Phil and I are on our way to Washington DC for J Street’s first national conference. We’ll be reporting from the conference on the site and over twitter, so be sure to follow along.
-
-
- Alterman says BDS shares Ahmadinejad’s agenda, and Hezbollah’s too 15
- Fear, the African refugees and the cost of maintaining Israel … 6
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that … 24
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 31
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 30
- And we live on… 5
- US official — we went to Israel first 15
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 714
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 479
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 436
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 399
- March of the Flags 349
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 327
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 294
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 236
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 237
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 150
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 120
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 86
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Slater on Beinart (30)
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (43)
- Alterman says BDS shares Ahmadinejad’s agenda, and Hezbollah’s too (15)
- American: Alterman is just another Zio Supremo…same old, same old. I have heard and seen this statement of...
- traintosiberia: Use of the image of Ahmednezad serves two purposes.One of them is to permanently consign Ahmednezad...
- OlegR: /Palestinians have been left with no choice but to pursue a rights-based agenda (including ROR)/ Shmuel you...
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (150)
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that employ migrant workers (24)
- tokyobk: Gamal, please follow the thread from the beginning. I have no love for Sharon and being born in Palestine...
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Jeffrey Blankfort
- Anonymous
- Jack Ross
- Today in Palestine
- James North and Philip Weiss
- Susie Kneedler
Blogroll
Enjoy.
I’m sure you will meet many inspiring, sober and pragmatic participants/leaders.
…who will promptly be witch-hunted right out of J-Street by people like you, Witty, after the conference.
Such an odd comment, Chaos.
You don’t have to speak every time a mean thought reaches your mind.
Chaos, get a dog or a wife if you’ve got to beat up on somebody. You’re raising the heat around here.
You just spent the last few days trying to get Phil Weiss and his compatriots to publicly sign his name in blood to J-Street’s cause and then we find out from the Ben-Ami interview that J-Street might really shaping up to be more like a polite, watered down version of AIPAC — kind of like what you are relative to people like WJ and carnas.
The Jekyll and Hyde act isn’t going to work, Witty.
You must imagine that Phil has extremely limited options as to how to express his commitments.
He could CLEARLY state, “I” am inclined to support J Street’s position on x, but in y condition I think I’d have to qualify that.
Your “either/or” approach, diminishes the relevance of even Phil’s posts.
Your polemic gymnastics are reaching new heights of absurdity, Witty. So suddenly now I am somehow weakening Phil’s position?
This is what you do. You come in pretending to be everyone’s “friend” and “liberal” this and “independent thinker” that… when the truth is you’re only here to poison the proverbial well and start fights amongst other people.
Sorry, but nobody’s falling for that.
I definitely am here to poison the exagerated dogmatic condemnatory approach.
Over-simplification (implied in the condemnatory approach), IS how the world gets dumbed-down (to quote a periodic malicious theme of Phil’s on modern Jewish intelligence).
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You come here prancing about and pretend to have legitimate standards and etiquette, in then you go around accusing attacking people about their positions being “simple” and “dumbed down.” Meanwhile you’ve only been to Israel twice and we have people on these boards who grew up there telling us what’s really going on, and you deny that.
The problem with poison, Witty, is it’s really easy to get it on your own hands while you’re applying it to your weapon. Say what you will about me — I’m aggressive, hot-headed, whatnot — but any metaphorical dagger coming from me comes from the front and it’s not crafted as any sort of subversion.
“Meanwhile you’ve only been to Israel twice”
Show’s what you know, Chaos! You are not taking into account ziocaines’s proven ability to produce out-of-body-type experiences.
That must mean you will not be there Witty…LOL
Regarding you’re statement Witty – “Enjoy. I’m sure you will meet many inspiring, sober and pragmatic participants/leaders.”
That must mean you will not be there Witty…LOL Could not resist the post.
I’m with D.. on this one. It is both wrong and counter-productive to respond in a hostile personal manner. One can get a point across easily enough without being disrespectful. Active disrespect should in my opinion be reserved for those who have crossed the line into criminality: murderers, torturers, and robbers. Does anyone here seriously believe Richard comes even remotely close to these categories? Chill pills all around are in order.
as much as i generally always disagree with wittys viewpoint, i agree with d and colin on this one.. no need for hostility towards witty or anyone here in spite of differences..
I view Witty as a direct threat to American progressivism. He swears up and down that he’s a liberal and then he openly subverts liberal values and uses his self-declared “liberalness” as a platform for debasing and tearing into the progressive left. How many times have we heard him denounce and smear the “radical left?”
Sorry if I take that too personally, but after eight or so years of being labeled as a “traitor” and a “commie” for loving American values, American ideals and the life, liberty and security of all American people? You could maybe understand why Witty is the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back for me.
chaos – these labels ( liberal, zionism etc. etc.) are used to define others as much as they are used to trick others into thinking certain ways…. better to skip over them and respond to things as they come up, not getting sidetracked with the labeling that gets done one way or the other… i don’t view witty as ‘liberal’ either, but if he wants to label himself as such, so be it… anyone paying attention to his commentary here will be able to decipher the difference in his labeling and his position and be able to make their own distinctions… it is the same thing with saying someone is a zionist.. we have went thru this a zillion times with some folks using the ‘anti-semite’ label as well… most of these words are trick labels where one has to pay more attention to the content to see what is actually being said… marketing 101 i guess… pay attention to the labeling and don’t believe a word you read..
short response – beware false labeling…
Or, Mondowiess could adopt JSF’s policy and make an attempt to exclude serial liars of any type.
I, myself, and all my other selves are willing to bear any personal cost that policy brings. Anyway, you won’t miss me.
The comments at JSF rarely exceed 20 per post and Phil posts considerably m0re opinion pieces and articles than JSF does. Sometimes the commentary is very good there, and even the comments can be worthwhile, but for the most part the discussion is much richer here, and some of that is due to the wide variance in opinion here. Even Nomi, who was only cutting and pasting from the usual hasbara sites, helped to elicit some great comments and discussions.
I would strongly urge against using the JSF model here. It would be way too time-consuming and would only truncate the discussion.
Pingback: Off to J Street | JewPI
I really hope they send a strong message to Congress opposing that anti-Goldstone resolution.
I suppose it would be too much to hope that Congress would listen.
A non-binding resolution introduced last Friday by U.S. Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Ileana Ross-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the committee’s ranking Republican, “calls on the President and the Secretary of State to strongly and unequivocally oppose any further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ and any other measures stemming from this report in multilateral fora.”
Also signing on as sponsors were the Middle East subcommittee’s chairman and ranking member, Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.).
Contact your congress people now.
What a coincidence that the heads of the committee just happen to be the Representatives of AIPAC.
I admit to being surprised by this. I would have thought they would simply ignore Goldstone, like the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The NYT and WaPo aren’t so completely in the pockets of AIPAC as Congress.
Retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner says that Israel ought to conduct an independent inquiry into the Goldstone Report. link to ynetnews.com
Maybe she ought to tell it to the US Congress.
Good luck guys! Can’t wait to catch your latest nuances. Meanwhile, here’s an
eyewitness report on Israel’s Cast Lead operation:
link to youtube.com
Excellent video Citizen. Of particular interest to me was how succinctly the speaker showed the purpose and viability of BDS regarding the academic and cultural aspects.
I agree, V–she says exactly the contrary to what Witty says. Of course she was there when Cast Lead poured down, and Witty–well, he was comparing the wool in various
yarmulkas while the local Irish cop was protecting him.
And here the question is raised as to the credibility of any Israeli review of its own actions in and over Gaza:
link to palestinethinktank.com
Let’s guess how many congress people will favor muzzling Goldstone’s report. And, then,
let’s guess what Obama will do or not, and Hillary.
And here the question is raised as to the credibility of any Israeli review of its own actions in and over Gaza:
link to palestinethinktank.com
Let’s guess how many congress people will favor muzzling Goldstone’s report. And, then,
let’s guess what Obama will do or not, and Hillary.
There is no doubt what Israel will do “examining” itself, it will be a form of collective self masturbation. Obama and Hillary will race to sign off on quashing the Goldstone Report, next question?
Here is the historical short version of what the “ruling bodies” in the USA do in regard to Israel –
OVER AND OVER
Hey, Hillary has said all she felt she could about Israeli activity since she has no real power, that is, “it wasn’t helpful.”
I noticed that the J-Street conference agenda has only one tiny segment devoted to “American Interests.” And only two speakers there, one a jewish and former congressman, the other is Martin Indyk. This says a lot, no? May as well have Richard
Witty be the speaker. If you think I’m joking, pay close attention to the give and take in this
discourse between Indyk and Finklestein: link to democracynow.org
You will notice the great similarity with this blog’s commenters as to discussion of historical and contemporary cause and effect, as to who
acts and who reacts, and how, as between the Israelis and Palestinians, and other Arabs, and as to the US role–now if Finklestein with his facts was a speaker too, I’d have some faith in J-Street as a force for significant progressive change. But check it out your self, you will see Indyk is a liar and the last thing he cares about is anything
benefiting the American people.
The only other speaker at the J-St conference on “American Interests in the 2-state solution NOW” is former congressman Mel Levine.
Here Mel Levine is attacked as an AIPAC turncoat
by the California director of the Republican Jewish Coalition:
link to flashreport.org
Here is Mel Levine in 2004, a rabid AIPAC supporter: link to wrmea.com
I guess J-Street couldn’t get a speaker for American Interests to lay out the case
“Is it good for the Americans?” Kinda hard to find one since only 98% of the USA
is gentile.
Wow, I just watched Martin Indyk on that Democracy Now Interview, and I can’t believe how much this guy lies through his teeth.
If this guy is considered a “liberal Zionist” there is no hope for Zionism .
Finklestein isn’t a speaker – that says a lot about J Street.
I predict that, after many rhetorical contortions, dark will seen to be light, and might made right.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Yes, Goering was not wrong.
Time to repoint out what some old commenters here use to say before they were banned or opted out after fruitless toil: Communism resulted in more intentional murders than any equality movement in history, actually, any movement in history.
And the relevance of that fact on this website is well, what, exactly, Citizen? Please tell us what the number of murders committed by Communists has to do with Jews, and Zionism, apart from anti-Semitism in Russia making a really bad solution like Zionism seem more acceptable by comparison?
A hah, the old Jewish Boshevism charge raises yet again its ugly head. I can see why Citizen continues to cry in his beer over the purging of Chris Moore from here.
Yeah… I have to confess I find the Jewish Bolshevism thing not only inaccurate (certainly grossly oversimplified if not an outright mischaracterization), it’s an offensive and unproductive charge.
Couldn’t we have just buried that sort of nonsense with Joseph McCarthy?
Ask any American H S kid about the Nazis. Now ask him or her about the reds. See anything?
Ask any American H S kid about the Nazis. Now ask him or her about the reds. See anything?
Most American high school kids would probably equate Hitler with the Nazis and say they wanted to exterminate the Jews. That’s it, end of story. Most would know next to nothing at all of the Reds.
History is packaged simplistically for public consumption, in the interest of the masters. Maybe some of those high school kids will go on to college and get a decent professor and learn a little more. Hopefully they’ll read vociferously on their own.
If they go to an elite university, they’re screwed :-)
Most Americans probably aren’t even at a high school level. They’re at the fifth grade level. It took until very recently for fifth grade teachers to stop proclaiming the virtues of Columbus, and I imagine many still do.
I don’t see a substantive argument here. If the question offends you, so be it, I’m more offended by the 100 million people communism murdered. But to imply it’s been objectively settled to the exculpation of Jews is wrong. Going back to Marx, an excellent source is The Ordeal of Civility, by sociologist John Murray Cuddihy.
Plato called that “making the worse appear the better thing.”
The relevance, Goosey, is that one should always double check what has been/is implemented or suggested as a plan to further any ideology. The three isms of the 20th Century left their factual mark, and so now has Zionism. As an American,
don’t you worry about what America supports, and don’t you contrast that with
American ideals? And arent’t those ideals especially important in a propositition nation that is not a declared adherent to any religion or ethnic people?
Don’t forget capitalism, also an ideology. Did the bailout fly in the face of a free market? Does the IRS code? Right now congress is wrestling with executive pay,
have you been following congress on this on C-Span? Just following the murder of the Goldstone Report by our representatives?
Citizen, the bailout was nothing but an acceleration of what is the normal course. It has nothing to do with communism or socialism, it is called capitalistic cronyism. the reason why there is wrestling going on about executive pay is because of how it looks, it just opens the door wide to what is taking place in this country.
In fact, it is almost uncanny how when I take up a subject on my blog (this may be a delusion of grandeur, but it has happened repeatedly – especially after a record access to the site) is Goldman Sachs, and how Lloyd Blankfein the CEO spoke about how he made 3.2 billion dollars in profit last quarter, and than not more then a couple of minutes later said American jobs were not coming back while his cronies were getting record bonuses. Oh why not cite –
“Listen to this fat, bald headed wind bag from Goldman Sach’s talk so “matter of fact” about you’re demise, while these elite bastards mercurially rise. With this rise, on “your” money they trumpet their success by your failure.
So he says “your jobs are not coming back” with a smile on his faces as billions are paid out to an army of financial cronies. The gap between the rich and the poor is now more than during the robber Baron days of yesteryear, but the same principle is tied at the hip and nothing has changed since the beginning – everything for the few and the rest can get screwed. The pendulum ALWAYS swings back to this state, because anything gained by the people is a temporary ruse in this damnable system.
These moneyed elites who think they run this system with impunity, and have this government as their own personal franchise are no longer invisible. They come on to national media to thumb their noses at you like everything that is happening is a “natural process” – but it is not, it is contrived and choreographed to the minute detail, and the tragedy is always the story of the people.
It is way past time for the people to say we are not going to take this anymore, and to take back what is theirs by any means necessary. No one is fooling anyone at this juncture, no matter who is propped up as a figure head.”
YOU’RE JOBS ARE NOT COMING BACK
THE OFFENDING VIDEO
WHAT IS LEFT FOR US?
((Note the use of the American flag as a huffing rag, and the reference to the “American Dream” in the last video)
V
I agree completely with what you say and the bailout and IRS code are testatments
to crony capitalism, which is to say a mere farce of an ideology. Goldman Sachs was
the number one political donor to both Obama and McCain campaigns.
Insurers poised to reap benefits from healthcare overhaul
The final bill may well reflect an industry group’s strategy of shaping universal coverage to benefit companies.
link to latimes.com
Here is the conference program: link to conference.jstreet.org
I must say it’s disappointing to see so few items related to the US Congress and the political process, given that J Street is supposed to be like a lobby.
Mostly a US/Israel show. The Palestinian “Authority” is allowed a bleat or two. The word “Hamas” does not appear in the document.
Partaaaaay at the frontline! Whoohooooo!
Champagne and slingshots are all on me!
Have fun guys!
It’ll be interesting to know who attended and who didn’t among the usual suspects.
Can anyone post the tweets here?
Wittyesque client found dead in his pool; makes it harder to trace Madoff theft:
link to google.com
You are a roll. First Soviet communism, now Madoff and his fellow swindler. Please enlighten us: what is the common theme that links this to J Street? Are you struggling to tell us it is the Jooos again? Come on citizen, time to come out of your closest.
He’s in a tough spot. If he condemns the Zionists in principle, he might find himself sliding down a leftward slope, and end up a DFH.
The common link is the deadly impact of all ideologies throughout history; here, in the context of Zionism, which I view as in basic nature a movement akin to the notorious German ethnic national movement of volk and lebensraum, each with its attendent myths; the subspecies, Christian
Zionists are simply pure religious zealots focused on a pure end-times fantasy, it’s leaders
dime store snake oil salesmen akin to Jones and Koresh. Communism is a secular
religion, like capitalism. Apply Eric Hoffer’s True Believers liberally. What is anti-semitism? Yes, you can be the judge: link to ow.ly
What is pornography? You know it when you see it, right? Or no? Who’s in what closet here?
I miss chris moore too. let’s bring him back to cure citizen blues.
Whom was Madoff protecting when he plead guilty only to get the max? Some say his family, but I wonder about someone high up in his tribe, someone far scarier than the prospect of prison.
Mr. Madoff is an old man with a very long sentence. He will not be getting out of prison alive. If he were protecting anyone, and I have seen no credible evidence suggesting this, would not protecting his family be more than enough? Some criminal conspiracies are true, which is why there is a big section in the United States Code dealing with them, but one should have a shred of evidence before starting speculation about ‘scary people higher up in the tribe’. That is just silly speculation that could be construed as antisemitic.
I’m going to have to side with Colin Murray here… I’d be willing to entertain the notion that Madoff is protecting somebody or something else but there needs to be more proof. In my eyes, it’s just as plausible (more so, really) that he broke down after getting caught red handed, like a kid with his hand stuck in the cookie jar. Considering the evidence against him, what was he going to gain by pleading “not guilty?” It’s not as if he was in a position to prove his innocence in the face of the case against him.
You guys can say what you want, he’ll just keep doing it, and lot’s worse, and he won’t stop. The guy is not honest. He is not here for anything that has anything to do with I-P issues. He (America First) is here simply because he thought this might be a place where he can sell his crackpot anti-Semitism. No matter how many times anyone tells him, or presents evidence that Judaism is not structured the way he says (Madoff going to a life sentence to protect somebody else higher up in the tribe, oh, give me a break, if we could enforce political discipline like that Jews would have taken over the world long ago.) he won’t listen. He will present contentions which can only be accepted if you accept their anti-Semitic contexts.
Notice the most telling thing: Witty never, ever challenges him! That should really tell you something.
And make no mistake: Anti-semitism always works to the benefit of Zionists. Can’t blame the Zionists for that, they had to work with what they had.
Turkey, next the USA?
link to worldtribune.com
Well, only if we change the US campaign finance laws to make that subject purely
a USA taxpayer operation. It won’t happen, so we will continue to have a whore congress.
I just read the whole program, I can’t believe this… well Phil and Adam, you have you’re jobs cut out for you. Good luck
Exactly; they will need that good luck. Wonder which breakout sessions they will each choose to attend?
William Daroff, the Washington director of the Jewish Federation of North America (JFNA), accused J-Street, last month, of “standing with the Mullahs” by opposing toug Iran sanctions.
Who speaks for the American Jews?
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
I had a feeling that when it was all said and done, I wouldn’t be the only one to motice what was going on with America Fust-Cless and Citizen.
I was just less patient with it.
I’m not patient at all with all of the personal sniping that goes on among the commenters here.
It’s the Internet, it’s unavoidable. Believe me, I learned long ago that being polite only makes you a target.
Yeah… I think AF and Citizen have brought good contributions to the debate, but I have to confess there are times the two of them have said stuff that sort of set my teeth on edge.
Thanks in part, Chaos. I think what it comes down to is whether Zionism is something that happened to the Jews, or is it something that Jews did and are responsible for? I consider the former view just another version of Jewish exceptionalism.
Thanks Chaos4700; it’s nice to know some of my contributions are valuable and not perceived as anti-semitic; I do know that both myself and AF have been posting here a long time.
Chaos – that’s the problem, when the same few people have been posting at the same site for a long time, they tend to use the place for their personal quarrels, which isn’t good for the site, for growing it as a good place for substantive comment.
“that Jews did and are responsible for?”
You are so dishonest, Fusty. You call that American Cless? It is something that certain people did. Why do you go on completely ignoring the evidence presented here that Zionism was never something “the Jews” did?
Could it be because, at bottom, you are in agreement with the Zionist ideas of culture and religion, and the need to keep them pure or at least normative, and the hierarchical treatment of different races? I don’t think you mind, at bottom, what the Zionists did or do, it just irks you that Jews are doing it.
Or, more accurately, you see the fact that Zionism involves Jews as your ticket to irrefutable arguments. You can simultaneously excuse one set of bigots and imperialists while you gain extra traction from anti-Semitism. And to do it on somebody else’s website, in fact a website of an self-confessed Jew, lends verisimilitude, almost makes it Kosher.
Jeez, what a piece of work.
Hey, what do I know, he claims his formula has a wide appeal, and he may be right. After all, what’s a longer shot, that Americans will suddenly see the Jews as an alien body in their midst, or that Americans will demand the righting of an injustice done to Arabs? That’s a tough one.
Did you notice, Mooser, that you are the one who turned “Jews” into “the Jews”?
Are you really going to argue that Jews were not involved in Zionism and do not bear responsibility for it? Or did you just go off half-cocked and assumed that “Jews” is equivalent to “the Jews”?
And in addition to Tree’s point, Mooser, why do you go on completely ignoring the evidence that Zionism is certainly something that Jews are doing TODAY? Denying this cuts the whole conversation off at the knees. All we are left to talk about is “imperialism,” which I don’t think anyone really believes is at the heart of the Zionist project.
Am at the J Street conference. 1200 people, great atmosphere. The best part about the opening event was meeting people in the flesh I’ve known for years in the blogosphere and its predecessor, the listerv-sphere.
The official line is measured. Jeremy Ben-Ami started with Shimon Peres’ supportive letter to J Street, but everyone knows that this opens the door to the lefties. Shared a table with the executive director of a national Muslim organization with 10,000 members. Also had a long conversation with a diplomat from the Swiss embassy about what J Street means and whether it will succeed.
Thanks for checking in, Elliot.
I’d like to make a suggestion to cut down on what’s accurately been called the “personal sniping” that goes on here and that detracts from the level of discourse: While for those who engage in it your perceptions of whomever it is you wish to assail may even be true, and it’s certainly fun to come up with new names to call people, it’s jarring to read for the rest of us. Especially since it so often appears that despite the exchange of nasty name-calling it can seem the parties engaging in it are actually loving the game between themselves.
So what about … when we object to what someone has written … we *object to what they have written and not them personally*? E.g., “I think your *argument* is full of baloney” as opposed to “I think *you* are full of baloney.”
After all, especially as regards general subject matter this blog is concerned with, isn’t everyone just tired to death of the “arguments” that one should not listen to person X or Y simply because they are X or Y”? (And are “anti-semites” or “anti-arab” or whatever.)
Frankly, I don’t really even *care* if X or Y is this or that; lemme hear what they have to say and I’ll decide if that blind pig has found an acorn or not. Just because Hitler thought dogs were nice don’t mean dogs ain’t nice, and we’re all blind pigs in some way.
While fun to just turn a subject area into a cartoon populated solely with cartoon characters, its fundamental nature is still that it really isn’t about the substance of the subject area at all and therefore it advances nothing.
Besides all that such name-calling on the internet is just so … common. Wouldn’t it be nice to see this site be an uncommon one in that respect? With each other at least if not others?
C’mon folks, we’re all just having fun babbling to each other here; none of us is really likely to either destroy the world or save it. We can still be lively without attempting to diagnose each other’s souls.
Sin I hear what you are saying. I happen to be one that is calling out the overt or perhaps incipient antisemitic comments that pop up here. It is not a game to amuse myself. For many years I have supported Israel. In the last decade I have come to the conclusion that this state is basically a racist state that at its most basic level is involved in perpetual war against the Moslem Arabs. Not only that but there are very powerful Zionist forces inside the US that have succeeded in getting the US to support Israel’s wars. It should have been obvious in 1982 when the US entered the Lebanon war but all doubt was removed when we invaded Iraq for no rational reason other than putting down an Israeli enemy. That one turned into an unmitigated debacle.
Most Americans realize that this war was a serious mistake. But most Americans are not aware that it was Israel that led us into this mess. I think it is very important for us to realize that this mistake was the result of our alliance with Israel. My fear is that once Americans do come to that conclusion they will blame American Jews. Certainly our local antisemites see this as an oppotunity to demonize our Jewish compatriots. Once I realized that politically we had to take Israel head on, I also realized that good old fashioned antisemitism would join that campaign. Therefore there was no choice but to take on this problem at the same time. So what you see here, as divisive as it may appear, is part of that process.
Weiss improved this site when he purged the more overtly antisemitc posters, but it is clear that those sentiments still appear and we will confront them.
Syvanen,
I couldn’t agree more. I think it’s a powder-keg waiting to explode. This is what stuns me about Israel even dallying with the idea of going to war with Iran, even thinking that it can get away with selling it to the American people, the profound idiocy of it. The seething anger in this country right now over the economy and bailout will intensify a million-fold if Israel, or we by proxy, goes to war with Iran, oil goes to $300/barrel, gas to $5-$10/gal, people can’t afford to drive to work or pay the astronomical cost of transporting food, etc etc. A tsunami of anti-semitism will roll across this country that will sweep the evangelicals/dispensationalists/whatever into the flood that not even John Hagee and his ilk can stop. Seventy million (the number Hagee claims as his support base) released formerly fervent faithful will turn on Israel and American Jews in a torrent of anti-semitism that no one will be able to stem.
It floors me that pro-nuking-Iran American Jewish leaders can’t see or grasp this, that they can’t sense this lurking underneath the tumult of what is going on today. (Are they so rich, so insulated, or is it that they are so arrogant they can’t be bothered to hold their finger to the wind?) Remember those death threats against AIG workers and execs? The fallout from going to war with Iran, and the probable bombs that will fall in the USA as a result — for the first time in our history — coupled with what you say, Syvanen, about Americans waking up, belatedly, to the alliance with Israel vis-a-vis the Iraq War, will be monumental and devastating.
I agree with both Sin Nombre and syvanen–am I allowed to say that?
I also agree with MRW.
It’s just astounding to me that certain people think “anti-Semitism” (meaning: unflattering opinions about Jews, suspicions of tribal networks connecting disparate events, or certain historical interpretations about Bolshevism) is as important to combat as Zionism itself.
I don’t see any equivalence whatsoever between prejudice and actual systematic brutality. Everyone here probably carries certain prejudices and/or ignorances, and most likely none of these translate into any kind of actual malevolence.
Purging Chris Moore instead of allowing his writing to be engaged here was a sham. And it may be conspiratorial thinking on my part, but I can’t help noticing that Moore was disappeared just before Phil & Adam got themselves published in The Nation. I hope it was just a coincidence, the timing of that.
At the time he was banned, it seemed like an attempt to sanitize this blog, to adhere to a certain predominant, liberal worldview, to minimize the risk of losing any potential commercial opportunities. (In that regard, it recalls Witty’s gloating that Phil could not get published because his views were too radical, or Phil’s getting dumped by the NY Observer.)
I wonder about the real value of establishing “respectability” by limiting discourse to acceptable theories and descriptions, because I don’t believe the anti-Zionist perspective is really marginalized because of fear of anti-Semitism. I think it is marginalized because it threatens an actual power structure. Therefore, while not offending the more sensitive readers may win a few converts to Israel-criticism, it does so at the expense of being able to freely examine the actual power structure in question.
Even Jeff Blankfort, published here as a contributor, recently commented that (I’m paraphrasing) the British lent their support to Zionism in the Balfour Declaration because powerful Jews had gotten the U.S. to enter WWI. That’s a pretty strong allegation and, had it come from Chris Moore or somebody similar, it would’ve no doubt been labelled anti-Semitic by our cadre of defenders of acceptable discourse. And that would be a shame–because whether or not that interpretation has merit, it should probably be examined according to relevant facts, not the sensations it produces it certain people.
MRW:
Rich, insulated, arrogant, power-drunk, delusional – and absolutely convinced that Israel’s interests are America’s interests, as amazing as that may sound. The more the media and politics are manipulated, the more convinced the manipulators and their supporters become. It is an incrdibly vicious circle.
I agree that the effectiveness of this site would be diminished if it’s allowed to be reduced to a hotbed of anti-Semitism, but this is a secondary matter – a site critical of Israel is as likely to attract such people as it is Zionist trolls.
But Former MM is right – the primary purpose of this site shouldn’t be lost in the rush to carp at other posters, it should be keeping the spotlight on the “special relationship” and the power structure that perpetuates it.
former coMMenter,
The anti-semitism I am referring it is not verbal criticism. I believe it will be physical and violent if we go to war with Iran, or allow Israel to do it dragging us into it by proxy. So call it Zionism or anti-semitism, whatever.
MRW makes an important point about verbal vs. nonverbal anti-Semitism. If anti-Semitism is taken to mean criticism of Jews, then the analogy for me is being criticized at work. It’s never pleasant, but accepting and learning from it is better than the worse things that will happen if I disregard it and blame others. That’s the risk of Jewish hypersensitivity and their “projective theory” of anti-Semitism.
I repeat, simply for the sake of making the reading of the posts here a more pleasant experience wouldn’t it be desirable for us to remain able(*) to articulate any position we want on any issue or argument or idea, with the sole exception being a voluntary bar on expressing our opinions about the nature or character of each other?
Doesn’t mean you can’t fight anti-semitic ideas or anti-whatever ideas all you want; the only restraint is to confine oneself to really fighting ideas and not fighting personalities.
(The *asterisk* is due to my perception that while this site has been great in welcoming the expression of almost all substantive opinions it clearly deviated from that in banning Chris Moore due solely to his articulation of same. I think that was a mistake, and indeed think my proposal would be a remedy that would allow people like he allegedly is to post but would still not degrade the site. That is, go ahead and argue the most ridiculous hate-filled ideas or arguments you want, so long as you restrict yourself to not attempting to abuse others here personally.)
I realize that my proposal lacks perfect logic given that it absolutely allows the personal abuse of anyone not posting here. But as I said it isn’t based on logic. It’s purely and simply on the idea that it’s a lot more pleasant to read without the personal sniping.
So again, c’mon folks, in the first place you should do it for yourselves: There’s nothing like seeing the turd of a personal snipe in a post to make one discount the substance of that post and lower one’s regard for that poster. But if you won’t do it for yourselves do it for the rest of us, okay? To use some (Kantian) logic universalizing things, think about how unattractive this site would be if *every* post made was *solely* made up of personal snipes against other commentators. Nobody would want to spend a second here.
There’s damn few people posting here that strike me as being so stupid as to not understand same; the only challenge is to use a little reflection before hitting that “Submit” button. You’ll like the change too I bet.
Sin Nombre, I agree that ad hominem attacks are distasteful. Just as prejudice is distasteful.
I’m as guilty as anyone of ridiculing certain contributors here. The intent was not to damage the person, however–my intent was to make light of the absurdity of their positions.
That fact of the matter is that certain postures, arguments, methods etc. DO themselves call into question the good faith of the person making them. When that happens, it is almost impossible to engage the content without characterizing who’s behind it.
I agree that the snipefests here are a distraction though and most of them don’t make for good reading. That’s why I mostly skip over them. Sometimes the deceit or dishonesty are just too great for me to resist jumping in, however.
BTW I agree whole-heartedly with your characterization of Chris Moore’s posts here. I never saw anything of his I would consider even remotely impolite. I saw plenty of argument based on certain prohibited historical interpretations, but like you, I think it would’ve been much more valuable and interesting to engage it and discover its value (or lack thereof), rather than ban it outright.
@ Shmuel October 26, 2009 at 9:00 am
Rich, insulated, arrogant, power-drunk, delusional – and absolutely convinced that Israel’s interests are America’s interests, as amazing as that may sound.
You are spot-on, Shmuel. A classic sign of institutional (broadly defined) decay is leadership starting to believe its own propaganda or myths associated with institutional culture which were originally meant for the rank and file and external consumption. The likelihood of making mistakes goes up dramatically when one has a less firm grip on reality.
“I agree with both Sin Nombre and syvanen–am I allowed to say that?”
Of course you can, Citizen! I mean c’mon, how much joy that particular powder keg exploding will give you is obvious. It’d be like Fourth of July to you and America Fust-Cless.
You’re mind-reading here again, Mooser, using your own stereotypes as your guide.
I hate to distract from such a good post as MM’s on censorship, but as a side note to his point about “far-out” interpretations of the Balfour Declaration: that at least one of the reasons behind it was the offer to use Jewish influence to try to get the U.S. into the war was the standard schoolbook interpretation until relatively recently. When Microsoft published the first CD (“interactive”) encyclopedia, Encarta, in the late 1980s, it said exactly this. (I remember reading it.) If anything could be said to embody “conventional wisdom,” it was Encarta.
And to show that they may have been right, here’s a snippet from Lloyd George’s memoirs explaining the Balfour Declaration:
“I’d like to make a suggestion to cut down on what’s accurately been called the “personal sniping” that goes on here and that detracts from the level of discourse: ”
I reject your suggestion.
If you’re around the internet long enough, you soon find that unless a blog owner enforces rules, the blog will be taken over by various unpleasant types. At a blog like this, you’re going to get some anti-semitic and anti-Arab racists, and I just don’t think that their “ideas” need to be dealt with except once in a while, merely to discredit them. And since the people espousing such ideas are obvious haters, I don’t think it’s “civilized” to treat them as though they are just contributing thoughts to a fascinating conversation. In fact, I think there’s something more than a little repugnant about taking that stand.
Then there’s another sort of troll-the kind of person who doesn’t argue honestly. These can be fine people in real life, if you don’t touch on one of their particular areas of dishonesty. One of my most likable friends in real life is a creationist–it took me years and numerous emails before I finally realized he wasn’t capable of absorbing information on evolution that contradicted his beliefs. He knew he was right, you see, and he treated any attempt at disproving his beliefs with amused condescension. One can either be amused by this in one’s own turn, or simply decide to avoid the subject. But it was a huge waste of time responding in detail to this person’s arguments–he would totally ignore them. And it would take pages to refute one misstatement of fact on his part. That’s how it generally is. A person like this is just pure poison to a blog-either one just ignores their misstatements and assumes everyone (lurkers and all) sees what’s wrong with them, which is a dangerous assumption, or else you spend time refuting them, and then they ignore you and keep repeating their misstatements.
I suppose it’s a question of whether the comments section at this blog matters at all. If not, then let the haters politely discuss their hatred and we can all talk about it like antisemitism and anti-Arab racism are just opinions like any other, and let the trolls type in lies faster than other people can refute them. Though in that case, I think Phil should just eliminate the comments section altogether.
I honestly don’t see many anti-Semitic “haters” here, Donald. I see garden variety Arabophobia from the Zionuts that occasionally come by, I see chauvinism and exceptionalism from all sides at times, but I really don’t see anything resembling “hatred” towards Jews. Perhaps I’m just not as sensitive to that as some people are; maybe I am skeptical after hearing so much “Wolf!” cried; or maybe I just don’t equate distrust, opposition, and/or ignorance with hatred.
I agree with you that pathological dishonesty (especially accompanied by that all-too-assured condescension) is a really disruptive force and the discussion here suffers for it.
Lastly I think that personal threats or incitements to violence are the one type of comment that should be removed immediately and result in banning.
I have to agree that sometimes I think the comment section is more trouble than it’s worth. I think Phil must agree as well, because I almost never see him participate in the discussions.
Still, I come down on the side of eliminating the personal attacks, and for this reason: Haters are hateful. Almost always, a hater reveals itself in the malice of its remarks. A hater can’t just be satisfied with expressing its hate in rational terms, it has to spit its venom, to insult and abuse the posters it opposes.
If we eliminate the hateful personal attacks, we will be eliminating most of the haters with the same stroke.
Attitudes.
Among the middle there are a few fundamental attitudes, on the Israeli side, I’m speaking.
1. Application of the likud agenda of seeking Israel from river to sea. From that perspective, peace is subterfuge, to allow for settlement construction indefinitely, and far more escalated than even the current. (East Jerusalem is critical, as to many of the likudniks, permanently acquiring East Jerusalem is their version of “enough”). They regard the repeated invocations of “Palestinians are dangerous” as true, but still is a subterfuge for their primary goal.
2. Application of the kadima/labor agenda, which regards a viable Palestine as a good, but regards the formula “Palestinians are dangerous” as true and fundamental. They are willing for Palestine to be, and as they self-define, so long as Palestine is not dangerous to Israel and Israelis, even at/near the green line. The Kadima/labor position is that it is Palestinians’ responsibility to clarify its character and intention (dangerous or friendly).
3. The J Street thesis (only very minor current advocates in Israel now), that peace is possible, that Palestinians are primarily affected by the conditions that they live in, not that their “nature” is aggressive or so historically scarred as to remain permanently aggressive. That peace is constructable by incrementally and unilaterally creating the conditions of trust. (Unilateral where feasible is important, as it indicates the INTENT to reconcile, more than only the possibility.)
I support that J Street thesis, that peace is possible.
The significance of Phil, Adam and others advocating for the single-state solution in any way, is that it fights AGAINST the efforts of J Street to forge a fair negotiated reconciliation between two states.
Phil and Adam express that it is the “ideas” that they are addressing, that the ideas make some sense, to them as well as “journalistically” reporting. I imagine that they are “secretly” waiting/hoping for J Street to fail.
What is the truth guys?
The syllogism doesn’t work. Likud and Kadima are elected Israeli political parties; J Street is an American political lobby with no power to impose or craft any sort of policy beyond bending minds. You assume J Street is in a position to “forge a fair negotiated reconciliation between two states,” which it’s not, when the larger, and main, issue is that there aren’t two states.
The truth is you dont seem to understand the problem, so railing at Phil and Adam for not seeing the construct of your mind is a straw dog. And J Street, just one year old, is hardly unique in proposing that “peace is possible.”
I think Schmuel’s reasoning is applicable here, and I also think he’s in tune with
Phil’s POV, i.e., if I recall Schmuel and Phil correctly, the first premise for a peaceful solution must be based on the concept of equality and a decent measure of justice; the structure for peace can only be built on this, no matter what form(s) it takes. I would add another’s comment here earlier, which was that racism is no solution to the problem of racism. I’m also reminded of Buber’s I-Thou notion. Sounds like pie in the sky, but it’s actually every human’s desire–unfortunately, at least as applied to him or herself.
There is no peace Witty without addressing the nature of Zionism, and there is no cure for Zionism among Zionists. Peace is ludicrous without addressing what is endemic to the situation, and Zionism will not deliver the justice and equaltiy necessary to bring the end result of a lasting peace.
No one addresses this issue at J Street, it is not on their agenda, they propose this exceptionalism not equality – they hold out a fig leaf with no future. J Street is an extension of the left/right of Israel, and the report of the letter from Peres is just proof positive of this – unless of course, it does not matter who Peres is and his bloody background and if that is the case you are in denial. I could elaborate but to be frank it is completely wasted on you. I predict that when Phil and Adam return they will have found the massive hole in J Street, that is, if they are not blinded by all the pomp and glitz.
I agree with V here; it’s a real seal to how far to the right AIPAC and our congress
and Executive branches are when it comes to Israel that J-Street is perceived by many
of them as anti-semitic, that is a collection of self-hating Jews.
I imagine that they are “secretly” waiting/hoping for J Street to fail.
In some romance languages, there is only one word for the verbs hope, wait, and expect. Luckily for us, English provides for greater nuance.
But that’s not of interest to Richard Witty, who is still attempting to pressure Mondoweiss authors into unequivocal support for a supposedly tamer Israel Lobby. So he attempts to tar them as “hoping for J Street to fail.” This, despite Phil’s cheerleading since its inception, which has no doubt resulted in contributions being made to the young lobby.
Sailer is ever the apologist, but some interesting points here:
Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberal? Not Good Enough
By Steve Sailer
link to vdare.com
The general attitude that non-jews are beginning to take on Jews, is that Jews care only for other Jews, that they are exceptionalists with a superiority complex, a chip on their shoulder against non-jews combined with an uber victim complex;
they are the people who have suffer most in history. Which is of course nonsense. What the gentile world wants is for them to get off the Jewish Supremacist pedestal and show some empathy with the rest of mankind. The second element that I am beginning to read quite a bit about in mainstream publications is that Israel is not a country but a criminal state.
Increasingly it appears that Israel believes international laws do not apply to them, the Geneva Convention does not apply, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, Israel has not, yet Israel wants the world to believe that Iran is the problem when they have hundreds of missiles they will not even own up to, Israel is the world’s center of illegal body part trading see this CNN report link to youtube.com
they are a major center of sex trafficking run by Eastern European Jews, Israel spies on its allies, on this country, gets insiders to steal its secrets, such as in the Franklin case, and now with the Sybil Edmonds whistleblowing episode, backed by Jewish money Jewish Oligarchs took over 75% percent of Russia’s wealth before Putin put his foot down, threw some out (they Israeli citizenship), put others in jail Jews have no qualms about using blackmail and lies such as the bogus reports of iran shot down by the Intelligence Agencies , they use their considerable clout media to pressure politicians to bend to their will, add in the NeoCon’s disasterous Iraq War, the widely held suspicion overseas that 911 was a set up job in which Israel played a part, Madoff ‘s scheme, the major role played by Jews like Rubin, Greenspan, Sanford Weill’s role in repealing Glass-Steagall all contributing to the Financial Crisis that has benefited the likes of Goldman Sachs, watch this video where the speaker basically says the Iraq War was phony and so was the Financial collapse
link to youtube.com
Not a pleasant picture… sounds pretty shady to me.
Having followed the anti-Semitism debate in silence for a while (following an initial outburst on my part when I first got here), Silencenolonger’s* post makes me feel like responding. One of the reasons for my own silence was an attempt to question my own biases and ask whether there wasn’t some truth to some of the ideas accused of being anti-Semitic. I think I’ve changed my views a little, and reduced my instinctive sensibility somewhat, thanks to a few of the more patient and thoughtful posters here.
Silencenolonger cites some indisputable facts, but ties them all together into one big “shady” generalisation about Jews (not to mention generalisations about gentiles). Someone might point out that nowhere does s/he refer to “the Jews” (with that dreaded definite article), and that generalisations are often useful in trying to understand the world, and we all (generalisation) use them all (another generalisation) the time, but were I to read a similar message about any other group (eg. the latest darlings of such smears Arabs/Muslims, or Romanians/Albanians who also get a bad rap in my local press), I would have no doubt about its underlying racism (usual caveat: common usage, not implying any of the above are “races” or that there is such a thing as “race”), and dismiss it as such, without a second thought.
*My use of the third person is not meant as an offence, SNL, but I prefer to direct my message on this subject to the group as a whole.
Agreed, Shmuel. But I think there is some hope. Some of this prejudice will always be with us, but some I believe is the result of the subject of Jewishness (oops! sorry Moose) having been off-limits for so long. There is a lot of pent-up frustration, and inarticulateness from having lost the tools to talk about it. In other words, I hope Silencenolonger’s voice may mellow as he gradually practices using it.
Thank you both for addressing this issue, the problem is one cannot make any negative comments about Israel without being called Anti-Semitic. Whether you are President Carter, Desmond Tutu, Amnesty International or Norman Finkelstein.
So immediately a criticism of Israel actions becomes a slander against Jews.
Even the Financial crises brings this out, because there were many important players like Rubin, Grenspan, Weill who played a part in the collapse, the immediate reaction from the Financial Community was, its the not our fault, it was the fault of giving mortgages to lower income folks, just give us the money we can do no wrong and we have a right to ridiculous compensation and massive bonuses.
Where else do you find this mentality, but when criticism is made of Israel.
If the criticism was dealt with instead of slandering those brave enough to speak out, as would happen if it were any other country, there would not be this growing sense that rules just do not apply to Israel or to Jews in general.
It leads to resentment.
SNL,
You are right about criticism of Israel and the way it is shot down with accusations of anti-Semitism. Where I take issue is with your characterisation of the financial crisis and the shameful defence of those responsible as a Jewish issue – and the way in which you link the two, to create some sort of “Jewish modus operandi”. The fact that there were many Jewish players in the American system that precipitated the (global) crisis in no way implies that there is something inherently Jewish about the crisis. The excuse that it was all about giving mortgages to lower-income buyers is a general excuse made by Republicans and highlighted in the McCain-Palin campaign. Furthermore, the bonuses, subsidies and buyouts are a worldwide phenomenon, practised in countries with virtually no Jewish presence in the financial or political sectors. It is just the way money and power go hand in hand and look out for each others interests in our “democracies” – screwing Jews and gentiles alike.
Shumel you are missing the point, this is all about perception, it is not one of detailed analysis of every individual case, but it is about a pattern of behavior, as seen by others. Lets take for example the issue of the passing of State secrets to Israel and there has been many cases. Was their any punative response to Israel, no. Were these secrets passed to India or any other country there would have been a sharply worded diplomatic missive. What has been the response to the Goldstone report has there been an call to have a trial held in the Hague, as was done in Bosnia, no. Why are the Oligarch living in Israel, with Israeli citizenship not being extradited to Russia, for well documented crimes, why was Roman Morales accused of running death camps after World War 2 not extradited.
Why is it we go to war against Iraq for not meeting UN Resolutions, but say and do nothing about UN Resolutions concerning the Israel/Palestine, some going back years. Why do we tolerate Settlement building when it runs against virtually every American Administration’s policy why no punative response.
As to the Financial crisis it was selling and packaging of these mortgage securities that has created the meltdown, the US being the major currency and largest economy has precipated all these collapses of other countries. After the crash of 1929 executives of the major banks were jailed, why has there been no such action taken, instead no-one knows where the TARP funds have gone. It is in drawing conclusions between who would criticised, such as Rubin, Greenspan and others involved in the repeal of Glass Steagal, that leads one from a perspective point of view to say, were these men not Jewish we would be having major hearings.
Do you see how the first set of issues leads quite naturally to the second.
My view is that were Israel to send those responsible for “Crimes Against Humanity” to the Hague their standing in the world would change for the better.
Of course it’s about perception, SNL, and I think your perception is wrong. Israel gets special treatment (indisputable), and financial and corporate criminals get special treatment (indisputable – and not just in the context of the current crisis but general trashing of human lives and the entire biosphere). You conclude there’s a connection. I agree that there is, but in the broad sense that V has been arguing – moneyed, corporate-political elite screwing the rest of us and making us think we like it. The Jewish angle is a bugaboo, a distraction, a throwback. I am not denying the role played by influential Jews in promoting and defending Israel at great cost to the rest of us – Jews and non-Jews – but the oligarchs and the financial crisis are red herrings. There is no unifying theory of “Jewish behaviour” that will help explain a good part of the world’s ills. For that matter, there really is no unifying theory of any kind – just a totality of selfish, ill-intentioned individuals and groups, who, for various reasons, have corrupted our entire system and will kill us all.
SNL is right to note the case of the oligarchs. Recall also it was Harvard’s Jefrrey Sachs and Andrei Schleifer who reformed (destroyed) Russia’s economy for the oligarchs’ benefit, and that Schleifer was later protected by strongly pro-Zionist Harvard President Lawrence Summers. Later Summers himself was defended by Alan Dershowitz and Edward Glaeser, who flung the anti-Semitism bogeyman. It quacks like a tribe.
AF – The oligarchs found willing allies all over the world, not least in Russia – including Putin and his predecessors, until the former decided that some of the oligarchs were more useful to his own interests than others. Why do you presume that whatever collaboration they enjoyed was tribal?
Shmuel, you’re right it’s sometimes a presumption but sometimes not:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Even when the tribal connection is presumed I believe it’s often Jewish conduct that leads to the presumption. For example, I originally thought Summers had gotten in trouble over his political incorrectness toward women. It was Dershowitz & Co. who made it about Jewishness.
Ah AF, but what is presumed and to what end? Fact: Gusinsky had Israeli, Spanish and American help (ignoring for a moment the merits of the actual case against him – I’m not a big believer in Russian justice, but the guy would indeed appear to be a crumb, albeit small-fry compared to his nemesis Vladimir Putin who has yet to be brought to justice). Israel gives aid and comfort to scum from all over the world, as long as it’s Jewish scum. That would appear to be part of the Zionist ideology. I think we can safely assume that Gusinsky’s Spanish connections were not “tribal”. As for Lantos, apart from his credentials as a well-known Zionist collaborator, the man was a pal of Ceausescu’s for chrissake – not (thank God) a member of “the tribe”. Sports teams? Other well-known oligarchs have found extremely comfortable tax-free refuge in the UK (an overwhelmingly non-Jewish country, to the best of my knowledge) , where they also own – famous sports teams! So there are facts, presumptions, conclusions, generalisations and unifying theories.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “Jewish behaviour”, and Summers has enough skeletons in his closet (and powerful friends of all persuasions) to affect or not affect his career for any number of reasons – your personal assessment notwithstanding.
There are so many wonderful generous considerate intelligent Jews from various countries I have met. What disturbs me is the only that the only patterns of behavior on display are, the snubbing of world opinions, the slanders for fair and just criticism, the arrogance and disregard of others, the downright lies and underhanded behavior.
It does a disservice to Jews who do not behave that way, and it leads (going back to perspective), that the ugly stuff is what Jewish culture is about. Worse when they do raise their voice they get the Alan Dershowitz treatment
I don’t know about “patterns of behaviour on display”, SNL, but the “perspective” you refer to is the mirror image of the Yiddish concept of a shande far di goyim (an embarrassment in front of the gentiles) or the somewhat more noble Hebrew concept of hilul hashem (descration of God’s name). If Dershowitz is a loudmouth jerk, that’s his problem. I don’t judge American Christians by George W. Bush. Besides, bad behaviour always gets far more attention than good behaviour.
Shmuel If Dershowitz was just a jerk no-one would care they would lump him with Rush Limbaugh.
But, he is a major figure at the leading University in the US, he has had a movie made about him, he writes columns for leading newspapers and magazines, he is always on TV and he destroys the lives of people including Jews like Finkelstein and others who dare express criticism of Israel. he’s more than a jerk, he’s sinister.
What was also telling was the first expression you used, not embarrass in front of the goyim, the goyim being the rest of mankind. This separating, expressed in religious terms as in the Torah/Old testament as ‘the chosen people” smacks of self importance.
What has been very noticeable to me in this thread is that there was no remorse, not for the spying on the US, not for harboring the lowest of low criminals, not even for the selling and trading of body parts, that a Chinese Girl died, that an Israeli went on camera to say its OK, as long as its not a Jew.
There is no sense of shame instead there is this judgemental character, this persecution complex, spot the Anti-semite, while body parts are traded in Tel Aviv is a shrug of the shoulder.
SNL,
I’m not sure Rush is so harmless, but my reference to Dershowitz was certainly understated. I agree that he is a dangerous man. That still doesn’t mean that his actions should reflect on me or any other Jews (or Americans, or Harvard professors, or males, or natives of Brooklyn, or redheads.)
Your interpretation of the Yiddish expression I used lacks the necessary cultural and historical background. There is no modern, English equivalent, and it does not have the connotation of self-importance and “chosenness” you suggest. It was coined at a time when Jews were indeed a separate group – culturally, linguistically and legally – and more than anything, expresses fear and awareness of the status of the Jews of the Pale as an inferior and despised minority. The “goyim” in question were never “the rest of mankind”, but the more-empowered Other in the neighbourhood or town, often referring even to a single individual.
You have given examples of despicable behaviour, which exists among Israelis and among Jews (note the difference), just as it exists among every other human group on the face of the planet. The problem lies in taking these examples and developing a theory about the group – especially one as diverse as “Jews” – covering diverse phenomena. I could easily take examples of bad behaviour of members of any human group and create a theory of some inherent trait (genetic or cultural) that causes members of the group to act that way. It would be a piece of cake to create that impression, but that wouldn’t make it true or fair. Human behaviour is far too complex for that kind of simplification, even if it does give us the illusion of understanding the world a little better.
By your criteria, there will be no peace, and the likud approach will end up prevailing both logically and in fact.
That is a tragedy.
The J Street approach is, as I identified, not currently prominently represented in Israeli politics. It was certainly, but that weight of interests and morality diminished as a result of militancy primarily. (primarily Palestinian, but also leftist attitudes and condemnations, and likud expansion.)
It is a CHOICE of approach.
What one opposes only, is the oppossite of choice, a renunciation of one’s liberty and wisdom.
I imagine that the more benevolent possibilities of apartheid were also sabotaged by the uppirty intransigence of black South Africans wanting full rights.
The good cop/bad cop routine again:
“If you don’t agree with my [reality-challenged] vision of Zionism, you get Likud.”
Followed by crocodile tears: What a tragedy. (But not as much of a tragedy as a one-state solution, right Rich?)
What choice Witty? Zionism with smile or a frown? You cannot build a bridge to peace through occupation, inequality in the name of Zionist exceptionalism, I mean it is the same old song. You’re “choice” is not the main issue, nor anything more for the resident colonial privileged population, something substantive regarding justice and equality for the Palestinians has to appear before a “peace” is brokered.
I watched an old inverview with Charlie Manson on cable tv last night; his early life was very bad, no question about it. Over and over again during the one hour interview
he played the victim when not playing the innocent bystander just rolling along with the flow. His hands were always clean. He blamed everyone for his plight. All he ever did was try to survive in a world he had no hand in, ever. Forced to eat garbage, always bowing
to those with the power. At the end of the interview I concluded his motivation for helter skelter was revenge, projected revenge; to get his young helpers he played into their naivete
and loaded them up with LDS and other drugs.
Charlie Manson is Jewish? Why the hell didn’t he move to a settlement where his talents might have been of use, besides the climate is just like Spahn’s Movie Ranch. Anyway, I did not know that about Manson.
Assess the substantive question already, guys.
Read the post above “attitudes”.
I’m sure you can find lots to irritate you, but hopefully you will engage actual options laid out clearly.
It would also help the clarity of this world, if you similarly used the word “I” to describe your own assessments and choices. And, it would add a level of honesty to your posts to use your real names, as Phil, Adam, Blankfort, Susie and a few non-anonymous others do.
When baiting people to use their real names, are you aware that Jewish enforcement agencies such as the ADL and $PLC have ways of ruining peoples’ lives for saying things they don’t approve of? Or is that your goal?
More death threats? No thanks.
I have come to the conclusion that there is something definitely wrong with Witty, perhaps and early childhood trauma, or something else…LOL
RE: “What is the truth guys?”
Here it is, a supplement to W & M’s The Israel Lobby delineating the mechanics
of truth as offered to the American masses:
link to sabbah.biz
BTW, I guess some here may have used their real names in the past and had their computers hacked?
Here’s what US tax dollars support–at full tilt despite our economic whoes:
link to youtube.com
Sorta reminds me of that scene in Cabaret; same gleam in the eye as they arose to Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
I’m sure that you believe that on the basis of posting at Mondoweiss, you will be that kind of target.
Odd.
You think that your comments are that insightful or effective or even threatening to anyone?
Do you think that Mondoweiss has been hacked?
Phil, any comments?
Witty, you just spent the last few posts dodging away from commentators who have successfully rebuffed your talking points and you have the gall to… what? Call “haxx” and demand personal attention from Phil Weiss?
Seriously, get over yourself. You’re acting like a prima donna.
No Witty, I just post with this single letter to irritate you
I don’t expect anything substantive to come out of J Street. The description of J Street as AIPAC lite is fitting from what I’ve seen. When I see A (American) Street, I’ll pay more attention.
With the constant crowing about the Jewish involvement in civil rights and twisting of Jim Crow, I see no reason not to hold Jewish feet to the fire in the exact same ways that they have gone after others. But that isn’t going to happen. There will be no national guard troops called in to straighten out Jewish communities that support Israel at the expense of Americans, or monitors to make sure that there are no irregularites in Jewish voting for the next 50 years, and I seriously doubt that the nation will be treated to 50 plus years on anti-Jewish bigotry or bashing in the media. None of that wil happen. As wrong as segregation and unequal rights/status for blacks was, Zionism and ethnic balkanization is far more of a threat to the nation as a whole than Northern or Southern versions of Jim Crow ever were.
“far more of a threat to the nation as a whole “
I am far from an expert on American society or history, and I don’t quite see the point of this comparison, but looking at the US prison populations, inner cities, the state of African-American communities and families, I’d say that the cost of racial discrimination – “to the nation as a whole” – has been astounding.
Part of that is the legacy of racism, no doubt, but that’s an enormous over-simplification. You would also have to consider so many other factors: dysfunctional governance, corruption, and capitalism to name the principals. In many ways race is a prism that distorts underlying class reality–for example, part of the racism considered endemic to the American south was originally served as a distraction for poor whites from their own lack of opportunity. Likewise a lot of urban racism was the result of the real competition for limited resources among immigrant of different ethnic groups.
FC – Of course it is an over-simplification, but the history of institutional discrimination has certainly been a significant contributing factor. To dismiss the ongoing costs of that discrimination as far less of “a threat to the nation as whole” than “Zionism and ethnic balkanization” (not quite sure what the balkanization part refers to) just strikes me as a bit odd.
The USA’s rubber stamping of Israeli de facto policy, and support of it by dollars and UN vetoes, is really harming the USA as a whole. Start with L Johnson, proceed to
the neoconic Iraq War 2, anticipate the bipartisan neoconic WW3, Iran; that’s not a good thing for the average American. The US Civil War was exactly what it says, and it cost plenty; personally I think our rubber-stamping of Israel will cost at least as much
if not more–and minus any moral principle–that’s a big loss for the proposition nation.
No doubt citizen. Both have been and are disastrous for the United States and all its citizens, although such things are hard to compare. To my mind, the biggest elephant in the room is climate change, but that doesn’t mean that some of the smaller elephants can’t bring the whole room crashing down all on their own.
Todd,
are you quoting your klan meeting from the weekend verbatim or are you paraphrasing the talking points?
This is the kind of personal sniping we don’t need.
Precisely. You got any real game yonira? Apologize, and bring it on.
Look, when someone “a group of powerful Jews” did this or that, those people have NAMES. It is, to some extent, a testable proposition? What did Chaim Weizmann, or Herzl, or any other person you would choose to name, do? There is no anti-semitism in that. As soon as someone starts with “the Jews” he is dabbling in anti-semitism.
And you also know you are dealing with an anti-Semite when no matter how many times you point out that Judaism and Jewishness don’t work the way they stipulate, and they go right back to “the Jews”. You can point out that they are wrong by any anthropological, sociological, statistical, genetic, you name it, basis, and they go right back to “the Jews”
But it leads to a very interesting argument. Look, I know as well as anyone, although not better than most, that a lot of Americans have some strange ideas about Jews (they think Jews are as bad as Mormons! Calm down, just a joke) and Judaism, although many non-Jewish Americans in certain areas have grown up in much closer contact. Okay, what if the basically anti-Semitic arguments (Jews all in it, Jewish personality acquisitive, tribal, and disparaging of Gentiles, Jews taking over, forcing your daughter to marry Negroes, and forcing socialistic health care on us) are more effective than the actual, true, all-American arguments (Zionism is racist, deadly colonialism, and at least, we shouldn’t support it, and at best we should try to ameliorate or eliminate it)!!!
Another words, what if it turns out that the American public is more ready to believe America First instead of Phil Weiss?
Another-words, let’s get down to brass tacks: what if the price of changing America’s relationship with Israel can only, or is most easily effected by, anti-Semitism?
Won’t that be, as Dean Martin warbled in “Oceans 11″ a “kick in the head”?
So I won’t be taking any more “personal” shots at America Fust-Cless or Citizen.
For all we know they are the most effective anti-Zionists here! And the most effective argument for changing our (America’s) relationship with Israel will be to lessen the grip of “aliens” on our “American culture”.
Now, I believe that anti-Semitism always, invariably, works to the benefit of Zionism. The Zionists are no fools, and make sure of that. But YMMV. (That’s a Yiddish acronym for Your Mileage May Vary)
So maybe the most effective arguments will be casting doubts on the loyalty and “100% Americanism” of Jews, and we shouldn’t try to fight those kind of allegations?
I see a couple of big holes in your theory, Mooser. The biggest of which is that we all talk about collectives especially when the topic is institutional power. How can you not? People form groups. “The Republicans” is also a generalization; Republicans have NAMES, etc. If you can talk about “the Zionists” as a collective, or “Zionism” as an ideology, why wouldn’t you be able to talk about “the Jews”? There may be valid characteristics one could attribute to them. There are “Jewish” organizations. There is “Jewish culture,” “Jewish civilization.” These concepts are used to collectively identify elements of society, aren’t they?
I suspect that you actually have a double standard, which is that YOU (being Jewish) can generalize about the collective, but others cannot. Would you be ok with someone imposing the same restriction on you talking about “the anti-Semites”? They are individuals and have names, after all. Don’t you see the absurdity of trying to dictate how people talk about people? Why not try to measure the accuracy of what people are saying first, and then make conclusions about intent second? The anti-Semitism brigade seems to do it in reverse.
Another flaw I see in your reasoning is that Zionists are more than adept in creating “anti-Semitism” where there is none. It is an article of faith among many Jews and Zionists that anti-Semitism is “the world’s oldest pathology,” after all. The near-total absence of actual violent anti-Semitism (say, such as exists today in the U.S.) doesn’t keep Zionists from capitalizing off fear and loathing. So why lend credence to that M.O. by assuming malevolent intent on the part of people who generalize (as all humans do) when talking about human phenomena? Why not just point to counter-examples, if you have them, and leave it at that?
It just seems to me that this has much more to do with controlling discourse than actually preventing people from harm. Maybe I’m completely off.
I don’t know, I see where Mooser is going with that and I agree with the sentiment. For instance, I find it personally offensive and inaccurate when socialism and communism (two decidedly distinct political philosophies) are put in the same boat as “left wing” concepts. It’s not that they both aren’t left wing concepts, but there is a false equivalence that occurs in language — someone says something that is rightly a criticism of communism, but when they only refer to it as “left wing” it gets read — inadvertently if the speaker is being careless and intentionally if the speaker is being subersive — as an equal criticism of socialism as well.
It’s not that Zionism isn’t a Jewish institution — it’s kind of hard to argue otherwise — but when people only refer to it in terms of it’s, er, “Jewishness,” it sounds like it’s being ascribed as representative of the entire Jewish tradition. This worth both ways — the Zionist movement has capitalized on this too to co-opt a Jewish identity that doesn’t belong exclusively to them.
Okay, then, I’ll try to put it better, since you either don’t grasp or refuse to grasp what I’m saying. Of course, there is a great deal of really nasty work taking place among Jews and their organisations around Zionism. Not because they are Jews, not because Zionism is Jewish, but because Zionism is the support and back-up for a ciolonial, racist enterprise, the State of Israel. And any group, anyone, can use the appelation “Jewish” and if they’ve got the Chutzpah, claim to represent every single Jew in the world.
There has been reams of ividence presented here that some notable, influential Jews together with colonial British conceived Zionism (in its active, present form) and put it into practice on the backs of the Jew’s troubles in Europe and the colonial “mandate” in the ME. The vast majority of Jews weren’t involved in it, and were in no position to judge it.
But I’m gonna cut this short, cause I just realised, you can’t make a non-racial argument against Zionism, if you see the world as a racist. So forget it. If it makes you happy, and you think it’ll be effective in changing things, you can say Zionism is a universal expression of the Jewish need for domination, which will extend to cover America, and all Jews, no matter what they say or have done are crypto-Zionists at the very least, just by virtue of being Jewish. Run with that, and may it choke you.
And please, make every effort to look into a sax player named Gilad Atzmon. You can read these same arguments, and enjoy some unusual jazz while you’re at it.
Maybe it’ll drown out your whining about being persecuted and put-upon Christians and white people, oh, excuse me, Americans.
Chaos, there are two things that turn Jews into “the Jews” . One is anti-Semitism, and the other (by din’t of the neccities of crafting a colonial-settler program under a restoritive guise) is Zionism.
I gotta go to work, it’s past 10:30
But the point remains, you can’t expect people who have never found a non-racial argument for anything to craft non-racist arguments against Zionism. Hell Zionism demands it, and it’s what Zionism lives for. The two things are symbiotic.
Anyway, I will no longer try. How the hell can you expect people who see American civil rights in terms of “discrimination against white people” and have cinematic hallucinations about a normative American “culture” to see anything intrinsically wrong with Zionism? Okay, I give up! What’s wrong with Zionism is that Jews do it, and of course, nobody has ever done anything like it before.
I gotta go to work, see you all later, thanks for all the responses.
So there’s the deal, I will not point out again when I think a post or point is animated by racism or anti-Semitism.
Oh, I should have though of this! If a person is not overtly racist against Arabs or Muslims, how can I possibly call anything they say about Jews racist? Yup, I’m beat all around on this subject, and I know it. But I must go.
There’s a difference. I doubt if many people self-identify as anti-Semites. This is a word that people apply to others, not one that people apply to themselves. Likewise, racist.
But people do identify as, say, Jews or Zionists or Christians. This, I think, makes it legitimate to refer to “the group of people who self-identify as Jews” or whatever. The problem is not in the reference itself but the fact that it usually involves some invalid generalization.
I agree, and appreciate the whole of your argument. After all, Mooser himself has used broad overgeneralizaions, i.e. when he stated that he couldn’t understand Americans because he didn’t understand racist chickenhawkery. (And in the process of doing so, sought to put himself outside of the realm of “American”.) Its a human foible to make such overbroad generalizations and stereotypes, and Jews are no more immune to the failing than anyone else.
Mooser, from my perspective you tend to put words in people’s mouth’s and assume that you understand them (i.e., they’re all just hateful bigots) rather than listen to what’s being said and then choosing to disagree or agree. You took a statement by Citizen about the absence of normal angl0-american judicial standards during the Nuremburg trials (something demonstrably true) and insisted it was a hateful anti-semitic jibe against Brandeis and Frankfurter . You do similar things in many of your posts, taking a statement and twisting it in your own post into what you assume you “know” was really meant. It sounds to me like an attempt to limit the discourse, as are your frequent suggestions to take up JSF’s moderating policy.
Mooser writes:
“Another-words, let’s get down to brass tacks: what if the price of changing America’s relationship with Israel can only, or is most easily effected by, anti-Semitism?
Won’t that be, as Dean Martin warbled in “Oceans 11″ a ‘kick in the head’?”
With his “brass tacks”, Mooser has expressed what is for him, and many other Jewish American anti-Zionists, the crux of the matter. It is a hugely significant question that has loomed over considerations of the special American relationship with Israel from the beginning: How can Zionism be combated without invoking antisemitism in the general population?
For many non-Zionist Jewish Americans (like Mooser and some other commenters on this blog), who are loyal to America and not to Israel, this presents a difficult conundrum. Can anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews garner enough strength within the Jewish community to break the Zionist lobby’s grip on the Congress, without widespread involvement of non-Jews?
Such involvement, the thinking goes, would risk arousal of antisemitism, not confined to resentments over the Zionist influence. Non-Zionist Jews are aware that many Americans have concerns, for example, about Jewish over-representation in the national media, apart from concerns about Zionism. It is entirely reasonable that Jews should worry about a rise in antisemitism in the general population if large numbers of non-Jews become involved in the anti-Zionist struggle and this results in conflation of the new-found anti-Zionism with the old latent anti-Jewish sentiments.
Reasonable, I say, but not well-founded. Let me explain why I think these fears are unwise.
(1) The level of anti-Jewish feeling in the US is much lower than many American Jews seem to believe. Such antagonisms as exist are based mainly on perceived economic and political power, class, status, apartness, tribalism, “exceptionalism” – not on “race”, religion, particular culture or ethnicity. For example, the very real concerns that non-Jewish Americans have about Jewish over-representation in the national media are derived mainly from strongly-held principles of egalitarianism (i.e., fairness, equal justice, equal opportunity) and other requirements of a functioning democracy, not on ill will toward Jews. (Some may nevertheless choose to call that antisemitism, quite erroneously.)
(2) It is unlikely that non-Zionist and “moderately” Zionist Jews (such as J Street), working alone, will be able to overcome the political power of the likudnik Zionists. To be effective in undoing the “special relationship”, or at least pressuring the Israeli government to adopt more humanitarian, less warlike policies, non-Zionist Jews must welcome alliances with like-minded anti-Zionist groups of gentiles, or else form new, non-ethnocentric organizations that include both Jews and gentiles. These ethnicity-free political action organizations would have two principal goals: (a) to remove the special relationship, so that Israel is treated like any other potential ally of the US; and (b) to bring about a democratic regime or regimes that guarantee peace, security, and equal rights for all Israelis and Palestinians within those regimes, with a fair resolution of disputes over borders and territory. The latter goal requires a readiness to apply sufficient pressure on Israel, as well as the Palestinians and other “Arabs”.
(3) Mooser’s concern, that perceived antisemitism in America will harden Israeli opposition to compromise and will aid the Zionists by weakening non-Zionist resolve, can and must be addressed. It is a valid concern because, from the inception of political Zionism, the threat of antisemitism “among the Nations” has been used unscrupulously to gather in the faithful. Therefore, it is imperative that the leaders of non-Zionist – and perhaps ethnicity-free – political action groups referred to above must emphasize that they are pursuing what they view as American national interests, including the creation of humanitarian, egalitarian democracy in Israel/Palestine. Within these confines, it can and must be made clear that Jews are not being targeted, neither in America nor in Israel.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Why did I say above that to do otherwise would be unwise, from the standpoint of avoiding an increase in antisemitism in America? Because from that standpoint the worst thing is not to act, to leave the status quo in place for American policy in the Middle East. If Israel is allowed to continue on its present course, antisemitism will eventually soar, not just elsewhere in the world but right here in America as well. Here at home, the reason will be that a majority of Americans will come to see the Israel relationship as deeply injurious to American security and other interests, and will become infected with a seething anger toward the Jewish community that is perceived (J Street notwithstanding) to support the Lobby that enforces US allegiance to the special relationship.
If you are a non-Zionist Jew who wants to avoid the catastrophe for us all, unless you believe that you are strong enough to overcome the Zionists all by yourselves, then you should strive to bring in like-minded gentiles to work for common cause.
My prediction is that this action alone would scare the pants off many AIPAC stalwarts and lead them to waver in their support for Israeli government policies.
Mooser wrote:
“Look, when someone “a group of powerful Jews” did this or that, those people have NAMES.”
Dude, read what I said: Abuse others personally all you want. And certainly abuse other’s ideas all you want. But if not for the sake of some modesty in terms of assuming to know the shape of other people’s hearts, and despite its lack of consistent logic, for the sheer aesthetic sake of making this site a more enjoyable place just don’t personally abuse other commentators *here*.
Not saying you have, nor that I never have (for which I apologize to the group if so); nor that one can’t take one’s abilities at vitriol and invective out for a walk on other people not here or the ideas that people express here. Let’s just try to get be a bit better civility-wise than the rest of the internet herd.
(So ending my probably tiresome effusions upon my personal irk of the day…, I hope.)
Yeah, I’m the one who claims to know what’s in everyone’s heart? Yeah, Okay.
Just remember, all of you, every time you accept someone’s arguments about “the Jews” and Zionism, you are accepting their conclusion that only non-Jews can do anything about Zionism, that Zionism is so bad, it has exempted us from humanity.
And given the facts, that’s just completely ridiculous.
If I make an argument about “whites” and racism, does that mean I am making a conclusion that only non-whites can do anything about racism, that racism is so bad, it has exempted “whites” from humanity? I sincerely doubt it, and doubt that anyone else who accepted my statement would think so, outside of a few fringees.
Why do you insist that the rules are different with regards to “Jews”? They really aren’t. I suspect you have your own biases and stereotypes with respect to gentiles which is clouding your judgment. We get your point that Jews come in all different types and flavors. It would be nice if you could see the same thing with respect to gentiles.
Thanks, tree
you are right on target. I have a Jewish wife, and, by conventional Jewish doctrine, Jewish children. My family extended family includes more of same and also African Americans. Mooser continually pretends to know I am an anti-semite. He regularly accuses me of that. I don’t know really know what is more instructive of your tolerance and lack of bias than who you choose to marry and how you raise your children. My kids were taught that every human being is worthy of respect; that they
had as much right to the joys of life as anyone on the planet. I do not believe in any birthright privilege beyond that. I really resent Mooser’s claim the knows me, my soul, an anti-semitic soul, he says–I think he is the racist, not me. He constantly
implies or directly generalizes about people (in his feeble attempts at humor) other than Jews, and he thinks we on this blog actually do not notice.
Let’s be careful about setting ourselves up in a circular firing squad, here.
I think maybe you’re right, Citizen, that Mooser has been maybe a little too harsh on you, considering. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said or the way you’ve said it… and while I’ve been sitting on my hands about commenting on Mooser’s reaction — hey, seriously, how am I going to criticize with how I react to Witty? — I do also understand his reaction as well.
Let’s all be careful about throwing the “racist” accusation around. In the same token, let’s all take a step back and look at how we’re phrasing what we’re saying and taking note that maybe we’re being more provocative than we need to be — yes, myself included :)
Thanks for revealing that, Citizen. My Significant Other and best friend is an ex-Israeli Jewish woman, with whom I have long, earnest talks about many of the subjects discussed in this blog. Sometimes I feel that we are misunderstood ….
@Shmuel October 26, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“FC – Of course it is an over-simplification, but the history of institutional discrimination has certainly been a significant contributing factor. To dismiss the ongoing costs of that discrimination as far less of “a threat to the nation as whole” than “Zionism and ethnic balkanization” (not quite sure what the balkanization part refers to) just strikes me as a bit odd.”
I don’t think it is a bold statement to claim that a society can function well, and still discriminate against a small minority. Isn’t that more the rule than the exception? I’m not defending any past practices, but no region’s version of Jim Crow could crash the economy, threaten WWIII, or make enemies around the world. Our attachment to Israel/Zionism is capable of all three, in addition to the harm that has already been done.
Ethnic Balkanization is a real possibility due to the massive legal and illegal immigration that we are told will change the demographics and culture of the nation. That will definitely have a far greater impact on the nation as a whole than discrimination against a minority ever had. And if multiculturalism doesn’t work out, we could have chaos along ethnic, racial or religious lines which would make the inner-city riots and lunch counter sit-ins of the past look tame in comparison.
Again, I’m not quite sure of the point of the comparison, but disenfranchisement of a minority can and does lead to unrest, violence, economic damage, political instability, and so forth. To my mind the cost to US society of discrimiation against African Americans is incalculable, and it is very fortunate that the country decided to combat it when it did. Sooner would of course have been better.
What you call “Ethnic Balkanization” is another matter entirely, one on which I would strongly disagree with you. I put my money where my mouth is on this, and fight for free immigration and greater rights for immigrants in my own country.
I forgot to mention that I am an immigrant myself.
The point seems to me to be that an attack on Iran after Iraq will result in worst
results for the average American that the American Civil War. For Americans, that’t something they should chew on–but they lack the information due to our whore congress , Executive Branch, and MSM. Imagine if the German nation in the 1930′s
actually had a free press? It did not. And now, neither does the USA. The military-industrial complex, and the Junkers, exist here too, in a different form. Heil Goldman Sachs!
If you consider the cost of the Great Society and later programs, I would also say that the cost of discrimination has been great. But I don’t think the cost was great prior, unless you believe that the Civil War really was fought over egalitarian issues. I would say that prior to the civil rights era, most Americans weren’t much affected by Jim Crow, and didn’t care, either.
As far as immigration goes, I believe that native citizens have every right to voice concerns over immigration, and halt/reverse policies if they wish. I’m not sure where you are (and I would imagine that you are a model citizen) but America’s immigration policies are a mess. I don’t see why one person’s wish for open borders should trump another’s wish for demographic stability, and I can’t think of a single case where immigration policies have been put to popular vote among native citizens. On the contrary, immigration is usually shoved down the throats of those who disagree.
Todd,
You might have a point about immigration in a non-globalised world, but with the “free” movement of capital and goods – and even labour, when convenient – actively encouraged by rich countries to the point of ruining local economies in poorer countries, I see no justification for limiting the right of all people to seek a better future elsewhere. Add the disastrous effects of climate change, created primarily by rich countries and suffered (so far) primarly by poor countries, and current immigration policies are little more than a cruel joke.
Yes, I am a model citizen, as are the vast majority of immigrants – unless forced to break the law by virtue of their “illegal” status. I am a priveleged, “white” immigrant, well-treated wherever I go.
Shmuel, that last comment leads me to ask how “robust” your views on immigration are to economic stability. I mean, if the success of liberal immigration policy stands on the shoulders of the efficacy of neoliberal macro-monetary policy (and the “great moderation”), we could all be in for a rude awakening. For one thing, we have much further to fall than the Balkans ever did.
AF,
My views on immigration are based on the same principles as my views on I/P: equality. We don’t question the disastrous economic effects of our policies on citizens of poorer countries, yet object to their “coming over here” on the basis of what that might do to our own economies. I believe the economic difficulties of free immigration are surmountable, but as long as we overfish their waters, take over their grazing land, insist on their opening their markets, and make deserts of their farms, we have no leg to stand on (besides the right of might) when we argue that immigration is not economically viable for us.
,” most Americans weren’t much affected by Jim Crow, and didn’t care, either”
There were those few Americans with dark skins, who might challenge that, but indeed you said a mouthful, what you said is, “only white opinion counts, and only white rights count.
Which leads me to right where I was before my trip to the dump and recycling- It’s not possible yo make a non-racist argument for anything, when you are dealing with people who have nevwer had a non-racist aproach to anything, that is, people who see civil rights as a zero-sum proposition, whatever is given to blacks, must be taken away from whites.
So we will see, won’t we. Perhaps the argument that changing our relationship with Israel will loosen the strangle hold Jews have on American cilture, economy and politics might be the winning number.
And Citizen, all that crap about “according to traditional Jewish…” crap is crap. Are your kids Jewish? Do they think of themselves as Jewish? Gee, that stranglehold wasn’t too hard to break, was it? So much for the power of Jewishness, Judaism, or what-have-you.
American Jews who are Zionists do the same things that all those who support colonial regimes do. We had any number of people who said all the same things about White South Africa, until it met an end. They do it because they are Zionists, not because they are Jewish, but no matter how many times you are told this, you won’t believe it.
Whatever.
But I don’t doubt, from what I have seen, that appeals to prejudice will work better than appeals to principle, so have at it. And the fact that Zionism seems completely unconcerned, or even jubilant that the ultimate effect of their actions will be to alienate Americans from the Jews who live here will be completely lost on you.
Most significant thing is: notice that Witty never, ever challenges America- Fust-Cless on formulations that are obviously and traditionally anti-Semitic. I wonder why that is.
Anyway, what went on today at the J-Street meeting, anyway?
I am very interested to hear Adam and Phil’s impressions of the J Street Conference.
Does J Street’s careful approach mean that it will this will be more watered down peace process talk? Or does it seem that they will be able to be effective in a certain niche?
Is J Street interested in being in dialogue with the BDS movement or with international law and human rights groups even if they do not agree with them? Or do they view themselves in opposition to these groups in order to maintain inside the beltway ‘legitimacy’?
Actually, I’m sort of nervous waiting for it. Well, it’ll certainly be here by tomorrow. I looked at the Twitter thing, and didn’t get much out of it, but there may be more to it than I know to access.
Anyway, nothing to do but wait.
If J Street is Pro Israel, as they claim, they should be in the forefront in crushing BDS. There is nothing to dialog about.
“There is nothing to dialog about”
Yeah, that’s pretty much been the Israeli line this whole time, hasn’t it? “No talk! Just do what we say!”
Actually, Citizen, I consider it only fair to warn you that we have a habit, in cases like yours, of coming and getting those kids, using Jewish power to completely suppress any complaints by the parents, and shipping them to Israel. So for God’s sake, watch them carefully!
Forget Phil and Adam, they probably got waylaid by some babes in the hotel bar and now we’ll have to listen to some ridiculous excuses for their late reporting. Look at this though:link to haaretz.com
Abbas allegedly grows a pair!
(Actually shouldn’t put in the exclam mark afterwards; if he does on the one hand I’d admire him, on the other it might well spark some horrible violence so….)
At any rate, unlike our strangely absent hosts, I bring news….
You sure did! This is great news. Abbas is the biggest single obstacle to peace between the Palestinian factions. It’s about time he realized who the real enemy is.
Yeah, veeedddy interesting I think, esp. coupled with Erekat’s comment that he sees no hope for the restart of any peace talks in the near future.
Trying to think this through, of course this could be the kind of … overstatement or blast of pure hot air that unfortunately seems to be somewhat of the coin of the realm in arab political circles. (Saddam promising the mother of all wars, Iran constantly talking about its ability to rain fire on everyone and anyone and etc.)
Or of course it could be a bluff, but Abbas would really have to be stupid to believe it would work since it means he believes that on this basis alone Obama would suddenly have to grow a pair and double back to his “no settlement expansion” line which of course he just can’t do now, and won’t.
So is Abbas just blowing smoke without even meaning to bluff much, or is he serious, in which case what he’s threatening of course is (A) almost certainly in the *least* the election of someone much much tougher than him on the PA slate, or (B) the increased possibility that *Hamas* will win that election in the West Bank.
Interesting that the Haaretz story says in fact that he hasn’t just threatened to quit, but told Obama directly he’s already made his decision. If so while I hate to deny the possibility that he’s just a man of good principles I’d suspect moreso that he’s been told by the PA that he’s done so much harm going along with meeting Netanyahu and agreeing to stifle the Goldstone Report that if he don’t leave voluntarily they will defenestrate him anyway.
Good reason in any event to have mixed emotions: Of course one of the games Israel has played many times is to *desire* to have some hard-baller in charge so it can claim no partner for peace. So Abbas leaves and a harder-baller comes in and there’s the excuse for nothing again for a long while.
On the other hand Abbas seems to me to have been a tool, willing to damn near sign anything so long as it looked like he had worked hard on it and everyone in the West would congratulate him and maybe give him a Nobel for his John Hancock. So in the sense because signing anything means nothing eventually it would be good if he would go.
Don’t know enough about PA/West Bank politics: Who is there the PA may run in Abbas’ stead that has a name that carries any weight with the West Bank populace, anyone know? The only name I’ve heard is this apparently youngish guy “Dahlan” or something, kind of a security/police chief or something at one time a least I think.
Otherwise don’t know if the PA has got any depth at all to its bench, and of course it would seem to need at least *someone* with *some* heft to their name to contest *anyone* who runs under the banner with the name “Hamas” on it, true?
Veddy interesting….
Like I’ve been saying all along, Abbas is living the lifestyle of the Musharraf-style puppet. I hope he’s being sincere — first of all, his administration has fractured hopelessly at this point, and second, this is a dignified way for him to exit relatively gracefully (in other words, without getting killed by any of the parties involved) and make way for people who will truly be able to forward the real interests of the Palestinian people, hopefully.
Obama has nobody but himself to blame. Abbas was the probably the most pliant party for him to put pressure on in the peace process, and he abused that by turning the thumbscrews too tight for the sake of lobbyist dollars.
I keep hoping the EU might grow a spine one day, step forward and say, “America? Let us handle this.” America has lost its capacity for statesmanship and diplomacy.
Gad! Not Dahlan! This guy is an enforcer, and assassin, there is no one more hated in Gaza.
The usual candidate mentioned is Marwan Barghouti, whom Israel will never let out of jail just because he could actually have a good chance of unifying the Palestinians.
Fatah is full of corrupt old warhorses that no one wants to see in office but themselves.
“At any rate, unlike our strangely absent hosts, I bring news…”
Like old what’s-his-name that brought the good news from Aix to Ghent? I think that where he brought it, anyway. And what the good news consisted of, I’m not sure. It was from Aix to Ghent, wasn’t it? Well, it was good news, everybody knows that!
Okay, I Googled, and I’ve got it wrong. The “good news” (content unknown) went the other way, from Ghent to Aix.
Man, this story is morphing fast.
In the first version I noted even though I for some reason suspected that Abbas had not definitively said he was going to quit in fact it did: It said that he had already told Obama he was going to.
Now, in its latest incarnation, the story is indeed that he is merely *considering* quitting. See link to haaretz.com
And … get this … Hillary is on a rescue mission to “bolster” him and his position such as getting Israel to make “goodwill” gestures and etc. Amazing! After getting him to put his neck in a noose by not pushing the Goldstone and then cutting off the guy’s testicles by retreating from Obama’s Cairo demand that ALL settlement expansion stopS, to now trying to save him…!
Hilarious in a way: One can just imagine Hillary’s Day-Planner:
Monday: Castrate Abbas
Tuesday: Save Abbas
Wednesday: Castrate Abbas Again
Thursday: Save Abbas
Friday: Castrate Bill
Anyway, is interesting in its own right given Pal elections probably coming up, but then for this to be possibly happening when it seems things are just a match-stick away from another Intifada starting down at the Dome of the Rock or whatever in J’slm…. Yeow.
Oh yeah, have heard a bit about this Barghouti guy but only a very little. A good guy or no? I suppose the proof will be whether the Israelis are presently letting him shower up and shave now just in case or not.
Jeez I wish we had someone here who knew the Palestinian political scene well. When you think about it, it’s a kind of area of darkness in this blog oddly enough. We talk about the Israeli polit scene all the time but the Pal’s not so much if at all.
Another interesting story in Haaretz too about how int’l human rights lawyers in a bunch of Euro countries have got the names of a bunch of IDF guys involved in Cast Lead and seem to be marking them for HR suits if they ever find ‘em out of Israel. And then there’s mention of an interesting way they got these names: Pro-Palestinian groups or individuals follow pro-Israeli groups who have IDF guys come and talk and then go to these talks and gather info that way. See: link to haaretz.com
Anyway, back to the Abbas news/spin/baloney/who knows: Regardless of what it is you gotta believe Hillary and maybe Obama too (if he’s really smart) have gotta be sweating. Not only having their tool go down but then go down and blame *them* for it as well? The bounder!
It’d make you laugh if it didn’t make you cry first.
Barghouti’s political influence has increased since he was imprisoned. No group is more influential in Palestinian politics than the prisoners.
Abbas as a puppet is absolutely indispensible to the US pretense of the “peace process,” despite the fact that he has lost all credibility among the Palestinian themselves. Israel – doesn’t give a shit. Resign or not, they don’t care, as long as an actual Palestinian leader doesn’t gain any power.
Barghouti is one of the prisoners on the Hamas list for exchange for Gilad Shalit, even though he is not a Hamas man. That suggests the scope of his influence, as well as the real desire of Hamas to form a unity government. What he would really do if he had power – who knows?
potsherd – I don’t know much about the imprisoned Marwan but I know a little more about Mustafa Barghouti, who seems like a promising candidate to me. He is strongly critical of Fatah spinelessness and corruption and Hamas violence. He’s brilliant, committed, seemingly uncorruptible, non-religious (I believe). And, of course, he’s free, at least from prison if not Israeli Occupation. He came in second to Abbas in the last election. But I have seen Marwan touted more than Mustafa as a candidate. Do you know why? Marwan might be very popular and charismatic, but Mustafa is very impressive himself.
David, Mustafa Barghouti is indeed an impressive man, but Marwan has “street cred”. He played an active role in the first intifada, and was later very close to Arafat – without being tarnished by corruption or collaboration (unlike that creep Dahlan). He’s also younger than mustafa and far more charismatic. Before Israel’s lynch job, he also had a pretty good relationship with Israelis and particularly the Israeli left. I met him a couple of times, in the cotext of meetings between Israelis and Palestinians in the early Oslo days, and can see why he’s so popular.
Wikipedia actually has a decent bio on Barghouti here:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Thanks for your posts, Shmuel and Tree. I am troubled by the fact that Marwan is imprisoned for multiple murders. It’s not that I have any faith in the Israeli justice system that convicted him, or that I disagree with his principled decision to refuse to cooperate with a kangaroo court. But I anticipate that if he is released by the Israelis (who will only do so if they see a benefit to it), he will forever be tarred with the label “convicted murderer,” and the Palestinians will be excoriated for choosing such a man as their leader. It’s not like the Western media is likely to take a fresh look at the allegations and evidence against him and determine whether his conviction was just. It will just be a convenient way to insult the Palestinians with allegations of death-cult mentality and the like. Of course, if Marwan is truly worthy, and enjoys widespread popularity because he deserves it, this questionable conviction should not eliminate him from a leadership position. But I see the handwriting on the wall.
David,
I guess it’s a problem most liberation movements have – only those who have actively participated in armed resistance have the credibility to play a leadership role and negotiate a peaceful solution. If and when Israelis decide they really want peace, I don’t think Barghouti’s past will be a problem. Those who are opposed to peace will always bring it up, and those who favour peace will see it as part of the reconciliation process. The obvious parallel is Mandela (some have actually called Barghouti the Palesinian Mandela.)
David – Barghouti’s conviction came because of his leadership position in Fatah, not as having actually carried out any particular killing of Israelis.
This Israeli nonsense about prisoners with “blood on their hands” is just another case of Israeli exceptionalism and rejectionism. In a war, people get killed, people get blood on their hands. How many Israelis have clean hands, given the number of Palestinian dead? And at the end of the war, the prisoners are freed.
Israel rejects this concept. To Israelis, the men of the IDF are their defenders and the Palestinians are criminals, not prisoners of war. This is just another Israeli obstacle to peace.
Shmuel – What you say is true, except that very few liberation movements have been so successfully villified by the oppressor’s PR. Might not Israel be considering the release of this man precisely because of the PR opportunities it will create? On the other hand, what is right is right, regardless of how scoundrels will act.
potsherd – I know that Marwan was not accused of physical acts of murder, as opposed to being in a position to stop terrorism or some such nonsense. As I often say about the US, If you kill someone, you get life imprisonment or even the death penalty, but if you kill tens or hundreds of thousands, you get re-elected. The Israeli leaders who actually sit in a room and plan military action that they know will result in hundreds or more deaths of innocent civilians are no different from mass-murdering maniacs, except their death toll is much higher than people like Manson or Bundy and the like. Of course, Israeli leaders’ death tolls are dwarfed by others (like our own). I remember seeing John Lennon c. 1970 talk about how US leaders were “insane,” and thinking that he was being simplistic, but now I realize his simplicity was unvarnished truth. To this day, and even with our enlightened new leader, a willingness to cause death on a major scale is one of the prerequisites for higher office.
David – You’ve got a point about the vilification, but as Israel is not willing to seriously discuss peace (genuine, just peace, that is) at this or any time in the foreseeable future, one excuse is as good as another. If and when that changes, I believe it will be far less of a problem.
Per Shmuel’s comment, here is Uri Avnery, from Gush Shalom, on Barghouti,
The Palestinian Mandela.
Thanks for the link, tree. I share Avnery’s early impressions of Barghouti. I saw him twice – once at a meeting of Israeli left-wingers, held at Jerusalem’s Hebrew Union College, and again at an Israeli-Palestinian peace rally in Ramallah. His openness toward Israelis and commitment to peace was impressive (although he had fought in the First Intifada and had already spent time in Israeli prison). The meeting in Ramallah was an incredible experience in itself. It was just after the Oslo signing. We (Israelis) were welcomed to Ramallah with olive branches, and marched arm-in-arm with our Palestinian hosts through the streets of the city. Just as we were getting on our bus to go back to Jerusalem, a Palestinian shopkeeper spontaneously came up to us, to give us sweets and express his hopes for peace.
Forget Phil and Adam, they probably got waylaid by some babes in the hotel bar
Yeah, they are up in a luxury suite right now, in an intense arguiment over who has the better hashish, Arabs or Israelis.
I can just hear them: “This Israeli hash is dyn-o-mite! And it’s Kosher, too! All-right Hamas, it’s your turn to fill a bowl. L’chiam!!
Mooser – Everybody knows the best “Israeli” hash is Lebanese, although I’m not sure whether it’s Shi’ite, Sunni, Maronite, Druse or (gasp!) Palestinian!
Why the hell weren’t those guys arrested for animal cruelty? They killed two horses, and ran another to exhaustion and lameness! Disgusting! If there’s anything I can’t stand, it’s animal cruelty. If any of you guys know Robert Browning, you can tell him from me that he’s an ass.
” most Americans weren’t much affected by Jim Crow, and didn’t care, either”
There were those few Americans with dark skins, who might challenge that, but indeed you said a mouthful, what you said is, “only white opinion counts, and only white rights count.
Which leads me to right where I was before my trip to the dump and recycling- It’s not possible yo make a non-racist argument for anything, when you are dealing with people who have nevwer had a non-racist aproach to anything, that is, people who see civil rights as a zero-sum proposition, whatever is given to blacks, must be taken away from whites.”
So pointing out the obvious fact that most Americans aren’t black, didn’t particulary care about blacks and weren’t fazed by Jim Crow because they weren’t affected by Jim Crow is racist? That’s a real stretch!
Equality before the law isn’t a zero-sum game, but entitlements and quotas do take from one and give to another.
The issue raised in this thread, whether it’s appropriate to consider people a group–to generalize–is not just about politeness, it’s of tremendous practical importance. For example, should gentiles be concerned about Jewish media dominance? If Jewish media bosses are a random collection of individuals, with no more in common than the word “Jew” and the need to turn a profit, that would be one thing. But if they act as a group, and pursue group interests in conflict with gentile interests, it’s a very different matter. And if the latter is true, allowing political correctness defined by Jewish sensibilities to constrain the discussion means accepting the existing power imbalance. It’s understandable that many Jews would like to do just that, but it’s suicidal for gentiles to continue defer to their wishes.
I have to agree with you, AF. A main point of this blogsite is that Jews are a group, and they exercise power as a group. Granted, there are some differences of opinions among Jews, but why dance around the obvious? Zionism isn’t the only problem.
From Justin Raimondo’s column today:
See what I mean about America Fust-Cless being dishonest? Doesn’t matter what is presented on this site, he knows there is no difference between “the Jews” and “Zionists”, and of course, any Jew who says there is, well, we know just how seriously to take anything a Jew says! Because they “excersise power as a group”
He can’t tell us (outside of Zionism), who that group consists of, and through what mechanism they exert power, but he’s completely sure of it. And of course, the fact that Jews have no iternal power over each other (except the mechanisms of social control available to any group, ie, ‘if you marry her I’ll write you out of the will’)
means nothing, somehow they control everything.
So if you think this site is based on a faulty premise, that Jews can look at Zionism and critique its actions on humanitarian or humanist principles, what are you doing here? Come to warn us against ourselves, or each other. Or maybe you are here to save any unsuspecting Gentile who falls into our maw, to be ground into kasha?
Mooser, you’re reading into comments again. AF is making a distinction between members of a group acting as a group and as individuals. The operative term he uses is “IF,” which you run right over in your prejudice against the poster.
“So if you think this site is based on a faulty premise, that Jews can look at Zionism and critique its actions on humanitarian or humanist principles, what are you doing here?”
I have to disagree with you on the point of this site. You’re confusing Mondoweiss with JSF. For all his agonizing over his Jewish identity and unresolved issues with his mother, Phil has always insisted that American policy towards Israel is primarily an AMERICAN, not a Jewish, issue. This opening up the discussion beyond the tribe is what’s unique about this place, and constitutes Phil’s real contribution to the field.
One of the implications of opening up the discussion to gentiles is that you may be exposed to more unflattering opinions on Jewishness than you’re used to hearing, but all in all I think it’s a healthy development.
“[America First] knows there is no difference between ‘the Jews’ and ‘Zionists’”. (Mooser)
Wrong. What is true, Mooser, is that you want everyone to pretend there is no connection between Jews and Zionism. Try this: Think of Zionism without thinking of Jews. Easier to think of an elephant’s trunk without thinking of the elephant.
Mooser habitually attacks AF for expressing his views without actually addressing those views, except to repeat the non sequitur that Jews are not all alike. For example, AF wrote, “… should gentiles be concerned about Jewish media dominance?” Mooser has no answer. My answer is Yes, of course they should be concerned.
If “whites” were 80% of the population and constituted virtually all representation in the national media (as was true not so long ago in America), Mooser would no doubt object.
If “whites” were 2% of the population and constituted half or more of representation in the national media, Mooser would no doubt object.
If Jews are 2% of the population and constitute half or more of representation in the national media (as I maintain), Mooser has nothing to say about that. He doesn’t deny the premise. He doesn’t say whether he thinks the gentiles should be concerned about that, and if not, why not. He doesn’t say whether that is “good for the Jews” in the long run.
For the record, I think it is something about which the other 98% should be quite concerned, not merely because of Zionist influence, but out of concern for proper functionJeing of a theoretically egalitarian democracy. And I think it will not be good for Jews, either, as time passes.
Obviously, Phil Weiss must not think this is a “creepy” topic (as is sometimes asserted in comments here) or he would not keep returning to it, again and again.
“For example, should gentiles be concerned about Jewish media dominance? If Jewish media bosses are a random collection of individuals, with no more in common than the word “Jew” and the need to turn a profit, that would be one thing. But if they act as a group, and pursue group interests in conflict with gentile interests, it’s a very different matter.”
Someone totally disagrees with you about “the Jews” controlling all the media America First (first three or so minutes) –
THE ARABS CONTROL THE MEDIA
Who should we believe? LOL
v, I hope you are saying this tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise, I would have to believe you are out of touch with American reality. Not laughing out loud.
Oh he’s certainly being tongue in cheek. This is video was kindly put together by Max Blumenthal, which means it’s purpose is to show us just what people really think in Israel.
It’s not the Arabs – but seven Jewish Americans who control most of US medai:
link to rense.com
This is a rather off topic but worth mentioning: Anna Baltzer and Dr. Mustafa Barghouti are going to be guests on the Daily Show this Wednesday.
Raimondo also claimed that the AIPAC scandal would break wide open, and it didn’t. There is obviously a Jewish power structure that is very much pro-Israel. Is that a canard? How many espionage scandals involving Jews spying for Israel do we have to go through before we can admit that there is a problem within the Jewish community? Canard, my ass!
Ironically enough, what we need the most is for the Jewish American community to police itself in order to protect the United States from Israeli espionage… in exactly the same way that we need the Muslim American community to help us thwart al Qaeda and similar groups.
Should the rest of just shut up, pretend nothing is going on and cower at the threat of being branded anti-Semites or racists if we mention the problem? What other group is allowed to police itself if espionage or corrupting group influence is such an issue?
I didn’t say that, but like your post points out, when non-Jews attempt to do that in American society, we get the virtual scarlet letter branded on us. I’m merely saying that unless there is action from both within and without, we will probably continue to have the stagnation we have now.
The Jewish Power Structure apparently is discussed by Jews – among themselves. Jews have written books and op-ed pieces about Jewish power. It’s only when non-Jews mention it that it becomes a canard.
Yes, Raimondo is capable of good work and bad work. He predicted the Baker-Hamilton report would lead the “realist wing” of the GOP to pull us out of Iraq. Recall also Raimondo is a doctrinaire libertarian who automatically views people as individuals regardless of how they behave. That delusion is how we got into this mess.
Check out the weekly standard. they mention some of our favorite bloggers, including Phil. the standard attacked and smeared everyone, with the exception of Phil.
The Standard smeared blogger GazaMom, deriding her because she wears hijab.
Leaving aside the I/P conflict for a moment, I’ve been thinking why would a Jew find a hijab wearing women offensive? In certain NY areas and in Israel, I know Jewish women dress very dinstinctly and a few also cover their hair by different means. Muslims could care less.
How come I don’t see those Jewish women in public life? Do the criticizers of hijab ever attack those women and question their oppression and lack of visibility in the public sphere?
Saleema I know that this is a very hurtful process, what is going on in the portrayal of Muslim women. It is not only in the interests of Israel and those of Zionist ilk to see women demonized, unfortunately it is also Western hegemony with the USA leading the pack, it is a confluence of lies for other purposes. I mean, even look at what is going on in other countries like France and the UK – in France in public schools they do not let girls wear the hijab to school or in public working places.
So this is a confluence of interest in lumping one billion plus people into the same monolithic group as needing to be “watched,” calling them backward, and all of this to excuse themselves for their entire affront to this caricature they have created. It is not only unacceptable, it is criminal, and it is used to unleash the worst of consequences on an entire people (even though they say they are “just after the extremists,” how many innocents have died?) so they can exploit them, and rob their atural and human resources with impunity.
You’re right, Saleema, that the whole hijab fuss is not about women or equality, and your point about Orthodox Jewish women really drives this home. Not surprisingly, here in Italy, it is the extreme right – that generally doesn’t give a damn about women’s rights or widespread discrimination and violence against women in Italian society – that shouts loudest about hijab, burqa, niqab and the dreaded “burqini”. Sadly, this xenophobic madness is spreading well beyond the confines of the traditional right.
Look, it should not be my job to get rid of this myth of “the Jews” control the media, it just amazes me that ignorance on the subject pervades among some who post on this site. That is why I sort of made a joke of it above, but apparently some want to press the point so here you go.
I will reveal who or what owns the media – profit. So lets dispense with the 12th Protocol from the Protocol Of The Elders Of Zion -
“We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? The produce of publicity, which nowadays is a source of heavy expense owing to the necessity of censoring it, will be turned by us into a very lucrative source of income to our State…blah, blah, blah”
If only you were as industrious as Henry Ford I would not mind you’re statements in here. Next people will be spewing crap about a Jewish one world government, however in the meantime some sound like nuts in the 1930′s saying that Russian Jewish Communists are poisoning our kids minds. I swear, some things dies hard – especially during times of hardship when people like to single groups out as scapegoats for their own systemic nightmares. This is really an old canard guys and since I like this place I will show what is really going on and spend some time, but not repeatedly (because it then becomes a waste of time talking to entrenched right wing hard heads).
Everybody does the same thing and trots out some names of Jews and expects people to believe that this is the epitome of objectivity and factual content. The shareholders are always ignored like big media holders Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. These are ALL multinational publicly traded corporations, and who do they answer to? massive institutional investors, banks, advertisers, insurance companies that ALWAYS have the largest share. Profit does not care about race, or religion, it only cares about the bottom line.
This nonsense about “the Jews” in media has been exploited by those in power. I mean look at Richard Nixon, who constantly raved about the “satanic Jews” in media – profuse Jew-baiting. He said in 76′ that all you had to do is look around at “big news,” and the Jews were there. Or look at Buchanan who was so antisemitic that he even embarrassed far right wingers (Buckley).
Than you have the “liberal media” barking which is code for “the Jews.” and all of this pointing does nothing but distract people from what is really going on in media. So that you can run around after “the Jews” and get raped in more ways than one in the process, as the democracy sinks into oblivion. Wake up, I do not want to have to deal with this again.
Does that mean that there is no Jewish media elite that punishes reporters who do not tow the line? I’m not in the media, but I’ll take Phil’s word that there is.
As far as wealth goes, I tend to agree with you. I don’t believe for two seconds that Jewish money runs the country. I would guess that Walmart and the Walton heirs along with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett all have more influence than any single Jew that I can think of.
Media and editing is not a simple proposition, in other words, editors do not get on the line with the local Chabad or for that matter in most instances ponder – is this good for Israel? There are interests from many corporate sources, there is money of big investors that might be involved, there is competition for the finest atmospheres of advertising contracts.
Look at a simple drink like milk, it spends massive sums of money in advertising as well as the chemical and drug corporations which serve the industry, law suits. There were times when reporters uncovered dangerous hormones in milk. Did the editor rub his hands together and say – “lets cover this up, and that way we can poison gentile children (I mean this is a rather simplistic illustration)”? No, it is advertising dollars.
THE MEDIA AND CORPORATIONS
If you want to delve into Israel there are plenty of investment dollars there, some held by the very corporations or multiple investors who have large stock options. Lets say it is what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, the US military does not want this to air – nor large arms dealing concerns, or corporations which do business there. So it is not as simple as saying – “well they are just disloyal, dyed in the wool Zionists, etc., ” if there happens to be Jews in the decision making process, and you can rest assured that it is not merely Jews making these decisions it is both internal and external confluence of interest.
So lets get off the canard of “the Jews” run the media nonsense, it does not even address the environment of media corporations today – it is not that simple. That is why I find these old wives tales so distasteful, and they are patently not true.
What one has to ask oneself is this – why am I so taken in by these simplistic explanations (its “the Jews”), and that is a question you are going to have have to ask yourself. I think it comes from the same sources that makes shop keepers watch young black males really carefully when they are in their store, or get really nervous when they see a few on a deserted street walking past them. The country of the United States, whether you like it or not has deep racial, religious, and ethnic prejudices that run in deep currents institutionally. These have been fed over a long period of time, so that this tension is deeply set up in the psyche of the population – it produces nonsense like “the Jews control and own the media,” and almost every people in a society so atomized like ours easily grasps fairy tales.
“That is why I find these old wives tales so distasteful, and they are patently not true.”
Let’s be precise about what you’re saying. Because the old wives’ tales ARE true. There’s no dispute about disproportionate Jewish presence in our media: we can all just look up the management chains at ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and CNN. We can all watch the credits roll at the end of every show to see who the producer was. We know who the New York Times has reporting from Jerusalem. So you’re not really saying it’s not true that Jews are a huge presence in our mass media. You’re saying it doesn’t matter, that profit maximization leaves no room for personal biases.
You can make this claim. (I personally think the evidence against it is pretty overwhelming.) But don’t cloud the issue with this stuff about “old wives’ tales.”
Buckley was so fearful of Jews like Podhoretz that he gave away the American conservative movement to the neocons. I believe he died regretting his complicity in the Iraq war.
I should add the exceptional irony of mentioning Buckley in the context of arguing against Jewish media control. Buckley’s entire career was dedicated to forging a conservatism that would be “respectable” to the Jewish media, or at least some segment of it.
V, what if you can make the same profit telling the truth about a tiny Jewish colony halfway around the world, or by sugarcoating the story? What does your theory say will happen then? Is there any room at all for the influence of personal allegiances? Because you have to admit, there are an awful lot of personal allegiances at play in our media.
If you were a young reporter who had written something sharply critical of Israel, do you think your resume would be accepted by Wolf Blitzer at CNN, or by Daniel Schorr at NPR, or by Neal Shapiro at NBC, or … ?
(BTW, when real estate billionaire Sam Zell bought the Tribune Corp., it was bleeding money, and still is. In fact, he’s selling off the only part of the company that’s profitable, the White Sox. I’m not sure profits are motivating this particular Holocaust survivor. And when junk bond billi0naires Steinhardt and Hertog bought the New Republic, it had been losing money for a generation, and still is. These are the two men who also started up the New York Sun. One is one the right, one is on the left, both have always lost money, but both are rabidly pro-Israel. Go figure.)
“One is one the right, one is on the left, both have always lost money, but both are rabidly pro-Israel.”
One of their two media purchases, I mean, Not one of the two men.
v writes: “Look, it should not be my job to get rid of this myth of ‘the Jews’ control the media …. Wake up, I do not want to have to deal with this again.”
I’m not sure who is the “you” to whom this tirade is addressed, but I’ll assume I am at least included.
You are correct, v: It is not your job to get rid of the “myth” because it is not a myth that was being discussed. The topic was Jewish INFLUENCE in the national media, not ownership (although the latter is certainly significant). Any observant person in the US knows that a quite large percentage of executives, editors, regular commentators, guest commentators, reporters, writers, interviewers, and interviewees in the national media is Jewish.
Of course, you are entitled to express your view of the matter, as am I, but if you insist on claiming that Jewish representation in the national media is not far, far higher than Jewish representation in the general population (which, by the way, is the criterion for de facto discrimination in this country) then I should conclude that you are either incredibly naive, surprisingly inattentive, or given to prevarication.
What is this cr@p about these “Protocols”? Sounds like a rant. Those “Protocols” you strangely bring up were written over a hundred years ago in a faraway place by some unknown person(s) – possibly, even, Zionists. This is 21st Century America. “Wake up, I do not want to have to deal with this again.”
The rest of your comment I’m afraid I could not decipher. But I would like to say that I don’t consider it your job or mine to “deal with” all the content we object to here. For my part, I like generally to follow the lead of Phil and Adam as to what are appropriate topics for this blog.
I don’t see the corporate media as a contradiction of Jewish media power. The corporation is just a legal form of organization; it doesn’t tell the firm what to do. The big Jewish-owned and -run media corporations are motivated by profits and by the desire to push Jewish interests in their editorial policies. The investor base is concerned with the former motive, the Jews with both.
Some of you say you want to have a voice in this current situation we find ourselves in, at least in regard to the colonial mess Between Jews and Israelis, than what is you’re contribution? No one denies the influence to the subject at hand in the media, this is also part of massive PR work from Israel and those prone to assist in the states. It is patently ridiculous to say that this Jewish influence controls the entire media – if you believe this you are ignorant of the industry (best to re-read what I wrote instead of confessing to not following what was clearly written). If you do not understand the roots and process of Jew-baiting than you need to study further, otherwise you just become a “contributor” to vicious lies that have a historical record of of classic antisemitism.
I will have to address this further later
“Some of you say you want to have a voice in this current situation we find ourselves in, at least in regard to the colonial mess Between Jews and Israelis, than what is you’re [sic] contribution?”
There’s that tribal thing again. It’s not simply a colonial mess between Jews and Israelis; it’s a mess between Americans and Israelis. That’s why some of us Other will have a voice. LION (Like It Or Not)
No one is denying that process of lets say, what can be found in documentaries like “Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land” –
PEACE, PROPAGANDA, AND THE PROMISED LAND
However, the idea that all of the media marches in lock step to “the Jews” is patently ridiculous. To say there is a strong Jewish presence is correct, but to say that it controls everything is wrong. There are definitely reciprocal relationships in media, where the aim of the country by those in power get their message across on a myriad of subjects, a working relationship with Jews that becomes a trade-off in regard to Israel, but there is a confluence of interests even on this subject.
You need to distinguish between the subject as it is related to facts, and stop interjecting stories that have other roots. This would be like saying, as an example, that you identify with Black liberation, but you think Black people get upset too easy. You are against colonialism, but for the the Iraq war – not seeing the connection. Not distinguishing between reality and harmful myths used to oppress people in the past does not make you a viable spokesperson.
V. it’s no use, as I said, these guys aren’t honest. Jeez, I’m the last guy in the world to try and berate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, I’ve been anti-Zionists since I found out what it was.
But like I said, you can’t make a non-racist argument with people for whom the entire world is a zero-sum racial conflict.
Problem is, Phil has a problem with it, too. For whatever reason, probably because he makes exactly the same kind of mistake these guys are making, he thinks that the Jews he (Phil) knows are just like all the Jews. Phil has a real problem saying “Jew” when “Zionist” is more accurate. But at least Phil is looking to have his prejudices broken, not insisting they be constantly confirmed. And they will be.
And as many times as we tell America Fust=Cless and his acolytes that to have doubts about Zionism is to be either excluded or self-exclude because Zionism holds sway at the present moment in Judaism, and Zionists have no problem appealing to the bigotry of guys like America First.
What it means in the end, is that America First is intrinsically in sync with the intrinsic positions of Zionism.
But if America First is concerned about always keeping the esteem and affection of Zionists, and never being called an anti-Semite by them, there is no better way than to insist that all Jews are an insular unit and all are Zionists.
Because whenever America First tells us what he thinks is wrong with America under Jewish sway, it becomes pretty obvious that America Fust-Cless’s fondest dream is to turn America into a Christian, oh excuse me a “moderate Christian” Israel! Yup, normative culture, threat from aliens, the whole smear, it an American Israel.
So he really can’t find anything wrong with Zionism per se, after all it’s exactly what he would do, the only problem is that it’s Jewish Zionism.
And if you want to take a position that won’t get you all the love and admiration from Jews you so crave, America Fust Cless, try purporting that all Jews are not Zionists. Right now, you are doing their work for them. But you are to stupid to understand why.
And notice, there is one person who never, ever challenges what America Fust-Cless says about Jews. And that is Richard Witty. That ought to tell you something, right there.
In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and Witty is very well aware that out of all the posters, America Fust-Cless and his crowd threaten him least, and he says so.
And the funniest part is that America-Fust-Cless swallows the false Zionist history and sense of the Jews wholesale! He is their best proponent!
“…but to say that it controls everything is wrong.”
Geez. Why didn’t you tell us you were knocking down a straw man before we read those long posts of yours?
Not really D, that is because you cannot distinguish “the Jews” in the media who have this so-called control, where does it extend and how far? How can you prove if we assume their control that it is not pervasive?
Second, it is not a straw man by the other posts:
“…Zionism and ethnic balkanization is far more of a threat to the nation as a whole than Northern or Southern versions of Jim Crow ever were. ”
“…but no region’s version of Jim Crow could crash the economy, threaten WWIII, or make enemies around the world.”
“… For Americans, that’t something they should chew on–but they lack the information due to our whore congress , Executive Branch, and MSM.”
“If Jewish media bosses are a random collection of individuals, with no more in common than the word “Jew” and the need to turn a profit, that would be one thing. But if they act as a group, and pursue group interests in conflict with gentile interests, it’s a very different matter. And if the latter is true, allowing political correctness defined by Jewish sensibilities to constrain the discussion means accepting the existing power imbalance.”
“For the record, I think it is something about which the other 98% should be quite concerned, not merely because of Zionist influence, but out of concern for proper functionJeing of a theoretically egalitarian democracy. And I think it will not be good for Jews, either, as time passes.”
“It’s not the Arabs – but seven Jewish Americans who control most of US medai”
“How many espionage scandals involving Jews spying for Israel do we have to go through before we can admit that there is a problem within the Jewish community? Canard, my ass! ”
Lets see here – the whole nation is threatened, along this subject we have ethnic insurrection, WW3 is around the corner, everyone is a whore, a great power imbalance, no democracy, it is 7 Jews, and espionage is used to accentuate the problem. There are other quotes about policing and cleaning house, what are we going to have another black list? So I am not discussing a “straw dog” by the posts here, and my reference to “the Jews” controlling everything is by YOUR collective emphasis, not a mine. So get the record strait before you try to assail my argument.
I’m sorry. Somehow I got the impression you were talking about the U.S. media, but now I see you were trying to straighten out people’s thinking about life in general.
“In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and Witty is very well aware that out of all the posters, America Fust-Cless and his crowd threaten him least, and he says so.”
Mooser, you are the Witty of domestic policy. Zionism isn’t the only issue!
Mooser and v.., both admirable critics of Zionism and its atrocious consequences in Palestine, do not wish to acknowledge the highly disproportionate representation of Jews in the American national media. They seem to maintain that this fact has little or nothing to do with the exceedingly strong Zionist bias in the media – which bias they do seem to acknowledge.
In the manner of the Zionists themselves, Mooser and v.. introduce all sorts of extraneous diversions and straw men to obfuscate the points at issue. They imply that those who disagree with their viewpoint are motivated by antisemitism. They hint that we are in league with the Zionists (whose principles we both, in fact, abhor).
They claim that people like me, who think it is unhealthy for American democracy and egalitarianism that half the representation in the national media is Jewish, believe that all Jews think and act alike. Another straw man, another spurious take-down.
They claim that we are saying that Jews “control everything” in the media, when what is actually being said is that Jews control too much. How much is too much? That’s a matter of opinion; the answer would depend on a lot of subjective factors such as how much one values egalitarianism as opposed to elitism and tribalism.
For the anti-Zionist, the answer to “How much is too much?” also depends on whether one believes that a large Jewish presence in the media currently leads to excessive Zionist influence in and over the media. v.. says it does not because media people are motivated solely by a desire for profit and care little for ideology. Another argument in that direction, often implied by Mooser, is that most American Jews are not influenced by Zionist forces and attitudes and so come into media positions free of ideological bias favoring Zionism.
My reply is that these arguments are bunk (in one instance, moose-sh!t). The iron-clad Zionist orientation of the American national media clearly has very much to do with the remarkable over-representation of Jews throughout media organizations. This is a significant fact for those who wish to combat Zionist influence within the US.
But this I would say to those who heap calumny on people like me calling attention to the problem: At least 90% of the non-Jewish American population would say that there is excessive Jewish representation in the national media. This is considerably greater than the percentage who would say there is excessive Zionist influence. But as anti-Zionist sentiment grows in the general American population (as it surely will), this trend will intensify general American sensitivities concerning the out-sized Jewish presence in the media.
You can characterize discussion of this problem as antisemitism (“classic antisemitism”, as v.. says) if you wish, but that reflects your own disposition, not mine. It won’t put the problem back in the bottle.
The problem is not in the bottle, you have drunk the contents Call Me Ishmael.
“But as anti-Zionist sentiment grows in the general American population (as it surely will), this trend will intensify general American sensitivities concerning the out-sized Jewish presence in the media.”
So what do you want to do about it? Have a media pogrom? Put some quotas in? Who will you put in there, hopefully not some with you’re propensities as displayed in you’re posts.
To be frank, some of you folks cannot carry a logical conclusion in a bucket, and you are woefully bereft of correct information regarding the industry you criticize. You think you want to get “the Jews,” but have bypassed the entire systemic nightmare which reflects itself in the media. You’re elected bodies do not listen to you any more, that is because they are functioning they way they were designed. You have no “we the people,” you never did – you have a moneyed elite that has ALWAYS been listened to, and the new we the people are corporations.
You’re screwed up capitalist piece of trash chewed the hell out of everything (and don’t give me any horse shit about some perfect capitalism fantasy), but you want to make it “the Jews” fault, which some have come to prominence recently but nothing like the long train of Anglo eastern elite – we heard nothing from you before about this, it is just the Jews moving into the neighborhood, they have “destroyed the neighborhood.” It is people like you, who do not even know the workings of you’re own system, that blow things out of proportion. The Jews did not bankrupt this nation, you’re systemic nightmare did, and now that it comes to its end dragging itself you want to find the nearest ethnic/racist excuse you can muster to say they broke it 9others want to seal the damn borders, what a collective joke you guys . What broke it is the collective stupidity of consumers wandering like zombies at their local malls – and that is not the fault of “the Jews.”
What if there’s already a quota in the form of pervasive ethnic nepotism? Do you really have an objection to more ethnic diversity in media ownership?
That would be just fine America First, but our wonderful country has made that very hard. It is called removing the equal platform which is foundational to free speech, and it happened before “the Jews” got entrenched. However, you still have not learned, or for some reason it has not seeped into you’re head yet that “ownership” is not defined by who the executives are. But continue on America first, however, if I were you I would check out my reading retention.
Wow, v.., you really do like to pour on the vitriol when you find someone who doesn’t share your ethnocentric viewpoint. I’ll have to come back to this discussion later this evening, but rest assured I shall because in your rage you clearly have become abusive.
Well Ismael, this has nothing to do with “ethnocentrism,” but with plain reality. Reality in the subject I am dealing with, and a knowledge of the industry of media, how it can be summed up. When I make statements about the past this is factual history, I am not dealing in conjecture.
Take for instance, when I mentioned Nixon and how these views of the “the Jews” were used in power centers, did you think I was joking?
THE TAPES
Also I am being kind when I say you do not know what you are talking about or posting out of ignorance, because the other scenario is that you do know what you are talking about and you are doing so with malevolent intent. However I chose to believe you do not know what you are talking about (in the sense of being antisemitic), I am an eternal optimist until proven otherwise.
OK, v.., let’s deal with the allegations and rhetorical questions in your long comment above.
“So what do you want to do about it? Have a media pogrom? Put some quotas in?”
No, thank you. I am innately cautious about radical change. But I would think that if broad Jewish representation in the national media, currently at about 50%, were to rise to, say, 75%, then you might expect that there would be strong, widespread pressure for such quotas. I repeat, to the extent that the general public develops an antagonism toward Zionism (not to be confused with antisemitism) as being injurious to US national interests, such concerns would be intensified. Like it or not.
“To be frank, some of you folks cannot carry a logical conclusion in a bucket, and you are woefully bereft of correct information regarding the industry you criticize.”
Since you know very little about me personally, how could you know how much I know about the media? I suspect that over the last six decades I have spent much more time observing the evolution of American and European media than you have. And what do you mean by “you folks”? I am just one folk. Pray tell whom you are lumping me with? Do you mean the despised gentiles? Do you mean the hated wasps? Yes, I am part of those folks. As to which of us two has the better ability to deduce and state logical conclusions, I shall let our readers decide that.
“You think you want to get ‘the Jews’ ….”
Really? That’s news to me. Since you seem to esteem your own talent for “carrying a logical conclusion in a bucket”, please explain how you arrived at THIS wondrous conclusion. Cite specific things I have written, please. Also, would you PLEASE stop using that derogatory term, “the Jews”?
“You’re [sic] elected bodies do not listen to you any more …. You have no ‘we the people,’ you never did – you have a moneyed elite …. You’re [sic] screwed up capitalist piece of trash chewed the hell out of everything (and don’t give me any horse shit about some perfect capitalism fantasy), but you want to make it ‘the Jews’ fault …. It is people like you, who do not even know the workings of you’re [sic] own system …, etc., etc.”
I have to hand it to you, v, taken in its entirety this is quite a diatribe. Since this is presented in the context of “you folks” who allegedly want to “get ‘the Jews’”, I must assume that your rhetorical “you” here does not include yourself, that it is not your own political and economic system that you are referring to, that you stand apart from it. It all reads very much like a screed pitting Jews against gentiles – and especially against the hated wasps (with whom I am indeed associated). Perhaps at some point in your life, v.., you were stung by a wasp. But wouldn’t you like still to be included in American society, rather than standing apart from it?
Let me address some of the other rather malicious implications of your attack, the bases for which mystify me. First, I am not a defender of American-style “free-market” capitalism, as I have made clear on this blog a number of times. Second, I am an enemy of corporatism and its consequence, fascism. Third, I am a proponent of maximizing competition in private markets, and maximizing egalitarian collectivism in the delivery of public goods. I believe strongly in egalitarian democracy, and am opposed to elitism, nepotism, and tribalism. Fourth, I am not a “white supremacist”, as you in your ignorance imply. I am much less ethnically or racially conscious than you apparently are. Lastly, I am not an antisemite, as you would know if you actually knew me.
In a comment just above, v.., you counseled American First to improve his reading retention. I would give you the same advice. And maybe it would be a good idea to slow down in the production of fevered verbiage, strive for greater clarity of language, and, above all, don’t rush to ascribe fantastic views to your interlocutors.
It seems to me that you and I are basically on the same side.
“Also I am being kind when I say you do not know what you are talking about …”
V, in the future, probably the best way to convince someone that Jews aren’t a powerful presence in the U.S. media, is to simply list all the outlets where they have no presence. No need for flowery language, or name-calling. Just give us the list of companies. I myself would be particularly interested, since I’ve been following the industry for quite a long time and haven’t been able to find that many.
(I’m particularly interested in our five TV news channels and the major newspapers, since that influences converage of the Middle East, but I’ll take whatever you’ve got expertise in.)
“Also I am being kind when I say you do not know what you are talking about or posting out of ignorance, because the other scenario is that you do know what you are talking about and you are doing so with malevolent intent. However I chose to believe you do not know what you are talking about (in the sense of being antisemitic)”
Please elaborate. If you think I am factually wrong, state where. If you think I am morally wrong for stating facts, please justify that.
V, I see you have a general distaste for modern capitalist, consumerist America. I also think it has its flaws. There’s nothing inconsistent between noting that and noting that Jews have too much power. You seem to get very frustrated because you think that people are ignoring your findings about corporations and the like. In my case I’m well aware of them, I just don’t draw the same conclusions you do. Now the key flaw of the US (on this matter) is our individualist ethos, which makes us vulnerable to domination by a cohesive minority like the Jews. I predict that will change. As Jews continue aggressively to pursue their group interests, and as other multicultural groups do the same, white gentiles will have to organize and defend our group interests as well. Does anyone have a principled objection to that?
To be frank Call Me Ismael I do not make a habit of disrespecting my elders, it is just quite frustrating when someone uses something that has long roots like “the Jews in Media” and has no idea about the history of the accusation. Second, you say that “how do you know what I know about the media,” and you are correct – I only have the proof by what you have posted, and that is why I resonded the way that I did.
It does not matter if you call it “Zionism,” when you use old stereotypes that have been used in a prejudicial prosecution sense in the past. It is like saying “I am only talking about Zionists, but they all have really big noses.” Jewish representation in media is not at 50%, so you have a long eway to go to 75%.
I make my statements about the system in the USA because that is how the system works, period. There is no pitting of Jews against Gentiles, that is the backdrop in you’re mind, why you constantly refer back to that scenario – I am talking about a system regardless of who the moneyed elite are at the time. It is the emphasis of the Jews during the time of downturn that implies our responsibility, and that is the message you and others in here seem to want to deliver. i do not think you are antisemitic, but that you are not aware of the tools you are using to make you’re mistaken points.
link to mediaradar.org
Is there anything inherent in the corporate legal form that requires the owner of the nation’s “paper of record” to antagonize his majority readership? Do institutional investors demand he boast about it? Or is hostility to gentiles a recurring theme in the Jewish diaspora, even or should I say especially among Jews who have been most successful in gentile societies?
V,
How was Jim Crow a threat to the world? Israel definitely is a threat to the U.S. and the world. Also, ethnic Balkanization poses more of a threat to the nation as a whole than segregation ever did. Segregation was very harmful to blacks, but that’s about it. If you think that massive third-world immigration doesn’t have a major negative side that affects far more Americans in a negative manner than Jim Crow did, then you have your head in the sand. That’s not even a point worth arguing.
One more thing: Is Jewish involvement in finance and the economy just a canard, too?
No, it is not a “canard” Todd, but neither is it total “control.” There is a confluence of interest.
Take for instance the sweet deal that Israel gets in “aid,” no one gets more aid from the USA per capita. I notice a lot of people hamming it up about this point, however some never seem to break out what happens with this “aid.” Approximately 85% of it is designated for buying from the USA, but they have something that no else has, they get to spend 15% of it on their own “development” – it is a sweet deal. So there is a confluence of interest in several ways, I call it the circle jerk of foreign aid. They take you’re money, and than that money is spent back on US products exorbitantly priced (mostly military hardware) and goes right back into the pocket of the military industrial complex. So it is a complete circle for the most part, and it goes right back into this crony capitalism’s pocket – you’re money, but I do not hear much about the second part.
Do you think that the USA has no interest in this region? It is partially a piggy bank to put money back into you’re industries (military for the most part), and Israel helps them “finger” the so-called terrorists. Israel is set up to be a mirror of what it is supposed to be like for Americans, if we do not “get them terrorists.” That is why the lines coming out of Israel is that they have to “deal with their own terrorism,” just like the USA – it is a projected image. At the same time it serves the interests of Zionism. Now terrorism is the new “cold war,” how many of those nuclear missiles were used on those terrible “commies?” Zero, but it fed the machine, and the “communist menace” was taken elsewhere and nations were proverbially raped going after those “commies” (about 6 million died in so-called third world countries as the USA made off with natural and human resources). There is just as much projection for the theft of natural and human resources in the Middle East, a fair portion in the future – and Israel plays a role on this play also.
You need to understand that there is a confluence of interest in all of these damnable activities, and it is not merely that “the lobby” is blackmailing these politicians to go after nonsensical goals – everyone has their eyes wide open. In many instances the lobby just serves as the plausible denial so multinational corporations can continue to create human carnage across the planet. There is blood all over the so-called profitability, and there is not just the poor that happen to be over there and just the industrious rich over here – so that you can sing in a sing-songy way “look at all the wealth over there, and all of the poverty over there, wouldn’t it be nice if some with more would share with the less fortunate.” NO, they are in a dynamic relationship, and their poverty feeds the wealth of the few, and the people over here are getting less and less of the crumbs.
V, I don’t think that anyone has stated that Jews have total control of anything. It’s the obvious tribalism and hypocrisy that go along with Jewish influence in any number of areas that is the issue.
Todd, I think if you look above at my Oct 27th post @ 5:46 PM you can get a rounded idea of what was collectively said in here, because everyone was outdoing themselves to make it look like collectively we were the worst thing that could have ever happened to the USA. But, what do I know
V, there is a difference between substantial control and complete control. As far as I can tell, you didn’t really refute anything. Instead, you carried on about capitalism and white racism of the past
What do you think of Joachim Martillo’s theories of Jewish or Zionist political and economic cohesion and networking? He goes far beyond most of us here, and often gives names. Is there anything to his claims, or is he just an overeducated charlatan?