From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 19:21:56 MDT
[Mermaid]I am going to make a list of 'what could have gone wrong'. I hope I
have understood you correctly. Please nudge me right if I have misunderstood
you.
a.Jews for Justice could have wrongly attributed a quotation or a
misquotation to the respective author in their article.
b.The author of a book or the one who is quoting a political figure might be
misquoting them.
c.The opinion expressed by the author may not be credible at all and infact
be a reflection of their bias.
d.We simply dont have to take anyone's word for whatever it seems to be
worth.
[ben 2] Points a through c are exactly the kind of thing I was getting at.
Point d is true in general, although obviously at some point people have to
take someone's word for it in most topics.
[Mermaid]As far as point A is concerned, I will believe that they havent
purposefully lied. I take this risk because it wouldnt be possible for me to
follow every word that they have uttered. However, since they have an email
address and a postal address, I will not hesitate to question them when
discrepencies occur.
[ben] I don't see an email address, however I have found one listed for an
organization of the same name elsewhere. I'm waiting for a response to see
if I've found the right people.
[Mermaid]On the other hand, op-ed pieces or books which
narratively reflect the author's pov is a whole different animal. In the
latter case, the reader has to identify with the author's school of thought.
[ben] That is basically how I view the piece - as an opinion 'editorial',
with little substance of its own and a slew of brief snippets from people
the authors hoped would be more readily accepted names than their own.
[Mermaid]For this reason, all quotations are examined and passed through a
fine sieve before it turns up on the book
shelf.
[ben] Which is exactly where this article isn't. Moreso, it is written
anonymously as far as I can tell. Considering the bizarre and violent
behaviour among supporters of both sides, even in regions far removed from
the source, I can't say I blame them - but it does also provide convenient
cover from legal shrapnel.
[Mermaid]However, if you are reasonably familiar
with the works of a particular published author/acedemic/reporter, then it
is easier to follow his line of reasoning and understand how his opinion was
formed. This is where I believe that you and I are different.
[ben] I am familiar with some of the people quoted. That is why, when
presented with statements attributed to them that contradict what I do know
of them, I am reluctant to blindly accept the proposed argument.
[Mermaid] I agree whole heartedly with Point D. You do not have to take
anyone's word as an absolute authority. There is no such thing. However, if
you want to convince people(like me) that you have a valid position in
discarding the Jews for Justice article and equating it with the spam letter
in terms of credibility, then you will have to put more on the table.
[ben] I have no valid position in discarding the JfJ article, and never
claimed as much. My only claim has been that I have a valid position in
withholding acceptance/judgement. I believe that Ihave "put enough on the
table" to support that. I asked why you accepted the one but not the other -
you presented sound reasons for discarding the spam, but claimed that the
lsit of names was enough for you to accept the article. I merely pointed out
that that was not enough for me, especially since my suspicions were aroused
about some of the quotations cited.
[Mermaid] and
Chistopher Hitchens is another example of a person who is on and off my
approval list...not to mention the legally declared anti-semite and racist,
David Irving.
[ben] I'm not sure which should interest me more - the fact that one can be
'legally declared' a racist, or the fact that someone with that distinction
is occasionally on your approval list.
[Mermaid] ben, ask questions. Invite me to join you in asking questions. Do
not make statements.
[ben] I will continue to conduct discourse in the manner to which I am
accustomed - it works for me more often that not. The very existance of this
conversation is an invitation to you to join me in my questions. I'm not
really as hostile as you seem to think - occasionally frustrated, yes.
<snippy bits snipped - including my own>
[ben 2] I'm getting a pretty clear picture of your reasons... some of which
I can fully agree with, and some of which I cannot. As for your usage of the
words "published authors", I'm not familiar with the actual authors of the
article.
[ben 0]
Example 1:
[quote]"My friend, take care. When you recognize the concept of 'Palestine',
you demolish your right to live in Ein Hahoresh. If this is Palestine and
not the Land Of Israel, then you are conquerors and not tillers of the land.
You are invaders. If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who
lived here before you came. Only if it is The Land Of Israel do you have a
right to live in Ein Hahoresh and in Deganiyah B. If it is not your country,
your fatherland, the countries of your ancestors and your sons, then what
are you doing here? You came to another people's homeland, as they claim,
you expelled them and you have taken their land."[/quote][sub]attributed to
Menachem Begin, sourced from Noam Chomsky's "Peace in the Middle East"[/sub]
[ben 0] Now, the fact that this is from a Noam Chomsky book gives it a
little more credence than the rest of the following quotes, but that is an
example of something I wouldn't expect to come out of Begin.
[Mermaid]If you read the Begin quote again very carefully, you might see why
it can indeed come out of a Zionist and Terrorist like Menachem Begin.
[ben] But that's just it - why would a hardcore Zionist ever publicly
acknowlege that the dispossessed have a legitimate grievance? Basically he's
saying "We have to beleive our own hype, becasue if we don't we'll see that
we're in the wrong"...
[ben 0]
Example 2:
[quote]Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would
never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.
Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has
been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?
They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should
they accept that?[/quote][sub]attributed to David Ben-Gurion sourced from
Nahum Goldmann's "The Jewish Paradox"[/sub]
[Mermaid]Once again, read it carefully. Does it seem like Ben-Gurion is
supporting the Palestinians?
[ben] Yes, it does, and the unlikelihood of that is exactly the centerpiece
of my argument. It does seem like it, which is what the authors want you to
think "oh look, even Ben-Gurion knows Israel is in the wrong" when that is
clearly a sentiment that he never would/could have expressed.
[Mermaid]So, is Nahum Goldmann lying that Ben Gurion made that statement?
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/goldmann.html
[ben] Thanks for the link. It sounds like if we're going to be stuck with
Zionists in charge of Israel, it's too bad he couldn't have been one of
them. Is he lying? I have no idea. I can clearly see a reason for him to, or
for him to mistakenly even _believe_ (as people will, want they want to)
that someone better known and supposedly opposed made statements supporting
their position.
[ben 0]
Example 3:
[quote]"Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and
the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived. We are the
generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we
cannot plant a tree and build a home." [/quote][sub]attributed to Moshe
Dayan, sourced from Benjamin Beit Hallahmi's "Original Sins - Reflections on
the History of Zionism and Israel[/sub]
[ben 0] While I do not doubt that Dayan may have said such a thing, I get
the feeling that he was speaking more about his perceived need for the
"steel helmet and the gun barrel" than about the injustice of their presence
there in the first place.
[Mermaid]And you might just as well be right. How can this be a wrong
attribution when this quote comes under the heading, "Israel has sought
peace with its Arab neighbour states but has steadfastly refused to
negotiate with Palestinians directly, until the last few years. Why?"
[ben] Peaceful refugees are much more useful and tolerable than violent ones
in any occupation. Dayan's statement, now that you mention it, makes no
sense in the context in which it was presented as it does not provide any
reasonable reasons for avoiding negotiations.
[Mermaid]We still dont know if the authors, Jews for Justice editors or the
original authors, Noam Chomsky, Nahum Goldmann, Hallahmi, have misquoted. If
the former is true, its easy to check. There are libraries and book stores.
If the latter is true, then two of them are alive. Both of them are
acedemics. Noam Chomsksy is with MIT and Hallahmi is with the University of
Haifa, Israel. I am sure you can resolve your doubts if you put your mind to
it.
[ben] I know that I can, and am in the process. My question was about why
_you_ didn't have these same doubts. Why any random attribution seemed to be
good enough if the result agreed with your already fast (and currently in
vogue) opinions. I'm not just being an ass - many, many people are jumping
on this bandwagon, and I want to know what is causing/allowing this recent
rapid change to occur, in order to try to predict where it will go.
[Mermaid] I will spread the word that the authors have been misquoting dead
politicians, but I will not assist you in spreading the 'possibility' of the
authors misquoting ex-public figures.
[ben] I will assume for now that the first half of that was sarcasm. I
certainly have not asked or expected you to do either.
[ben 2] I hope that those are enough to clarify my reasoning. I have
suspicions, but they are not well-grounded enough yet to be accusations, and
never were intended to be so. My main intention was to point out the fact
that suspicions were possible, and that one shouldn't blindly accept
supposed quotations just because they conveniently support your opinion.
[Mermaid] As they say, knowledge is power. I have no suspicions.
[ben] But why not? Doesn't it strike you at all that there is ample reason
for them?
[ben 0]If I wrote an article claiming that the Dalai Lama once suggested
that
China should have taken Tibet, you would probably (rightly) dismiss my
article immediately. For whatever reason, in this case you are suggesting
that since the quotes came from respectable figures, the article must be
true.
[Mermaid]It did happen in 1959. Although, Dalai Lama didnt suggest that
China takes over Tibet. He requested the protection of the Chinese army
after the British Army entered Tibet in what looked like an incursion.
[ben] Which is completely different, an intersting bit of information, and
besides the point, all at once.
[Mermaid]Journalistic and reporting ethics
are still honoured even though omission of facts is still permitted in
American media.
[ben] you mistyped "All media"...
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT