Monday, November 19, 2012

MJ Rosenberg's Crocodile Tears

We haven't been commenting on MJ Rosenberg's ugly Twitter feed, possibly because if we did we would never stop (here's a sample though: "Anne Frank died in Gaza," which was later deleted and "One day Israel's treatment of Palestinians will have a place in the Holocaust museum"). I'd love to leave Rosenberg to wallow in his own hatred, but the Huffington Post is the last place on the Internet that gives him legitimacy so I feel like we have to take him on when he makes appearances there. This time he is crying crocodile tears over the fighting in Gaza, demanding that for the sake of "the children" both sides need to stop fighting. Why is this crocodile tears? Because he wasn't calling for peace when Hamas was the only one shooting. He couldn't care less about the suffering children then.

He starts by reminding us that he is still outside the mainstream of American Jews' opinion, pointing out that organizations "from the far right all the way to J Street" have dared to commit the cardinal sin of standing with Israel's right to self-defense. Therefore he concludes that J Street has become "pro-war," then quotes a statement by American Jews that isn't sympathetic enough to people who want to destroy them.
"Not a word of compassion for the children of Gaza, only Israel. The reigning orthodoxy seems to be that Palestinian lives don't matter very much. If you press for an explanation of this thinking, you are told that Gaza's children are unfortunate victims of the fact that they live in a place which elected a terror organization to govern them."
Which is the truth, and Rosenberg knows it. But instead he prefers to hypocritically wring his hands and make Holocaust comparisons. In terms of moral arguments, this is the most facile. Palestinian supporters don't have as much sympathy for Israelis, and Israeli supporters don't have as much sympathy for Palestinians. But only one side gets the wagging finger of MJ Rosenberg. But yes, it's the truth. The children of Gaza are just as much the victims of Hamas as the children of Israel. But Rosenberg doesn't like to hear people say that because when they do it that means they aren't blaming Israel. Which is something that he just can't stand.

After this Rosenberg attempts to prove that Hamas did not in fact start this round of fighting, and then that there is no such thing as a Gazan. Then we get this blatant lie:
"Every person who lives there is a Palestinian whose forebears fled to or were driven to the Gaza Strip when Palestine became Israel in 1948."
Not only is this lie ridiculous, it isn't even believable. Really? Every person? So I guess Vittorio Arigoni became a Palestinian until they snuffed him? Let's not forget the demographics before 1948 either. And by the way, Rosenberg, there was no "Palestine" that "became Israel" in 1948. If you can't rewrite history in that form, better try in another? This matter continues as he gets to his main point:
"But the main point is not the historical one. It is that the most powerful nation in the Middle East, a nuclear power, is bombing refugees and their descendants rather than seeking to end the conflict with them through negotiations."
It's very convenient to label terrorists as "refugees and their descendants." One could also point out that Israelis are refugees and their descendants as well, as the vast majority of them are. And technically one could say the whole world are made up of refugees and their descendants, since if you go back far enough everyone is a refugee from somewhere. Apparently Rosenberg thinks that being a refugee gives you the moral high ground, as long as you aren't a refugee.

If you are wondering about the "end the conflict through negotiations" thing, and are wondering how he will spin it, that comes in the next paragraph. Not surprisingly, Rosenberg lies again:
"Israel will not negotiate with Hamas to end the conflict but it negotiates with it on prisoner exchanges and the occasional ceasefire. And, as this Haaretz article points out, negotiations on a long-term cease-fire was underway at the very moment that the Israeli air force dropped a bomb...[blah blah blah]"
If Rosenberg were somebody else and actually bothered to tell the truth, he would point out that not only does Hamas have no intention of ever ending the conflict no matter what Israel offers. He might also point out that the Quartet Powers also don't think Israel should negotiate with Hamas until Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist, honor past agreements, and renounce violence. One can argue about Israel's tactics and behavior in the West Bank, but when it comes to Hamas the international community is in agreement.

As for the Ha'aretz article, that is yet another MJR lie. The Ha'aretz article doesn't say that negotiations were underway, it say that an Israeli "peace activist" said that negotiations were under way. And as anyone who reads MJ Rosenberg or 972 can tell you, "peace activists" don't always tell the truth. There is no proof that there were any such negotiations, or even what they were about. Let's back to Rosenberg:
"Yes, Hamas has been shelling southern Israel for years. That is indefensible. But no more or less indefensible than Israel's attacks on cities in Gaza. Can anyone seriously believe that one less shell will fall on southern Israel because the Israelis are dropping bomb after bomb?"
How many lies is that? The seventh? Israel doesn't attack cities in Gaza, Rosenberg. Anybody with half a brain, including people who actually live in Gaza, know that. They attack specific sites that contain Hamas installations. So yes, that is more moral by far than Hamas' random attacks on Israeli cities, and they do make Israelis safer if they damage Hamas' ability to fire rockets and if they restore Israel's deterrent. However, Rosenberg can't be bothered to point any of this out because he knows that if he tells the truth than he can't try to establish faux moral equivalence between Israel and its enemies.
"Besides, how is Israel's argument that 'Hamas does it' any kind of justification? Israel repeatedly says that Hamas is a bunch of bloody terrorists, no different than Al Qaeda. When did Hamas become Israel's yardstick for moral acceptability? This is not the Israel I grew up on."
Moving from lies to strawmen, I see? Who is "Israel" that is making the argument? And what argument is "Hamas does it" defending? Is Rosenberg claiming that Israel is indiscriminately firing on Palestinians and then defending themselves by saying "Hamas does it too?" He needs to prove both of those things. Furthermore, is Rosenberg disputing that Hamas are a bunch of bloody terrorists? Because if he is, he needs to do it  better. And if he isn't, then why can't Israel say it?

The rest is more hypocritical moralizing, and I have already spent enough time and energy on Rosenberg already. See you tomorrow.

1 comment:

  1. Why isn't MJ Rosenberg Heydrich IN GAZA coordinating the war against the Jewish menace?


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.