Historicist: Life in Wartime
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
A mural by British artist Banksy appears on the Separation Wall in Palestine. Photo by walker cleavelands.
2009 kicked off with promise in the air, a tonic sense of the future around which Western civilization warmed itself. Despite a snowballing economic catastrophe unseen since the 1930s, the world staggered onward, still high from the incredible euphoria of Barack Obama's ascendancy to the presidency. With the expiration of the Bush Era inevitable, we all held our breath, collectively waiting to exhale.
On January 20, millions flocked to Washington, D.C.—a pilgrimage, for all intents and purposes—for the coronation of a man heralded as the first truly global president, his inauguration ushering in a new era of multilateralism and international co-operation. A blinding contrast to the Medieval policies of his predecessor, President Obama hurtled to power amid a historic torrent of grassroots support that quickly became a democratic revolution, hallmarked by a perennial appeal and promise to the American people for change—real, quantitative, lasting change. At just after noon Eastern Standard Time, Barack Hussein Obama II raised his right hand, rested his left on Lincoln's Bible, and recited the 56th oath of office. A great cry went up in Washington; across the world, billions of lungs let out a single breath.
To those aghast at Bush's disastrous mismanagement of the United States—something like seventy per cent of the U.S. electorate, to say nothing of the rest of us—the mere notion of an Obama White House all but pharmaceutically allayed the most apocalyptic fears. Celebration erupted with the thought of eight years' neoconservative rule skulking sheepishly out the door, following Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and, later, a wheelchair-bound, appropriately Dr. Strangelove-esque Dick Cheney into shameful history. Elated over the election of the nation's first African-American president, America embraced a man whose story represented the most cherished principles of its national self-image: hope, progress, perseverance—and compassion. In the wake of Bush's inhuman crusades, Obama's perceived moral clarity drew voters like moths to a porchlight, compelled by their new leader's apparent rejection of ideology and an ethical imperative nearly extinct in an epoch of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition. After all, we're talking about the same man who, less than two years earlier, had broken a great Western taboo by confronting one of the world's most contentious geopolitical issues, telling a small crowd in Iowa, "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people."
It was a proclamation that would prove haunting in the weeks leading up to Inauguration Day.
A "Measured Response"
While much of the world nursed its holiday hangover, a terrible conflagration ignited the Middle East in the last week of 2008. Responding to rocket attacks by Hamas militants, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, a punishing aerial assault over Gaza on December 27 followed by a ground invasion that, after a few days, brought the death toll in the Occupied Territories to 500, then 700, then 900. By the time of the IDF's withdrawal—completed within hours of Obama's inauguration—the number of Palestinians killed in the Gaza war had reached close to 1,300. On the other side of the geder ha'hafrada, Israel's victims numbered thirteen—ten of whom were soldiers.
On January 3, a little more than a week after the first IAF fighters scrambled, a vastly smaller but no less passionate assembly than that which occupied D.C. took over Yonge & Dundas Square. From a distance, the sound of police horses in heavy lockstep and the sight of Israeli and Palestinian flags triggered latent emotions; wherever you stood on the issue, the startling tableaux summoned a near-visceral response. Rallied by tearful cries over crackling bullhorns and loudspeakers, demonstrators in solidarity with Palestine waved banners and signs, shouting "Shame, shame, Israel!" or "Long live Palestine!" Across the street, a pro-Israel counter-demonstration made its point in no less vocal nor uncertain terms: "Defeat Islamo-fascism," read one sign; elsewhere, "Smash Muslim Terrorism" struck high alongside "Stop Islamic Racism." Divided by an unnervingly small police presence, the emotion of either sidewalk's rally reached feverish nationalistic levels. "We just want peace!" shouted a woman flanked by Israeli flags.
Between the rallies of January 3 and 10, the Canadian chapter of B'nai B'rith sounded the alarm over what it perceived as fertile conditions for one hate crime after another. "Since the launch of Operation Cast Lead," it warned, "the Jewish human rights organization has documented a spike in incidents against Jews in Canada, including harassment and death threats." Citing recent synagogue bombings in France, B'nai B'rith appealed for heightened caution, while raising the commonly held image of Israel as a virgin state beset on all sides by Islamist savages. She had no choice; her people hovered dangerously close to annihilation. By this rationale, condemnation of Israel's policies swerves unforgivingly close to antisemitism.
Demonstrators in solidarity with Gaza overwhelm Bloor Street on January 3, 2009. Photo by Todd Aalgaard/Torontoist.
Such conflation evokes a lingering continuum of Bush's neoconservative orgy: either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. To Diana Ralph, coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices, such black-and-white terms not only dilute the issue, but expose Jewish communities to greater risk. "Because Israel claims to speak on behalf of all Jews in the world," she told Torontoist, "its escalating violence, inhumanity, and flouting of international law, humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, and UN Resolutions inevitably generate resentment not only against Israel but against Jews in general." Defining true antisemitism as hatred and discrimination against Jews and Judaism—not outrage over Israel's hard-line, arguably racist policies—she asserts that "the major Jewish religious and secular organizations conflate principled criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism, which they term 'the new antisemitism.'" In a tragic irony, a grim cycle of true hatred triggered by Israel's unethical behaviour can result, the very sort that B'nai B'rith warned so ardently against.
"If everyone who expresses criticism of Israeli policies is labelled antisemitic," Ralph continues, "it becomes as meaningless a concept as calling anyone critical of U.S. policies 'un-American.'" Throughout the so-called "war on terror," America has experienced the intellectual poison of retreating from dialogue on nationalistic grounds. Immediately after 9/11, "rallying behind the president" became tantamount to shutting up and drinking the Kool-Aid; in Israel, Ralph describes, a similar patriotic censorship keeps many Israelis in the dark. "This is to be expected since all Israeli children are subjected to a heavy diet of the official line in school and in the media, and most Israeli parents send their children off to the IDF where they are subjected to further indoctrination." And despite a thriving domestic peace movement, the Israeli government's dehumanization of Palestine is ensuring a terrible, far-reaching perpetuity. "Most Israelis have no relationships with Palestinians and have never visited Palestine or even Israeli Palestinian villages," Ralph says, "so they believe the stereotypes and lies."
But in defending itself from Palestinian "Islamo-fascism," according to Sue Goldstein, a member of the Toronto Jewish Women's Committee Against the Occupation, "what Israel has wreaked and continues to do is unconscionable."
"It's not just a humanitarian disaster," she says. "Because if we only view it as such, we conveniently erase the politics behind it, detach the evidence from its moorings, until we are left trying to get 'two sides' to 'disarm' in a sea of 'balance' without considering where the culpability belongs: firmly on Israel." Alluding to disinformation in the conflict, Goldstein recalls that "it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on 4 November 2008." Targeting Hamas tunnels allegedly intended as conduits through which to kidnap Israeli soldiers, troops entered the Gaza Strip under cover of darkness late that night, killing six Hamas gunmen in a pre-emptive raid. Hamas retaliated, firing volley after volley of rockets into southern Israel. "This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military stated. In response, Hamas declared that "the Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds."
Oddly enough, what began on the eve of Obama's election officially ended within hours of his inauguration—and at a human cost as execrable as can be imagined. On January 22, two days after a "unilateral ceasefire" was declared, evidence began to mount that Israeli forces, in response to rockets fired by Hamas, had committed unspeakably grisly acts against the civilian population of Gaza. Collective punishment, a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime from which countless atrocities derive, has been a frequent accusation against the Israeli military throughout the history of the occupation. Recently, however, with the IAF's use of white phosphorus against the population of Gaza, reports of Israeli tanks shelling houses swollen to capacity with civilians, and Israel's staunch refusal to permit such civilians to leave the war zone, the state has backed itself into an incredibly ugly position. "To lock people into a war zone," said UN investigator Richard Falk, "is something that evokes the worst kind of international memories of the Warsaw Ghetto"—a chilling indictment in light of history.
Change We Need
History, of course, will be the final arbiter of the ongoing catastrophe, and time is running out for a solution. And as a chorus of whispered hopes at this month's rallies can attest, that's where Obama comes in.
During his inaugural address, the newly minted president proclaimed: "To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." While the text is vague enough to refer to any number of crises, the timing of Obama's call-out is telling, suggesting that a shift in tone may be forthcoming between the United States and one of its closest allies.
With his political capital growing, the world is increasingly hopeful that the measured pragmatism of the Obama Administration can reverse the devastating momentum of even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "For the next four years," says Hanadi Loubani, coordinator of KAIROS' Middle East program, "Obama needs to realize that achieving peace will take more than simply reinvigorating diplomacy and relinquishing the Bush Administration's use of force to address the region's problems." Dismissing the conventional wisdom that resigns to an "intractable morass that lacks solutions," Loubani tells Torontoist that "the desired outcomes, and the path thereto, are relatively clear: a safe, secure and democratic Israel living in peace, prosperity and mutual recognition with its neighbours; a free, independent and democratic Palestine within the pre–June 1967 borders, and the creation of a united Jerusalem as the capital of the two countries."
To get there, however, Obama "needs to abandon the entire façade of peace negotiations of the past years." Change, far from being the exclusive domain of domestic U.S. policies, must extend to all avenues of American influence, and needs to start with this week's arrival of Obama's envoy to the region. "Obama needs a new Middle East policy and approach," she continues, "one that regards ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as an urgent priority for regional and global stability." But time is running out for a two-state solution, Loubani says. "This vision is being threatened by continued violence such as the recent Gaza war, the absence of a final agreement after so many years of trying, Israel's expansion of its settlements in the West Bank, and waning Palestinian confidence in the peace process."
Underscoring the urgency of this pivotal moment in history, she adds, "Obama is likely to be the last president to have the option of dealing with the two-state solution."
But to those who call Gaza home, ancestrally or otherwise, even the most promising policy is eclipsed by the unyielding horrors of daily life. Hammam Farah, a member of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, spoke with Torontoist about hardships encountered by loved ones in the region. "I was born in Gaza," he told us at the height of the invasion, "and have my whole extended family there. They are terrified. There is only bread left to eat. It used to be bread or rice since the siege was imposed two years ago, but now only bread is left. The water is dirty and needs to be boiled. And there is no electricity."
Worse, he says, is that "they also have to contemplate whether to stay home or seek shelter elsewhere, and that decision could determine whether they live or die. I could only get in touch with my grandmother to learn all this."
"She said all of Gaza has been destroyed," he adds. When told of Israel's repeated claims to be only attacking Hamas members and facilities, she laughed.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
so... How does this post connect connect to the greater Toronto community? There was barely a mention of what this means to the people of Toronto on both sides of the issue. I thought that was what TORONTOist was about. Regardless of individual sides on the debate, this is not your soapbox, nor mine, so don't use it as such.
This is precisely NOT the kind of article that Torontoist should publish, for a variety of reasons:
1 - Torontoist is meant to focus on life in Toronto--and encourage civic engagement--not offer a forum for windy opinions on international issues. How exactly is this piece relevant to Toronto, apart from the fact that there were some demonstrations in Toronto?
2 - We hear from anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian sources, but nothing from pro-Israel sources. Is this balanced journalism?
3 - The mixture of editorializing (not least the clichéd language about the inauguration and ranting against the Bush Administration) and straight reporting is absurd. If this is supposed to be serious journalism, leave your editorializing at home.
4 - The author throws around the term "neo-conservative" without any apparent idea as to its precise meaning. In his usage, it seems only to be synonymous with "conservatives I don't like." Get serious. Which neo-conservative scholars has he read to form his opinion of the content of neo-conservatism?
5 - Does the author have any conception of what Hamas and its supporters in Toronto (including those at the demonstrations he describes) stand for? Has he read the Hamas Charter? Is he aware that the Canadian government considers Hamas a terrorist organization? Did he witness the violent anti-semitic opinions expressed by some of the demonstrators?
6 - Did this article really need to be so long? One of the best signs of good writing is concision, a quality not much in evidence here.
Torontoist can be brilliant when it sticks to doing what it's good at. So, please, Torontoist, let's have more pieces on Luminato and no-pants subway riding, and less of this self-righteous nonsense.
Do you really think this article needs a pro-Israel perspective? Isn't that what mainstream news (you know, not blogs) already provide in abundance?
Is a pro-Israel perspective not a valid one? There are two sides to every story.
To tyrannosaurus rek: What a fatuous remark. What the "mainstream media" (that epithet beloved of self-satisfied and paranoid bloggers) offers or does not offer has no relation to Torontoist. This site isn't meant to be some kind of corrective--whatever that might mean--to what the Globe or Star or Post prints. Journalism is not a dialectic exercise.
leonardbast: I'm almost certain you don't get to decide what purpose Torontoist serves or what approach they have to take on a given issue.
Rachel Lissner: I'm also quite certain that just because "there are two sides to every story" doesn't mean one side ALWAYS has to be told when telling the other. You have a history of trying to force Israel into Palestine-related articles here.
To Tyrannosaurus Rek: "I'm almost certain you don't get to decide what purpose Torontoist serves or what approach they have to take on a given issue." You're quite right. I have zero authority to decide what Torontoist's mandate is or how it ought to approach a given issue. In much the same way, readers who write letters to the editor to any major newspaper in reaction to articles or editorials can in no way claim a right to dictate editorial policy.
Your argument leads inevitably to the conclusion that any comments that disagree with an editorial position are per se illegitimate because they somehow claim a right to make editorial decisions. However, the whole point of printing letters to the editor (and, dare I say, allowing comments on a site like Torontoist) is to allow readers to express their opinions on editorial policy and published articles. There's an important distinction here.
Torontoist absolutely has the right to disallow comments on its articles, and I wouldn't be upset were it to exercise that right. However, given that it allows comments, surely it must be prepared to receive strenuous critical feedback from readers.
Was I claiming a right to dictate Torontoist's editorial policy? No.
Was I expressing my disagreement with that policy? Yes.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong point.
You wrote:
Was I claiming a right to dictate Torontoist's editorial policy? No. Was I expressing my disagreement with that policy? Yes.
Now, let's go to the tape:
This is precisely NOT the kind of article that Torontoist should publish
Here you are telling the Torontoist not that you disagree with the article, but that they shouldn't publish the article.
Au contraire, McKingford. I'm afraid you're the one who can't comprehend a basic point of logic. My assertions that (a) Torontoist should not have published this article and (b) that this is a comment, not a demand (or an arrogation of editorial control) are entirely consistent.
You fail to grasp the distinction between criticizing a policy and asserting the right to set policy. I criticized Torontoist's decision to publish the article but I don't claim that I ought to have editorial control over the site. Only the people who run the site should have editorial control.
Let me put it differently: I don't think fools should make foolish remarks, but I also believe that fools are entirely within their rights to do so.
My question remains unanswered.
Rachel, your question was answered in the TPFF comments, quite succinctly by Andrew:
A pro-Israel perspective is just as valid as a pro-Palestine perspective (as is an anti-Israel anti-Palestine perspective), but nobody (Torontoist included) should be obliged to pair them up like unpopular cousins going to the prom.So I'll turn the question back on you: Is a pro-Palestine perspective free of pro-Israel qualification not a valid one?
Guess you don't read the Star?
*shrugs*
anyways, the original article was probably a cast-off from Now Toronto. at least, that's how it reads.
and its not the best worded article. i THINK its trying to say "blame Israel. and we found some Jews who also blame Israel, so if a Jew says Israel is bad, then Israel is bad. bad Israel!"
While the loss of life is tragic, it is tragic for both sides of the conflict, and I am disappointed by how biased this article is. It offers one small excerpt from an organization on one side and four paragraphs of direct quotes of individuals on the other side.
Rodasho, in the past I have said that I refer to Torontoist for affairs in Toronto and Middle Eastern blogs and experts for affairs in the Middle East but people just say that is "inflammatory" and that I am "sly."
To me, the value and local relevance of this article comes from giving a platform to the various Toronto-based organizations — including two specifically composed of Jews — that have the courage to ask questions and be critical of Israel's policies. While I knew of the Jewish Women's Committee Against the Occupation, not being a woman myself I felt a bit left out. I wasn't aware of Independent Jewish Voices (though I vaguely recall hearing about them under their previous name, the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians) and am grateful to the piece for bringing them to my attention.
As a progressive Jew ("progressive" in this sentence being used, perhaps unfairly, as a euphemism), it can often be lonely and frightening, because you're never quite sure what you can say and to whom without being condescended to or worse. (See Morris Field's letter in this week's Now.) There is most certainly a chill around discussion of this issue, despite the fact that, as Ralph observes, things are being done in our name, and groups like B'nai Brith and the CJC claim to speak on behalf of all Jews.
I don't mind that Toronto-based organizations — including two specifically composed of Jews - have a platform to speak from. Although I would say that it is completely ridiculous to think that being Jewish and against Israel is more right than being Jewish and pro-Israel. These organizations use their affiliation with Judaism as a tactic to give themselves the credibility that they do not deserve.
Meanwhile, I'm sure that Hamas takes care of the dissenting Palestinian voices who are against their terrorist governance.
When you hold an opinion that appears to conflict with your primary interests, that opinion is considered more legitimate or credible. I am with you - that's problematic. In fact, I find it's a popular right-wing tactic - find a black man for McCain, find a woman who hates feminism, find a poor Third-World person who supports capitalism. It makes for a more compelling argument - to say that your side is so strong, even people who you'd expect to be radically against it are with you. It's a big problem when it's used as proof that one side is right and the other wrong.
It's not a problem when it's used to show dissent. Because there is dissent.
One of the problems with Israel is that it isn't just an Israeli state, it's also a Jewish state. As such, when Israel does something it doesn't just reflect on Israelis, it tends to also reflect on Jews everywhere - and Israel is proud of that.
But I'm not proud of Israel. I'm ashamed of Israel and my affiliation with it as a Jewish person. I'm horrified by what it's done, even though I'm very sympathetic to its history and to the Jewish people there who, I know, feel very threatened. Just as I am horrified by what the US has done, even though I'm sympathetic because of the 9/11 events and to the US citizens who, I know, felt very threatened.
So I don't think that because I'm Jewish, my opinion is of more value. I do think that Israel is speaking for me and I don't like that and I should be able to contest that.
I think there is a clear misconception of Israel's representation of all Jews.
Yes, Israel is a country founded on the ideals of Judaism and the Torah, as well as Democracy and Progressiveness.
However, the government has never purported to represent ALL JEWS around the world. To say otherwise is shortsighted and disproved by the simple fact there is an array of political parties (made up of Jews) in Israel. The government never says that they do anything in the name of all Jews.
Governments that say they represent all their people are communist, monarchs, and, dare I say, terrorist governments who seize power through questionable elections and.... Terror.
Hi, sorry - I don't think that the Israeli government purports to speak for me. I'm saying that it does, whether it intends to or not. If I disagree with Zionism I find my voice is rarely recognized; instead I'm labeled "self-hating" or having internalized anti-Semitism. I meet with a lot of resistance in the Jewish community to the idea that you can be both Jewish and deeply upset with Israel without it being attributed to a psychosocial syndrome.
And it's not just from my own community - Israel is a Jewish state and people think it represents most Jews. I said that Israel's actions reflect Jews everywhere, and I believe that. I have Palestinian friends who were afraid to discuss the issue with me because they assumed I'd be pro-Israel. I don't like that my religion is tied to a nationalist stance. That's what I mean when I say that I don't want some other country to speak for my politics. If you're Christian people don't assume there's a particular nation to whom you've pledged support. But that's what it is for Jews. And for those of us who don't support what Israel is doing, that sucks.
To Jonathan Goldsbie: If you take the position that this article has value because it gives voice to local critics of Israel, then surely Torontoist should run an article that gives voice to local critics of Hamas. Isn't that only fair?
But as Rodasho points out, critics of Hamas are few and far between, especially in Gaza itself. And this is precisely the reason why sympathy for Hamas is so dangerous--and the contrast between Hamas and any democratic political party so striking. Let's not forget that it kills its domestic critics and took power in Gaza through an anti-democratic and violent coup against Fatah. Are these really the kind of people for whom Torontoist wants to offer its sympathy? If democracy means anything (and surely we're all good democrats), it means standing up for democratic values against those who would overthrow them by force.
Here is the Hamas charter. I recommend reading articles 7 and 28.
http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html
re: the Bansky image caption...
If the "Separation Wall" is actually 90% fence, shouldn't it be called a fence?
(oh no, I think I opened a can of worms... although if 10% of the can's content is air then I guess I opened a can of air...)
In all fairness, the picture does show the part of the barrier that is a wall. That doesn't mean the entire structure is a wall, which you point out, but I am curious to know why the author referred to the structure to its name in Hebrew.
Is this a nod to people knowledgeable of the language? Why doesn't he use the Hebrew and the English? I just found that odd because in most media the English name, whatever the author thinks it is, is given.
Jonathan Goldsbie & montauk. The words you have both written are exactly how I feel as a Jew caught in the middle of all of this.
Well written (said)
Just to clarify a few points about editorial policy.
This article was published because it was well-written, well-researched, and is relevant to—and in some cases directly impacts—our local readers. Can you get a sense of where Todd stands after reading it? I think so, yes; I think that that's the case, and ought to be the case, for most of Torontoist's articles, and I think that there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't think that this article distorts or misleads, and I don't think that it should be dismissed simply because the argument it makes is a contentious one, or one that some readers might disagree with (rek's right).
Torontoist has no fixed editorial stance on this or any other issue, but it is not a mainstream media news organization, it does not always need to work or act like one, and we have absolutely no mandate to, say, automatically counter every article that expresses one opinion with another that expresses the opposite one. We do have a duty to be honest and to tell the truth as best we can, and to base all of our articles—opinionated or not—as much as we can in objective, undistorted, unbiased fact. But we are under absolutely no obligation to tell only the stories our readers want in only the way that our readers are comfortable with them being told.
And one last thing: while Torontoist isn't a "corrective" to the "mainstream media," and our writers' opinions aren't determined by or against other media, anyone who roundly says that "journalism is not a dialectic exercise" doesn't know enough about journalism to be able to dictate mandates to an organization that practices it.
Well said David... Torontoist stands for nothing...
Then perhaps it should stick to just telling me where to get the best vanilla ice cream and what's going on at The Mod Club this weekend.
To David Topping: I refer you to my most recent comment (2:58 pm) on Tyrannosaurus Rek's posting above.
If it is indeed the case that I don't "know enough about journalism to be able to dictate mandates to an organization that practices it," does it follow that any Torontoist commentors who criticize articles that appear on the site are attempting to "dictate mandates" to the site's editors?
What exactly is the purpose of allowing comments if not to allow your readers to express their views of your articles? Is it your position that any criticism is illegitimate because it is an attempt to tell the editors how to do their jobs?
As to the nature of journalism--and I draw a distinction here with opinion-writing and editorializing--it is my opinion that it should aim to be balanced. If it were dialectical, then journalists would criticize and react against the facts and opinions printed in other outlets simply for the sake of reaction. Journalism would be indistinguishable from contrarianism.
I like Torontoist very much, otherwise I wouldn't bother commenting at all, but the site's editors need to be less defensive. I hardly think that the Globe and Mail's editorial team feels the need to respond with stroppy comments on every critical letter they receive.
If you can find the statements in David's response where he suggests that readers aren't or shouldn't be allowed to express their views of Torontoist articles, or where he implies that any criticism is illegitimate if it makes recommendations about Torontoist's content, I will totally fight Sir Topping with you, man. We will swagger right into his Annex drinking hole and beat him up.
But I think he was simply saying that Torontoist is not formally anti- or pro- Israel/Palestine, and that Torontoist isn't obligated to produce only content deemed satisfying by its visitors - or to act in response or reaction to other media. It's not beholden to you, to me, or to the world in general. In other words, we aren't the ones who can make it into what we think it should be. We can only do that with our own blogs.
And this is one of the few times I've seen the Torontoist editor defend Torontoist at all, even throughout all the posts which are met with "OMG WTF IS THIS DOING HERE?!" or "THIS IS POINTLESS AND BANAL" or "NO ONE WHO MAKES THAT ARGUMENT OR SPELLING ERROR CAN POSSIBLY CALL THEMSELVES A JOURNALIST!".
And I think lots of media publications and outlets DO have disclaimers with contentious issues specifying that "the views expressed don't represent the whole publication". I think it's fine for the guy to give a disclaimer about Torontoist's role and editorial policy, especially on an issue as charged as this.
Finally, "critical letter"? It's a comments section. It's for discussion. I don't see an issue with Topping taking part in it.
I know it's probably just me, but I feel like people have higher standards and criticisms of Torontoist than they do of, like, actual newspapers and TV networks. Which I find weird.
An article jumping from wishy-washy Obama hagiography, to sloppy and shorthanded criticism of a school of thought the author apparently does not understand as anything other than an epithet for views he disagrees with, to blindingly naive statements about a intractable conflict the author appears to believe started over Christmas, and finishing with a hagiography of Hamas, for christsakes, is not well-written or well-researched, David. (To use one example, the author overlooks the recent statements President Obama has made in favour of Isreal in favour of something neophyte Obama said on the campaign trail a year ago).
And that it led Goldsbie to find an activist group in the city that he hadn't already joined does not establish relevance.
Your sorry editiorial policy has rarely been trotted out to back a bigger loser. Frankly, who gives a shit what Todd Alagaard thinks about the Middle East conflict? Is that why people read this page, to find out that leftist Torontoist writer #243 is ad idem with the leadership of Hamas?
Saying something is "wishy-washy", "sloppy", "shorthanded", and "blindingly naive" is no less subjective than calling it "well-written" and "well-researched".
Also, in answer to your question, I personally give a shit about what Todd Alagaard thinks about the Middle East conflict. In fact, I give a shit about what anyone with basic language skills thinks about the Middle East conflict. I don't need someone to be some kind of literati celebrity to care what they think. I come to this blog because I like reading what people write, even if I don't always agree with it, or could raise some issues with it. Why do you?
And I'm not sure where the writer was, like, on the same page as Hamas. You can problematize one side without automatically and universally supporting the other, even if they're on opposing sides. Some of us don't see this as "Israel vs. Hamas". Some of us see it as "Israeli military vs. Palestinian civilians" and "Hamas vs. Israeli civilians" and are more focused on the battle which seems, to us, significantly more violent, with a greater power discrepancy, and more human rights violations. Bashing the Israeli military doesn't mean we're cool with Hamas, it means we're not cool with the Israeli military.
Wisdom from others!
Contrary to Hanadi Loubani of KAIROS:
Muammar Qaddafi — The One-State Solution (New York Times, 22 January 2009) Michael Bell — Pathless in Gaza (The Globe and Mail, 02 January 2009)Even if it is due, blaming Israel as Sue Goldstein suggests may have a negative outcome; their cynical politicians can practice demagoguery by dismissing the criticism. As Mr. Bell suggests, the emotion that must be awakened in the average Israeli is not shame, fear or defiance but the compassion which demands moderation instead of violence. Likewise for the average Palestinian.
Does anyone else care more about an end to the conflict than about this article?
Don't sweat it Dave. It's inevitable - at the slightest hint of criticism of Israel, the zionist brownshirts will be here to jump all over you.
Just think back to the mid-80s, if this blog had been around there would be people claiming not enough pixels were being devoted to the good things about apartheid.
To McKingford: So nice to see that your response to reasoned criticism is name-calling and mud-slinging! How creative and original of you to accuse those who side with democratic Israel of being fascist!
Let me guess: You're one of those guys at the pro-Hamas rallies holding up the signs equating the Star of David with the Swastika, right? Your analogies between Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany and Israel reflect real subtlety of analysis and depth of thought.
Enough sarcasm. Here's a question: Would you rather live in a country run by Hamas or by the Israelis?
I'm a liberal and always have been. Your comments give the left a bad name.
PS - Nice comma splice in your second paragraph.
Oh, isn't that cute - a spelling flame. How very 1998...
You'll forgive my lack of nuance owing to the fact that Israel's occupation policies resemble South Africa's bantustans in a none-too-subtle way.
Would you rather live in a country run by Hamas or by the Israelis?
If I were Gazawi, I wouldn't have a choice, would I? No, I'd be imprisoned in the world's largest concentration camp, starving to death and deprived of medical necessities at the hands of Israel.
Your question requires me to choose between being the victim of genocide or having a government commit genocide in my name. I'm not sure how to answer that question.
I'm a liberal and always have been.
Yes, liberals are well known for their staunch defence of neo-conservatives, or for mistaking the neo-conservative policies of the Bush administration with "conservatives I don't like"...
To McKingford: One point and one question.
I was correcting your grammar, not your spelling.
Since, in your view, I misunderstand the meaning of neo-conservatism, could you offer a few sources that might enlighten readers as to its definition, scope, and views? Or perhaps you'd like to elaborate yourself?
Congratulations leonard, for managing to again so pithily combine pedantry with an ignorance for internet traditions.
The author of the article was entirely correct in his use of the term "neo-conservative", which - with respect to the US refers to an interventionist foreign policy, particularly one that sees American and Israeli interests as both linked and vital - and thus favours unilateral action while disdaining international institutions. The bulk of Bush's advisers in his foreign escapades (Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith (termed by Gen. Tommy Franks "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet"), Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) came from the cradle of modern Neoconservatism - The Project for a New American Century.
Contrast this with traditional conservatism, which has generally favoured non-intervention (most opponents of the US entry into WWII were traditional conservatives), or "realist" conservatives like Henry Kissinger who favoured pragmatic engagement.
Of course, none of this was particularly controversial even 3-4 years ago, but after the clusterfuck of Iraq, anyone associated with the term has - understandably - tried to disassociate themselves from it.
So it is correct to say *both* that Bush's administration has pursued a neoconservative bent, *and* that it was a conservative policy I don't like.
But it is baffling to think of a liberal being confused about these points, which makes me think you're just a liar.
Wow, McKingford: My last comment really set you off. Thanks for the lesson in political philosophy. I guess I can skip grad school now. Who needs Chomsky when one has Torontoist commentors who are simultaneously valiant *and* wise?
I'm amused my comment about grammar vs. spelling got your goat. Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle. Given your long-standing experience on teh intertubes, maybe you can enlighten me: What's the emoticon for hypertrophied superciliousness? I'll use it next time to make clear I'm goading you.
PS: You wrote: "Bush's administration has pursued a neoconservative bent." Pray tell, how does one pursue a bent?
I just want to note that my initial criticism was not with the obviously anti-Israel stance of the article, but a broader questioning of the article's appearance on Torontoist.com rather than the individual's personal blog.
The fact that Torontoist has no mandate or editorial policy is a cop out. Regardless of how arguably well written or well researched a post is, its relevance to the broader Torontoist scope of being "pro-Toronto, and that is all that matters" is questionable.
as an aside from the article...
i would like to honestly and frankly state that a number of the above-posted comments are quite disgusting in their nature - especially ones that are purposely insensitive by referring to Zionists as "brownshirts".
To both sides of the argument - seems like your opinions are muddied by too much emotion and not enough logic. an opinion is hopefully formed by one's investigation into the FACTS that are out there and are formed through a semi-intelligent thought process. nothing in the Israel-Arab conflict is black and white or clear cut. yes, there are definitely wrongs that either side has committed. One cannot think of Gaza without investigating Hamas' charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. One cannot think of Israel's actions without questioning some of the civilian deaths, such as the physician's family who was killed during shelling, and wonder if Israel's response is more to blame than perhaps the notion that Hamas put ALL of Gaza's people at risk with their guerrilla warfare.
before EITHER side pounds their chest and proudly declares that their side is 100% right, do some reading and some soul searching and find some empathy to how both sides have suffered - and will continue to stupidly suffer - due to ignorance and hatred.
if you fail to do so, you are as wrong as the side to which you shake your finger at.
The people of Gaza are not to blame for how Israel reacts to Hamas. Collective punishment is a crime.