« The moral authority of Howard Dean | Main | Shots fired at Jewish Federation in Seattle UPDATED -- shooter is Muslim »
July 28, 2006
'Sadly, sarcasm is wasted on the stupid' -- More on Amanda's double standard and how my mocking her schtick makes her feel all dewy and damp with moral superiority
Yes, I did "put words in Amanda's mouth" when I blasted her morally reprehensible post. Anyone familiar with her "Shorter" posts should have realized I was mocking her claims in her own style. Strangely, some of her defenders take my mocking as "proof" that I am the bigot. As a friend told me in an email "Sadly, sarcasm is wasted on the stupid." And another person, whom I highly respect, chided me that my mocking has become the focus rather than the points I made and given cover to Amanda to not only ignore her functional, arguable anti-semitism, but to project it on "Teh Racist Rethuglicans."
So let's look at Amanda's claims, and omissions, one by one.
- I’m swiping her observation that she made a couple of times while I was in New York about the news coverage of Israel waging war on Lebanon.
- The fear of the Wingnutteria whining has turned the mainstream media into the biggest bunch of cowards you ever saw.
- The mainstream position is to avoid even the hint of criticism aimed in Israel’s direction.
- The problem with that is when Israel does something so obviously odious as killing innocent civilians and holding them culpable for what an unsanctioned organization does, well, even just straightforward reporting is going to seem critical. It’s not just the media, either. There was a bit of a dust-up on Punkass Marc’s post on how he thinks Ned Lamont is going to be politics-as-usual because of his refusal to criticize Israel openly for what seems to be obviously wrong, which is, of course, killing innocents with such a slim excuse.
- whenever the fear of having right wingers equate criticism of Israel with being an anti-Semite makes a liberal or even just a journalist engage in self-censorship, that emboldens the right and undermines our position.
- The short term gains (not getting deluded with email, avoiding the inevitable attempts of your opponent to ruin your reputation) are causing, or at least enabling, serious long term problems. And I would characterize this invasion as one of those problems.
- now there’s a general feeling that the two views on this “conflict”
During this latest round of Islamists trying to annihilate Israel, so blatant were the acts of war against Israel by Hezbollah, it startled even some of the Arab nations into an unprecedented act of condemning Hezbollah not Israel. As I linked in the last post, prominent Israeli Leftist Amos Oz shows his moral compas is right in understanding there is no moral equivalency between Israel and Hezbollah. Yet some of the Left blogsphere were strangely quiet, even Markos writing a brief post that he would not discuss it.
But Amanda's post signals a newly emerging trope. Ignore Hezbollah's act of war, condemn Israel for "disproportionate" response (remember to never define that term) and attempt to out-of-hand dismiss any criticism as part of a conspiracy of an All Powerful Jewish Israel lobby (so powerful they scare the American MSM). James Wolcott simpers and flaps his wrists at Israeli "dry rot" and generously links to Billmon who spews his "contempt" at Israelis for having the audacity to fight back.
And that's what it boils down to. Double standards. Israel has endured, without reaction, rocket attacks and suicide bombers. This after she disengaged from Gaza and made it Jew-free. That so-called "scared of Jews" American MSM has allowed itself to be used by Hezbollah (CNN confessed as much, just as it did when it shilled for Saddam). Kleptocrat Kofi Annan immediately condemns the tragic Israeli bombing of UN observers, even as it has been show that Hezbollah was using the UN post as cover for its attacks on Israel.
No nation has had its very existence challenged so much as Israel. No nation outside of America is held to such a severe double-standard as Israel.
What do we call people who engage in egregious, discriminatory double standards?
Bigots.
I don't know if Amanda is an "anti-semite" in the classic sense of personally "hating" Jews. I'm sure some of her best friends are [ethnic] Jews. But her functional bigotry in holding Israel to one standard while completely ignoring Hezbollah is clearly evident.
Israel is fighting for its very survival, and when they are condemned for it, while the people who swear in their covenants, compacts and Friday sermons that Israel must be destroyed and the Jews murdered are given a pass, then you can make of that bigotry what you will. But bigotry it is.
Technorati: Hezbollah, Hizbullah, Israel, Lebanon, Amanda Marcotte, Anti-semite
Posted by Darleen at July 28, 2006 12:07 AM
Comments
leftards!
Posted by: Jane at July 27, 2006 11:10 PM
"Israel is at war with Hezbollah, which is occupying, illegally, southern Lebanon."
So the Lebanese are occupying Lebanon? Does the UN know about this?
You really should have quit while you where behind.
Posted by: billmon at July 27, 2006 11:53 PM
Darleen - well written and on point.
Billmon - your sarcasm aside, please tell me what the UN would do?
They are an ineffectual organization - actually let me rephrase that they are ineffectual in pursuing their mission of enforcing UN resolutions and providing humanitarian aid - however they are quite effective at taking bribes and propping up dictatorships.
And this problem in Lebanon is the direct result of the UN shirking its duties - the UN never enforced UN resolution 1559 stating that:
" Syria [was] to end its military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias"."
The UN is an impotent organization that creates nice little resolutions but then fails miserably to enforce them. Actually, come to think of it, the UN was chasing butterflies while Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated numerous UN resolutions - of course in UN terms "Chasing Butterflies" = taking bribes (Oil for Food Scandal ring a bell?)
Posted by: diva at July 28, 2006 05:36 AM
A great many on the left seem to be of this mind: people who fight back and defend themselves against aggression are evil warmongers. In other words, to them, self-defense is wrong. However, those that actually terrorize and bully innocent people get either a free pass or fawning sympathy.
Posted by: Susan B. at July 28, 2006 06:12 AM
So the Lebanese are occupying Lebanon? Does the UN know about this?
Yeah, they sure do. They even passed a resolution on it. Does "1559" ring any bells? you know, about disarming Hezbollah, and removing them from proximity with the Israeli border, and giving control of the region to the duly elected Lebanese government?
Had that happened at any point in the past 28 years that the UN had "peacekeepers" in Lebanon, the current issue between Lebanon and Israel wouldn't be happening.
And do try to explain, what, exactly, Hezbollah planned to do with 10,000+ rockets? would they be aimed strictly at military targets, or would they be aimed at the civilian population?
See, Billmon, you can't have peace if one side or another is hell-bent on waging war.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2006 06:35 AM
In other words, to them, self-defense is wrong.
Of course. At least they're consistent. This is where their opposition to the Second Amendment comes from.
However, those that actually terrorize and bully innocent people get either a free pass or fawning sympathy.
Tookie Williams is on Line 1...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2006 06:38 AM
Aggie,
Both of those things are exactly what I was thinking of. ;-)
Posted by: Susan B. at July 28, 2006 10:55 AM
A great many on the right seem to be of this mind: it doesn't matter how many people die as long as it's in the name of fighting terrorism.
Amanda is characterizing Israel as "killing innocents" (implied targeting)
Incorrect. If she meant targeting, she would have said targeting.
The NYTimes especially has been willing to compromise national security so they can stick it to those it politically dislikes. So why does Amanda believe that somehow the Grey Lady and others are now shaking so hard their rollup stockings are falling down.
Non sequitur. Her argument is that the media is reluctant to criticize Israel. Your examples of the NSA and financial monitoring story have nothing to do with Israel.
Again, Amanda only addresses Israel's actions ... she finds only them worthy of condemnation while never addressing Hezbollah, in particular, or Islamism in general.
So what? She wanted to do a post about Israel. Does every post about Israel have to contain a rote condemnation of Hezbollah and Islamism to satisfy you? How ridiculous.
Posted by: Josh at July 28, 2006 12:17 PM
She wanted to do a post about Israel.That makes sense, Josh. I find that as credible as a professor doing a lecture about America's invasion of, and war on, Japan and America's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 40's without ever mentioning Japan or Pearl Harbor.
Be careful, Josh. Backbends like that and you're liable to cramp something.
Posted by: Darleen at July 28, 2006 01:29 PM
Her post was about Israel's actions, and media reaction to them. Why is she obligated to post about Hezbollah? I see you haven't mentioned the shelling on the Gaza beach in your posts on the conflict. Such an egregious double standard! You must hate Arabs!
Posted by: Josh at July 28, 2006 01:44 PM
And that's what it boils down to. Double standards. Israel has endured, without reaction, rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
Yep. What I dislike about the "they're killing civilians!" objection is that it ignores why that is--for example, "UN official accuses Hezbollah of 'cowardly blending' among civilians":
On Monday he had strong words for Hezbollah, which crossed into Israel and captured two Israel Defense Forces soldiers on July 12, triggering fierce fighting from both sides."Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."
And Josh? It looks a little one-sided when the regular attacks on Israeli citizens during so-called ceasefires go unposted, ignored, unremarked-upon by the lefty blogs. I realize that since the U.S. gives support and aid to Israel, not Hezbollah, Americans don't have a whole lot of say about Hezbollah conducts itself, and I realize that's partly why there's so little said about it, but I'm not sure it explains all the enthusiasm for criticizing Israel I see on the left sometimes.
Posted by: ilyka at July 28, 2006 02:45 PM
- Marcotte - Feh ...she's just another dime a dozen Leftist operative that infest the blogoshpere like so many flea's. They're playing the old "attention game", posting whatever revisionist crap they can dream up to rally the braindead Liberal cast-off's. It's all about "hits". Her open jealosy and obssessing over Wonkette is a prime example. Another Frische with a different one pony act. I doubt she give's a flying fuck about Lebenon, the Jihadists, or even Jooooosss. These people are all a bunch of opportunistic phonies, and they suck everyone into their well planned inflamatory rhetoric, just for the notoriety. "Progressives" are equal opportunity bigots. they imagine themselves superior to everyone of the "other". Self delusional "nihilists". Who cares what immiture children prattle on about.
- In the big picture the Left will continue on in their idiotic pursuit of political oblivion, winning rigged polls, all sorts of smoke and fury, and getting kicked to the curb in national elections as usual. I encourage their goals, and otherwise chuckle at their suicidal efforts, but basically ignore them.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at July 28, 2006 03:23 PM
Well done, Darleen, despite the fact that some people still don't understand that which should be obvious. It's all about saying "Amanda was right, you were wrong," regardless of facts.
She really ought to stick to writing tributes to The Almighty Vagina. ::eyeroll::
Posted by: Beth at July 29, 2006 03:34 PM
Good lord. I read Amanda's post. Then I read your "kikes" post. I have no idea where you're getting your, um, interpretation. But as a Jew, I can tell you which post I find a hell of a lot more offensive. Where do you get off?
Posted by: belledame222 at August 4, 2006 02:18 AM
belledame
you post this favorably in regards to Israel's latest reaction to unilateral aggression against it:
It seems to me that that is the real but hidden force drivingI realize, that is only one paragraph in a rather strange, seemingly inane, article that one could easily write off as juvenile kum-by-yahism. Save for the fact we are, again, looking at yet another person who finds all killing morally equivalent ... which is a moral abomination and only goes to delivering up Israel to annihilation.
this world-threatening dispute. That is the source of the wound at
the center of Western Civilization. It is a wound that grew out of
three compounding cosmologies where "we" became "He"--a solitary,
often angry, punishing and absent Father God, a wound shared by all
three religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. When God exists
without Goddess, masculine without feminine, when the world exists
without the presence of the Sacred, humanity without divinity,
confusion, pain and violence are the consequences. When religions
justify killing because they have the "One True Way," they have no
way at all. They are no longer religions; they are nothing but
depraved politics.
This is what I found so particularly infuriating about Amanda's article. It was all about how awful Israel is and not one mention of Hezbollah. It is functionally bigotted.
If you are more than just ethnicly Jewish, you'll recognize
He who is merciful to the cruel, will ultimately be cruel to the merciful.
Posted by: Darleen at August 4, 2006 06:36 AM
Am I reading this correctly? Are you suggesting that you are in a position to tell me what does and doesn't make me Jewish enough? -Who- are you again?
Lady, "just" ethnically Jewish is plenty; it certainly more than justifies my aggravation at your completely gratuitous use of "kikes." Don't try to change the subject. And don't even frigging think of suggesting that my legitimacy as a Jew -or- a moral being is dependent on whether or not I follow Scripture. You are well out of order.
Posted by: belledame222 at August 12, 2006 02:34 PM
Who am I?
Well, I'm one who understands that Jewish people are unique in that they are a people (ethnic), a nation, a culture, AND a religion ... and that someone who identifies as "Jewish" can be one or all of these things.
And that there are many ethnic Jews who are decidely hostile to both Israel and religious Jews (see Noam Chomsky and Tony Judt).
I used the pejorative "kike" on purpose, not gratuitously, because I am fucking TIRED of functional bigots who get off on the figleafed perfidy of "I don't hate Jews, I just hate Israel".
So why should my opinion on the moral question of Israel v the Hezzi-nazis and their apologists be LESS than Chomsky's or Judt's -- the former a terrorist supporter and the latter who advocates the annhilation of Israel -- just because they can ethnically claim to be Jewish?
I come from a family with a lot of different religious backgrounds - from Jewish to Mormon to Catholic to Protestant. Growing up I was as comfortable at Temple on a Friday, Mass on Saturday as I was at Sunday School on Sunday. I'm old enough that I was arguing with and educating a lot of my "born-again" friends on what Judaism is/is not and that they were being total assholes, no matter their motivation, when they were trying to proselytize my Jewish friends.
So, lady, please don't claim any special reason to dismiss me because you're Jewish and I'm not. I'm not changing any subject here. St. Amanda's article was functionally anti-semitic. Sorry my "shorter Amanda" schtick gave you cover to avoid commenting on that.
And even non-Jewish me knows Midrash is not Scripture.
Posted by: Darleen at August 13, 2006 07:53 AM