The Jew Flu: The strange illness of Jewish anti-Semitism

[oberliner]

The 1930s Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson asked "Is there another People on Earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe?"

This is Jew Flu - the virus of Jewish Anti-Semitism, and its Jewish Anti- and Post-Zionist mutations, afflicting a small but inordinately loud minority of Hebrews.

Its modern symptoms are a rejection of Israel's identity as a Jewish state and a dismissal of its right to defend itself militarily, while embracing the goals of its nihilistic Arab enemies. Those infected with the virus wildly inflate Israeli sins real or imagined, while excusing or rationalizing Palestinian anti-semitism and outrages against Jews.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127159.html

[clear eye]

1. It's more constructive to stick to criticizing the message

and pay less attention to the psyche of the messenger. If someone has a double standard toward Israel and its actions in comparison with the actions of other people, why care so much about the speaker's background? I recommend figuring things out as well as you can, and stating as clearly as possible your analysis of right and wrong regarding the issue at hand. Everyone has a background that in part brings them to where they are. I remember an establishment psychologist back in the day calling anti- Vietnam War activists, "Oedipal nightmares" because so many of the leaders had prosperous, socially-respected, Conservative fathers. Kinda misses the point, doesn't it?

[shira]

13. you're right....but haters are true believers who can't be bothered with facts and reasoning

all that's left besides clear reasoning is to expose them for who they really are.

How do you debate with a closed minded religious fanatic? Answer that one and then you'll know how to handle the most hostile and irrational defamers of Israel.

[clear eye]

52. I don't bother w/ debating "a closed minded religious fanatic".

I only answer if I think something they wrote might have misinformed a reasonable person. Then my response is directed to the reasonable reader, to put the issue in a more constructive frame.

[shira]

63. it looks like you and I are on the same page then

[bstender]

80. testify

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection (or projection bias) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are ascribed to the outside world, like the weather, the government, a tool or another person or people.

--

[shira]

107. am I wrong about you? i don't think any amount of evidence would be enough to convince you

...that you're wrong about anything I/P related. Your emotional beliefs trump logic and reasoning. You'd rather believe in fiction and narratives over facts and reality.

You're "religious" so-to-speak, and I notice this kind of thinking especially among atheists who are ironically guilty of their own projection. Goldstone and HRW are beyond criticism, it's blasphemy to counter them on I/P...

Prove me wrong - when I bring up the facts, call me on them. When I substantively criticize Goldstone or HRW, feel free to refute me. WRT Goldstone, you replying that you'll stick with Goldstone's analysis (without responding to any of the substantive criticism) shows you're no better than any religious nut who can't be bothered by facts.

[bemildred]

2. This is drool.

Whatever islamists might be, they are not nihilists.

And this sentence is too fatuous for description:

"Is there another People on Earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe?"

That, Sir, is an anti-semitic statement.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Jew flu?

I think Uzi Silber is confusing a state for Jews for a theocracy.

[Ken Burch]

5. It's the kind of accuracy you'd expect from a guy named "UZI"

The gun can't shoot straignt. Neither can he.

[imdjh]

150. Needs to marry some Bennington girl named Thompson Mossburg and have a kid named Remington.

[Ken Burch]

4. The claim that Jews who oppose Zionism are "Jewish antisemites" is a disgusting slur

I'm neither Jewish nor an antizionist, but who is anyone to say that A Jewish person HAS to support the Zionist project or Israeli security policies to prove she or he isn't a "Jewish antisemite".

Those people are as Jewish as anyone else. They just reject either nationalism or the particular choices the Israeli government is making in the alleged name of self-defense.

This article is going to be nothing but emotional blackmail. Oberliner, who is normally a decent, thoughtful person, should be ashamed of himself for publishing such a disgusting slur.

[oberliner]

6. Ha'aretz published it - not me

The piece certainly reads like it was written by a Republican. Pretty surprised to have found it in Ha'aretz.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. It's clear Ken meant *posted*. What are yr motives for posting an article like that?

Just thought I'd ask you the same question you incessantly fire at others in this forum :)

[Ken Burch]

9. I did mean posted.

Why would oberliner link to an article like that.

I ASSUMED he would find views like that loathesome.

[oberliner]

10. People post a lot of items that others (or they themselves) find loathesome

Look at the two most recent posts made by poster ProgressiveMuslim for instance:

West Bank rabbi: Jews can kill Gentiles who threaten Israel

Study: Israeli employers prefer not to hire Arabs

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I didn't ask what yr opinion of others motives for posting was...

I asked what yr motivation was in posting the OP you did. Any chance you might actually answer the question yr asked?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. I will directly provide my reasons for posting what I post. Will you?

I find much of what goes in Israel vis-a-vis Arabs loathsome. Yet Israel is touted here as a shining democracy. In light of that view, I think it's reasonable to post articles (out of Haaretz no less) that challenge those assumptions. Those articles are important in understanding that there are range of views in Israel, and that many of them are violent and racist.

And the "Racism in the workplace" OP engendered some very interesting discussion, IMO.

Those are my reasons for posting those articles.

What are you reasons?

[oberliner]

20. Thanks for that

I posted the article because there are a lot of interesting discussions and disagreements regarding whether or not there is a component of anti-semitism present in some of the ways in which people talk about and are critical of Israeli policy and Zionism generally. Some folks have pointed to the fact that there are Jewish people who are at the forefront of such criticism, noting that it would be ridiculous to call them (or their criticism) anti-semitic. Others have stated that the very fact that someone is Jewish compels them to speak out about Israeli policies. Personally, I find the whole conversation to be quite fascinating and I enjoy reading and sharing different perspectives as a variety of people explore and reflect on these topics.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. The OP was not a very thoughtful exploration of that subject, unfortunately.

But I share your interest in that discussion. That's one of the reasons I love Phil Weiss' blog. It's a fascinating peek into that discussion.

[oberliner]

26. If one only reads things one agrees with one won't get very far

Is there anyone you could identify who has a view contrary to the one held by Mr. Weiss that you find to be a thoughtful exploration of the subject?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. C'mon Oberliner. Jew Flu?

Richard Witty, who posts on Phil's site, provides that view on a regular basis.

There is plenty of knee-jerk accusations of being a self-hating Jew. I guess those who level that accusation don't usually come off as thoughtful.

[oberliner]

28. It does rhyme

Although "Jew" is a pretty easy word to rhyme with.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. It is interesting to me

because that's how I think about certain Arabs and/or Muslims, like Irshad Manji and Bill Maher.

I feel it so vehemently, so I can imagine how people like Shira feel about Phil Weiss...

[oberliner]

31. Bill Maher is an Arab and/or Muslim?

I had no idea! Or am I thinking of the wrong Bill Maher?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. He HAS to be with that last name... but he doesn't recognize it.

I've written him about it, to no avail. ;)

[Jim Sagle]

55. You ARE kidding, I hope.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~maher/

[ProgressiveMuslim]

62. Interesting. Every Maher I know is an Arab!

No wonder he didn't answer my emails.

[Ken Burch]

122. It's a different pronounciation from the one the Scots and Irish use

But "Maher" has also been an Arab name.

Perhaps there was some pub crawl from Edinburgh to Damascus years and years ago that REALLY got friendly...

Or the first Arab "Maher" could've been the son of a Scottish or Irish conscript to the Crusades.

It's similar to how the Irish name "Costello" could have derived from the Spanish "Castillo", after some shipwrecked deserter from the Enterprise of England made himself at home with some coleen from Cork.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. You were technically correct in saying published....

Just thought I'd point that out, seeing as how Obie is such a stickler for detail. Anything we write that appears on the web has been published, just not in that old-fashioned paper publishing sense that Obie was using...

Having learnt from experience, I wouldn't make that same assumption you did :)

[Jim Sagle]

54. What would you call an Irishman who rants that Ireland has no right to exist as an

independent nation, and should be recolonized?

[Ken Burch]

61. An Ulster Unionist.

BTW, making Israel/Palestine a unitary state with a secular democracy and equal rights for all would NOT be "recolonization". It would be recolonization to propose reinstating the League of Nations Mandate.

BTW, Northern Ireland wouldn't be the best example to quote in favor of your position, given that Unionist and Republican factions are now in a power-sharing agreement in which both communities exist as equals, and in which almost all violence has ceased. To make it even more difficult for you, as the "Masterpiece Contemporary" program of a couple of weeks ago regarding the end of South African apartheid and the freeing of Nelson Mandela pointed out in its closing credits, the nonsectarian South African solution(as opposed to the apartheid state the Israeli government gave aid and comfort to in the 1970's and 1980's)influenced the Northern Irish peace process, and Sinn Fein is now advising Hamas on how to enter into a peace and power-sharing process with the Israelis.

The world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be, Sagle.

[Jim Sagle]

66. You're right, it would not be recolonization, it would be the destruction of an indigenous culture.

It would also be a fantasy.

[Ken Burch]

74. The Palestinians are also an indigenous culture.

And what would be a fantasy?

Arabs and Jews treating each other decently and as equal human beings?

It happened with Palestinians and the Mizrahi in Palestine prior to 1929.

I don't actually favor a unitary state at present, nobody's ready for it, but those who do are only guilty of having high standards for their fellow human beings. That's hardly evil.

[azurnoir]

7. It would appear the author of this piece

has his own form of Jew Flu and it appears to be an "auto-immune" disease

[shira]

11. sounds like Gilad Atzmon, Bobby Fisher, Israel Shahak, Phillip Weiss.....

and many, many more who are less subtle but spew the same thinly veiled antisemitic canards WRT the Jewish State (poisoning water, killing children, dark conspiracies, greedy, root of all problems, etc...).

i find it more insulting that the haters think themselves clever enough to lead others to believe they're mere "critics".

[LeftishBrit]

15. Speaking as someone ...

whom this author would probably regard as having at least 'a Jew cold', if not the full-blown 'Jew flu', I would like to say first of all that of course there are Jewish antisemites. Just as there are non-whites who side with white racists, anti-Arab Arabs, homophobic gays, anti-immigrant immigrants, and any number of anti-feminist women. The late Bobby Fischer was a noted example; so currently is Gilad Atzmon. As long as antisemitic myths still have roots in the world's culture (and that doesn't look like changing any time soon), some people, especially those who are inclined to seek scapegoats, are going to be antisemites. And some of these will even be Jews.

What is bothersome about this article is firstly that there is an assumption that Jews *have* to have a particular attitude to Israel; otherwise they are antisemites or influenced by such. The moderate, dovish Zionist critic of current Israeli policies; the left-wing antinationalist who opposes Zionism along with all nationalisms; and the conspiracy-theorist who thinks that Israel as a Jewish state is responsible for all the world's evils are all lumped together. It's like the right-wing equating the American dove who opposes the Iraq war with the anti-American supporter of terrorism. There is a valid concern about 'double standards', and certainly these exist at times - but these are sometimes seen where they don't exist; e.g. many British or American Jews who oppose hawkish policies by Israel are equally strong in opposing hawkish actions by our own countries.

Secondly, the author (and others like him) are IMO sailing pretty close to a form of antisemitism themselves. The idea that Jews have to conform to a certain viewpoint; or else they are traitors, or suffering from or spreading an infection (not just in this article but e.g. the Israeli politician who called 'Peace Now' a 'virus'), or that that their views have to be explained in terms of a pathology - it all comes across as singling out Jews for specific demands, and a very hostile reaction if we don't all meet these demands. If a Jewish critic of Israel said that Jewish supporters of AIPAC and of the current Israeli government were all suffering fron the 'Jew flu' - wouldn't this be regarded as a form of antisemitism? And this is the same in a way; it's just a *different* viewpoint that is being demanded of the 'good Jews', if they are not to be condemned as pathological. I knew that the tone of the article was reminding me strongly of something, and now I realize that it is some of the articles by Mondoweiss! Different specific viewpoint, same tone.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Do you really think that's the case

with Phil Weiss? HOnestly, I just don't see it. I see a lot of honest reckoning, and heartfelt questioning, but in no instance do I see hatred there.

I'd love for you to give an example of a post that has crossed that line. I am truly, genuinely curious.

[shira]

19. here's an example of pure hate by Phillip Weiss...let's see you try to argue otherwise

http://sadredearth.com/key-posts/feeling-the-rage-in-new-york/

this was so bad, Weiss decided to take it down....unfortunately for him, the screen was captured.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. I really could care less what you think about this or any other subject. My question was for LB. nt

[shira]

34. I thought you wanted to see a hateful post by Weiss' b/c you're "genuinely curious"

[bstender]

78. please explain what is so bad

It is a post about his turmoil over the ongoing atrocities committed by his own people. He shares his inner pain at being at odds with his fellow Jews over the issue of Israel barbarity and all you can say is that he is full of hate and treason for expressing his feelings. Yes he reveals that he feels hatred, what else can a feeling human being feel? But at the same time he is expressing his love for his own people, else he would have no conflict or sadness. Give him a break, he is just trying to work through it. It is not a small thing to stand in opposition to your own family, to be ridiculed by people you care for for the crime of expressing what you see with your own eyes.

How do you manage to look the other way?

[shira]

82. it's revealing that you see nothing wrong with that post - my advice is read it more carefully

after all, Weiss pulled that post within 24 hours.....there's good reason he did it, see if you're smart enough to figure it out.

and if not, I'll demonstrate for you in reverse (what Weiss' post would sound like) if it were about Arabs, not Jews.

[bstender]

85. reveal yourself

shira, it is no less revealing that you would characterize that post as you have, your method is slander. you spend an inordinate amount of time answering tough questions of Israeli actions by posting other peoples work, all of which rely heavily upon equivocation.

but please, in your own words, how does Weiss' post reveal his "pure hatred"?

[shira]

91. 4 examples to start with....let's see how you handle them

"The Hebrew sounds as bad in Miriam’s ear as German did back in the 50s, when people hated the Germans."

"Emily and I go out on West End Avenue, and a blonde mother goes by with two kids. I hear her talking Hebrew and I feel anger toward her. "

"she has an appointment with the legislative assistant to her congressman. His name sounds Jewish. I feel anger at him, and give her suggestions of what to say to the guy."

"A lot is going through my head. At the meeting, Jane said that one problem with our issue is that, Like it or not, it’s going to draw anti-Semites. They show up at lectures and talks. She’s right. I’ve met anti-Semites cloaked in their righteous criticism. I saw anti-Jewish hatred in Gaza, where they paint dustbins with the Star of David. I’ve felt that hatred of Israel myself. When you see the monstrosities of Gaza, you can’t help but feel hatred."

==========

imagine if hebrew were replaced with arabic - anger upon hearing people talking arabic - someone with an arab sounding name and feeling anger towards him based only on his name. A meeting drawing Arabphobics and Islamophobics and 'understanding' their hatred of all Arabs and Muslims.

[bstender]

96. shira, there is power in understanding

Shira, "4 examples to start with, let's see how you handle them" spoken with such drama and threat...

his post has the power to help you : Weiss was being honest, not anti-semitic. He is Jewish and he sees his own people committing heinous crimes against humanity and is sick over it. it could easily be any other race or religion committing heinous crimes against humanity making any person sick. it is not a mental disorder to feel revulsion against anything that reminds you of a strong negative in your life, it is perfectly normal and healthy.

what is also healthy is owning your demons, not trying to hide them, ignore them or pretending they are foreign parts of you.

now if he were to commit hate crimes against these innocents, we'd have a totally different situation, but in this piece, he is working through it in a constructive fashion. suppress a person's ability to express that rage in this fashion and you force expression into less constructive channels. that is just the facts of life, sorry.

in short, you are so extremely defensive that you consider this an especially outrageous sentiment for a human being to have and must silence it. you are not owning your own demons and will continue to try and keep your finger in the dam you've built for your own dark side until you can't hold it anymore at which point you will have a serious problem. it bears some resemblance to the whole Israel society at this point, desperately scrambling to put fingers in all of the leaks in this edifice to an ideal. (the real world is alive, ideals are dead. and so is Israel if they don't give it up)

[shira]

97. EPIC FAIL - you have one standard for Jews and another for every other ethnic group

There's no way you'd apologize for any other person with the same views about blacks or arabs.

That you accept his bile without batting an eyelash is incredible - imagine 'understanding' hate of all Muslims and Arabs based on events happening halfway around the world. Hating to hear Arabic or any Arab sounding name.

Think about that.

And Phillip Weiss' "honest" motivations are clear in the very last paragraph of his post. He doesn't want to settle grievances and work for peace. His goal is the collapse of the Jewish State - through deceitful means as in 2 states that will lead to the end of Israel - no different than the goals of Hamas - and the only way that will happen is through an AWFUL lot of death, destruction, and suffering.

[oberliner]

98. What are your thoughts on Brigitte Gabriel or Joseph Farah? nt

[shira]

99. oh, good question....should've thought of that one myself!

[bstender]

100. you don't understand my post?

i expected shira to miss the point but you're surprising me here. i thought i was clear, twice, but if you are serious, Weiss is not attempting to rationalize hatred, nor is he proud of it, nor is he selling the idea to others. he is merely confessing. nothing to see here.

[oberliner]

101. Maybe not

But I would argue that Weiss (who is Jewish) has made statements about Jews that are as distasteful as some of the statements the people I mentioned (who are Arabs) have made about Arabs. Do you disagree?

[bstender]

103. not surprised

can't say i follow any of them enough to comment on, but it wouldnt surprise me at all. anyone with a political point of view will offend a certain segment of the population.

[LeftishBrit]

29. An example...

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/liberals-like-to-deceive-themselves-about-jewish-power.html

Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power
by Philip Weiss on October 22, 2009 ·
Bernard Avishai...also said this lately about how the Israel lobby works, and I need to take him on:
the key to AIPAC’s emergence was a Manichean view from America; the fight against the Evil Empire, or since 9/11, the clash of civilizations. In this drama, Israel became cast as America’s biggest regional aircraft carrier.... .....

YOU CAN SAY that AIPAC was misguided, that it’s even become a pernicious force, but you can’t deny that it got its strategic premises ordered properly. One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want. One has to start with America’s foreign policy strategy and then apply its logic to the Middle East.


The error here is an important one. It is that American power is American power, and Jews are just bit players. The heart of the argument is that American support for Israel arises from American superpower interests as understood by "hardliners." Thus the statement, "One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want."
The reason it is important to take this argument on is that it is the now-traditional deception that liberals practice on themselves about American power politics: Jews are outsiders in American society. Liberals perform this self-deception because they do not want to be guilty of echoing "anti-Semitic tropes," as the saying goes, and they do not want to foster pogroms. I understand the concern.
The problem is that Avishai is flat wrong. And until liberals wrestle with the real phenomenon of Jewish power, their analysis of foreign policy will be limited and their action ineffective.
....

More on Jews in the Establishment: In the last week or so I typically found myself counting Jewish names in media broadcasts. Everyone from Ezra Klein commenting on Charlie Rose about the Congress to Andrew Ross Sorkin on Terry Gross yesterday, talking financial policy, to Brian Lehrer having on three different Jewish journalists today, and one of them, Nina Totenberg, kvelling about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. .... Because support for Israel is today a tenet of American Jewish identity construction– Ezra Klein’s criticism of the Gaza war being a heretical one inside Jewish life, Daniel Schorr’s Zionism being far more representative. And to think that that the Jewish presence in the media is not also a factor in the disastrous American foreign policy re the Middle East is not to think at all. Avishai’s analysis evades this issue.
The Israel lobby is powerful for a lot of reasons. Because it’s a special interest, and because it cares more than anyone else. But also because of the Jewish presence in the Establishment. It is a piece of heartwarming liberal nostalgia to put the blame for the settlements on big bad American hardliners. Like Chomsky talking about corporations–that’s how the world works.
But just consider America’s "foreign policy strategy," as Avishai puts it. In Iraq, that strategy has called for negotiations with terrorist groups who killed Americans so as to make a political solution, it has called for an end to the occupation of Iraq, and investigating atrocities by American troops. We suspend all those standards when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Why? In a word, because of American Jewish engagement on these issues. Failing to acknowledge this reality does not serve readers, not does it serve the necessary process of soul-searching inside the Jewish community over our responsibility for the denial of Palestinian freedom.



To me, this isn't very different from those who blame Islamophobia on Muslims not denouncing terrorism enough, or who accuse dovish Jews of antisemitism and 'a majority' in the Israeli media of being anti-Israel. In all cases, it crosses the line into bigotry IMO.


I do agree that *some* of his writings are 'honest reckoning, and heartfelt questioning' but some go beyond this IMO. As I said on another thread today, sometimes admitting that one has prejudices is the first step to controlling or overcoming them. But sometimes Mondoweiss seems simply to indulge and inflame his prejudices against Jews who disagree with him. As does the author of the piece in the OP.

[shaayecanaan]

33. 4% of the United States population is WASP

that is to say, of Anglican or Presbyterian background. They are a small minority.

18% of the US Congress is Anglican or Presbyterian.

75% of the 43 American Presidents were Anglican or Presbyterian or converts from same (eg George W Bush).

18% of Fortune 500 CEOs are Anglican or Presbyterian.

As a result of WASP domination amongst the business, cultural and political elite, the foreign policy of the US has traditionally favoured Britain to a very significant extent, even though demographically, Germans actually constitute the largest white ethnic constituency in the US.

Examples:-

1)US participation in both World War I and World War II were at various times decidedly unpopular. Prior to Pearl Harbour, 77% of the US population opposed any intervention in World War II.

The nature of American participation in the war, and in particular its emphasis on the European war as the first priority, even though Japan presented a much larger threat to the US, was the direct result of efforts by WASP politicians, particularly Roosevelt, who, whilst of Dutch extraction, was both an Anglican and an anglophile.

Even prior to the intervention, American actions such as its protection of allied shipping were critical to Britain's war effort, which was dependent on the US for 60% of its food imports.

2) The UKUSA intelligence community originally consisted of Britain. It was eventually extended to the other Anglo-Saxon nations. There was some reservation about Canada, given its large Francophone population. WASPs still tend to dominate the intelligence agencies in both countries.

3) Originally, the US was not particularly concerned at Saddam Hussein's intent to take over Kuwait. Saddam himself only embarked on the endeavour after receiving a "diagonal nod" from the American ambassador of the time. However, British oil producers such as BP with interests in the region were extremely upset, and it was their reaction (along with the Saudis) which more than anything prompted the US to take action.

My question is: do you find anything remotely contentious about any of the above?

[LeftishBrit]

47. No (to last question) but the difference is...

that WASPs are, or at least were until very recently, the people explicitly and formally in power in the USA. I believe that of 44 presidents, only two have not been WASPs (perhaps three if you consider Reagan as of Irish descent, but he was certainly Protestant himself). There have been lots of recent changes in this respect. For the first time in history, neither the president nor the vice president is a WASP (Biden being Catholic). The majority of the Supreme Court are now Catholics, rather than all being WASPs. But it is certainly the case that WASPs historically, and to some degree currently, have the formal power.

This is not the case for Jews. No Jew has ever been elected as president. Jews are still regarded by some groups as Not Quite One of Us. Therefore assertions of Jewish power are not just saying 'Jews are powerful'; they are saying at best 'Jews are powerful by 'pulling the strings' behind the scenes' and at worst 'Jews infiltrate the elites by somewhat furtive means, and their influence is baleful'.

Of course there are some places where Jews have power through sheer numbers; in New York and Florida they constitute a significant portion of the electorate. But not in most parts of the USA; nor, unlike the WASPs, do they have power through being a traditional ruling class. Thus, when excessive power is attributed to Jews, there are implied and direct accusations of furtiveness and deceit or at the very least self deceit.

Your example about the WASPs would be more akin to the statement that in Israel, Ashkenazi Jews are a minority group (though a large one) and have power disproportionate to their numbers. As with the WASPs, this reflects traditional class distinctions: e.g. on the whole, it was Ashkenazi Jews who came over on the Israeli equivalents of the 'Mayflower'. But it's a very different matter with regard to American and other Diaspora Jews.

I should add that even with regard to WASPs the point can be and has at times been reached where power is unjustly attributed to evil furtive conspiracies: e.g. the Larouchies' allegations that 'the Queen of England controls the Federal Reserve', etc. However, it is much less common for WASPs than for Jews.

[shaayecanaan]

58. You're misinterpreting "WASP"...

Eisenhower was not a WASP, Nixon wasnt (Quaker background I think), neither was Hoover, nor Clinton, who grew up poor. They might have been white protestants but they weren't Anglo Saxon protestants. I don't think you'd find many Quakers at the Colony Club.

Jews are over-represented in Congress to roughly the same extent that WASPs are (roughly 5:1). They are somewhat more over-represented in the executive management ranks of Fortune 500 companies than WASPs. True, there were no Jewish presidents, and there are a couple of other bastions where the WASPs still monopolise, but not many. My observation of American Jews is that they often mythologise WASP power in the same way that Jewish power is often mythologised, for example, the Skull and Bones society tends to hold mythic proportions in the minds of many Jews.

Catholics, Methodists, and so forth hold sway in Congress more or less in proportion to their numbers:-

http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

The upshot of this is that the disproportionately high influence of Jews and WASPs comes at the expense of the disproportionately low influence mainly of Blacks and Latinos. This is quite simple and unavoidable fact. A Congress that is truly representative will have to have less WASPs and less Jews. To the extent that Latinos and Blacks resent this, I consider that their resentment has a fundamentally sound basis.

Personally, I think the WASPocracy in America is not good for a functioning democracy. It smacks of inequality. It results in a class of people controlling significant wealth simply through inheritance. It goes against meritocracy.

There are good points about mercantile minorities as well. They supply capital. They tend to be a force for stability.

But I think it is silly to pretend that one mercantile minority represents a malign force and the other is totally benign. I think that is the point that Weiss is making.

[oberliner]

65. You have absolutely no idea what a WASP is

This has got to be one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen from you and that is saying a lot.

This well-sourced Wikipedia entry may be a good starting point for you:

In modern North American usage, WASP may include Protestants, from English, Dutch, German, Huguenot (French Protestant), Scandinavian, Scottish, Swiss, Scots Irish, Irish and Welsh backgrounds, as well as persons of Irish Catholic ancestry who assimilated into Protestant religious traditions.<4> Therefore, the term WASP is sometimes applied to individuals who are technically non-Anglo-Saxons, including people with:

* Dutch descent, such as the Vanderbilt and Roosevelt families
* German descent, such as the Rockefeller, Heinz, Astor families.<5>
* French descent, such as the Du Pont family.
* Scottish descent, such as the Carnegie and Getty families.
* Swiss descent, such as the Buckley family.
* Scots-Irish descent, such as the Mellon family.
* Welsh descent, such as the Morgan family.
* Scandinavian descent such as the Hilton family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant

And, more succinctly:

To many people, WASP now include most 'white' people who are not... members of any minority group.

[shaayecanaan]

70. I was referring to "WASP" in the sense of its original meaning...

which the article references - the meaning that Salzell attributed to it when he coined the term in his book "The Protestant Establishment".

That is to say, old-money, Anglican/Presbyterian, predominantly Anglo-Saxon Northeastern WASPs.

Whilst the Roosevelts were Dutch, they were also Anglican. The same is true for many of the other families.

I think it was Roosevelt that once said that the Anglican church was the Republican party at prayer. To a large extent this is still true. George Bush was raised Anglican, so was John McCain.

I am aware that the Anglican church in America is usually called the Episcopalian church, so perhaps the nomenclature confuses you.

I am also aware that the term has taken on a wider meaning quite distinct from that which Salzell attributed to it, that is to say any generic white person, whether or not they are rich, Anglo Saxon, or even Catholic.

Nevertheless, the original meaning still has wide currency. For example, Jamie Johnson usually writes on WASP issues for Vanity Fair. You can read one of his articles here, but there are quite a few of them:-

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/04/the-decline-of.html

[oberliner]

72. Gotcha

I think, though, that your point is muddled by the fact that most folks do not hold to that particular definition of "WASP" at the present time in my opinion.

[shaayecanaan]

86. I think I flagged it sufficiently clearly...

for people to know I was referring to the old WASP establishment.

There is an article on frontpagemag, generally a fairly limp, bile-filled online rag but this article on the WASPs is pretty much accurate:-

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19715

For those of you whose sense of American social history is blurry, the WASP establishment was the world of the Ivy League, Fifth Avenue, gentlemen’s clubs, the Social Register, elite country clubs, top New York law firms and investment banks, Boston Brahmins, Main Line Philadelphia, the upper management of great corporations like the Pennsylvania Railroad, certain parts of the military, the OSS and its successor the CIA, the Episcopal Church, New England boarding schools, and the old diplomatic corps. It ruled America from Plymouth Rock until the late 1960’s.

and

The spiritual basis of WASP society, the Episcopal Church, was corrupted from within. Religious modernists started taking over the seminaries in the 1930's, resulting today in the terror-apologizing near-atheist Episcopal Bishop John Spong today and anti-Christian, anti-American Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. Even among Episcopal bishops who do not express disdain for traditional Christian beliefs, there is a cold, alienated, intellectualized approach to central matters of faith.

In any event, perhaps it would do well to check these things before claiming that someone has "no idea" what they are talking about.

[Jim Sagle]

56. Only 4%? Hogwash.

[shaayecanaan]

59. Anglicans and Presbyterians constitute 4% of the US population collectively (nt)

[Jim Sagle]

67. An definition too narrow by half.

[shaayecanaan]

68. 52% of US presidents were Anglican or Presbyterian

so apparently the distinction is meaningful.

[shaayecanaan]

71. And that doesnt include presidents like GWB

who were of Anglican background but converted out.

[shira]

17. where does the author lump dovish zionist critics and antinationalists with the Mondoweiss crew?

[LeftishBrit]

21. For example, in the sentence where he equates a religious anti-Zionist like Boyarim and someone like

Avram Burg, not just with 'the Mondoweiss crew' but with Ahmadinejad!

Also his comment: "As author Aharon Meged lamented in 1994, there existed "an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel's intelligentsia, and its print and electronic media, with people committed to our annihilation.""

The majority? There has *never* been a time when a *majority* of Israel's intelligentsia and media were even anti-Zionist, let alone antisemitic. And this can easily be demonstrated by looking at old issues of Ha'aretz, let alone more conservative newspapers. The term 'majority' can only be used here if all left-wing or dovish views are being lumped in with real opposition to the State of Israel. (Actually I'm not even sure if a clear 'majority' of Israel's media was ever even left-wing or dovish!)

[shira]

35. looked to me like the author was describing Carlo Strenger's SLES

[LeftishBrit]

36. I suspect that the author - and certainly Megged, whom he quotes approvingly..

would regard Strenger himself as suffering from the 'Jew flu'.

[Tripmann]

22. What a ridiculous sentence....

"Is there another People on Earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe?"

Complete crap. And the article is a further attempt to supress criticism of Israeli policy from within. No better than calling the people who objected to Bushes policy 'unpatriotic' and no less transparent.

[oberliner]

23. Criticism of Israeli policy is not supressed

Do you read Ha'aretz at all?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Yet again yr misreading what the poster yr replying to actually said...

They didn't say that Israeli policy is suppressed. What they said was the article you posted was an attempt to suppress criticism of Israeli policy. It really is quite ridiculous for anyone to pretend that there aren't people who do try to suppress criticism of Israeli policy...

[shira]

38. what's being suppressed is Hamas' incitement to genocide, using Palestinians as shields, etc..

not that it matters to many so-called 'enlightened' progressives.

[Tripmann]

39. Y'know shira,

it IS possible to make a comment about Israel without it having anything to do with Hamas. In relation to my example your comment is similar to screaming 'al quaida', '9/11 changed everything' etc to somebody for criticising bush doctrine.

My comment relates to israelis suipressing commentary from other israelis, no matter how much you wish it to be about hamas.

[oberliner]

40. But do you really believe they are suppressed?

I think the debate and commentary among Israelis (and in the Israeli media) flies fast and furious.

Even if the anti-semitism charge is made, it rarely has prevented or suppressed continued critical commentary from those who are so charged. In fact, some seem to wear that charge as a badge of honor.

Has your experience proven otherwise?

[Tripmann]

41. No

But only a fool would think that there are not active attempts to supress criticism of Israeli government policy. Calling somebody an anti-semite for criticising israeli government policy is akin to calling somebody unamerican for criticising bush doctrine. This is my point.

There cannot be a double standard where we were disgusted at the medias refusal to question the whitehouse pre-iraq invasion for fear of being labelled unpatriotic etc. , but consider Israelis questioning Israels actions to be anti-semites.

[oberliner]

42. I don't think the author of the piece was an Israeli

I am pretty sure he was an American, for what that is worth.

[Tripmann]

43. Fair enough,

then I'll extend my point to encompass ANY criticism of Israeli policy by ANYBODY. Look at the example of UN high commisoner for human rights Mary Robinson. The woman has an impeccable record and is a genuinely good person. First criticism of Isreal and the dogs were unleashed.

We don't even have to look that far afield. Even on this board anybody with two eyes and an ounce of compassion who questions Israels actions is treated like a hamas-loving anti-semite nazi POS. And thats on a democrat leaning site.

[oberliner]

44. Here's my argument - take it as you will

My argument is this:

Yes, there are people who go on the attack against those who criticize Israel in a way that they deem to be unfair and in their view possibly tinged with some degree of anti-semitism.

However, I do not feel that those attacks do anything to silence or suppress those outspoken people. Each of them, it seems, continue to voice their criticisms in spite of whatever dogs are unleashed upon them.

[Tripmann]

45. Understood

You're for the attempted supression of free speech, because the 10% of 'outspoken' people who still criticise israel in that environment are proof that the 90% of people too afraid to do the same in that environment are not being supressed.

Guess its only wrong when its republicans doing it.

[LeftishBrit]

46. I don't think that was the point at all

The point is that criticizing what someone says is *not* the same as suppressing it. In a way, that's exactly the same sort of argument as calling all criticism of Israel 'antisemitism'. How does telling someone who disagrees with you on the extent to which free speech is being suppressed, "You're for the attempted suppression of free speech" differ morally or logically from telling someone who disagrees with you on Israel, "You are motivated by antisemitism"?

People on all sides of the debate criticize those on other sides of the debate. Sometimes the criticisms are justified. Sometimes they are silly. Sometimes they border on a form of emotional blackmail. But none of this is the same thing as 'suppression of free speech'.

Personally, when pro-Israel people try to tell me what Jews ought to think about Israel, and imply that I'm antisemitic or suffering from the 'Jew flu' if I think differently, it has the effect of making me just that bit *less* pro-Israel than before. Rah-rah-rah tribal sentiments, and especially demands that I should share them, tend to have that effect on me, whether with regard to Israel or Britain or anywhere. Then I become a little more pro-Israel again whenever I read passages that imply that Jews are not to be fully trusted as loyal citizens, or that Jews or Israel are responsible for other countries' wars and other misdemeanors. Such sentiments remind me of why some sort of Jewish homeland is still necessary.

Perhaps my reactions are reasonable; perhaps they are passive-aggressive. At any rate, these are my reactions, and they are generally in the opposite direction of what the shriller advocates on either side would like or expect. Thus, far from 'suppressing' me, they are having the reverse effect. I suspect the same is true of quite a few other people!

[Tripmann]

48. You're missing the point

The attempt is part of creating a climate where moderate people of conscience won't discuss the issue. I'm the same as yourself leftishbrit, I'll keep speaking. But I'm not a news network, reporter, or average joe. I'm not a person that AIPAC or CAMARA will paint a target on for the rest of their career.

To give you an example, my first post here in the I/P forum was criticising Israel about OCL. Somebody (I'm sure you can guess who) immediately posted "Oh, you're one of those are you?" (I'm sure you can guess who). Reasonable discussion was thereafter derailed, thread hijacked, the usual. And I've seen it happen on many threads here where ordinary board members come along and criticise Israel. The focus turns to the poster. The attempt is made to suppress the debate. Now, there are people who would come into I/P for the first time, post their feelings, see that reply, and hesitate to post anything else.

All I'm saying is the article furthers the ATTEMPT to supress criticism of Israel. Now, if you think that articles like this will not make it less likely that the average israeli who objcts to their governments actions will speak out for fear of being called an anti-semite with 'jew-flu' thats fair enough. But I think we know it will, and thats where my problem is.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I've seen attempts to stifle criticism of Israel done by people in this forum...

So I'm not sure why Oberliner is continuing to pretend that it doesn't happen. And ftr I'm not talking bout times when people get called names for criticising Israel, I'm talking about times where there's been demands for Skinner to close this forum and ban discussion of the conflict at DU...

[Jim Sagle]

57. I'm in no position to demand anything, but I do urge I/P to be shitcanned ASAP.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Thanks for proving Oberliner wrong n/t

[Jim Sagle]

87. The refutation of the decade.

:boring:

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Yeah, you crashed and burned the same way you always do when yr trolling this forum n/t

[Jim Sagle]

89. Have another beer.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Only Americans drink that shit n/t

[Ken Burch]

75. Because you want it to be impossible to criticize the Israeli government on DU

And even though you know Palestinians never deserved to be punished for the European crime of antisemitism.

[Jim Sagle]

76. Simplistic summaries lead to faulty conclusions.

And besides, this folder ain't nuthin' but shit.

[Ken Burch]

102. And "this folder ain't nuthin' but shit" ISN'T a simplistic summary?

What's the harm of having a real debate on I/P issues?

And, if you got rid of this forum, would you favor instead allowing I/P issues in GD or GD:P with no more restrictions than any other issue discussions?

Or are you just pro-censorship?

BTW, your "Criticizing the Israeli government in public=disloyalty" line is losing among American Jews. You are in a shrinking Likudnik minority.

[Jim Sagle]

104. I think I/P has the potential to smash the Democratic party. It happened once before.

[Ken Burch]

111. Simply discussing the I/P issue could smash the party?

What the hell are you saying? We have to obey AIPAC or have another Republican Ascendancy?

You're out of touch with reality. America, and American Jews, are rejecting the Likudnik/AIPAC status quo. Nobody but you still accepts the line that open criticism of Israeli security policy equals antisemitism.

How is barring discussion of I/P issues going to be good for ANYTHING progressive?

Face facts. You and Bibi are losing the argument.

[Jim Sagle]

117. Of course "simply discussitng" would do no great harm to the Democrats..

Using it as a club to split the party open as Jimmy Carter did, would do much damage.

[Ken Burch]

121. Nobody's trying to split the party

BTW, the "split the party" argument was also used to make the case for not doing anything meaningful about Civil Rights. Would you have said "don't split the party" then?

The way to avoid having it be a party splitter is for those on the "pro-Israeli"(actually, pro-Israeli government infallibility, as many who disagree with them are also pro-Israel in the sense of wanting the country to go on existing)to stop demonizing those who disagree, and to actually debate rather than use verbal acuity to silence the discussion.

It's not asking too much to expect those people to accept that those who disagree with them are not evil and do not do so with diabolical intent.

[shaayecanaan]

115. I doubt it...

Its not really a bread and butter issue for most people, and therefore poses very little risk of "smashing" the Democratic party.

My guess is it will probably be overtaken by events on the ground. Most likely the spiraling debt of the US government will at some time require it to scale back its military bases overseas and probably revise the extent of its support to Israel.

[Ken Burch]

145. Because you know Israel is wrong and you can't tolerate people pointing it out

You KNOW the Occupation is wrong. You KNOW the settlements are wrong. You KNOW the water theft is wrong. You know the destruction of the olive groves is wrong. You want to silence the truth.

Why don't you do the moral thing and call on the Israeli government to stop persecuting Palestinians?

[oberliner]

49. In this case, you are the one suppressing free speech

You appear to have completely misunderstood my point so I will attempt to clarify.

I support free speech. I think anyone who wants to criticize Israel has the right to do so. I also think anyone who wants to point out what they perceive to be an anti-semitic remark is free to do so as well.

You, apparently, do not believe that people have that right, and, thus, appear to be supporting the suppression of free speech.

My position is the opposite. If I make a comment that someone perceives as being anti-semitic or anti-anything, I believe they have the right to call me out on it, and I have the right to explain why I think they are full of it.

[Tripmann]

51. So then....

You support the bought and paid for 'town hallers' who called every republican who saw Obamas healthcare plan as anything less than the work of satan "RINO"? How many more republican congresspeople who wanted to help the poor in their district might have spoken out only for fear of the political and financial machine ready to crush their careers being all over the media shouting them down?

You must also support the o'reilly factor sending the little turd with the microphone to harass every congressperson and celebrity that calls out the republicans or fox for their bullshit.

See, thats how it works. You support enough people in their right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre, all of a sudden ordinary people don't go there anymore for fear of being trampled to death.

Be it newspaper articles, television or on discussion boards it works like advertising. Enough stories, enough seeds planted in the subconsious and all of a sudden you hesitate for fear of being labelled unfairly or being damaged in you career. We all saw it pre-iraq.

[oberliner]

53. I absolutely support those people's rights to say those things

I support the right of O'Reilly's "little turd" to ask stupid questions to a congressperson as much as I support Michael Moore's right to do so.

It seems that if you had your way, we would not have films like Roger and Me or Fahrenheit 9/11.

[pelsar]

92. would you send me the political test?

you've made it clear. a political view you don't like should not have the ability to access the media because it might convince others to agree with their point of view....

let me guess....this only works for views that you disagree with, views that you agree with should have full access to the media......


have you devised the proper political test to give me access to the internet so that i may put my views out? and if my views change in time, to whom shall i report to?

[LeftishBrit]

94. But you can't have it both ways...

you seem to be implying that people with the 'wrong' views should be suppressed, or they will suppress those with the 'right' views.

Isn't it better in the long run if everyone is able to express their views? E.g. 'town hallers' should have the right to demonstrate, but so should left wingers. The problem at the moment seems to be that the right (perhaps because on the whole they are more supported by rich funders) have *more* media outlets than the left. One should increase free speech for the left, rather than suppressing it for the right. And no one could hate the real right wing more than I do; but we cannot defeat them by becoming like them.

[Ken Burch]

146. Most "pro-Israel" people here don't do accusations of "antisemitism" out of sincere belief

That what they're labelling as such here in I/P actually fits that description. They know they honestly can't.

They know that nothing posted in this forum is an attack on "Jews" as a group.

They know that nothing advocated in this forum would actually harm anyone who is Jewish.

They know that criticism of the Israeli government is not an attack on Jews and doesn't endanger Jews.

They know that neither American progressives nor Palestinians are anything like Nazis or Klansmen.

They use the accusation as emotional blackmail, and as a bludgeon against dissent. They know(and you are an exception to this, so don't take it personally)that they are lying when they make the accusation or even the insinuation.

Those who criticize the Occupation in this forum are the people who, in the 1930's, would've been warning the world about Hitler when the "mainstream" was still calling him a "bulwark against communism". We are the defenders of oppressed people, including Jews in the times when they were oppressed(and Israel in the present day can never be considered such a place, nor can Palestinians be considered oppressors).

All we are guilty of is rejecting the idea that, because one group suffered in the PAST, a state claiming to act in the name of that group now has the right to oppress another group that was not responsible for the oppression in question.

[oberliner]

147. False statements

Some of your statements are true but this one is definitely false:

"They know that nothing posted in this forum is an attack on "Jews" as a group."

You can ask the moderators about things posted in this forum that they have had to delete for that very reason

[Ken Burch]

148. OK, nothing that wasn't denounced by the prohibitive majority of pro-Palestinian posters then.

Genuine antisemitism, on the rare occasions it's appeared here, was immediately attacked with unanimity or essential unanimity by those who back Palestinian self-determination.

[shira]

60. just pointing out the a few things

1. criticism of Israel isn't being suppressed at all....the problem is demonization of Israel or irrational criticism of Israel (which is being challenged, not suppressed).
2. Hamas crimes (against Palestinians) are being ignored or minimized.

my advice to the critics of Israel is to not be human rights hypocrites.

if you're really interested in Palestinian human rights, and this is the reason why you persist in 'criticizing' Israel, at least be consistent and stand up for Palestinian HR when they are violated to a far worse extent by Hamas.

[shira]

64. in addition, I don't have problems with rational critics of Israel

There are several critics here who don't cross the line into irrational demonization...others are columnists for Haaretz like Carlo Strenger and Aluf Benn. All critics of Israel. Whether I agree or disagree with them is irrelevant, they don't cross the line. I have my own criticisms of Israel but in a forum like this, I'd rather not add fuel to the fire.

I have no problem with sincere critics of Israel.

======

Put yourself in my shoes...if you had to put up with people who often demonized Palestinians and Arabs it wouldn't matter whether they sometimes brought up legitimate criticism - their credibility is zero and their 'concerns' are hardly worth addressing.

It's difficult to focus on the legit criticism without first dealing with the OTT demonization and hypocrisy, don't you think?

[Tripmann]

73. Well then I hope you can accept the irony of your response earlier

The thread is about israelis attempting to supress criticism of israeli policy. Straight away you weigh in with "What about hamas supressing...."

Wash rinse repeat. What has Hamas got to do with it? Its a nice little canard though to derail the discussion.

And my point was....Lets talk about whether Iraq us a threat. Noun + Verb + 9/11 or al quaida. Wash rinse repeat.

And the subect never gets discussed properly. This thread is another shining example.

"It's difficult to focus on the legit criticism without first dealing with the OTT demonization and hypocrisy, don't you think?"

Not really. We can discuss israeli matters without having to deconstruct the whole I/P conflict on every fucking thread. It is noteworthy, however, how often thrash pieves such as this is posted from an Israeli news paper about israeli matters and all of a sudden its hamas, hamas, hamas.

Its rethug 101 and it stinks.

[shira]

77. pay attention to the detail

1. No matter what some Israelis try to do, Israeli society has the most freedom of speech and dissent - perhaps in the entire world. I challenge you to provide a country that is as self-critical in its own press as Israel. So it doesn't matter what some Israelis would like. That's not going to change.

2. I think you and I would both love to see demonization of others dealt with in some effective way. Just as I don't have an issue with people calling others out for their Islamophobic viewpoints, neither should you have a problem calling out antisemitism. It's disingenuous to mix up legit criticism with demonization, don't you think?

3. Hamas doesn't allow freedom of dissent or speech in Gaza. What's worse than their suppression of criticism is that 'Goldstoners' also cover for them and allow Hamas to successfully suppress all legitimate criticism of Hamas policy, which adversely affects Palestinians in Gaza whose HR are abused by Hamas. Ergo, my post above.

======

What's ironic is that some people here pretend that Israelis who have problems with demonization are worth criticizing for their issues with antisemitic demonization while Hamas (which tries to suppress any and all criticism and is allowed to successfully get away with it) is not worth criticizing nearly as much.

Just pointing that out.

[bstender]

79. shira says: "incitement to genocide"

wow

[shira]

81. that's right and here's proof that was submitted to Goldstone in July

http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3663&q=1

[bstender]

83. proof?

this one proves to me that hasbara is in panic mode.

[shira]

84. yes, how do you manage to look the other way?

[LeftishBrit]

93. It is not 'proof'; it is an opinion piece.

I don't think anyone's free speech should be suppressed; but I also don't think that opinions constitute 'proof'.

And here is my problem with some of your sources, including this one:

As you yourself say:

'Put yourself in my shoes...if you had to put up with people who often demonized Palestinians and Arabs it wouldn't matter whether they sometimes brought up legitimate criticism - their credibility is zero and their 'concerns' are hardly worth addressing.'


Quite. This is EXACTLY my objection to the use of right-wing sources as justifications. Some demonize Palestinians and Arabs; and some (usually different ones) demonize Jews; and some demonize Europaeans and/or immigrants in Europe; and even those who demonize no national/ethnic group want things for the world that IMO are extremely damaging (e.g. harshness toward poor people; support for jingoism and 'toughness'). If 'I have to put up with people who promote harsh and militaristic views , or who demonize ANY ethnic group.., it wouldn't matter if they sometimes brought up legitimate criticism - their credibility is zero.' And their criticisms could be correct at times - but I would never regard a right-winger as a legitimate source of opinion or argument, and would always need independent evidence. They have the right to free speech, but I have the right to dismiss their views as invalid because they are embedded in a nasty and dangerous agenda.


In the case of this particular writer, I am suspicious of his viewpoint in part because he does demonize the 'enemy':

'The conflicts in the Mideast are not between “Israelis and Palestinians” or “Jews and Arabs”, but between those who stand for life and respect for life and human dignity against the cults of death, hate, and terror which are now convulsing so much of the Muslim world.'

This is implying that all conflicts in the Middle East are between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys: a simplistic view and one which justifes any attack on 'the enemy'.

And then there is the G-word:

'The State of Israel attacked Gaza to remove the threat of genocidal terror-more than 8000 rocket, mortar and missile attacks over a period of 8 years-at first against Shderot-a city of 20,000, and then, directed against 1 million of its inhabitants'


Terrorism is wrong and wicked and murderous; but the rocket attacks on Israel are hardly 'genocide'. Just as war is wrong and wicked and murderous, but rarely genocide. Neither side is practicing genocide, as shown by the fact that the populations of both Israel and Palestine have *increased* rather than the reverse.

[shira]

95. Iran and Hamas' frequent rhetorical threats are fact, as are their deliberate attacks on civilians

That Hezbollah and Hamas (via Iran) lack the means (though they try with what they have) to carry through on their genocidal threats doesn't get them off the hook WRT the UN convention on genocide. IMO, the author doesn't demonize Arabs or Palestinians at all....he is distinguishing them from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian leadership, Taliban, other Islamist Jihadis, etc. The common people aren't the enemy. Where's the demonization?

And what do you consider "rightwing" sources?

Are the ones you're thinking of really any worse than HRW, AI, and Goldstone on the topic of Israel? If the Goldstone Report isn't demonization, then what is? Same goes for the most recent "water report" from AI.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x293581#293593

Seems what AI is reporting isn't fact, but a twisted narrative (like Goldstone). Agreed?

If those are "leftwing" sources that demonize, how are they really any better than "rightwing" sources WRT the Arab-Israel conflict? Let's be consistent here, okay?

============

Do you take "Counterpunch" seriously?

How about Ben White?

Then there's Seth Freedman...
http://cifwatch.com/2009/11/14/almost-there-seth/

That was written by "IsraeliNurse" and she considers herself far-left in Israel...

I’m not a religious person by any means, and I count myself as a socialist, very much on the far Left of the Israeli political map, but I absolutely deplore the witch hunt instigated by the Israeli Left and backed up by others abroad...

http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/a-comment-from-israeli-nurse-which-merits-its-own-missive/

============

So which "left" are we really referring to, LB?

[LeftishBrit]

105. I am not saying that you cannot use any site you want; I just don't regard 'opinion' as 'proof'

E.g. I like Bradley Burston's writings and tend to agree with him on a lot of issues, but I would not say that the fact that he thinks something is 'proof' of it.

I think that you sweep a lot of people and groups into one category that I would consider poles apart. I think there is a big difference between Seth Freedman and Ben White, and an even bigger difference between Amnesty International and Counterpunch. I certainly do not take Counterpunch seriously, and do not consider it to be consistently left-wing. (I don't think, however, that we will ever agree on the acceptability of certain sites, though we will certainly agree on the unacceptability of a few.)

I consider sources to be right-wing if:

they endorse, or approve people who do endorse, right-wing parties like the Tories, Republicans or Likud - or Hamas.

if they support the Iraq war, or the 'war on terror' as currently practiced

if they support right-wing economic policies

if they dismiss Europe because of its welfare state, or claim that Britain or other Europaean countries are allowing themselves to be overrun by immigrants of undesirable cultural backgrounds

if they demonize Jews, Muslims or any other ethnic group

etc.

(Note that *any* of these will make a source right-wing in my view; they do not need to do *all* these things for me to consider them as right-wing.)

There are plenty of such sources on ALL sides of I/P.

I should add that my objection to right-wing sources being treated as valid is not remotely restricted to I/P issues and in fact most frequently comes up when opponents of some or all vaccinations justify their views by using right-libertarian sites that oppose all government involvement in health care.

In any case, my main objection here is to the use of the term 'genocide' to refer to *either* side of the I/P conflict- unless you are prepared to regard all war as genocide, and e.g. our actions in Iraq in this category: a lot more Iraqi civilians than either Israelis or Palestinians have been slaughtered! The term just creates heat, and *is* a form of demonization - whichever side it is applied to.

ETA: What worried me about the earlier quotation was not that I thought that Richter was necessarily demonizing the 'common people', but that he was implying that there is one group that is the Good Guys, and another that is the Bad Guys, and deserves anything that it gets. After all, not all supporters of terrorism against Israel are explicitly against ordinary Jews - many claim to be 'only against Zionists, not Jews'. But ordinary Arabs and ordinary Jews do end up as the ones who die.

In that quotation, the view was more implicit than explicit, but Richter expresses his views more explicitly in an 'Open Letter to Senator George Mitchell', on israelseen.com

'Like many who have thought long and hard about the troubles in our region, I have concluded that we have to stop talking about “the peace process”–a nebulous term, and use something more binding: respect for life, live and let live and human dignity for all. The “peace process” has resulted in thousands of Israeli and Palestinian dead..

As much as I respect your commitment to mediating the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, or more accurately, much of the Islamic world, I believe your model of “conflict resolution” -(i.e.”all conflicts can be between Israel and the Palestinians can be solved”) is no longer relevant to the region. This conflict is now being driven and overshadowed by the asymmetrically existential threats to Israel posed by Iran’s race to nuclear capacity, its leaders’ crude and explicit incitement to genocide and hate language, and their support for genocidal terror, and more. As we know from the Rwandan genocide, hate language and incitement by leaders is a predictor, initiator, catalyst and promoter of genocide. Iran, with its nuclear enrichment and missile development system, poses a far greater potential threat than that of the Rwandan genocidaires. It is now the epicenter of a global axis of genocide and genocidal terror, together with Sudan, North Korea, Hamas and Hizbulloh, Venezuela, and an array of enablers, allies of convenience, and protectors.'

Thus, he seems to see the world in terms of the good people vs an 'axis of evil', very much in the way that Bush and the 'Coalition of the Willing' did. He groups together all kinds of places that really have little to do with each other, except that they are seen as bad; e.g. there is really little connection between Iran and North Korea, or between Venezuela and Sudan, and treating them all as 'a global axis of genocide' *is* a form of demonization; and also trivializes the only real genocide in any of the countries concerned, Sudan.

[shira]

106. genocide begins w/ incitement & threats

under the Genocide Convention act, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas are guilty. Not only do they use this language of incitement, they actively work at deliberately targetting civilian populations (Hamas had 1 million Israelis within rocket range during OCL). That they don't have the means to target or kill more doesn't minimize their crime.

The Genocide Convention charter specifically prohibits "direct and public incitement to genocide".

There can be no mistake about it: Iran has already committed the crime of incitement prohibited under the Genocide Convention.

Canada should lead the international community in paying heed to the precursors of genocide in Ahmadinejad’s Iran, and in acting now as mandated under the Genocide Convention. Indeed, as one involved as Minister of Justice in the prosecution of Rwandan incitement, I can state that the aggregate of precursors of incitement in the Iranian case are more threatening than were those in the Rwandan one.

The threat of genocide should not be disconnected from the nuclear issue, let alone ignored. It is the terrifying and vilifying context in which the nuclear threat operates, and the Genocide Convention, together with international legal instruments such as the Treaty for an International Criminal Court – which also directly prohibits the public incitement to genocide – and the UN Charter, authorize a panoply of international legal remedies which Canada could invoke.

Specifically, an application to hold Iran – also a state party – to account should be submitted to the UN Security Council pursuant to Article 8 of the Genocide Convention; an inter-state complaint can be launched against Iran before the International Court of Justice; and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should be asked to refer the danger of a genocidal and nuclear Iran to the Security Council as a threat to international peace and security.

Given their genocidal incitement, the cases of President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders can be referred to other UN agencies as well. What is so astonishing is that this criminal incitement by a nuclear weapon-seeking Iran has yet to be addressed by any agency of the UN—thereby nurturing a culture of impunity that itself is driving a culture of hatred. And what is no less disturbing – considering that indifference and inaction are also what made prior genocides possible – is that no state party has invoked any of these mandated initiatives.

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/ahm/

[LeftishBrit]

108. But incitement and threats do not *equal *genocide...

or there would be far more genocides than there are.

This is not just a verbal quibble: real genocide is one of the few things that can justify violent military action, and thus when the term is used it implies that it would be justifiable to attack Iran, or to attack Israel, etc. Thus, it is a form of 'incitement' in itself.

EngageOnline is one source that I do consider good, but I disagree with the conclusion here. I think that Ahmadinejad is a far-right theocratic basically-fascist bastard. I don't think, however, that he is guilty of genocide.

[shira]

109. but that incitement is illegal under INT'L law and has been the impetus of many attacks against

...Israeli citizens over the years by Hamas and Hezbullah (both armed by Iran who also incites towards genocide). You realize how bad things are on Hamas/Iranian and Hezbollah owned media?

Isn't it about time that HR organizations and the UN dealt with and prosecuted this once and for all, rather than ignore it, wait again for Israel to react to violence based on that incitement, and then point a finger only at Israel for acting in self-defense?

How does ignoring and failing to prosecute this state-sanctioned incitement further the cause of peace and HR? Think about the children, half of Gaza's population being brainwashed by this sick and hateful bigoted trash. That's child abuse at the very least, isn't it? What are the most esteemed and holy HR groups doing about it?

[IndianaGreen]

110. Hearing the pro-Israel scum advocate adherence to international law

is like having the Mafia demand a crackdown on crime.

:crazy:

[LeftishBrit]

112. 'Pro-Israel scum'?

Do you seriously think that everyone who is pro-Israel is 'scum'?

[IndianaGreen]

118. Allow me to explain... we are playing a game in DU, in case you haven't noticed

Post something outrageous, and it will get re-posted elsewhere with beaucoup comments. Each "side" in I/P issue, and by "side" I mean DU faction, regurgitates the same arguments made here in other fora and chatrooms where they feel safe and comfortable. Call them echo chambers if you will. Everyone has a jolly good time denigrating the other side in these fora.

Every argument made regarding the I/P conflict has already been made in DU by people far more articulate than all of us put together. The vast majority of those posters are long gone by now, which is really unfortunate.

It is hard for people raised to believe that Israel is the fulfillment of some historical promise to see that country for what it is: a country not unlike others, with virtues and flaws. It is harder for them to see Palestinians as anything but as terrorists hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and its people.

For people advocating justice for Palestinians, it is hard to take off their rose colored glasses and see how the Palestinian situation has been exploited by ruthless and undemocratic people whose only aim is the destruction of Israel and its people.

For both sides, it is hard to see that the United States is complicit in the current situation. The US should either abandon this charade that is called the "peace process," and either come out publicly in support of Israel's permanent expansion of its borders and settlements (which really is the only role US has been playing all along by deed or omission), or get out of the way and let someone else play the role of peacemaker.

The US is NOT an honest broker for peace in the Middle East!

[oberliner]

119. If its just a game, why do you play it?

What do you get out of joining in this game? Is it just for entertainment? To pass the time? Anything beyond that?

[IndianaGreen]

120. Everyone is playing, including you

Let's stop the charade and go in the open and say precisely what we believe in.

Here is my take: Israel has the right to exist, free of terrorism. Palestine has the right to exist, on all the land taken by Israel in 1967. The US must stop being the arms merchant to the world, including the Middle East.

Keep GAWD out of any discussions involving the Middle East.

[oberliner]

123. I guess you don't want to answer the question

That is certainly your right - but I am genuinely curious as to why you bother playing this game as often as you do. What do you get out of it?

[Violet_Crumble]

125. I think some people need to get a grip. It's only a rather quiet discussion forum...

People don't change the world posting in here, and there's nothing wrong with posting here out of boredom, for entertainment, or a variety of other reasons. Some people post here because they think it's some cyber version of the conflict and that what they say is so vitally important that it'll change things, but they're very out of touch with reality, imo.

[LeftishBrit]

113. Do you think that every country which has a bad, propagandizing media, or which spreads lies about

other countries, ought to be prosecuted under international law? That would be a lot of places; and IMO virtually impossible to achieve. (Though a culture of international lawsuits would certainly be preferable to one of international wars!)

E.g. do you think that America and Britain should be prosecuted for the lies about WMD in Iraq, and for the general demonization of the 'axis of evil'? This was not only potential, but actual, incitement to a war, which has killed over a million people.

[shira]

124. do you think HRW and Goldstone are correct to ignore this genocidal incitement?

[LeftishBrit]

126. I don't consider Hamas' 'incitements' as genocide.

As Hamas is in no position to commit genocide, even if it wishes to.

Iran was no part of Goldstone's briefing (not that they would likely commit genocide either; but at least there are some concerns about their developing nukes.)

As regards human rights organizations: so far as I know, their remit simply never includes international verbal rhetoric, of any sort, or however nasty. It only includes violent and oppressive actions. Iran oppresses its own people viciously, and Hamas murders Israeli civilians and (even more) Palestinian opponents. These issues are indeed the subject for human rights organizations.

Should the UN, or some other organization, deal more severely with ALL verbal international incitements that can lead to war? In that case, should they deal severely with America's and Britain's incitements and frank lies about Iraq, which *did* lead to war and mass slaughter?

It is perfectly true that the UN singles out Israel by passing lots of resolutions against them for actions that many other countries commit with little or no UN censure. But you seem to be expecting people to single out Israel in the other direction: by punishing their enemies for (verbal) acts for which no other country gets directly punished. It may be that this is indeed against international law; if so, then there needs to be a crackdown on many many countries.

I honestly suspect that this bringing up by some people of the 'genocide' word really started as a tit-for-tat retaliation against false accustations of genocide by Israel. It's false in one direction, and it's false in the other, and it trivializes real genocides, such as that in Darfur.

[shira]

128. who says incitement to genocide is genocide?

And Hamas is committed to genocide, it's in their charter and all over their state-run media, in mosques, and in schools. There is no "if" about it.

Do you think hate indoctrination of youth and utilizing youths as combatants and shields are all actions that HRW and Goldstone should ignore? How about Iran's direct involvement in arming Hamas and Hezbollah?

Isn't it silly to pretend that suicide and rocket attacks are not the result of Hamas and Fatah's indoctrination of hatred, dehumanization, and incitement to violence and genocide (the root cause of suicide and rocket attacks)? How is all of this comparable to US, UK, or Israeli "incitement"?

How does ignoring all this serve the cause of peace and human rights? Are you satisfied with HRW and Goldstone's response to all this indoctrination, incitement, and Iran's involvement in this?

[LeftishBrit]

129. Are you satisfied with HRW's lack of response to our lies about WMD?

It it applies to one, it applies to all.

Do you think that the United States and the Soviet Union should have been prosecuted for their sabre-rattling and mutual threats and hate indoctrination of young people during the Cold War - and they did both have nukes! Do you think that Khrushchev should have been prosecuted for saying "We shall bury you" or Reagan for his flippant threat, when he though the microphone was off, to 'begin bombing the Soviet Union in five minutes'? Do you think it could be called a form of child abuse to ratchet up the threats so that at the worst times many children thought that they had little chance of living to grow up?

My point is that if you start applying these standards to all, there are a LOT of groups and countries to which they could apply.

Actually I don't think this is really a matter for human rights organizations. Nor was it (at least the Iran part) within Goldstone's remit. It's more a matter for the UN and/or for international peace or diplomacy organizations. The real question is: should international organizations be getting tougher in general with verbal incitements, dishonest propaganda, and extreme sabre-rattling from *any* government or country? Having first thought Yes to this, I am now in two minds. While verbal sabre-rattling and propaganda can be incitements to war, they can also be substitutes for war - and it's virtually impossible to come up with rules as to which is which, at least until a war happens! Cracking down on verbal threats might actually increase the incentives for some countries to attack others without warning.

While less sabre-rattling would be an excellent idea, I think that a world crackdown on arms dealing - by anyone - would be more directly effective in preventing wars and indeed genocides. This sadly isn't going to happen, as the global economy is highly dependent on the arms trade.


'Isn't it silly to pretend that suicide and rocket attacks are not the result of Hamas and Fatah's indoctrination of hatred, dehumanization, and incitement to violence and genocide (the root cause of suicide and rocket attacks)? How is all of this comparable to US, UK, or Israeli "incitement"?'


Isn't it silly to pretend that a war in Iraq, that has so far killed over a million people, is not the result of America's and Britain's lies and allegations about WMD, plus the dehumanization implicit in the 'War on Terror's equating very different groups of people as complicit in terrorism (the root cause of the attack on Iraq)? Certainly *Israel* was not a culprit in this case; but there WAS US and UK incitement, and it did have disastrous consequences.

[bstender]

131. correction

you say: "Isn't it silly to pretend that a war in Iraq, that has so far killed over a million people, is not the result of America's and Britain's lies and allegations about WMD, plus the dehumanization implicit in the 'War on Terror's equating very different groups of people as complicit in terrorism (the root cause of the attack on Iraq)? Certainly *Israel* was not a culprit in this case; but there WAS US and UK incitement, and it did have disastrous consequences."

Israel is very much a culprit in this case. which other country supported the invasion? which other country are the neo-con architects devoted to? which other US Lobby pushed harder than the THE Lobby for the war and which other country benefitted from destroying Iraq? (no, the answer is not Palou)

If you haven't read "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", written by the key architects for the war, it will change your thinking about how important the war in Iraq was for Israel. http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

and it provides perspective on the push to invade Iran as well.

[LeftishBrit]

132. No, America and its allies were quite able to proceed on our lonesome

No need to scapegoat anyone else. Whether Israel, Iran or 'a (paranoid nightmare of a) genocidal axis of .... Venezuela and North Korea'.

Polls show that Israeli opinion in fact was deeply divided, and many thought that invading Iraq would be a very bad idea.

Once the invasion happened, Israel supported it. Israel has rarely opposed any American foreign policy; despite some xenophobic-isolationist grumbling, it knows where its bread is buttered, and doesn't want to offend one of its few strong allies. But that doesn't mean that Israel is responsible for the invasion! Sadly, we (the UK) have far more culpability there.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

134. You are citing The Institute For Historical Review?

Do you know what that website is?

[bstender]

135. again with the ad hominem?

homey dont play that

edit: was 'sposed to be a reply to #134

[oberliner]

136. No ad hominem here - just stunned that someone at DU would cite that website

What with its connection to Holocaust Denial and whatnot.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

138. LB, it appears you realize it's wrong for Goldstone and HR groups to ignore hate indoctrination,

incitement, using children (brainwashing, shields, combatants). I personally don't see the point trying to equate what Hamas does (or Hezbollah, both via Iran) to US and UK actions, as the comparisons are apples to oranges.

The problem as I see it - and I suspect you see it too - is not only that Israel is being singled out for things other countries are never accountable for, it's that in most cases Israel is demonized irrationally and charged with the silliest of accusations that would never hold up in any objective court of law.

Case in point:

A Formal Letter to Justice Goldstone
Nov 17, 2009

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=76&x_article=1764

See what I mean?

The biggest problem as I see it is not that Israel is singled out, but that so much time and effort is wasted on demonizing Israel irrationally. As a result, more serious crimes elsewhere around the world and in the immediate region (ex. Hamas/Hezbollah) are being virtually ignored - and it appears that this 'choice' is deliberate. I don't see how demonizing Israel at the expense of things many times worse advances the cause of peace and HR.

You don't think that what's really going on disgusting?

Do you disagree, and if so, why?

[shira]

139. in addition to that link, here are a few more...

What happened at the mosque
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3804323,00.html

Harris ad hoc: Humanitarian interventions (regarding the mosque and flour mill)
http://harris-adhoc.blogspot.com/

============

In every interview since the report was released, Goldstone brings up these 2 incidents as his main 'proof' of Israel deliberately punishing civilians.

Let me know your thoughts after reading these replies to Goldstone.

Am I wrong to believe this is pure demonization and an enormous waste of time and resources which can better be utilized where real crimes are being committed?

[LeftishBrit]

141. I would be cautious about any report, because of the lack of evidence made available

Thus, I would not necessarily trust everything in the Goldstone report (due to the fundamental problem of failures to provide evidence on certain crucial events), but I also would not necessarily trust everything in the claimed rebuttals. These rebuttals are opinion pieces, not proofs one way or another.

What I do agree with is the statement:

'Israel made the mistake of not presenting the facts and sources to the public, within the limits of security, to dispel the accusation of war crimes raised by the Goldstone Report.'

As long as sources and facts were NOT made available, any report can be only provisionally accepted - one way or the other - if that. And there will be suspicions of cover-ups, whether these suspicions are valid or not.

[shira]

143. but sources WERE available to Goldstone....plenty of them, videos online, news articles

Are you of the opinion that b/c Israel did not cooperate, it was perfectly okay for Goldstone not to seek the truth from sources already available? Did you read the open letter from Trevor Norwitz regarding the manner in which Goldstone did not even try to investigate crimes committed by Hamas, did not cross-question, dismissed/minimized evidence, etc.?

I really don't see why we have to 'play along' and pretend like Goldstone that if only Israel cooperated, only then would we the investigation be balanced.

Goldstone was still saying 6 weeks after the report's release that no real criticism of his report existed, only ad hominem personal attacks against his character....so why should we believe that if only Israel cooperated __________? Colonel Travers just said the same thing yesterday here....

"But not a glove has been landed on the report itself..."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1119/1224259107221.html

You realize the MFA, CAMERA, and some other people like Maurice Ostroff wrote substantive criticisms of the report well within 6 weeks of its release? If Goldstone lies about that, what makes you believe him about Israel's cooperation? You do realize enough evidence in Israel's favor and against Hamas was available to Goldstone from the public domain (internet, news sources)?

[LeftishBrit]

140. Actually I dont think it is wrong for human rights groups to ignore 'incitement and hate

indoctrination', because this has never been the remit of human rights groups. Human rights groups are concerned with violence and direct oppression - not incitements about other countries.

On checking the Human Rights Watch front page, I find that their main stories concern repression in China and Cuba, and the persecution of minorities in Iraq. Not 'incitements' or 'brainwashing' (except insofar as the latter may be associated with the suppression of legitimate media).

Direct use of children as combatants is and should be the remit of human rights organizations.

Perhaps there needs to be some international body that deals directly with incitements and threats between countries, before it reaches the point of war. The UN cannot fully be that body, because all its representatives have conflicts of interest by definition: they represent their *own* countries. Better the political haggling at the UN, than war every time something goes wrong - but a more objective 'court' might be better able to stop problems before they reach the point of wars. However, though setting up a 'quango' as the British call such organizations (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations) to deal with such matters in the world at large looks good on paper, I suspect that it would not work well, and just spend lots of taxpayers money with disappointingly little result.

Perhaps the UN needs to be just a little more objective than it is. But that isn't likely either.

I do not think that the 'incitements' should have been part of the Goldstone Report, as the implication of that would be that the verbal incitements justified OCL or some specific aspects of it. I strongly disagree with such a view. My problem with the Goldstone Report is not the report itself, but that such a report was commissioned only about Israel and not about other countries.

'I personally don't see the point trying to equate what Hamas does (or Hezbollah, both via Iran) to US and UK actions, as the comparisons are apples to oranges'

Not if we are talking about incitements that can lead to war and violence. The incitements by the US and UK DID lead to war and violence. The US and UK have much more democratic and less oppressive systems of government *toward their own people* than Hamas or Iran; that is very true; but as regards incitements, I do not think it's apples and oranges.

Do you consider that it is hypocritical to condemn OCL if you don't also condemn the invasion of Iraq? So do I. By the same token, I consider it as hypocritical to condemn warmongering 'incitements' by Hamas without condemning the warmongering incitements that contributed to the invasion of Iraq.


'You don't think that what's really going on disgusting?'

I think that a lot of things that are going on are disgusting, including that media and international bodies tend to focus on a few bogeynations (Israel is *one* of them but not the only one), and ignore lots of worse things going on in the world such as much of what is happening in parts of Africa. However, I don't think that the appropriate response to e.g.demonization of Israel as 'genocidal' is to retaliate by demonizing Iran, Hamas, Venezuela, North Korea and Sudan as a 'genocidal axis'! That also is disgusting demonization and incitement, and also leads to a lack of focus on the real genocide in Sudan. (The other governments are undemocratic and oppressive - Venezuela less so than the others but still not good- but they are not a 'genocidal axis'.)

[LeftishBrit]

142. E.g. a random example of what I mean about selective media focus on a few bogeynations...

I am sure that a lot of people know about the Israeli Occupation and about their violent crackdown in Gaza. I am sure that a lot of people know about terrorism by Hamas and similar groups. I am sure that a lot of people know about Iran's oppressive government and its verbal attacks on Israel and America.

How many people know about the current problems between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, or would bring them up in a discussion of 'conflicts in the Middle East'?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8360015.stm

[shira]

144. it would be enough if Israel were just singled out even for legitimate reasons, and that's bigotry

In all seriousness, even though THAT is antisemitic I don't really have a problem with Israel being held accountable or reasonably criticized for real crimes and injustices - even if they are the only country being held accountable.

The problem is with all the ridiculously false charges - THAT is demonization.....not the mere act of singling a nation out. Those articles I cited for you on the mosque and flour mill do not merely point to innocent 'flaws' in Goldstone's investigations and analyses. They go way beyond that and show that Goldstone and his gang simply weren't interested in facts. They had their agenda and were not going to let the facts speak for themselves.

I pointed out in my last post about Goldstone (and Travers) lying WRT there being no real criticisms of the report. If you can't even admit they lied about that, then naturally you're going to give them the benefit of the doubt about everything, no matter how damning the evidence against them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=290602&mesg_id=290622

Check out that little thread. What accounts for such a reaction (and it's not just Bemildred) that puts Goldstone above any criticism? You'd think I blasted some religious figure and was committing the worst theological blasphemy. What's the deal?

------------

It's now been 2 months since the release of the report....when will Goldstone start addressing all the substantive criticism that now exists, and moreover, will he dare make any retractions and corrections or amendments to his report? And if not, why not? We are interested in the facts, aren't we? Wasn't that his job?

[shira]

151. WRT incitement, hate, putting children in combat roles...

all of that is child abuse, right? Why no outrage from the UN and HR groups? Can we agree that when HR groups and the UN allow Hamas to continue to abuse Palestinians while also denying them of their civil rights (women and minorities too) they are working against the cause of peace and HR's and encouraging Hamas to keep it up?

Why in your opinion, are HR groups doing virtually nothing about Hamas using children as combatants and shields?

Do you think it's demonization to make Hamas accountable for all this?

---------

I'll give you my opinion once you let me know what you think is really going on here.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shaayecanaan]

114. I totally agree...

The International Criminal Court should be convened, and it should be empowered to investigate and prosecute any breaches of the convention on genocide.

As well as any breach of the Hague Convention on the Rules of War. Specifically, its provisions relating to the targeting of civilians.

[Tripmann]

116. I really do have to laugh at some of the stuff posted here

The hamas threats of genocide against Israel. FFS you can't be serious. Hamas fired 8000 rockets at Israel and less than 1% of those resulted in the death of an Israeli. I'm not justifying it by no means, but a caged and starved poeple firing what are quite obviously low yield, low accuracy homemade rockets at the regions superpower does not equate a serious threat that justifys OCL.

Its no less transparent than the 'imminent threat' from Iraq used to justify the invasion.

Unfortunately, injusice and suffering are the fires in which extremism are born. To have a problem with palestinians lashing out from Gaza is the same as having a problem with a caged and tortured animal turning on you.

[pelsar]

127. and i enjoy the willful blindness....

starved?....did you actually buy that story......tunnels are bringing in new cars and they are being starved?

and here we go with the geography lesson....south of gaza is egypt...a nice long border that the egyptians have decided to close and or open as they see fit...mostly closed. Did you not notice that those caged Palestinians neglected to fire a single rocket or mortar at the egyptians...i guess in their lashing out they decided to lash out in once direction....as if it was directed.

and then of course we have now nov 09....still caged, still starving and yet no kassams, and no lashing out- damn! there goes that theory. what happened to the caged and tortured animal turning on you?

[Tripmann]

152. There is currently an economic blockade of gaza

This is a fact. If you would like to post proof of how tunnels are supplying a million people in gaza with food and medicine please feel free. And have a think about your flippant dismissal of the term 'starved' when you sit down to your hot meals today and every other day.

[imdjh]

149. "Is there another People on Earth so emotionally twisted...." A piece of this nation...

.... falls into the category of self haters, people who hate their own people and their own nation, and certainly their own culture. I normally call them teenagers, but some of them don't grow out of it. They move to Berkeley and Seattle. I used to call them Ohioans, but then I met some people from Ohio who weren't escapees from a suburban ersatz hippie nuthatch. Well , so much for charm on my part.

[Ken Burch]

154. You hate young, leftwing nonconformists?

What did they ever do to you?

[Ken Burch]

158. Why do you post here if you're right wing?

You obviously couldn't have any progressive or humane values if you hate people like this. The people you're attacking here are the ones that will always be the base of any movement for change or justice. If they all did what YOU evidently consider to be "growing up" the world would be reactionary for the rest of human history.

[Ken Burch]

153. Berl Katznelson was wrong to describe the feelings of the Diaspora in that way

None of them were cheering for the "enemies" of Jews. It was just that some of them didn't accept the argument that EVERYTHING was permissible in the name of "establishing the state".

Would Katznelson have said Judah Magnes and Martin Buber had "Jew Flu"?

That Jewish people then and now raise legitimate objections to Israeli policy is a commendable thing. Everyone should hold their own communities and the states that claim to represent them to the highest standards. The worst atrocities in human history are always caused by people saying "it's ok when OUR side/our people/our state does it-because we have 'justification'".

This led to the Trail of Tears. This also led to Deir Yassin and the Nakba.

And who is anyone to say that everyone who is Jewish is OBLIGATED to be a Zionist? Why should loyalty to this one nationalist movement outweigh everything else? What makes THIS nationalist movement anymore sacrosanct than any other. Zionism did nothing to protect Jews against the Holocaust and it has brought the Jewish population of Israel as much danger as safety(and possibly more).

This article is arrogant, reactionary bullshit, and the whole point of it is to try to pressure, blackmail and verbally bludgeon every Jewish person in the world into "defending Israel" and defending everything Israel does, whether or not those people approve of what that state does.

The time when it was acceptable to imply that Zionism was the alpha and omega of all things Jewish is over.

Israel exists. There's little likelihood that it will ever stop existing. But the jury is very much out as to whether this is a good thing for the world's Jewish communities. Whatever feelings anyone has about the Palestinians, the Diaspora and the Jewish population of Israel deserve much better than what they're getting from that state. These days, it's mostly an embarrassment to them and largely a mockery of the humane values they hold dear.

[miscsoc]

155. this is an interesting little section

"There may be. David Brooks recently reported in the New York Times on research by a Haifa University team led by Reem Yahya who studied the brains scans of Arabs and Jews while showing them images of hands and feet in painful situations.

Brooks reports that "the two cultures perceived pain differently. The Arabs perceived higher levels of pain over all while the Jews were more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than their own."

Does this sound fucking fishy to anyone else?

Remember "The Bell Curve"?

The implied argument here is: Jews are morally superior to Arabs on such a fundamental level that it can be measured through brain scans. Therefore we must make special efforts to be Jewish chauvinists, to counteract the terrible burden of our intrinsic cultural/biological moral perfection.

[shira]

156. Rabbi Lerner takes on "the Jewish World"

Rabbi Lerner and Tikkun magazine have reacted to the barbaric vandalism of Lerner's house in an equally barbaric and irrational manner. They accuse "the Jewish world" of fomenting violence against Lerner and call other Jews, who are presumably not part of "the Jewish world," to make certain that all criticism of Lerner and Tikkun are stopped. Tikkun further claims that Israel and the IDF are at fault for anti-Semitism, and they wish to distance themselves from us evil Zionists, who do not represent the Jewish people according to them.

Below is my response to their article.

Ami Isseroff

=============

Dear Rabbi Lerner and Tikkun magazine staff,
I was shocked to read about the attack on Rabbi Lerner's home, and wrote to condemn it .

However, I am dismayed and shocked by your reaction. You reject forthright condemnations of violence and expressions of solidarity, are quick to cast blame on blameless people, seek to use this stupid act of vandalism to discredit legitimate political opposition, and cast vague aspersions on the entire "Jewish world." You have set yourselves up as judge, jury and executioner. You place the blame for the attack on organizations and persons that condemned the attack and obviously had nothing to do with it, and on the "Jewish world" - a fictive anti-Semitic construct. Presumably you and Tony Klug and other saints of spiritual progressivism or progressive spiritualism are not part of the Jewish world in your view. The "Jewish world" of Tikkun consists of dark forces in the person Alan Dershowitz and those who dare to speak out against Judge Goldstone's irresponsible blood libel. And you call for McCarthyite censorship of ideas that are inconvenient for you.

more...
http://news.zionism-israel.com/2010/05/rabbi-lerner-takes-on-jewish-world.html

[shira]

157. Legitimating bigotry: The legacy of Richard Goldstone

<snip>

It is interesting that Goldstone made a similar argument to friends as to why he accepted the chairmanship of the investigative commission offered to him by the United Nations Human Rights Council. He acknowledged that the Council was biased against Israel. Indeed, it treats Israel much the way Apartheid courts used to treat Black Africans: Just as there was special justice (really injustice) for blacks, so too there is special justice (really injustice) for Israel. Goldstone claims he took the job "to help Israel," just as he took his previous job to help blacks. In both cases he cynically hurt those he said he wanted to help, while helping only himself. In both cases he was selected to legitimate bigotry. In both cases, better people than him refused to lend their credibility to an illegitimate enterprise. But Goldstone accepted, because it was good for his career.

<snip>

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/legitimating_bigotry_the_legacy_of