More to say on the responses to my post, The Anti-Semites Are on My Side on These Issues, and how much should I care? First, Richard Witty never asked me to ban any commenters. What he did was suggest that I curb some of my own statements because I was in his view aiding anti-Semites. I experience some of Richard's suggestions as censorious. If I abided his advice, I wouldn't say half the stuff I do on this blog, and as I've said before, I'm learning. A great Talmudic scholar once said that one way you learn is by having dialogue with a pen.
A number of commenters accused me of Jewish chauvinism. Ed said that my unwashed tribalism has a lot to learn from the laundromat of western civilization. It's true. I have a strong tribal identification. I grew up in a very Jewish environment and part of the training was not to trust gentiles, that much, or only good gentiles. I still have that. Some Arabs I've met, I feel this fear, they secretly want to barbecue my liver. It's a tribal impulse.
The most apposite comment I thought was Otto saying, "the central underlying difficulty is talking about the chauvinistic political projects for which support is not universal, but is pervasive in a particular ethnic group." I found this very helpful. I agree entirely.
And when Ed said that Jewish Zionists have insisted on no distinction between Zionist and Anti-Zionist Jews–say, as Christians are afforded that latitude–and they've thereby caused those who are critical of Israel's policies to be forced to wear the scarlet letter A, so just wear it– again, helpful. When Walt and Mearsheimer first came out, I thought, Wow, these guys are willing to wear the scarlet letter in order to say what is true. I don't think they are willing. But god knows it's been pinned to them by puritanical Jewish critics. And one has to wonder whether that obloquy is not the price of having an open mind on this issue.
Richard Witty says that antisemitism is blaming the Jews for the wrongs of the world, having a predisposition to blame them. I agree with the definition; though he seems to want me to bear the scarlet letter, and I disagree. I don't blame the Jews for the wrongs of the world, just some of the wrongs. I like Scott's definition that includes not wanting to have any Jewish friends. I have a lot of Jewish friends. I do find the company of ethnocentric Jews somewhat suffocating, because I grew up with that.
When my wife married into my family, she said, I always heard about anti-semitism, what about anti-anti-semitism? I.e., anti-gentile-ism. The instinctual mistrust of gentiles. If you read the late Israel Shahak, you learn that the Talmud and commentaries and Jewish law are filled with contempt for gentiles, including even the commands that gentile civilians be killed in wars. Shahak also says that some of the pogroms in eastern Europe were in fact serf rebellions against the bailiffs of the slaveholders, who were Jews; and that since the middle ages, Jewish society was privileged and ceased to include peasants, had a relationship to nobility, royalty, the court. Maimonides to the neocons. I'm reading Shahak agog. I don't know how much of him to believe; I need to scrutinize his statements. But one thing I am certain of is that I grew up with complete contempt of peasants, whom my family linked to pogroms; and that the Jewish world I've always been part of is an elite one. As I say repeatedly here, I don't object to an elite per se. It seems to me that all societies have one. The issue for me in Jewish culture, as it is for Shahak, is the degree to which superior (exclusivist, chauvinist are his words) attitudes towards Arabs as gentiles and peasants have caused Zionists and their supporters to erase their humanity, and their being too. I saw this attitude all through the Lebanon war, down to the clusterbombing of farmland that went undecried by Jewish organizations (I'm sure there are some noble exceptions, IPF say). I saw this attitude at AIPAC–where they repeatedly celebrate Israel's technical and material and intellectual contributions as somehow removing any charge re its treatment of Palestinians, and you will find it in my own upbringing, where I was repeatedly informed that the Jews had made the desert bloom while the Palestinians had done nothing with that land for centuries.
I don't begrudge Jews their success in America; I don't share the resentment that I see in my comment section. This is the Jewish century, as Slezkine tells us. Priests and merchants have replaced peasants and princes. That is the way of the modern world; and Asians and a lot of other people who have embraced the value of learning will also get to participate. What I begrudge my people is the absence by and large of an ethos of leadership. The Michael Walzer quote I love to cite here is when he said We've been great at governing ourselves for 2000 years, not so good at governing others. This is not an idle issue when Jews play such a central role as political donors, and when neoconservatives helped foment a disastrous war that has left the U.S. mimicking Israel's relationship to the Arab world. As the late Norman Mailer said in the American Conservative, Hitler's negative achievement included crunching down surviving Jewish culture in his aftermath to the question, Is it good for the Jews?
Richard says that I have fed the reasoning and emotional pitch of those who wish all Jews would keep to their place. I reject the charge. I am continually quoting Jews on this blog. There are many many Jews I celebrate. They are almost all universalist Jews, Jews like Shahak who have embraced the need to recognize the humanity of Arabs. Though I also respect the many progressive Zionists who have this awareness too.
Next month Sabeel, the Arab Christian organization, is having a conference in Detroit that many Jews will be at, including the great Phyllis Bennis, Joel Kovel, Anna Baltzer, others are slipping my mind. They will be working with gentiles to try and push a just peace in the Middle East. I think this may be the heart of my Jewish problem right now, my moral exhaustion with American Jews who think that Jews alone can resolve the issues of the Middle East, who do not wish to work with non-Jews on the issues. Again I'd cite Aaron Ahuvia's comments at the Meretz site the other day, where he said that 85 percent of American Jews are committed to a two-state solution and only have to overcome the "well-funded" Land-of-Israel types in order to convey that to Congress. Peace in the Middle East is an urgent project. Apartheid looms. Yet Ahuvia I am sure won't be at Sabeel. He doesn't want to build his coalition with gentiles, Arabs, or even the unfunded Palestinian-solidarity component of American Jewry. I think there's anti-anti-semitism there.
Related posts:
- Anti-anti-semitism and the myths of my Jewish identity
- Chas Freeman and the end of anti-semitism
- Progressive Zionist Eschews ‘Mixed’ Groups Because of Their Insensitivity to Anti-Semitism (And Still, Palestine Burns)
- Mark Cohen to reprise his important lecture on Muslim anti-Semitism
- new liberal consensus: Israel’s racist policies fuel anti-Semitism
{ 50 comments }
Phil, I for one love the fact that you are willing to treat this blog as a sort of work in progress for your thoughts.
You actually change your mind – in PUBLIC!
I hardly know anyone willing to do that privately.
Any points that I made that you do agree with, even to an extent?
I guess you didn't get my parallel to speak softly but carry a big stick.
Which is speak softly, but ACT benevolently.
My criticism of your comments is that you rely solely on political means and nearly solely in opposition.
Rather than inspire universalism, you condemn parochialism, and in end up in FACT become parochial (but your tribe is those that criticize Israel or neo-conservatives).
My emphasis is on becoming a better Jew/human (in substance over form), rather than a politically correct one.
I criticized your unwillingness to sincerely research and interview others with differing opinions than yourself, and SUMMARIZE what you learn, rather than generalize in the effort to propagate your position.
Also, I never asked in any way for you to self-censor.
I asked you to use your tongue and paper and blog for GOOD, and to regard the tone and texture of that as important.
That in the effort to adopt universalism rather than parochialism that you universally respect others sensitivies, rather than use the term "truth" as a means in any way to assault.
I think a pretty good definition of anti-semitism is holding Jews or Jewish organizations to standards that other peoples never get held to – and doing so with a straight face. Israel is far from perfect and MANY of its policies should be criticized. But I feel there is a tendency here to single out Israel for actions any other rational state would take if it was in the same position as Israel. You justify some of this by condemning your parochial childhood upbringing. But all groups in America 50 years ago were parochial – the enlightened among us gotten past that. Hold Israel to the same standards as others – especially its antagonists – and no one can level the accusation of anti-semitism – or your aiding and abetting anti-semitism – but until you do, I'm afraid both charges have some merit.
Very smart.
How can we expect gentiles to not be anti-Jew, when Jews are anti-gentile?
Would rational states continue to colonize land in occupied territories, without annexing the land and its citizens and providing citizenship to those? Maybe in 19th century Ireland, but we aren't in the 19th century anymore. Instead, Israel's actions all seem believing it is the strong victim, rather than the oppressing power. Until Israel truly wants peace, those not blinded by neo-manifest destiny or religious zealotry will criticize its policies and actions.
When was the last time Israel was burned supporting a Palestinian? They have given no Palestinian the support needed to make change, but rather flourish by giving lip service, tightening checkpoints, authorizing more colonies, and then complaining that the Palestinians are not playing nice.
To Defenestrator – some in Israel did wish to annex the territories. They were rightly called crazies. The majority want a 2-state solution. The Kadima party wants peace – not "manifest destiny or religious zealotry". Remember the Camp David and Taba proposals. That is where we likely will end up. Israelis realize they are oppressors. Most of them hate this. They just see a perilous road out. Some of you haters on this blog should talk to real Israelis rather than the ones you conjure up in your minds.
Who besides Witty thinks Phil has a snowball's chance in hell of interviewing a leading spokesman for AIPAC or any of the appointed honcho neocons in the past or present Bush2's regime, or leading right-wing thinktanks? Assume the understanding is that the full unedited interview will be put on primetime TV and spread across all major newspapers on page one. How about Phil getting an interview with Lieberman on the same basis?
Phil would have to make the effort to do so, in a way that others would regard as fair.
Thats not the story now. Who knows if he could restore that in a way that he would agree to?
On "censorship". It is the same type of curse as calling someone "anti-semitic".
"You are a censorer."
How is that possible? You have a blog. You yourself do the broadcasting. You are the writer, editor, censor of posts if you like.
"…But I feel there is a tendency here to single out Israel for actions any other rational state would take if it was in the same position as Israel."
Surely even a cursory glance outside the MSM at the apparent connections between Israel, AIPAC, the neocons and the push for war with Iran is enough to justify this tendency?
we in american just want to be better americans, and whats missing from the narrative sold to the american jews by their zionist propagandist masters is that there can be no separation between being a good american and being a good jew.
israel is the dividing line.
our interests do not converge, and the past is full of evidence of israeli actions that if it were any other country would be considered treasonous or acts of open war under the cover of having been done by another nation.
you poor poor american zionist jews just cant seem to understand this, you always go to the big boogyman in your closet, antisemitism to justify your positions vis a vis israel whenever anyone criticizes israel or zionism.
jewsagainstzionism.com chronicles this conjoining of judaism and zionism from its inception, and predicted the harm that it wold do to your people.
zionism has so conjoined the state with judaism that you do not allow yourself the ability to criticize it for fear that you are being a self hating jew or some such crazy newspeak created by the zionist project.
what i find most valuable in Phils blog is his transparency in trying to be an american citizen devoid of the self imposed controls that your community wishes to impose on your people.
liberate yourself Phil and try to liberate as many of your fellow brothers from the scourge known as zio judaism.
zionism and judaism can be mutually exclusive for the betterment of both.
"Hold Israel to the same standards as others – especially its antagonists – and no one can level the accusation of anti-semitism – or your aiding and abetting anti-semitism – but until you do, I'm afraid both charges have some merit."
I believe that Americans have every right to harshly criticize Israel, since we foot the bill. Is Israel the worst nation on earth? Probably not. But Israel is nothing that Americans should have to support or think about.
Israel should stand apart from other nations as a target of American disgust, since the topic is forced upon on a daily basis. Sadly enough, most Americans who are willing to discuss the issue want to discuss the problems Israel presents to the Palestinians, while ignoring the horribly destructive impact that Israel's supporters have on the United States.
"Some of you haters on this blog should talk to real Israelis rather than the ones you conjure up in your minds."
I've spent time in Israel, and some of the Israelis that I met want to get out of the Occupied Territories, and that is sweet of them. But as nice as they talk, those same Israelis understand that setting a precedent for returning stolen land could lead to their house of cards collapsing. Either way, it shoudn't by my burden.
it doesn't matter if you are aiding anti semites. this is how the free market works. one thing has no connection to the other, ever. at all
.
Richard writes:
******************************************
"You are a censorer."
How is that possible? You have a blog. You yourself do the broadcasting. You are the writer, editor, censor of posts if you like
******************************************
That's the kind of rhetorical arguments I really detest. Obviously you can't censor Phil. But what is the difference, if you follow him around and keep demanding in 9 out of 10 mails that he modifies or balances his views according to your suggestions?
Richard, I am wondering what part self-perception/self-reflection has in your larger self-ennoblement project. For the ancient Greeks that was the no 1 issue: Know thyself.
********************************************
There must be something very, very wrong with the whole antisemitism discussion, if somebody like Richard Silverstein is listed as somebody "to whom the Jewish character of Israel is either unimportant or undesirable". see, pdf.doc page 3:
Jonathan Hoffman's report on Engage
Note that the advocacy of 'one [secular] state is antisemitic. It is a fundamental principle of most (?all?) legal systems that 'racism is defined by the victims.'
see above pdf.doc page 3.
Not MY definition:
If it all comes down to dust?"… arguing from an antisemitic premise" is purely and simply "a premise that undermines the best interests of Jews."
Fairly shortly after Wilhelm Marr created the term Antisemitismus, the counterpart term Antigojismus (anti-Gentilism) appears in German and antigoyizm in Yiddish.
I usually use anti-anti-Semitism as the counterpart to anti-anti-communism which was a position on the American political left that anti-communist politics was more of a problem than communist politics in the USA.
Within this framework, anti-anti-Semitism is a political position that anti-Semitism is more of a problem than Jewish fanaticism, Jewish racism, Jewish extremism or Zionism, which collectively could be considered to constitute "Semitism."
When anti-anti-Semitism becomes neurotic, it is anti-Semitosis.
Anti-Semitism in Wilhelm Marr's biological determist evolutionary social Darwinist sense really does not exist any more, but because of the continued existence of the State of Israel and racist Zionist politics in the USA, Judeophobia is definitely and quite understandably increasing worldwide.
"It is a fundamental principle of most (?all?) legal systems that 'racism is defined by the victims."
I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like trouble. Which legal systems?
Leandor,
You aren't privy to Phil and my e-mail discussion. Don't imagine what is said and what is not.
We do argue about the distinction between generalization and summarization.
I claim that generalization is a propaganda tool, while summarization is a journalistic and academic tool.
Phil disagrees.
Prejudices are formed and transmitted by generalization and inference. Its important to comment on.
"When anti-anti-Semitism becomes neurotic, it is anti-Semitosis."
:)
Another gem from Joachim that is going into my clipfile.
The I"D"F murders out of love and then they're sad. Ergo, those who protest are "haters", "anti-semites" etc.
Everyone talks about anti-Semitism among gentiles all the time. Few people bring up the staggering amount of anti-gentilism among Jews. I'm not a Christian and haven't been one for 40 years or more but when I got married (to a Jewish woman) I was stunned at the number of anti-Christian bias she held. In my experience, it is far more common for Jews to suspect and fear gentiles than the other way around.
I know all the counter-examples. I have often heard stories by people like Alan Dershowitz who claims as kids they were chased down the street by gentiles calling them "Christ killers." If this ever actually happened to Dershowitz I suspect it was more due to his repellent personality than any animus toward Jews. In rural western Pennsylvania, where I grew up, I never once heard phrase "Christ killer" Or any other pejorative used against Jews. Not only was anti-Semitism not a problem, the matter simply never came up. If there were distinctions between gentiles and Jews, they were made by Jews, not by the rest of us.
Five or six years ago I heard a rabbi on NPR decrying the way so many Jews identify with stories of suffering and persecution. In fact, he said, modern Jews have their history all askew. In most countries most of the time, he said, Jews lived safe comfortable lives with incomes well above those of the average person. The history of the Jewish race, is not a long laundry list of horrors. To the contrary, he said, it is mostly one of privilege, influence and over-all happiness.
I am completely unenvious concerning your private exchanges, that's why I don't need to fantasize or imagine anything about them. Or are you suggesting I should?
I am assuming that even without these more arcane layers of meaning Philip's notes are statements we all can understand.
Concerning your generalization – summerization opposition, both are useful in certain contexts.
Basically there is nothing wrong with a generalization. See:
All cars have tires.
All fish live in water.
And both can be misused, but must not.
See e.g. this:
All Richards are noble and wise men.
All Philips need someone who helps them understand. (in private exchanges)
Steve F, what I wrote was:
"Until Israel truly wants peace, those not blinded by neo-manifest destiny or religious zealotry will criticize its policies and actions."
Kadima may want peace, but to what extent are they working towards it?
I will gladly talk to real Israelis when real Israelis talk to real Palestinians about the effect Israeli policies and collective punishment have on them.
But even that is irrelevant, as I have no opinion of "Israelis", only of the actions and policies of Israel. I blame Israelis only to the extent they vote in the leaders who choose a path that at best leads to detente, rather than a lasting peace, just as Americans should be blamed only to the extent they voted in these leaders.
None of this, of course, changes the fact that there is no appetite for peace within the Israeli government.
"The person is smart. People are dumb." –Agent K
"Prejudices are formed and transmitted by generalization and inference. Its important to comment on."
Let me paraphrase debauchette:
If we actually cared about prejudice, we’d give it some real thought. We’d question why it’s so common.
"Richard Witty says that antisemitism is blaming the Jews for the wrongs of the world, having a predisposition to blame them."
—–
That is probably a fair definition. But with so much of Washington policy dominated by the interests of organized Jewry, it’s a bit like saying anti-Bushism is a predisposition to blaming the Bush administration for the wrongs in the US and the world today. In other words, once any organized group promotes itself and its ideas, agenda and policies collectively and systematically, attains massive power and prominence, and then systematically implements its ideas, agenda, and policies, it owns them, and it owns accountability for them. If the ideas, agenda and policies fail or cause harm, as so many of organized Jewry’s ideas and agenda-manifestations have (ie, the Iraq war), it should take responsibility for them. But organized Jewry never seems to want to take responsibility, except when its ideas have succeeded. And then it makes sure it gets the credit.
That is not leadership. That is narcissism. And unfortunately, it is the approach organized Jewry has brought not only to Washington policy, but to Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Hollywood. It is happy to push full throttle for its own narrow interests, (ie enriching itself) but when the consequences of that selfish narcissism come home to roost, all of a sudden its critics are nothing but irrational, hate-filled anti-Semites. Are Bush administration critics nothing but irrational, hate-filled anti-Bushites?
It all reminds me of Tony Judt’s headline about Israel: ‘The Country That Wouldn’t Grow Up’
I ask: When is Organized Jewry Going to Grow Up?
Or is it what it is?
A Witty is a liar B he's delusional. Why anyone would want to palaver with him is beyond me.
Nobody hates the Jews so much as they hate extortion, hypocrisy, impunity and so on. You know the litany
"Richard, I am wondering what part self-perception/self-reflection has in your larger self-ennoblement project. For the ancient Greeks that was the no 1 issue: Know thyself."–LeaNder
Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior. Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct, as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts.
_____
The distinction between generalization and summarization is about as facile and talmudic as you can get–both forms adapt easily for propaganda purposes, especially in the realm of what's left out of content. Lies of omission are sneakier than lies of commission.
One thing I think ought to be obvious to all is that "Jews" weren't a topic or concern among the general public prior to the ME becoming a national interest and bringing Israel to our attention along with it.
I see this blog as part Phil's and some other Jews here concentration on their Jewishness and culture as reason for their political positions and attitudes for good or bad, and part Phil's application of the good to the Israel-Palestine issue.
The develing into the Jewish psyche isn't of much interest to me, but fine since it is Phil's way of examining himself and applying it to other Jews and Israel.
We WASP are more into current day reality and pragmatism on the Israel-US-Palestine issue. We are just looking at the facts. The only arguements I look at here at the ones that stick to the current day facts and political realities. Dragging too much Jewish backgound into this is some peoples attempt to muddy and complicate the waters on what is simple right and wrong. The conflict and solution to Isr and Pal isn't that complicated. Give Palestine all their confiscated land back. Let Israel mount whatever defenses they feel necessary thereafter from their legal UN boundaries and proceed to be whatever Israel will be from there.
Israel's realities "on the ground" are seen for what they are and are meaningless to the actual legal realities of their original land grant. That is how the UN, the actual creator of Israel and grantor of land to Israel, has seen it in all their rulings and resolutions on the Isr-Pal conflict. Like any disputes over land you have to go back to the original deed, which is the UN "deed" to see if any "legal" alterations or conveyances from the original have been made. The Arabs protested the UN's authority to 'deed' any portions of Palestine and actually they were right, however it has become a material fact. At the same time no one has seen any "legal conveyances" made to Israel of the Palestine land reserved for them by the UN in '48 that Israel now illegally occupies.
Yes Virginia, it is that simple. The law and the legality is the starting point. By right the entire question would be laid before the original grantor. That is the reason for Israel's hatred of and desire to discount the UN and their rulings in the Isr-Pal issue.
What American Jew of Eastern European ancestry hasn't heard from his parents or grandparents the expression
"GOYISHE KOP" — literally meaning a "Goyish Head" or "Thinks Like a Goy", actually it signifies just "STUPID" in Yiddish.
Terrific blog and insight Phillip.
I too, come from pretty insulated world of privilege, and perhaps due to my own life experiences, my perspectives on so many things have changed a great deal.
I can relate with your need to inspire dialog and constructive debate. I come from a similar world, albeit Protestant, where conformity is more appreciated and welcomed than stirring the proverbial pot. While members of my family are very close to the Bushes and I know them as well, it has made things much more difficult for me to speak out about the horrific policies that have been enacted. I've been vocal since the 2000 'election' and since that time it has been quite challenging with my family, to the point I've only been back home once since then.
I realize it is difficult for them as well. However, the overall estrangement has left me both angry and sad.
In addition, I have also found that my voicing concerns regarding the issues of Israel and AIPAC have resulted in a similar level of hostility and vendictiveness I rather naively didn't expect.
Certainly I've learned a lot these past eight years as so many of us have. Difficult navigating these days and yet I believe there is great opportunity now if more of us would realize we are all connected, and the truth is our greatest friend, whatever it is and wherever it takes us.
You are inspiring wonderful and invaluable dialog. So important.
Thanks so much for all you are doing. It's making a difference.
Very few statements of fact are 100% TRUE.
If a statement is not 100% true it is a GENERALIZATION or an APPROXIMATION.
If we say the earth is ROUND that would not be entirely true as it is in fact it BULGES slightly at the equator.
Yet it is a very USEFUL approximation. (And when most people thought the earth was flat it was even more instructive.)
Generalizations are USEFUL in understanding complex phenomena.
[sorry, richard--i couldn't resist...]
phil, methinks richard wants you to self-censor more in the name of 'sensitivity.' richard seems to think that if people knew the truth there would be pogroms in the US. i don't think so. i believe most Americans understand that Jewish contributions to the arts and sciences and the economy are tremendous and disproportionate. i believe most Americans think Jewish prominence is the result of the American meritocracy which they support and are proud of. but they would not support the current policies of our country if they knew the truth. and of course i suspect that this is richard's big fear. it looks like the threat of violence is far more likely to come from christian zionists (think of 'jesus camp') and radical zionists (who seem to come disproportionately from the USA like Dr goldstein and kahane). it's not hard to imagine martial law and guantanamo-like camps for 'terrorist sympatisers' in the US under a McCain Liebermann administration. (richard will be safe.)
of course richard is correct in his view that your economic and social interests would be better served by following his advice. but i thank God that the human race is blessed with a handful of people who put their ideals and principals above their interests and speak truth to power. and those courageous souls have been very disproportionately Jewish as I know Phil understands.
Another Joachim gem for your clipfile:
http://www.somervillemejustice.com/marriage.html
are you sure Cook is really your last name? perhaps you're doing something you are ashamed of?
Chimpsky,
We are actually saying the same thing about generalization.
If you said "the world is wobbly" or "the world is brittle" that would be true, but MISREPRESENT the world, as it is, and as it could be.
"both forms adapt easily for propaganda purposes, especially in the realm of what's left out of content. Lies of omission are sneakier than lies of commission."
That was on my mind Charles, but I was too lazy to go into details.
I don't like the idea that the distinction between generalization and summerization is talmudic in essence (feels a bit like the Chris Moore perspective).
I think the line of thought that feeds into it is: balance. It's a formula against revolution but it can be a recipe for stasis, deadlock too.
Ed/Chris Moore: If the ideas, agenda and policies fail or cause harm, as so many of organized Jewry’s ideas and agenda-manifestations have (ie, the Iraq war), it should take responsibility for them.
That political representatives and their advisers should take responsibility is a good idea. But how should we handle it in practice?
E.g. how do you deal with the line of thought of the "Iraq war execution critics"?
What about the Machiavellian space that opens up once we try to approach responsibility. Who is to blame?
What to do with strategies like this?
If "shock and awe" had been executed as we intended, all would be fine now. The Arabs (Iraqis) would have surrendered.
There was nothing wrong with our ideas. The root of our troubles lies with the execution, with the military, with intelligence … They are the ones responsible!
"I think the line of thought that feeds into it is: balance. It's a formula against revolution but it can be a recipe for stasis, deadlock too."
We agree.
If the purpose of communication is to inform, then balance is a means to that.
If the objective is to motivate politically, then stasis might be a result.
My sense is that relative to the manipulation to enter war carelessly, stasis is a good goal.
Balance is what is asked for.
For Leander,
In most cases making a mistake is not a crime, but there are a lot of laws and regulations that simply are not being enforced.
I have prima facie evidence of massive tax fraud and conspiracy to commit massive tax fraud on the part of Leslie Wexner (Target, Victoria's Secret) for the sake of the State of Israel.
I have to work on a provisional patent application over the next few days, but after I am done, I will do the paperwork on Wexner, and I will even blog it at EAAZI. How far do you think I will get given the disproportionate representation of Jewish Zionists at the IRS and and the DOJ?
Suppose my advisory of tax fraud managed to get traction. Is it not highly likely that elected and appointed political officials intimidated by the Zionist Lobby (or Judonia as I prefer) would do their utmost to quash any investigation?
Wexner is one of the worst of the Jabotinskian Oligarchs.
Would progressive Jewish individuals and groups or liberal Zionist groups help me?
Don't make me laugh!
Until we can get basic laws enforced against Jewish and Zionist groups and individuals, accountability for Jewish Zionist manipulation of the political system is simply a fantasy.
LeaNder,
RE: My "both forms adapt easily for propaganda purposes, especially in the realm of what's left out of content. Lies of omission are sneakier than lies of commission."
YOUR: "That was on my mind Charles, but I was too lazy to go into details.
I don't like the idea that the distinction between generalization and summerization is talmudic in essence (feels a bit like the Chris Moore perspective)."
In the context of my post the connection was meant to be, since both forms have often been appropriated for propaganda (and counter propaganda), the distinctions made between the two amounts to irrelevant nit-picking.
RE: "I think the line of thought that feeds into it is: balance. It's a formula against revolution but it can be a recipe for stasis, deadlock too."
AND:
If the purpose of communication is to inform, then balance is a means to that.If the objective is to motivate politically, then stasis might be a result.My sense is that relative to the manipulation to enter war carelessly, stasis is a good goal.
Balance is what is asked for."
I also agree. A major underlying focus of Phil's blog is to bring a touch of balance, considering the huge one-sided spiel spun constantly to all Americans for public consumption by the congress, presidential regime, and gigantic embedded mainline mass media. Phil's blog is samizdat.
Richard Witty: We agree.
…
My sense is that relative to the manipulation to enter war carelessly, stasis is a good goal.
LeaNder: Fine, one example out of our complicated and often paradox universe.
Now since you choose the pair: generalization – summerization solely for the purpose of the Israel/Palestine conflict, what would be the positive aspect of stasis in this context?
Here's another Joachim gem for your clipfile
http://www.somervillemejustice.com/marriage.html
: )
Joachim: Leslie Wexner. No idea who he is
Hmmm? almost made him a she.
Complicated.
Leads us beyond "Judonia" into the larger Dershowitz universe: Right is might and/or money to pay the best lawyer. Don't you fear a libel suit?
Is tax evasion a sport for the masses? Wouldn't they be pleased to end a suit with that kind of person with a fine that does not hurt him much?
How can you know about his taxes???? Or evasion?
chimpsky, your name has a strange attraction. It had even before you turned into a Phil Weiss correspondent and thus turned up in the upper layers. Pleased to see you are still around. ;)
What question are you asking about?
We both opposed the Iraq War, but for apparently different reasons (probably some in common, but the inference that the war was fought for Israel is our divide).
I opposed the war because it was cruel as all wars are (even the necessary and just ones), unilateral, unnecessary, for oil company advantage, isolating from international consent, and instituted for the corrupt personal vindication of Bush's father (against the accusations of the old con right). A dozen more reasons, of which "for Israel" did not enter the math pro or con.
If pro or con Israel had been significant enough for the US to defend its ally against an invasion say, I would have spoken FOR the war.
So, most here differ with me on both points, whether the US should defend Israel against genuine assault, and whether the US was motivated to defend Israel in Iraq specifically.
On generalization and summarization. I believe that conversation, debate and dissent are valid actions, laudable. Generalization for propaganda is neither of those.
For a person of conscience, there are two relevant actions. One is to understand clearly and completely. The second is to respond effectively and kindly.
The two efforts are related.
Claiming that oil company advantage lies behind the Iraq war is just Zionist disinformation and mendacity.
The goal of privatizing Arab oil (to the benefit of shareholders among whom hyperwealthy Zionists would be predominant) has been an explicit Zionist goal since 1973.
Zionist politics has always been intertwined with petropolitics since before the Arabs were involved. See Petroleum: Driving Force in Zionism.
For Leander.
It is amazing what one can discover just by data mining the web.
Not all tax fraud is evasion.
When I do the paperwork, I will put it up.
Summer Quiz
1. Who wrote:
"Palestinian partisans that blow themselves up in an attack on Zionist colonizers are heroes, and all decent human beings should support them."?
2. Who wrote
""In practically every way, Palestinians are a thoroughly dispicable
community whose bigotry and fanaticism prevents them from joining the modern world and who deserve much worse punishment than they are receiving (apparently mostly at their own hands — poetic justice or the cunning of history, if I have ever seen it)."?
Didn't we go through this exercise on Richard Silverstein's site?
The first quote is a subtle misrepresentation of something I said to compare the Palestinian resistance to John Brown, who is considered a hero by large numbers Americans for taking forceful action against violent state sponsored racism (the American slave system) that was probably less evil than Zionism.
Brown had slavers hacked to pieces. Ralph Waldo Emerson raised money for him in Harvard Yard.
While I used to be a Charles Jacobs/David Project type of Zionist, that particular quote comes from someone that broke into one of my computer accounts a long time ago.
In some sense, I wish I wrote it so that I could use it to demonstrate my transformation after I saw the actuality of Zionism in the occupied Palestinian territories and after I made a careful study of the roots of Zionist ideology in Central and Eastern Europe.
It would mean that there is hope for Charles Jacobs and his droogs, who routinely make such statements about Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.
Congratulations, Joachim Martillo, you are the winner and the answer. Can you specify in which way the first statement subtly misrepresents what you actually wrote?
It appears you can't explain in what way Sue Blackwell, the famous Palestinian activist, has misrepresented what you actually wrote. But it's a poor reflection on her that she stooped so low. Regarding the second question in the Summer Quiz, I'm at a loss to think who would break into a racist's computer account, and maliciously attribute racist remarks to him. It can't have been Charles Jacobs or his droogs, because you were one of those droogs at the time, remember? Droogs don't defame one of their own. It must have been Sue Blackwell or one of her droogs.
Sue Blackwell has a problem in that she feels obligated to get some sort of Jewish approval for her criticisms of the State of Israel.
I said that by American history and precedent Palestinian partisans that blow themselves up in an attack on Zionist colonizers are heroes, and all decent human beings should support them.
I cited John Brown as an example of American support for terrorism directed against violent state-sponsored racism of the sort that Zionism represents.
Nevertheless, in my opinion the effort would be better spent in making Hollywood-style Palestinian POV blockbuster feature films that targeted American audiences.
According to some mathematical models that I developed about two decades ago, by the time the sixteenth film hit the silver screen, the USA would be ready to attack Israel in order to obliterate Zionism from the face of the Earth.
It would be poetic justice for Zionists have been manipulating the USA into incinerating Arab and Muslim countries for a long time.
BTW, one Palestinian sympathetic feature film went into distribution in 2001, but the allegory was unfortunately too subtle for most Americans to get it.
See Planet of the Zionist Apes.
Comments on this entry are closed.