Recently, I spoke to a group of young Americans who were in Israel on a project. During the question period one young woman said: “I’m a newbie and don’t know very much about these issues, but …”, and then she proceeded to bash Israel and make all sorts of ludicrous claims.
The one that set me off was when she said that Israel had done nothing to further peace. I responded that Israel had made lots of concessions, compromises, and taken risks. I continued by saying that I would provide a list and began to go through a large number of specific points. As I spoke, she was looking away, scowling, and muttering, obviously very angry and simply not paying attention.
So I stopped and said: “Obviously, you aren’t interested in my answer.” One of the others came to her defense accusing me of being “patronizing” or something like that. No, I responded, I’m merely saying what I see.
We are facing something truly remarkable. A system in which those on one side — and obviously this applies to far more than just the Israel issue — can simply wave aside any logical argument and ignore any evidence. All that’s needed is a category of denunciation: racism, hate speech, Islamophobia, etc., along with other catchwords like “fair share,” “one percent,” “global warming deniers,” and down the list.
Where did this come from? How was this remarkable weapon developed? One can mention the Frankfurt School or Saul Alinsky but clearly we are dealing with one of the most amazing and effective inventions in the modern history of political debate and struggle. It is the magic wand that turns terrorists into victims and victims into terrorists.
Remember that Batatu who, by the way, died of natural causes 11 years ago, was a Marxist. Yet in those days even many intellectual Marxists — at least in academia — had imbibed the principles of Western civilization. My academic advisor was also a Palestinian Marxist and gave me a Ph.D. with honors, something unthinkable today where his equivalent would probably have sabotaged my degree entirely.
And let’s also never forget that the best and most decent people in the Third World, and very much also among Muslims, want liberty, democracy, and a modern society, while of course — like the Japanese and everyone else taking that road — adapting these things somewhat to their own circumstances.
Unfortunately, most of the Western elite today — including Woody Allen himself — has failed what might be called the Bloomingdales’ credit card test. They are good at fantasizing heroism but not very good at doing much in real life. Their specialty is posturing against non-existent or ludicrous threats against which everyone they know is also arrayed. I can’t prove it but I sort of think they would not only have rejected joining the French Resistance, they would have been on the other side in order to keep their jobs and prestige.
We live in a world when a phrase or sentence can get a man with a very distinguished record fired from Harvard, or myself indicted by a robot (computer software) as a “hate criminal” for some phrase plucked out of context. For every person punished or attacked, hundreds are intimidated and scores of other people gain political advantage.
In contrast, what we must do is to refuse to bow down and refuse to abandon the standards and principles that created the most liberated and prosperous societies for the largest proportion of people in human history.
And like the intellectuals and academics that made Western civilization great, we must say every day:
I will examine the facts and evidence as honestly as possible. I will state my assertions clearly and revise them if anyone shows that I’m in error. I will not slant the truth to win an argument or to push a political position.
In doing so, we must believe that those arguments and that stance will convince other people, just as seeing how the opposite side behaves will ultimately disgust other people.
And like Batatu we must say every day, for our own good as well as that of society:
I am a free man and I can (and will) say whatever I want.
It’s easy to understand what is going on. Some people are interested in how the world works. These people are unusual and are in a minority. Most people are interested in signaling, that is, sending a message to others about themselves.
If you are a left-liberal, then the signal that you send is “I am intelligent and compassionate.” Reality doesn’t matter. If your policies cause all sorts of mayhem in the world, then that doesn’t matter. What matters is the signal.
If someone sends you that signal, they may be making a friendly gesture. They are including you in their in-group. If you challenge their beliefs, then they may feel hurt (“I was being friendly to you; why are you being so mean to me?”). Or they may get belligerent because you are obviously unintelligent and uncompassionate and not part of the tribe. In that case you should be attacked using whatever means necessary, including making up nonsense because again, reality and facts are unimportant.
I have observed precisely this on several occasions. For what it’s worth, I propose a theory for it: Your run-of-the-mill bully is a coward, but not totally so, to the extent that he can operate by himself for his own pursuits. The collective repudiation of facts you are exposing is an extreme form of bullying, in which the intimidation is collective instead of individual. In this “shared” bullying, the individual cowardness of the factless offender reaches its theoretical maximum, because the token of “courage” required of him is infinitesimal, since he can rely on the assent of a very large number of his co-deniers of the truth.
There is no need to despair in the face of this. These people can only cling to their Bloomingdale charge card at the first attack from any token of truth , and vanish into the ultimate coward they truly are when properly confronted. So, the answer is Barry Rubin’s admonition: Keep proclaiming the truth, because their denials are simply bogus, and they are ultimately powerless against the truth! In fact, confronting them is loving them, because they desperately need the truth!
“Keep proclaiming the truth, because their denials are simply bogus, and they are ultimately powerless against the truth! In fact, confronting them is loving them, because they desperately need the truth!”
That is an excellent description of the motivation behind many of the world’s greatest prophets, thinkers and dreamers. To paraphrase the word sent to Jeremiah, “they shall attack you but shall not overcome you”. That’s a great belief but unfortunately many speakers of truth, from Bruno to Becket, did suffer and die for telling the truth.
Even though the ignorant may need the truth does not mean they will not kill you for preaching it to them.
Passenger, There is only one truth, and a myriad of made-up alternates to it, some of which can be improvised on-the-fly by the virtuosi of denial. So the truth will provoke many forms of rejection, from many angles. It is unlikely that the truth teller will make converts in any particular encounter, simply because accepting the truth is as difficult and as painful as accepting the death of a loved one, for instance. It takes a lot of time and effort, whether it is on the part of the bereaved, or the self-reforming rebel.
So it is a common tactical error to try to prevail totally and absolutely on the rebel. Almost every fact you present is likely to trigger some rapid-fire denial, but once in a while you may notice that the fire comes late, or ideally does not come, and this is precisely the time to stop pressing. You offered a token of truth, you received a token of respect, and a good seed may have been planted. That’s pretty good for just one encounter.
Of course there is a price. You expose yourself to ostracism, or as you point out, much worse. This is inevitable, and it can even turn tragic. So, don’t turn yourself into a martyr unnecessarily, because there are no further tokens of help you can contribute after that, unless of course you are an authentic prophet. And if it kill you in the end, is it as bad as cancer, car accident, and other calamities beyond your control?
This is an important insight.
I learned this lesson when I was 9 years old. I was by far the smartest kid in the school. The other kids hated me for it. Their response to my always being right was to taunt me, call me names. My response was always, “I am still right.” That would just make them even more furious at me.
“Well… well… you’re just a poopyhead!” This is a concept as old as mankind.
——————————————————————————–
Calling the author patronizing? That word does not mean what the person thinks it means.
Another thought: “You cannot say these things!” This is the response of those who have another reality, another way of thinking. In the world of power, power cannot be challenged unless you are powerful yourself. Being right or wrong does not matter. Only power matters. There are rules to power. One cannot just flout these rules. It is morally offensive. The responder is morally outraged.
Their morals are very different from mine. People do not grasp this, that we do not all share the same views of what is moral or not. We take the morality of Christianity for granted. It is part of our western culture.
Not everyone here shares these values, though. Those who follow the green agenda, the new Gaia worshipers, have their own code, a code based on what foods you eat, what car you drive, what lightbulb you use, proper recycling, etc…. Their rules on treating their fellow man? There really aren’t any. They will be routinely harsh to those who violate their code of morality. They can be rude to the extent that used to lead to fistfights and duels.
A free man is the most powerful person in the world. Every day we make the choice to be free or servile. Excellent essay. Thank you.
Sir this was one of the most inspirational essays I have read in a long time. Thank you. It seems that the default setting for college age folks who are interested in politics is to be anti-(fill in the blank). It is tribal in that these young people can shout to the establishment, “look at us we are different than you. We are compassionate, smart, modern, hip and cool, while you are old, greedy, warlike and evil.” It seems that standing in opposition, even if you must create that opposition yourself, is more important than any facts or reality. When I was working on my Masters in Foreign Relations at a Catholic University, I was forced to read such non-sense as, “Minorities living under Islamic or Shria Law were protected and enjoyed full rights as citizens of the land”. I actually had a hard time convincing my fellow students, and the Professor I believe, that this stamen is the equivalent of saying the Blacks living under Jim Crow were content with not having to worry about who to vote for in their local elections.
Well done Professor Rubin.
Yo
“He looked like a man who usually wore clothes designed so that the blood came off in the wash” – Outstanding … worthy of Orwell.
“I spoke to a group of young Americans who were in Israel on a project. During the question period one young woman said, “I’m a newbie and don’t know very much about these issues, but….” And then she proceeded to bash Israel and make all sorts of ludicrous claims”
I’d like to know which American Jewish Federation sponsored this “project” and paid for this silly young woman’s plane ticket … also, what was the “project”, a morning picking fruit at a kibbutz and then spend the day on the beach in Tel Aviv?
The St. Pancake foundation.
This is a horrible way to refer to what must have been a terrifying and painful way to die.
Being young and foolish should not be punished with death. Who among us would survive?
“Being young and foolish should not be punished with death. Who among us would survive?”
Who punished her? When placing yourself under the treads of a D9 bulldozer, you’de think she would have been wise enough to know the outcome.
I take the mockery back. She was a lovely creature.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3369/1585/1600/corrie.jpg
It was not a punishment, it was a result of asinine activity. When you are foolish, you sometimes die. That is simply a fact of life. While making fun of it might be in poor taste, it in no way advocates death as a punishment and you are trying to change the focus of the discussion by labeling it as such. You are doing the very thing this article pointed out as being so egregious to intellectual honesty.
Less than two years after thousands of my countrymen were murdered by Muslim terrorists, lil’ Miss Young and Foolish was over in Palestine burning mock American flags amongst her Pal terrorist friends (trying to get Pal kids to hate America, propagandizing the next generation of terrorists). When she got killed she was trying to help her Pal terrorist friends by interferring with IDF anti-terrorist operations.
She got EXACTLY what she deserved.
The only thing that’s horrible is that ALL ISM members haven’t been turned into pancakes. Especially, American traitors, like the vile and unlamented Corrie.
This is a horrible way to refer to what must have been a terrifying and painful way to die.
Being young and foolish should not be punished with death. Who among us would survive?
If one is too stupid when one is young one does not get the opportunity to survive to look back on one’s earlier stupidities. Talk to the Gods of the Copybook Headings if you don’t like it.
Rachel Corrie was an ill-educated fool blinded by the ideological hatreds she was indoctrinated with as a youngster. That teaching, her own ignorance—and, quite possibly, the connivance of her “Palestinian” handlers, who more than likely were interested in getting a dead American who could be described as a martyr—combined to place her in a life-threatening situation. Some such fools, like Sara Shourd or Lori Berenson, are lucky enough to get do-overs in these situations. Corrie was not so fortunate.
Her injuries could be consistent with being rolled under a bulldozer as it was backing up. But there is no way she would have sustained the kinds of injuries that were reported for her, if she had been standing in front of a D9-Cat going forward with its blade down.
The most plausible explanation possible, one that would account for both the nature of her injuries and the photos of her lying in front of a D9 Cat were if she had been injured elsewhere and her body carried and placed in front of it for the purposes of a photo-op.
It only takes a few minutes to bulldoze a house with a D9, but the IDF was out there working most of the day. What was going on out there that day? If you examine the protester’s version of what happened, you’ll notice that their timeline is missing a few hours. If my facts are correct, the IDF was destroying tunnels that day. I suspect that she was hurt somehow in a collapsing tunnel. Don’t know, only guessing. Anyone have any thoughts or added info?
This is a horrible way to refer to what must have been a terrifying and painful way to die.
Being young and foolish should not be punished with death. Who among us would survive?
I have seen a photo of Racle corrie clad in abna abyas, her face distyorted with anger, burning an American flag amidst a crowd of smiling Palestiioans. Rachel Corrie sided withy those who make national heroes of someone who in cold blood had crushesd teh skull of a four years old girl, of a woman who tried to blow a maternity and who dance in the streets on the news taht a baby had had beeen butcherd in his craddle. racle corrie sided with such people while remaining utterly indifferent to tah fate of the Sudanese Blacks who were being murdered aty the rate of one hundred Blacks for one Palestinin, (guess it was just niggers to her), peopl;e who didn’t dance in the streets when a babay had been murered.
You say she was young. Far younger were many SS troopers, are we expected to shed tears on them? You says about being young and foolish who of us would survive. Spare us these cheap shakespearisms. I have been young and foolis. And leftist. But I got sick when I heard about the Cambodgian genocide. I got sick because a few weeks earlier, while still unaware of the genocide, I had taken a leaflet from a Khmer Rouge. Sick for not having smashed my fist on his face. And very angry about the people who had told me they were nice guys. I am still sick and angry about it. I am also sure, sure bzecauise of my reaction to that incidents, that no matter how young at no point I would have crossed the lines Rachel Corrie crossed when she decided to side with baby murderes and would be genociders.
Somber applause, sir.
I used to think this way as well, and then I learned the facts.
Rachel Corrie was a grown woman who knowingly and willingly supported terrorists/murderers. She hated America, she hated Israel and she deliberately placed herself in harm’s way to defend these views.
These are the facts. Do they change your view? If not, then I propose you are one of those people described in this essay, for whom facts don’t make a bit of difference.
Died of political correctness is my report and I think that is as true a description as any. While I commiserate with the parents the truth is she had no business being there or taking sides in a complicated story decades in the making. Since nothing is in black and white, her making it so led to her own death.
This point of yours needs to be emphasized over and over and over again…
…..”For example, it was forbidden to argue that people in the Middle East might think or react differently from Westerners.”
This great stonewall which we (I speak as an American) erect against our understanding of anything coming out of Asia by Asians is one which is based upon our provincial and alien Western way of thinking. “Alien and provincial”, that is, in comparison with Asian. We simply aren’t wired the same way.
It’s not only the language barrier….it’s cultural, familial, tribal…. and moreover, is solidly based upon many more centuries of ‘precedent’ long before Rousseau, Locke, or even Sam Clemmons’ “Innocents Abroad”.
It’s not ‘racist’ or ‘chauvinist’ to state this out loud, it’s a common sense approach in our war against Asian Islam which we Americans evade at our peril.
Very true. And it’s a self-inflicted wound. Asians have no problem in speaking these truths. I’ve worked in China several times, living and eating and working in their communities, rather than in American enclaves. The Chinese have no problem with recognizing and even capitalizing on these cultural and historical differences. This recognition of truth is a powerful advantage for them.
I suspect we “westerners” are the only people on the face of the earth to handicap ourselves in this foolish manner.
…..I lived/worked in British Colonial Hong Kong for six consecutive years in the 1960′s, so I got to see the East/West contrast a little more vividly, perhaps from that additionally, curiously contrasting, standpoint of being a “double outsider”.
Curiously enough, the people who react furiously when you suggest that other people from other cultures might think differently, have different motivations for behavior, and have different aspirations and goals, are the same people who fall over themselves telling you what great “multiculturalists” they are.
I also notice that many of them will understand or condone the most grotesque violence and murder among favored groups, but their tolerance and understanding is not a general principle. For example, any criticism of Islam is considered ipso facto “racism” but these same people don’t have any problem expressing disdain and contempt for, say, Catholics or Baptists, even though what they criticize is no less a part of their culture.
Well, if academics want to blind themselves, we will find good analyses elsewhere.
For instance here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA10Ak01.html
“Batatu didn’t exaggerate or politicize the subject. He just spoke factually.”
Really – so facts are just that and the idea of exaggeration or the degree of politicization is absolute and you are the absolute monarch.
This article is hideously friendly to itself and indeed Orwellian in that there is a problem with crying “Islamophobia” but none with crying anti-Semitism by mere disagreement with Cast Lead or a host of other issues, the facts of which are solidly all in a row despite not being in Gaza at the time, similar to massive disparagement of Egypt right now but without taking the trouble to actually visit Egypt; Mr. Ruben just “knows” Cast Lead was righteous because that was decided before ever Cast Lead started.
The giveaway is defending a bigot who calls for the destruction of 300 mosques in India if a couple of Indian temples are targeted by Islamic terrorists. One can imagine this defense would be no where in sight should a call go out from Joseph Massad to destroy every Christian church in Egypt if a couple of mosques are blown up by Christian terrorists. Or how about every synagogue in France destroyed if a couple of mosques are targeted by Jewish terrorists?
And lets have no answers that there are no Jewish terrorists when the fact is that there are few Jewish terrorists and not mentioning present day Jewish attacks in the West Bank is not the same as there being none. The reason for this is that no one has today Jews penned in giant open air prison camps because prior to 1948 in the British Mandate Jewish terrorism was not at all hard to find.
What I have done is play Devil’s Advocate and rather than replying with insults without debate, answer with a reasoned argument because it is the credibility of your side that is at stake. These are definitely not the fights to fight nor the way to fight them as they are easily brushed aside as taking a side and following that up with “facts” and “reason” rather than coming to a side following facts and reason.
You may not believe it but I consider it largely my side as well but not right or wrong – no, and I am sorry to see my side so compromised because you have given plenty of unnecessary ammo to the other side. One makes it very easy when all you have to do is invert racial or religious names and change it from the argument you like to the one you don’t.
You realize you’re making his case for him, right?
Bingo!
Of course he doesn’t realize that. If there ever was a blind, unthinking cult, it is Islam.
Try and imagine a particularly strong tear gas being used on Jewish protesters in Israel and it turns out it’s made in Turkey and the manufacturer has a Turkish and Palestinian flag on their corporate grounds. Let’s see how well you “see” and how well you like that scenario. Doubtless you’d be against it unless you smell a rat and then you’ll cover up and play dead because quoting from the article “facts make no difference” – to either side.
I really don’t have anything to discus with you. You are a believer in a murderous cult that has destroyed pretty much everything that was good that it came in contact with. Stupid liberals in the West talk about the scientific and intellectual achievements of Islam but in reality, you pilfered it all from Rome and destroyed it in a few generations. You think you’re poised on regaining the Caliphate and returning the World to the late 1500s, enjoy that for awhile. Enjoy it the same way the Iranians are enjoying their fantasies of defeating the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Only your unbridled propensity to murder has given your evil cult any standing in the World. But if it is murder you want, The West will provide it for you before we submit to you.
Ah yes, tear gas. Remember it well. Nasty stuff, but I didn’t feel the least bit “brutalized” by having it tossed in my direction. I survived just fine. Same with pepper gas — whoop-dee-frikkin-doo, OK? Throw rocks at IDF troops and you get tear gassed. What’s the problem? Seriously my friend, you make a common riot-control chemical sound like live ammo or napalm or something.
Mr. Bozo the gas used on the West Bank and on Mohamed Mahmoud in Cairo recently killed people. It was much more virulent than the gas used in that same area of Cairo a year ago. I almost passed out from the lesser stuff. Stop by and take a whiff of the new stuff as I love blindfold taste tests.
Art I am not a believer in any cults and there is no Muslim name of “Samash” although “Sam-I-Am” is close. Funny how a pragmatic rationalist without an agenda seems like they have an agenda.
Since mere disagreement makes me a Jihadist I guess you’ve been exposed as just a teeny weeny biased. I am not. I fight where it’ll do good. There is plenty to expose with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood without going into la-la land and establishing caliphates with Obama waving an Al-Queda flag and wearing a “useful idiot” dunce cap.
Get real; you’re kicking out the legs from your own argument by practically worshiping endemic propaganda that says lighting up 300 mosques is “Leave It To Beaver” and lighting up a single church in Egypt is Hitler time.
Enjoy your Western freedom to pull the tiger’s tail, Sammy; one day we’re just going to have to kill you all, no hard feelings though.
Since you can’t express it in your stingy use of words, you don’t realize it.
Samash Iyam wrote: “Mr. Ruben just “knows” Cast Lead was righteous because that was decided before ever Cast Lead started.”
Are you arguing that Israel (or non-Muslims in general) don’t have a right of self-defense when attacked by Hamas (or Muslims in general)?
OBVIOUSLY, Cast Lead was decided to be righteous before Cast Last ever started (based on the fundamental human right of self-defense against Hamas’ unceasing rocket and missile attacks on Israeli civilians in Southern Israel), otherwise Israel would have had no reason to re-enter Gaza after unilaterally exiting from Gaza entirely.
If you are as you said “a Devil’s Advocate”, apparently the devil can’t afford a competent lawyer.
No, I am not arguing that; I would’ve done the same thing. I am talking about the alleged war crimes angle which men like Ruben absolve Israel of before the operation even started. The issues isn’t whether such excesses occurred but how each side absolves themselves ahead of the fact.
Samash, it’s a great relief you that you’re not like many who truly believe that self-defense by non-Muslims is a war crime.
While we’ve rescued the meaning of “war crime” from absurdity, you’re still not specific about what specific actions you’re referring to as “war crimes”.
It’s well-documented that Hamas’ military strategy consisted of nothing except ACTUAL war crimes, beginning with attacking Israeli civilians, and ending with using Gazan civilians as human shields. Hamas hasn’t conducted a single court martial of any Hamas officer who carried out that strategy, which obviously included Hamas’ leaders who used a Children’s Hospital as their military headquarters.
FYI, the Geneva Convention allows a nation to defend itself (even against an enemy using human shields), as long as reasonable actions are taken to protect the civilians from harm.
As opposed to Hamas’s obviously deliberate war crimes, I’m not aware of any facts that demonstrate the Israeli Army deliberately planned to commit any war crimes in Operation Cast Lead.
At the Goldstone Hearing, British Army Commander (ret.) Richard Kemp testified before the UNHRC that the IDF made an extraordinary effort in Operation Cast Lead to safeguard the lives of Gaza’s civilians during its counterterrorist operation.
“During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare,” testified Colonel Kemp. “Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.”
…
“The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over two million leaflets and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties,” he said.
“During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza,” Kemp reminded the commission. “To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.”
Commander Kemp acknowledged that civilians had been killed, but pointed out that “war is chaos and full of mistakes.” He added that Israel was not the only country to face such a situation: “There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.”
You’re still not following my drift and maybe I’m not expressing it well. I’m not talking about real events that happened or didn’t happen during Cast Lead that were or were not war crimes. I’m talking about two sides that are ready, willing and able to act as if such things aren’t possible in the first place if it’s Israel and another side unable to see anything else.
Defending such views do not respect facts but only what side one happens to be on. This is not about cultural relativism since Israel was clearly goaded past reason. I would’ve invaded too. And yes Hamas uses civilian infrastructure to hide in knowing how the media will react. Hamas was in the wrong for the whole affair in my opinion. Pooh-poohing the idea of war crimes as simply not possible because my side is the good side rather than dispassionately looking at facts is wrong. Thankfully there are those within Israel who are not dedicated propagandists.
Samash, if we’re discussing hypothetical possibilities, rather than comparing actual facts, there is no definitive answer, only the future can tell…
However, at least we agree as friends that propaganda is very annoying.
I was discussing hypothetical events but the propaganda is very real and so in turn transforms reality into a hypothetical before the fact. When that fact actually happens, it didn’t. Why do you think the Egyptians have crap all over the place named Oct.6 this and Oct.6 that? They ignore reality in favor of ego and a side.
In Western terms they’re taking a nap although with the West’s massive political correctness and wholesale population transfer of failure from the Third World nappy time for us is just around the corner.
Man, you didn’t even mention Rubin’s most egregious claim, that Woody Allen is “good” at fantasizing heroism. That nihilist, who lives in a moral vacuum and makes multiple films where murdering your unwanted wife is just another possibility that you can get away with in a world without justice, a world in which Allen’s resentment of the Holocaust, proof of this godless injustice, only fantasizes ways of making his “Jewish” resentment of the Nazis into the equivalent of the Nazis’ resentment of the Jews.
It is not a question of being “hideously friendly” to yourself. It is a question of beginning with the assumption that it is one’s Jewish duty to recognize and explain the specific (not pan-racist) evil that leads to antisemitism or anti-Israelism, and then to be able rightly to say that one is not just reproducing the same evil in one’s relationship with the Palestinians. The other side can indulge in all the moral relativism and formal argument flipping it wants, promoting the completely false idea that Israel’s self-defence is first of all a will to destroy the Palestinians and not a desire to minimize violence. (Israel can’t put down its guns without being destroyed; the Palestians can put down theirs and learn, eventually, to live as free individuals and a responsible civil society within the kind of modernity Israel represents. But the Palestians generally don’t want this and this is a similar refusal of a Jewish-led – in good part – modernity as that which the Nazis also resented.)
What Rubin is lacking is an analysis of the White Guilt in his young colleagues, that resentment of Jewish modernity that which does make all reality and facts fit into the paradigm where the Nazi/Jew relationship is just something to be flipped around and pointed at whoever seems to have an upper hand, as if one’s life, without this resentful paradigm, were otherwise meaningless and incapable of delineating right and wrong as is Woody Allen’s. Without a coherent analysis of White Guilt as the postmodern form of antisemitism, one cannot fulfill the Jewish duty of explaining resentment of “the Jews” or “Israel” or Woody Allen’s post-Jewish failed God, and denying, in an intellectually satisfying way, the charges that one is doing to the Palestinian side just what one accuses them of doing.
For myself I was not making any of those points but simply remarking on the gerrymandering of logic to one’s own agenda while bafflingly remarking on how facts mean nothing to the other side.
“Lighten up, Francis.” – wisdom from the movie “Stripes”.
Woody Allen is a comedian. Comedians are contra-logical. Take a comedian seriously, only at your own risk.
I saw a movie scene where Woody Allen was a royal court jester in a medieval court, who was beheaded for not being funny.
Humor is immortal.
The films to which I refer are not comedies. Allen clearly takes himself seriously as an artist and story teller who invites us to share in his disillusioning and despairing discovery of a world without any clear goodness. Let him be judged accordingly. But, in the hypothetical case, if you are audience for an immoral comic, why not complain?
I have chosen to respond to your nonsense with reasoned emotion.
You do know that the Muslim Brotherhood was “FHBC” don’t you? That’s for Hitler before he was Chancellor. The Muslim Brotherhood supported the Nazis and their primary goal of making the world free of Jews. One of their leaders, the Grand Mufti of Jersusalem spent the war in Berlin helping the Nazis implement the final solultion. After the war he fled to Egypt where continued Adolph Hitler’s mission in life. The Palistinians, who didn’t really exist before they were created by the KBG in 1964. were solidly behind the Nazis. (By the way in the 1930′s when the British Colonial Office referred to the Palestinians they meant the Jews. The Arabs were called Arabs.)
I look at it this way. The Arabs supported the Nazis. The Nazis lost the war and so did the Palestinians. If they ended up with the fuzzy end of the lolipop then so be it. Just as Germany lost land to the victorious Soviet Union so did the Nazi sympathizing population of Arabs lose land to some of the victims of Nazi ideology.
You’re not going to get me defending the MB. Sayd Qutb was one of the greatest idiots of his generation and the MB treasures his memory and “plans” and by “plans” I mean utter stupidity set to words.
Reading Qutb’s writings about his visit to America are a laugh riot and he thought of them as nuanced insight. It is the same nuanced insight that allows Wile E. Coyote to paint tunnels on the sides of hills, forget he did it, and then try and run into them. Qutb is the kind of guy who thought of Americans as shambling neanderthals if they put salt on watermelon. In turn he thought of the over refinement, all talk and no action of Egypt as salt of the Earth – not on watermelon though.
All this comes from the subversion of culture and its substitution with ideology.
The last few sentences of your column are in fact an example of the principles that any and every intellectual should follow: and they are the opposite of what an ideological approach to reality teaches.
Truth can only be searched for.
Ideology instead knows already “everything”.
When you know “everything” you don’t have to learn to search for the truth, and you end up for not learning to think.
The subversives have filled our schools with ideology, and are creating generations of idiots, who literally cannot think (and now cannot write, nor speak.)
Past generations were always in contact with someone not brainwashed by ideology, so even the “marxists” of the past were “better” than the total idiots of today, the total fanatics, like our Commie in Chief, who probably has never met a serious intellectual, a giant of thought and of research.
It is not a remarkable weapon or ideology but merely an example of an agenda which lacks the true tools necessary to self-critique. In other words it is blithe self-interest using logic and facts as a masquerade.
While I understand the reasoning this is not an example of politically correct Critical Pedagogy which is in fact an ideology. This is just two sides who are never wrong. They do not believe they are never wrong based on an over arching philosophy but merely because of where they were born and the fact they put their own shoes on in the morning.
If you think that Harvard professor was fired because he was an innocent simply occupying the incorrect social/racial strata, you’re crazy. He is a flat out bigot and he unbelievably has people defending him who would otherwise hate him as an anti-Semite if he called for 1/4 of what he does against Muslims against Jews.
Well, since Islam is an ideology, you and your Muslim friends are never wrong, either.
How convenient for you.
It’s true Muslims never believe they’re wrong when it comes to any outside entity but since I am not a Muslim I have developed skills in self-criticism and fair play by reading the first 100 issues of the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man. Muslims feel no guilt, Peter Parker does.
Now that’s funny right there
I do not agree that the present generation cannot think nor speak.
They do speak although as forever they do so in new ways. I think young people today have good reason to worry about the future. Where do you go? There are fewer options.
To be honest. I work with many hard working young people who are excellent. If the opportunities are not there then what can the, not so young, do to give them the same chances?
Teach your children well.
“I will examine the facts and evidence as honestly as possible. I will state my assertions clearly and revise them if anyone shows that I’m in error.”
I think that’s the only way to be, however it’s a small club.
“In doing so, we must believe that those arguments and that stance will convince other people, just as seeing how the opposite side behaves will ultimately disgust other people.”
Unfortunately, from my experience, most people care litte for the truth and want to be part of the perceived dominate group. A survival instict perhaps?
This is what our schools are putting out.
My wife and I call it ‘Gold star foreheads’.
The schools our daughter attended consistently reinforced the idea that she was a genius, to the point that it eventually got out of hand. By the time she was 16 she believed every thought she had was that of a GENIUS! Eye roll…
Naw. That’s just being a teenager.
I will examine the facts and evidence as honestly as possible….
The problem is that the vast majority of people, in this country, if not the world, are not trained or equipped to listen to arguments that contradict their own worldview; they feel that to give any time at all to consideration of the other side of an argument requires that they give in to that side.
This seems to be related to the argument tactic so prevalent these days whereby one side assumes that since the opponent doesn’t accept their extreme, they must be arguing for the other extreme, and since that is demonstrably bad the opponent must be completely insane. “You don’t want to replace fossil fuel and nuclear plants with windmills? Than you must hate the earth and want to rape and pillage Gaea.” “You don’t want to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere in order to reduce global warming? You must want to kill off 90% of humanity.”
It has actually always been difficult to get people to leave their comfort zones and at least consider evidence against what they assume to be proven to be true. (This is, for instance, why the ancient Greeks had such a problem with pure democracy; it inevitably devolved to mob rule under orators that could persuade people to follow them against better reasoning).
It is very heartening to read both this article and the comments and to know there are still some sane, rational people left in the world.
People who deny G-ds Laws ultimately descend into self worshippers. Whatever they want, whatever they think is, ipso facto, correct.
” Israel is bad “.
” Why? ”
” Because I say so. ”
” But the facts … ”
” The facts are irrelevant. ”
” Why? ”
” Because I say so. ”
” I seek no victory, for the honor of my soul and character consists in deviating from the paths of fools, but not in conquering them.” The Rambam
Just replace the word “bad” with the word “good” and have fun burning incense to yourself.
Just replace “Israel” with “Islam” and do the same.
Well at least you concede self-worship on both sides.
“Hey bud, did I ever tell you the story of how it turned out I was right about everything and all the time? It all started with this god guy… No, not those god guys, they’re always wrong about everything all the time. I’m talking about the good god.”
No, he did not concede that.
He suggested that your procedure to yourself but replacing different words would produce a valid statement.
He made no comment on the validity of your statement.
“I will examine the facts and evidence as honestly as possible…”
Ignoring defeat kinda puts that West Bank/Oct.6 aura on you. Probably a good look with a pair of heels.
Exhibit A, even losing is winning. Yeah, logic and facts. They are very cute. Let’s give them a great big hug and then a kiss.
Internal contradiction is the main characteristic of leftism:
Take the demonisation of political opponents. Leftists believe all conservatives are bigoted and intolerant. Obviously this opinion in itself is bigoted and intolerant. Similar in the way that branding Israel as a racist society is racist as it assumes the existence of biological Judaism.
Leftism started out as a form of defeatism and has now morphed into full blown identification with the enemy. It doesn’t really matter who this enemy is however. Any enemy will do because they seek transformative power. They want to destroy their political opponents, not find some middle ground. Their dream is not co existence with us, but Utopia without us.
Leftism is now a collective expression of the human tendency towards the authoritarian. Each and every leftist dreams to remake the world in their own image. That’s where those fantasies of a unified world come from. They all assume they will be the mold for this new unified world, without countries, religions and no possessions too.
They couldn’t be more wrong.
Hmmm. One perfect world under a caliphate? That covers most of those requirements. But then half of the ‘noble’ koran becomes obsolete:
“Dad, who were ‘christianapes’ and jewpigs’, and why should we smite their necks?”
“Dad, why are we ‘the best of peoples’, we are the only people?”
“But the koran is the immutable book for all time, why does it refer to extinct cults?”
Of course, mohammedanism has to first destroy all the kaffirs or parasitize all the other religions, and atheism, in concert with itself, then its own minority sects, until only the strongest (sunni?) is left standing.
Then the world will experience a califate worse than death.
Perhaps you are right, a world in which epithets or ignorance trump facts and logical thinking is a world which is sinking into barbarism.
Every civilization in the world, except Judaism, has gone extinct, and in most cases no one knows why. The reason could be as simple as emotions replacing thinking for most people.
As always, the primary liberal act is not to do anything good and useful in the world, but to assert one’s identity and virtue as a liberal.
What Mr. Rubin is describing is what Ayn Rand titled “Argument from Intimidation.” Obviously, given the dates of her writings, it’s nothing new from the left. However, if one substitutes “fact” for “truth,” because a fact, by definition, is a truth, it helps to keep one’s “ducks in a row.” I’ve become convinced through the decades that the left has chosen to lose the ability to discern the difference between a truth and a biased opinion, can’t tell the differce between a persuasion based upn facts and a foregone conclusion they’ve prejudicially made via denials and according to their dogma with preconceived notions of “reality according to Garp.” They must quarrel because they cannot argue! They must quarrel because the truth is the last thing they seek, nor do they believe it exists for “everything is relative,” they say. They have to offer what Ayn Rand called “bromides,” because everything they’ve convinced themselves to believe is predicated upon a false premise.
When attempting to debate with one, a futile endeavor, all they can offer is what our daughter at age three offered in frustration to other children, “La la, pantsnfa,” which translated at the time to “Liar, Liar, pants on fire!” It’s all they’ve got! Why argue with three year olds? Do what must be done to save them from themselves and save the world! No point in trying to rationally persuade those who will not see or hear the truth: leave them to heaven.
This is a very wise comment. You are a good observer IMO.
Although one is rarely tempted to not watch the game when you are at the plate, your swings are oftentimes accurate but a tad weak. This one is evidence of why we keep watching.
To debate in terms of facts automatically puts both people in an argument on equal footing and equal social status. From a certain point of view the winning of the argument is not whether the one arguing with you makes the better argument but whether you were able to assert your innate superiority.
When for instance you are arguing as a tea partier or zionist and you find that you are giving constant facts and arguments and hitting a brick wall realize the other person has changed the game to sitting in judgement of you. Make sure you call the person on their attitudes and remind them that even kings could not sit back and declare their superiority forever and you won’t accept that from them. It is harder to do that in a college class when courses cost so much so lets call academics the extortion class and move on.
Progressives are imbued with a fanatical secular religion. As with all religious fanatics, they do not countenance questions about their core beliefs. They do not tolerate other religions except as temporary allies in a war (e.g., Progressives and Islamists in their war against Judeo-Christianity).
I am a free man and as such I will speak the truth aloud. There is no moral equivalency between Judaism-Christanity and Islam. The Koran and its handmaiden Sharia are based in hatred, envy, violence and expansionist murder. Israel is surounded by people enraptured by a cult of death. It is no accident that of the 18,000 acts of terrorism perpetrated around the world since 9-11, 98% of them committed by Muslims ( frequently Muslim against Muslim). When studying the life of the perfect man, Mohammed, who every Muslim is enjoined to emulate, we find that he was a pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a kidnapper and an enslaver. This history is embedded in the Koran itself, in the Hadiths and certainly is manifest in Sharia. This is the context in which comments of Samash and his ilk must be evaluated.
Well here’s a context from my ilk for you to consider: 500 million Jews surrounding 6 million Muslims.
Saying Jews never involved themselves in naked aggression cuz they’re too cool is like saying native Americans let themselves be conquered because their exquisite refinement caused them to purposefully not invent machine guns.
No human culture with power to take over others has ever existed that has not done so. Next you’ll be awarding medals to Costa Rica, who have no army, for their crazy good taste in not taking over the world.
You want moral equivalency, I give you the British Mandate, 1920 to 1946 where the two sides were fairly indistinguishable in their violent posturing.
Well here’s a context from my ilk for you to consider: 500 million Jews surrounding 6 million Muslims.
Saying Jews never involved themselves in naked aggression cuz they’re too cool is like saying native Americans let themselves be conquered because their exquisite refinement caused them to purposefully not invent machine guns.
No human culture with power to take over others has ever existed that has not done so
Such nonsense. Such projection.
The US has not “taken over others” in modern times; the United States conquered Western Europe, you might recall, and gave it back to its inhabitants. It did not retain France, or Italy, or West Germany, or Britain, as subject nations. It did not retain South Korea as a subject nation. It did not retain the Philippines, which it once had; did not retain Cuba, which it acquired from Spain at the same time it acquired the Philippines and Cuba. It relinquished the Canal Zone. It did not retain Japan or Okinawa as a colony or protectorate.
By the same token, the Jews do not want Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Jordan. They want the Land of Israel, and they want to live there in peace. They are surrounded by 500 million fanatics who want to murder them for wanting to live in their own land in peace.
Your attempt to equate the two attitudes, and to gain forgiveness for the inveterate bloody-mindedness of Muslims, is disgusting.
Good reply! Thanks.
Well, BUZZ, though I recognize the difference between naked conquest by piratical empires and America’s more reasonable take on this theme I question what you mean by modern times. We have retained all of America we conquered including Alaska and Hawaii. The point is that we were an immigration empire and not a military one and once that was pretty much exhausted by reaching the Pacific we were sated.
As for saying Israel doesn’t want what it cannot have that is ridiculous on the face of it. They certainly took what they could. Read “The Fox and the Grapes” or Dr. Seuss.
Anyway thanks for the list of things we took over but didn’t keep since I said nothing about keeping stuff, merely taking.
And America didn’t conquer Western Europe but had allies from Canada and Great Britain that fought German and Italian armies and occupied Italy, France, a small part of Germany and some other small areas.
Please don’t act like a tiny population base of 6 million people represents one that eschews empire by the very fact of its small population base.
When it comes to projection you have once again projected your own bigotry and one can only be thankful there are not 500 million of you.
Yes but costa rica is not about the current military buildup in the gulf. It is about something else.
Good that such places still exist. I might go there this year or next. Try some sport fishing and see the volcanos. The piglet defense, no disrepect intended, is a good idea for such an amazing place. Just be yourself and things will work out.
President of US is a very different job.
“I am a free man and I can (and will) say whatever I want.
A Marxist who praises individual freedom and freedom of speech is a) not a Marxist, b) confused c) lying or d) all of the aforegoing. Marxism is a collectivist, totalitarian ideology which abhors individual freedom and free speech (except of course for the prole dictators) Like Islam, Marxism would make slaves of the masses to serve the masters. What is Barry Rubin thinking?
#25 What are you thinking. Your reply makes no sense. Are you trying to convey anything anyone can understand in the cotext of these posts and the article being discussed here?
Samash, let’s get this clear. You think in the Middle East 500 million Jews surround 6million Arabs. Do I have that right?
Please learn to read and parse English as I am not an explanation factory.
Well, at least, back then you had Marxists who believed their ideas but also had to live in a world of other people and had to convince them by logical argument and evidence. Which is why left/liberals dumbed-down education and reduced debated to agreement with them or being abused as a “racist” or whatever.
My jaw dropped one day when my otherwise intelligent child challenged one of my well considered opinions with a favorite liberal inanity learned from his school teachers, “But, you cannot make generalizations.”
How can one even think, or argue one’s position, without reducing the information available down to some sort of generalization?
Journalists have a phrase, “getting lost in the weeds”. You get off track of the larger discussion and end up arguing petty details and splitting hairs. The larger picture is the enemy of Liberal thought. Liberalism has certain foundational premises… strategic assumptions. If you start arguing those assumptions, they will lose, because empiricism enters the picture.
So, they say things like, “You cannot generalize.” In other words, you MUST get lost in the weeds, because once you get down there, arguing things no one knows or cares about, then only the emotional arguments hold any sway. One must choose one’s battlefield, then fight there.
The Left is very adept at choosing the field of battle. They fight where their weapons are the most effective. The Right is terrible at this. They have the big logic guns, and they think those logic guns will win any fight, but they won’t. The Left is very good at working themselves under the minimum range of those big guns. When you are outgunned, you have to get resourceful.
The Right never gets this. They foolishly think that everyone accepts that logical, reasonable arguments are the only ones which count. That goes against all their experience, but still they cling to such beliefs. Logic is the most powerful thing, but it is not the only thing. You might have the big artillery, but it does you no good at 50 meters.
i went looking for objective truth and found that it is in hiding—not to be found ,in universities, in religious organizations or even in relationships between ‘friends’—but truth is what we seek when we look for peace.
truth is the foundation on which to build—everything—sadly, most people today don’t understand anything without some sort of bias that subverts any possibility to find honesty and truth.
thank you barry rubin for trying so hard to keep that beautiful idea alive, because without it freedom is impossible.
כל הכבוד
In my country of 1.2 + billion people, the majority for the most part, seem to get along and somehow manage to work and struggle everyday to make ends meet.
Welcome to India, a land of a thousand Gods and deities, strange festivals, a chaotic democracy, tons of hypocrisy, over a billion people and issues like no other in this world. We have what the West has, Left, Right, Moderate, Liberal, Neo/Ultra Conservative, leanings, whatever you want to call it. We have the largest number of Muslims, a higher number of Hindus, many other sects and, and a Christian/Catholic population which makes up just 2 percent of the population.
In the midst of corruption, volatility between communities, mainstream media, differences culturally, and politically…the one thing this country has learned, and to be proud off…is that we don’t have the right to bear arms and regardless of how hot things might get in various states, we don’t have the wars and violence that have and are plaguing so many parts of the world. Imagine the Israel/Palestine conflict, a few million Israelis and Palestinians cannot live in peace or learn to get along or work on solutions for the future. Why? Simply because, it’s in human nature to be destructive, overpowering, conquering, genocidal, nationalistic – the list can go on. Different trains of thought, hardcore to brutal feelings of the past, warmongers etc. When you speak the language of peace, love and fellowship, nobody wants to listen…your frowned upon as being a hippy EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT. But when you talk bad, and plant the seeds of negativity, people flock to you. It’s all about the upper hand, doesn’t matter how intelligent or intellectual you are, evil will always triumph over the righteous here on earth. See what was done to Jesus.A man was sent to spread love, and they crucified him for it. And this is not about a particular race or tribe, it’s just the filth and destructive manifestation of the human/animal mind. Don’t expect people to understand logic, rational thought, analysis, and fact based arguments. Most people are simply to thick, or too lazy or are just corrupted by their own political, social, religious or communal leanings hence the reason why we, the human race don’t get along. And if I’m wrong about this, then explain the wars being fought around the world, the horrors and tragedy of man’s greatest failures…to prevent the annihilation of his own by building bridges, reaching out. And it’s been tried, yet it always fails, because a certain group or population makes it fail, or ‘caste’, or religion, or political party.
Once the good in you is lost, no matter how much you suffered, or struggled, trying to reach out or help…then your pretty much done, rather moving over to another train of thought. Endurance might be the only way to salvation, but you will not see the fruit here on earth. Then there are those that believe, the only way to solve problems is to seek and destroy the source of those problems. Either ways, the world carries on, never a day of peace in this so called advanced era.
Yeah, liberals are intellectually lazy, shallow, self aggrandizing.
Right wingers of all stripes are … shallow, arrogant and lazy too. Read your comment section some time and use an honest eye.
Can’t we just say that human beings don’t live up neither our potential nor our ideals and leave it at that?
I’m not going to attempt to take the high ground and imply that I have all of the answers. However, I will listen, debate, study, watch, learn and using the powers of deductive reasoning, scientific peer reviewed evidence and Socratic method determine to the best of my ability in the present moment to make the correct logical decision. And, I’ll do it even if I don’t like the conclusion.
B.J.Clinton hid behind the undefined definition of “IS”, and last month DOJ USAG Eric Holder hid behind “lying “IS” a state of mind” when asked if he was lying about his knowledge and involvement in Fast and Furious. Our congress has made it legal for themselves to do insider trades.
These are men of more than just prestigious position and considerable achievement, but representatives of a powerful national government. And they are behaving like some nasty 7 year old child.
Leading by example isn’t just a theory of leadership, people will try to get away with what they see others getting away with. When incredibly important men and women behave like amoral animals whose character is more aligned with Benedict Arnold than traditional Americans people tend to lean away from the character traits that bond a society together and begin to test the waters of criminal, subversive or even treasonous behaviors. As we see from this administration and government in general.
Morality, ethics, honor, integrity and development of individual character are key functions of a healthy society. Making them relative to some unknown or uncommon lexicon as we see in government today, dissolves the bonds of a strong society in the caustic mire of dishonor. From which there is little hope of return.
Great article Barry.
What has happened is that Leftwingers have marched through the institutions and commenced to destroying the old Christian order, which was dedicated to truth….instead of “revolutionary truth,” or that which tends to promote the revolution or the implementation of Socialist Leftwing AntImperialist AntiCapitalist AntiChristian agendas.
That is the simple truth of the matter.
There is no Truth. All truth is relative. All truth is subjective and personal.
The assault on reason itself…on the Platonic ideal of objective truth.
The true tragedy is the number of lazy liberal teachers who encourage, no practically order, the children to shut up and memorise “what’s in the book”.
The how and where of the information presented, the proof of the assertions made, are ignored or washed over. In Europe it has reached to stage where children who question are punished with bad notes!
The downward spiral is hard to stop when those who form the minds of the young are themselves already infected.
Food for thought!
People always tell me that my views are not the norm, that I am missing ‘facts’ that support their side of the argument, that the Tea Party is evil, the occupiers have real and legitimate complaints, that I am a cynic, etc, etc, etc. When I look for facts that support the opposing view of whatever I am foaming at the mouth about (and I do get parts or the whole of a viewpoint wrong), this article basically explains what I see the majority of time when I seek opposing facts or trying to understand the other side. I recently had a good friend with whom I generally look up to, said I was wrong about my view concerning the legitimacy of occupiers versus the tea party, and his argument was that I should look at both sides, while stating the tea party is the most troublesome of the two, but in his efforts to change my view on the matter, he presented no facts to support his statement to me (and there are some legitimate issues that do need addressing), only the fact that I was ‘wrong’.
Years ago, I had an intern under me, that would always make these “the bible says this…”, or “the bible taught that…” statement, but he was not a Christian and he, by his own admission had never read the bible. I would either ask him “where in the bible did you read this”, or I would correct his perception of what the bible teaches on any given subject that he misunderstood but it did not take him long to stop making such assertion arounds me while he continue to do so with like-minded friends and acquaintances.
The reason this is happening is that this country has been aborting the wrong people all these years.
The most recent New Statesman article defending Cast Lead was Stop ignoring the facts about Cast Lead – Posted by Jonathan Sacerdoti. The only point at which I can find the term fascist being used is in this comment from Luddite:
“Sally: many on the political-left [Islamic fascist apologists] pretend they don’t know what Hamas is all about. ”
Is your colleague a liar or just confused?