Jonathan Freedland: Just a Journalist

Thanks Jonathan. Also worth reading is this attack on Friedland by Benny Morris (remember him? ibrows's hero!):

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-wailing-over-the-palestine-pa...

PS I found the above via the Israel Matzav blog.

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/01/26/poor-jonathan-freedland/

Just a journalist... or just an idiot?

The comments on the harry's place article make interesting reading.

Just a moronic tosser, was my first thought. Jose beat me to it.

But then, F. supports the utterly vile Livingstone: what else do you need to know?

I'll be honest, I don't quite understand the complaint here apart from that (predictably) you may not like Jonathan Freedland.

One may disagree with his analysis of the Palestine Papers business, but what is the exact objection??

Freedland is the house Jew at the antisemitic Guardian. Does that help, Iceberg?

No that just sounds like more abuse

Freedman is the fool that pretends to know better than Israel what is good for it. That is in itself the most foolish assertion one can make, isn't it?

No. I suspect lots of people probably think they know better than other people, what they should do. That's called having an opinion. Freedland is not an Israeli citizen, as far as I'm aware, so has no vote whatsoever on Israeli policy and his opinion remains just that, an opinion.

I don't think there is anything wrong with you disagreeing with Freedland (who I assume you are referring to), even getting quite angry about it. But why the need to be so abusive??

Out of interest - if Israel announced tomorrow a unilateral withdrawal from the entire West Bank, would you agree with it??

"No that just sounds like more abuse"

Ignorant drivel. Obviously you don't know what the Guardian is like and what Freedland writes in it, and yet you feel qualified to sound off about it.
Idiot.

Yoni - are you angry about something??

I read the Guardian regularly and sometimes I read what Jonathan Freedland writes.

Why the abuse??

I don't like antisemitic newspapers. I detest Jews who work for the,. Clear enough for you?

No. I suspect lots of people probably think they know better than other people, what they should do. That's called having an opinion. Freedland is not an Israeli citizen, as far as I'm aware, so has no vote whatsoever on Israeli policy and his opinion remains just that, an opinion.

Opinions are like you-know-what... Everybody has one. Not always so stupid.

"Iceberg".... Are you of the family that sank the Titanic?

Yoni ... it's perfectly clear to me. But it doesn't explain: 1) your abuse toward me and 2) what is the particular objection to what Jonathan Freedland wrote in this case.

Jose ... I have no idea what you're talking about

Jose ... I have no idea what you're talking about

Jewish humour! Of course, you may not understand!

Iceberg, when you assume, as your starting position, that someone's post (mine) 'just sounds like more abuse', when the thread makes abundantly clear that I detest him because he supports the great 'Jew-lover' KL, and that I detest the Guardian because it has a long history of antisemitism, then I am afraid you need to expect abuse.

However, if my position hadn't been made clear, I apologise profusely and declare you a wonderful human being.

Jose ... why would I not understand??

Yoni ... no need to call me wonderful, I have no pretensions to being that. I just didn't expect to be called an idiot for no apparent reason. Your position is gloriously clear - you don't like JF or the Guardian. No one has yet explained to me though, what is it that he has written in this instance that is quite so objectionable.

I will give up unless someone enlightens me soon.

Jose ... why would I not understand??

Obviously, you did not. So why ask?

I will give up unless someone enlightens me soon.

Those who need enlightenment by others are also the less likely to get it, unfortunately.

“The consequences are for others to manage…journalists shouldn’t be expected to weigh all the possible consequences of publication.”

THAT is objectional in principle, and stunningly hypocritical in this particular case.

He thinks that by working as a scribbler in a publication that calls itself a 'newspaper', he is exempt from the consequences of his actions. He thinks he is some divinely-appointed super-being. THAT is objectional.

In this particular case, the consequences would have been obvious to a low-IQ slug: destabilising the ME, getting people murdered.
Ally that with the Guardian's long-term antisemitism, and with its sickening position in this particular instance that it can DICTATE to the 'Palestinians' who among their own negotiators is 'acceptable' to the Islington airheads and who is a 'traitor' to their cause, and you have mega-grade hubris and racism in one noxious mixture.

JF is scum, and the Guardian is a sickening racist rag.

Sorry re typos.

Out of interest - if Israel announced tomorrow a unilateral withdrawal from the entire West Bank, would you agree with it??

If I want my throat slit the next morning, is that the question?
Would you agree if the Arabs retreated from the West Bank and return to the country they came from?

Given the troubles in Egypt and the risk that the peace treaty could quickly become a piece of used paper, why would anyone trust Arabs on good faith? Remember that the 1949 Green Line has not deterred them from attacking Israel. So, they don't agree with it either and Israel is not safe within it anyway.

Yoni ... thanks, that's much clearer.

Jose ... no disrespect intended, but I think you need to work on your witty one-liners.

You told me I may not understand I humour, so I queried this. Your comment re. enlightenment is nonsensical.

Jose ... are you Israeli??

My point was not the specifics of the situation, more that you suggested nobody should suggest to Israelis what they would do. If you're not Israeli, you just proved my point. If you are Israeli, you proved it too, just in a different way.

"If you are Israeli, you proved it too, just in a different way"

Not that Jose will have any difficulty answering this, but it's a nonsensical non sequitur anyway. He has not 'proved' any of your points by being Israeli.

I'm just curious if he's Israeli, tis all

That is correct, I am Israeli. And you certainly prove my point since Freedland isn't.

If you're not Israeli, you just proved my point. If you are Israeli, you proved it too, just in a different way.

We see here a usual fallacy: "heads, I win; tails you lose".
Unfortunately, that is a game I don't play.

"I'm just curious if he's Israeli, tis all"

That's not what you said earlier. You claimed that it would 'prove your point'.

Tru dat. I wasn't just curious. Mostly curious.

Very irrelevant curiosity indeed, that suppose the denial of the necessity of negociating between Israelis and 'Palestinians', by telling that someone knows better than them. What if I told 'Palestinians' I know better what is good for them?

Well, the Guardian just did.

It's absolutely fine for you to tell Palestinians that you know better than them as long as:

a) You acknowledge that you could be wrong
b) You accept that you can't make them decide and you don't actually partake in the decision-making, as you are not a Palestinian (I presume)

It's absolutely fine for you to tell Palestinians that you know better than them as long as:
a) You acknowledge that you could be wrong

BS! Everybody can be wrong (and Freedland is badly so). But telling 'Palestinians' that they were wrong electing terrorists at their head is not very risky. But we are not talking about things as easy as that for Israelis. Every wrong decision for Israelis could mean sudden death. And Israelis are not so much in love with death.
When those who are not involved and do not risk anything give opinions exposing lives of others, as Freedland does, you can consider it a joke.
What will Freedland say after the second Holocaust? "Sorry"?

b) You accept that you can't make them decide and you don't actually partake in the decision-making, as you are not a Palestinian (I presume)

I cannot be a 'Palestinian' since no such thing exists.

So you're suggesting that people cannot express opinions when it might endanger someone?? That seems a very dangerous line to go down. Presumably then nobody outside of Israel (or for that matter, any other country where a government decision might endanger the lives or welfare of its citiznes - which is presumably any country) can express an opinion regarding that country's policies.

"I cannot be a 'Palestinian' since no such thing exists."

Well, there you have it. The ultimate in totally futile statements. Aside from the historical inaccuracy of your statement (unless you would deny the existence of all peoples), it seems wholly pointless to me to deny the existence of something that is subjectively identified by, at the very least, several million Palestinians.

"Aside from the historical inaccuracy of your statement"

The statement is 100% accurate.

I'm not going to lie - this is an exceptionally pointless argument to have in a forum such as this since there is precisely no chance of changing one another's minds. I would simply suggest two things:

1) Some reading in the history of nationalism
2) Pondering the fact that anybody can deny the existence of people's as much as they wish, just as many Jews (and others) have sought and continue to seek to deny the reality of the Jewish people. Nations are constructions that become reality and it doesn't really do any good to deny somebody else's subjective reality -especially perhaps if that someone is happy to kill you for the sake of that reality.

But I'll leave you to it, if that's what you choose to do.

The 'Palestinians' were invented purely in order to delegitimise Israel.

They admitted this themselves.

If you choose to swallow the biggest antisemitic canard in history, I can't stop you.

As for me, I will continue to believe in the true historical facts.

Oh, and don't be so bloody patronising. I have done as much reading as you have ever done, and certainly undersootd more, as is obvious from your inability to apply critical thinking to what you read.
But then, some people still believe that the earth is flat because the Guardian told them so.

So you're suggesting that people cannot express opinions when it might endanger someone?

That is a strawman. Only following Freedland's advices would be dangerous.

Well, there you have it. The ultimate in totally futile statements. Aside from the historical inaccuracy of your statement

I am sorry to tell you that it is historically very accurate.
People are defined by knowledge, culture and language. Please tell us what is specific to 'Palestinians' and not to Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, etc. Or maybe it is the mix that is specific?

This is not a futile statement, except if one thinks reality is futile. This is not my case, but obviously you differ.

and continue to seek to deny the reality of the Jewish people.

Damn difficult: genetic studies showed otherwise, language shows otherwise, a culture that survived and developped through 2000 years of exile shows otherwise, an exceptional share in the development of the global knowledge of humanity shows otherwise. Those who deny the existence of a Jewish people are like those who speak today of the existence of a 'Palestinian' people: deluded.

So maybe one day, there will be a 'Palestinian' people. But today, it is indistinguishable from Jordanians.

"When those who are not involved and do not risk anything give opinions exposing lives of others, as Freedland does, you can consider it a joke."

That is what you wrote, I don't think I summarised you innacurately. Given what you say: why should I, for example, be allowed to express an opinion on Israeli policy? Or anybody on this blog, or any journalist/public figure outside of Israel??

Yoni - I don't think I was being patronising. I wasn't intending to be. It just seems to me that your comment betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of nationalism. I don't know how much you've read (and I'm curious how you know how much I've read). I'm curious when the Palestinians admitted to being invented to deligitimise Israel. Please enlighten me. Apologies for my poor critical thinking - I'll try and do better.

Jose - when you get into defining ethnicity by genetics, you are getting into very dubious territory. National identity is based on more than simply genetics and, as you rightly point out, by things like culture and language and, importantly, a common historical experience (and in the Palestinians' case: a common political and civil existence). We can disagree if this means they are officially a "nation"/"people" or not, though I think this is a spectacularly pointless avenue to go down. Don't you ever stop to consider what the purpose is of telling Palestinians they don't exist?? All the Palestinians I've met seem pretty sure they exist and one thing I can assure you of, you won't be able to change their mind.

why should I, for example, be allowed to express an opinion on Israeli policy?

If your opinion consists of saying Israel should expose itself, your opinion is a joke. That is what I said.
Then anyone can have an opinion on Israeli policy, just like me. The difference is that I vote in Israel.

Jose - when you get into defining ethnicity by genetics, you are getting into very dubious territory.

No, I remain in the scientific territory, while you want to bring it to the unscientific territory, a strawman.

National identity is based on more than simply genetics

You see, this is the strawman.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a 'Palestinians' since they don't have all what is needed to be a people, even less a nation (remember the HAMAS in Gaza).