to live in this neighborhood. I think about all the seculars who are leaving Israel, and why they don’t speak out against a basic Zionist principle: the necessity of the Jewish state.

and then this...

And lo, there was a mini-state, or a bantustan, and peace and a civil rights struggle. Then maybe Israel would collapse. The hatred and animosity would disappear and so would the reason to be there. They would all move to West End Avenue.

He's not simply advocating for an end to what he sees as racism/apartheid - and the beginning of 2 states living at peace with each other - but rather an end to the Jewish State in its ancient homeland altogether; presumably so that Jews could all pack up, leave Israel, and go to New York. His thinking is muddled beyond comprehension - I don't see how any of this can be achieved without a major war - meaning more suffering - especially to Palestinians whom he purports to give a shit about.

[LeftishBrit]

50. Bobby Fischer is dead. He was a brilliant chess-player, but obviously not in good mental health...

and was full of conspiracy theories about Jews, e.g. that they were responsible for 9-11. Even though he was ethnically Jewish.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

52. my blog post was sarcastic.... ;)

[LeftishBrit]

30. Agree with many of the points; disagree with the conclusions

First of all, the author is quite right that this sort of libel (one need not call it a 'blood libel'; all we need to call it is just plain libel, or that even simpler term, a 'lie') is very common in papers throughout the world. Including Israel - I would NEVER trust anything from IsraelNationalNews in particular. And including the UK - the vileness in the tabloid papers about most immigrant groups is absolutely disgusting, and the Sun once claimed that the UK is ruled by a secret cabal of gays. And let's not even get started on the vile slanders that the right-wing media in America make about *their own* president.

I also agree that Israel went over the top on this occasion by treating this as a policy matter for the Swedish government, rather than as a matter for a formal complaint to the Swedish press standards commission (if there is one), and failing that, a publicly announced refusal to allow people associated with this newspaper to enter Israel. Swedish newspapers are not owned or controlled by the government, and the government should not even be brought into it.

However:

(1) I quite agree that 'If making outrageous allegations about other countries were exceptional in the world media, Jerusalem’s demand would make sense. In the real world, however, the most nonsensical and offensive things are said by newspapers'. However, the saying, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do so as well?" applies here. Many newspapers and other press outlets have indeed 'jumped off a bridge' - and it has been very harmful, both with regard to the damage caused to people and groups that are the subject of such libels, and to the status and credibility of the press itself.

(2) The statement in the paper wasn't just offensive; it was a lie. And a lie is still a lie, even if people weasel out of it, by saying that it's just something that they've been hearing. "You know Mary Smith? Well, I've heard that a lot of the neighbours are saying that she's having an affair with Fred Jones. Shameful, especially with her three young children", etc. After a lot of damage has been done and the gossipper is being blamed for it, (s)he may indeed try to get out of it with "But I didn't say she WAS having an affair! I just said that I heard that a lot of the neighbours were saying it" - but it's unlikely that most would take that as much of an excuse.

I think that there needs to be a lot more regulation and self-regulation by newspapers and other media as to lies, racism, whipping up mob spirit, etc. And this can't be done by governments or you'll end up with the equivalent of Pravda. But it's gone beyond a point where the media should just shrug and say 'everyone else does it, why shouldn't we?'