A piece that might have been titled "Jews are better; Jews don't hate," by David Suissa–on the 459th-ranked site on the internet, which has lately gotten substantial financing. Writes Jack Ross: "What we're seeing in Huffington Post now is an unholy alliance between the blogosphere hardcore and The New Republic."
Related posts:
- Abe Foxman catches foot in mouth in the Huffington Post
- Max Blumenthal: Feeling the hate in Tel Aviv (Huffington Post pulls the plug, again)
- Censored by the Huffington Post and Imprisoned By The Past: Why I Made ‘Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem’
- Where does HuffPo stand on Obama’s effort to change the Israel/Palestine conversation?
- Moyers criticizes Israel. And lo, Moyers’s 40-year-old dirty laundry appears
{ 49 comments }
This bizarre leitmotif that past suffering absolves an individual or group from present responsibility, or that it conveys some otherworldly dominion over moral issues, has distorted our judgment and recent history to absurdity. Enough. Come down here to terra firma with the rest of us, and talking eye-to-eye, maybe we can come up with some answers, relieve some critical stresses, before we combust ourselves to ash.
And yet the Yid with Lid has this piece: Huffington Post–>The Internet Home of JEW-Hatred ? where he catalogs, among other things, the statements he finds anti-Semitic in the comments section. It almost seems as if they're providing cover with the typical, "How can they be pro-Zionist if we complain about them being anti-Semitic all the time?" That seemed to be the MO with the New York Times too.
Had I not been banned from HuffPo, I'd add this obervation from Fredy Perlman to the Suissa piece. From: Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom – The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance and then attacking the resisters' unarmed kin as well as the surrounding population with the most gruesome products of Death-Science; this trick is not new. American Pioneers were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and burn villages with only women and children in them. This is already modern war, what we know as war against civilian populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass murder or genocide. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that the perpetrators of a Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case as victims of the Holocaust. [cont]
[cont] Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his analysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous people of this continent always made themselves appear, even in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts. The use the Nazis made of the International Jewish Conspiracy is better known: during all the years of atrocities defying belief, the Nazis considered themselves the victimized. It's as if the experience of being a victim gave exemption from human solidarity, as if it gave special powers, as if it gave a license to kill.
"The problem with pressuring Israel to buy peace through concessions is that it perpetuates the illusion that the Palestinians have something to sell." He doesn't understand that Palestinians have exactly ZERO concessions to make based on the tenets of international law. A peremptory clause of the U.N. charter is the inadmissability of acquiring land through war. You cannot change borders through war. It is then a violation of the Geneva Convention to transfer populations of your nation to that occupied land (Article 49.) I'm assuming he is the type of Zionist who would accuse every judge on the International Court of Justice of either being anti-semitic or unrealistic. The reasons the Palestinians hate the Israelis is because of their brazen disregard for the internationally agreed upon resolution for the conflict.
Suissa would probably say, "international law should be thrown in the waste bin in this situation because the Arabs will never stop until they push Israel into the sea. Israel must strike fear into the Palestinians by attacking civilians because Israel is constantly at risk of being wiped off the map." He is using the logic that the Nazi's used to justify their atrocities in WW2 (like Lance pointed out). Hitler conquered a whole continent in the name of "self-defense" and went against the wills of the international community. Suissa is a purveyor of Jewish exceptionalism as well as a hypocrite.
Fuck! This is a particularly nasty piece of pro-Zionist Entity chicanery. Suissa? Swiss cheese for a brain more like…
And to think that I told a friend of mine recently that Huntington Post appears to give both side's opinions…I will have to look at Huntington Post much more closely from here on in…. In regards to this arrogantly written opinion piece, I am wondering what compromises or concessions has Israel ever made with the Arabs? Israel violently takes over and occupies Arab lands, dispossesses its people, and than when they decide to give these lands back, or even just talk about giving them back, they call this a compromise or concession? How can you make concessions for what wasn't yours to begin with to concede? Israel takes thousands of Arab prisoners, and than when they decide to think about giving a few hundred back for one Israeli soldier, while they are in the process of taking in even more prisoners on a daily basis, they are somehow compromising or making a concession? The only side that has been ever compromising or making concessions is the Arab side, and what has that done for them other than having to make even more concessions and compromises … What Israeli supporters such as David Suissa wants is for the Arabs to give up their best bargaining chip, which is its resistance, so that Israel can unilaterally decide for the Arabs how the Arabs can sell Israel peace…. If Israeli supporters truly want to understand why Israel is not trusted and largely hated in the Arab world, they should try and put themselves in the Arab people's position, and than ask themselves if they would like to be treated the same way as Israel has have been treating the Arabs… Dismantling the settlements will most certainly help in dismantling the hatred..And being honest as to what crimes Israel has been committing towards the Arab people would be another way to dismantle the hatred …. The occupied and oppressed Palestinians shouldn't have to be expected to sell Israel peace. Israel should sell peace to itself by being honest with itself, and only than will it be able to sell it to the Arabs.
I just realized I mistakenly referred to Huffington Post as Huntington Post….Please excuse this error…
I does appear that particular posters can coause an astute reader to believe the blog is pandering to a new American Nazi Party.
The problems with a sticky keyboard.
That would have been the Samuel Huntington post then? Not bad.
The Huffington Post: Israeli-Occupied Territory Why is the Huffington Post carrying water for the IDF? Follow the money by Justin Raimondo [Antiwar.com] — Jan 2, '09 http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13990
"The problems with a sticky keyboard." Yeah, over-indulgence in ziocaine can have some very extreme sexual effects, spontaneous ejaculation is indeed one. Just a word to the wise, JacobWolfe, you keep snorting that stuff and it won't always be peaches and creaming.
"If Israeli supporters truly want to understand why Israel is not trusted and largely hated in the Arab world, they should try and put themselves in the Arab people's position" Ahh, Marion, I can see you are not privy to some of the most essential things about Zionism. See it works like this; first, the Jews have to leave Europe and England and America (the Goldenah Medina!) cause we are a separate nation and they hate us and they don't want us around and they kill us, see? So, we gotta go back to the homeland, baby, which is in the middle East. But when we get there, Zionism plays its trump card, to witty We can't live here with these Arabs! We're Europeans, see, a much better class people, we're not Arabs and we don't think like them and can't make peace with them. I mean, how can you not see vast success for a political system which excludes everyone in the world except about oh, 14 million people, scattered all over the globe? Yup, it's gonna be a great success. I though Jews weren't supposed to be gullible?
Keep your eye on the prize–it's the actual historical events. I agree, in the USA, it's hard to come by these events. The USA's 4th estate is not living up to its license to keep all Americans informed. It did a fair job–until Israel was involved. Now we are reduced to a USSR press. Should tell you something about where we are going.
This bizarre leitmotif that past suffering absolves an individual or group from present responsibility, or that it conveys some otherworldly dominion over moral issues, has distorted our judgment and recent history to absurdity. Excellent.
At least some of the comments to the Suissa piece take him on, including someone who was there. But you're right in your characterization of Suissa. I find him as repellent as the people in the Blumenthal vid.
Excellent piece, Sand. THX!
RE: "Huffington Post–>The Internet Home of JEW-Hatred ?" WORKING LINK – http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/04/huffington...
RE: 'Huffington Post' appears to have gone almost all the way over to the other side on Israel/Palestine MY COMMENT: HuffPo has essentially become part of the mainstream media (MSM). Consequently, they must 'bend over backwards' to show that they are good AmerIsraelis. A year ago, I would visit HuffPo daily. Nowadays, I rarely venture there.
when will the lies of the aparthied end..after or before the usa revolution? where will all the jews go , russia does not want them and they are the most hated people for a reason it is too bad they do not want peace and put themselves above the other people in the world..they are in for a rude awakening
THX D. – Thought I had fixed it correctly. They haven't posted my comment there yet. I've had troubles with YwL being abusive and arbitrary with his comment policy before so I'm not surprised. I pointed out that it's funny that Dershowitz whines about being deprived of a forum when both HuffPo and Yid with Lid regularly practice Zionist gatekeeping.
Agree entirely. I would like to read some of the essays as well as the comment forum, but since they took away my ability to comment, I choose not to give them any additional hits from visiting the site. I've written them directly about the ban on at least three separate occasions but with zero response. I did notice that the abusive voices arguing in favor of Zionism are still there. That CAMERA report on the supposed "Jew-hatred" there was a laugh. I don't even think it mentioned the possibility of plants spouting hate rhetoric to discredit the site either (or get them to crack down on any expressed sentiment taking Israel to task – as they have done).
Really nothing new on Huffington Post? Justin Raimando wrote a great piece a while back about where Huffington Post funding comes from and what she will allow and not allow at that site
"I though Jews weren't supposed to be gullible? " Bernie Madoff can get you 12% returns.
Here is the article: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13990
antiwar.com is also using intensedebate, fyi.
Oh? Much as I don't want to see blood on my streets, when "all the jews" aren't safe, is when the revolution starts, imo – because in that case no where would be safe for any one of us. I won't go down without a fight.
Gotta love it when influence is that clear. Thanks, to you both.
Nobody will be safe, be it Jew or Gentile. All will be affected.
And the Palestinians have adopted this "bizarre leitmotif" with their comparison of the nakba to the Holocaust?
I don't think that you are correct in stating that the "indamissaility of acquiring land through war" is a peremptory clasuse of the U.N. charter. It is part of the preamble to UNSCR 242, which does not speak of the Palestinians direclty. Your citing of Article 49 of the IVth Geneva Convention is also questionable. Article 49 deals specifically with "individual or mass forcible transfers". Given that the convention was put together some four years following the end of World War II, it is obvious that the "deportation or transfer of its own civilian population" referred to were those of Jewish civilians (and other "undesirables") to the newly acquired territories in the east. I oppose the settlements (and have since 1968), however, this is for a variety of economic, social, ethical and political reasons. The legality of the settlements has never really been an issue.
Again, nice petri dish you're running here guys!
Oh come on! Justin Raimondo has had a hissy fit combined with paranoiac delusions. Let's just examine some of Raimondo's (typical) false conclusions here: First, he makes the mistaken assumption that Arianna Huffington was "acquired" by Oak Investments for $25 million. Now while that sum may seem grand to Raimondo (whose antiwar.com has – shall we say – a rather limited readership), it probably only represents a minority stake in Huffington. His next assertion is that Oak Investments has " significant investments in the Israeli arms industry…." I took a look at the Oak Investment Partners Web site (http://www.oakinv.com). Over the years, they've invested in over 200 companies. Not only is there no evidence of a propensity to invest in military technology companies (their investments range in Internet/Media – such as Huffington – to Retail/Resaurants, such as Jamba Juice and Filene's Basement), but there is also no indication that they have a preference for Israeli companies in this field. (I guess that's all dependent on how Justin defines "significant".)
(Continued) And what about the specific case that Justin cites – ClickService, or IET? Well, ClickService had an IPO on NASDAQ back in 2000, at which time Oak Investment Partners cashed in their chips and left the board of directors. In other words, they no longer have anything to do with the company and haven't in nearly a decade. It would appear that this is just another case of Raimondo taking two and two and asking us to believe that the sum is five without having checked his facts.
I don't think that you are correct in stating that the "indamissaility of acquiring land through war" is a peremptory clasuse of the U.N. charter. It is part of the preamble to UNSCR 242, which does not speak of the Palestinians directly. Your citing of Article 49 of the IVth Geneva Convention is also questionable. Article 49 deals specifically with "individual or mass forcible transfers". Given that the convention was put together some four years following the end of World War II, it is obvious that the "deportation or transfer of its own civilian population" referred to were those of Jewish civilians (and other "undesirables") to the newly acquired territories in the east. I oppose the settlements (and have since 1968), however, this is for a variety of economic, social, ethical and political reasons. The legality of the settlements has never really been an issue.
Yes Mooser, I can really see why your inlaws think that you're a friggin' prince and that they can count on you for great stock picks. (I prefer to think of you as a WAKIAJB.)
Given the intricacies of stock holding and investment, I'm not sure how significant your information is either. Certainly, the fact of investment in over 200 companies doesn't contradict the statement of "significant investments in the Israeli arms industry." You assert that there is no evidence of such a propensity, but you don't provide support for your assertion.
Just because you may not understand it, doesn't mean that stock holding or investment are "intricate". You can examine the SEC filings since the 2000 IPO for yourself. They're right there on the ClickService website (which, BTW, is not involved in military work, and apparently has not for over a decade – they've moved on to bigger markets). If you examine the management and board of directors, no one – I repeat no one – from Oak Investment Partners is listed. In this case, I'll go with my research over Justin Raimondo's any day. As to your statement that the fact of investment in over 200 companies doesn't contradict Raimondo's assertion of "signficant", well, again the list of Oak Investment Partners portfolio companies – past and present – is right there on their web page (http://www.oakinv.com). You can puruse that list and tell us if any reasonable definition of the term "significant" covers the companies listed there that are involved in the Israeli military industry (and it doesn't even cover, as far as I can see, ClickServices!)
JES49 – purusing the Investments list at http://www.oakinv.com, one sees many types of activities which might include investment in Israeli companies. There is insufficient information given on the list to arrive at any conclusions regarding significant investments; the categorization of investments is arbitrary and could include a variety of activities hidden behind seemingly innocuous terms. You are making an assertion, support it with more specific facts or allow it to stand as without proof, merely an assertion.
"Since 1978, Oak has achieved a strong track record as a stage-independent investor funding more than 435 companies at key points in their lifecycle…" from oak investment site. Your statement: "Over the years, they've invested in over 200 companies." What was significant about the 200 companies to which you chose to make reference?
I would have expected Jutin Raimondo to have done the elementary research! As it stands, he is the one who is making an assertion without proof, not I. As for your asseretion that the "categorization of investmetns is arbitrary", I beg to differ. Being familiar with a large number of comanies on the list of Oak Investment Partners portfolio, and having looked at the sites of others, I don't find any evidence at all that would support either that Oak Investment Partners had invested in a significant number of Israeli companies and even less evidence of investment in companies dealing with the military. And there is absolutely nothing here to suggest that a single investment – in ClickServices – would be enough for Oak Investments to influence Huffington Post! But, seeing as how you made the (unfounded) assertion that you "[g]otta love it when influence is that clear", well perhaps you could do some research and provide us with some proof?
The significance of the companies to which I chose to make reference is that they are the ones that Oak Investment Partners has listed on their Web site. I think that it would be extremely hard to go back 30 years and somehow argue that the Israeli Government, "The Lobby" or the "Elders of the Protocols of Zion" still have an influence on Oak Investment Partners, which can then be used to influence Huffington Post!! As I pointed out in my original post, Raimondo is asking us to put two and two together and believe that it's five. Well, he's pissin' strawberries and whipped cream if he expects someone rational to buy that!
Your response has made me consider further what was said. However, your assertions are of opinions. The information given on the list to which you referred is general and does not provide support for your opinions, nor do you provide other basis for believing that Raimondo is incorrect. I am concerned that US policy not be directed by groups and/or individuals in pursuit of power and profit without regard for the consequences of action taken. I am equally concerned that mob power not be directed against any group or individuals. To be able to determine who is responsible for what, facts are needed. You fail to provide them, and while you may share my concern regarding mob attention, imo you dilute the value of your objections by not supporting them.
I challenge you to cite the facts that Raimondo has provided in his piece. I maintain that he did not provide a single fact in support of his assertions. That is all I said. That is, after all, what we have been discussing here, isn't it? If you can cite the support that Raimondo provides for his arguments, then I will admit that I was mistaken. Somehow, I don't think that you can. So, let me just remind you what Raimondo said that I had problems with: First, that Oak Investment Partners, for the sum of $25 million somehow "bought" Arianna Huffington, at least enough to influence the Huffington Post. Second, that Oak Investment Partners has "significant" investments in Israeli defense companies. Third, that there is some how a connection between these two. So, go ahead Margaret, knock yourself out. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any supporting evidence at all in Raimondo's article, and certainly not enough to make the statement: "Gotta love it when influence is that clear. "
Third, that there is some how a connection between these two. Oak Investment Partners is well-liked by the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Minnesota, as is the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial Reseach and Development (BIRD) foundation. AIPAC describes BIRD thus: "The mission of the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial Research and Development (BIRD) Foundation is to stimulate, promote and support industrial R&D of mutual benefit to the U.S. and Israel. The BIRD Foundation was established by the U.S. and Israeli governments in 1977 to generate mutually beneficial cooperation between the private sectors of the U.S. and Israeli high tech industries, including start-ups and established organizations. BIRD provides both matchmaking services between U.S. and Israeli companies as well as funding covering up to 50 percent of project development and product commercialization costs. BIRD supports approximately 20 projects annually with a total investment of around $11 million per year. To date, BIRD has invested over $225 million in 730 projects, which have produced sales of over $8 billion. Any pair of companies, one Israeli and one U.S.-based, may apply jointly so long as they can demonstrate the combined capabilities and infrastructure to define, develop, manufacture, sell and support an innovative product based on industrial R&D. The companies may be simply cooperating on an ad hoc basis, linked through a corporate joint venture, or commonly owned (in whole or in part)." The Israel Conference June 4, 2009 "LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The first full-day interactive forum to bring more than forty Israel-facing companies together to increase business and investment opportunities between Israel and California will be held on Thursday, June 4, 2009 in Los Angeles." "Keynote speakers represent the spirit of inventiveness of the Israel market and include Yossi Vardi who is well known for Instant Messaging, Eric Benhamou of 3com and Palm, and Erel Margalit, founder of Jerusalem Venture Partners. Session topics will cover high tech, clean tech, medical devices, powerful consumer brands, and entertainment media technology." http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s ite/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090422005532& newsLang=en (remove spaces) QED
Right. So this explains why Oak Investment Partners with its investment in Huffington Post gives AIPAC influence over the positions of the latter in what way? QED? LOL! FYI, I am familiar with BIRD. I've worked for a number of companies that have had BIRD grants. I have even worked on several BIRD grant applications. There is nothing sinister about BIRD. BIRD is in no way connected to AIPAC. And this is not the kind of "fact" that I would expect to prove the nexus between Huffington and AIPAC. As for the Business Wire press release you cite, I really don't see the connection: either between Oak Investment Parters and Israel or between Oak Investment Partners and Huffington Post. Perhaps you could elucidate.
"Third, that there is some how a connection between these two." Oak Investment Partners is well-liked by the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Minnesota, as is the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial Reseach and Development (BIRD) foundation. AIPAC describes BIRD thus: "The mission of the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial Research and Development (BIRD) Foundation is to stimulate, promote and support industrial R&D of mutual benefit to the U.S. and Israel. The BIRD Foundation was established by the U.S. and Israeli governments in 1977 to generate mutually beneficial cooperation between the private sectors of the U.S. and Israeli high tech industries, including start-ups and established organizations. BIRD provides both matchmaking services between U.S. and Israeli companies as well as funding covering up to 50 percent of project development and product commercialization costs. BIRD supports approximately 20 projects annually with a total investment of around $11 million per year. To date, BIRD has invested over $225 million in 730 projects, which have produced sales of over $8 billion. Any pair of companies, one Israeli and one U.S.-based, may apply jointly so long as they can demonstrate the combined capabilities and infrastructure to define, develop, manufacture, sell and support an innovative product based on industrial R&D. The companies may be simply cooperating on an ad hoc basis, linked through a corporate joint venture, or commonly owned (in whole or in part)."
There are several comments preceding the above that I am unable for some reason to post. I will try adding them by email.
Comments on this entry are closed.