Comments on: American Jewish C’tee enjoys slagging off critics, then refusing them a platform to respond

By: FedUp

FedUp — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:35:35 +0000

One understands the general grumpiness: the "game" as played by the militant Zionist is to have lists on which support for Palestine is noted for organized response by those dedicated to inciting hatred against Palestinians, while a tangent is to booby trap Zionist websites for attacking those so incautious as to comment. Amateur cyberterrorists who believe ideology trumps freedom of speech appear to be of an age where they just don't have the personal freedom to masturbate and find malware gets them off just as well. (Or maybe Mossad is using servers in China and North Korea … who the f*ck knows or cares.) The "game" to juvenile Zionists can be life and death to those under Israel's gun, but mustn't let reality ruin the fun. We'll be the ones defending the Israelis from the maddened crowd – your stupid trolls will have gone on to paying gigs. "Oh, be good to the Zionists, they are all persecuted Jews." Yeah, right; they are using the Jews and they've been found out. Don't like the results – too f*king bad. Boycott Divest Sanction …the stupid, the malicious and the warmongers.

By: Bennett

Bennett — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:10:16 +0000

Philip. there's certainly a case of double standards by antizionists going on. Firstly Mearsheimer and Walt refused to debate with anybody when they first published. Ben White deleted a comment linking to Hoffman's piece in White's facebook page on his book and then threw the member out of the group. War On Want refused to let Hoffman into the meeting. The Jewish Socialist Group in the UK refused to circulate a discussion paper from a long-standing member because it was critical of Hizbolla. The trade union Unison refused to let Trade Union Friends of Israel have a stall at conference even though they had previously always had a stall. Mona Baker a UK boycott leader sacked the ex head of Amnesty Israel from the board of her translation journal because she was an israeli. And the list goes on. So antizionists like to dish it out but as soon as people act in the same way or even just stand up for themselves then it's an antizionist trait to claim they're being silenced by the "zionist lobby. So Philip – with the greatest of respect kindly stop wingeing and moaning like a spoilt brat who can't stand other people having views. And if anti-zionists can't take it then they shouldn't be so hypocritical. The claim of being silenced is an old antisemitic trait thatahas been used by far right opponents of Jewish communities for many years.

By: eitanbenshlomo

eitanbenshlomo — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:09:35 +0000

Zionism is a great enterprise that exceeds in integrity an honor

By: JamieSW

JamieSW — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:17:48 +0000

Really? Because it rather contradicts all the stuff you've been spewing about this. It isn't about "freedom of speech", it's about, among other things, giving a reviewed author a right of reply. Of course one isn't obliged to do this, but it's generally considered proper practice to do so, for obvious reasons.

By: Seismic

Seismic — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:45:04 +0000

"I thought it had been established that "free speech" is irrelevant here" Couldn't have said it better myself…

By: Seismic

Seismic — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:20:04 +0000

My apologies – I thought the issue here was censorship.

By: JamieSW

JamieSW — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:01:37 +0000

I hope you realise that simply capitalising the words "Big" and "Lie" (and in this case "Technique", for some reason) do nothing to persuade or even inform people about the criticism you're making. "he supports the banning of critics from his meetings" Firstly, according to War on Want Hoffman wasn't banned because he was a "critic" but because he has a record of disruptive behaviour. Secondly, according to White he didn't know Hoffman was banned. You may disagree with both of these claims, but to say that you've failed to make a persuasive argument to that effect would be an understatement. "White is not exactly the champion of freedom of speech himself. " I thought it had been established that "free speech" is irrelevant here, since we're talking about privately owned blogs. It is generally considered proper practice, however, to allow an author a right of reply after reviewing his/her book.

By: Seismic

Seismic — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:34:28 +0000

Usury 1.0 – your screenname is Usury, surely a reference to American poet Ezra Pound's antisemitic ideas about usury, if I'm not mistaken? Anyway, Usury, are you suggesting that antisemitism is more than 'hate based on air'? Racism isn't a mental defect but a moral/ethical defect. As a form of racism (anti-Jewish racism), it is wrong. Anyway, this post was addressed to English Literature graduate Ben White, and one looks forward to his response.

By: Seismic

Seismic — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:09:17 +0000

Here's a response to this article: " target="_blank">http://seismicshock.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/ben-...

By: Usury 1.0

Usury 1.0 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:50:50 +0000

Do you understand that being charged with being "antisemitic" accuses any one of being mentally insane, of having not a smidgeon of normalcy, of being mentally defective, of having no intelligence or evidence at all, of being certifiably physically diseased? The assumption is that any antisemite is afflicted with extreme paranoia, hate based on air, and Freudian projectionism? Marx said there was a different reason to account for antisemitism. Of course he was therefore accused of being an antisemite–or rather, a self-hating Jew. Pound echoed him, and as a goy, he earned the pure title of antisemite.