Paul Krugman: ‘Israeli government policies are a form of national suicide’

[Jefferson23]

New York Times columnist and Nobel prize winner: criticism of Israel silenced by accusations of anti-Semitism.

By Haaretz

New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman believes that the policies of the current “narrow minded” Israeli government “are basically a gradual long-run form of national suicide.”

Writing in his New York Times blog “Conscience of a Liberal” about Peter Beinart’s controversial book “The Crisis of Zionism”, Krugman writes, “Like many liberal American Jews I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide – and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world.”

Krugman’s unusually harsh critique of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is sure to elicit howls of protest from Israeli spokespersons and American Jewish organizations – more so, perhaps, as they come on the eve of Israel’s Independence Day. It is also sure to further inflame the continuously deteriorating relationship between the Israeli government and the New York Times, considered by many to be the most important newspaper in the world. Last December, Netanyahu declined an offer by the Times’ to pen an article for the paper’s opinion pages, citing the newspaper’s alleged anti-Israel bias.

Krugman, probably the world’s leading economic columnist, won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics) in 2008 for his contributions to the theories of free trade. Born to Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Krugman, 59,has written only rarely about Israel. At an economic conference in Tel Aviv in 2009 he had only high praise for Israel’s economic performance.

in full: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/paul-krugman-israeli-government-policies-are-a-form-of-national-suicide-1.426387

[Jefferson23]

1. The Crisis of Zionism: Six Questions for Peter Beinart by Scott Horton

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Peter Beinart, a former editor of The New Republic who now writes for the Daily Beast and teaches at the City University of New York, has just published a remarkable book, The Crisis of Zionism, that tackles one of the most contentious issues in American politics: how the United States interacts with an Israel that seems increasingly unreceptive to American advice but increasingly engaged in American politics. I put six questions to Beinart about The Crisis of Zionism and its critics, who seem curiously intent on attacking him while ignoring the actual content of his book:

1. It has seemed this year as though figures known for enthusiastically backing West Bank settlement construction, such as Sheldon Adelson and Irving Moskowitz, are putting an immense amount of money into the G.O.P.’s efforts to defeat Barack Obama. Why do you think this is so, and what do you think is the object of their attempts to influence the elections?

Adelson is to the right on a whole range of issues; I don’t know if Moskowitz’s interests are broader than Israel, but I do think both men believe Obama is bad for Israel and that Romney would be better, especially on Iran. I think they’re wrong. Obama’s policies are actually far better for Israel vis-à-vis both Iran and Palestine—and specifically vis-à-vis the possibility of a Palestinian state, because a one-state solution would be a disaster for Israel. But that’s where the Republican Party has essentially gone: to a one-state position.

2. In the past several months, Israeli leaders have floated, backpedaled on, and floated again the notion of a pre-emptive Israeli airstrike against Iran. The idea is always presented as a test of the U.S.–Israel relationship and as a seeming pretext for criticism of Obama, and with the thought that it could occur before the U.S. elections in November. Do you suspect that the elections are motivating this talk—that Netanyahu and those close to him want to use it as a wedge to break Obama’s hold on Jewish voters?



http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/04/hbc-90008568

[MindMover]

2. Thank you Paul for being honest about the realities of the present decision

making process in the Middle East.....

[longship]

3. But... But... But... God gave us this land!

Both the Jews and the Palestinians believe this.

I think much less so for the Palestinians, but after all, they had a long, continuous history there, as did Judea. One would think that they would recognize the stalemate and learn to live together. But, NO! That can't happen when God himself -- amazing that it's always a him -- gave this land for my religion. (Both Moslems and Jews claim that theirs is a cultural way of life, not a religion... Bullshit!)

A pox on both their houses! They would put the rest of the world -- dare I say Armegeddan? -- at risk for their petty, bullshit territorial dispute, which when it comes down to it, is solely about ignorant religious beliefs and possibly who gets the potable water.

Fuck 'em all. If I were President, I would go rogue on both of their asses. And I wouldn't give a shit what AIP or the Moslem Brotherhood said.

A pox on both of their houses.

[oberliner]

4. Paul Krugman: “Israel’s Economy is One of the Happy Stories”

From Bloomberg, 2010:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/israeli-economy-one-of-world-s-happy-stories-nobel-winner-krugman-says.html

[Crunchy Frog]

5. Oh boy. Now we get to hear all about how Paul Krugman is an anti-semite.

[oberliner]

6. The pre-emptive "now they will call him an anti-semite" strike

The norm in these cases.

Except, it doesn't actually happen.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Well, it definitely happens on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=106328

Usually it's not quite that blatant, but involves pretty heavy insinuation.

[oberliner]

27. Well I think we can agree that there is some overlap

Just as there is some overlap between those who are overly critical of Palestinians and Islamophobia.

Similarly, there is some overlap between those who are overly critical of Israel and antisemitism.

It certainly doesn't mean that everyone who criticizes Palestinian policies or Israeli policies is either of those things.

Are those not fair statements that you would agree with?

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Yes, I definitely think there is some overlap,

but I don't see any in that thread where the accusation was being made. Just a broad brush smear of everyone who is critical of Israel.

[Jefferson23]

7. It is interesting that he said this is one reason he does not speak about the subject much at all.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. You should have seen some of the incredible attacks on Glenn Greenwald

after he posted some critical things about Israel and some of it's defenders on his blog. I would even say that the attacks on him were themselves anti-semitic, as he was criticised, not so much for what he said, as for being Jewish and saying them.

Paul Krugman may be delusional about the general climate in this country surrounding criticism of Israel, but I doubt it. He's never really struck me as the delusional type.

[Jefferson23]

55. Greenwald won't back down regardless and although he is Jewish, he does not carry the weight

of Paul Krugman, professionally speaking and otherwise, imo.

Krugman is not delusional on any subject he's written on that I'm aware of.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Yes, I agree about Greenwald not being as influential as Krugman

and he definitely isn't intimidated by that kind of talk. He responded very well to it on his blog, giving the attacks exactly the respect that they deserved.

[shira]

8. I'm disappointed with Krugman. He defends deliberate liars like Peter Beinart....

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2012, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

...and then blames the "Lobby" for criticizing him in emails, op-eds, and a few public statements?

When someone defends a deliberate liar like Peter Beinart - someone who knows they are wrong about facts (facts they cannot dispute) but they keep relaying the same wrong information over and over again - that certain someone has to expect some outrage in return. Outrage at lies is not some sinister ploy to shut down all criticism. It's legitimate discourse that propagandists can't stand. They know they have no hope of disputing the facts, so rather than respond to legitimate criticism straight up, they tell the world they are victims of the "Lobby", which is trying to shut them up and cover for Zionist "crimes".

Krugman also says Beinart is "brave" for what he is doing. Please. Beinart faces criticism in emails and op-eds and all of a sudden he's brave? Brave people are Syrian protesters. Or Palestinian Christians who speak up while in the territories in order to criticize their Islamist oppressors. "Brave" people like Beinart are nobodies who gain fame and fortune for coming out against Israel, knowing no harm can possibly come to them.

[Jefferson23]

9. What reason would Krugman have to defend Beinart..if it is so obvious to you that

Peter is a deliberate liar, why would that fact escape a brilliant man like Krugman..in your estimation?

[shira]

10. Exactly. Why lie deliberately? And why defend such lies? Good question...

...and I can't say I know why people would do that. I have my suspicions, but that's about it. Maybe they're religious, and no facts would make a difference to them. Maybe they believe lying is for the greater good. Maybe they just hate Israel. Who knows?

And it is obvious Beinart is a deliberate liar. Here are 2 examples in which he was wrong about the facts, was corrected, ignored said correction, and repeated the same lies:

EXAMPLE #1

Of course, the more magnanimous might suggest that it was sloppy research rather than ill-will that led to the gross misrepresentation of Israeli conduct. Perhaps – but on July 8, 2010, I emailed Beinart, inter alia, relaying the legal background dating back to 1982, when the first rent delinquency claims were filed against the Palestinian residents.

While it might be over optimistic to hope that this would elicit a retraction, might one not have hoped that a clarification, a modification, an admission that matters were more complex than originally expressed, would have been appropriate? To the best of my knowledge no such measure was ever undertaken – certainly none that received any publicity worthy of note. So it would seem that Beinart has no qualms about sticking to his misleading and inflammatory Israel-bashing account – even when in possession of the facts.

EXAMPLE #2

Now I know that Beinart is aware of all this information – because I provided him with it! In an address at the UCLA Hillel (May 3, 2011), he brought up the precisely same distressing incident of the father’s arrest and the son’s sobs.

In an oral exchange, which included an invitation to debate me publicly – that was declined – I apprised him of the hydrological realities and explained why his account was distorted, deficient and detrimental.

For the sake of good order, I sent a subsequent email (May 14) to the UCLA Hillel director and Beinart, containing the pertinent data, and asking that it be distributed to the attendees at the talk – in the interests of fair and balanced presentation of the facts.

To the best of my knowledge, it was not. What is certain is that it had no impact on how Beinart chose to present the incident a year later – when his book appeared in the stores.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=265765

[Jefferson23]

11. You believe Krugman is lying on behalf of the deliberate liar Beinart and that

for some reason, you can't articulate why, correct? Some how, you know Beinart is
a deliberate liar, but this escapes Krugman...hmmm.

How many times do you believe Krugman has lied for the greater good, your words, about anything he
has published on the record?

[shira]

13. First, you need to recognize lies for what they are....

We can't move forward otherwise, and I'm not going to allow you to deflect attention from those lies.

What do you think of those 2 examples that were cited?

[Jefferson23]

14. I'm delfecting? LOL This thread is about Paul Krugman's endorsement of the book

and he also has expressed his own views on Israeli policy, quite clearly I believe.

on edit for spelling

[shira]

15. Then let's go right to the article. Krugman writes WRT criticizing Israel...

“I have other battles to fight,” he wrote, “and to say anything to that effect - that the Israeli government is leading to national suicide - is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.”

Writing of Peter Beinart, Krugman adds: “It’s only right to say something on behalf of Beinart, who has predictably run into that buzzsaw. As I said, a brave man, and he deserves better.”

What is he talking about?

Which organized big time "Lobby" Zionist groups are calling Peter Beinart antisemitic for his views on Israel?

=====

Oh, and I thought of another reason to lie about Israel...

Doing so makes you acceptable to the greater "Progressive" movement. Defending Zionism is too rightwing for "Progressive" tastes and leads to being called racist, pro-apartheid, pro-ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc... Who needs that headache, right?

And another thing WRT Beinart lying. It turns a nobody like himself into someone popular who "As-a-Jew" can now write books, go on speaking tours, and profit from this 'criticism'.

[Jefferson23]

17. I asked you why do you believe Krugman would support the deliberate liar Beinart, your words.

In your estimation, Krugman is lying for Beinart b/c defending Zionism is too rightwing for
progressives etc.

Krugman is a deliberate liar too, according to you, correct? Interesting assessment.

[shira]

18. Before I answer, realize that you very rarely directly address questions to you...

Shows how weak your position is, don't you think?

As for Krugman, I don't know the motivation.

1. Maybe he's religious and no facts can penetrate
2. Maybe he's afraid of being excluded from "progressive" groups
3. Maybe he feels it's for the greater good

It's noteworthy you won't address the lies he's defending when he stands up for Beinart. I suppose delegitimizers like yourself enjoy any and every allegation - no matter how ludicrous - if it can be used to pull support away from Israel.

[Jefferson23]

20. Address what lies? YOU believe they're lies, I believe they hold an opinion worth

listening to.

My curiosity with your first post in this thread was your expressed disappointment with Krugman.

Which amounts to you being puzzled why a brilliant man is not able to recognize what you're
capable of.

Delegitimization, Israeli policy does this quite well on their own.

[shira]

30. An opinion that conveniently leaves out facts in order to criticize unfairly is propaganda.

Half-truths are lies as well.

Lies by omission are no less lies than those of commission.

====

But you don't believe telling half-truths or lying by omission WRT Israel is wrong, do you?

[Jefferson23]

37. They're lies to you and as I have said, the lack of support Israeli policies

have received from their otherwise vocal supporters is diminishing.

Make excuses all you like, parse how the Mondoweiss crowd is unreliable all
you want, that Finkelstein is an antisemite, that Chomsky has always been
an "Israel Hater" because these groups and individuals are not alone any
longer. That you don't like this group, and you don't like that group
because they do not temper each and every fucking word they say
as to not implicate Israel's actions as the primary problem.

In their place are those within the American Jewish population who are
speaking up, like Krugman, one's who never said such things before. They have very
similar opinions on Israeli policy as those above.

Keep it up and you'll see how damn absurd your opinion is of Krugman,
he has no reason to LIE for Beinart. If you know anything about him,
you would know he says what he thinks, period. That you even imagine
he is not capable of figuring out fact from propaganda and assign him
such an absurd set of motivations in its place is unfortunate for you.

You have learned nothing about this conflict, nothing at all imo.

I do believe Krugman's words will have an impact for good, and I
hope he reconsiders and speaks out again.

[shira]

39. So lies by omission are not lies in your opinion, right?

Forget Beinart for now or anything he has said WRT Israel.

Is a lie by omission a lie in your opinion?

Is telling half-truths lying in your opinion?

[Jefferson23]

43. No, you forget it, and go play your silly game alone. n/t

[shira]

46. Once again we see that when you can't defend your argument, the debate is over.

I understand you can't defend Krugman and Beinart. It's impossible for any objective person to defend half-truths and lies by omission.

I forgot to mention before, but as to your last post before this I'm wondering what the goal is for you. Okay, more and more people are coming out against Israel. What's the end game? End of settlements and occupation? 2 states for 2 people? End to Israel? What exactly?

See, I'm not really getting why you're defending Mondoweiss, Finkelstein, and now Beinart and Krugman. Mondoweiss is against Israel's existence altogether. Finkelstein at least calls out the Mondoweiss crowd for the cultists they are and says 2 states must be the goal. Beinart and Krugman sell themselves as pro-Israel Zionists. I could go further to liberal Zionists who criticize Israel but not enough for your tastes.

So what do these guys all have in common to you, that you'll defend each one?

Is it just that they criticize Israel?

You'll defend anyone who does that, right?

They all have different expectations and are looking for different end games. What is your primary aim WRT criticism of Israel in any form, no matter how vile? What's the goal?

[Jefferson23]

50. The deep irony of your post is appreciated, at least by me. n/t

[shira]

59. The difference b/w us is that I have no problem defending my views & answering questions

You and your cohorts here show how lame your arguments are by constantly avoiding and deflecting.

Nothing new under the sun.

But it says volumes about transparency and honesty on the issues being debated. I mean, if your cause is just and will lead to good things, why not answer simple questions? The cause you advocate for won't lead to anything good, will it? It's dependent on obfuscation, dishonesty, and propaganda isn't it? Why would a just cause rely on that?

[Jefferson23]

19. Is it your claim that Beinart has not received criticism for his political views on Israel? The

critiques involve referring to him as a liberal for the reasons he states as such. There is
a group think he is a part of that prevents him from reasoning rationally, his opinions derive
from this and not Israeli policy?


Krugman: But I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.

But it’s only right to say something on behalf of Beinart, who has predictably run into that buzzsaw. As I said, a brave man, and he deserves better.

What does tantamount mean to you shira?

snip*Most important: how dare they upset the comfortable ideological existence of American Jews, whose acceptability to their liberal peers depends in no small degree on their willingness to join in pillorying Israel over the failure of the peace process — a failure, alas, that is not Israel’s but liberalism’s.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/peter-beinart-and-the-destruction-of-liberal-zionism/

Peter Beinart’s False Prophecy

snip* The Crisis of Zionism, his book arguing that the Israeli occupation alienates young American Jews, is sloppy with facts and emotionally contrived.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/94872/peter-beinarts-false-prophecy/

There are many other OP's and television interviews as well.

But I will add this, it seems to me that supporters of the status quo for Israeli policy will find it
much more difficult in the near future to defend such policy when individuals like this speak up.

Thom Friedman is another one, and not a guy I share any admiration for his work, yet when he used the language referring to the "powerful Israel lobby" as well as his concerns for where their government is headed is not a good sign.

[shira]

31. I claim no one credible has said Beinart is antisemitic, as Krugman inferred...

Krugman brought up antisemitism within the context of "criticizing" Israel, not me.

When centuries old antisemitic tropes are used in such "criticism", that's antisemitic. Jews controlling too much, having loyalty to Israel over the USA. That's antisemitic, not criticism. Calling only the Jewish state a Nazi state or carrying out nazi like actions - only Israel mind you - is also antisemitic. The only reason Israel is compared to the Nazis is obvious. This Holocaust inversion is nothing but disgusting Jew baiting.

[Jefferson23]

35. Then you don't know what "tantamount to" means, as he has used it. As for the remainder of your post

Beinart nor Krugman have done nothing of the kind.

No one credible? That is not the point, you should know that by now.

[shira]

36. No, you don't know what it means. Tantamount to antisemitism means equivalent to...

...or virtually the same as genuine antisemitism.

Look it up in a dictionary. That's not opinion, that's fact.

So why'd Krugman bring it up since that doesn't apply to Beinart or all people who criticize Israel?

[Jefferson23]

38. You're something else, you know that? Of course it applies, and could you at least

take a moment and realize what he is talking about...virtually the same..correct WITHOUT
having to use the exact word, anti-semitism.

Your question is irrelevant, you understand now?

[shira]

40. So give me an example. Who has virtually called Beinart an anti-Semite...

...without using that exact word?

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Tom Friedman, Joe Klein,

and now the formerly very mainstream AIPAC type Peter Beinart.

At one time it was easy to dismiss criticism of Israel as coming from the left wing fringe, or from people who were simply bigoted against Jews or against the "Jewish state". As these more mainstream and traditionally zionist people are beginning to speak out, it's getting harder and harder to simply dismiss it out of hand (though certainly no lack of trying).

[oberliner]

52. Also getting harder to claim that "The Lobby" silences criticism of Israel

Hopefully that canard is being put to rest forever by the many examples you've provided.

[Jefferson23]

54. lol, no, oberliner, their job is merely becoming increasingly more difficult via individuals

in the U.S. The Congress is another story altogether.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Or that they're becoming somewhat more impotent in the face of "facts on the ground".

It's not that they don't still do it, and a blogger at Media Matters recently quit because of it. But it does mean that certain of the really heavy hitters, like the aforementioned, have become relatively immune to the treatment by "The Lobby", and are speaking their minds more freely than they would have in the relatively recent past.

[LeftishBrit]

33. While Beinart COULD be deliberately lying, Martin Sherman's words cannot be taken as evidence for

anything.

I have read some of Sherman's articles and he is a MONSTER OF PURE RIGHT-WING EVIL. No, being pro-Israel is NOT right-wing. But lamenting that 'the right keep winning elections but never get into power' IS right-wing!

http://www.martinsherman.net/566/comprehending-the-incomprehensible-%e2%80%93-part-ii/

So is complaining that when hawks get into power, they imitate their dovish opponents:

http://www.martinsherman.net/557/comprehending-the-incomprehensible-%e2%80%93-part-i/

(Where he also quotes Melanie Phillips, one of the vilest creatures in British journalism)

Or what about this:


http://www.martinsherman.net/153/the-price-of-moderation-2/

In this, he accuses 'moderate supporters of a 2-state solution' (in which category I assume you would be included) of 'delegitimizing Israel, and states:

http://www.martinsherman.net/566/comprehending-the-incomprehensible-%e2%80%93-part-ii/


This is not saying that Beinart MUST have been telling the truth. It is saying that the opinions of right-wing monsters are not valid proof of anything, and should not be quoted on DU. (And before you ask it, no, I don't think that Mondoweiss' opinions are valid proof of anything, either.)

[shira]

34. So what if he's rightwing? He is, but that has zero to do with the facts....

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 03:12 PM - Edit history (3)

He's right and Beinart is wrong. At the very least, Beinart is guilty of deliberately lying by omission. Bias is fine. Dishonesty is not fine. I'd rather Beinart be biased and honest rather than both biased as well as dishonest.

While my political views are far closer to Beinart's overall (not WRT Israel obviously) than with Sherman, Sherman is more trustworthy.

I've found over the years that the pro-Israel crowd is very careful being honest and accurate, both the right and left. It hurts Israel's cause far more when someone who is pro-Israel lies. And you know why. It gives the Jew haters the most awesome ammunition that they would certainly use for years to come. While they can get away with the lies, Jews have always been discouraged from lying for fear that by doing so, they'd open themselves up to even more violence and hatred. Beinart's lies are of course okay b/c that's what his cheerleading fans crave.

As much as I disagree with Sherman's rightwing views, he realizes like the liberal Zionists (genuine ones, not Beinart) that he has to be very careful and as accurate as possible. He's far more reliable and credible on the issues than Beinart. He'd open himself to attacks from liberal Jews for being a liar even quicker than from non-Jews.

I also think you're assuming that b/c Beinart is more liberal than Sherman (and he definitely is) that he must be more trustworthy, honest, and accurate. I think you're seriously underestimating how irrational, religious, ignorant, or ideological certain people can be. Even those who say they're leftwing or liberal.

Beinart doesn't fit into the same category as the vast majority of liberal Zionists. Almost all would laugh him out of the room if he tried convincing them of his views. He'd barely have more credibility than Israel's Gideon Levy, another propagandist that no liberal Zionists take seriously.

------

Last, WRT this rightwing evil monster stuff. Can we agree that too many people who say they're Leftists hold rightwing views that are even MORE vile and evil than Sherman's? WRT Israel and the mideast these Leftists couldn't care less about women's or gay rights and are more likely to side with Hamas on just about every issue rather than side with Israel on anything (as Israel is just too evil and only pretends to be liberal to whitewash their crimes).

Does it get more rightwing (evil and monstrous) than siding with Hamas and taking on their views? Are you not disgusted by Leftists who throw away liberal values when it comes to siding with Hamas against the liberal West? What kind of liberals/leftists would do that? Just right-wingers, right?

When they throw away all liberal/leftist values in order to side with Hamas, they are right-wing activists. Period. They're infinitely more rightwing than the Shermans of the world. Sherman doesn't hold to, apologize for, or defend Hamas' views and actions. He doesn't defend Hamas' treatment of gays, women, and christians. He doesn't defend Hamas' vile Jew hatred. He doesn't defend Hamas' violent, warmongering nature. How Hamas uses children as militants and shields. These are the most disgusting rightwing views and actions imaginable.

As bad as Sherman is, he's not even in the same odious league as the Leftist apologists for Hamas. If Sherman is an 8 or 9 out of 10 on the rightwing scale, Leftists who defend Hamas must be a 15.

[LeftishBrit]

53. Yes, some people who claim to be leftists have hard-right views, or support those who do

This has always been the case. Anyone can call themselves 'left' if they choose; and in particular some people seem to think that ALL that's necessary for being left-wing is to be anti-war.

I don't think, however, that one sort of right-wing collaboration justifies others.

I DO think it is disgusting when some people indulge in mirror-image-ism, supporting Hamas types, or xenophobic-isolationists like Ron Paul, just because they're against the Bushies and the neocons.

However, none of this is a good reason for quoting any sort of nasty right-wingers on the board as reliable. Anyone who quotes Melanie Phillips as a person whose views could have ANY validity is not to be trusted. Either they don't check their sources, or they support utterly vicious conspiracy theories. They could happen to be correct on one issue -so could a Hamas member -that doesn't make them trustworthy. Also right-wing ideas are intrinsically toxic, and get spread enough outside DU without getting cited here. And also by quoting right-wingers to justify pro-Israel views, you are just playing into the hands of the above-mentioned mirror-imageists who think that all Israelis and Zionists are in league with the Right.

At least if you must quote people like Sherman, you could say something like 'Sherman's views on most issues are utterly evil, but I think he is right on this one issue' -otherwise you are by implication giving credibility to someone who shouldn't have any.

It's not either-or. Right-wingers of ALL persuasions are to be condemned. Because most right-wingers have extreme views about the countries and groups that they support or oppose, many will oppose each other intensely. That doesn't mean any of them are right!

[shira]

56. By that reasoning, Mondoweiss should rate even worse than Sherman...

I can't remember you ever once calling anyone out here - and almost every pro-Palestinian advocate here does it - for posting tripe from Mondoweiss.

I'm just looking for consistency, that's all.

Mondoweiss is arguably more rightwing than Sherman or Arutz Sheva, and that's saying a lot. They are as antisemitic as any hard right-winger (making the nazi analogy constantly and bringing up old tropes like Jewish control, the Blood Libel, and Dual Loyalty). Phillip Weiss hearts Ron Paul (google it). And can you imagine David Duke or Hamas taking issue with one article on that website? I can see those hard righwingers easily endorsing Mondoweiss.

Why haven't you called out anyone for bringing Mondoweiss into DU I/P?

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Thank you for reminding me

to purchase Beinart's new book ASAP.

[shira]

32. Anyone who enjoys smearing and libeling Israel will enjoy his book. n/t

[azurnoir]

12. Israels economic preformance and its diplomatic military policy preformances

are entirely different things and Netanyahu declined to write an article for NYT, too funny?

[Jefferson23]

16. I know, lol. You may find this amusing too, the last paragraph in particular.

Titled: What Israeli hasbara won't hide

snip* This dissonant bubble - perhaps produced by the prime minister's personality and perhaps itself producing his leadership - cannot continue to exist in the long run. One day it will crack and break open: with a bang or a whimper, from within or without. But until then, to paraphrase Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks:

If we discount the Arabs, the ultra-Orthodox, the Palestinians, Gush Dan, the demonstrators, the left, the center, Haaretz, The New York Times, Channel 10, Europe, Asia, Africa, U.S. President Barack Obama, the present and the future - our situation has never been better.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinions/what-israeli-hasbara-won-t-hide-1.426418

Summed it well imo, LOL.

[oberliner]

21. Very true

And that paragraph will manifest itself in increasingly serious problems for Israel if Netanyahu doesn't wake up to the issues he remains willfully blind to.

[Jefferson23]

22. Sadly, I believe that is highly unlikely to occur from within Bibi. n/t

[oberliner]

26. What will new elections bring?

Are you hopeful that a change in leadership could move things in a positive direction?

Who are some of the Israeli politicians on the scene whom you view favorably in that regard?

[Jefferson23]

42. I am hopeful the Palestinians will push their message through loud enough

through a variety of means, all non-violent ( hunger strikes will increase, for one) that will capture the attention
of the international community to put pressure on Israel. I am hopeful more individuals like Krugman will
speak out...I am not at all hopeful any chance for a two state solution will come from the Israeli government
willingly.

[azurnoir]

45. Netanyahu's ears seem more tuned to notes sung by his coalition

rather than by almost any other singer and in that range he seems most interested in keeping his coalition together and functioning no matter how dysfunctional it may appear from the outside

[Jefferson23]

48. I think he has specially designed headphones or something.

[bemildred]

28. Well, I've been making a similar argument here for ten years or so.

And have posted bunches of articles making similar arguments from over-militarization, polarization, demographics, neocon economics, etc. Aside from the usual bald assertions that anything of the sort is just ridiculous, the various red herrings and bloody shirts waved around, I've only actually been called an anti-semite a few times in an overt way.

[Jefferson23]

41. I enjoy your posts.

Krugman speaks up which is great, who will be next I wonder..someone from the
moderate right perhaps.

[bemildred]

44. One in a long line of Cassandras, him & me both.

I suppose living in a well-run country must be "boring", but I'd still like to try it sometime.

Another one:

Zionism is the problem

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenreich15-2009mar15,0,6684861.story

Author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Ehrenreich

[Jefferson23]

47. A powerful piece and quite thoughtful. I imagine he was motivated in part, by the nightmare tactics

of OCL. Since this is dated March '09...everyone has their limits of what they can stomach or has he written on this
topic before?

Another Cassandra from the past: The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights.

Thanks for posting.

[oberliner]

29. The ‘bravery’ of Beinart, and Krugman

Excerpt:

1. If Beinart was brave to write this book, is Krugman brave for calling Beinart brave ?? while those who do not think Beinart is brave are not brave)??

?2. If Krugman is right and “most American Jews are still liberal” like Beinart and ?himself, does it not make his point about bravery a little bit less convincing? By ?Krugman’s own account, all Beinart is doing is catering to the views of the majority of ?his potential readers.?

?3. Krugman is right: some organizations might attack Beinart. Is that such a heavy ?price for the author to pay? Consider this price compared to the benefits: Beinart is ?now far better known than he was, gets invitations to numerous forums, made a lot of ?money, got a new and hyped journalistic gig, and is called “brave” by the likes of ?Krugman. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.?

?4. Consider this sentence: “It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded ?policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national ?suicide”. Now ask: What does Krugman mean by “from here”? Does he refer to the ?city of New York, to the offices of The New York Times (yes, reading the Times ?might give one such impression of Israel), to the United States? And if it is so ??“obvious”, does it not make Beinart’s book - yet again - not as brave as Krugman ?argues??

?5. Krugman also testifies, in this very short column, that he “basically avoid[s] ?thinking about where Israel is going”. This means that Krugman is able to identify the ?many follies and vices of a place about which he does not think.?
? ?
?6. Did Krugman even read Beinart’s book? I don’t know. Has he read any book on ?Israel in recent years? Does he know anything about Israel? He says nothing about the ?content of Beinart’s book, shows no inclination to explain why Israel’s policies are ??“long-run form of national suicide”, gives no hint as to the reasons why Israel deserves ?to be criticized. If anyone wrote with such a commanding tone about the issues on ?which Krugman does know something, he’d probably be the first to jump on him and ?demand facts, details, logical analysis (he says he “doesn’t have the time” – but he ?does give the impression that he had the time to read the whole book – and we all ?know that reading takes more time than writing).?

?7. Piled on praise of someone as respectable and as smart and as celebrated as Paul ?Krugman – does that make one brave? ?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/item/the_bravery_of_beinart_and_krugman_20120425/