Love of the Land: Thank You, Andrew Sullivan

Thank You, Andrew Sullivan

I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen this frickin’ map on websites, blogs…even protest signs:


Judeosphere
18 March '10

Recently, Andrew Sullivan stirred-up a controversy in the blogosphere when he posted the map on his site. Sullivan’s “reliable source” for the map was blogger/pseudo-academic Juan Cole—a guy who once claimed that Israel only wages war in the summertime, because that’s when American and European universities, the “primary nodes of popular opposition,” are closed down. (I mean, let’s face it, nothing strikes fear into the heart of the IDF like the prospect of thousands of anthropology undergrads waving “We are Hezbollah!” signs.)

Anyway, I feel that Sullivan inadvertently performed a public service: By creating a controversy over the map, he encouraged long-overdue public scrutiny. Enter the Economist, which gives the map a royal fisking:

(Read full post)
.

Love of the Land: Thank You, Andrew Sullivan

Love of the Land: This Land is Mined

This Land is Mined

Richard Fenandez
Belmont Club/Pajamas Media
14 March 2010

The recent exchange of testy words between Washington and Israel over the approval of new construction in East Jerusalem is ostensibly over the fate of the “peace process” now being shepherded by the US. VOA says that “for decades he United States has tried to act as a bridge between Israelis and Arabs. President Barack Obama, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, is looking for ways to end hostilities and bring about a long-elusive peace.”

The announcement of the East Jerusalem construction was said to have undermined Vice President Joe Biden’s diplomatic efforts. “This was supposed to be a period of heightened U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East, with U.S. envoy George Mitchell named as a go-between in indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians, and Vice President Joe Biden making a high-profile trip this week to Jerusalem.” But what were the odds that Biden’s efforts were actually going anywhere? And if not, then why?

One line of thought is that peace is within reach if only Israel would give way. Andrew Sullivan, for example, lectured Prime Minister Netanyahu about Israel’s aggressive past. Did Netanyahu know, he asks, how much land the Jews have grabbed? Did Netanyahu slaver, he asks, at the prospect of an apartheid state? The Economist points out that Sullivan’s arguments are nonsense, but it too is willing to concede the principle that if Israel gave something back then peace might be attained. Israel must still give; the only question is how much. Tom Friedman also seems to think that Israel has missed the party by “driving around drunk.” Friedman wrote:

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: This Land is Mined

Love of the Land: Sullivan Actually Sullies Himself This Time

Sullivan Actually Sullies Himself This Time

Yisrael Medad
My Right Word
15 March '10

Go on, have a real hearty laugh at the stupidity of Andrew Sullivan when he writes in The Atlantic:

...Jerusalem was 84 percent Arab in 1946 and well within Palestinian authority under the partition plan the Palestinian Arabs rejected. It is undoubtedly true that Palestinian and wider Arab refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist has been a huge part of this problem - arguably the central reason for this conflict. But it remains true to my mind that the current Israeli government needs an attitude adjustment, and soon.

In case you are wondering why I am laughing and why you should laugh, well,

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Sullivan Actually Sullies Himself This Time

Love of the Land: "What Often Happens to Israel's Critics"?

"What Often Happens to Israel's Critics"?

GI
CAMERA/Snapshots
18 February '10
Posted before Shabbat

Andrew Sullivan, in a series of recent posts his blog The Daily Dish, purports to describe "What often happens to Israel's critics."

What happens, we're meant to believe, is that these critics are met by little more than "smears and character assassinations."

Of course we've heard this all before from the likes of former president Jimmy Carter, Gaza investigator Richard Goldstone, and Independent columnist Johann Hari. And of course, in each of these cases, the cry of "character assassination" was intended to denigrate and distract from the many serious, substantive critiques of their work. Put another way, the smears were not targeted at Israel's critics, but rather employed by them and directed at the critics' critics (including CAMERA).

But what about the latest charge by Sullivan?

Well, his exhibit one is nothing other than a repeat of a May 2008 column by Johann Hari. Apparently Sullivan hadn't seen the Hari column until now. And apparently he didn't realize, or didn't care to reveal to his readers, that Hari's accusation has long been debunked.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: "What Often Happens to Israel's Critics"?

Love of the Land: Andrew Sullivan's 'pulverization of Gazans'

Andrew Sullivan's 'pulverization of Gazans'

Petra Marquardt-Bigman
The Warped Mirror/JPost
14 February '10

A bitter and protracted war of words has developed since Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, suggested in a recent article that some of the commentary of the popular Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan on Israel seemed to reflect "something much darker" than mere opposition to Israeli policies. Inevitably, the resulting debate in the blogosphere has once again fuelled the longstanding controversy about the question of if and when criticism of Israel can be described as anti-Semitic.

The complaint that critics of Israeli politics always risk being unfairly accused of anti-Semitism is rather common, not least because many people refuse to acknowledge that debates about the Jewish state and its policies are sometimes "heavily indebted to anti-Semitic tropes." Likewise, the glaring double standards that are routinely applied to Israel - summed up recently by Anthony Julius in a superb article in The Jewish Chronicle - are all too often ignored or denied.

Instead, it's rather popular to pretend that anti-Semitism has been frozen in time. Writing in defense of Sullivan, an Economist blogger urged:

We American Jews have simply got to stop accusing people who object to Israeli policies of being anti-Semitic, unless they're literally waving around drawings of hook-nosed bankers and arguing that Auschwitz never happened."

No doubt: if we built on this and came up with similar definitions for other cases of bigotry and racism, we would soon be able to declare that mankind is close to eradicating all such forms of prejudice. But somehow, I can't quite imagine that anyone would want to argue, for example, that accusations of racism against blacks are only justified if the perpetrator "literally" wears a Ku Klux Klan outfit and threatens a lynching...

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Andrew Sullivan's 'pulverization of Gazans'

Love of the Land: Andrew Sullivan: It’s Time to Invade Israel

Andrew Sullivan: It’s Time to Invade Israel

Marine Barracks/Beirut

23 October 83

Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
06 January '10

Click here to visit crazy town:

My own view is moving toward supporting a direct American military imposition of a two-state solution, with NATO troops on the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel. I’m sick of having a great power like the US being dictated to in the conduct of its own foreign policy.

Presumably the direct American military imposition of a two-state solution would involve the Marines going house to house in Gaza City. Talk about American soldiers dying for Israel! For someone who has spent the past few years denouncing the hubris of American military intervention in the Middle East, this is heady stuff.

Love of the Land: Andrew Sullivan: It’s Time to Invade Israel