I read Richard Silverstein’s post on Tikun Olam explaining why he left Israel Reconsidered. I have no problem with anything he wrote except this:
“…I have a rule that if someone is hostile to me in debate I’m hostile in reply. It ain’t pretty I admit and people I respect take me to task for it. But it’s really the only way I know how to deal with provocateurs, trolls and intemperate right wing racists.”
My problem with Richard’s replies was that in most cases, he was hostile to people who were not hostile to him, and who were not right-wing racists or provocateurs. (I’m new to the blogosphere; I don’t know what ”trolls” are.) He was hostile to basically everyone whose politics were to the right of his. I disagreed strongly with some of Richard’s opinions, of course – that was why I approached him in the first place - but I had no “problem” with their substance; I did with the way they were often expressed.
Larry Derfner
Dimi
Richard is really aggressive and impossible to engage in a meaningful, civil dialog. He quickly resorts to name calling and personal slander, which I find quite objectionable. He refers to references he does not like as “filthy Hasbara”, and people who disagree with him as “right wing racists”. With this approach, it is only possible to have a schoolyard brawl, rather than a logical conversation.
You should find a partner who is more suited for teamwork and has respect towards his fellow human beings.
@ Larry
A ‘troll’ is someone as Witty. He’ll come along in the beginning of the comment thread, not adressing the topic in the article but post a comment on whatever serves his personal agenda and in order to direct the discussion whereever he wants it to go. In Witty’s case: his own navel and his own humanistic superiority. “Hala” is a troll too.
Before leaving: I think your attitude to people and your way of responding is okay, you’re polite and respectful, but I simply can’t deal with “Liberal Zionists”. Good luck with you blog.
One day, in a democratic, secular state for all its citizens from the river to the sea … Ma’a salâma
Is there any type of Zionist you can deal with, or are they all equally despicable in your eyes?
In contrast to Deir Yassin’s complaint, I read the article and write candidly on what I consider a relevant difference in perspective.
I personally refuse to abide by the invoked content passively. I do not offend others.
If my points don’t seem relevant to other’s perspectives, or they differ, on fundamental assumptions or weights, they can convey that.
If a poster can’t deal with “liberal Zionists”, then they can’t deal with any. But, that is saying “I refuse to deal with current reality. I refuse to see an other as human.” (Stated in the name of declaring that all are human beings, an accurate statement.)
Deir Yassin – Thanks for writing, thanks for the very challenging arguments. BTW, you did change my thinking on the subject – not to your point of view, but if in the past I spoke of allowing a few tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees from 48 to return to Israel proper, now I speak of a few hundred thousand. The reason is that in the course of our debate, I asked myself – If the price of ending the conflict with the Palestinians was the return to Israel of as many as 400,000 refugees/descendants, would I agree? And my answer is yes. I know this cuts no ice with you, but I wanted you to know. And I thank you for that. Politely and respectfully, Larry
Deir Yassin
You call me a Troll because i didn’t let you spew your manipulation.
For years manipulations, half truths and lies, were the weapon of choice for the Arabs, that didn’t change to date, as one can gather from reading your posts. Was i civil to you, absolutely Yes at least in the beginning over Richard’s Blog, But you who were hosted under the wings of the Massaich himself, allowed yourself the same nasty behavior as he did.
You were hostile, arrogant and uncivilized. and no, i am not a write-winger nut job i am a very main stream Israeli who believes in a two state solution, You on the other hand do not, Richard doesn’t and anyone with a different set of opinions was getting your treatment.
if you want to really debate, you need to start by stop using the term “hasbara” and all of it’s versions.
i know iv’e been called that, Y who also writes here, was called that and so did many others, the only purpose of that term, was to discredit and belittle those with whom you didn’t agree.
you don’t throw stones in a house made out of glass, that is what both you and Richard did.
and a note to Larry, 400,000 was the number Barak agreed to in camp-david, even that didn’t get the other side to sign the agreement.
Hala, Barak didn’t agree to even one. Olmert agreed to 5,000.
Larry, you are wrong.
Professor Shlomo Ben Ami, was negotiating with the Qatari foreign minister after Camp-David exploded, offered them full control on the temple mount, and accepting 400,000 refugees into Israel in return to declaring the end of conflict, the Qatari minister reply that no one under no terms would be able to grant the end of conflict.
http://digital-edition.israelhayom.co.il/Olive/ODE/Israel/Default.aspx?href=ITD%2F2011%2F06%2F10
Hala, thanks very much, but all I could find in the link was Israel Hayom and I couldn’t find the Ben-Ami thing. I’m really interested in reading this – is it somewhere else inside Israel Hayom? Was that the correct link?
Larry
it’s on page 10 of Israel Hasavua, their weekend magazine. it’s part of an Interview Boaz Bismut conducted with Eli Avidar who was the head of the Israeli interest office in Qatar.
apparently Ben-Ami wrote about the meeting and negotiations with his book to.
Hala, I read it – I don’t think the Qatar FM’s word is final regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Besides, I find it hard to believe – impossible, really – that Barak as PM would have authorized anybody to make such an offer. No way. Even I wouldn’t support giving the Palestinians full control over the Temple Mount. But let’s say it’s true that the Palestinians will reject any imaginable offer Israel might make them – this shouldn’t stop Israel from making them a fair offer. Either they would accept it and there would be peace, or they would reject it and they’d be alone in the world, certainly facing the Western world, and Israel would have the wind at its back.
Larry,
It’s a fact that Barak offered the Palestinians control over temple mount. And as for the Palestinian control over temple mount- don’t make me laugh. No where in Israel one can dig without the approval of Israel Antiquities Authority, but on temple mount, at which ground containing archaeological findings, is being removed using heavy equipment.
Don’t kid yourself, the Palestinians already have control over temple mount, and do whatever they want there, including destroying Jewish heritage in the place (i’m as secular as one can get, i eat seashells and pork)
as for Barak offer, read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
as for the offer, Larry i support a two state solution, so do you. Until the Palestinians will support that two, and in doing so will denounce the ROR there will be no peace, no matter how generous of an offer they will get. the conflict isn’t about territory, it’s about our existence, they say it out loud, you just chose not to listen. You should read Bugy Yelon in the same news paper. I agree with him, the difference is that i Think israel must withdraw from the west bank, as a preparation for the next war, so no one in the world would be able to say we didn’t try.
We didn’t offer them sovereignty – we did not offer them anything close to the same sovereign rights over their land that we enjoy in our land. Like Ben Ami said, if he were a Palestinian, he would have rejected the Camp David offer, too. And you know what – let’s say we did make them a fair offer (we didn’t but let’s say we did) and Arafat turned it down – that’s the end of history? It’s not. I really disagree with this idea that a national mentality is a fixed thing. Within limits, it changes. I don’t have to tell you all the unheard-of upheavals that have taken place in the world.
Larry, an honest answer please.
do you see anyone in the Palestinian leadership who is preaching for a two state solution ? do you see anyone who’s willing to give away the right of return ?
Absolutely. Abbas and Fayyad.
Let me amend that – no Palestinian will renounce the right of return, but they will give up the right to implement it fully, which is sufficient. Palileaks says Abbas proposed 100,000 returnees over 10 years – he denies it, but at Camp David the Palestinians were negotiating on a compromise – they are not demanding that Israel simply agree that all 4.5 million refugees and descendants have the right to freely move to Israel. That’s a non-starter – Olmert couldn’t have negotiated w/Abbas as long as he did if that had been Abbas’s position. It’s not.
Larry,
The only reporter that seriously dealt with the PALILeaks was documents was Ben Dror Yemini.
you may thing his two extreme, but he really isn’t, he actually makes a lot of sense, i posted his article here.
The Guardian and Al-Jazeera Great Deception
Palestinian documents that were leaked were presented as a historic political turnabout. New research reveals the fact that it’s a fraud, For brief moments we lived under the illusion that something is happening, or perhaps in the opposite direction. Only in January Al Jazeera and The Guardian loudly announced the most significant step in Palestinian history: giving up, in fact, on the right of return. This change, as I wrote then, should be blessed. But it was a short-lived illusion. It’s not just the reality of rocket fire on Ashkelon and Ashdod, the massacre in Itamar and the terror attack in Jerusalem. The story goes deeper.
A new study of an American Christian organization (not evangelical), researched all the 1700 leaked documents, which unfortunately, I couldn’t do despite my true will to do so. Well, the conclusion from that research is the opposite. Not only that the Palestinians did not agree to any concessions in this matter they also fooled everyone. False display of moderation, which I wish was true, but it’s still far away. So that all those who had difficulty with the Palestinian conciliatoriness: The Guardian and Gideon Levy (who claimed that the documents prove that the Palestinians “are selling their souls to the devil”), the Hamas and Al – Jazeera – can relax. Palestinians have not really given up.
Or have they? It ‘s quite impossible that The Guardian will publish a huge headline announcing “Palestinians agreed only 10,000 refugees could return to Israel”. After all, this is a serious newspaper. In the same announcement, on the newspaper web site appears a link (like web links on this blog) to the Palestinian document that allegedly points to the concession. But the link does not lead to anything. Nothing. I thought it was a mistake. After all, mistakes are human. Our blog also had damaged links that readers complained about and then the errors were corrected. But since it’s been about 2 months since the publication we can assume that someone told The Guardian that something is wrong with the link. After all, I can’t be the first one to notice that.
For reasons of caution, I turned to Ian Black: the editor for the Middle East section of The Guardian He was signed not only on the specific announcement, but also on many admonitions to Israel following the leaked documents. Even though he isn’t pro – Israeli, Black is considered to be a serious journalist. He is not as verbally hostile as Robert Fisk from The Independent or Gideon Levy from Haaretz. I asked Black: Where does the amazing title about only 10,000 refugees come from? I sent him the study, claiming opposite things. I hoped he would provide me with a proof. After all, if the published an information that is true – it’s a historical change in direction. But the days passed. Black chose not to respond. I bothered to search for a proof myself. Thus, there is one document, in which Erekat claims that the Palestinians have agreed to an amount of 15,000 refugees to return to Israel per year. Continuing for a period of ten years. There are three problems with this document: First, the Palestinians never accepted such a number of returnees during the negotiations. The document was referred to the Europeans, when Netanyahu was already the prime minister, in order to pretend Palestinian moderation. Second, the document contains an obstacle, which deals with the renewable right to return. Third, it is clarified in all the documents, during the negotiations, that this is a matter of a personal right to return “that is not subject to negotiations”. And in other documents the Palestinians are trying to set the scientific “absorptive capacity” of Israel and reach a number of 1,016,511 refugees. Indeed, a display of moderation.
It should also been mentioned that it’s not the first time the Palestinian leadership pretend to be moderate after time, but not when during the negotiations. Arafat rejected the Clinton plan, but tow years later regretted his on rejection.
The main person in the story is Erekat. He is playing with everyone, and becomes in an act of wonders, a moderate. And so, The Guardian, in another headline that supposedly proves the previous one, heralded an even more dramatic shift: “The Palestinians agree to define Israel as a Jewish state.” And so again I turned to the reference. That has again proved to be nonexistent. So where does the headline come from? Well, Erekat said to Livni’s exactly the same thing that Abu-Mazen claims when he tries to explain why he does not accept the demand: “Define yourself the way you desire.” There is a very big difference between such evasion and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. But you can count on The Guardian that must show the Palestinians as moderates in order to show the Israelis refusing.
So the Palestinians have two approaches: First towards Americans and Europeans where they occasionally present moderation. And this happens only when they do not have to respond to Israel’s proposals. The second is exposed in formulating the position towards Israel. For example, in an internal memo, the advisory team displays a clear position to negotiate much more: Resistance to the solution of “two states for two peoples”, because that could be come with the recognition of the Jewish people, God forbid, maybe even people of Israel as it is defined in Hebrew. It is clarified there, that any right to Jewish self-determination would harm the Palestinian right to return to Palestine. This is the display of the dual position. A moderate attitude to the West, and blunt resistance to the formula of “two states for two peoples”, and to any implied consent for such arrangement, as it indicated in the Oslo agreements or other agreements. Meaning that the attitude is harder as oppose to previous agreements.
Erekat himself settled the dispute. Was there or wasn’t there a moderation? Thus, in an argument that broke out later in the Palestinian arena, Erekat bothered to clarify unequivocally: “The so-called” Palestine papers “have not revealed a single official agreement or document that offers concessions” Unfortunately, the documents prove that Erekat is right.
It also seems that Abu Mazen cleared things out. After all, he received a firm, extremely conceding offer from Olmert. And what was the answer, in the words of the qualified Palestinian leader? Well – Abu Mazen said to Jackson Diehl from Washington Post that the problem of Olmert’s proposal is that it lacks a right to return in “large scale”.
So how and why were they able to fabricate one of the largest frauds of the political process? Well, Al – Jazeera’s goal was to embarrass the Palestinian Authority. The Guardian’s goal was to embarrass Israel. All to argue “the documents reveal the depth of Palestinian concessions rejected by Israel.” Deception was successful, not only Haaretz was drafted, even I was convinced that there are signs of change.
Palestinian twist, if indeed there was one, should be blessed. But unfortunately, there was no such thing. There was a deception, and this should be exposed.
Deir Yassin,
I dont know if im a troll or somethiong like that in your book. I know ive always tried to response to the specific statement/opinion iwas responding to.
I saw Halas comments from his (her?) day one on tikkun olam. Like many of us the only thing hala got there was constant insults and claims he represents some imaginary Israeli hasbara, and lies in the name of it.
The same +- was the treatment i got from Richard, while he allowed himself to talk down to me, being fully convinced he reads my mind and knows better than i can express in words what i really mean/think. It all has ended for me with the Yoav Even story, when i claimed Richard writes from an anti Yoav Even position, only because he believes Even represents the typicall Israeli violent man. Richard, who wrote black on white that he thinks Even was guility and that people like me deny it only because we’re typical israeli men, responded in his usual childish manner, claimed i lied about his opinons and banned me for this and for being “racist”, as he calls this – all this while it seems like his views from 8 years ago are 100% similar to mine today, and actually im even abit more on the left, as i dont mind there would be a Palestinian Army when the day comes.
You and I both know its very hard to find any response of him to any one who’s even abit more on the right of himself without the words “hasbara”, “nonsese”,”stupid”,”boring”, “bullshit”. As a few of us already noticed, he’s convinced himself along those years he is some kind of a messiah, but he is not. He’s just another human being with his own opinions and his own mistakes (he wrote in one of his posts here that French and German never shared a land in one state. I guess Switzerland doesnt exist in his realm). As much as i respect him for trying to fix the world and make life better for us – for someone who thinks he represents the perfect demoratic values, and calls a person who threatens to sue him to have a debate on the internet instead, hes very not capable of accepting other peoples opinions or views, and this is why the only place he is holding on at is his own site, where he can ban people after noticing them they “annoy him” and that they are “stupid”, and then blaming them for breaking his rules, when they actually responde to that (like with fuster, or whatever his nick was).
At the bottom line, he is as far from being liberal as any settler rabbi is, each on his side, cant tolerate anyone elses opinion
I’ve followed tikkun olam for long enough to notice your style has changed as well. I dont know if this because u grew tired of proving the same point, or having the same arguement all over again, but a year ago when i started reading tikkun olam, you were able to argue in a way more polite way with those liberal zionist you dismiss than you are today. You were actually one of those people that made me enjoy reading the blog, as i prefer to hear from rational secular people than from bible/qurran driven insane nationalists.
Its important to remember this is a blog, an internet site where people come to learn from others. Its not me nor you who really decideds what will be with the conflict, and nor you nor i represent the majority of our people.
Its your right of course to leave, and to comment on tikkun olam only, but i think so far this blog is way more closer to what richard claims he wanted to get with tikkun olam – a community where theres place to disagree, and anyone is entitled to present his opinion, as long as its done in a polite way.
I dont know if it matters to you or not, but i, together with other people here i believe, will be very glad if u chose to stay. We might not convince each other on some hard topics like the ROR, but we still can and are learning from each other regardless.
Hi deir yassin
I’m sorry, but liberal zionists are the best you’ll find to argue with and maybe even find some agreement.
Who else will ever be your partner for peace and comprimise? Or do you only want to talk to those who agree with you?
” Hi deir yassin
I’m sorry, but liberal zionists are the best you’ll find to argue with and maybe even find some agreement. ”
Shmuel,
Liberal zionists may be the best in your opinion but they are not the only ones , small though we may be there is a growing number of Israeli post zionists , just saying , wouldnt want deir yassin to get the impression that liberal zionists are his/her only choice .
Hello Larry, My membership in your new venture,”Israel Reconsidered”, has been enlightening and fascinating for me, a non Jewish Asian from Hawaii and a social and economic liberal seeking global justice. Today’s revelation of Richard Silverstein’s problems with your forum and blog and the subsequent comments by blog members defines better for me the status and texture of Israeli society and it’s unique diversity, concerns, problems and possible solutions. The opinions expressed are extremely passionate and visceral introducing an additional sensitivity required to understand the situation and issues in Israel today. I am shocked by Richard’s comments because I had thought that you had requested his participation based on your expectations of his positive, scholarly contributions. I guess my initial reaction to his diatribe is “childish” but on the other hand, if he is who you claimed him to be, I am only seeing the raw emotions and feelings of many Israeli’s – Jewish or Arab/Palestinian. I also note that comments become quite personal on your blog. Is this something you expect? I note on the American blogs that i occasional participate, personal attacks are verboten and not tolerated. This seems to be acceptable in Israel. KL
KL Chind,
I dont think there are many personal comments here,at least i dont see this.
I think most of us are able to keep it civile, except for mr silverstein
like at this example :
http://israelleft.com/2011/06/07/the-right-of-return-is-wrong/#comment-609
Writing to someone his opinion is a “stupid lie” wont convince the person he’s arguing with he is right.
Not all of us follow haarez 24/7, and even if what Stanley Tee said wasnt correct – a short polite response in the manner of of “Hi Stanley, please read this article which proves you wrong” would have been suffice.
I admit i was getting a bit to personal with Deir Yassin.
being a Tikun Olam survivor i just can’t stand her arrogant type of response, and her debating, or should i say, non debating style.
if anyone in this forum was offended by that – including Deir Yassin herself – i do apologize.
Yo KL! Thanks for the support. BTW, Richard isn’t Israeli, he lives in Seattle, so you can imagine what us Israelis are like. (Savages.)
Larry, congratulations.
I didn’t understand from the getko how a reasonable person (you) can debate with this rude hypocrite (Silverstein)
You finally came to the right conclusion.
I think that for this blog to be meaningful you need to offer Ribhi Rantisi, Richards place, they both present the same opinions though Rentisi offers authenticity.
Thanks, and thanks for the tip about Rantisi. I’m looking.
I see Ribhi Rantisi is a Hamasnik. Not what I had in mind.
Why not ?
he is representing the party who one the previous elections, and would most likely win the next one, he represents the majority of the Palestinian people, those are the ones we would have to deal with.
I rather him from him then from folks like Silverstein, as i stated he brings authenticity.
P.S
i’m kind of surprised you don’t know who he is, he’s a celebrity.
http://www.103.fm/programs/Media.aspx?ZrqvnVq=EJHMLF&c41t4nzVQ=EG
I don’t want to negotiate peace, I want to debate ideas within the camp I belong to – the peace camp. It doesn’t include Hamas.
Then Yossi Gurevitz, or another exemplar can be Rechvia Berman or even Shalom Bugalovski, there are many options. i’m afraid you will find all of them as annoying as Silverstein, same mentality, same intolerance, as if they were all trained in the same place.
Larry,
Maybe the Magnes Zionist (Jerry Haber) or someone at the +972 blog will debate you.
That’s the sort of direction I’ve been thinking in. We’ll see.
The majority of the problems that loom large in Palestinian and Israeli mind sets stem from an unwillingness to look at the other side of the argument. As I see it, as a non-Palestinian and a non-Israeli, neither Arab nor Jew, it makes no great odds to me which one has the better claim or a greater right to this or that. It is this inability to settle matters with some degree of finality that concerns me and has caused this ongoing crisis to drag on for what seems like an eternity. What I observe are two communities, in many ways very similar to each other, embarked on a decades-old struggle for dominance and survival in a land not much bigger than that of Wales here in the UK or, maybe, a quarter the size of Maine if it’s the USA.
For thousands to fight and die for so long and over such a small piece of the globe seems totally incongruous to me even though I realise the very same thing has been the hallmark of civilisations down the ages.
Here we all are, well into the 21st century and the chances of this business ending amicably, or even at all, still remain as remote as ever.
If the mind of Man has not been able to resolve the matter by now, what on earth can?
But, as I’ve indicated on previous posts, maybe only the situation itself holds the key to its own salvation.
It may be just a question of inserting that key into the lock and then turning it to open the door to a brighter future and an end to this constant state of conflict.
Calling on Palestinians to give up the Right of Return was one of Richard Silverstein’s core beliefs when he started his blog in 2003.
One of his earliest blog entires was entitled: “Peace in the Middle East: This I Believe”.
In that post, he laid out 5 points that were components of what he called “the only way to achieve real and lasting peace between Israel and the Arabs”.
Point #4 was: Palestinians must give up their idea of a right of physical return for those refugees who fled or were expelled in 1948. In return, Israel must recognize a right of financial compensation for the properties confiscated from its Arab neighbors inside the Green Line
Here is the link:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2003/05/31/peace-in-the-mi/
It is interesting that here on this blog, he wrote that there “must be a Right of Return” for Palestinians while in 2003 he wrote that Palestinians “must give up their idea of a right of physical return” – using the word “must” both then and now for statements that are in complete opposition to one another
While it is clear that he has changed his mind on this topic and no longer believes what he believed in 2003, it is surprising that he responded so vehemently to the suggestion that Palestinians ought to give up the right of return when he himself had also reached that same conclusion not very long ago.
Larry, You should include someone on this forum who can articulate a Fatah/Hamas position but can be open minded enough to explain factual or philosophical differences. I agree with John Yorke’s overview of the Israel issues as a non Jew. Decades wasted. Debating ideas IS participating in the peace negotiations. You should take “Israel Reconsidered” to the next level insisting that posts focus on solutions to the negotiating process. Enough of the chest beating and 60 years of inaction (like a bunch of Rabbinical scholars haggling over syntax). What say you Larry? KL
I think Richard was right when on afterthought he wrote that you two shouldn’t have allowed comments on this blog. It was not about debating with readers, but debating between the two of you. I am sorry to see Richard go. Clashes of opinion can produce sparks of truth. But those who pollute comment threads by hijacking them and taking people away from the original subject should have no place here.
Leonid, this is *not* why Richard bans people.
Im sorry to bring this up again and again, but im constantly amazed by this mans hypocricity.
A week or abit more ago he argued with me here that i am a “hasbarist”, because i claimed Syrians government was paying to those protestors on the Israeli border, and they are not Martin Luther Kings, as he described them.
Now he published this link on his site:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/06/15/israeli-intelligence-leaks-alleged-syrian-memo-claiming-government-support-for-nakba-day-protests/#comments
Notice even he admits the document is probably genuine. This is why Richard bans people. IF i could make a similar claim on his site, before this article, id 100% get banned for it. This is the only demoracy he knows. I dont know whats ikes nick on tikkun olam, but i was following some of halas responses, and most of them were directed to what was said, and not flooding.