Pro-Israel Video Inspires Profane Reaction & Twitter Debate from the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Alayon recently released a video in which he defends Israel’s presence in the West Bank, and argues not only that Israeli settlements within the territory are legal, but that the West Bank technically should not be labeled as "occupied’, but rather, "disputed," because the West Bank was not recognized previously as being legally part of a sovereign state.
Staff writer Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic (formerly The Atlantic Monthly) was so incensed by the pro-Israel video that he was driven to use profanity on his blog as he mocked the Israeli government as trying to send the message that the world should "f— off." He further charged that the "cheesy and disturbing video" was an attempt by the Israeli government to hold onto the West Bank, even though Ayalon’s video clearly speaks of negotiating the boundaries for a Palestinian state. Goldberg began his blog posting:
The Israeli Foreign Ministry has put out a YouTube video in which the deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, the former ambassador to the U.S., argues, in essence, the following: The West Bank belongs to Israel now and forever, so f--- off.
As documented by Commentary Magazine, the accusations led to a debate on Twitter between Alayon and Goldberg. The Atlantic reporter repeated his charge that "your entire project is designed to legitimize Israel’s hold over the territories forever."
And, even though Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000 and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 led to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas taking over those areas, Goldberg clung to the liberal view that Israel needs to withdraw from the West Bank for the Jewish State’s own sake. Goldberg, from Twitter: "But my worry is about Jewish decision-making. Keeping the West Bank will bring about the end of Israel as we know it."
Below is a complete transcript of the relevant blog posting by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, with critical portions in bold:
The Israeli Foreign Ministry has put out a YouTube video in which the deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, the former ambassador to the U.S., argues, in essence, the following: The West Bank belongs to Israel now and forever, so f— off. At least, that’s what I heard. Ayalon argues, among other things, "The West Bank should not be considered ‘occupied’ because there was no previous legal sovereign in the area and therefore the real definition should be ‘disputed territory.’
Ayalon neglects to mention that the salient point about the West Bank might not be who the "legal sovereign" was 44 years ago, but that actual people of another ethnic group live on the West Bank and don’t want to be ruled - "occupied" would be another word for "ruled" - by a foreign power. To most of the world, at least (and to many, many Israelis and a clear majority of American Jews) this is what matters.
All in all, it’s a cheesy and disturbing video. Now Gal Beckerman has come along to alert us that the Ayalon video was made by the same person who earlier had made essentially the same video for the settlement movement:
The video was created by filmmaker Shlomo Blass, who was responsible for the less slick and casually racist "We Con the World" video following the flotilla raid last year.
But Bass and the foreign ministry seem to have gotten lazy since, as the Jerusalem Post first pointed out in a glancing reference, Ayalon’s video is identical, image for image and in large part word for word, with one he made in May for the YESHA Council, the organization that represents and lobbies for the settlers.
Beckerman goes on to ask:
Should we not be concerned when the foreign ministry of Israel is using the same propaganda as the settlers? Or should we just assume that their interests are one?
The answer is (b), we should just assume, at this moment, at least, that their interests are one.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The West Bank belongs to Israel now and forever, so f— off.
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 6:46am.
Let's be honest -- that is the message that Israel OUGHT TO BE communicating to the world.
Indeed, the nest time that someone demands that the starting point should be Israel's pre-1967 borders, the Israeli government needs to agree -- and pull out these maps. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/316510.php
The left just doesn't want to
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 7:48am.
The left just doesn't want to hear a sound argument that they cannot refute, they become irrational and their vitriol comes out.
Lousy arguments, Goldberg
Submitted by Morganfrost on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 9:01am.
I should say that the "salient" point was very much who was the sovereign 44 years ago... because you and your fellow leftists really never cared that the so-called "Palestinians" never existed as a sovereign or independent nation. Moreover, the fact that several hundred thousand Jews were driven from their "homes" in Muslim countries seems like something of a non-issue for the left is, presumably, a function of the existence of Israel, which took them in. So, how is it acceptable for the Jews to be driven out, but not acceptable for them to stay in the one place that took them in?
But, don't let logic slow you down, Goldberg-- if you keep bashing Israel, then your Jewish name won't prevent you from being accepted in the trendiest circles!
Self-hating, Israeli hating lib Jews,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 9:05am.
so what's new?
We've reached a horrible state of affairs when the liberal Jews
Submitted by virginia republican on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:05pm.
(assuming Goldberg is Jewish) of this country are the ones bashing their people's homeland and folks like Sarah Palin, right-wingers who the liberals routinely paint as rabid racists and anti-Semites, are the ones sticking up for that besieged country. Of course, you also have the older self-hating Jews, like George Soros, who actually collaborated with the Nazis, and are today the most critical of Israel. These fools apparently don't know (or do know but refuse to acknowledge) that the Muslim enemies of Israel would, if they could, behead them live on Arab TV in a New York minute. Do the names Nicholas Berg or Daniel Pearl ring a bell with these nitwits?
Unfortunately he has kept his
Submitted by Gat New York on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:30pm.
Unfortunately he has kept his Jewish given name even though he has turned his back on his heritage and on Israel.
It is false when he states that "many" Israelis support his position. Only a few do.
It is false that a majority of Jewish Americans support his position. A majority do not including democrat Jews like Ed Koch, Mort Zuckerman, Steve Israel, Diane Feinstein, and I could go on and on.
In fact he is as Jewish as his Goldberg namesake - Whoopi.
Liberal Jews like Israel, Feinstein, et al might profess to be
Submitted by no tingly legs on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:48pm.
pro-Israel, but when they march in lockstep with Obama, they are, for all practical purposes, anti-Israel. You can't have it both ways.
You are a complete idiot
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:55pm.
Anti-Israel Jews? This is why I get thrill up my leg every time I visit an right-wing-extremist website. The stupidity and ignorance is contagious.
Hey idjit
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:59pm.
Anti-Israel Jews are similar to the George Soros type of Jews who collaborated with the Nazi's to kill other Jews.
Your stupidity and ignorance is beyond belief. Go tingle somewhere else.
Jesus
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:12pm.
I left comments on 2 of 1000 stories and I get the same guy responding to both. With consistent delusions.
Actually, it is you commies who are stupid and ignorant
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:14pm.
Clinging blindly to the most oppressive and murderous form of government the world has yet seen is most definitely not a sign of enlightened intelligence.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
They were never independent
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:29pm.
"Ayalon neglects to mention that the salient point about the West Bank might not be who the "legal sovereign" was 44 years ago, but that actual people of another ethnic group live on the West Bank and don’t want to be ruled - "occupied" would be another word for "ruled" - by a foreign power."
Which "foreign power" would that be? Would it be the Ottomans, who ruled that area prior to WWI, the British, who ruled it between WWI an WWII, or the Jordanians who ruled it between WWI and 1947? And just what "ethnicity" are the "Palestinians" anyways? Are they Arab, Turk, Assyrian, Iranian, Kurdish, Caucasian, Israelite, all of which are "Middle East" ethnicities, or what? Goldburg never bothers to tell us.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hey, if the " f-off "
Submitted by Barack Must Go on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:49pm.
Hey, if the " f-off " fits...accept it.