Hunting Guido Sohne

I received that email almost a month ago

I asked Mr. Sohne to clarify something for me in an e-mail.

I received the same e-mail that was posted.

My humble conclusion is that Mr. Guido should take a long rest because his Memo was like "one size fits all".

Any discussion of Israeli government policy by non-Israeli's or non-Jews is going to turn into a discussion of Antisemitism, with accusations flowing both ways. For that reason alone, I only discuss my views on Israeli government policy with my wife, who will at least kiss and make up when it's all over.

A long time ago, during a good conversation with GS he pointed me to this:
A simple, free FLICKR slideshow/geotagging tool that Guido designed some time ago

http://semaflickr.sohne.net/

I enjoyed Guido here and think it is a loss that he has left NV

Great resource, Chill! Thank you. This should be required viewing for just about everyone!

Oluseye Bassir:

When I go to parties and the bore walks over and starts regaling everyone with the same story, I have never seen the group shout him down and call him anti-Semitic.

Your parties are too tame.

You know, it seems like there's too many sets of cool kids around. Each Viney sub-culture can't be the cool kids, can they? I count four such sets alluded to in just the last 24 hours, always perjoratively.

Surya:

I agree completely with you. The possibilities for intelligent discourse are sullied and limited when you have individuals whose sole aim is to wreak havoc in the forum. At times, as Oluseye pointed out, the exchanges are wildly off-topic and reminiscent of playground scuffles or teenage gossip.

Also, I haven't seen this point brought up yet re: the term "anti-Semitism" but it's early on the east coast of America and I'm on my first cup of coffee. I may have missed something.

Ignoblus: I find the charge of "anti-Semitism", when levelled at critics of Israel, to be irresponsible in the worst way. As you pointed out, Jewish history is, in the main, is one of oppression. Because the experience of the Holocaust still resonates with most of us, the accusation is fraught with emotion. It's also a cheap attempt to silence criticism of Israel's policies. As I mentioned in my article, the tactics of the Israeli state have no more to do with the legacy of the Jewish people than the Bush administration has to do with America's Founding Fathers or the meaning of democracy.

I would also point out that the Palestinians have suffered their own history of oppression, although some refuse to acknowledge it. The double standard at play here is dangerous and, quite frankly, despicable.

Ah yes. The old argument that those who oppose you are subhuman. Animals. Nietzsche was absolutely right: the zealot ultimately becomes what he seeks to destroy.

Surya,

I had the same feeling when I joined the Newsvine that many people, all professionals, spent all their time seeding or writing to keep in/on the top of the leaderboard. I always wondering because my simple recipes takes about a couple of hours to translate and post because I like to create. My valid time is that I have several computers and being in the kitchen I post in between chores.

Another phenomenum that I found was the Deletion of posts, sheesh, I found complainers of the actual administration and they are dictators of their own articles or seeds, it made me upset the first time but later on I did not care and I abstein of voting for them. Let me clarify that I vote for everybody that I consider a good poster even when the subject is not my piece of cake.

Other childish tantrum was the - not in the subject - having a creative mind everything that I post for example is related and is not black or white.

To me this is an excellent media to practice English and I learned

Det:

I am definitely going to check out your recipes! They look yummy!

I find the charge of "anti-Semitism", when levelled at critics of Israel, to be irresponsible in the worst way. As you pointed out, Jewish history is, in the main, is one of oppression... It's also a cheap attempt to silence criticism of Israel's policies.

My God! Have you read a single word I wrote? Your response just isn't to me. It's to some mythical Jew you imagine in your head. I didn't even "[point] out, Jewish history is, in the main, is one of oppression." You even got me wrong on that! What I pointed to was that the form of oppression it takes involves complaints about Jewish power, but you don't respond to that at all. What I said about critics of Israel who get called antisemitic is that it's usually because they use antisemitic arguments about Jewish power. You can criticize Israel all you want, but the moment you start injecting antisemitic stereotypes into that discussion it obviously becomes antisemitic. My major point was that when a Jew says something is antisemitic, other people ought to listen to them (the same treatment people do offer other oppressed groups). But you provide no evidence here that you read a single word I said. You haven't responded to anything I wrote. You just repeated the same, tired, strawman arguments I had already addressed.

I'll tell you something else about the history of Jewish oppression. It's commonly involved active participation from the Left. That's how August Bebel dubbed it "the Socialism of Fools," and wrote to Friedrich Engels that he feared it was too late to stop what eventually became the Holocaust. Here's another interesting, example. That one's interesting because the Right wasn't even involved. It was entirely the Left pushing antisemitism.

Or - thank you Adipic Acid! - when you start to say things like, "Some people on Newsvine are mongrels," then you obviously have a problem. No one should be able to get away with saying something like this

Instead of censorship I try to point out the tactics they employ and let the other readers of the thread make up their own mind.

when they so obviously live in glass houses. And, yes, comparing your enemies to animals is one of the early stages of genocide.

How can you have this conversation without talking about antisemitism? You're trying to completely and utterly exclude one side of the debate.

The question is whether Guido Sohne was treated fairly by those who opposed the things he said.

And doesn't that depend on what he said?

The owner of the seed can restore them, at least, a couple of months ago I brought a couple back on a thread I owned.

Might've changed since.

We could bring Guido back from the dead against his living wishes.

An interesting conundrum for a libertarian, maybe Ted Williams, too.

His comments are visible to me, so maybe I will cut and paste some of them both there & here.

Here are comments 3.8 thru 3.16 from the above noted thread. I hope this provides a useful context.

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Perhaps all Israel really needs is a brave and competent leader. It may not be so bad after all, if the hard liners are part of a peace effort. After all, they will need to face the hard liners on the other side.
If only there could be real discussion and the hard liners on both sides see something in common to work towards, maybe this could work out. And with them inside the fold, the flak coming from the right as moderates try to work things out could perhaps be avoided ...
#3.8 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:01 AM EST

urbane gorilla
Guido, there seems to be a leadership vacuum. You seem to be hoping for this generations Sadat & Begin. Let's hope they emerge.
#3.9 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:04 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Apart from that, there also appears to be a dangerous lack of awareness that luck can change, that because things have gone on relatively well so far, that they will continue on the same way. That business as usual will work as usual.
What happens when there is a 'sea change' or 'inflection point'? Who pays? Unfortunately, it won't just be the loonies and that's a real shame, something extremely worrying.
#3.10 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:21 AM EST

urbane gorilla
a few comments ago, I cited an opinion piece from Haaretz on the ascendancy of Lieberman and Russian emigrés as Israel's new elite.
I forgot to post the link, so here 'tis:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/781515.html
#3.11 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:38 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Interesting article. It seems that Israel has its own internal schisms and conflicts resulting from the idealistic goal of integrating all Jews from all over the world, akin to a modern Tower of Babel. In chaos, the confusionists ascend ... and their sensitivities and conditioning probably will make them have an authoritarian bent. Do you have anything I could read about the internal dynamics of Israeli politics? I would like to move from thinking of Israel as a 'bloc' to understanding the goals of the various factions.
#3.12 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 9:15 AM EST

ignoblus
Guido, here is The Other Israel, which is more or less a page for Gush Shalom (led by Uri Avnery and Adam Keller). Gush Shalom means 'peace bloc,' and it is one of the more leftists parties in Israel. Sometimes I think Avnery isn't all that thoughful, but I respect him for his dedicated peace work. Mostly I find the site a source for some of the smartest criticism of Israel, which often goes into details of how various blocs in Israel view the conflict. Highly recommended. And although Avnery and Keller can be a bit too kind to antisemites in the West, they are never antisemitic even in their harshest criticisms.
Here is also a seed of mine (seed rather than article for reasons in the seed) regarding the weaknesses of Israeli civilian control over the military.
#3.13 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 9:44 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Thanks, I will check them out. I also found this interesting ...

Tomorrow is the Heshvan 11 in the Hebrew calendar - the day Israel mourns Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. After 11 years, everyone knows: Not only was Rabin assassinated, his legacy was buried with him. Essentially, that legacy was his resolute attempt to find cracks in the wall of hostility surrounding Israel - to find them and force himself through the narrow opening, hoping to detect, beyond the wall, signs of a coming to terms with Israel's existence.

Rabin was determined that the mettle of both Israel and the Israel Defense Forces not be tested unless it was absolutely necessary. A general, and an expert on Israel's security, in uniform and as a civilian, he understood what Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz will never comprehend: You do not go to war - you never fight yet another war - unless you have no other choice, and only after you have investigated and exhausted all other possibilities.
Source: Haaretz
#3.14 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 9:51 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
ignoblus - Very significant seed there. As I now understand it from a brief reading and my usual lightning jumps to a conclusion, it is the same fundamental problem as with the US, which is that the military-industrial complex and its interests are more to do with permanent war and a constant arms buildup, than with the desire to achieve real peace. Since Israel is governed by quasi-military civilians and its defence establishment is so powerful, there needs to be a constant state of siege for the population to accept the continued necessity (and attendant expenditure/investment) in weapon systems, the military etc.
#3.15 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 10:15 AM EST

ignoblus

I wouldn't describe it in quite that way. First, it's a problem in all democratic nations (and totalitarianism is not an option for fixing it), though it presents itself differently in each different nation. That is, there are institutions that are more lasting than the political leadership. These institutions, which can be military or industrial or from the civil service, therefore, are able to have a greater impact when the political leadership abrogates its responsibilities. (In South Africa, I have come across the example of civil planning which continues many apartheid policies after the formal end of apartheid. It remains very difficult to challenge because they have good reasons for doing so if one looks at the problems from within their realm of expertise.) In the case of Olmert, it seems very much that he was unprepared to take his leadership role seriously enough to argue with the generals. Hopefully, he's learned his lesson and future leaders will also learn from this experience, but it is important that Israel move in a different direction.

Of course, there are also very many qualifications in the first couple quoted paragraphs in my seed. Israel still maintains civilian control (through several different institutions including the courts) over the military so long as the politicians are willing to use their powers. That is, actually, unlike a great many other societies where the military has actually taken control from the civilian leadership. So it's important not to overstate the problem. Israel (and many other nations) could potentially move dangerously rightward, but it is not there now. There are real problems, but we cannot give up the fight to keep Israel as fully democratic as it is.
#3.16

Dennis:

Then we're missing the same thing.

I wanted evidence of "hunting."

Does anybody have any?

Dennis,

his remarks weren't deleted - he deleted his account, so his comments are only visible to the owner of a particular thread - me, in this case. They show up kind of greyed out. I cut and pasted them to show that, contrary to Guido's complaints, discourse about Israel has happened on a polite level here (at least on my threads; I am an unapologetic deleter).

As to hunting - you've got to be kidding me. Sounds a bit "legend in one's own mind" to me.

Guido wasn't afraid to mix it up a bit if things got heated, and you could tell he was very passionate about international politics, but I found 99% of his comments to be very intelligent and thoughtful. He seemed very concerned about the underdog, which he seemed to consider the Palestinians to be. I don't think he was anti-semitic, but he was strongly opposed to the policies of the Israeli government, as he was with most of the policies of the present administration in Washington. He came off at times as very anti-American, and I think this angered many in the "America, love it or leave it" crowd.

I have a habit of quoting people with whom I'm discussing, so it's fairly easy for me to find a few examples of things he said. At times, as I said above, he was willing to listen. But he also said things like this:

All this bloodshed, the Iraq wars, the occurrence of 9/11, the devolution of the American democracy, and if we make the logical leap that behind this all, stands the issue of Israel's security and right to prosper

(Worth noting that even Jimmy Havok, who I hold in far less regard than Guido, felt the need to correct him on the implication that Israel was responsible for 9/11.) My feeling was that he didn't want to be antisemitic, but that he refused to give up on conspiracism or the sort of categorical thinking that underlies racism. "These people are like this. Those people are like that. etc." Here's a good example of that (though, unfortunately, I'm loathe to link to one of Keld's seeds):

If Islamic law is problematic, so is Jewish law, if not more so because we expect more from better educated and more evolved cultures.

In my final dealings with him, he seemed to grasp tightly to the idea that accusations of antisemitism are a conspiratorial tool to shut down criticism of Israel. One of the reasons that particular form of antisemitic conspiracism is so difficult to deal with is because it automatically makes any claim or evidence to the contrary immediately suspect.

As I've said before, I don't think Guido was a hateful person. I don't either think he was prone to paranoia. But he did have a tendency toward conspiracism and stereotyping.

From the limited view of Guido on that last thread, I concur with Frank. He certainly was passionate. The history of conflict in the Middle East goes back centuries, most of it taking root before the US was even founded. So the US or Israel since its formation cannot alone be held responsible for the mess it is in our times.

But as Dennis says, recent history may have turned out completely differently if the West, and especially US politics, had deployed a longer term vision some 60 years ago. Surely time has come to go back to root causes instead of the blame culture that is so prevalent from all sides.

I suppose some context would help. I pointed out that Khamenei has described quite clearly what he (and Iran, and hence, Ahmadinejad) meant by the word "Zionists":

Today, unfortunately, the United States, its Congress and its government, are under the spell of Zionism in different financial, economic, cultural, political and propaganda arenas. The bulk of the propaganda organs of the world mass media, furthermore, are controlled by the Zionists. Most of the famous news agencies which you know of are controlled by them.

This is just antisemitic conspiracism, with the simple replacement of "Zionists" for "Jews." I don't think there's another way to read Khamenei's words, but rather than argue with my reading, Guido defended Khamenei's thesis by saying:

if we make the logical leap that behind this all, stands the issue of Israel's security and right to prosper

So he was saying that such antisemitic conspiracy theories are perfectly reasonable. You'll note that Jimmy Havok also read Guido's words in the same way:

Guido: I think the evidence for Israeli secret service implication in the WTC is slim to none. In this case, ignoblus is right.

As for,

Israel does have a more evolved culture than most Islamic states, does it not?

"Evolved" is a very judgmental and subjective term. In short, no, it's not true. One could reasonably say a lot of things there, but not the Israel is more evolved. More to the point, it's quite the generalization. He was fond of generalizations, and did not like the idea that anti-racism would mean giving them up. He focused instead on figuring out which ones were right.

He came off at times as very anti-American, and I think this angered many in the "America, love it or leave it" crowd.

I think what many forget is that not everyone on Newsvine is an American. People of different nationalities can have vastly different beliefs from what we Americans have been taught to believe. Just from having spoken to a friend from Sri Lanka who went to college in the U.S., I know that those outside the United States have a different view on the U.S. relationship to Middle East countries.

That's just anti-somethingbushdid.

I'm going to have to remember that one...

Dennis, re: #14.12

Are they representative of Guido's usual commenting style?

I'll just say that it was Guido at his best. Likewise ignoblus.

I'm reminded of something I learned in music school about writing criticism which could apply to any opinion piece. To paraphrase, first be a good reporter, and your opinion will show through.

I mean, ignoblus has said he doesn't think Guido is hateful, (ignoring his earlier statement that Guido is one of the worst), for me that's the common sense standard.

First, I never said Guido was one of the worst. But deteremining racism solely on how hateful someone is just isn't appropriate. The impact of a statement is all that really matter for determining whether a statement was racist. Intent is meaningful in determining how we respond to such a person, but not for determining whether a statement is racist. When the Christian right says homosexuality is "an abomination," but they go out trying to cure gays because they're so compassionate, do we argue that this isn't homophobic because the intent isn't hateful? Obviously no, so why the different standard for Jews? Second,

Your objection is to the word "evolved?" Judgmental and subjective?... But how can that be antisemitic?

I didn't say it was antisemitic. I said it was an example of Guido rejecting nuance in favor of categoricals. It is discriminatory to hold Israel to a higher standard than other groups, but my primary objection was that Guido was being racist toward Muslims.

For some less important details:

Khameini? I didn't see any reference to Iran in his original quote.

Guido's comment was in response to something I had written. I referenced Khameini. Guido was defending Khameini's antisemitic conspiracism as reasonable if one were to "make the logical leap."

I know ignoblus is an expert on all what has been deemed anti-Semitic, but we are more simple people, we need a simple standard of bigotry which you had mentioned before Dennis.

Oluseye, if you're going to argue against anything that could be construed as a personal attack, please watch your tone.

Anti-semitism is a crime in many places

No, it's not a crime anywhere. Several places have hate speech laws of various sorts, but the crime is not merely being antisemitic. Publishing antisemitic material, yeah. Saying something in an online forum, not so likely to get you prosecuted no matter how vile it is.

"I think that statement was anti-semitic because...." is a whole lot better than "You're an anti-semite."

As I've tried to point out more than a few times, I've rarely seen the comment "you're an antisemite" until long after the poster of antisemitic comments has protested being called an antisemite by someone who went out of their way to avoid calling the person an antisemite directly. You're quite right, Dennis, that it's a lot better to speak of someone's comments than their character in such cases. But the vast majority of anti-antisemites go out of their way to do that already. Take your comments up with some of the people who get "accused of antisemtism," and ask them if that's really what happened.

That brings up something else. A great many people, and I'm one, argue against using a hyphen in "antisemite." I'd be happy to explain why, but for now, you'll earn some respect from anti-antisemites by adopting their convention. It's also a good way to show that you're listening and soften the tone of the discussion.

Perhaps we should choose to err on the side of caution here - if it's your opinion, that's fine, as you're entitled to it, but state it as such.

Perhaps we should err on the side of caution and avoid potential antisemitism. We couldn't even agree on what's the side of caution. For me, sure it's my estimation, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be forced to be respectful to someone spouting neo-Nazi propaganda. I don't care if you agree with me, I'm going to express anger if I'm angry. And sometimes I can be very nice when I'm expressing my anger (and that would generally characterize my interactions with Guido), but I'm not going to be held to a standard of not getting angry at racist bs. I'm not going to be silenced on the matter out of (what I see to be) misplaced concerns for any bigot's feelings. As I argued above, such calls introduce a perverse bias into the discussion.

Now, having written more on less important issues, I'd like to remind people that I started with more important stuff. It would be better, I think, if we could concentrate on those first two points here. There are other parts of the discussion where the other points can be addressed. Start a new thread if you like.

Here is one article on the hyphen. Here is an article that goes further, arguing for replacement with another term, but that's a minority view among anti-antisemites today.