I'm taking a day off, if I can get off my hill tomorrow morning. It's snowing here in New York. I'm planning to go for a dayhike in the Catskills. We shall see.
This is just a note to say that as daunted as I am by the adversity we've faced in the struggle for recognition of human rights in Palestine, I'm encouraged too. There's a true movement afoot in American life. Across from us are those who regard the events of the last three weeks as just and fit. The people who learned nothing from the horrors of Iraq, where occupation did not work, and where 'terror" was ultimately understood as the terrible expression of a political competition in which rights were denied; the people who will excuse anything that Israel does. On our side are all the people who were horrified by Israeli actions. A simple test.
On our side, apart from the sense of moral clarity, we have great diversity. Many people are joining this movement for evenhandedness in our foreign policy toward the Arab world, from many segments of American life. One great thing is that young Jews are joining and giving others permission. The pro-Israel side is losing the young Jews, that has been key.
I call it a leftwing movement, but it includes conservatives; and whatever it is I sense it will transform American political life. It is at the grassroots, unrepresented in mainstream media and politics, and there's a lot of power in that. There's strength in adversity. I just feel very positive about where the pendulum is going in American political life--to the progressive side. Just a little positive visualization before I go out into the weather.
I believe that the poles of traditional politics are realigning: that is why both liberals and conservatives of Conscience are allying for the liberation of Palestine–the great issue of our time–against both liberal and conservative Imperialists, neo-cons, and Israel-firsters.
Describing the new opposition would take more time than I have, but here's a try (it's what you all seem to know already, anyway):
The latter Imperialist pole has catered to the greed of the already rich, creating corporate exploitation, world-wide slavery, massive environmental destruction, the will to power, or as Orwell puts it, a "boot stamping on a human face–forever."
Our new pole works toward respect for all on earth and the earth itself, benevolence, belief in self-determination, negotiation, mercy, the rule of law, leaving behind cycles of violence.
The new antitheses are between cynicism and a visionary hope of harmony, a faith in doubt, a skepticism of certainties–for they're often prejudices–, or as Keats describes it, the "negative capability" of living in uncertainty, so that we can work together.
The most useful thing all you cockamamie middle-class idealists and grifters could do is raise a campaign, AS JEWS, against JEWISH OWNERSHIP OF U.S. MASS MEDIA.
Maximillien Marie Isidore de Robespierre (Architect of The Reign of Terror] — Address, National Convention, 1794
Rowan's on to something. How about some banners saying "Jews for a Democratic Media!"
This is REALLY the third rail, in my opinion. Even more than Israel, the topic of media control gets to the heart of the ambivalent relationship to the gentile world in modern Jewish identity.
Fixing the media problem automatically fixes many other excesses of the lobby.
thanks for all the news, and have a great hike. We got 9" of new fluffy snow, and its started snowing again!
The main reason psychologically for the 100% jewish control (sometimes even independent of formal ownership) of the U.S. mass media is this: the jewish approach to commercial mass culture is completely manipulative from the outset. It makes no attempt to 'understand' local, regional, national, or international issues whatever, but simply describes them mechanically, using rote phrases that are supposed to produce the desired ideological mass response. That is all it does, and that is all that the U.S. public can imagine it doing, ever. Such a system, like the soviet one, has to be run by utterly remorseless professional brainwashers, because it rapidly falls apart the moment it is spectacularly disrupted by genuine dissent (as opposed to fake dissent, like Phil's which simply aims to establish a new 'radical chic' coterie among U.S. jewish scribblers, for damage limitation purposes).
I've always thought of modern mass media is manipulative by its technological nature, not because of who owns it. The best I'm hoping for is a kind of checks and balances, people still being manipulated, but in different directions instead of all the same.
I think you're saying Jews have ended up there because they're better at it (more remorseless). I think it's more a matter of not trusting what the gentiles might start thinking if left on their own.
"… for damage limitation purposes"
Maybe. But then there's a sense in which we're all out for damage limitation, always trying to protect our estimations of ourselves. (You used to warn me about not thinking of conspiracies too superficially.)
Have a good day off, Phil. God knows, you've earned it.
It must feel dangerous to be inside an insurgent movement.
Or, rather outside of the range of invited discourse.
Definitely off the reservation, in tone at least.
I don't know that "civil war" (whether defined as within the Jewish community or within the American community) can EVER be highly regarded.
It must feel like a betrayal of intellectual civility, even within a wide range.
Obama brings people to the same table. Civil war ONLY divides. I can't understand how you can describe civil war (even as a metaphor) as patriotic for example.
I suppose I shouldn't really use Phil as a punch-bag. In fact, there is a nice jewish israeli person called yaron visiting my own humble blog at the moment, and asking me intelligent questions too, which is encouraging to say the least.
When the dominant discourse is one of pervasive colonial bigotry, even by self-described liberals, then talking outside the range of invited discourse is required.
Interesting story in Haaretz reporting on an apparently new initiative of the Israeli government to recruit people who speak languages other than Hebrew to go out into the non-Hebrew blogosphere to try to counter what is thought of as wrong or anti-Israeli sentiment:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html
Might remind people here no matter what perspective they come from that Weiss is allowing anyone and everyone a chance to try to convince us of their viewpoint, and via same allowing all of us to get educated even about perspectives we might terribly disagree with.
So even if you don't like Weiss' perspective or that of the majority of posters here, it seems to me that there's a broader value to this thing that ought to be recognized.
I.e., when's the last time you clicked on that little "donate" button at the top? You gotta admit Phil puts a lot of time in to this thing finding interesting tidbits that everyone can bloviate about.
"raise a campaign, AS JEWS, against JEWISH OWNERSHIP OF U.S. MASS MEDIA."
Same old, same old. The problem is not Jewish ownership, it's Zionist ownership.
And the solution ist transparancy.
Every citizen should know exactly who owns which news outlet, and what are their beliefs?
And then instantly boycott said news outlet when these beliefs are harming the US national interest, for example when this Jewish NBC producer (Zucker?) denied some of his journalist to do a piece about 9/11, because he (the Jewish producer) didn't want to see "jihadists raging about Palestine".
Thanks, Me, that indeed is the same old tale. Could come straight out of the Nazi books.
Media control goes hand in hand with monopolization and corporate control via advertisement. Unfortunately monopolization seems to be a necessary standard in the economic sharp pool. I have never been a fan of our local paper here in Cologne but lately I have learned to respect the owner. Not only has he helped Hareetz but also a paper I esteem highly the: Frankfurter Rundschau, now he is helping the Berliner Zeitung, the former East Berlin paper, to survive that was bought by one of the high leverage speculators a couple of years back. …
This I find interesting:
100% jewish control (sometimes even independent of formal ownership)
If it is independent of formal ownership how exactly does it work?
Over here during the Weimar Republic they worked on laws to give the single journalist the right to express himself independent of the owner's point of view. Of course the Nazis immediately stopped the development and instead put somebody in charge in the paper called the "Schriftleiter". This guy was personally responsible for everything written in the paper and could be prosecuted for anything the Nazis didn't like.
Phil,
When you question the assumptions of the US, and of groups that YOU actively associate with, then you can call yourself an insurgent.
When you focus your criticism on Israel solely, a community that you are not a part of, you describe only the surface of dissent, only the statistics of it.
Your dissent against the war in Vietnam, and the questioning of American institutions that resulted, was insurgent. At some point in your young adult life, you rejected that in favor of something that really could be called careerism.
If you returned to a sincere inquiry of American institutions, that would be dissent. This is something different.
And, if you returned to a sincere inquiry of your personal assumptions of what constitutes morality and optimal form and manner of governance/consent, that would be self-inquiry.
Ironically, among the most diligent of those that conduct that self-inquiry, use the life-long study of Jewish texts as a means.
In contrast, a great many of those on the left, imprint their assumptions and never subsequently question them or their source of support.
Richard, the idea of woolgatherer, cockeyed optimist, Phil Weiss, as an insurgent is blatantly absurd.
You seem to have "basically" subscribed to the pan-Islamic threat scenario, while Phil hasn't. At least that is how I read some occasional comments.
Who do you think are more dangerous, the people that propagate the clash of cultures as a simple reenactment of the Nazi threat or Phil?
These guys, in Pat Lang's words:
The pseudo threat posed by "The Caliphate" was claimed to be as great as that posed by the Soviet Union in the Cold War or Nazi Germany. A passing knowledge of Islamic history would reveal to all who cared to know that Islamic unity has been an unattainable goal for many, many centuries. Regrettably, many honest but uninformed people were deceived by this propaganda ploy on the part of the Bush Administration and their neocon friends.
Were you ever up on the barricades against these propagandists. I think they are playing much more with fire than Phil ever did.
I'm sorry, but the problem with the U.S. mass media is not merely one of 'zionist' control, but of jewish control as such, and much of it is nominally non-zionist, and professes to be concerned with 'liberal' values, such as the prevention of 'hate speech'. As you should know,LeaNder, if you live in Germany.
I should add that many of these 'progressive' american jewish organisations claim to be affiliated to american black organisations, "in the common struggle against racism", whereas in fact no self-respecting american black organisation would be seen dead on the same platform with them, since their attitudes to american blacks are transparently colonial and hypocritical, exactly like the attitudes of zionist israelis to their own local client and puppet 'allies'.
This from the Haaretz article referred to above by Sin Nombre:
"…volunteers who send the Absorption Ministry their contact details by e-mail, at media@moia.gov.il, will be registered according to language, and then passed on to the Foreign Ministry's media department, whose personnel will direct the volunteers to Web sites deemed "problematic."
Now, how to get a list of the "problematic" websites?
Witty,
Your claim that Weiss is only targeting Israel itself (and that this, therefore, doesn't constitute dissent) is absurd.
Or maybe you haven't realized that Israel's actions are wholly funded and supported (complete with veto power at the United Nations) by the United States government. Israel's war on Gaza is also America's war on Gaza. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and continuing theft of land, water and Palestinian dignity, is also the U.S.'s theft of land, water and dignity. The Israel-firsters' rally cry is, however perversely, accurate: Their fight is our fight. We've made it so.
Phil is standing up to his own government and its blanket support of the nightmare that is Israel. When the U.S. stops fundung, arming and flexing its diplomatic muscle on behalf of Israel, then you can accuse Phil (or anyone who shares his views) of picking on some random country they have no connection to. But until then, Americans, through their government, are connected to what Israel is doing — and standing up to that is a classic case of dissent.
And what, by the way, are you engaged in, Mr. Witty, when you invest so much time, energy and focus– an amount equal to what Phil devotes, as best I can tell — to pleading Israel's case? You show no such similar interest in any other country, the United State included.
Your anger at US involvement with Israel is exagerated.
Israel is helped by the US support, but is mostly independant of US support for its defense. The right-wing in Israel regard the leaning on the US as restricting their independance.
Israel has done much for the US, that were against some definitions of its interest, to support independant US efforts. To say that the relationship is one-way is out and out silly.
I dedicate maybe a half-hour/day to discussion on Israel. Not that much.
My main commitment now is in the field of energy conservation, which is MUCH more important politically as far as effecting US freedom in policy and personal options, than US alliance with Israel.
If Phil were "successful" in reducing America's subsidy to Israel, what do you think would be the net effect financially on you, either personally or the country? The feds have a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit in the coming year!!!
It amounts to NOTHING substantively. Especially, if YOU and others do nothing to effect the US waste and addiction on fossil fuels, that is the primary reason for US interests in the Middle East.
ANY other analysis of US Middle Eastern involvement that does not dominantly include fossil fuels, is ignorant.
As you should know,LeaNder, if you live in Germany.
Germany as you should know has a very specific past and a party that used hate speech to keep the people in lockstep. I've had this conversation a thousand times before. Personally I think it's much better to keep these arguments in plain sight than to drive them underground.
But there is a clear relation between hate propaganda and arsons or dead and I've seen too many of these events, targeting asylum seekers, Turks and Jews. The kids that are trained to do these things are used, we know now from a few who got out of extreme rights clasp. The lower levels are recruited on hate speech, they are considered a necessary evil. Someone has to do the dirty work. Only a few more intelligent are promoted and trained to lead these sheep. Hate is the clue that keeps the sheep together. The ultimate aim is power, and surely no democracy. The people used to get there ultimately do not matter.
"The kids that are trained to do these things are used . . . The lower levels are recruited on hate speech, they are considered a necessary evil. Someone has to do the dirty work. Only a few more intelligent are promoted and trained to lead these sheep. Hate is the clue that keeps the sheep together. The ultimate aim is power"
I assume, LeaNder, you're talking about Phil and his "young" Jews?
Richard, you do no good here at all. I'm probably the closest thing you ever had to an ally in these comment threads, except for the Arab-hating Sword of Gideon, because I'm often appalled by the antisemitism in the comment threads here. But I soon realized you are nothing but a hypocrite and the only thing interesting about you is whether you realize it or not. If you wanted to reach anyone around here you'd acknowledge wholeheartedly the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians and you wouldn't be their constant whining apologist. In the previous thread you defended the sanctions on Gaza, which made 1.5 million people suffer. You'd never dream of supporting anything so brutal against Israel, even though they run something resembling an apartheid society on the West Bank. You're clear enough in your denunciation of Hamas, which is fine–they are war criminals– but your mouth is full of mushy platitudes whenever Israel's crimes are mentioned. If you want to model for us what a true advocate for peace looks like, you could start by at least pretending to believe that Israeli crimes against Palestinians matter. Otherwise, you do nothing but hurt your alleged interest in encouraging a peaceful and just solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
"… and the only thing interesting about you is whether you realize it or not."
you've nailed it.
Richard, how do you think Phil could "successfully" reduce American money to Israel? Why then even suggest it? Don't you realize you alienate most with statements like this? You really rub matters in, don't you? What feelings do you think this produces?
The main problem I have with your "objectity" is that you carefully avoid central issues. Omission is a central tool in manipulation.
Here the crux in Daniel Levy's words.
and here in Neve Gordon's
How is Israel's morality connected to your ostentatiously exhibited own "balancing ethics" in which the dispossession mostly obliterated and cause and result do not matter.
We have to trust you concerning the Iraq war, and that you didn't support it. But all witnessed that you now gave us the impression you supported the Gaza war: Israel has the right to defend itself, like any other nation. After all!
Do you think the perception of part of reality–reading and thinking–will disappear when Phil stops talking about it? Do you think more and more war can ever resolve this central issue?
Quite astute, LeaNder. Witty does like to rub it in.
He chides his old friend Phil about his lack of work prospects. He boasts that Zionism will go on forever. He says Mearsheimer, practically a household name now, received "censure." He's alone in the corner humming off the Zionist kool-aid, calling the rest of the room "gullible."
Underneath this veneer of reasonableness and moderation, we see the guy really is a rabid ethnic chauvinist.
Hard to say if he realizes it or not.
But he resists any new understanding like a true bigot.
I think the long-term is what is significant, not the incidents.
My criticism of Israel long-term is that it did not do the unilateral things that could have enhanced the stature and health of Palestinians through the PA, so that Hamas is truly marginalized.
Even relative to Hamas, that it did not make measurable (if not what Hamas demanded) improvements in their trade across borders.
It was UNREASONABLE (no matter how you promote it) for Israel to accept unlimited importation of aggressive arms to Hamas.
A quandry, but Hamas' goal of effecting Israel's policies by force of arms, even minor ones, is an implausible approach. It is a suicidal approach, using the Gazan Palestinians as both direct and indirect human shields.
My goal is genuine peace, and mutual health.
I see mixed signs from Israel. I see signs (few) that it is earnest about facilitating a viable Palestinian state (a NEW phenomena, too long delayed). And, I see signs that it and many parties within Israel at best want to delay that indefinitely, and at worst want to make it impossible or unviable.
In ALL cases that I've observed, I don't perceive militancy as improving Palestinians' condition or prospect for health.
I had mixed feelings about the Gaza War. My sense is that Hamas started the war, that Israel would have willingly NOT made war (even as it was prepared to do so), if Hamas had restrained from escalating after the cease-fire formally ended.
There are two strategies to improving status (for Palestine)
1. Fight – With the likelihood of backlash (Yes, the same questions apply to Hamas), and more than likelihood of war and permanent division (NO POSSIBILITY OF A DEMOCRATIC SINGLE STATE)
2. Compromise – With the likelihood of being called "yellow", and possibility that the dominant party will imprint that dominance, make it permanent and non-changeable. But, also with the likelihood that relaxation and normalization will occur, to the point that a functional single democratic state exists.
off topic: Robert Fisk’s World: When it comes to Gaza, leave the Second World War out of it
"But he resists any new understanding like a true bigot."
That itself is a uniquely bigoted statement. How do you have a clue as what goes on in my thinking? You don't read, you fool.
Demonstrate some dialog MM, some talking and listening, that does NOT require me to adopt your language, but acknowledges my reasoning.
Your friends are accurate that Hamas won't go away by magic. But, it is also accurate that Israel and Israelis will not go away by magic.
So, you have the option of pursuing a path of agitation (a form of warring), or a mix of agititation and reconciliation, or a path of urged reconciliation.
Which of those approaches do think is likely to result in whatever goal you have? Who knows what it is?
It was UNREASONABLE (no matter how you promote it) for Israel to accept unlimited importation of aggressive arms to Hamas.
well, that is just blatant hasbara nonsense, witty, slipped in like a true professional, too. I hope your pay is as regular as your efforts are.
Unfortunately Witty I do read your crap. It is you who doesn't read.
You are like a bigot in that you guard yourself from even coming close to an uncomfortable truth.
Somebody posts John Mearsheimer's latest article and you have a knee-jerk reaction. Without even reading it.
I don't read? YOU don't read. You don't want to learn anything unless it's Zionist-approved.
I would like to see more development of the alliance between classic liberals and conservative libertarians, which I see as really the only hope of defeating Leviathan and its Zionist string-pullers.
It seems to me, too many on the Left want to turn the State into the Church — that is, make the State the moral authority of society, and dispenser of favors and salvation. We’ve seen how this ends, time and again, from the Soviet Union to contemporary America. Once a corrupt and powerful special interest or network gets control of Leviathan, that’s all she wrote.
Diffusion of power is the key to attaining moral justice, as it allows for self-determination without Big Brother’s permission or sanction, and human beings aren’t reduced to existence at Big Brother’s pleasure (or rather, the pleasure of his string-pullers), whether at home or abroad.
another off-topic post, article by MJ Rosenberg: George Mitchell To Be Middle East Special Envoy
Ed, in one respect you are exactly like mr. witty our hasbara merchant: your ruminations about 'classical liberals and conservative libertarians' have precisely nothing to do with 'our zionist string pullers' and you are merely trying to hitch your tedious paleo right wagon to an issue on which it has nothing specific to say.
********************************************
Livni's Smile
The Boss Has Gone Mad
By URI AVNERY
…..In this war, politicians and generals have repeatedly quoted the words: “The boss has gone mad!” originally shouted by vegetable vendors in the market, in the sense of “The boss has gone crazy and is selling the tomatoes at a loss!” But in the course of time the jest has turned into a deadly doctrine that often appears in Israeli public discourse: in order to deter our enemies, we must behave like madmen, go on the rampage, kill and destroy mercilessly….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to counterpunch.org
/>
********************************************
"Nought But Grief and Pain, for Promis'd Joy"
Robbie Burns, Mackenzie and Gaza
By PETER EWART
…The aim of the English ruling class was to extinguish forever the Scottish national struggle (an aim, of course, which was ultimately unsuccessful), to the point that, for many years after, even wearing a kilt or playing bagpipes was prohibited by law and could result in jail or exile. As well, prejudices were common among English and Scottish aristocrats who considered the Highland Scots, in their fierce desire for freedom and independence, to be “wild-eyed”, “barbaric,” and even “sub-human,” similar, as we shall discuss, to how the Palestinians are depicted by some news media and government officials today…….
ENTIRE ARTICLE –
"Somebody posts John Mearsheimer's latest article and you have a knee-jerk reaction. Without even reading it."
I read the whole biased article. You don't recognize polemic when its presented. Its a GREAT tragedy for Mearsheimer to adopt his mode of prediction and dictation, when the reality of the depth of his understanding is speculation and interpretation.
Its a false approach, self-talk.
"Hasbara merchant". You gullible fools. My comments are my own observations. I don't buy rhetoric, but I do read from multiple sources.
MM,
I doubt that you read my comments, except to react to them.
If you read them, you would acknowledge that I advocate for 67 borders, a RADICAL approach compared to what you call "hasbara" (you deceptive propagandist).
You seem to imagine that your agitation will result in either betterment for Palestinians or Israelis. The only way to realize good for both communities is to VALUE the other.
Hamas neither declaring Gaza a separate Palestinian state from the West Bank, NOR submitting to the consent of the Palestinian people in a single PA, keeps the status the same.
It is bad for Palestinians to be "led" by Hamas. They suffer.
Israeli reasonably must defend its borders from the idiocy of shelling civilians. Its a no-brainer. Once that occurs, then your irritation makes sense. Until, "everywhere is war".
@RB,
Given that the State is the instrument of the Zionist string pullers, the paleo-libertarians have plenty to say (or perhaps you've never read the anti-Zionist pioneer Buchanan or libertarian Raimondo on the subject). Had the paleos been running things these last 20 years (instead of the liberal establishment and Neocons) or had the classical liberalism of the Founders prevailed, the Zionist problem wouldn't exist because US organized Jewry and its big government partners would never have been able to get control of the levers of government and media, and consolidate their power; and a much smaller paleo-libertarian government wouldn't have been inclined to underwrite Zionism, let along fight wars for it.
Whenever the Left’s flawed ideology puts it in a hole, it always keeps digging instead of re-thinking its State-as-Church formulation. If you had an authentically liberal bone in your body, RB, you would have realized Leftism is not liberalism long ago. But you, just like the embittered Zionist, harbor fantasies of vengeance and “justice” using the Big Government State as your instrument. You and you’re kind want us to trade our crazed Zionist masters for crazed Leftist masters. Why bother?
********************************************
•A good farewell to Bush at Asia Times by Pepe Escobar:
….Coming close to destroying a superpower and the global economy virtually single-handedly is not bad for someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth who never held a steady job until the age of 45 – until "turd blossom" Karl Rove, the little, fat, bald Machiavelli, engineered him as the ultimate, corporate-pleasing, Southern Strategy lethal weapon, and Bush family consigliere James Baker turned a massive electoral fraud, mostly in Florida and Ohio, into a hijacked mandate via the Supreme Court……
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to atimes.com
Whatever, the US-goy -enforced reality is the Zionist dream. Is this good?
Breaking news: Al Jazeera is reporting some rumors that retired senator George Mitchell might be named Middle East envoy. Perhaps the Dennis Ross trial baloon was attracting too much unwanted attention to the lobby. Perhaps Obama thinks he's strong enough to resist. Or maybe it's just a rumor.
In any event, here's a copy of the Mitchel Report (commissioned by Clinton in 2000 to examine the causes and cures of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which had just broken out).
This report and the Baker Report of 2004 are the last times gentile voices have been allowed to voice opinions on our Middle East policy. (And the ADL didn't like it.)
WITTY:
>>>Israel is helped by the US support, but is mostly independant of US support for its defense. The right-wing in Israel regard the leaning on the US as restricting their independance.
If this is so, sir, then I assume you agree with me that the United States — particularly in a time of economic crisis — should immediately stop sending money to Israel. Also, no more loan guarantees, no more F-4 fighters, no more cluster bombs, no more Apache attack helicopters, no more surplus military equipment, no more spending 1 in ever 5 dollars of our foreign aid budget on one small country the size of New Jersey — a country, that as you yourself just stated, would do fine without the U.S.'s help. While we're at it, we can also stop blocking EVERY SINGLE international effort to hold Israel accountable for any of its crimes.
Don't you dare call my outrage exaggerated (while also spelling 'exaggerated' wrong!) when my tax dollars paid for the helicopters and fighter jets that just murdered hundreds of innocent children. Your fanatical obsession with rationalizing Israel's various subjugations and slaughters is contemptible. At least own up to what is glaringly obvious to anyone who reads this comments section regularly: Israel is your frist love; America, a distant second, if that. Dual loyalty isn't the issue with you; you've cast your lot squarely with Israel and just consider yourself lucky to live in a country whose morally blind and ignorant leaders do the same. Gotta keep those pro-Israel dollars rolling into those campaign accounts….
******************************************
"The Fierce Urgency of Now"
By BOB SOMMER
….But perhaps more evocative of our time and the dream’s fulfillment…than King’s speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is his address before a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” He gave this address on April 4, 1967, a year to the day before he died.
This speech is usually regarded as King’s first major public statement of opposition to the war in Vietnam, which without question it is. But the title suggests that it is more than that: “Beyond Vietnam.”
Here King described what he believed to be the fundamental flaws in how Americans lived and viewed the world that led the country into a conflict in which it had no business:
“The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit…and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing ‘clergy and laymen concerned’ committees for the next generation.”…..
ENTIRE ARTICLE –
“>link to americanrhetoric.com
MORE WITTY: "The feds have a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit in the coming year!!! It amounts to NOTHING substantively. Especially, if YOU and others do nothing to effect the US waste and addiction on fossil fuels, that is the primary reason for US interests in the Middle East."
This is beyond repulsive. In essence, you are arguing that since aid to Israel is a relatively small chunk of our federal budget, we shouldn't be upset by it. By this same twisted, clueless (and quintessentially Wittian) reasoning, we should never have cut off aid to South Africa's Apartheid government, because — hey — it's not like it added up to any real money.
Get real — and instead of demanding that Phil ask tough questions of himself, why don't you start asking them about yourself?
What an absolutely repulsive argument you just presented.
*******************************************
Good Riddance, Vile Prince
by Bill Gallagher – Published January 19, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
He had political pedigree and little else. He was a child of privilege and entitlement.
His name, not his merit, brought him to Yale and Harvard where the affirmative action of legacy provided him slots denied to the more accomplished lacking his royal family's wealth and heritage.
For him, life was like an elite box of chocolates where he always knew what he would get. Just ask daddy and it's done. Do what you like, fail and never face the consequences…….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to commondreams.org
********************************************
Peace Is in the Eye of the Beholder
by Chris Hedges – Published January 19, 2009 by TruthDig.com
I do not like Hamas. I detest religious fundamentalism and the use of suicide bombers. I find the group's anti-Semitism and ruthless silencing of internal Palestinian opponents repugnant. The rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are a war crime. But this does not negate the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance to the long Israeli siege and occupation of Gaza.
The moral scum of any society rises to the surface in war. Those who have a penchant for violence and an access to weapons dominate the landscape. It was the criminal class and gangsters who first organized the defense of Sarajevo. It was the thugs of Gaza who took control to confront the Israeli army. This is nothing new in wartime. Violence is a disease, a disease that corrupts all who use it regardless of the cause. But there are moments when a people face the terrible tragedy of resistance or obliteration. This was true in Sarajevo. It is true for the Palestinians. It does not make it pretty or good. It is what happens.
The condemnation of the Palestinians for the use of force ignores the long violence of Israeli occupation. Those who call on the Palestinians to embrace nonviolence preach an airy utopianism……
ENTIRE ARTICLE –
********************************************
We Must Demand a Just Peace for Palestinians
by Judith Laitman and Tsela Barr – Published on 01/19/09 by The Capital Times (Wisconsin)
As American Jews, we grew up learning to revere Israel, the "Jewish state" — the refuge of the persecuted. We had come to expect that Israel would have a highly developed moral consciousness and a collective awareness of what it means to have another group want to annihilate you. So it is shocking for those of us who grew up with these romantic myths to witness the state of Israel assuming the role of oppressor, of murderer of innocents, of desensitized military annihilator.
And it is even more grotesque for Israel and its defenders to continue to pretend that it is the Israelis who are the victims and that its recent savage assault on Gaza was just a defensive act. Worse yet, if people of conscience even express sympathy for the Palestinian victims, they are accused of anti-Semitism. These tactics purposely obscure the real obstacle to peace in the Middle East — Israel's rapacious 40-year military occupation of Palestinian lands, and its brutal blockade of Gaza and its 1.5 million inhabitants……
ENTIRE ARTICLE –
It does seem that the latest assault on Gaza really has opened the doors to criticism of Israel. This might well be the beginning of a change in how the state is regarded, even by Jews.