http://dilan.blogspot.com/search?q=israel

But further, your statement about the Goldstone report being “discredited” depends on whether you define “discredited” as “conservative supporters of Israel don’t accept it, but the rest of the world thinks the events that are described therein happened”. Because that’s the status of the Goldstone report.

Okay, if that’s your criteria. Not long ago the entire rest of the world accepted the charge that Jews killed Christ. That did not make the charges true.

You have been confronted with substantive, principled and detailed criticism of the report. Your response has been to point out that no one disputes the report except conservative supporters of Israel (not true, by the way, e.g. the Washington Post for one, and a number of liberal Congressmen for another) and therefore cannot be relied upon in the face of universal acceptance among everyone else.

In any event, I do view this as a matter of mistakes being made, not a matter of morally compromising the whole operation.

Mistakes are neither war crimes nor atrocities.

As I said, the most irresponsible aspect of this is that if you folks were to succeed, we wouldn’t have better human rights monitoring, just less of it.

Perhaps as you see it. As I see it, if we succeed, we will have better monitoring, honest and reliable monitoring, rather than monitoring that is so prejudged and irresponsible as to be useless.

Only intelligent people argue.

Most intelligent people try to base their arguments on fact, use known terms (e.g. atrocity, war crime, Likud) according to the accepted meaning of those terms, and to keep their arguments consistent (“I’m not saying there was a conspiracy, I am saying there is a coordinated campaign because several people are expressing the same criticism based on the same information) and based on more than speculation (see prior parenthetical).

Any 2 year old can insinuate. Only intelligent people argue. So stop acting like a 2 year old.

Dilan Esper:…that’s part of the reason I object to all these coordinated (emphasis added) attacks on the messenger…All for what? So that a few people can continue to erroneously think that Israel can do no wrong?

By pretending it did not know whether Hamas employed such tactics and by claiming that Israel’s actions were driven by a motivation to kill civilians on purpose, rather than to defeat Hamas, the panel dodged the hard issues it should have tackled. It did not seriously attempt to balance civilian deaths against the threats Israel was targeting or to understand the real motivations for the destruction in areas from which rockets were launched at Israeli cities.

I dunno, but it sounds like the Washington Post judged the “referee” wholly unreliable.

Now, Professor Bernstein vs Dilan on HRW and its “defense” claim of “organized campaign” and “coordinated attacks”:

David Bernstein: I’ll make a deal with Mr. Levine: I’ll turn over all my correspondence with the Israeli government, if he’ll turn over all his correspondence with Richard Goldstone. Then we’ll see who has been part of an “organized campaign” of “coordinated attacks.”

Dilan Esper: Professor, I know you deny that the attacks were coordinated, but they certainly APPEAR coordinated to me. Indeed, these attacks (as well as the attacks on the Goldstone Report) look to me to be VERY suspicious, in that they occurred right after negative reports were issued about Israel’s human rights violations and war crimes in its Gaza operations.I want to be very careful about this– history is filled with false, anti-semitic accusations of Jewish conspiracies. I don’t think this is anything of the kind. But it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the Israeli government and some of its friends are drumming up and encouraging the discrediting of anyone who accuses Israel of war crimes in the Gaza operations.

David Bernstein: When someone says “I really hesitate to use words like conspiracy,” (as Levine did), he means, “| think there is a conspiracy, but I know it sounds to nutty to come right out and say it.” FWIW, I can give you the real origin. I’m on NGO Monitor’s email list. I otherwise had exactly zero contact with NGO Monitor or its employees previously. I noticed a small piece about the trip to Saudi Arabia. I blogged about it here. Someone at the Wall Street Journal noticed it, and asked if they could reprint it online. I said yes. Weeks went by, nothing appeared. I emailed. It had fallen through the cracks. It was revisited, and then reprinted. Some organized conspiracy!

Dilan Esper: I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. I put that language in precisely because I think there are a lot of anti-semites who would love to make this one more example of alleged Jewish conspiracies.What I do think happened is that in this modern world of electronic communications, with e-mail lists and listservs and all the rest, it’s a lot easier to coordinate a message without centralization. And this has all the appearances of a coordinated hit against critics of the Gaza operations.

Dilan Esper: Back to the OP, you say the attacks “have all the marks of an informally coordinated attack.” David Bernstein has specifically denied any coordination beyond being on NGO Monitor’s e-mail list. Do you doubt his denial? Either I doubt his denial or I think that the exception swallowed the rule (i.e., the coordination occurred in part through NGO Monitor’s e-mail list).

Dilan Esper: And finally, how about a little candor from you, Dilan? Do you believe Professor Bernstein to be lying about “coordination” or don’t you? I think he is being artful about the issue, by carving out an exception (NGO monitor) that swallows the rule.

OK, the evidence has been presented and argued, now it’s time for the jury to say whether they believe Professor Bernstein or Dilan.

You know, Yankev, this isn’t a courtroom. NGO’s and international investigators rely on hearsay all the time, partly because the people with direct knowledge of something often lie about it or have poor recollections.

It takes a lot of talent to do what the Goldstone Report and HRW did in documenting the atrocities in Gaza. It takes a lot less talent to repeat talking points spread by people who don’t like its conclusions. You are doing the latter.

In any event, I do view this as a matter of mistakes being made, not a matter of morally compromising the whole operation. The reality is that you are correct that there were bound to be some civilians killed as a result of operations to root out terrorists in heavily populated areas. But that’s part of the reason I object to all these coordinated attacks on the messenger. What Israel did is defensible– and the atrocities that occurred should be spurs for Israel to work harder to minimize impact on civilians in the future. Indeed, there are many people in the Israeli government who have treated this matter in exactly that way. But unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are invested in the narrative that Israel can do no wrong.

As I said, the most irresponsible aspect of this is that if you folks were to succeed, we wouldn’t have better human rights monitoring, just less of it. You guys are doing every dictator, every torturer, every mass murderer, and every terrorist in the world a huge favor by mounting this campaign, because you are trying to shut down a voice that shines a light on the darkest corners of the world.

All for what? So that a few people can continue to erroneously think that Israel can do no wrong? What’s that worth, especially since the Palestinian problem is going to bite Israel in the ass eventually anyway if a solution is not found.

I doubt his denial in the same way I doubt Clinton’s denial that he had sexual relations with that woman. It could be technically true, but the phrasing obscures more than it reveals.

In any event, at this point you have nothing except insinuating my bad faith. You need to stop the personal attacks and focus on substance. Unfortunately, I don’t think you are capable of it.

Yankev, at this point you are just being dishonest. I have never said that Israel hasn’t tried to minimize civilian casualties.

But further, your statement about the Goldstone report being “discredited” depends on whether you define “discredited” as “conservative supporters of Israel don’t accept it, but the rest of the world thinks the events that are described therein happened”. Because that’s the status of the Goldstone report.

The attacks on the Goldstone Report, and on HRW, are attacks on the messenger without any disproving of the message. At most, you have identified a biased referee who nonetheless made correct calls. It’s not my fault that in this instance, the facts have an anti-Israel bias.

neurodoc: Because you are an attorney and for other reasons, I had thought you could be counted on to keep a secret. I see I was mistaken. Continue with your campaign and your attacks, but don’t expect to be included in ours, and you can forget any aspirations you may have had to ever be invited into the inner circle.

Okay, I will mail back my Zionist Conspirator’s badge later today.

Yankev: Adios? But what about our organized campaign? Our coordinated attacks?

Because you are an attorney and for other reasons, I had thought you could be counted on to keep a secret. I see I was mistaken. Continue with your campaign and your attacks, but don’t expect to be included in ours, and you can forget any aspirations you may have had to ever be invited into the inner circle.

neurodoc: Adios.

Adios? But what about our organized campaign? Our coordinated attacks?

And you faithfully repeat the oft-refuted lie of Israel as a practitioner of apartheid

Was actually a quote from Dilan quoting me, and should have appeared as such.

The fact is that the atrocities in Gaza were documented. They were war crimes.

Which “atrocites?” Documented by whom? When? The UN school that wasn’t bombed? The unprovoked attack that turned out to be an attack on an active missile site? The “non-combatants” who were killed while holding rocket launchers? The civilians who died because Hamas used them as human shields? The use of WP as an illuminating agent, as permitted by the laws of war, when Hamas was not condemned for using it as an anti-personnel weapon against civilians? These details are not “whining” and they quibbles, they go to the heart of the accusations. Were mistakes made? Almost certainly. Did individual soldiers commit war crimes, not sanctioned by the chain of command? I can’t rule that out, though so far all of the allegations have been investigated and found to be hearsay and in many cases fabricated. In any event, the IDF is investigating and despite its direct involvement, has shown much greater impartiality than UNHRC or HRW.
And you faithfully repeat the oft-refuted lie of Israel as a practitioner of apartheid

I believe I actually disavowed this– what I did say is that generalized support by right-wing supporters of Israel for unlimited settlement while also opposing Palestinian state is almost assured to draw comparison to apartheid. I don’t like the comparison because apartheid was a racist policy, and the Israelis aren’t racists– they are doing what they are doing based in part on legitimate security concerns.

I must have mised that but I am happy to hear that you recognize the distinction.

Dilan Esper: And finally, how about a little candor from you, Dilan? Do you believe Professor Bernstein to be lying about “coordination” or don’t you?I think he is being artful about the issue, by carving out an exception (NGO monitor) that swallows the rule.

Well, I suppose I got what I asked for, literally. I called for “a little candor from you,” and you gave us exactly that, a little candor, substituting as you did “I think he is being artful about the issue” for your previous “I doubt his denial.” (When you say, “I think he is being artful,” are we to understand you to be saying the equivalent of, “I think he is playing fast and loose with the truth”?)

Dilan Esper:If I can say something, both you and neurodoc seem to have ideas fixes about…You should stop doing that and actually answer my arguments.

Sure, say anything you want, but: i) I presume by “ideas fixes” you meant idees fixes; ii) idees fixes has psychiatric meaning, and I’m quite sure you know next to nothing about such things; and, iii) just as you read Ariel‘s post 10 times and didn’t get what he was saying plainly enough, perhaps because you didn’t want to get it, you imagine that we haven’t answered several times now what you imagine to be well founded “arguments” by you.

Adios.

Dilan Esper: Where did I ever do this?
I think there is evidence of human rights violations in the Gaza operation. But that doesn’t mean that Israel wasn’t trying to minimize civilian casualties– just that they didn’t always succeed in doing so

In other threads, for one thing. And by giving credence to the thoroughly discredited Goldstone Report. You accuse Israel of war crimes. The mere occurrence of civilian casualties is not a war crime.

I think he is being artful about the issue, by carving out an exception (NGO monitor) that swallows the rule.

Where did I ever do this?

I think there is evidence of human rights violations in the Gaza operation. But that doesn’t mean that Israel wasn’t trying to minimize civilian casualties– just that they didn’t always succeed in doing so.

And you give credit to absurd allegations, tortured redefinition of the term “war crimes” and deeply flawed investigations performed by a biased tribunal comprising biased judges who announced the result of their investigation in advance.

You know, whining about the refs doesn’t change the fact that the call had some factual merit. The fact is that the atrocities in Gaza were documented. They were war crimes. They didn’t, however, happen because the folks who ran the Gaza operation were bad people– they happened because war crimes almost always happen in war.

And you faithfully repeat the oft-refuted lie of Israel as a practitioner of apartheid

I believe I actually disavowed this– what I did say is that generalized support by right-wing supporters of Israel for unlimited settlement while also opposing Palestinian state is almost assured to draw comparison to apartheid. I don’t like the comparison because apartheid was a racist policy, and the Israelis aren’t racists- they are doing what they are doing based in part on legitimate security concerns. But policies that involve allowing Jews to settle in the West Bank and get full citizenship rights while their Palestinian neighbors get the shaft are inevitably going to be compared to Bantustans, whether or not I think the comparison apt.

If I can say something, both you and neurodoc seem to have ideas fixes about how any supporters of Palestinian rights must view Israel and its actions. So you are assuming things about my position that do not have any basis in reality. You should stop doing that and actually answer my arguments.

Where did I ever do this?

I think there is evidence of human rights violations in the Gaza operation. But that doesn’t mean that Israel wasn’t trying to minimize civilian casualties– just that they didn’t always succeed in doing so.

Dilan Esper: I don’t see how it’s particularly inflammatory unless it is misused.

True, but then you go right ahead and misuse it. And then persist in that misuse despite all of the inconvenient facts that people call to your attention, because, after all, that’s what Likud means to you and therefore, it must ipso facto be the descriptive meaning of the word Likud.

In short, you are illustrating, not refuting, the misuse that Neurodoc, Leo Marvin, DB, Ariel and I have
pointed out in our organized campaign of coordinated attacks against you. Bwaah-haa-haa-haa! (Or if you prefer, Fee, faw, fum! bubble and squeak! Groan all together now, whee-hee-hee!)

neurodoc: “The most informal kind of coordination” is as worthy of note as the air we breath, which rarely is remarked upon, and only then when there is some reason to do so.

One might as easily charge that in pointing out the flaws in Dilan’s assumptions and logic, you, Ariel, Leo Marvin and I (and probably others)have been engaged in an organized campaign and coordinated attacks on him.

And the charge would be every bit as idiotic as the charge made by HRW. Unlike HRW, however, Dilan does not have millions of dollars in donations, access to international bodies and a presumed entitlement to serious consideration riding on the outcome of the discussion.

Dilan Esper: But usually, in my experience, the words often chosen by anti-semites are words such as “Zionist” (once a perfectly good term to describe people who favored a Jewish homeland that has now been completely misappropriated by anti-semites).

Yes, “Zionist” is the most frequently abused, followed by “neocon.” “Likud” is probably a distant third, but that’s still often enough to group it with the others.

“Likud” is much more of a general descriptor of the Israel right wing. I don’t see how it’s particularly inflammatory unless it is misused.

In the context we’re discussing, to borrow your expression, the exception swallows the rule.

Dilan Esper: neuro:You obviously just want to accuse me of anti-semitism. That’s disgusting.

You obviously just want to imagine you have been accused of anti-semitism so you can yet again draw yourself up in high dudgeon, bloviate, and congratulate yourself on your superior intellect and indisputable fairmindedness. Well, go ahead and tell yourself whatever you will. I would just encourage others to read for themselves what has in fact been written by me, Ariel, and others you say have accused you of bigotry rather than engaging with what you have maintained.

…one can never identify any sort of even the most informal kind of coordination by any right-wing supporters of Israel (which, by the way, are not exclusively Jewish) without the person being accused of being the moral equivalent of the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Patent nonsense. “The most informal kind of coordination” is as worthy of note as the air we breath, which rarely is remarked upon, and only then when there is some reason to do so. HRW defends itself against serious charges of anti-Israel bias by calling those who would say so liars and alleging that HRW is being targeted by an “organized campaign” and “coordinated attacks;” you claim, utterly unconvincingly, “one can never identify any sort of even the most informal kind of coordination by any right-wing supporters of Israel.” Tell us, if you will, the last time you remarked upon “any sort of even the most informal kind of coordination by any critics of Israel,” when Israel was under attack, as it is ceaselessly. And if it were the case, what significance would you attach to what BenP has identified as “…something of a campaign, regardless of the fact that it seems to be more viral in nature than pre-organized”?

Yankev:For crying out loud, Dilan, if you don’t want to be mistaken for an anti-semite, don’t adopt their language and memes.

Yes, for crying out loud, Dilan, if you don’t want to be mistaken for an anti-semite, don’t adopt their language and memes.

Either I doubt (Bernstein’s) denial or I think that the exception swallowed the rule (i.e., the coordination occurred in part through NGO Monitor’s e-mail list).

And finally, how about a little candor from you, Dilan? Do you believe Professor Bernstein to be lying about “coordination” or don’t you?

Dilan Esper: Not at all. Whatever symbolic statements Likud politicians may make in favor of peace, when it comes down to brass tacks, the position is always the Palestinians can’t be trusted anyway so we have to just go back to continued settlement expansion and bombing them.

Sorry, Dilan, but that is a gross caricature with little basis in reality. And given your apt observation that

meaning, and it’s based on what that party DOES, not what they say.

you will find very little trust for the Palestinians these days anywhere along the Israeli political spectrum, including the erstwhile peace camp.

But everyone knows, I guess, that Likud and the other Israelis are lying when they say they want peace, and Hamas and Fatah are lying when they say they want an end to the Jewish state. It says something when large masses of people are willing to engage in perpetual contra-factual fantasy portraying Jews in the best light and portrays those who by their own admission would exterminate Jews in the best light.
I think Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state,

I think Israel has a right to defend itself, and I think Israel has a right to go into Gaza and root out the people responsible for the rocket attacks. I also think it should try to do so in a way that minimizes human rights violations and civilian casualties.

And yet you discount all evidence that this is precisely what Israel did, and that despite the inevitable civilian casualties that occur in war, Israel took unprecedented steps not only to avoid them, but to ease civilian suffering by supplying food, electricity and medical supplies during active hostilities. And you give credit to absurd allegations, tortured redefinition of the term “war crimes” and deeply flawed investigations performed by a biased tribunal comprising biased judges who announced the result of their investigation in advance. And you faithfully repeat the oft-refuted lie of Israel as a practitioner of apartheid, discounting all of the distinctions between that disgusting system and legitimate security measures forced upon Israel to safeguard itself from an enemy population. And you repeat the anti-semite’s favorite pre-emptory charge that real anti-semitism is a thing of the past (or exists only on the fringes today) but is used as a false charge to intimidate people against uttering legitimate criticism of Israel. For crying out loud, Dilan, if you don’t want to be mistaken for an anti-semite, don’t adopt their language and memes.

You obviously just want to accuse me of anti-semitism. That’s disgusting.

Apparently, in your mind, the fact that anti-semites despicably libeled Jews by claiming all sorts of false conspiracy theories means that one can never identify any sort of even the most informal kind of coordination by any right-wing supporters of Israel (which, by the way, are not exclusively Jewish) without the person being accused of being the moral equivalent of the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Anti-semitism is a serious problem, and it contributes to the violent attitudes of many of Israel’s neighbors that threatens Israel’s security. It also, not that long ago, caused the deaths of millions of Jews, kept many Jews out of college and the workplace and polite society, led to violence against Jews, etc. But when people scream anti-semitism whenever someone makes a political argument that they don’t like, it weakens the entire concept.

It is horrible that you would feel so casual about slinging such disgusting allegations around. I think Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, I think Israel has a right to defend itself, and I think Israel has a right to go into Gaza and root out the people responsible for the rocket attacks. I also think it should try to do so in a way that minimizes human rights violations and civilian casualties. Accordingly, I generally think that the process of reporting on Israeli human rights violations in Gaza is a good thing, and also something that in no way morally compromises the case for Israel’s decision to strike against the organizations and people who were firing rockets at Israel’s civilians.

It takes a twisted mind to think that someone who believes that is an anti-semitic conspiracy monger who is trafficking in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You can’t fling this sort of thing around like it’s nothing more than another stupid talking point in a debate. Anti-semitism, and it’s horrible consequences, is too important and too grave for you to do that.

And real supporters of Israel– as opposed to the type who can sit safely at their keyboard while Israeli citizens are in the firing line– would understand this.

And for the record, I think that’s unfair.

So no, to a Likud supporter there’s nothing libelous about “Likud.” But that doesn’t stop it from being used pejoratively by a lot of people who oppose not just the Israeli Right, but Israel generally.

I agree with that. But usually, in my experience, the words often chosen by anti-semites are words such as “Zionist” (once a perfectly good term to describe people who favored a Jewish homeland that has now been completely misappropriated by anti-semites). “Likud” is much more of a general descriptor of the Israel right wing. I don’t see how it’s particularly inflammatory unless it is misused.

If this is too hard to understand, consider that Zionism means the movement for a national homeland for the Jewish people, to be located in a particular part of the former Ottoman Empire. There is nothing defamatory about that term. But when Zionist is used in ways that have nothing to do with that movement, e.g. as a synonymn for racist, or in accusations of controlling the international monetary system or manipulating world history to cause wars for the benefit of Jewish financiers, then it becomes defamatory.

I agree with this. But it doesn’t answer my point, which is that there really are people who take the position that the solution of to the Palestinian problem is the use of severe force. Anyone who uses “Likud” to describe people who favor negotiations with the Palestinians but are simply sticking up for Israel’s right to defend itself are misusing the term.

If by “represents” you mean electorily and that this is the Likud’s position, you are grossly misrepresenting that party’s position, voters and actions.

Not at all. Whatever symbolic statements Likud politicians may make in favor of peace, when it comes down to brass tacks, the position is always the Palestinians can’t be trusted anyway so we have to just go back to continued settlement expansion and bombing them.

I don’t think we have to credit the lies of politicians about their positions. Likud has a meaning, and it’s based on what that party DOES, not what they say.

Professor Bernstein has explained how it is that he has been blogging about HRW, and it has not been as part of any “organized campaign” or “coordinated attacks.” Dilan, however, won’t take him at his word, allowing the possibility that the professor is simply a liar. (Dilan isn’t that forthright, preferring instead the circumlocutious, “Either I doubt his denial.”) But Dilan, who keeps causing others to wonder what he really means beneath it all, angrily accuses others of “McCarthyism” when they confront him.

Dilan Esper: The last I checked, the Likud represents the Israeli right, the opponents of the peace process who believe that the correct solution to the Palestinian problem is maximum force.

If by “represents” you mean electorily and that this is the Likud’s position, you are grossly misrepresenting that party’s position, voters and actions. If by “represents” you mean “represents in the minds of a certain spectrum of the American left, certain Paleocons, organized anti-semites and the ignoranti, who use the name Likud as a caricature for a certain type of Jewish bogey-man that they have conjured up”, then I suppose you are correct, but if that’s what you mean, then as Leo, Neurodoc and I have pointed out, and you have discounted, you are using the name of a political party to indicate something very different that what that party is.

Dilan Esper: As for Likud = inflammatory, you know, I wasn’t aware that one of the three major political parties in Israel was considered so extremist and beyond the pale that the mere association of a person with that party is the deepest type of libel, which seems to be the position you and others are arguing.

No, using it for things that are a willfull distortion of their platform and a willfull distortion of where it stands vis-a-vis other parties is a libel. If this is too hard to understand, consider that Zionism means the movement for a national homeland for the Jewish people, to be located in a particular part of the former Ottoman Empire. There is nothing defamatory about that term. But when Zionist is used in ways that have nothing to do with that movement, e.g. as a synonymn for racist, or in accusations of controlling the international monetary system or manipulating world history to cause wars for the benefit of Jewish financiers, then it becomes defamatory.

One more example: there is nothing wrong with being Jewish, but when Jew is used as a perjorative for being cheap or greedy or deicidal, then it becomes defamatory. Are you starting to get it now?

The last I checked, the Likud represents the Israeli right, the opponents of the peace process who believe that the correct solution to the Palestinian problem is maximum force.

Then your checking has been so superficial that you are being willfully ignorant. The inaccuracies in your “checking” have been pointed out in numerous posts on this thread. You choose to discount them for reasons that I do not care to speculate.

Dilan Esper: The last I checked, the Likud represents the Israeli right, the opponents of the peace process who believe that the correct solution to the Palestinian problem is maximum force. I don’t see any reason why opponents to the peace process outside Israel shouldn’t be associated with the brand.

Well I identify with the Israeli left. I support the peace process, and subject to Israel’s right to defend itself I believe the correct solution to the Palestinian problem is Palestinian statehood. Associating me with the Likud is ridiculous, yet that’s what routinely happens when I defend anything Israeli, even just its right to exist, on some liberal sites.

Partisan pejoratives are situational. You and I call ourselves liberal, so to us the term obviously has no pejorative connotation. But I don’t have to tell you a lot of people around here use “liberal” like a dog whistle to discredit arguments as anti-American nonsense. Same for our side with “conservative” and more so “neocon.” So no, to a Likud supporter there’s nothing libelous about “Likud.” But that doesn’t stop it from being used pejoratively by a lot of people who oppose not just the Israeli Right, but Israel generally.

Either I doubt his denial or I think that the exception swallowed the rule (i.e., the coordination occurred in part through NGO Monitor’s e-mail list).

As for Likud = inflammatory, you know, I wasn’t aware that one of the three major political parties in Israel was considered so extremist and beyond the pale that the mere association of a person with that party is the deepest type of libel, which seems to be the position you and others are arguing.

The last I checked, the Likud represents the Israeli right, the opponents of the peace process who believe that the correct solution to the Palestinian problem is maximum force. I don’t see any reason why opponents to the peace process outside Israel shouldn’t be associated with the brand.

Dilan Esper: If you don’t like “Likud”, fine, but we need to have a term for the right-wing supporters of Israel who generally support violence against the Palestinians to distinguish them from the left-wing supporters of Israel who generally support diplomacy with the Palestinians.

I’d suggest you just say “right-wing supporters of Israel who generally support violence against the Palestinians.” Not only is “Likud-style” inflammatory, it’s so ambiguous, or less charitably, misleading, you end up saying things I doubt you really mean. Remember how you used “Likud-style” in the first place:

But yes, I very much believe that the internet makes it easy for people who support Likud-style policies in Israel to communicate with each other, and that these sorts of attacks on the various credible opponents of the Gaza policy have all the marks of an informally coordinated attack.

The participants in that “informally coordinated attack” presumably include HRW’s most prominent recent critics, i.e., NGO Monitor, David Bernstein and Robert Bernstein. Putting aside the first two (I suspect you may misread at least where David Bernstein stands on these issues), do you really think Robert Bernstein is one of the “right-wing supporters of Israel who generally support violence against the Palestinians?” I doubt it, but that’s what you imply.

Back to the OP, you say the attacks “have all the marks of an informally coordinated attack.” David Bernstein has specifically denied any coordination beyond being on NGO Monitor’s e-mail list. Do you doubt his denial?

Your position is weird. Among supporters of Israel outside of the country, there is a clear left wing and a clear right wing. Think Matthew Yglesias and Martin Peretz. But somehow identifying that is what? Anti-semitic?

I am going to say something very clearly here. I think just as there are a lot of people on the religious right who would love to define any criticism of their political positions as anti-Christian bigotry (or anti-Catholic bigotry), there are certainly right-wing supporters of Israel who would love to define any criticism of their positions as anti-semitic. But it’s not. If you don’t like “Likud”, fine, but we need to have a term for the right-wing supporters of Israel who generally support violence against the Palestinians to distinguish them from the left-wing supporters of Israel who generally support diplomacy with the Palestinians.

neurodoc:
You could have just said you agreed fully with what I said at 8:46AM about Dilan Esper’s crapola. :) But that’s fine, since it bears repetition. (And now let’s ignore his ploy of coming right up to the line, putting his foot on the line, then pulling back and challenging others to call him “out,” accusing those who would of being “McCarthyites.”)

And now Yankev, I will say that I agree fully with your comments at 10:07, 10:13, 10:20, and 10:23.

Yankev:
True, but then the charge of being “Likud-style”, “Likudnik”, etc. has nothing to do with the Likud part or its policies, any more than “neocon” has anything to do with the views or policies of the neoconservative school of thought. Both are shorthand for “actions or thoughts of which I do not approve, taken by Israel or its supporters or Jews, or people whom I perceived to be any of the foregoing.” How long until someone starts calling Ben Gurion a Likudnik?

You could have just said you agreed fully with what I said at 8:46AM about Dilan Esper‘s crapola. :)

But that’s fine, since it bears repetition. (And now let’s ignore his ploy of coming right up to the line, putting his foot on the line, then pulling back and challenging others to call him “out,” accusing those who would of being “McCarthyites.”)

Dilan Esper: The fact that such policies, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE BUT NOT IN OTHERS, overlaps with the position of the Kadima and Labor parties does not make the terminology less useful.

If you mean useful as an accurate descriptor or as an aid to analysis, I disagree. If you mean useful as a smear to mischaracterize and dismiss views that you do not like, yes, some people have found it convenient for that purpose, but they are not people that any respectable person would want to be associated with, for the reasons mentioned in my 10:20 a.m. today.