Sunday, January 15, 2006

Taking a Jab at the JIBs?

(check out SerandEz who also addresses this--actually he caught a number of points I missed)

JC General doesn't like the JIB's, one reason being some of those who got nominated:
So how does a trio of gentiles get nominated for (and in Chuck's case, win) a best "Jewish and Israeli" blog award. Well from what I can see, being either Jewish or Israeli isn't as important being politically in line with about ten percent of the Jews in the United States. That is to say you must be almost almost genocidal in your support of Israel. I'll admit that 10 percent is a guess, but I think it's a good one. While most Jews support Israel, I doubt that more than 10 percent would consider genocide or ethnic cleansing as desirable methods for achieving security. Even the General won't go that far. From what I've seen at the JIB nominated websites, the majority of the nominees are eager to collectively punish brown people as viciously as possible. That might not be in line with the thinking of most Jews, but I guess that isn't the point of these awards.
While he supplies no links to indicate that either LGF or Cox and Forkum actually "would consider genocide or ethnic cleansing as desirable methods for achieving security," he does quote some other blogs--whom apparently he thinks do fall into his guesstimated 10% who are "almost genocidal" in their support of Israel.

I suppose there are some blogs like he describes, but you won't find them by looking at the examples he gives.

The Only in Israel post may be in poor taste--it's not clear the commenters and the post are on the same wavelength--but to actually make his point, JC General should be able to find a explicit post and show it. He doesn't.

True Smooth Stone defends the gist of what Pat Robertson said. He also writes, and this was not quoted by the General:
I don't claim to know what G-d thinks, but I am sure as heck allowed to speculate and Pat Robertson, dopey and a schm_ck as he has been in the past, also has the right to speculate. I am more than willing to trust that what G-d Says and that what is written in the Torah to be unflinchingly true - it would not only be sinful, but also criminal, to carve up the one tiny spot of land given to us by G-d
So Smooth Stone--defending the thought, not the person--believes that G_d is active in the world and JC General takes offense? Just because it doesn't fit his politics?

He quotes Soccer Dad and how he "responds to the news that a the family of a brown child killed by Israeli troops donated his organs to Israelis:"--actually this is way out of context. Soccer Dad starts off with:
I don't mean to be churlish. Really I don't.
It is wonderful that Ismail Khatib chose to donate the organs of his son Ahmed to any and all who needed them and that Mr. Khatib is proud that some of his son's organs went to Jews.
But the coverage of this heartwarning incident strikes me as cynical. [emphasis added]
I don't understand which part of the post which the General does quote--which notes both the carelessness of the child who was carrying a toy gun near soldiers and the duty of Israeli soldiers to protect themselves and innocent civilians--he actually finds offensive.

The Muqata writes about the importance of picking up hitchhikers [as an issue of pikuach nefesh--a phrase the General does not translate, which means "saving a life"] because "there are wild pigs there (the animals and the arabs)" and this is a vote for "genocide or ethnic cleansing as desirable methods for achieving security"?

Zion Report thinks having Arabs hold seats in the Knesset is seen as a sign of weakness and is suicidal--and this the General finds offensive??

Keep in mind too that some of these bloggers live in Israel and deal with the threat of suicide bombers and artillery fire from Gaza from an enemy that supposedly is engaged in peace talks. Those bloggers not in Israel I assume have friends and family--as do I--in Israel. We are not talking merely about matters of philosophy and politics. This is--without exaggeration--a life and death struggle. And the General is offended by name-calling.

If he can find actual posts to back up his 10% number or his accusation--that these blogs, including Little Green Footballs and Cox & Forkum, "would consider genocide or ethnic cleansing as desirable methods for achieving security"--let him go ahead and do so. In the meantime, I think both his position and his attempt to back it up terribly underwhelming.

10 comments:

Tzvee Zahavy said...

The oscars have a best foreign film category.

The JIBs should have a best goyische JIB category.

Soccer Dad said...

Thanks for the defense. Better than I did!

Daled Amos said...

Tzvee,

It's a very good idea. I don't know for sure, but maybe the reason they don't do that is that there are not enough non-Jewish pro-Israel blogs that would qualify...

Daled Amos said...

No, not at all.

o First of all, the Nazi propaganda is racist--attacking Jews; Cox & Forkum attack the politics of various groups.
o Second, themes of "the worm in the apple"/bad apple, "lady justice compromised" and "slaying the dragon" are common themes.
o Third, the Nazis pushed their goal of genocide in their cartoons as well. Do you know of any cartoon like that by Cox and Forkum?

Daled Amos said...

I'll grant you your first point, which is irrelevant since 'attacking' the politics of others is something you find in political cartoonists in general.

However--take another look at that slideshow
1. Cox and Forkum at best depict only one character as 'hooknosed' and thats Arafat. Here's another one by someone else, and I'm sure there are more.

2. The cartoon you say 'depicts the State as massive and ruthless--a giant fist to smash all of the subhuman scum who stand in the way of the State's total triumph"...that cartoon is depicting nothing more that the US defeating the terrorists in Iraq who are killing US soldiers AND innocent Iraqi civilians. You are reading ALOT into it.

3. The "media is the enemy" cartoon is interesting. I'd like to see where that cartoon came from, because although the caption claims it is a reporter ignoring a crime--actually it is the opposite: the reporter is looking at the crime and writing while the policeman has his back to the crime and is trying to get the reporter to stop. At least that is what it looks like to me.

I'm also not overly impressed that the site managed a grand total of 6 cartoons that it claims are similar to Nazi cartoons. What about the hundreds of others?

Also, what exactly do you want to claim? That C & F actually take their inspiration from Nazis? That they share the same philosophy? That they believe in the genocide of Moslems? That just does not fly.

I agree that some of their stuff is over the top and provocative--just like alot of other political cartoonists.

westbankmama said...

Great post. It bothers me somewhat that obscure blogs get a lot of attention by trying to skewer LGF for its pro-Israel stance, and our writing about it gives them a reward - more hits.

Smooth said...

Daled, thank you very much for going out on a limb defending my site. I didn't bother responding to the pissant, but I appreciate that you did.

Ze'ev said...

Well said.

Daled Amos said...

westbankmama -- posting alot about it is problematic, sort of like the fuss made over Mel Gibson's movie. But I think a couple of posts that raise awareness are worth it.

Daled Amos said...

smooth -- I didn't really consider it going out on a limb. You're welcome.