Adam Holland on Richard Silverstein

Adam Holland on Richard Silverstein.

20 Responses to “Adam Holland on Richard Silverstein”

  1. Absolute Observer Says:

    Richard Silverstein, Glenn Beck, Charlie Sheen……….to name but three.

  2. Bill Says:

    His comments on these pages in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks showed his true colors. By rationalizing attacks on any Jews anywhere (especially those in soft targets not related to Israel), he removed any doubt of him being an active an unapologetic supporter, if not cheerleader, of raw murderous antisemitism, “zionism” has nothing to do with it.

    • Anonymous Says:

      In ‘celebration’ of the denouncement from Silverstein, I’d like to cite a classic post from him on this site regarding the Mumbai attack, where he displays all of his wit and candor to the internet:

      Richard Silverstein posted on December 08, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM
      Chew on this my little Jewish holy warriors:

      “Kasab has told police that they were sent with a specific mission of targeting Israelis to avenge atrocities on Palestinians. This was why they targetted Nariman House, a complex meant for Israelis.”

      http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3774106.cms

      Unlike the rest of you, I believe if you want to characterize the terrorists’ motives it might be a good idea to quote a participant in the attack rather than your own gut. Everyone in this thread claims to know the killers’ real motives but doesn’t have any proof whatsoever. I’ve given it to you.

      Does this excuse anti-Israel terror? Of course not, nor am I. But those who wish to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Israelism lose this round (except in their own minds, in which they will always be right).

      • Bill Says:

        That’s bull hockey and anyone with two common cents to rub together knows it. There is a perfect and indisputable Israeli target in Mumbai. It’s their consulate. Of course it’s fortified, but the message would have been clear and their attack would have been glorious, a true david vs goliath. But no. They took after a softer target that had Jews in it and were brutally savage in their treatment of the hostages which included mutilation and sexual assault – a good thing they didn’t have guns to fight back, eh? To the terrorists, their handlers and Silverstein, any Jew is as good as an Israeli (especially if you have a chance of killing more of them or even walking away from it). If I’m angry at Mary but she’s not available (or, let’s be honest, she can clean my clock) so I beat the crap out of Susan, there is no doubt that I’d be a misogynist and a sociopath. If I hit a Jew because there are no Israelis around (or they’ll can take me down if I try anything), I am an antisemite.

        • Noga Says:

          “It’s their consulate. Of course it’s fortified, but the message would have been clear and their attack would have been glorious, a true david vs goliath. ”

          “… their attack would have been glorious, a true david vs goliath. ” ???

          Glorious? “david vs goliath” ??? Do you mean there would have been glory and heroism attached to an attack on a consulate? What am I missing here?

      • Lynne T Says:

        Anonymous:

        Chabad houses around the world are not for the use of “Israelis”, but for any Jew who wishes to enjoy a kosher meal, fellowship and prayer when abroad. Far from proving his point, Silverstein’s quote shows the terrorists’ motivation to be as anti-semetic as attacking a Jewish cultural centre in Buenos Aires.

        • Benjamin H. Says:

          Er. I was being sarcastic about his ‘wit and intelligence’; this was a major tipping point in my views towards him. I found his comments, and the article he wrote about it, to be complete shit. I apologize for giving the wrong impressions; I only wanted to show a example of his crass and ignorant screed.

        • Brian Goldfarb Says:

          Noga, I suspect that Bill’s irony quotient is so high it’s been mistaken for seriousness. My reading is that Bill wants us to take the point that attacking any soft target, under whatever excuse or ideological justification, is the easy way out: many “enemy” dead, however vulnerable, unarmed or innocent. Now, if they had really wanted “genuine” martyrdom, they should have attacked the Israeli consulate. There, they would have been, probably, cut down within seconds of opening fire by the armed Israelis inside: glorious martyrdom at no cost to the ideological enemy except a few rounds ammunition. How much more “glorious” to massacre unarmed civilians, it says here in the martyrs of Jihadism handbook.

        • Bill Says:

          Noga, I suspect that Bill’s irony quotient is so high it’s been mistaken for seriousness.

          (Actually I thought I was just being a smartass.) Seriously though I went back though the Engage wayback machine to see that it was originally Mary that got punched, and also saw how fired up I really was over that swill he said: That week, I had just got back from visiting a colleague at our sister institution who works in a building that doesn’t do cute fuzzy animal testing, doesn’t do GM (but does do precision ag, which is actually “green”) but had signs everywhere as to what to do when some idiot who cares more about the environment than they actually study it decides to show how much s/he cares by leaving everyone a present. Buildings that do do GM, and animal testing nowadays have real security, not the usual campus parking attendants. So those faculties are high risk — to the “activists.” Thanks to Silverstein’s mindset, which is shared with others, not only are we are all Jews, we also all spray oven cleaner in bunny rabbits eyeballs, because controlling the world’s banks just isn’t enough — Why? For no other reason than because we don’t shoot back (uh… since we can’t bring guns to campus).

  3. Absolute Observer Says:

    Now here’s a coincidence………..

    “Richard Silverstein posted on December 08, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM
    Chew on this my little Jewish holy warriors:

    “Kasab has told police that they were sent with a specific mission of targeting Israelis to avenge atrocities on Palestinians. This was why they targetted Nariman House, a complex meant for Israelis.”

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3774106.cms

    Unlike the rest of you, I believe if you want to characterize the terrorists’ motives it might be a good idea to quote a participant in the attack rather than your own gut. Everyone in this thread claims to know the killers’ real motives but doesn’t have any proof whatsoever. I’ve given it to you.

    Does this excuse anti-Israel terror? Of course not, nor am I. But those who wish to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Israelism lose this round (except in their own minds, in which they will always be right).”

    For a refutation of this perspective see,

    https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/how-easily-anti-zionism-slid-into-antisemitism/
    http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=2260
    engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=2257
    http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2260

    Silverstein’s initial thinking on Mumbai is hardly of a quality to reopen the discussion. It is noteworthy for alerting most people to just what an extent either a. Silverstein had lost the plot; or b. his penchant for self-publicity. It could be both of course.

    Harrys Place has a whole raft on Siverstein’s demise. I really cannot be bothered finding the links.

    And far from a “celebration” of Siverstein’s “denoument”, I feel quite sorry for him.
    It is evident that he is feeling under some pressure and not handling it all too well.
    I wish Richard well and hope he has a good network of friends for times like this.

  4. Absolute Observer Says:

    “I’d like to cite a classic post from him on this site regarding the Mumbai attack”
    Apologies for not reading this sentence correctly

    Also,
    “where he displays all of his wit and candor to the internet”

    Apologies, for not realising the irony of anonymous’s comment.
    My bad.

    Finally, though, no apologies for my concern for SIleverstein’s state of mind.

  5. SnoopyTheGoon Says:

    “Richard Silverstein, Glenn Beck, Charlie Sheen……….to name but three.”

    Do you intend that the reader find the element that doesn’t belong, Absolute Observer?
    Its’ a tough one, I can already say😉

    If you throw in Groucho Marx, on the other hand…

  6. Gideon Swort Says:

    @STG
    “Do you intend that the reader find the element that doesn’t belong, Absolute Observer?”

    Apparently Engage has a strict policy on discussing mental illness. However if we talk about a common denominator then I go for substance abuse (in the order the clowns are mentioned above), Caffeine (Seattle), Tea (Party) and Cotton Candy (in powder dust form).

    I do have a soft spot for Silver Dick, he’s so wired I sometimes wonder if he’s directly plugged to the mains while conversing with Xenu.

  7. J street apologizes. will enagage? Says:

    smearing right wing engage will always jump first to undermine anti-occupation jews,

    Jeremy Ben Ami wrote:

    I do feel strongly that J Street should strive to avoid turning substantive disagreements into personal attacks, and in this case – having taken a quick look at the various posts – we did not live up to that goal, and for that I am personally sorry.

    While we as an organization will disagree with you and others over time, we should find other words to express our disagreement. I would say the same is true of your disagreement with Rep. Jackson and Adam Holland. You too could have benefited from expressing yourself differently.

    Let’s say that we’ll all strive to avoid personalizing the issue differences we may have and let’s consider this matter closed.

    • Ben Says:

      “smearing right wing engage will always jump first to undermine anti-occupation jews”

      Are you parodying J Street or parroting them?
      Either way, it’s a very J Street stance to mumblecore how their organization and the asshole they were talking to “should find other words to express our disagreement”. Yes sir, this entire dispute was a matter of none of the parties involved having the right thesaurus on hand. That’s the ticket.

    • Thomas Venner Says:

      I’m confused. All of the people on Engage, Jews and non-Jews alike, are against the occupation (apart from one or two people who pop up from time to time, and I suspect they’re just trolling). Could you clarify what you mean?

      • Ben Says:

        I think that from this poster’s Hard Left POV (one that’s not shared by J Street, whom I don’t like at all but also don’t view as being similar to idiots like him), the “occupation” involves all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and the way to end it is to have a (non) secular, (not once Hamas has enough weapons in place) binational Palestine. Any Israel, to him, is right wing. That’s the bottom line.

  8. Absolute Observer Says:

    Yeah, right, I am really going to take seriously a lecture on blog etiquette which begins with,

    “smearing right wing engage will always jump first to undermine anti-occupation jews,”

    Just in case you miss my point I’ll make make my point plain. Go Fuck Yourself.

    This seems to be the appropriate response to such ad hominen attacks

    I think that addresses the substantive point raised by the above poster.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: