Real smart post by David Goldman/Spengler on what Larry Summers got that $5 million from a hedge fund for. Goldman's speculation:
On February 5 I reported that Larry Summers had travelled through Asia in July 2007 pitching sovereign funds and other Asian investors on AAA-rated structured securities — the very same “toxic assets” that the Obama adminstration proposes to get off banks’ books. Was he paid for helping to shuffle assets around sovereign funds? If so, does his previous activity compromise his current effectiveness?
Interesting. Goldman calls for more info. He's a neoconservative and a Zionist apologist, by the way; and this just demonstrates my point about the Israel lobby. Some day smart Jewish journalists are going to feel safe enough to dig into the lobby. Right now they stay away out of self-preservation. Seymour Hersh says he'd rather run thru the streets naked than talk about the issue. When I asked a Jewish journo friend recently for career advice, he quipped, "Don't write about Israel." That's all going to change. Smart Jewish writers are gonna feel OK about talking about Jewish influence at last, without bringing pogroms down on grandmother's head. Dan Fleshler's forthcoming book on the lobby is going to strike a great blow for this freedom of discussion. Joe Klein's recent statements about Jewish neocons with divided loyalties–also pushing open the door.
And when that door opens, look out! Because as Goldman's shrewd analysis above suggests, people need to speculate and notion stuff in order to even get near the truth. That's how intellectual exploration happens. When J Street really takes hold, when Obama finally comes out forcefully against West Bank colonies, then Jewish journalists will at last sense they have permission to go after the lobby and talk about its power. And wow, it will end the legalistic obfuscation/smearing (Dershowitz/Goldberg) that has marked this debate so far, and open the conversation on the real issues: how the lobby works, who's behind it…
Related posts:
- Does Keillor’s crack at Larry Summers suggest smoldering anti-Israel feeling in the heartland?
- Emanuel and Summers Have Obama Right Where They Want Him
- Lawrence Summers to Stephen Walt: ‘You Could Have Been National Security Adviser, Now It’s All Over’
- A dozen or more signs that the Israel lobby has been exposed to kryptonite
- Larry Summers’s conflict… and Chas Freeman’s
{ 50 comments }
Nothing will change — and journo's won't feel comfortable — so long as some of the comments posted on your blog contain the inflamed and hateful rhetoric they do. It's representative of the greater anti-Zionist debate and movement.
For example, just when I begin to feel somewhat sympathetic to a point being made, you get characters like "LD" posting things like "fuck Israel." Not "fuck Israel's policies," mind you, but "fuck Israel." This puts pro-Israelis such as myself on the defensive, making us dig in our heels even more, and not ready to discuss — let alone admit — any Israeli atrocities. And I don't want to single out LD here — several other frequent posters do it as well.
If the Jewish anti-Zionist movement wants to appeal to other Jews — especially those Jews who have a more recent memory and experience of anti-Jewish discrimination and intolerance — then this whole "fuck Israel" mantra has to stop. Criticism is always welcome and necessary, but when you damn an entire nation wholesale, your criticism won't go where you want it to, i.e., to Jewish ears.
In order for your anti-Zionist movement to succeed, you all need the support of Jews, like Phil suggests. The way some of you are going about it is wrong. Don't threaten or disparage all of Israel, because many liberal (and most conservative) Jews will see it as a threat against them, and they will never listen to what you have to say.
Because of the continued presence of inflammatory opinions here and elsewhere that purport to represent the anti-Zionist perspective, Phil, the halcyon days you dream of are quite a distance away. You will not get the necessary critical mass of Jews to identify with the anti-Zionist enterprise; I just don't see it happening, and some of what I read on these posts evidences why.
"When J Street really takes hold, when Obama finally comes out forcefully against West Bank colonies, then Jewish journalists will at last sense they have permission to go after the lobby and talk about its power. And wow, it will end the legalistic obfuscation/smearing (Dershowitz/Goldberg) that has marked this debate so far, and open the conversation on the real issues: how the lobby works, who's behind it…"
1. Why does a "journalist" need "permission" to go after the lobby?
2. Why does Obama need to come out forcefully against West Bank colonies, to trigger this "permission?"
The real issues, "how the lobby works, who's behind it," are the real issues, with or without this "permission" you speak about, and any journalist worthy of the label should go after their stories, come whence they may, cost what they will. The existence of the need for "permission," is the strength of lobby, boiled down to its crusty residue. No such need for permission exits. Perhaps Fleshler is right, it is all an illusion created with smoke and mirrors.
Will it end the obfuscation/smearing? I'll believe that when Dershowitz and Foxman are silenced, and some major Jewish Conference makes a big and public deal out of apologizing to Walt & Mearsheimer for every smear, slight, and unfair criticism, as well as the career and economic harm inflicted, that arose not only from those shouting Anti-Semite, and Bigot, but those whose silence enabled those smears to be heard.
Before Rowan goes apeshit or LD implies the presence of another "Zio-troll", let me point out that the name attributed to the first post under "Shiraz" should've been written "Shirazi."
George Galloway Speaks to Canadians… from New York!
I hope arsehole supreme Kenney gets at least a whiff of it…
Summers Entries (I)
Rewriting Summers' Record of Failure
Fighting Hegemonic Blocking on Campus — Ousting Summers at Harvard
False Analogy: Zionism versus Apartheid
Summers Entries (II)
Greg Mankiw's Blog: Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary?
Why is Rubin Advising Obama?
Citygroup: Palling Around with Clowns
@Shirazi:
"[...] you get characters like "LD" posting things like "fuck Israel." Not "fuck Israel's policies," mind you, but "fuck Israel." This puts pro-Israelis such as myself on the defensive, making us dig in our heels even more, and not ready to discuss — let alone admit — any Israeli atrocities."
Do you quite realise just what kind of language is used on pro-Israel sites and blogs to describe the Palestinians and those who support them? But we are supposed to be nicer to the Zionists, because then you'll listen to us? What a load of cock-doodle-doo!
Summers Entries (III)
Best and Brightest 2008
Zionist Control: Sovereign Wealth Funds?
BTW, the real issue may be the Summers-Emanuel connection.
Saving America in 100 Words
@ Gert:
You are absolutely correct; I don't disagree with you. I'm sure it's even worse on those sites than you suggest, but that's not my point.
Your anti-Zionist movement needs sympathetic Jews, or Jews who will become sympathetic, more than they or the movement needs you. You have to better than the rhetoric on the other side in order to (a) attract the other side and/or (b) attract those in the middle.
Shirazi, are you from Shiraz, Iran or just pretending to be? To me, it sounds like the latter.
And to repeat Gert's point, have you seen the bullshit that you find in pro-Israel blogs and even on the comments section of pro-Israel newspapers?
The thing with pro-Israelis like yourself is that you're not open to changing your mind, despite what you like to tell us (all you need to do is look at the trolling comments by Suzanne/Julian/Berel and co). This blog is for fence-sitters who are open minded and will feel like saying 'Fuck Israel' when they realise they've been duped for so long.
@ Shafiq
I am from Shiraz, and a brown Middle Eastern Mizrahi Jew. Not all Jews are white. Can your brain comprehend that, or is the cognitive dissonance too much to bear?
You can speak for others, but not for me. I *am* open-minded, but not when I am being threatened.
And to repeat my point, did you read where I said I AGREED WITH GERT?
Don't make snap-judgments as to who is open-minded or isn't. I can just as easily say you, with a name like "Shafiq" and writing what you do, are no where near being a "fence-sitter." But where would that lead us?
In any case, name-calling is a two way street. I try to avoid it but anger gets the better part of me too, regularly. I'd advocate being respectful at all times but that rule is broken by both sides equally.
Civility is great but it's no guarantee (whatsoever) of truthfulness of argument. Mr A.H was quite a polished chap (and very chivalrous with the ladies too apparently), nobody will use his example as a link between apparent civil behaviour and what a truth seeker he really was…
About Brown Mizrahi Jews
From David Shasha: Holocaust, Mean-Spirit, Fraudsters
Joachim’s note: I am not sure that I can do justice to the history in a short paragraph, but the US overthrew (or assisted the British to overthrow) Mossadegh in part because he planned to apply developmentalist models to the Iranian economy and to use Iranian oil wealth to modernize. The Shah and the Shah’s associates cut a deal to partner with Western interests to loot Iranian wealth while relatively little was spent on improving the lot of Iranians — something like the later scenario in Chile. Eventually the Shah invested a lot in strengthening Iran militarily sometimes at cross purposes with American or Zionist goals, but on the whole certain wealthy, politically powerful and non-Zionist Americans have been quite happy when Arabs, Iranians or Turks buy US weapons. In the process of the Shah’s military buildup many Iranian Jews became involved in profiteering associated with the looting of Iranian wealth especially when Western Jews were on the American or British side of the equation. The younger generation of Iranian Jews generally does not understand the ambivalent role that some of their parents and grandparents played in the Iranian economy and society under the Shah.
@ Shirazi
Of course I know not all Jews are white. You say you're open-minded, yet your comments do not come across that way.
As for your reply to Gert, I hadn't read it until after I'd commented. As for anti-Zionism, the movement does have many sympathetic Jews. As for the rest, I have given up trying to persuade them. Seeing as the vast majority of pro-Israelis quickly descend into 'fuck arabs' rants tells me all I need to know about how 'open-minded' they are.
My name being Arabic is irrelevant seeing as I'm not an Arab, and in fact, I was a fence-sitter until the recent assault on Gaza, which was what caused to me to do some research into the history of the conflict.
@ Joachim
Your broad generalizations about Iranian Jews under the Shah (as if we were a monolithic bloc) and your mischaracterizations of Mizrahi Jews based on the rants of some blogger prove nothing and really don't warrant a response. If you wish to have an honest debate, I welcome it, but tripe like that is not it.
If you care to know, Iranian Jews were all over the political and ideological spectrum. Many were monarchists, supporting and profiting from the Shah; others were staunch communists (members of the Tudeh party). And yet others, depending upon what cities they lived in, just stayed out of the fray all together. The profiteers you allude to were more commonly to be found in Tehran. Those living in more distant cities did not necessarily follow the same agenda, assuming they even knew what the agenda was.
My late uncle (may he rest in peace) was arrested and jailed as part of anti-Shah student protest group. He was a socialist and, like many others in their youth, welcomed the revolution at first. It wasn't until the true face of the revolutionary leaders (i.e., Khomeinists) emerged that disillusionment began to set in.
I suggest reading Nikki Kedie's "Roots of Revolution" for a better story.
Shirazi Sophist, Please look up the meaning of the words "many" and "some." And why would I have to read Keddie, which I, of course, have read. I have frequently done business with LA Iranian Jews and in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. As for Mizrahi Jews in Israel, I worked in Israel on and off for over 10 years, I have a pretty good idea of the situation. David Shasha heads the Sephardic Center of Brooklyn.
From the standpoint of Jewish studies, Western Jewish businessmen and politicians were well on the way to incorporating Iranian Jews as junior partners in corrupt Jewish social networking before the fall of the Shah. Ideology was never an issue at all. It is a pattern that had already been well-established in the 19th century with Algerian Jews.
@ Shafiq
As for your reply to Gert, I hadn't read it until after I'd commented.
Thank you for being honest and admitting this. I mean this. Some folks here (LD, Rowan) don't extend me this courtesy.
As for the rest, I absolutely see your point that any passionate debate of this issue can inevitably descend into a "clusterfuck of profanity," if you'll excuse the expression (and the irony). I see it on both sides — BOTH SIDES — and it's frustrating, to say the least. I won't get into a discussion of which side is more profane, vile, etc., because there is no winner in that one.
As to your "open-minded" comments, you must understand that most decent people will be open-minded, or try to be so, up until the point that something they hold very dear is threatened. I'm not saying this to defend or excuse those from "my side" who are verbally abusive, but so that you may see how some of us want to engage in an honest debate and discussion, and yet even we will become close-minded when surrounded, hounded, and also verbally abused. It's human nature, I suppose.
Anyway, I come to Phil's site to read his postings. I disagree with 95% of what he writes, but that does not mean I cannot learn from him. He does introduce opinions/writers/points of view that I did not know existed, and for that I find this site valuable. If his postings existed in a vacuum by themselves — without all the superfluous and often racist verbiage posted by some of his readers — his voice becomes powerful. However, once the commenters get their say in, the whole thing gets dragged into the gutter. I suppose I'm better off just reading Phil's articles and ignoring the comments, but what fun is that :) ?
"talking about Jewish influence"
I agree we should talk about the hate spewed by the likes of Finkelstein and Chomsky (I was going to say Weiss, but let's face it he's not in their class. Somehow I can't picture Chomsky begging for car fare)
Sorry Phil, but you are really a jerk. We don't evaluate people according to their religion in America.
Shirazi, do you discern more racist & distracting personal, juvenile verbiage on one side or the other?
It is a well established fact that the Bankers control our economy and money supply – the scary part is that this is "news" to anyone. OUr "leaders" have allowed a small elite to create a feudal system based on fraudulent debt and currency manipulation, and keep it quiet for more than 100 years. At least 100 years ago our ancestors had a healthy suspicion of "money" and banks, the ultimate irony of our current situation is that banks and credit have become "too important to fail" while they are merely instruments of slavery and exploitation to convert the labor of Average Americans into wealth and power for the aristocratic elite.
Anyone who believe that Obama was any different than Bush should take a close look at the Cabinet of this "agent of change". Geithner joins a large group of asitocratic henchmen who represent the same establishment just as Bush's inner circle did. There can be no change until these people are removed from the managment of this countries monetary and banking systems, and control of the money supply is returned to the people of the United States …..
As Jefferson said:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
Pres. Jackson went Further:
It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than 8 millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners … is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy."
In 1835 Jackson paid off the final instalment on the national debt. He was the first and only president to ever accomplish this!
Speaking about the bankers he said;
"You are a den of vipers, I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out! If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning."
We did not heed their warnings. Lets not forget that the cause of the revolutionary war was to escape the English Central Bankers and their exploitative taxes – how little we've learned in 235 years!
@ Shiraz: "Don't threaten or disparage all of Israel, because many liberal (and most conservative) Jews will see it as a threat against them, and they will never listen to what you have to say."
Israel currently embodies the Zionist racial ideology of Jewish supremacist bloodlines backed by force of law, all undergirded by a hard-boiled victim mythos. I doubt that any Jews, "liberal" or not, that subscribe to this ideology are going to respond to criticism of political Jewish racialism either way.
Do you believe the Communists could have been "nice talked" out of their irrational, murderous, expansionist, victim-mentality based ideology? Do you believe the Nazis could have been?
For the Zionist, as with the Nazi and Communist, nice talk is a sign of weakness. In fact, anti-Zionist liberals have been engaged in "nice talk" with Zionists for decades, and it's gotten nowhere. They just laugh, thumb their noses and continue their racialist, vicitimist-motivated expansionism.
It's time to take off the gloves, not continue the cooing.
Corrupt Jewish Social Networking Rules!
The Spartans had a saying about training the enemy by fighting them. I would say that many of us have developed a voice responding to the position statements of pro-Israeli forces. This perspective is the greatest weakness evident in the works of Finklestein, yet what strength has come from his work nonetheless. So in examining our faults, Shirazi, look to see how they reflect your own. I find it useful to do this, myself.
I tend to agree with Shirazi in this thread. Certainly I can imagine someone sitting on the fence, reading Phil's posts and thinking he makes good points and then entering the comment section here and, depending on the thread, possibly being utterly repulsed by some of the commenters. And there are offenders on both sides. There are also people who can make very good points, but they sometimes mix it in with useless invective. There is a difference between outright racism and mere invective, but both can turn people off.
As Margaret implies, Norman Finkelstein is a good example of a smart man who is unnecessarily offensive. I find his books and articles invaluable, but his namecalling is often juvenile and probably chases away a few people, or alternatively gives his critics ammunition. Sarcasm has its place, but when someone uses it all the time it discredits the user more than the target.
And some on the pro-Zionist side know this. There was one person at another blog I visit who was unfailingly polite and seemingly reasonable, all the time lying when he could get away with it. He knew Israeli and Arab politics well, and when the facts supported his arguments he'd cite them, but when they didn't he'd tell the standard lies. But because he was so polite he was relatively effective–the bystanders in a thread devoted to the I/P conflict congratulated the participants in the discussion for their civility. I felt like retching, but all the same, there was something useful to be learned from that guy about how to win people's sympathy by being polite.
The Israeli side already starts out with the advantage of being perceived as "Western", while the Arabs are the "Other" and then on top of that, many people imagine that really harsh criticism of Israel is equal to anti-semitism. It doesn't help the Palestinian case when some Israeli critics really are anti-semites.
Wow, some very interesting responses in this thread. Thanks to everyone for keeping it civil :)
@Joachim:
As for Mizrahi Jews in Israel, I worked in Israel on and off for over 10 years, I have a pretty good idea of the situation. David Shasha heads the Sephardic Center of Brooklyn.
Please look up the definitions of Mizrahi and Sephardic . Perhaps you are conflating the two? Also, you write:
From the standpoint of Jewish studies, Western Jewish businessmen and politicians were well on the way to incorporating Iranian Jews as junior partners in corrupt Jewish social networking before the fall of the Shah. Ideology was never an issue at all.
Unless you lived in Iran at that time or participated in these activities, I don't see how you can make the absolute and definitive conclusion you do that "ideology was never an issue at all." You and I seem to disagree as to the facts, so let's just end it here. Nevertheless, I must say that there is something unpleasant about your broad generalizations.
@curious:
A good question. To be honest, I don't frequent pro-Israel or pro-Zionist blogs. There is nothing to learn from them. Therefore, I am not entirely familiar with the tone of their comments, though I do not doubt that it can be mean-spirited, churlish, and racist. All people are capable of being assholes — especially the "chosen" ones. All I know is what I see here and at other so-called "fence-sitting" blogs.
@Ed:
Israel currently embodies the Zionist racial ideology of Jewish supremacist bloodlines backed by force of law, all undergirded by a hard-boiled victim mythos.
I respectfully disagree (surprised?) with your characterization of Zionism as racist or supremacist. First, it is not necessarily a matter of race, but one of faith (are Jewish converts able to change their racial status as well?). Second, if you are going to call it supremacist, then you must call all religion and faith-based political/social movements as supremacist. Let's be consistent. Saudi Arabia, for example, wishes to keep the kingdom as purely Islamic as possible; non-Muslims are at best tolerated, but most often unwelcome — also "backed by force of law." I'm not trying to avoid your issue by bringing up another one, but my point is that religious "supremacism" is everywhere one finds a religious society, or a society where faith is the common bond between the people and a part of the national identity. You can detest Israel for its "Jewishness," but then do you also feel that way about other nations/cultures/faiths which practice the same exclusionary politics? And yes, I know that this blog is about Israel and not about the Arab/Islamic world, but when Israel's enemy is the Arab/Islamic world and the raison d'etre of many pro-Zionists, this question cannot be ignored.
@Margaret:
A profound observation, indeed. Well stated. Self-reflection in that context can be very valuable, and I will try to do it more.
@Witty's anonymous critic:
The Israeli side already starts out with the advantage of being perceived as "Western", while the Arabs are the "Other" and then on top of that, many people imagine that really harsh criticism of Israel is equal to anti-semitism.
Not all on the Israeli side perceive themselves as being "Western." I, for instance, see myself as in the West but not necessarily of it, to paraphrase a famous quote regarding Britain and the EU. It is an unfair premise to assume that all Israelis or their supporters are Western and the Arabs are other. In fact, I would say that Jews have throughout history perceived themselves to be "the other" — history's ultimate outgroup. This, I suppose, is part and parcel of the victimhood mentality Jews are accused of possessing.
Shirazi – Am I reading into your statement something that is not there, or are you considering a victim-hood mentality something peculiar to people of Jewish ancestry, and long-standing? I had the impression from Shlomo Sands that there was some question about how long the concept of the 'outgroup' had existed, understand that he perceives it to be an idea that developed along with Herzl's ideas of immigration, which I found interesting enough to hold open the question of provenance for such strands of history. The prevalence of religious persecution IMO doesn't seem to support the theory that Jewish people were victims of a unique type.
This site is become duller and duller. We all know each others' lines by heart, and consider them utterly worthless (though the more boring majority pride themselves on being too polite to say so). It needs some genuine radicalism, or it will die of inanition, I predict.
Dear Shirazi Sophist,
I have been in Jewish studies for approximately 40 years. You cannot successfully knock my knowledge of the field.
Sefardi refers to a liturgy or to Ibero-Berber Jews while in the Israel context Mizrahi (when not used as short for Mercaz Ruhani) refers to Jews from edot hamizrah especially when they are treated as approximating an ethnic group.
Three EAAZI blog entries addressing Ashkenazi and Arab Jewish identity issues are:
The latter two look at identity in economics.
Shirazi,
I have been in Jewish studies for approximately 40 years. You cannot know my knowledge of the field.
Sefardi refers to a liturgy or to Ibero-Berber Jews.
In Israel Mizrahi is often used to refer to peoples whose ancestors were members of edot hammizrah especially in a quasi-ethnic sense (unless the term is being used as an abbreviation of Mercaz Ruhani).
For more info see: Collection: Non-Ashkenazi Jews
Jewish victimology is a tool used to distract from Soviet Ashkenazi involvement in sabotage, revolutionary activites, targeted assassination, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, or genocide in the lead up to the Holocaust or a pretext for Jews to claim special privileges over other people, whose historical lot has generally been worse.
Since the 10th century Jewish communities have plugged into an international trade network and on the whole have had more education, longer life-spans, and higher incomes than the non-Jews among whom they lived.
Often Jews have been insiders as suppliers of luxury goods tand services to the elites of Europe and the Islamic goods.
In many cases the Jewish sense of victimization has resulted from the feeling that Jews did not have the wealth, status and power they deserved.
Witty's anonymous critic is correct in that US Congressional and AIPAC-style boilerplate speech
is always couched to reflect, always assumes exactly the advantages he states, both in terms of
characterization of Israel and characterization of arabs and demonization of anyone daring to
question those assumptions. Shirazi's response to Witty's anonymous critic merely shows those
who constantly use such "pro-Israel" boilerplate speech don't always personally believe what they
say in public for consumption by the masses.
Joachim Martillo's depiction of the socio-economic role of diaspora jews as insiders and middlemen and financiers is correct. Marx deduced this. The Rothschilds financed both sides of European wars. Despite the manipulation of peasants via anti-semitism by the ruling goy elites
in hock up to their ears to jews, from time to time over the centuries, barring NAZI Germany, if one
could pick being a typical jew or a typical gentile at any time in the past, one would be much better off living the life of the jew.
[Fixed Typos and Added a Little More]
Shirazi,
I have been in Jewish studies for approximately 40 years. You cannot knock my knowledge of the field.
Sefardi refers to a liturgy or to Ibero-Berber Jews.
In Israel Mizrahi is often used to refer to peoples whose ancestors were members of edot hammizrah especially in a quasi-ethnic sense (unless the term is being used as an abbreviation of Mercaz Ruhani).
For more info see: Collection: Non-Ashkenazi Jews
Jewish victimology is a tool used to distract from Czarist and Soviet Ashkenazi involvement in sabotage, revolutionary activites, targeted assassination, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, or genocide in the lead up to the Holocaust or a pretext for Jews to claim special privileges over other people, whose historical lot has generally been worse.
Since the 10th century Jewish communities have plugged into an international trade network and on the whole have had more education, longer life-spans, and higher incomes than the non-Jews among whom they lived.
Often Jews have been insiders as suppliers of luxury goods tand services to the elites of Europe and the Islamic world.
In many cases the Jewish sense of victimization has resulted from the feeling that Jews did not have the wealth, status and power they deserved.
[It is worthwhile to not that during the Nazi period, Jews were disproportionately represented at leadership levels in the Soviet Union, the UK and the USA. There is a sense in which the German Nazis were correct to believe that Germany was at war with the Jews.
BTW, it is questionable to argue that gentile elites uniformly were in debt to Jews or incited anti-Semitism.
Bleichroeder did quite well by the Bismarcks and the families intermarried. German anti-Semitism seems to start mostly with the lower bourgeoisie, which felt threatened by Jewish business practices -- at least this is the case in Saxony which I have studied extensively.
Harvard Professor Jay Harris has a paper -- if I remember correctly -- in which he details how the bourgeois anti-Semites explained their position to the German aristocrats.
Polish aristocratic literature is extremely philosemitic, and it is hard to find anti-Semites among the Polish aristocracy before the middle of the 19th century when Polish gentry began to view Polish peasants as fellow Poles.
BTW, the secondary literature on anti-Semitic incitement in the 19th century highly questionable. Here is an example. HEP is usually given a Zionist interpretation of Hierosolyma Est Perdita, but it probably comes from hebräisch via shortening or from Hebräer, Edelmann, Profitgeier as an acronym.]
Joachim is perhaps a little hasty in using the phrase "Czarist and Soviet Ashkenazi involvement in sabotage, revolutionary activites, targeted assassination, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, or genocide in the lead up to the Holocaust.' I mean, this is an exceedingly complex and under-researched area.
Shafiq:
"This blog is for fence-sitters who are open minded and will feel like saying 'Fuck Israel' when they realise they've been duped for so long."
This blog is for fence sitters who are open minded enough to say "Fuck the Palestinians" and all their terrorist cohorts.
This blog is also for those who, as born Americans (USA version), have no other place to go as a practical matter, yet who do not like why they are taxed and what is done in their name. Our foreign aid and foreign policy irk us as much as the cluster-f***s of domestic ponzi schemes masked as government organizations and monetary & fiscal policy acting in our best interest.
Doppler:
"Will it end the obfuscation/smearing? I'll believe that when Dershowitz and Foxman are silenced, and some major Jewish Conference makes a big and public deal out of apologizing to Walt & Mearsheimer for every smear, slight, and unfair criticism, as well as the career and economic harm inflicted, that arose not only from those shouting Anti-Semite, and Bigot, but those whose silence enabled those smears to be heard."
Are Finkelstein and Chomsky part of the obfuscation/smearing?
They also think Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis is garbage. Though they say it in a nice way. Do they have to apologize to the two a-holes or is it ok because they are good jews.
There's a difference between arguing whether the tail wags the dog or visa versa, and shouting
"Anti-Semite" or "Bigot" to cut off the free flow of ideas.
Shirazi–when you have a moment, do a search on Martillo's name. Apparently, he used to be a practicing Jew who was as viciously anti-Muslim (more so than anybody here) as he is now anti-semitic.
He just needs someone to hate (and I do think he has a borderline disorder). That he is given an element of credence here is one more strike against this blog–and the anti-Israel movement on the whole.
As for this blog being for fence sitters. Don't think so. A few might straggle in here, but this site preaches to the choir, not those looking for answers to something they don't understand very well.
Lets talk/debate the 'hate' espoused by Chomsky and Finkelstein, I'm all for it, Julian.
And Finkelstein doesn't think the M/W thesis is 'garabage' at all. Helps if you know a little bit about the topic before you lip off, Julian.
SO lets get this going: Julian – give us some examples of hate by the good Professors, and we'll go from there…..
Suzanne,
I worked in the Occupied Territories and was forced to reevaluate my views of the conflict. I developed most of my understanding of Jewish history, Jewish studies, and Judaica long before I began to work in the ME.
@ Shirazi: "[Zionism] is not necessarily a matter of race, but one of faith (are Jewish converts able to change their racial status as well?)."
Israel determines who is allowed citizenship under Jewish status through researching bloodlines. Even atheist Jews are allowed in as Jews, so it is NOT a matter of faith, but racial lineage. (C’mon, did you really believe you could lawyer your way around that?)
Judaism does not proselytize or seek out converts. My understanding is that conversion is an extremely difficult and arduous process, and even those who successfully undertake it are not accepted by most Jews as “authentic” Jews, and are treated as inferior. Therefore, Judaism itself is indeed racist, but I don’t object to it merely on those grounds.
I distinguish between Jews and Jewish Zionists, the same way I distinguish between Germans and German Nazis, but I recognize that Zionism is far more intertwined with the Jewish people than Nazism was with the German people. Nonetheless, I believe the two can be successfully untangled, despite the best efforts of Jewish Zionists like yourself to entangle them all together and hide behind non-Zionist Jews.
It is the Zionist ideology that takes Jewish racism to the institutional level, and imposes it upon non-Jews systematically utilizing the State. This is done openly in Israel, and covertly in America, where Jewish Zionists in government or with insider access to government not enjoyed by average citizens (gained in a racketeering-like illegal conspiratorial manner) co-opt the resources of the State on behalf of the Jewish Zionist network, and on behalf of Zionist Israel.
Certainly, many American Jews are repulsed by this “game rigging,” and want no part of it. Those are also likely to be repulsed by Zionism. Therefore, support for Zionism is the best means of sorting out the “good Jews” from the “bad Jews.”
Incidentally, it is also the best means of sorting out the good Christians from the bad ones, and the good liberals from the bad ones, and the good conservatives from the bad ones, etc., etc.
Those who worship the Jewish race as a race and demand the institutionalization of their veneration through statist means, be they Jewish supremacists, Judeophile liberals, Christian Zionists, etc, are on a collision course with the rest of us who are not, and have been for quite some time. The Jews in this axis are mostly calculating and premeditated, and the latter are mostly useful idiots, but Communism had a lot of Western useful idiots perpetrating treason on its behalf, and Zionism does, too.
@ Rowan: 'Joachim is perhaps a little hasty in using the phrase "Czarist and Soviet Ashkenazi involvement in sabotage, revolutionary activites, targeted assassination, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, or genocide in the lead up to the Holocaust.' I mean, this is an exceedingly complex and under-researched area.'
Well, at least you’re no longer engaged in complete denial of the Communist-perpetrated holocaust and claiming the Black Book of Communism is a product of CIA black ops, so I guess that's progress.
"Not all on the Israeli side perceive themselves as being "Western." I, for instance, see myself as in the West but not necessarily of it, to paraphrase a famous quote regarding Britain and the EU. It is an unfair premise to assume that all Israelis or their supporters are Western and the Arabs are other. In fact, I would say that Jews have throughout history perceived themselves to be "the other" — history's ultimate outgroup. This, I suppose, is part and parcel of the victimhood mentality Jews are accused of possessing."
I wasn't speaking of how Israelis see themselves–I don't know much about that. I was speaking about how the I/P conflict is often presented in the US–as good democratic Western Israel vs. irrational murderous Arabs.
I have no love for communists–as should be pretty obvious by now. But we all know the Nazis were fascist and not communist–or even socialist, right?
if one
could pick being a typical jew or a typical gentile at any time in the past, one would be much better off living the life of the jew.
I think this is utter crock. It might be true of German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, maybe even Italians Jews. But the Eastern European Jews (of which I descend maternally) were peasant poor.
In fact, they were considered part of the great unwashed masses that came over here in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Settled American Jewry (of largely German descent) held their noses and were commissioned to "gentrify" their poor cousins from the east.
That's why there were so many Jewish community centers…the idea was to bring these people up to snuff.
I know my own history….please don't rewrite it. Thank you.
Suzanne,
Do you conflate your own personal history with that of your ancestors? Maybe that's half your problem (on the maternal side).
Many Jews seem to be almost psychotically co-dependant with their Jewish fellow travelers, even the ones who are long gone.
No wonder so many Jewish Zionists are so uptight: they’re avenging insults suffered by their “kin” of two hundred years ago.
Interestingly, there was a program on one of the news magazine TV shows (20/20?) about a Jewess who constantly replayed in her mind the events of every day of her life. She had perfect recall, and was daily tormented, for example, by some embarrassing teen anxiety situation of 20 years before flashing through her mind, and a million other events. She could tell the very year, day, and hour, of some obscure world event that everyone else had long forgotten about. She was a tormented genius, but her genius prevented her from properly functioning on a day to day basis.
Have to love homicidal Ed's response to correcting his blatently boneheaded misinformation.
I didn't bother correcting him on his stupid remark regarding converting to Judaism…as I suspect not many read him for factual information.
Comments on this entry are closed.