Nick Goldberg has a great piece in the LA Times on the William I. Robinson case at UC Santa Barbara that basically/secretly comes down on Robinson's side, his right to pass around an email comparing Israeli human rights abuses with Nazi ones. It includes this nice wink-and-a-nod sociology lesson--'cause you're not allowed to address these issues directly in the MSM--
Is it anti-Semitic or merely factual to say that Hollywood is controlled largely by Jews? (Remember: Most of the big studio chiefs are Jewish.) Or to note (as some critics of the Iraq war did) that many of the neoconservatives who helped devise the war's intellectual rationale were Jewish -- and possibly harbored a dual loyalty to Israel? Or to point to the existence of a powerful "Israel lobby" that wields substantial influence on Capitol Hill?
Goldberg does one thing I found too crafty. In an effort to balance his verdict on Robinson's side, he allows Daniel Jonah Goldhagen to state that it's anti-semitic to single out Israel again and again; Goldberg basically accepts the principle.
I don't agree. Well, I wouldn't, would I--I single Israel out again and again, don't I, and there are worse human rights abusers around the world. I do so because I'm American and I'm Jewish. So I'm specially implicated in these abuses. (In fact, I feel a special responsibility as a Jew to take the beam out of my country's eye rather than focus on the mote in someone else's. Didn't a Jew come up with that principle?)
(Some rainy day I have to get to this great response to David Frum from Noam Chomsky on that very question. I haven't listened to it, but Nader Hashemi informs me that Chomsky says Of course I give greater weight to Palestinian victims than, say, African ones, then explains why.)
It is anti-semitic if the intent is anti-semitic.
example?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM6wm5K5WS0&eu...
Hey death, thanks for coming. My connection is too slow for youtubes, you want to give me the gist of the thing in your own words?
You should listen to it: great response to David Frum from Noam Chomsky
RE: "It is anti-semitic if the intent is anti-semitic." MY COMMENT: How does one go about determining intent?
RE: "It is anti-semitic if the intent is anti-semitic." SEE: "Unintended Consequences", By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS, 05/13/09 (EXCERPT)… Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act in 2004, the US Department of State is required to monitor anti-semitism world wide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act created a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by the US Department of State of negative sentiments expressed against Jews. In order to monitor anti-semitism, the term must be defined. The definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly, interpreted. The State Department has come up with its attempt. The State Department’s approach could include any truthful statements about Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli government or AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or contest. Anti-semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred. Inciting hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. “Excessive” criticism of Israel is a subjective, undefinable concept that can be used to determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate “excessive” with “strong.” Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable for war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere become acts of the hate crime of anti-semitism. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05122009.html
Jacqueline_Hyde I'm afraid I can't oblige. You really must find the time to watch it yourself.
Be careful Weiss (and Goldberg). I'm constantly being taken to task for pointing out that the Bolsheviks who made the case for Communism and midwifed it into a mass murderous reality were largely Jews. You're doing the same with Neoconservatism and the Iraq war. There are millions of intellectual primates out there who don't like the implications of one or the other, depending on which side of the binary statist political spectrum they come down on. The modern Left, of course, doesn't like the idea that it is the brainchild of a bunch of murderous Jews, but doesn't mind when the GOP's agenda is tied to them; and the American statist Right doesn't like either contention, because it implicates it as falsely Christian (no authentic Christian would ever collaborate with the same statist-minded Jews who murdered millions of Christians in Soviet Russia). So remember, your trying to reason and enlighten mostly partisan hacks and intellectual pipsqueaks who don't want to hear any evidence that will force them to re-evaluate their slavish political world views.
See THE REAL MOTIVE BEHIND THE “DEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITISM” http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/departofantise... Nearly all of these "hate" laws are the brainchild of statist Jews of both Left and Right who want to control thoughts, minds and speech for fear that average people will realize the extent of Zionist treachery. The plan is to usher them in within the trojan horse of protecting homosexuals and other vulnerable groups. Christian scholar Ted Pike, (who admittedly is pursuing a Christian agenda) has painstakingly documented the central role played by primarily the ADL and other Jewish Zionists groups behind these "hate" law initiatives (aka 1st Amendment revocation laws), one of which is about to be voted on in the Senate (S-909), supposedly in memory of Mathew Sheppard. Truly shameless, these Zionists.
I, too, was rather surprised by the quotation from Goldhagen. What is he up to these days? Had he been a regular historian, he would have been perfecting his 'do you want fries with that?' after the way his work was demolished by Finkelstein, Birn, Hilberg, Bauer, etc. I haven't read many reviews of his second book (aka All Catholics are Evil), but it was rubbished by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Here's the transcript of Frum and Chomsky's exchange. David Frum (journalist on "Ideas" CBC radio, Canada): You say that what the media do is to ignore certain kinds of atrocities that are committed by us and our friends, and to play up enormously atrocities that are committed by them and our enemies. And you posit that there is a test of integrity and moral honesty which is to have a kind of equality of treatment of corpses in that every dead person should in principle be equal with every other dead person. Chomsky: That's not what I say at all. In fact, what I say is the opposite. What I say is that we should be responsible for our own actions primarily. David Frum (journalist on "Ideas" CBC radio, Canada): Because your method is not only to ignore the corpses by "them" but also to ignore the corpses created by neither side, but which are irrelevant to your ideological agenda. Chomsky: That's totally untrue. David Frum (journalist on "Ideas" CBC radio, Canada): Well, let me give you an example. One of your own causes that you take very seriously is the cause of the Palestinians. And a Palestinian corpse weighs very heavily on your conscience. And yet, a Kurkish corpse does not. Chomsky: That's not true at all. I've been involved in Kurdish support groups for years. Just ask the people who are involved in Kurdish support groups. I mean, they come to me, I sign their petitions, and so on and so forth. If you look at the things we've written, [you will see this]. I mean, I'm not Amnesty International. I can't do everything. I'm a single individual person, but if you take a look at the book that Edward Herman and I wrote on this topic [The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume 1 and Volume 2], in it we discuss three kinds of atrocities. What we call "benign bloodbaths" (which nobody cares about), "constructive bloodbaths" (which are the ones we [the U.S. government and its allies] like), and "nefarious bloodbaths" (which are the ones that the bad guys [enemies of the U.S.] do. The principle that I feel we ought to follow is not the one that you stated. You know, it's a very simple ethical point: You're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions. You're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions. The most important thing for me and for you is to think about the consequences of your actions. What can you effect? These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the 18th century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in. We, as citizens of democratic societies, are directly involved in and are responsible for. And what the media are doing is insuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that is dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by this system. What about the Third World? Well, despite everything, and it's pretty ugly and awful, these struggles are not over. The struggle for freedom and independence never is completely over. Their courage, in fact, is really remarkable and amazing. I've personally had the privilege, and it is a privilege, of witnessing it a few times in villages in Southeast Asia and Central America, and recently in the occupied West Bank, and it is astonishing to see. It's always amazing, at least to me it's amazing, I can't understand it, it's also very moving, and very inspiring, in fact, it's kind of awe-inspiring. Now, they rely very crucially on a very slim margin for survival that's provided by dissidence and turbulence within the imperial societies. How large that margin is, is for us to determine.
Chomsky: "You're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions." That notion is anathema to organized Jewry, which considers itself only responsible for the predictable consequences of its actions so much as they effect organized Jewry — and even there, it is incompetent, negligent, self-absorbed and remiss. A predictable consequence of Jewish Bolshevik mass murder was the Holocaust. Yet organized Jewry takes not an iota of responsibility for birthing the Jewish Bolsheviks, nor for their atrocities, nor for the consequential Holocaust. These people would deny their own children to preserve their own psychological vanity and delusions of righteousness. Is it any wonder they are hunted — and often by their own kin? That's not persecution; that's suicide born of self-disgust.
Related blog entries:
"David Frum (journalist on "Ideas" CBC radio, Canada): Well, let me give you an example. One of your own causes that you take very seriously is the cause of the Palestinians. And a Palestinian corpse weighs very heavily on your conscience. And yet, a Kurkish corpse does not. " As founder and director of the only Kurdish Library in the U.S. I can attest to the significant support provided by Professor Chomsky to things Kurdish for more than two decades. Frum doesn't know what he's talking about. I am so weary of fellow Jews who continue to get away with false assumptions and false claims. And I am equally weary of those who continue to believe that saying so makes it so.
A responsible American citizen should criticise his or her own (representative) government, which theoretically works for and in behalf of each citizen–to ignore this in favor of blind support for Israel right or wrong, and at the expense of the US taxpayer writ so huge, is a dereliction of patriotic duty. I don't recall the US having a "special relationship" with any other nation, country, or people. Special works both ways.
Your faulty memory is your problem. A writ so large? Less than a drop in the bucket of the federal bucket. It cost you about 50 cents. Go cry elsewhere. America supports Israel with eyes wide open.
It can also be read at Zundelsite, Stormfront and any number of sites which attempt to excuse Hitler.
"Yet organized Jewry takes not an iota of responsibility for birthing the Jewish Bolsheviks" This was a good one. Richard Perle claiming Neoconservatives did not exist. Feb. 20, 2009 http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012775.html
Go there regularly to rejuvenate your chauvinistic zionist ideas, do you?
And less than one cent goes to the rest of the world in American foreign aid. I prefer to give 49 cents to the rest of the world–Israel can have a penny, although actually it should be a loan at commercial interest rate of 18% in Israel's case. That would be proportionate to real US interests.
'LA Times' says neocons who pushed Iraq war 'possibly harbored dual loyalty to Israel' possibly? the jewcons are loyal only to jewry of which israel is the criminal stronghold where crimes go unpunished ,are celebrated. ok, crimes by jews also go unpunished in aipacistan (from lobro at xymphora). jews loyal to aipacistan(lobro) as a life sucking parasite is loyal to its host. 30 years from now jews will still be discovering "neocons could be dual loyal". jews love to talk to the drowning to keep the mouth open.
Less than a drop in the bucket of the federal bucket. It is not the amount that is reprehensible, but that it is used for ethnic cleansing, colonization, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and that we Americans are blamed with consequent grave damage to American interests. America supports Israel with eyes wide open. If this were true, there would be no need for AIPAC to exist.
You have not made the case for how Judaism informed the Bolsheviks to commit their crimes.
The federal bucket of blood.
Just checking on your people.
Don't get out much, do you? Congress does not have thye time to listen to whiners but they do have time to listen to those who represent large groups of donors. Notice how many Americans want credit card relief? Congress do anything for the last 50 years? But Americans do have an organization representing their desires regarding Israel.
Keep your mouth open.
I read Goldberg’s LA Times piece. The “Goldhagen test”? Can you imagine the defense in a murder case arguing, "Yes, well, the crime allegedly committed by my client was indeed heinous, but have you taken a look at all these other heinous crimes my client didn't perpetrate? Your Honor, the prosecutor is biased against my client because he has failed to even mention these other cases!" What other point can there be to this argument than to distract the jury with irrelevancies? The argument is furthermore drenched in hypocrisy. For years, Goldhagen was singularly driven to expose an alleged anti-Semitism inherent in German national culture. Every German was a “willing executioner.” Did he “balance” this obsession with numerous random atrocities and injustices perpetrated by other state actors? Was there ever any expectation that he should?
Easy. They thought it was "good for the Jews." Nobody else ever counted with them. And they grew in power so they were right–until Stalin had enough of them and put them on the same shit list they had put so many non-Jews on for decades.