From: Mermaid . (britannica@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 12:27:18 MDT
[ben 2]So because I disagree with you, you see me as intractable and beyond
the reach of reason? Interesting. Do you take this attitude with everyone
who dares to question your references, or have I somehow earned this dubious
honor?
[Mermaid]I'll skip this for now.
[ben 2] Of course I do. It's easy to be impressed by a long list of
distinguished names - impressed enough that further research is deemed
unneccessary by the reader, especially if they are presented as somehow
supporting an emotional decision that has already been made on the part of
the reader.
[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.
[Mermaid]I hope I am right in covering the three main concerns that you have
when it comes to the credibility factor of the Jews for Justice article.
Please correct me if I am wrong or missed out something.
[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. For this reason, when I quote anything from their
article, I always make it a point to let people know their URL so that any
issue of deceit can be dealt with accordingly.
[Mermaid]Point B. I suspect that if an author is misquoting a public figure,
there is no way to counter that other than checking public records/broadcast
scripts etc. I suspect that Point A is also the reason why Jews for Justice
havent said anything by themselves and have quoted from whom they consider
as experts/scholars/authors/chroniclers. How do authors really collect
information? When I studied journalism, we were instructed on how to dig for
information. An understanding of those principles might be useful at the
moment. There are three layers of reporting. 1.Source originated materials.
This includes handouts, press conferences, speeches, radio broadcasts
scripts, statements etc. i.e.It comes directly from the source. 2.
Spontaneous events which includes reportorial enterprise...verifying
materials, background checks, observations etc. 3.Interpretation and
explanation of the reports...the significance, impact, causes,
consequences..analysis etc. 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.
This is reason enough to view source material related quotations as superior
to opinion pieces. When journalists or published authors randomly libel any
public figure, i.e.misquoting them, the publisher or the publishing company
can be sued for libel and/or slander. For this reason, all quotations are
examined and passed through a fine sieve before it turns up on the book
shelf.
[Mermaid]Point C is valid. This was the crux of my earlier posts to you. All
words are not equal to everyone. You should not be under any obligation to
accept an author's opinion as valid. 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.
[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. Noam
Chomsky and Nahum Goldmann(an ardent Zionist, btw)have done just that. Their
reputation, time-tested, gives me ample reason to give them some
credibility. Having said that, I also have to say that Noam Chomsky (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.)will not always have an ally in me. If Noam Chomsky makes a
random statement about how Israel is 'evil', he wouldnt get past the wax in
my ears. I dont have to accept any one person's opinion and embrace it just
because I have agreed with them in the past. ben, ask questions. Invite me
to join you in asking questions. Do not make statements.
[ben 2] I commend your dedication to truth. Your intended barb misses its
mark - I never claimed that they were misquoted, I merely raised it as a
possibility. Simultaneously it appears that I have raised your ire. That
speaks more about you than about me I beleive.
[Mermaid]Hmm..there it is..the mention of the 'barb' again. My patience is
beginning to ebb and you seem very irritating right about now.
[Mermaid]I dont know what it says about me or how it has raised my ire
considering that I am still conducting this discussion in a civil manner and
have, so far, not expressed a desire to terminate this thread. I had the
distinct impression that you had trouble with the Jews for Justice article
in terms of credibility. Above, I have made a list of possible concerns.
[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 2]
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 2] 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](I should make it clear that I agree with the sentiment expressed at
the end.) However, the unlikeliness to my mind of that having happened
throws a shadow on the credibility of the whole peice.
[Mermaid]I think you have misunderstood the sentiment that Begin has
expressed. Read it again.
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]
[ben 2] Now, David Ben-Gurion is someone that has always struck me as a
rampant Zionist that wouldn't have been caught dead casting doubts on why
anyone should support the state of Israel.
[Mermaid]clue: "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I
would never make terms with Israel...."
[Mermaid]Once again, read it carefully. Does it seem like Ben-Gurion is
supporting the Palestinians?
[ben]The fact that this is the first I've heard of such sentiments causes me
to do as any rational human would do and withhold acceptance until there is
other evidence.
[Mermaid]So, is Nahum Goldmann lying that Ben Gurion made that statement?
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/goldmann.html
<snip>
Nahum Goldmann was born in Lithuania and grew up in Germany in an identified
Jewish home. He was educated at German universities where he studied
philosophy and law. From an early age he became strongly allied with Zionist
thought, and during World War I, while working at the Jewish division of the
German Foreign Ministry, he attempted to enlist the Kaiser's support for the
Zionist idea.
In the 1920's, Goldmann was involved in publishing a Zionist periodical and
also in launching the project of a German Jewish encyclopedia. In all,
twelve volumes of the encyclopedia, ten in German and two in Hebrew,
appeared before the Nazi rise to power halted the project. Retaining the
idea, Goldmann was a key figure in the 1960's behind the English language
Encyclopedia Judaica.
During the Mandate period, Goldmann was involved in a range of Zionist
causes, including negotiations with the British, aimed at realizing the idea
of Jewish statehood. In particular, he supported the partition of Palestine,
arguing that sovereignty was more important than territory. In 1935,
stripped of his German citizenship and forced to leave Germany, he settled
first in Honduras and thereafter in New York. He continued to labor there
for Zionist causes, and for several years represented the Jewish Agency in
New York.
In addition to his Zionist work, Goldmann championed other Jewish interests.
Indeed, Goldmann never felt that a Jewish state would answer the needs of
all Jews, and on the contrary, a strong Diaspora was always a reality, if
not an ideal. In 1936, he helped organize the World Jewish Congress, and was
the first chairman of its executive board; he later served as its president
for many years. He was a major link in negotiating German reparations to
survivors following the Holocaust. He founded the Conference of Jewish
Organizations (COJO) and was actively involved with other causes such as
Soviet Jewry, Jewish education, and Jewish culture. Goldmann believed that
the future of world Jewry depended largely on a successful fight against
assimilation, and hence the attention to developing vibrant Jewish
institutions in the Diaspora.
In 1962 Goldmann became a citizen of Israel, but despite frequent visits,
never became a permanent resident, dividing his time primarily between
Switzerland and Israel. He was critical of what he deemed was Israel's
excessive reliance on and adulation of its military prowess, and following
1967, he faulted Israel for not adopting a more conciliatory stance towards
the Arabs. Despite his belief in the centrality of Israel to the Jewish
people, he was also convinced of Israel's dependence on the support of World
Jewry and the world at large. His critics attributed this belief, in their
eyes erroneous, to a mentality that essentially belongs in and to the
Diaspora.
<snip>
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 2] 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 2] Also, before you jump on it, yes my examples are all from one
section of the article. My limited knowlege of the history of the area is
focused in such a manner that the people quoted in that section are the ones
I am most familiar with. However, if the authors would misquote some, why
not misquote all? Therefore the whole work comes under doubt.
[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. 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 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]Suspicions are good, but they are useless if one doesnt act upon
them in order to blast the doubts. This happens only through knowledge. As
they say, knowledge is power. I have no suspicions. You do. Act on them!!
[ben]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.
[Mermaid]No. I wouldnt always buy quotes coming from respectable figures. I
would always be suspicious of anyone who doesnt bother to list their
sources. I always prefer to see trail through which information flowed. Just
recently, I saw a journalist retract a popular quotation of a public figure
because his sources had not been proved. Journalistic and reporting ethics
are still honoured even though omission of facts is still permitted in
American media. I suspect that it also has something to do with
exceptionally solid legal threats that journalists and authors may face upon
misrepresentation. No publishing house will risk it. I dont think its 'blind
faith' on my part. Just logic and an undestanding of the system from the
inside.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT