THE FURTHER CORRESPONDENCES OF MARC SUSSELMAN PART 25
********
2 May 2024
MS said:
Prof. Wolff posts the following on his blog today:
“How might the current president of Columbia have handled the matter better? The answer seems to me to be obvious, but for reasons which are equally obvious I am sure it never so much as occurred to her. As soon as the first evidence of student concern about the disaster in Gaza popped up, she should have called in the managers of the Columbia endowment and told them to sell all the shares in companies in any way involved with Israel’s attack on Gaza. I gather the Boeing Corporation makes bombs that the United States has been delivering to Israel and that Israel has been dropping on the Palestinians. I am sure there are other holdings in the endowment that are suspect in the same way. There are undoubtedly also ways in which the University is involved with Israel, and they should have been put on hold by the president. Then she should have asked for a meeting with all of the students, of any faith, and whatever their position on the current situation in the occupied territories. She should have told them that the official position of the University was that there should be an immediate cease-fire, a commitment by all parties to a two state solution, massive aid to the people of Gaza, and a demand that the US government withhold military aid to Israel so long as Netanyahu continues to insist that he is going to continue the war. She should have stated that if they wished to establish an encampment on the Columbia campus, they were welcome to do so and that so long as they did that she would join them there, conduct the business of the University from the encampment, and call on all faculty and students to join with her.”
No mention of the Hamas invasion of Israel on October 7; no mention of the massacre of over 1200 Jewish Israelis and others; no mention of the abduction of several hundred Jewish Israelis, an unknown number of whom are still being held hostage by Hamas, whose release Israel is demanding as a pre-condition for a ceasefire. This is a man, a so-called “philosopher” and seeker of wisdom and truth, who has spent decades parsing out the intricacies of the philosophies of Kant and Marx, who prides himself on his ability for analytic thought, who knows what is moral because he knows “what side he should be on,” because, because – well, we don’t know how he knows this, because he has never explained it, despite my numerous comments asking that he explains it without resorting to a belief that moral judgments are intuited. Yet this sophisticated professor equates the protests at Columbia in 1968 against the Vietnam war, protests I participated in and which I visited Columbia to see for myself, the same year that I was taking Wolff’s class at Rutgers on Kant’s Ethics (I got an A) – to protests by students condemning Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza; of calling for the liberation of Palestine “From The River To The Sea,” i.e. the annihilation of the “colonialist” State of Israel, and shout for intifada, i.e., terrorist attacks to kill Jews. This professor claims that the President of Columbia could have prevented the protests by agreeing to disinvest from Israel, thereby hobbling Israel’s ability to defend itself against terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which have declared their objective to annihilate Israel and kill all the Jews living there. This “philosopher” claims that the solution is “obvious” and that Columbia should have succumbed to the protesters’ demands for disinvestment from Israel. When I took his course at the age 18, I admired his perspicuity. Today, not so much. I have matured -and I don’t think his lack of perspicuity today can be attributed to his age.
Post-script: Bravo, once more, to John Pillette, for seeing through Wolff’s nonsense.
********
MS said:
Correction: In 1968, I was 20 years old, not 18. Still, I am more mature now than I was in 1968.
********
MS said:
"https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/video/usc-blocked-media-access-to-campus-professor-says/"
President Biden knows more about freedom of speech and the First Amendment than Wolff, spouting simplistic analyses of the Middle East, based on ignorance.
********
3 May 2024
MS said:
As I indicated in a previous comment, my family attended two Passover seders on the second night of Passover. The second seder was with a modern Orthodox family in Ann Arbor. They did the entire seder in a very traditional manner, from beginning to end. It started at 9:30 PM and ended at 1:30 AM. They have four daughters, all of whom are fluent in Hebrew and who read from the Haggadah, some of it from memory. The father is a Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Michigan, and very knowledgeable regarding Judaism and the Torah. I asked him several questions during the seder, which he answered knowledgeably; for example, when was the protocol for the seder established and did it exist when Jesus and the apostles celebrated the Last Supper? I made a joke, did Jesus ask the four questions? The answer is that the protocol was not established until around 500 C.E., and did not exist during Jesus’s life. But Jews had been celebrating Passover with a celebratory supper for centuries prior to Jesus.
We discussed the war in Gaza and he agreed that Netanyahu was a large part of the problem. When I asked about how the far right-wing members of his government could justify some of the things they have been saying about the Palestinians, given the morality which Torah is supposed to teach, he surprised me by saying that one could find passages in Torah which would justify genocide, not just the Book of Joshua or the reference to the Amalekites. The next day, I sent him the following email:
One thing which you stated troubles me. You indicated that in addition to the Book of Joshua, and the narrative regarding the Amalekites, there are other passages in the Torah which are amenable to being interpreted as justifying genocide. If you have time, I would appreciate your providing me with citations to such passages. Moreover, how does one square such passages with the overall moral message that Jews have been taught the Torah represents?
I received Michael’s response this morning. This is what he wrote:
Your questions are important ones that are difficult to answer briefly. Working backward, your last question was:
Moreover, how does one square such passages with the overall moral message that Jews have been taught the Torah represents?
I think you and I are starting from different positions in terms of how we approach the Bible overall. To me, the Torah is a work that speak with many voices, and contradicts itself (both thematically and narratively) in dozens or hundreds of ways. To be that is a feature, not a bug; life is inherently full of contradictions and paradoxes, and resists simple solutions or explanations. The Torah is (to borrow a phrase from Walt Whitman) “large… [it] contain multitudes”. So while much of the Torah emphasizes the fact that our experience as slaves was meant to cultivate in us a sense of empathy and compassion for the “stranger that dwell among us”, other parts of the Torah are absolutely ruthless in urging us to extirpate what are described as dangerous foreign elements within our nation. I don’t personally feel any need to “square” those contradictory messages; instead, I try to understand what each one is saying, why it’s saying it, and struggle with the fact that our tradition contain both of those messages.
Your second-to-last question was:
You indicated that in addition to the Book of Joshua, and the narrative regarding the Amalekites, there are other passages in the Torah which are amenable to being interpreted as justifying genocide. If you have time, I would appreciate your providing me with citations to such passages.
I’m not sure I can give a comprehensive list of all such citations, but you should definitely take a look at Deuteronomy 20:15-18. This passage is preceded by a general statement (20:10-14) that whenever the Israelites approach a city to do battle, they should first give the inhabitants the opportunity to surrender peacefully and become tributaries (which means they can be left unmolested in their homes as long as they submit to our authority and pay tribute to our king). But it then continues:
15Thus shall you do to all the cities which are very far off from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16But of the cities of these people, which the Lord your God does give you for an inheritance, you shall not keep alive anything that breathes; 17but you shall completely destroy them: the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord your God has commanded you; 18that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done to their gods; so should you sin against the Lord your God.
“You shall not keep alive anything that breathes, but you shall completely destroy them” is a pretty unambiguous command to commit what we would nowadays consider genocide. It’s possible to offer all kind of rationalizations and justifications but none of them change that fundamental fact. It’s very difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile this passage with modern conceptions of good and evil, especially in a post-Holocaust world. Many people just say “Well, that commandment was for that time and place, but doesn’t apply any more, because those specific nations don’t exist anymore.” Fair enough; those who don’t want to find genocidal commandments in the Torah can certainly talk their way around them. But my point was that for people who seek justification for genocidal views in the Bible can definitely find sources that buttress their views.
Incidentally, a lot of these issues are directly related to a series of online classes that I’m going to be teaching over the next six weeks on Monday evenings through the JCC of Metro Detroit. The course description is here. The first installment in particular is on War in the Torah, which is exactly what you asked about.
This is what I wrote Michael in response:
Thank you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable response to my questions. I was hoping that it would be different and provide a less paradoxical view of Torah, but so be it.
The passage you quote from Deuteronomy is certainly troubling. But I would offer a different explanation (rationalization?) than that these civilizations no longer exist. Without doing extensive research, I would infer that each of these cultures were pagan, polytheistic societies which engaged in various rituals which included human sacrifice, human bondage, etc. They were anathema, and in Hashem's eyes, deserved to be destroyed. This passage would not justify genocide against, for example, the Palestinians, most of whom are Muslim, which is a monotheistic religion which shares many of the same values as Judaism. This, however, would not let Hindus off the hook, but, fortunately, Israel and India are far enough apart that it is not an issue.
I am going to sign up for your lectures. They look fascinating.
********
MS said:
Bravo to Barney Wolff, Prof. Wolff's cousin, for disagreeing with his cousin's simplistic analysis of Israel's military action in Gaza.
********
4 May 2024
MS said:
Bravo, Bravo to John Pillette’s sarcastic take-down of s. wallerstein. Will s. wallerstein claim that Pillette has uncivilly insulted him?
********
6 May 2024
MS said:
Any idea why aaall's last comment on Wolff's most recent post, after Pillette's comment, has been removed? It does not say that aaall removed it.
********
MS said:
Marc M. Susselman, J.D., M.P.H.
43834 Brandywyne Rd.,
Canton, Michigan 48187
marcsusselman@gmail.com
(734) 416-5186
VIA EMAIL
May 6, 2024
President Santa J. Ono
University of Michigan
1109 Geddes Ave.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Dear President Ono,
On Sunday, May 5, I was on the University of Michigan campus and visited the Diag. As you are aware, there is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel encampment on the Diag, which has been there for several weeks. In front of the encampment, there is a large banner, which states: “Long Live The Intifada.” This terrorist message calls for the annihilation of the State of Israel, and the death, or removal, of all of the Jewish Israelis who live there. As a Jewish American, and an alumnus of the University of Michigan, I am appalled that this message, which threatens all Jews who see it, is being allowed to be displayed on the university’s campus. The message also violates Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation statute, MCL 750.147b. Since the University of Michigan is a public university, students who attend the university enjoy freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This protection, however, does not apply to “fighting words” which threaten the lives of other individuals, or which violate Michigan law. I am hereby demanding that you order that the banner be removed from the university’s property, immediately.
In addition, in your March 26, 2024, message on the University’s website, you deplored the disruption of university events by pro-Palestinian protesters, indicated that such protests would not be tolerated, and that its participants would be subject to university discipline. I am accordingly demanding that any students who have not matriculated, and who participated in the disruption of the University’s commencement on May 4, be appropriately disciplined.
Yours truly,
Marc M. Susselman, JD, MPH
cc: Regent Jordan Acker (via email)
Regent Michael Behm (via email)
Regent Mark Bernstein (via email)
Regent Paul Brown (via email)
Regent Susan Hubbard (via email)
Regent Denise Ilitch (via email)
Regent Ron Weiser (via email)
Regent Katherine White (via email)
********
7 May 2024
Below is an email which I have sent to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
Marc M. Susselman, J.D., M.P.H.
43834 Brandywyne Rd.,
Canton, Michigan 48187
marcsusselman@gmail.com
(734) 416-5186
May 7, 2024
Via Email
Re: The protesters at the encampment on the University of Michigan Diag
Attorney General Dana Nessel
525 West Ottawa
Lansing, Michigan
Attorney General Nessel,
Please consider the following: Suppose an individual displayed a sign on a Michigan public street, which stated: “We should kill Jews,” or, alternatively, “We should destroy synagogues,” would such an individual be subject to prosecution under Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation statute, MCL 750.147b?
I submit that s/he would. MCL 750.147b states, in relevant part:
(1) A person is guilty of ethnic intimidation if that person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin, does any of the following:
(a) Causes physical contact with another person.
(b) Damages, destroys, or defaces any real or personal property of another person.
(c) Threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (a) or (b), if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (a) or (b) will occur.
(Emphasis added.)
Any Jewish individual seeing either of the signs described above would rightfully feel threatened, particularly if such an individual was wearing a kippa or displaying the Star of David on a necklace. Although the sign did not specifically target any particular Jewish individual, by its words it would be threatening physical harm or destruction of Jewish property to all Jews who saw the sign.
Moreover, the individual displaying the sign could be subject to criminal prosecution without violating the individual’s right to free speech under the First Amendment. The language on the sign would constitute “fighting words” under the Supreme Court decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 565 (1943). In Chaplinsky, a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was charged with violating a New Hampshire statute which forbade under penalty that any person shall address “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or any other public place.” The charge arose when Chaplinsky, in proximity to the Rochester City Hall, stated to the complainant: “You are a God damned racketeer and a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Court, in holding Chaplinsky’s speech was not protected by the 1st Amendment, stated, 315 U.S. at 572-74:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. “Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.” …
* * *
Nor can we say that the application of the statute to the facts disclosed by the record substantially or unreasonably impinges upon the privilege of free speech. Argument is unnecessary to demonstrate that the appellations “damned racketeer” and “damned Fascist” are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. (Citations omitted.)
The language on the hypothetical sign would be far more offensive than calling someone a “God damned racketeer and a damned Fascist.” There is no indication in Chaplinsky, moreover, that an actual breach of the peace occurred, yet utterance of these words alone was sufficient to justify prosecution under a criminal statute.
On the Diag at the University of Michigan, there is currently an encampment, which has been there for several weeks, which displays pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel messages. The encampment is sponsored by the Tahrir Coalition, a student organization which supports the Palestinians, accuses Israel of engaging in “genocide,” and is demanding that the University divest from all of its investments in Israel. Among the signs which is prominently displayed in front of the encampment is a sign which states: “Long Live The Intifada.” While the word “intifada” means “uprising” in Arabic, the sign refers to the Second Intifada which occurred in 2000, during which Palestinians strapped suicide bombs to their bodies, entered Israel, and detonated the bombs in cafes, buses, and other public accommodations, killing hundreds of Israeli Jews. The sign, “Long Live The Intifada” is calling for resumption of acts to kill Israelis. The Ethnic Intimidation statute uses the words “another person,” not “another citizen,” and therefore does not limit its application only to American citizens. If students at the University of Michigan displayed a sign in support of the Ukrainians which stated, “Kill Russians,” any individual of Russian extraction seeing the sign would feel threatened, and the sign would violate the Ethnic Intimidation statute. The same applies to Jewish students at the University, and Jewish individuals generally, whether or not they have relatives living in Israel. The sign “Long Live The Intifada” is intended to threaten Jews, regardless their citizenship, and as such violates the statute. The same would be true if a Jewish organization at the university displayed a sign which stated, “Kill Palestinians,” or “Kill All Arabs In Gaza,” or “Destroy all mosques.” The organization would be subject to prosecution for violating the Ethnic Intimidation statute, even though the sign was referring to individuals and property located elsewhere.
I accordingly urge your Office to prosecute the Tahrir Coalition for violating Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation statute. While you may feel reluctant to initiate such a prosecution, out of concern that it would escalate political dissension in our society, hate speech which promotes injury to members of a particular ethnic or religious group has no place in our country. Anti-semitism is proliferating in the United States, particularly on college campuses, at an alarming rate, and government has an obligation to protect all minorities from such intimidation.
I would appreciate a response to my request.
Yours truly,
Marc Susselman
Attorney at Law
cc: Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit (via email)
********
8 May 2024
MS said:
Well, it looks like Robert Kennedy Jr., is no longer a serious threat to Biden. Who would vote for a man to be President whose brain has been partially eaten by a parasite? Only Trump's supporters, who love candidates who have only a partial brain.
********
9 May 2024
MS said:
I have written an essay in support of passage of The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act bill, which the House of Representatives passed on May 3. The bill is opposed by the ACLU and other liberal spokespersons. In the essay, I argue that their opposition is unfounded. The essay is attached.
"1OPPOSITION.docx"
********
MS said:
A five-alarm fire alarm should be going off in the Democratic Party regarding Trump’s criminal trials. It appears highly unlikely that three of the trials will be concluded prior to the election, and there is a good chance that the hush money trial currently occurring in New York will either end in a hung jury, or if he is convicted, there is a good chance it will be reversed by the New York Court of Appeals prior to the election, based on the reasoning in the reversal of Weinstein’s conviction. During the prosecutor’s direct examination of Stormy Daniels on Wednesday, the prosecution may have crossed the line drawn in the Weinstein reversal decision, by asking Daniels to describe too many details of her sexual encounter with Trump, details that an appellate court could rule were not relevant to the case, and which were prejudicial to Trump. If he is convicted in that case in June, this would give the New York Court of Appeals 4 months to reverse the conviction, plenty of time prior to the election to do so. Either a hung jury, or a reversal, would substantially increase Trump’s election prospects. The only thing which may save Biden is that Democrats considering voting for Robert Kennedy Jr. may come to their senses and realize that a President whose brain has been partially eaten by parasites is not a particularly good choice for President.
********
MS said:
As I indicated in a previous comment, I attended a second night seder at a modern Orthodox family’s residence in Ann Arbor. The father is a lecturer in Mathematics at U of M, and he invited me to attend a series of Zoom classes which he was going to present on the nature of warfare in the bible. I attended the first class this past Monday night, and it was fascinating and informative. One did not have to be religious to appreciate it.
After the class, I sent the following questions to the instructor;
1. I am a bit confused by the geography. My understanding is that Canaan was located where ancient Phoenicia was located, which is current-day Lebanon. This would have been Northeast of the Sinai desert. So how did the Hebrews who were wandering in the Sinai desert encounter Canaanites in the Sinai desert, while Moses was still leading them? Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land, so he would not have encountered Canaanites.
2. Same question regarding all the other tribes you referred to yesterday – the Hittites, the Perizzites, etc. They would not have been in the Sinai desert, so how did the Hebrews encounter them there, while Moses was leading them?
3. Putting aside the archeological record and whether the Torah was written during the Babylonian Captivity, and accepting the narrative in the Torah as being accurate as written, what had the Hebrews done to earn Hashem’s support of them as against all other cultures? Was the covenant via circumcision the entire basis for Hashem’s devotion to the Hebrews, versus other pagan tribes, and their so-called abominations? Why was this so important, given that the Hebrews had not yet received the Ten Commandments spelling out the ethical precepts which were to distinguish the Hebrews from other cultures?
4. As I understand it, the Torah, as written, was provided to Moses and the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai. But the Torah includes stories which occurred after Moses’ death and the Hebrews’ entry into Palestine, e.g., the Books of Joshua, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. Is Hashem supposed to be a prognosticator, which, of course, given omniscience, would not have been difficult, but why reveal this future to the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai?
This is what he responded:
Regarding your questions, I am not entirely sure of the answers. I think one important aspect of this is that in the Bible names like “Canaan”, have both a geographical designation and also an ethnic one. So “Canaan” is both a place-name, and the name of the people who live there. It’s not always clear whether the people get their name from the place where they live, or whether the place gets its name from the people who live there — there seem to be instances of both things happening. However, either way it seems possible that you might have a tribe or group of Canaanites who (for whatever reason) live outside the land of Canaan, and presumably that’s what’s going on in the story of Arad the Canaanite.
Regarding the Hittites, the Perizzites, etc., I think that’s an easier question to answer. The commandment in Deut 20 to utterly destroy those groups is anticipatory, describing what is going to happen once the Israelites eventually enter the land of Canaan. The entire book of Deuteronomy is Moses’s farewell address to the people before he dies, in which he recapitulates their history up to that point and exhorts them to keep the covenant after he’s gone. So what’s happening in Deut 20 is that Moses is telling them what they should do after he is no longer there to lead them in person.
To the question “What did the Israelites do to earn the covenant?” — I would flip the question around: what makes you think they needed to do something to earn the covenant? Based solely on the text itself (and not admitting into evidence any midrashic commentaries) God’s choice of Abraham seems to be entirely arbitrary. My read on the patriarchal territories is a complicated one and I’m not sure how widespread this take is, but you have to remember that the first 11 chapters of Genesis tell the story of one failure after another (Eden, Cain & Abel, the Flood, the Tower of Babel). At the beginning of history the world keeps letting God down, and God keeps trying again. The narrative turn in Chapter 12 is that God narrows his focus to just one man and his descendant: if he can’t get the whole world to behave right, maybe he can just get one family to behave properly, and then work his way outward from there. Put this way, the Israelites are a kind of pilot project. If this is right, then God chose Abraham because he wanted to make a covenant with someone, and Abraham was willing to follow his instructions, so he got the job. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant, but not its substance — think of it as the signature on the dotted line that indicates that a contract is in force. The ethical development of the Israelite nation is a slow, gradual process; rather than saying “God chose the Israelites because they were ethical” I would say “God chose the Israelites so that he could train them to be ethical.”
Finally, “Torah” refers just to the 5 Books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The subsequent books of the Bible (Joshua, Judges, etc.) are not part of the Torah; they are called “Nevi’im” (Prophets) and “Ketuvim” (Writings). Nobody in Jewish tradition claims that Moses wrote the entire Bible, just the first five books (and there is even some dispute about the last few verses of Deuteronomy, which describe what happens after Moses dies). All of the other books of the Bible were written by other people.
********
MS said:
Douglas Murray: College idiots calling for ‘Intifada’ have no idea how many innocents have died from that word
"https://nypost.com/2024/05/02/opinion/college-idiots-calling-for-intifada-have-no-idea-how-many-innocents-have-died-from-that-word/"
********
10 May 2024
MS said:
How was Pillette insulting wallerstein by referring to him as “Don’t-Laugh=Much-Wallerstein”? This is how wallerstein in fact characterized himself. Calling it uncivil is a misnomer. It is sarcasm. Contrary to David Palmeter’s observation, civil discussion can include insults, and old men sometimes do engage in it. For real insults, one should watch this exchange between Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal and Dick Cavett – classic.
"https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube%2C+Gore+Vidal+and+Norman+Mailer&oq=youtube%2C+Gore+Vidal+and+Norman+Mail"
********
MS said:
A tragedy in Florida.
If you hear a knock on your door, and someone on the other side shouts, “Sheriff’s office, open the door,” is it ill-advised to stand in front of your door holding a weapon? And if you get fatally shot, who is at fault – you for holding the weapon, or the police officer who kills you? How are you to know that the person claiming to be a police officer is really a police officer, and not a potential assailant claiming to be a police officer?
This is the situation in the case of the African-American Air Force enlistee who was fatally shot and killed this past week.
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/us/roger-forston-florida-airman-shot/index.html"
A police officer is called to an apartment complex on a report of a disturbance. The officer is told by a woman at the scene that the disturbance is getting out of hand, and she heard a slap. She identifies the apartment number as 1401. The officer goes to apartment 1401. His body cam video, released by the police, indicates that he twice identified himself as from the sheriff’s office. He receives no response. He opens the door and sees a man holding a gun. He opens fire, hitting the man 5 times, and kills him. There is no one else in the apartment, and no one was being assaulted or mistreated.
Is either more at fault than the other? Should the officer have waited to hear if there was a disturbance in the apartment? It may already be over, and a victim may already be lying dead, or unable to speak. Should he have shown a badge, visible through the peep-hole? Fake police badges are available on the internet. Should he have waited until the occupant raised his weapon to fire? A second’s delay could mean the difference between life and death.
The family sues the police officer and the police department. They must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the police officer was either grossly negligent or negligent. You are a juror. What do you decide?
********
Michael said:
I saw the video & the police officer acted like a psycho. He cowardly shoots the young man several times & then he commands him several times to stop moving while the young man is slowly dying. Makes me sick.
********
MS said:
More on-the-one-hand, and on-the-other-hand even-handed pablum at the UN. But when it comes to condemning Israel, the other hand always prevails.
Of course, as the commenters on Wolff’s blog have pointed out, the reactions to this complicated subject are, so to speak, subjective, something which Wallace Stevens pointed out is even true of how one observes black-birds.
Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird
By Wallace Stevens
I
Among twenty snowy mountains,
The only moving thing
Was the eye of the blackbird.
II
I was of three minds,
Like a tree
In which there are three blackbirds.
III
The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds.
It was a small part of the pantomime.
IV
A man and a woman
Are one.
A man and a woman and a blackbird
Are one.
V
I do not know which to prefer,
The beauty of inflections
Or the beauty of innuendoes,
The blackbird whistling
Or just after.
VI
Icicles filled the long window
With barbaric glass.
The shadow of the blackbird
Crossed it, to and fro.
The mood
Traced in the shadow
An indecipherable cause.
VII
O thin men of Haddam,
Why do you imagine golden birds?
Do you not see how the blackbird
Walks around the feet
Of the women about you?
VIII
I know noble accents
And lucid, inescapable rhythms;
But I know, too,
That the blackbird is involved
In what I know.
IX
When the blackbird flew out of sight,
It marked the edge
Of one of many circles.
X
At the sight of blackbirds
Flying in a green light,
Even the bawds of euphony
Would cry out sharply.
XI
He rode over Connecticut
In a glass coach.
Once, a fear pierced him,
In that he mistook
The shadow of his equipage
For blackbirds.
XII
The river is moving.
The blackbird must be flying.
XIII
It was evening all afternoon.
It was snowing
And it was going to snow.
The blackbird sat
In the cedar-limbs.
********
MS said:
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/10/opinions/us-election-isnt-playing-out-how-i-thought-zakaria/index.html"
Fareed Zakaria is now expressing serious concerns that Trump may win the election. Uh-oh.
********
MS said:
If Fareed Zakaria’s concerns turn out to be valid and Trump wins the election, will liberals blame Israel and Netanyahu, rather than Hamas and their own stupidity for not sufficiently supporting Biden?
********
11 May 2024
MS said:
s. wallerstein states, “I said recently in another context, no one is 50 at age 19. That is, at 19 kids don't see nuances that you see at age 50.” Evidently, wallerstein does not see nuances even at age 77.
********
MS said:
Jerry Seinfeld and his wife are becoming more vocal in their condemnation of anti-Semitism. Bravo.
"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/us/politics/jerry-seinfeld-antisemitism-jewish-identity.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20240511&instance_id=123034&nl=from-the-times®i_id=116606494&segment_id=166325&te=1&user_id=306c6f279e52d371ba02c31b1c20638c"
********
MS said:
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DHy_obWETI"
The world is such a mess! Moyshe Kapoyer!
********
14 May 2024
MS said:
“The fastest decline in the nutritional status of a civilian populating in recorded history.” This biased commentator apparently has never heard of the Warsaw Ghetto, or of the numerous ghettoes established by the Nazis throughout Europe. This is not to justify the actions which he attributes to the IDF, if they actually occurred. It does, however, raise legitimate questions of his objectivity. Why should any individual who purports to be objective believe anything this anti-Israel propagandist states??? He claims that Israel engaged in a smear campaign of UNWRA with, he states, “no evidence.” The evidence that employees of UNWRA joined Hamas in the October 7 massacre has been confirmed. Moreover, the reference to “animals” was clearly referring to the Hamas terrorists who on October 7 slaughtered over 1200 Israeli citizens, and non-Israelis; raped Israeli women (yes, I know, it was only a few); and incinerated Israeli families in their homes. Animals? Yes.
I watched the entire video, and nowhere -NOWHERE – did I see uniformed IDF soldiers standing by as settlers attacked the food aid trucks, despite the commentator’s assertion that they are “clearly” visible. Moreover, it cannot be discerned from the video where precisely this is supposedly occurring. He claims that the trucks are Jordanian food aid trucks – but Jordan does not have access to Israel, and could not possibly have crossed Israel in order to reach the eastern border of Gaza. Nowhere in this commentator’s biased report does he even mention the Hamas massacre which ignited the Israeli reaction in self-defense. He repeatedly uses loaded words – “mass destruction”; “mass slaughter”; “mass starvation” – all of which he attributes to Israel, without placing any blame whatsoever on Hamas’s tactics of using their fellow Palestinians as human shields. He ends by claiming that the West has facilitated Israel’s “genocide” of the Palestinians. He ignores reports that Hamas has deliberately targeted humanitarian aid crossings, preventing the delivery of food to their fellow Palestinians. "https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/06/four-idf-soldiers-killed-as-hamas-rockets-strike-humanitarian-aid-crossing/" He is not objective. He is a propagandist.
You and wallerstein purport to be objective critics of Israel. Yet you are willing to ignore counter-evidence of Hamas’s contribution to the famine which Mr. Jones places entirely on Israel and the IDF. You are neither objective nor fair-minded. Shame on both of you.
********
15 May 2024
MS said:
Rapko offers what he thinks is the definitive test for evaluating one’s moral precepts – whether “one can live with oneself” – and wallerstein and Anonymous applaud his cogent intellect! It has as much validity as Wolff’s test – deciding on what side one should be on. This is what now passes for perspicacity on Wolff’s blog. So, the commission of what conduct would Hitler, Putin, Netanyahu, and Pol Pot decide was such that they could no longer live with themselves? Some test.
********
MS said:
Zimmerman and wallerstein,
What does your propagandist Owen Jones say about this? Are they Israeli settlers attacking a UN warehouse? IDF personnel?
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/middleeast/israeli-military-investigation-video-un-facility-gaza-intl/index.html"
********
16 May 2024
MS said:
“I am a Zionist not only because I support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state — an abstract point about another country. I am also a Zionist for the most personal of reasons: because I see Israel as an insurance policy for every Jewish family, including mine, which has endured persecution and exile in the past and understands that we may not be safe forever in our host countries. For anyone with a historical memory of France until Dreyfus, Germany until Hitler or Iran until Khomeini, that kind of insurance is one Jews can’t afford to lose.”
Brett Stephens, writing in the NYT. You can read the entire article here:
"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/opinion/college-protests-war-israel.html"
********
MS said:
wallerstein’s comment about authoritarianism and revolution reminded me of this quotation from Joheph Cotrad’s novel, “Under Western Eyes”:
“A violent revolution falls into the hands of narrow-minded fanatics and of tyrannical hypocrites at first. Afterwards comes the turn of all the pretentious intellectual failures of the time.'
********
MS said:
Zimmerman and wallerstein,
The pier being built by the U.S. off the coast of Gaza to facilitate the delivery of aid to Gazan civilians has come under attack from Hamas.
"https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2024/04/25/us-led-gaza-humanitarian-aid-pier-comes-under-fire-un-officials-say/"
“The attack marks a shaky start to the construction of the pier, a project that the U.S. is spearheading to surge humanitarian aid into Gaza. A Hamas official told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the militant group will resist any foreign military presence involved with the port project.”
Will the anti-Israeli propagandist Owen Jones, whom you have lionized, also try to place the blame for this on Israel?
********
MS said:
This is unbelievable – but, sadly, it’s true.
At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory, flew over the justice’s front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case.
"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20240516&instance_id=123613&nl=from-the-times®i_id=116606494&segment_id=166898&te=1&user_id=306c6f279e52d371ba02c31b1c20638c"
********
17 May 2024
MS said:
While testifying at Trump’s trial, Stormy Daniels took the witness stand wearing eyeglasses, presumably at the request of the prosecution to make her look demure. This called into question Dorothy Parker’s claim that, “Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses.” But does paying a woman $150,000 to keep her mouth shut about their sexual romp constitute a pass?
********
MS said:
Regarding the NYT article titled, “How Extremists Took Over Israel,” referred to by LFC and Wilson, is it really surprising that right-wing radical elements have gotten the upper hand in Israel? When a society’s multiple good-faith efforts to live in peace with one’s neighbors, starting in 1948 and being repeated through the decades, are rejected by one’s neighbors, and responded to, instead, with terror attacks, is it unexpected that the people get fed up and resort to extremism to provide the peace and security, through overtures of a peaceful settlement, that have been repeatedly rejected by the neighbors?
********
MS said:
Get a load of this – cat-fight in the House of Representatives. (I know the remark is sexist, but it is no worse than referring to a bunch of male Congressmen yelling at each other as a testosterone fit.)
"https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/politics/video/marjorie-taylor-greene-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-hearing-chaos-digvid"
********
MS said:
This evening on the PBS News Hour, the commentators were asked their opinions regarding the display of the upside-down U.S. flag at J. Alito’s home after the January 6 insurrection. Jonathan Capehart rejected Alito’s defense that he had nothing to do with it, that it was his wife’s reaction to a sign posted by a neighbor which referred to Trump using profanity. The other commentator, a female journalist from the Washington Free Beacon (David Brooks was off), a conservative Republican publication, accused liberals of hypocrisy, stating that they cannot on the one hand defend women’s independence and the right not to be dominated by their husbands, while holding J. Alito responsible for his wife’s actions.
Any thoughts?
********
18 May 2024
MS said:
The cover story on this week’s Time Magazine is titled, “If He Wins.” It is a report on a recent interview that Eric Cortelliessa had with Donald Trump, and its message is terrifying. If Trump is elected, he is promising to destroy our democracy as we know it. The article states:
"What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion ans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan.6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen."
In other words, Trump’s election would plummet our country into fascistic hell, provoke riots in the streets, and the likeley imposition of martial law. The belief that “It can’t happen here” may well be wrong. It most certainly can happen here. All it takes is an ideologue who is willing to reject the social norms which have preserved our republic against authoritarianism for 250 years – America’s Julius Caesar.
All the things that the interview projects Trump would do are things which Wolff would reject as not on the side he is on, and which Rapko would say, if he did them, he could not live with himself - what they regard as moral precepts. Despite all the naysayers, Trump’s election is no longer an unlikely phantasm. He is ahead of Biden in the polls of several key states. It appears likely that he will not be convicted in the hush money trial in New York, which will increase the odds of his being elected exponentially. How could so many Americans not be on the same side that Wolff is on, and still be able to live with themselves, nonetheless? How could Wolff’s and Rapko’s so-called moral precepts be contrary to the precepts of so many Americans? What has gone wrong?
I offer as one candidate for what has gone wrong the failure of American education, on display these past several weeks at the student protests which have erupted on college campuses throughout our country – students shouting supposedly iconoclastic chants, in unison conformity, accusing Israel of “genocide,” denouncing U.S. “imperialism” and calling for global intifada – and people like wallerstein and Rapko attributing their anti-intellectualism to youthful exuberance, as if at the age of 19 they are not to be expected to be mature enough to know better. These are not the anti-Vietnam war protests that I participated in as an undergraduate – protests that decried U.S. participation in a civil war thousands of miles away, using weapons – napalm, agent orange, carpet bombing – which killed thousands of Vietnamese civilians, civilians who had not invaded the U.S., had not killed U.S. citizens in the U.S., had not raped women in the U.S., and had not abducted American citizens and held them as hostages. The willingness of wallerstein, Rapko, and other commenters on Wolff’s blog to make excuses for the campus protesters and elide the difference between their mob mentality protests and the anti-Vietnam war protests is symptomatic of what has gone wrong our social mores and our educational system – adults condoning the so-called “moral” commitments of our youth to engage in anti-intellectual barbarism, as an expression of their so-called autonomy and moral superiority. As Pogo said, we have met the enemy, and he is us."
********
19 May 2024
MS said:
The following link, titled “Opinion: I changed my mind about the strength of the prosecution’s case against Donald Trump. Here’s why,” offers an excellent analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case.
"https://ca.news.yahoo.com/opinion-changed-mind-strength-prosecution-200002948.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANocR_aE1qRK2pPRH0QtYh5zsteIN4rX67S_ALXnoX5EGdTIsqOcEBZmedrOwSH2WunxraCeG"
The trial is likely to end in a hung jury, if not an acquittal, enhancing Trump’s re-election prospects.
David, stay up in Canada. After the election, if Trump is elected, I, my wife and daughter may join you.
********
MS said:
Breaking news: Helicopter carrying Iran’s president has crashed, state media reports
Israel , of course, is probably going to be blamed.
********
MS said:
"https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/05/19/fareeds-take-israel-netanyahu-gps-digvid.cnn"
********
20 May 2024
MS said:
Mickey Mouse is even more abusive and crude in his unjustified attack on LFC than I ever was. Will Wolff ban him from the blog?
********
MS said:
I just came across this you tube video about Israel and the Palestinians. The college protesters denouncing Israel should be required to watch it, but it is unlikely they have the ability to focus on a history lesson for some 35 minutes, since it is longer than a tik tok video.
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btVFgqkgkzw"
********
MS said:
John Rapko’s chess anecdote reveals two things. First, that he is a pretty good chess player. Second, that the Palestinians have never been interested in reaching a peace settlement with Israel. Their entire strategy has been to “never give up.” They have been playing the long game for over 76 years now, never making peace with the Israelis, harassing the Israelis, provoking the Israelis to respond, expecting that the world will ultimately reject Israel because of its response to Palestinian harassment, and the Palestinians will eventually achieve what has been their goal from the start – eliminating the State of Israel altogether.
********
The End.