Daily Kos, anti-semitism, & the zombie peace process

Israel/Palestine
on 117 Comments

The following is a comment from one of my favorite bloggers attached to an important “diary” from Adalah at the popular website Daily Kos. Appropriately titled Israel: Protesters Responsible for Their Own Deaths the diary is an excellent example of some of the fine writing you will find at Daily Kos. I’d like you to read this comment before I continue.

I think (16+ / 0-)

at times we lose sight of the bigger picture and how these spats are reflective of something very instructive.

These personal antagonisms are not surprising in the least, and they reflect very accurately the larger problems of advocating for Palestinians in American political discourse.

The new meme from the pro-Israel “team” is to tar everyone who supports BDS as an anti-semite because, so they argue, BDS supports ‘boycotting Jews’.

They know this is utterly ridiculous. They know that the BDS movement is modeled after the boycott of apartheid South Africa, and it is not about boycotting one ethnicity, but about challenging a state which enforces legalized discrimination against a stateless, occupied people who have no legal rights at all and can be abused, arrested, and killed at will and have no legal recourse to challenge the state that does this. But that does not matter to them. Instead, MBNYC, Mets102 and their crew understand that at least in this place, the Palestinian struggle for human rights and equality will be instinctively supported by people once they are educated with the facts. So they must derail, they must insult, they must lie. The reason they do this is because they understand that recommended diaries like this one reach more people, and more threatening to them, reach an audience that is predisposed to political activism in the Democratic Party. Of course today there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans vis a vis Israel, and we saw the ways that Democrats sided with the right wing Netanyahu over their own President. Those who are attacking the Palestinian equality movement are doing so because they want to control the discourse about criticism of Israel and ensure that what is a widespread view among progressives about Israeli violations of human rights does not reach a wider audience.

That’s what’s going on here. The trolling by MBNYC, the constant charges of anti-semitism, the hounding of Arab posters who articulate the Palestinian cause far more effectively than they can articulate their cause, a cause predicated on maintaining a discriminatory system–all of this done by about 15 users who understand that progressives who are educated about what Israel does to Palestinians will not support their positions and tactics and will instinctively support equal rights for Palestinians, a position soysauce advocates. Let’s be clear too: this isn’t about one vs. two states. Some people from Adalah support a two state settlement, others don’t. It’s about one group that advocates for refugees, for occupied and brutalized civilians, for legal and political equality, and another group that advocates on behalf of a state. And let’s be clear: identifying so strongly with state power, any kind of state power, is an untenable position if one claims to support human rights, because all states violate human rights, and Israel more so than most, as it maintains a 44 year illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.

So the personal attacks will keep coming. So will the anti-Arab racism, so will the trolling. But as is clear in this diary, their views and tactics are not popular here.

by sortalikenathan on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 06:55:30 PM PDT

Several times over the last few months I’ve been alerted by friends regarding ‘diaries’ by members of ‘Team Shalom’ at Daily Kos highly critical of Mondoweiss. Why does this matter? For our site, I don’t think it does. It’s clear some of our biggest detractors read this site avidly, including the comments that ultimately drive traffic.  Team Shalom has run a campaign to have this site banned from Daily Kos (even tho I am not aware posters there link to this site with any regularity, perhaps I am wrong) and yesterday one of my friends who posts there wrote to inform me they have achieved this goal.

As anyone who reads this site knows Phil is very interested in stimulating a conversation within the American Jewish community about identity including but not limited to Israel and that ongoing wound, their conflict with Palestine. My hunch is members of Team Shalom do not want to have any conversations about Jewish identity, especially within the establishment, pertaining to Israel/Palestine and that’s why we’re seeing this pushback at Daily Kos.

I am grateful to Phil and Adam for taking on the herculean task of cracking open a much needed conversation, for I know without this conversation there will be no resolution and no way as Americans we can facilitate peace in both Palestine and Israel. An important ’09 article is an example of the kind of writing that makes this site so vital and important to the American conversation . In Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power Phil challenges a concept Bernard Avishai (author of a fine book called The Hebrew Republic) repeats, “One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want”. It’s as important a conversation to have now, after the 29 standing ovations, as it was when it was written. This is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to take place across this country if we are ever going to learn how to use that power to bring peace in the middle east, which of course includes Israel and Palestine. And I am not ashamed to be part of this conversation. I will leave you now with the words of a friend and regular reader of Daily Kos, published here for the first time.

 These are a bunch of liberal Jews who are basically in the bunker. Most of them won’t rec diaries about Israelis helping Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah or Hebron. They’re not fans of Dimi Reider or Joseph Dana or Amira Hass. What they are interested in is policing thought and speech, even the thought and speech of their fellow Jews who don’t agree with them. That they get to define what anti-semitism is, not other Jews on the site (and there are many other Jews who oppose their views as you know). Do these Jews get to determine what is at stake for all Jews?

 Furthermore, by focusing on anti-semitism and not on the horrific suffering inflicted by Israeli policy on Palestinians, by supporting a zombie peace process designed to deliver greater and greater gains for Israel, focusing on the words typed into boxes on screens through the internet, they are taking the focus away from where it should be – on Palestinians and their actual physical, mental and emotional suffering under a policy of institutional and systemic violence by the Israeli government. But this is yet another way to drown out Palestinian voices, by making it all about one particular type of racism and pulling the curtain over the racism of the occupation. By yelling loudly enough about anti-semitism, by making advocates of Palestinians who do not condone any form of racism always having to defend themselves against charges of anti-semitism, they obscure the racism of the Israeli government, the Israeli laws and the Israeli occupation.

 All they have are these tactics, since the tide is turning against them. Young Jews are questioning Israel. The Arab world has risen up in an Intifada inspired by the Palestinian intifadas to shake off their despots. Over a hundred countries have recognised Palestine and more will do so in September with the UN vote. Palestinian civil society is moving ahead with BDS and Israelis are looking at the other citizenships they can acquire, just in case. Refugees from 1948 want to go home and who cannot be sympathetic to that? That is why the liberal zionists are freaking out, that is why they are behaving this way. I say let them. They are becoming more and more ineffective every day.

 Take care,

Take care friend. This conversation will be here when Team Shalom is ready and we already know they are listening to every word we say. Banning us just might make that conversation come a little faster.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

117 Responses

  1. Cliff
    July 28, 2011, 12:13 pm

    Team Shalom or whoever these people are, don’t have any sort of debate with their detractors.

    We have Richard Witty, with his 10,000+ comments. We have hophmi, eee, longliveisrael, fred, MaximalistNarrative, etc.

    There is a lot of animosity between us, but none of these people have been banned.

    Ultimately, the characterization of the ENTIRE blog as an antisemitic source is infantile and not worth thinking about twice.

    It’s apparent now that there is an abuse of power and if this campaign against MondoWeiss is led by, supported by ‘Team Shalom’ and other like-minded individuals, then we should conclude that, THAT, is what DailyKos is. Narrow-minded, intellectually cowardly, Zionist on the issue of Israel-Palestine.

    They honestly are not worth it. We have lively debate here, and Phil has his pulse on the conflict. Things will be just fine. I wouldn’t trade 1 Shmuel, Hostage, 1 Mooser, etc. for 1000s of DailyKos Zionist dialogue. They are a waste of time.

    You’d be running the gauntlet of ‘antisemite!’ every few seconds.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 1:28 pm

      i agree the dialogue there is for the most part a complete waste of time.

      i think they make the mistake of assuming moderation here is used to keep out ideas and thoughts that are the antithesis of of fairness or something. whereas if we kept out that kind of thought we would never have ideas here that demonstrate what’s so weird about ardent zionism ie the concept of ‘a degree of ethnic cleansing is appropriate’!

      moderation can also be used to breakup teams working at diverting or thwarting conversation. if i were in charge of moderating dkos i would split up the gangwork going on. all that baby talk and jibberish is so childish and those endless patronizing lectures on anti semitism by the crayon. jeezlouise will someone give that woman a rag so she can stuff it.

    • Chaos4700
      July 28, 2011, 7:15 pm

      You guys need to look at what’s really going on.

      The people who run Daily Kos want money. You don’t get money from the corporate world without whoring yourself out to the powers that be.

      It’s really that simple. I’ll bet you have the blogs on DK are going to be running around and swooning about, “How could this have happened?!” when Obama takes a machete to Social Security and Medicare as he caves to the Republicans. They’re clueless over there.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 7:34 pm

        well, there’s a few hundred thousand members. i don’t think all of them are clueless. i primarily hung out there to change the discourse on i/p so i can’t speak for the other diaries. i know when i was blogging regarding the iraq war for years that was the last place i thought of blogging because the discourse was for the most part retro, at least on the diaries i visited. but i am not tech savy so i didn’t know how to find my way around the site either. i’ve read some great stuff there but was a member for years before i participated in the threads. i never understood the worthless bantering there. to me that part of it seemed like a waste of time.

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 9:46 pm

        i primarily hung out there to change the discourse on i/p so i can’t speak for the other diaries.

        Yes, annie, and when you started making headway, the powers that be at DK decided to lock down any chance of open debate and conduct the virtual equivalent of witch burnings.

        DK is basically the same as Huffington Post. Those really are the left’s equivalent of Fox News.

    • MRW
      July 31, 2011, 4:54 am

      I wouldn’t trade 1 Shmuel, Hostage, 1 Mooser, etc. for 1000s of DailyKos Zionist dialogue.

      Got that right. Add Danaa. We have the Jews that matter. [Edit: Shit. I know there is someone I've forgotten, and I apologize.]

  2. Shmuel
    July 28, 2011, 12:34 pm

    Thanks, Annie. Those are some pretty eloquent friends you’ve got there.

    My hunch is members of Team Shalom do not want to have any conversations about Jewish identity

    From an article I linked to on another thread:

    Let’s ask ourselves, what is the real reason we have such difficulty with Jews who disagree with our political views on Israel? Are we so concerned that they may damage the state itself? Or are we overtaken by a deep disappointment: If Israel doesn’t unite us, what does?

    link to huffingtonpost.com

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 1:34 pm

      that’s a really good article shmuel, thanks for linking.

      And because the notion remains that Jewish unity is based in our collective support for Israel, those who criticize the state–both on the left and on the right–have become deeply alienated from other elements of the Jewish community. Their politics and, most important, their membership in the Jewish people, are questioned, and they are accused of being self-hating or racist.

      The ingrained belief that “unity” and “Israel” are identical is the legacy of a historical debate–a debate that was won by the wrong side.

      • Shmuel
        July 28, 2011, 1:44 pm

        that’s a really good article shmuel, thanks for linking

        Credit where credit is due: link to syds-blog.blogspot.com

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 6:36 pm

        thanks! i’ll check out that blog some more. i always appreciate new voices.

      • ToivoS
        July 28, 2011, 6:43 pm

        I have recently been reading a history of the decline of the American Communist Party. One of the things that killed it was the obsession with unity and the need to hide internal debate. That need for unity made it impossible for them to reform and accept the post WWII reality and they staggered along until their final collapse into total irrelevancy in 1956.

        I kept seeing similarities with Israel and her US supporters.

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 12:25 pm

        That need for unity made it impossible for them to reform

        hmm, very interesting. i’ve often wondered if it were for the poor application of communism it couldn’t be a successful system.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 6:32 pm

      . Those are some pretty eloquent friends you’ve got there.

      yes, they are both incredible writers and thinkers. the first blockquote tho, nathan..i am a big fan of his but i can’t claim him as a friend. i’m just an admirer of his.

  3. Richard Witty
    July 28, 2011, 12:48 pm

    “My hunch is members of Team Shalom do not want to have any conversations about Jewish identity”

    Everyone that is actively Jewish has daily probing discussion of Jewish identity, including prominently about Israel.

    The reluctance of people to incorporate Mondoweiss into their list of sincerely inquiring references is the polemic and hateful polemic.

    • James North
      July 28, 2011, 1:04 pm

      Richard Witty said, ‘Look at my nerve! I’ve made 10,000 plus comments here, but I still slander Mondoweiss as “hateful polemic.” If Mondo treated me the way dailykos treats Mondo, I would be banned from it and confined to my mini-blog, with 2 or 3 daily visitors.
      ‘Also notice my trademark hypocrisy. I don’t condemn dailykos for censorship, for stifling dialog (sic). But I attack Mondoweiss, even though this site has given me a platform I could never have earned on my own.’

    • Donald
      July 28, 2011, 1:07 pm

      ” hateful polemic.”

      There’s that word again. “Hateful”. Spell out what you mean. If you mean negative generalizations about Jews, then yes, that’s hateful. If you mean harsh criticism of Israel and/or Zionism, too bad. If Arabs have to listen to criticism of their societies, and they should, Israel should get the same treatment.

      Anyway, “hatefulness” is a universal feature at any blog where this subject comes up and it comes as much or more from the pro-Israel side as from anywhere else. People make blanket statements implying or stating flat out that if Palestinians suffer it’s their own fault or the fault mainly of their leaders and Israel only tries to defend itself. It’s pretty hateful denying the ugliness of Israel’s behavior. I’ve even seen one blog which for a long time banned any discussion of the I/P conflict because invariably it got heated. This was in part because Israel defenders invariably start playing the “anti-semitism” card not against real anti-semitic remarks, but against people who in their opinion are too critical of Israel.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 1:18 pm

        accusations of hatefulness is a main staple for hasbarists. i said that somewhere else this morning. sorry to be repetitive but it’s a mainstay ad hominem argument for them. rarely do people acknowledge they have hate in their own hearts, it is only that of their enemies they pretend to stave off.

        boring. me, i don’t make accusations of hatred towards people it just isn’t effective advocacy imho.

      • mymarkx
        July 28, 2011, 1:31 pm

        Has the smirkingchimp begun allowing discussions which mention Israel again? If so, I would assume that they either censor comments that are not pro-Zionist, or allow their Zionist team to make coordinated vicious attacks on anyone who isn’t 100% Zionist, as they did before their ban.

        Years ago I got so fed up with the censorship, personal attacks, and Hasbara on Democratic Party websites like DU, dKos, and the chimp, that I stopped reading even the ones that hadn’t banned me. Anyone who checks out the blogroll here can find plenty of websites that aren’t ideologically opposed to human rights.

      • Leigh
        July 28, 2011, 3:30 pm

        “If you mean negative generalizations about Jews, then yes, that’s hateful. If you mean harsh criticism of Israel and/or Zionism, too bad. If Arabs have to listen to criticism of their societies, and they should, Israel should get the same treatment.”

        Donald, this strikes me as very right. Holy crap, have you guys seen the Angry Arab tear into Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al.? That makes anything Mondoweiss says look very gentle. Or my African friends criticise some African countries very harshly, and rightly so.

        But if you want to be justified in criticising Israel, you’d better spend some hours voicing your everlasting love for it first. Or, as Witty demanded on Phil’s earlier post, one has to dilute one’s criticism of Israel by expressing constant sensitivity to the history of anti-semitism. And if one does not tone down one’s criticism, then one cannot be a legitimate interlocutor in the Israel debate.

        It’s precisely this expectation of Israeli exceptionalism that most Mondoweissers object to, so to demand that the exceptionalism is respected before the conversation starts is to leave one of our strongest objections unaddressed.

        That said, I do agree with Max Ajl that Mondoweiss has made things difficult for itself by focussing on the Jewish vs others issue. The Israel question has become as explosive as it has because of the way in which it brings together money (rich vs poor), power (hegimonic societies vs the powerless), race (white vs black/brown), religion (Jewish and Christian vs Muslim), etc.

        By focussing mostly on the Jewish issue, which Phil obviously does very sincerely from his conflicted relationship with his own identity, the debate on Mondoweiss has gotten factually somewhat less nuanced and has as a result gone into a space that threatens to open up the Jew vs others issue further than the Israel case warrants.

        That’s why these kind of questions that eee asked on Phil’s earlier post can arise: “Why is Phil highlighting Jewish power? Jews in the US have power therefore…?”

        Since I think that money plays a greater role in muting human rights concerns in the Israel-Palestine case, I wouldn’t have to answer these kinds of questions. For me, being Jewish is relevant to the situation insofar as being a member of any identity group results in fact-free group-think. If Israelis had been Hindus, with their history of British colonial oppression and massacres, the situation would have been roundabout the same as it is now.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 1:09 pm

      perhaps i wasn’t clear enough richard but it might facilitate the conversation by NOT chopping up the sentence in a way that obscures the meaning.

      My hunch is members of Team Shalom do not want to have any conversations about Jewish identity, especially within the establishment, pertaining to Israel/Palestine

      that said you have a point. it was actually a thought i struggled with because i think there has been a fair amount of discussion wrt aspects of jewish identity in terms of their support. it’s that tension that exists between support/loyalty and how that expression perhaps becomes thwarted wrt criticizing israel. sure, there is criticism but that criticism generally doesn’t included concrete effective ways to pressure israel. or something. i know what you mean tho. not being jewish may impact my ability to articulate this tension but my hunch is there’s a line that cannot be crossed and that line is analogues to the wall in a way, as it is exists so far into palestinian territory it will prevent any just solution. for the sake of ‘security’ of course. it is going to take a big push to have an open conversation about this.

  4. Haytham
    July 28, 2011, 1:02 pm

    Good job, annie.

    Also, in response to Cliff, I agree that contrary opinions are heard and debated here and that is good; however, I would argue that it would be legitimate to ban Witty. His posts are highly disruptive to legitimate debate; he lies; he provides no new information (except for the lies); he’s not only an ethno-centrist but also a racist; he’s quite stupid in that he lacks very basic comprehension skills; and he’s very, very, very repetitive. His posts are the same almost every time.

    If people would like to hear Witty’s point of view, I think we can just ban Witty and give the task to James North and he can do the “Richard Witty says” post on every article. That way at least the Witty point of view will be stated clearly, honestly and in a humorous way.

    For those of you who read Glenn Greenwald’s comments sections over at Salon.com, I would liken banning Witty to Greenwald’s treatment of the commenter “bernbart.” He gave her several chances to stop her disruptive behavior, then he put her on a 3 post a day limit, and finally, after she violated her post limit every day for something like a week, he banned her. Witty is much, much worse than bernbart*.

    Just something to think about.

    *Although bernbart is a really annoying Obamabot, one nice thing about her is that she is not a PEP. That kind of surprised me, to be honest.

    • Donald
      July 28, 2011, 1:12 pm

      “Although bernbart is a really annoying Obamabot, one nice thing about her is that she is not a PEP. That kind of surprised me, to be honest.”

      I don’t think she’s unique–I’ve seen others who seem genuinely leftwing (for lack of a better term) in their thinking in general, including Israel, but who persist for a very long time in thinking that Obama was secretly on their side on this and every other issue. It’s bizarre. I’ve got my own pet theories on Obamamania, but it’s probably not worth talking about here.

      • Haytham
        July 28, 2011, 1:24 pm

        Donald:

        What surprised me is that she seemed so blindly and idiotically obtuse on all kinds of topics, ranging from raising children to Democratic Party policies and yet on Israel/Palestine she seemed to have some insight.

        It wasn’t surprising to me that she was an Obamabot *and not* a PEP. It surprised me that she was a generally clueless self-described progressive *and not* a PEP.

    • Chu
      July 28, 2011, 2:01 pm

      I dont know if you saw this post:
      link to mondoweiss.net

    • Cliff
      July 28, 2011, 6:03 pm

      I agree too. Witty is indeed a troll.

      And I think banning him would make a good point about how tolerant Phil and Adam are.

      Because surely, we have much more vulgar Zionists posters here like Fred.

      Then again, I don’t see it happening. Phil is much too nice a guy to do that to someone he knows IRL.

      Witty on the other hand, having nothing to show for himself, lives off of Phil and is now taking the opportunity to throw Phil under the bus.

      Usually, Dick will lie about the conflict, but now he is lying about Phil.

  5. iamuglow
    July 28, 2011, 1:37 pm

    annie,

    I wonder, if you couldnt cross post more good diaries from that ‘site’ here, so that mondoreaders could read them and support them by recommending them on that site?

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 1:44 pm

      i could post more good diaries but past ones can no longer be recommended. first of all you need to a member to rec, which is easy enough..just sign up. i’m not sure what the deadline for recommended diaries is but i think it is 24 hrs. after you have been a member there you can also recommend comments you like.

      wrt good diaries there my advice would be to go to the “adalah” link in the first sentence of this main post and bookmark it. everything they write is very worthwhile. if i have time i can find other worthwhile diaries too. some of the writing there is excellent. it’s the threads that are often a battle.

      • iamuglow
        July 28, 2011, 2:48 pm

        Thanks Annie. Yeah, I signed up, I can recommend articles now. Posting new diaries here would be a way for readers of Mondo to support the good bloggers there that havent been banned or run off the site yet.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 2:56 pm

        excellent iamuglow. i totally support your voice over there. some of the bloggers are really excellent. i also recommend bookmarking the palestine tag because there are other important diaries that are not published by adalah, for example every friday a poster named friendlystranger posts a diary almost exclusively of videos from the past week. usually diaries about i/p land in both the palestine and israel tags but not always.

        good luck.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 3:14 pm

        one more thing. here’s all the palestine diaries. there are many good ones not on adalah, like friendlystranger’s weekly friday diaries full of the weeks best videos (except for sites banned from dkos, like everything RT, thanks team shalom). here’s the israel diaries, scroll.

        also after you’ve been there a while and on good standing you gain something called ‘TU’ trusted user, which allows you to view the threads under comments that have been banned. this is where unbelievable amounts of bullshit bullying goes on. if i get around to it i might blockquote some of this absurd stuff for you. it’s stuff regular viewers can’t see (unless they have friends who give them access to their viewing rights of course or other nefarious ways of viewing the spewing)

        don’t miss David Mizner (Rec. List) is an Anti-Semite and soysauce (Rec. List) Hates Jews, Syrians and Food w/ Low Sodium Content. for amusing commentary.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 6:55 pm

        whoops. i thought i accidently deleted my earlier post so i repeated it and now i see they are both here. how did that happen?

        oh well. too late to change it now. sorry.

  6. iamuglow
    July 28, 2011, 4:19 pm

    They banned RT? Jeez. It seems like a horrible site really. I don’t want to spend any time there…I see DK as useful only so far, as if you can get past their censorship there is a natural audience for reality based I/P information. If you cross post some of the good diaries here maybe through recommendations, mondo readers can help push them to the top of their popularity charts or what not.

  7. longliveisrael
    July 28, 2011, 6:52 pm

    Annie, this was actually an interesting article and I commend you for writing it. Stop however for a second and think. Do the frequent commenters on this site, Mondoweiss, allow for “stimulating a conversation within the American Jewish community about identity including but not limited to Israel and that ongoing wound, their conflict with Palestine.” My answer is a definite NO.

    I an Israeli, would not come to this site if all I cared about was the status quo. I come here to read, and I also read Elder of Ziyon and Jihad Watch and others. I even read Richard Silverstein whom I loath and consider a fraud. I want to see and read and comment on what the other side has to say. I disagree with most of what is said here but I read, and add to the conversation.

    However, the vast majority of comments on this site demonize all Israelis in the worst possible way. In fact, I would state clearly and unequivocally that there are quite often clearly anti-semitic comments posted. You dislike this method on other sites, yet you accept it here.

    • Chaos4700
      July 28, 2011, 7:13 pm

      Jihad Watch? So I take it you believe the attack in Norway was done by al-Qaeda?

      Gee, yeah, thank you ever so much by gracing us with your pointy white hood.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 7:23 pm

        did jihad watch say that chaos, even now?

        speaking of nutty stuff, a little OT. one of dkos most caustic bullies loves making up lies about me. he claimed in that thread i said i though mossad committed that massacre! of course he can’t back that up. when i read that i went and checked my archive because i knew i would never say that. the only thing i came up with was telling someone (i forget who) who thought mossad did it and referenced false flags that when results of terrorist attacks furthered the agenda of some entity i always get suspicious. then i related to some incidences in iraq that made me suspicious. liars, they stop at nothing.

      • longliveisrael
        July 28, 2011, 7:36 pm

        Typical comments from Chaos. Read carefully and slowly. I said I read Jihad Watch, I did not say that I believe what JW says just as I don’t say that I believe everything said here. Typical reaction from Chaos to call people KKK members because they read sites that voice different opinions. When I referred to people that make anti-semitic comments and attack posters here, you, Chaos was one of the people I was talking about.

      • Chaos4700
        July 28, 2011, 9:48 pm

        It’s pretty stupid for you to equate MW with a Muslim hate site. Exactly how many assassins and bombers have cited MW in their manifestos after going on a killing spree? Refresh my memory.

        Honestly that is something that is only happening on your end of the political spectrum. Just take a look at Rabin’s assassin. He wasn’t an extremist by Israeli standards, considering Israelis basically voted to replace Rabin with exactly the politicians that the assassin wanted in office.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 7:14 pm

      well, i dislike all forms of racism. as far as what i accept and don’t accept i don’t think that should necessarily be reflected in my commenting habits. i do not comment on everything, there’s no way i could. as for “the vast majority of comments on this site demonize all Israelis in the worst possible way.” i do not agree with that at all. for example, in this thread alone i do not see one comment that demonizes all israelis in the worst possible way. i completely reject the notion all israelis are demons completely. lots of israelis i really like, i’ve been there. this is certainly not the first time i’ve expressed this and it will not be the last. i’ve expressed this just in the last few days (check the archives by clicking my name, it is in there).

      i think you are really blinded by something if you think most of the comments on the blog demonize all israelis. that’s nuts. furthermore i frequent the site 972 which is for the most part israelis. there are a lot of good people over there. the owners of this site have friends who are israelis.

      Do the frequent commenters on this site, Mondoweiss, allow for “stimulating a conversation within the American Jewish community about identity including but not limited to Israel and that ongoing wound, their conflict with Palestine.” My answer is a definite NO.

      well, the conversation here opens up dialogue. that dialogue is not limited to these threads, the reach of the blog is farther than that. it’s called pushing the envelope lli. if phil or adam write something another blogger might then be inspired to say something out loud and then another and another and all of a sudden a topic gets expanded upon. that is the point. but i disagree with you, i do think this blog stimulates a conversation some people would like to shut down but an important one. for me personally i don’t like it that an ideology, namely zionism, i think is completely incompatible w/the kind of democracy we are supposed to be having here in the US seems to be dominant in our policy makers. so i expose that. i think if more people understand what is going on over there it will wake them up. here’s another interesting story i read this morning. it isn’t ‘israel’ per se. it is the expansion.

      thanks for commenting.

    • Sumud
      July 28, 2011, 9:12 pm

      However, the vast majority of comments on this site demonize all Israelis in the worst possible way. In fact, I would state clearly and unequivocally that there are quite often clearly anti-semitic comments posted.

      Do us all a favour LLI and please quote some of these comments that you believe are anti-semitic. Since they occur quite often that shouldn’t be hard.

      FYI I reject unequivocally the portions of the EU working definition of anti-semitism which are clearly written to prohibit dialogue about the behaviour of the state of Israel, and have nothing to do with jews and authentic anti-semitism.

      Maybe since DKos doesn’t have the guts to ask what actually constitutes anti-semitism, we can do so here.

      Also, since this site regularly features contributions from Israelis who are trying to effect positive change (ie. trying to prevent Israel from self-destructing) on what grounds do you say that most comments here demonise all Israelis? All zionists possibly, but not all Israelis. And you seem to have forgotten the 20% of Israelis that are also Palestinians, or don’t you consider them Israeli?

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 10:07 pm

        sumud, even i don’t demonize all zionists. i’m sure there are many of them operating in good faith. not every zionist is a conniving ethnic cleanser, i’m sure there are many that really have no concept what zionism has thrust onto the world stage or have simply rationalized it thru a filter they’ve been weened on since birth. lots of people of good conscience are zionists and those are the ones who are changing their minds. we need them, i have faith it is eduction which will change the masses and i refuse to believe the masses are not mostly good people. everywhere.

      • longliveisrael
        July 28, 2011, 11:34 pm

        Just a quick look brought this gem. Now many of you are going to jump and say, wait, nothing about Jews in there. We all know what these code words mean, especially when the topic is supposed Israel influence on the US. This was here link to mondoweiss.net

        “The treacherous money printers” love it when an empire as big as America goes to war because they make an insane amount of money by lending the empire money that is to be paid back at usurious interest rates. The day America accepted paper money issued by private banking thieves as its currency was the day it went to hell. Today, America is being used in the service of evil and tyranny.

        Douglas Miller, editor and translator of Goethe’s book ‘Scientific Studies,’ said Goethe hated paper money because it is not real money, but supported by convention and maintained by fraud. “Goethe’s negative views on paper money,” writes Miller, “are reflected in Part II of Faust when Mephistopheles persuades the Emperor to introduce paper money based on the value of an undiscovered buried treasure. This plan later proves ruinous for the empire.” (Goethe; Scientific Studies, pg. 322).

        The use of paper money printed by” greedy private bankers” is the biggest reason for America’s current economic collapse and destruction. If the American government was forced to tax its people every time it went to war instead of borrowing money from a private banking cartel who magically make money out of thin air then it would not go to war so much because the people would not accept the heavy price. The reason why members of the giant military-industrial complex in America and private financiers love each other so much is because they pay each other’s bills and make themselves extremely wealthy in the process.

      • annie
        July 28, 2011, 11:43 pm

        lli, there are 193 comments on that thread. if you click on the time and date adjacent the posters name the specific comment will come up. i doubt people are going to go searching for that comment and it is not in the main post. could you locate it please?

      • Chaos4700
        July 29, 2011, 12:16 am

        But annie! He posted a link and then spouted off a bunch of bullshit! Doesn’t the link mean we should believe the bullshit he’s spouting? Or am I trying too hard to think like a Zionist?

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 12:29 am

        plus, he said “nothing about Jews in there. We all know what these code words mean”

        i’m like ‘what code words?’ i’m such an know nothing i thought to myself ‘who the heck is Mephistopheles, is he some famous jew i am supposed to know about?’ so i google it. naturally ..it’s satan! and this is ‘code for jew’ helllllo. so i thought i would ask for context. i don’t carry around a little black book w/code words in it like..’paper money’ ooo jewcode, of course! ‘usurious interest rates’ i think ‘credit cards?’ ….jews of course, now why didn’t i think of that? seriously? what’s next? ATM..jews!

        so i think to myself ‘maybe we have a case of simple paranoia here’ but i give him the benefit of doubt and politely ask him to locate the source. i even say please, all the while i am thinking to myself ‘what code’?

      • mymarkx
        July 29, 2011, 12:40 am

        When I saw the words “treacherous money printers,” I immediately thought of the Federal Reserve, not of Jews. The criticisms of the Federal Reserve, corrupt greedy bankers, and of our monetary system appear to me to be valid. However while many of the people responsible for our current monetary system and many corrupt greedy bankers are not Jewish, the suggestion that “treacherous money printers” is code for “Jews” reminded me that with one exception the position of head of the Federal Reserve appears to have been reserved for Jews. So if the shoe fits, wear it.

        Having been born and raised Jewish myself, I used to be extremely careful to separate Jews from Zionists, and to limit my advocacy of BDS to products produced from illegal settlements. Lately, however, I’ve begun to realize that the illegal settlements couldn’t exist without support from the state of Israel, so I think boycotting Israel is legitimate, particularly since the US neglects the needy here at home to send unneeded aid to Israel. And as for separating Jews from Zionists, I’ve made it very clear that I’m anti-Zionist and I think that any Jew who respects human rights should do the same. Those who don’t must be assumed to be Zionists.

        I recently had a brief exchange with a noted Jewish Zionist on Twitter. When I mentioned that Zionists had no respect for human rights, his response was to joke, “Perhaps so, but you should see us dance the rhumba.” I replied that I’m old enough to remember WWII when we didn’t consider human rights to be a joke, and how soon we forget. This is incredibly important to me, as I was brought up to believe that even a group that is widely hated and discriminated against, as we Jews were at the time, is entitled to human rights. Now that it is the Palestinians who are subjected to hatred and discrimination, Zionists seem to feel that the old values no longer apply. Okay, if human rights aren’t necessary for Palestinians, then they aren’t necessary for us either.

        I remember how angry I got when somebody at work years ago said that he’d been “Jewed down,” when he’d been overcharged for something. I thought that was a hateful and bigoted sterotype. Now, every time I see videos of Israelis uprooting or burning Palestinian olive trees and lemon groves, I think back to all the money I sent to plant trees in Israel and realize that I was Jewed down–by my own people who I’d foolishly trusted.

        I was raised to fear anti-Semitism and the possibility of another Holocaust. Now I think that even if I should become a victim of it myself for having Jewish blood, it won’t be the goyim who are responsible–not even the Anders Breivik types, who are overtly fascist while remaining fiercely Zionist–but Jews like that Zionist on Twitter who think that human rights are a joke. Like my parents used to say (and I apologize if it is another sterotype–I think it came from an old radio program), “T’ain’t funny, McGee.”

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 12:54 am

        that was a very interesting revealing post mymarkx..except i didn’t like the end when you said

        Now I think that even if I should become a victim of it myself for having Jewish blood, it won’t be the goyim who are responsible–….–but Jews like that Zionist on Twitter who think that human rights are a joke.

        the responsibility of a holocaust is never with the victims because there is no excuse for it. once you start exploring ways to justify things like that you start down a slippery slope. while it may be understandable, the responsibility always lies with the perpetrator of the crime. remember at every stage we have an opportunity to break the chain. otherwise one genocide just ends up leading to another and another and another…we have to break the chain.

        there’s never an excuse for collective punishment whether based on ethnicity or nationality or anything. there just isn’t. not in my book.

      • mymarkx
        July 29, 2011, 1:20 am

        You’re right, of course, Annie, “The responsibility of a holocaust is never with the victims because there is no excuse for it.”

        My problem is that I’m having a bit of difficulty distinguishing victims from perpetrators. According to Zionists, the disregard for the human rights of Palestinians, is due to the fact that the Zionists responsible were victims of similar treatment many years ago. To break the chain we have to stop repeating it. In this case the onus is on Israel to stop treating its Palestinian neighbors in ways that Israeli Jews themselves would find hateful. I’m not religious any more, but I was for long enough to learn that some Orthodox Jews believe that when Jews stray from Torah, the consequences don’t come from their neighbors seeking revenge, but from Ha-Shem punishing Jews for straying from Torah.

        Judaism is not the only patriarchal religion that believes in an omnipotent deity who puts out contracts on disfavored people and gets favored people to carry out the hits. I think if an omnipotent deity wanted somebody dead, they’d be dead, and there would be no need for human hitmen to do the job. Zionist Jews are experts on debating ‘what the meaning of “is,” is.’ It doesn’t violate the Commandment not to kill if you’re just following orders from the deity who said not to kill. Neighbors aren’t neighbors if they aren’t Jewish. And similar absurdities.

        There are many cases of people who were abused as children growing up to become abusers themselves. But there are also many cases of children who break the chain and don’t repeat the pattern of abuse. Zionist Israeli Jews should have broken the chain–I can’t do it for them no matter how much I’d like to. All I can do is point out that they’re repeating a pattern that is likely to end badly, and to do everything in my power to stop them–if for no other reason than just to try to save myself, my children, and my grandchildren from the almost inevitable consequences of their inability to break the chain.

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 2:31 am

        some Orthodox Jews believe that when Jews stray from Torah, the consequences don’t come from their neighbors seeking revenge, but from Ha-Shem punishing Jews for straying from Torah.

        well, i think there is an element of this in every religion. i don’t consider myself a religious being (although to a certain extent i am i guess) but i don’t see anything about this idea that differs that much from the concept of karma. but the idea of a collective guilt of collective punishment is perverse. perhaps it had to do w/survival or to guarantee people stayed together or something i don’t know. anyway i believe we can change our whole universe in the just one thought. what that means is we can forgive ourselves for past wrongs or cleanse ourselves thru ideas and thought and experiences and move on. the idea of revenge, or that ‘jews’ will have to pay for what is going on now by another holocaust and that will in turn be their fault is a fear focus. better to just get on trying to make the world better.

        Zionist Israeli Jews should have broken the chain–I can’t do it for them no matter how much I’d like to. All I can do is point out that they’re repeating a pattern that is likely to end badly, and to do everything in my power to stop them–if for no other reason than just to try to save myself, my children, and my grandchildren from the almost inevitable consequences of their inability to break the chain.

        oh man, it is hard for me to grasp the idea you fear for your life and your children for the actions of Zionist Israeli Jews. step back and breath. visualize a people who are muti faceted and varied and creative and mobile. we can find a way out of this mess. and don’t let yourself get stuck is thinking revenge is inevitable. people want resolution, they don’t want this to go on forever. if you are going to break the chain start w/your own thoughts which it sounds like you are doing. don’t pass your fear onto your children. good luck.

      • mymarkx
        July 29, 2011, 3:14 am

        Hard to picture creative mobile people when I have a brother living in an illegal settlement surrounded by sexist, racist, low I.Q. bigots like himself who went there from Brooklyn to get free housing. Oh, they do make crafts and music, but so do many non-Jews all over the world.

        I do follow and support Anarchists Against the Wall and other Israelis calling for an end to the brutal occupation and illegal siege, but most mainstream Israelis consider them traitors and the Israeli government would love to strip them of their citizenship.

        Since WWII was within my lifetime, I’m not going to say, as many Jews did in Germany, that these are good civilized people so it can’t happen here. It is already happening and has been for decades.

        Positive psychology is just magical thinking. The guy who invented it also invented many of the torture techniques used in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other prisons. It’s nothing but a fancy name for denial.

        As for multi-faceted and varied, you can’t have a multi-faceted and varied Jewish state any more than you can have a democratic Jewish state. You either have equality, dignity, respect, and justice for all, Jewish or not Jewish, or you don’t. Israel doesn’t. Israel has Apartheid.

        I’m not the one fearing revenge. I don’t think that Arabs will rise up and take revenge on Israel any more than Jews rose up and took revenge on Nazi Germany. It is the Israeli Zionists who fear revenge and think they have to continue the oppression of Palestine until the whole world rises up against Israel. They may not remember their history, but I’ve studied it and I do.

        Instead of looking for a way out of “this mess,” Israeli Zionists are digging themselves deeper and deeper into it, such as with the new law attempting to criminalize support for BDS. When I saw pictures of the wall, I could only visualize the Warsaw Ghetto. When I heard about the Mavi Marmara massacre, I could only think of how the Nazis killed anyone who tried to smuggle food to Jews in the concentration camps. I was steeped in that history all my life and couldn’t blot it out.

        And now Israelis are protesting about high rents and cottage cheese? While Israeli F16s flying menacingly over Gaza and could begin strafing it with another Operation Cast Lead at any time, not because of anything the Palestinians have done, but because they’re getting global support and the old Zionist Hasbara is wearing thin?

        One of the many reasons I was viciously attacked, censored, and/or banned from Democratic Party websites like DU, dKos, and the chimp, was for asking Zionists how they’d like it if the US right wing succeeded in making the US a Christian nation. They couldn’t and wouldn’t answer, so they attacked me. It’s a valid question. Particularly since many of them are reform Jews who wouldn’t even want to live in Israel.

        The regulars on dKos call themselves Kossacks with good reason. The Zionists on dKos and similar websites are today’s Cossacks and they’re proud of it when they should be ashamed.

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 12:47 pm

        i know i know, so much of what you say is true. still, if we dig in our heels and don’t believe we can change thing or that israeli jews, unlike other people, are glued to their mindframe forever, we will never move forward. it is imperative that you believe things can get better.

        Positive psychology is just magical thinking. The guy who invented it also invented many of the torture techniques used in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other prisons. It’s nothing but a fancy name for denial.

        But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

        We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

        It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

        But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

        The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

        We cannot walk alone.

        And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

        We cannot turn back.

        There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: “For Whites Only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”¹

        I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest — quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

        Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

        And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

        I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

        I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

        I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

        I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

        I have a dream today!

        life is full of the magical, it starts with you and dreams do come true.

      • mymarkx
        July 29, 2011, 2:39 pm

        It was proven in court that the US government was involved with the assassination of MLK. They gave him a bad check and never intended to let him cash it. The condition of people of color in the US has continued to worsen, it has not improved, not even under the Uncle Tom President.

        “it is imperative that you believe things can get better.” Really, Annie? The right belief system is imperative? And if I act to try to make things better without adhering to the proper belief system, things won’t get better? And if you think lovely thoughts and dream beautiful dreams, things will get better? That no matter how many innocent people have been tortured and killed, revolutionaries must always respond with nonviolence because self-defense isn’t permitted to the oppressed?

        When Palestinians responded with nonviolence, Israel criminalized nonviolence. When people of color responded with nonviolence in the US, the government increased policy brutality and imprisonment to levels previously unimaginable.

        Some Jewish Israeli Zionists really are glued to their mindframe forever. It is a belief system that they consider mandatory and imperative. Most of them served or served in the military and can’t say that they don’t know about the oppression of Palestinians. The settlers not only know, they are in great part gleefully responsible.

        There’s an old POV documentary which still might be available from PM Press called Maria’s Story. Okay, just googled and found it: link to secure.pmpress.org You really should watch it.

        Positive thinking and magical thinking are what got Obama elected. Since then the wars of aggression based on lies have expanded and new ones begun, the economy has further declined, and he not only dashed the hopes for change of his followers into the pavement, he has been grinding them under his expensive shoes as he giggles maniacally with his fellow millionaires.

        The US and Israel are two of the world’s biggest arms dealers. Their primary business is genocide for profit. Both nations were founded on genocide and have continuously pursued that policy since their founding. They don’t dream of peace, they spend trillions of dollars on weapons on mass destruction because they depend upon war and the murder of innocents to sustain their economies. They aren’t concerned with justice, only with market share.

        It is not only possible to move forward without magical thinking, it is the only way that real progress has ever occurred. Apartheid wasn’t ended in South Africa because of dreams, it ended though boycotts.

        I too engage in positivism to a certain extent, as I believe along with all opponents of neoliberalism, neocolonialism, imperialism, capitalism, fascism, tyranny, plutocracy, and oligarchy, that we WILL win. But I’m not foolish enough to think we’ll do it by dreaming or that our common enemy will become our friend. Patriarchy and hierarchy have taken away the power that we need in order to become, once again, as we were for tens of thousands of years, an ecologically viable species. The planet is not a possession given to men for their pleasure and profit, it is our only habitat and our only sustenance.

        I highly recommend that you get hold of Maria’s Story if you can, and also that you read the book Glitter & Greed by Janine Roberts. Along with weapons, one of Israel’s other major exports is diamonds. But there are no diamond mines in Israel. The diamond mines are in Africa, primarily in the Congo, and the diamonds are obtained through deliberate genocide. Why do you think that Israel never opposed Apartheid in South Africa and even sold nuclear weapons to the Apartheid regime? Where do you think Michelle Obama’s and Chelsea Clinton’s diamonds come from? Why do you think Members of Congress gave Netanyahu so many standing ovations?

        Those who believed in Obama kept saying that if we give him more time, change will come. And as they stalled for time, every day his drones continued to murder innocent women and children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya. Positive thinking, if it is in the form of believing that things will get better in the future without action in the present, is deadly. If you were a young mother in Afghanistan, clutching your children as bombs fell all around you, how much time would you give Obama to turn you and your babies into the skeletal ashes of collateral damage? If you were one of the innocent people being tortured right now in Obama’s secret prisons, knowing that you are totally innocent and knowing that the Obama administration is also fully aware that you are totally innocent but is continuing your torture so that bloated corporations can profit from the secret prison and torture defense contracts, how much more time would you give Obama?

        Zionists don’t just attack, censor, and ban people who support human rights for Palestinians, they also murder. Rachel Corrie’s parents are pacifists just like Rachel was, and every day they spent in Israel seeking justice through the courts, I feared for their lives.

        Do you remember the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah? There were good people in the corrupt city. Maybe not fifty, but maybe forty. Well, maybe not forty, but maybe thirty. Okay, maybe not thirty, but perhaps twenty. And when it turned out that there were only a small handful, they were saved, on the condition that they leave and not look back, but the city itself had to be destroyed.

        When the Israelites had forsaken their God and started worshiping a golden idol (money, gold, diamonds), God wanted to destroy them but was persuaded to give them another chance. But not even God’s own positive thinking could change them. I know you believe that Jewish Israeli Zionists are capable of change, but how many more thousands of years do you think it would take?

  8. LanceThruster
    July 28, 2011, 7:59 pm

    My experience with the D-Kozynists was that chosenites, both mods and commenters, could easily shackle anyone speaking a little too plainly about the Z-team. I had a member write a diary about my supposed Holocaust denial and was fortunate enough to have someone else lead the way with debunking these claims as most my replies almost instantly were hidden/disappeared. The banning came a short time later.

    The scale of attempts at thought control is pretty much across the board with this crew (micro and macro). Look at all that has been acheived and continues in that vein as far as outlawing very specific worldviews, but in fact succeeds in overeaching to degree that to have an anti-Zionist thought is claimed to be just cause to bring down the wrath of G_aw_d if they could actually pull it off.

    Instead, they act as “agents of G_d” as religionism continues to be useful to those who need a widely popular belief that justifies so much hatred of the other (including the secular ) and use their power to further restrict dissent. Adherants not using ‘sacred texts’ to fuel hatred can be dismissed as apostates anyway (and the secular cardinal sin of treason can be applied). Kos tries to exploit credibility in other areas to carry the water on this issue.

    Finally, some of the recent other threads (or basically *any* current events in Israel) got me thinking about the old anti-fascists movies of the ’40′s. You could pretty much keep the script virtually the same and have the IDF and the Knesset play the roles of state bullies and thugs; silencing critics and opposition, making examples of those who would resist their sub-human status, etc., denying the master plan as they work towards a final solution (don’t go away mad, just go away…but still have your papers in order).

    It’s a whole new level of “Bizarro World”- but terrifyingly enough…it’s real.

    • annie
      July 28, 2011, 9:48 pm

      some of them accused me of holocaust denial too lance, after i was banned for allegedly outing someone* and also called me an anti semite . it was in this diary here . very cowardly. what is the point of watering down the holocaust by accusing people like myself of denial? i know perfectly well who committed genocide. sheesh.

      *actually i was just on a TU time out til i wrote meteor blades and mentioned one of team shalom was a regular poster on MW, a little info i found out because i have access to the back pages here and i saw his name (TS member uses in his personal email) in the email ady … here when i was pasting up my draft, he (MB) responded within a couple minutes and accused me of outing him and immediately all my reply functions were gone. i didn’t realize an outing was writing admin an email i thought it had to be an online outing, oh well! i also didn’t realize i had been banned until someone alerted me to mb saying i could come back if i got permission from the person i supposedly outed???? lol. why would i do that? this site is a much better fit for me, they were trying to get rid of me over there anyway w/false accusations of sockpuppetry, bad fit. thanks MB! ;) if they can’t get you they lie, like one coward accusing me of saying i wanted every zionist in the US registered under FARA. lol, i can laugh about it now. the absurdities. ok, enough of this. lol, needless to say i could go on about the masssive hypocrisy. there is a poster there who said palestinians should be mowed down in the streets like rabid dogs. i think he signed his name is on that anti semitism contract. omg, i could go on forever about the hypocrisy.

      • Shingo
        July 29, 2011, 8:19 am

        i also didn’t realize i had been banned until someone alerted me to mb saying i could come back if i got permission from the person i supposedly outed????

        So let me get thsi straight. If you’re pro Zionist, you get granted mod status on DK?

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 11:59 am

        i’m not saying that is a normal thing that is just what he said wrt my banning. of course when the same poster went on an emotional tirade for 3 days, lying and accusing me of outlandish stuff i never said, to the point of MB coming online and putting a stop to his bullshit and everyone rec’cing his bullshit, he was never even given a day off for it, much less was i given any privilege. whatever. like i said i am much better for it. hanging out at that place didn’t serve anything, it was a waste of my time and everyone else’s too. i don’t envy MB in the least, getting pounded w/complaints from those whining crybabies.

        btw, this is the same wackjob who claimed i asserted mossad was responsible for oslo! lol. lies w/impunity and their friends rec them for it while they are glued to this site. well, they are in the back corner of a huge site. this is mondoweiss which is read internationally. they are jealous of the attention we get, obviously. if they think a bunch of screaming diaries alleging anti semitism thrives here is going to damage our influence they are sorely mistaken.

        this site pushes the discourse which is exactly what they do not want.

      • LanceThruster
        July 29, 2011, 12:16 pm

        The pro-Zionist who was part of my banning was also gay, with a gay advocacy site. My arguments about the cause of justice for other oppressed groups totally fell on deaf ears. He was also particularly snotty about it in that he acted as if having this additional power carried no particulr obligation with it other than to promote his own pro-Zionist agenda.

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 12:54 pm

        oh, him. let is wash off your back like..what is that saying about anger and a ducks back?

        i do believe there are some really awesome bloggers there and i don’t envy them wading thru this muck, they stick with it thru thick and thin and i admire them for it . all those adalah posters..amazing. but it just isn’t for all of us. look on the positive side that’s what i did and i have not looked back since. this place is a much better fit for me, it’s never a chore for me participating here, it comes naturally. there, it brought out the competitive in me, it was a train wreck. just count your blessings and be glad there are still others there carrying the torch.

    • Shingo
      July 29, 2011, 8:17 am

      The same policies are being implemented at Huffington post and predictably enough, it came soon after the acquisition by Time/Warner.

      • LanceThruster
        July 29, 2011, 12:07 pm

        Absolutely. PuffHo may let in a piece outside the official narrative every so often, but the level of gatekeeping on the comments was/is extreme.

  9. jayn0t
    July 29, 2011, 1:34 am

    “The people who run Daily Kos want money. You don’t get money from the corporate world without whoring yourself out to the powers that be. It’s really that simple.” says Chaos4700.

    If ‘corporate’ was synonymous with ‘the powers that be’, the USA would not unconditionally support Israel. When Jewish power contradicts the interests of capitalism as a whole, which wins? That’s how to test one’s theory.

    • LanceThruster
      July 29, 2011, 12:10 pm

      My friend Bernie the Attorney often explained that if money was the only agenda, the Z-teamers would not come out on top so often. Money, coupled with a singularity of purpose across the board is what’s involved. He pointed out that the echo chamber is a critical piece in determining what resonates and what does not.

    • annie
      July 29, 2011, 12:17 pm

      jay, what’s your definition of ‘capitalism as a whole’? do you mean neoliberalism? economics is not my specialty but israel and the US operate very differently (ie healthcare) and the money flow from our capitalism (including private tax deductible donations) flows into israel propping up their not so much capitalist system.

      • jayn0t
        July 29, 2011, 10:26 pm

        What is ‘capitalism as a whole’? It’s the interests of the majority of the capitalist class, measured by wealth. When the US government conspired in the massacre of September 11th (1973) in Chile, it was both evil and in the interests of the capitalist class. Many capitalist interests (eg. copper mining) gained, and very few lost. While the US government supported apartheid South Africa, it was arguably beneficial to the capitalist system as a whole.

        A lot of effort goes into putting US support for Israel into the same category – it’s bad, but what do you expect from capitalists and imperialists? Michael Neumann and Jeffrey Blankfort have demolished this argument. I added to their efforts in a critique of Chomsky’s ‘Fateful Triangle’ on ‘Dissident Voice’, in which I tried to explain basic scientific principles to his fawning admirers.

        When one explanation fails, one has to look for others, even ones which don’t give liberals a warm fuzzy feeling. As you fearlessly follow where logic leads, you find out who your – and the Palestinians – friends are.

      • annie
        July 29, 2011, 11:25 pm

        well, i am trying to understand your meaning when you say:

        When Jewish power contradicts the interests of capitalism as a whole, which wins? That’s how to test one’s theory.

        you’re setting up a dichotomy that may not exist, or i am not sure it exists. what if jewish power does not contradict the interests of capitalism as a whole, as you define that as the interests of the majority of the capitalist class, measured by wealth.

        in this regard all one would have to do is grease the pockets of the capitalist class, and then presto..what’s a little pandering to radical colonialist religious settlers on the side? the majority of the capitalist class measured by wealth is only about 1% of the population, isn’t it?

        (i don’t happen to believe the interest of the capitalist class, by your definition, is necessarily healthy for the majority of americans, i like to think we matter.)

        anyway, i’m not sure i am really following you, perhaps if you linked to these critiques you wrote. you’re saying the the corporations are not the powers that be? why don’t you give me an example of jewish power contradicting the interest of capitalist class, then i will be able to judge better what you mean.

      • jayn0t
        July 29, 2011, 11:57 pm

        Of course the interests of the capitalist class don’t coincide with those of the majority of Americans. But unlike various other bad policies, unconditional support for Jewish apartheid does not coincide with capitalist interests either.

        ‘why don’t you give me an example of jewish power contradicting the interest of capitalist class, then i will be able to judge better what you mean”, asks annie, ungrammatically. My answer is simple: the US government’s unconditional support for the state of Israel, which is a product of Jewish power in the USA.

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 12:18 am

        i’m trying to grasp your underlying point.

        give me an example of jewish power contradicting the interest of capitalist class

        My answer is simple: the US government’s unconditional support for the state of Israel, which is a product of Jewish power in the USA.

        jay, i didn’t ask you for an example of jewish power contradicting the interest of the US government which is supposed to be acting in the best interest and representing the american people as a whole. are you implying the US government is synonymous with “the interest of capitalist class” or that 1%? i know they act that way but ..is that what you are saying?

        i do see a distinction at least idealistically between the US government and the capitalist class. but this gets back to what i mentioned in my first response to you.

        israel and the US operate very differently (ie healthcare) and the money flow from our capitalism (including private tax deductible donations) flows into israel propping up their not so much capitalist system.

        the occupation feeds israel. it serves them financially. if israel was sustaining itself financially they could pay for their defense. their economy is very much dependent on the occupation and the millions of ‘customers’. but let’s get back to the capitalist theory. how does jewish power contradict with the interest of the capitalist crowd? don’t the capitalist crowd benefit from israel’s interests? for example, war profiters, our states dependence on military appropriations. isn’t this all synchronized with israel’s interests ie the WOT?

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 12:29 am

        ps, i don’t like the term ‘jewish aparthied’. it’s zionist and israeli, it doesn’t represent ‘jewish’.

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 12:37 am

        unconditional support for Jewish apartheid does not coincide with capitalist interests either.

        really? have you checked out the website link to whoprofits.org

        ?

        israeli apartheid props up the state of israel, it a real moneymaker. millions of ‘on demand’ customers who are required to ‘purchase’ all the excess baggage (rotten argo etc) whether they want to or not. how is apartheid not a financial boon for the capitalist crowd? they are making a killing off it, literally. the arms industry makes a killing of it and the ‘research’ for new modern weapons, it’s a win win for the capitalist as is the whole WOT. it’s the american public who pay. and of course the palestinians an iraqis and afghanistan…israelis? not so much.

      • mymarkx
        July 30, 2011, 12:49 am

        So what is Zionist and Israeli Apartheid based upon, if not on being or not being Jewish?

        The Zionist Israeli government grants or denies different and unequal rights solely based on whether or not an individual citizen is Jewish. That’s Apartheid, so even if it is done by Israeli Zionists, it is Jewish Apartheid.

        In South Africa Apartheid was based on skin color rather than religion. In Israel it is based on religion because Israel calls itself a Jewish State. When an Israeli state practices Apartheid, it is Israeli Apartheid. When a Zionist state practices Apartheid, it is Zionist Apartheid. When a Jewish state practices Apartheid, it is Jewish Apartheid.

        I do detest the Israeli Zionist practice of pretending that they represent all Jews, even Reform Jews whose marriages they don’t recognize and whose rabbis don’t have the same rights as Orthodox rabbis in Israel, and I detest the way Israeli Zionists conflate Israeli Zionism with Judaism by calling anyone who criticizes Israeli Zionism anti-Semitic. But since Israeli Zionists won’t allow any distinction between criticism of Israeli Zionists and hatred of Jews, the two completely different things become one. I think Israeli Zionists do that intentionally, and while it may or may not be good for Israel, I really don’t think it is good for the Jews. It certainly isn’t good for those who think of themselves as anti-Apartheid Jews.

      • tree
        July 30, 2011, 2:14 am

        ps, i don’t like the term ‘jewish aparthied’. it’s zionist and israeli, it doesn’t represent ‘jewish’.

        Would you object to the term “white apartheid”?

      • jayn0t
        July 30, 2011, 11:22 am

        You are right Annie – I did not distinguish between the US government and the capitalist class – they are not the same. It is via the government that capitalists are forced to act against their own interests. All politicians with a couple of brave exceptions kiss up to Israel because of the power of the Lobby. From the viewpoint of pure business interests – pointed out by few conservatives like Ron Paul, and by few leftists like Jeff Blankfort – that Lobby is parasitical.

        Unconditional support for Israel contradicts the interests of the capitalist class because it costs a lot of money and makes it harder to do business with the much larger and oil rich Islamic world around it. When Dick Cheney was a businessman, he opposed sanctions against Iran, but when he became a politician, he had to toe the Lobby line. Israel is on welfare. Obviously, it buys plenty of US goods, but it does it with US donations. Other countries in the region would be willing to buy these goods with their own money.

        ‘War profiteers’ benefit from money forcibly extracted from the rest of capitalism in taxes and given to them via Israel. But peace profiteers don’t.

      • Philip Weiss
        July 30, 2011, 11:26 am

        thanks jayn0t, helpful

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 11:30 am

        Would you object to the term “white apartheid”?

        no

      • mymarkx
        July 30, 2011, 12:25 pm

        Jaynot, capitalism is not based on logic or on consideration of whether or not the ends justify the means. It is based solely on profits.

        For example, if paying lower wages can increase profits, capitalists seek to pay lower wages. When US capitalists found that they could pay lower wages by busting unions and outsourcing jobs, that’s what they did. Then they found that they could pay even lower wages by utilizing prison labor here in the US. If lower wages are good, then no wages at all, meaning prison, concentration camp, or slave labor is best. The social consequences are not calculated when capitalists add up the bottom line.

        I’m not certain of the timeline, but I do know that when the US-installed Shah was in power in Iran, most US businessmen and politicians were happy to do business with Iran. Once the Shah was overthrown an Islamic government took over. Since Islam forbids the charging of interest, this would not sit well with US financial interests.

        I don’t agree that US politicians kiss up to Israel because of the power of the lobby. I think they do what is in their own best fiscal interests. Even if they theoretically don’t know exactly what is in their investment portfolios, their financial managers are selected for the ability to obtain good returns on investments. How could politicians possibly not know that when their investment portfolios increase in value every time they vote for war, there must be a lot of defense stocks in those portfolios? The Democratic Party applauded just as enthusiastically for Bush as for Netanyahu because during the Bush administrations their investment portfolios doubled and tripled in value.

        The US doesn’t want to do business with the Islamic world any more than it wants to do business with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, or Gaddafi. The US wants to overthrow all governments that don’t put US interests before the interests of their own people, in the same way that US politicians put their own interests before the interests of their constituents. When you put limits on capitalism, it is called socialism. When you don’t put limits on capitalism, it is called predatory capitalism or fascism. The business interests (including the military-industrial complex and multinational corporations) that bankroll and control the US government aren’t capitalist, they’re predatory capitalists. The Rockefellers have always used the US military, funded by taxpayers, as their own personal army in the cause of defending their global business interests. How many countries have we invaded, how many foreign leaders have we overthrown or assassinated, and how many brutal dictators have we installed in the interests of United Fruit, Standard Oil, Exxon-Mobil, and Chevron?

        And what the hell is a peace profiteer?

        There’s an old fable about a king who became ill and nobody could cure him. Finally his wise men told him that the only way he could be cured was if he wore the shirt of an honest man. The king’s minions scoured his realm but couldn’t find a single honest man until somebody told them that there was one honest man living in a cave at the top of a high mountain. They climbed the mountain but when they got to the cave they found that the man didn’t own a shirt.

        A quick google search found this definition on wikipedia: “Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical.” There is nothing unethical about peace.

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 4:32 pm

        I do detest the Israeli Zionist practice of pretending that they represent all Jews…… I detest the way Israeli Zionists conflate Israeli Zionism with Judaism ….. But since Israeli Zionists won’t allow any distinction between criticism of Israeli Zionists and hatred of Jews, the two completely different things become one.

        mark, if you detest it don’t buy into it by perpetuating this false meme. stand up for your beliefs and empower the idea israel doesn’t represent all jews, because it doesn’t. apartheid in israel is a zionist construct, people deserve the truth. the truth is all jews are not zionist. by calling it ‘jewish apartheid’ you are also ignoring all the other non jewish zionists feeding off and perpetuating apartheid for their own gain whether financial or otherwise. i know you don’t mean to sound racist but that’s how it sounds, especially as a jew why would attach yourself to this apartheid by calling it ‘jewish’? makes no sense. brake the chain and stand up for yourself in your own speech.

      • mymarkx
        July 30, 2011, 5:03 pm

        Tree asked if you would object to the term “white Apartheid,” Annie, and you said no. But South African Apartheid was a construct of the Boer government, it wasn’t supported by all South African whites, and certainly not by all whites worldwide, so why wouldn’t you object to calling it white Apartheid as being racist?

        Here’s what I wrote:

        The Zionist Israeli government grants or denies different and unequal rights solely based on whether or not an individual citizen is Jewish. That’s Apartheid, so even if it is done by Israeli Zionists, it is Jewish Apartheid.

        In South Africa Apartheid was based on skin color rather than religion. In Israel it is based on religion because Israel calls itself a Jewish State. When an Israeli state practices Apartheid, it is Israeli Apartheid. When a Zionist state practices Apartheid, it is Zionist Apartheid. When a Jewish state practices Apartheid, it is Jewish Apartheid.

        To clarify, as Tree attempted to do, in South Africa Apartheid was based on skin color rather than religion. It was used by whites against non-whites and was clearly racist in nature. It was in fact, white Apartheid, which is apparently why you don’t object to the term. Yet by your logic, calling it that would be racism against whites. Does calling it white Apartheid or not objecting to the term white Apartheid mean that you are perpetuating a false meme? Of course not. People deserve the truth, and while the truth is South African Apartheid did not represent all whites, it was still white Apartheid, Apartheid used by whites to oppress non-whites.

        If calling Apartheid used by some very racist whites to oppress blacks, “white Apartheid,” makes sense to you, why doesn’t calling Apartheid used by some very racist Jews to oppress non-Jews, “Jewish Apartheid,” also make sense to you?

        Of course there are also non-Jews who feed off Jewish Apartheid, just as there were some non-whites who fed off white Apartheid–the author of the Sullivan Principles comes to mind as an example. Just because some non-whites supported and/or profited politically, financially, or otherwise from South African Apartheid doesn’t mean it wasn’t white Apartheid.

        If it doesn’t offend you and you don’t consider it racist to call Apartheid perpetrated by the Boer South African government, some whites, and some people of color, for the purpose of profiting in some way by privileging whites and oppressing people of color, “white Apartheid,” then it shouldn’t offend you and you shouldn’t consider it racist to call Apartheid perpetrated by the Zionist Israeli government, some Jews, and some non-Jews, for the purpose of privileging Jews and oppressing non-Jews, “Jewish Apartheid.”

        Welcome to humanity, Annie, where we are all people, regardless of historically suspect labels or categories, and no group is entitled to more human rights than another based on myths of exceptionalism.

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 5:26 pm

        you’re right mark, i shouldn’t have answered tree like that. it was a throw away comment and i should have been more careful. if you want to call it jewish apartheid i can’t stop you. it just grates on my ears and mind. i don’t like it.

      • mymarkx
        July 30, 2011, 6:14 pm

        Whereas the term white Apartheid didn’t grate on your ears, and didn’t give you enough pause to seriously consider your answer instead of posting a throw away comment?

        Could that be because you self-identify more as Jewish than as white?

        I used to have the same reaction, by the way. I had to start paying attention and to unlearn the racism I’d been taught.

        Both terms are equally applicable to the systems they describe. Neither one is more racist than the other. If one sounds racist to you, so should the other, but neither one is racist, both are just the truth that we deserve to know as much as anyone else.

        Sometimes our learned, habitual, and ingrained reactions can keep us from seeing the truth. Most of us don’t object when we see written condemnations of discrimination against women in Islamic cultures, but react defensively when we see condemnations of discrimination against women in Orthodox Jewish culture. But some of us have gotten past that defensive reaction and support the right of Jewish women to equality. Some of us don’t think Jewish women should have to ride in the back of the Orthodox bus any more than Rosa Parks should have had to ride in the back of the segregated bus. We think women should have as much right to remarry as men, and the right to pray wherever men pray. There was great astonishment in the early part of the Egyptian revolution when the crowds in Tahrir square were so great that it became necessary for Muslim men and women to pray together in the same space at the same time. That hadn’t happened before, yet the world didn’t end.

        The world won’t end if Palestinians and other Arabs and non-Jews enjoy equal rights with Jews in a single democratic state either. But the continuation of Apartheid will never lead to any good end. It is a hateful system based on racism and discrimination and should never be tolerated no matter who benefits or who suffers.

        Saying that even valid comparisons are odious because it’s not the same when we do it, is part of the problem. If the system is odious, it is odious no matter who does it.

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 6:31 pm

        defending whiteness isn’t really on my radar.

      • mymarkx
        July 30, 2011, 7:11 pm

        That’s interesting, Annie. Are you in the US? Many Jews in the US benefit from white privilege without ever giving it a thought.

        But it isn’t about defending (which I certainly wasn’t doing) or condemning whiteness, or Jewishness, it is about condemning any Apartheid system that privileges some over others regardless of individual merit. It doesn’t matter if people are white or Jewish or anything else, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.

        In return for being categorized as white, rather than as colored or mixed, the mainstream Jewish community in South Africa supported white Apartheid.

        When people benefit from a discriminatory system without being aware of it, it is called “deliberate ignorance.” People don’t seek the truth because it wouldn’t be to their benefit to do so. But closing one’s eyes and ears to the suffering of others, whether or not we benefit from that suffering, is the Pastor Niemoller fallacy. We cannot help but be aware of our own suffering–it is our empathy for others that makes us human.

        Calling South African Apartheid “white Apartheid” did not condemn all whites, it accurately described a system of Apartheid based on skin color that privileged whites over non-whites. Calling Zionist Israeli Apartheid “Jewish Apartheid” does not condemn all Jews, it accurately describes a system of Apartheid based on religion that privileges Jews over non-Jews.

      • annie
        July 31, 2011, 11:20 pm

        mark, i am not jewish. i just mention that because you asked if i “self-identify more as Jewish than as white?” i’m not in the business of defining jewishness and if i had to i would first use identifiers i know and am familiar with iow: personal relations. although i acknowledge the religious aspects of the conflict i understand the expansion primarily as a colonial enterprise, a political enterprise not that much different than other colonial enterprises. yes i think there is a component of ‘jewishness’ moreso with parties like shas within the goi and of course the extremist settlers etc, but the primary aspects of what’s going on there are not ‘jewish’ in nature. the crime of apartheid doesn’t change because it is imposed by white people or jewish people or whatever kind of people. as a political construct it can be defined by the political movement that is imposing it, which is a zionist government. (zionism being a political construct). but jewishness is an ethnicity and/or a religious identification (to me, it is neither a state or a nation and i understand others do not share that view). apartheid has no religion and it has no ethnicity or skin color anymore than terrorism has a religion or skin color, it is an act..a crime. crimes don’t have ethnicities which is why we don’t have ‘jewish bank robberies’. assigning ethnicities or religions to crimes doesn’t serve us imho. when you call it jewish you imply the apartheid has a jewish character and then it involves defining that character and that is something i am not prepared to do.

      • annie
        July 31, 2011, 11:45 pm

        also, words mean something and our adversaries know that. they would love to identify our rejection of apartheid as a rejection of a ‘jewishness’ about it, and it isn’t. it is about the crime of apartheid. israel’s crime. once you start excepting and incorporating your adversaries identifiers (ie ‘jewish state’, do states have ethnicities? no, they are political constructs. here’s wiki: state

        Political science and organizations

        State (polity), an organized political community, living under a government
        Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in international public law
        Member state, a member of an international organization
        Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state
        Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation
        Rechtsstaat, the legal state (constitutional state, state subordinated to law) in philosophy of law and as principle of many national constitutions

        )

        iow, by weaving in these identifiers then they define our thinking, and i will not have someone else define my thinking. once you buy into this concept of the apartheid having a ‘jewish character’ then by rejecting the apartheid you are..rejecting the identifier..iow..as they claim, it is anti semitic! that’s crazy. does the bds claim they are boycotting jews? no, we are not boycotting jews or jewishness, we are boycotting the state, the political construct that commits the crime of apartheid. catepiller is not jewish and they are part of the boycott because they facilitate the crime of apartheid. this is the same thing i was talking to you about earlier wrt your self identification @4:32. don’t let others define you or your thinking. stand your ground.

      • mymarkx
        August 1, 2011, 12:20 am

        I’m not sure I understand you, Annie. Are you saying that a state that calls itself a Jewish state is not a state because a religion isn’t a state?

      • annie
        August 1, 2011, 12:24 am

        i’m saying states are not religious, people are. my car isn’t religious either. i can call it a jewish car but nobody would take me seriously. look at the definition of what a state is. borders do not have religions either. land doesn’t have a religion either.

      • mymarkx
        August 1, 2011, 12:38 am

        I don’t let others define me or my thinking, Annie. For example, I define “science” as the business of taking things out of context so as to misunderstand them better.

        If a nation state is a state which coincides with a nation, then a religious state would be a state that coincides with a religion. As much as I would like Israel to be a political or nation state, it persists in defining itself as a Jewish state. And the Apartheid that the State of Israel practices as a matter of law, is Apartheid based upon whether or not a citizen is Jewish, which is logical for a Jewish state but wouldn’t be logical for a democratic state. A democratic state is another definition omitted in that list, and it means a state where supreme power is vested in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of sovereigns, representatives, a bureaucracy, or any other group with more power than the people.

        I did give you an example of a person who wasn’t white or Boer supporting Apartheid in South Africa, the author of the Sullivan Principles.

        BDS is boycotting a state that is commiting the crime of Apartheid, and also boycotting entities that facilitate that crime. But the crime is not white Apartheid because the state of Israel does not define itself as a white state or base its version of Apartheid on whether or not a person is white, the way that South Africa did. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and bases its version of Apartheid on whether or not a person is Jewish.

        Indeed, Zionists who support Jewish Apartheid in Israel are quick to call supporters of BDS anti-Semitic, so the usual defense is that we aren’t boycotting Jews, we’re boycotting Apartheid. To the extent that we don’t boycott Jews or anyone else who doesn’t facilitate Apartheid, that is correct. But to the extent that advocates of Israeli ZionistApartheid call BDS supporters anti-Semitic, they admit that Apartheid in Israel is considered to be, by its supporters and facilitators, Jewish Apartheid. It’s purpose is to purify the Jewish state of non-Jews and to privilege Jews over non-Jews. As hard as we’ve tried to separate the religion from the state, the state itself refuses to do so. That is not our fault.

      • mymarkx
        August 1, 2011, 12:52 am

        In a way that’s similar to saying that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

        While it is true that a car cannot have a religion, if a car were to be manufactured only in a state that called itself a Jewish state, by a company that only hired Jews and refused to sell its cars to non-Jews, I’d call it a Jewish car. And I’d sure as heck boycott it. ;)

      • tree
        August 1, 2011, 1:04 am

        And yet, the apartheid form in Israel is Jewish simply because its intent is to privilege Jews over non-Jews. I thank mymarkx for making my point for me.

        It’s not a case of taking someone else’s identifier. Its merely describing accurately the form that the apartheid in Israel/Palestine takes. We shouldn’t sugar coat what it is. No one’s asking you to defend white people when the term “white apartheid” is used, and you shouldn’t feel that you have to defend Jews when the term “Jewish apartheid” is used.

      • annie
        August 1, 2011, 1:10 am

        if a car were to be manufactured only in a state that called itself a Jewish state

        the operative words being that called itself a jewish state. states are not religious. mark, i appreciate our discussion but i’m not going to discuss it anymore tonight or maybe even in this thread. i recognize israel exists. i don’t recognize states as being religious entities. you can, i do not.

      • annie
        August 1, 2011, 1:41 am

        i don’t feel like i am defending jews. i’m just defending my idea of jewishness. i know there are negative features of that identification (fanatical settlers) but i think the goi uses those extremists to further their colonialization. i don’t think this is about religion, primarily. it’s about greed. i think it takes lots of brainwashing to get people to buy into that and i think those people are being used the same way i think jews from arab cultures were used to fill up those palestinian homes. people are being used as pawns, brainwashed pawns and religion is being used to make colonial gains. there’s nothing inherently jewish about that. that’s my opinion and i’m sticking with it. rightwing jews will drop their own lefties like hot tamales over zionism what does that tell you? it’s politics. as soon as you deviate from the prescribed direction you’re out. whereas many secular rightwingers will embrace glen beck and the most outrageous gentile baby killing book writing rabbis purely over the same political agendas. what does that tell you? it isn’t the jewishness, it’s the politics.

        the myths, the narratives, the ‘recognize the ‘jewish state’ or else’… that is all for political /colonial/expansion. it is manipulating the masses and i will not be manipulated. this is pure unadulterated apartheid, there is nothing jewish about it. racism has no religion it’s just racism. i’m not defending judaism or jewishness for the sake of it, i am defending my secularism, my atheism, and my own experience/world view. i’m recognizing apartheid by my own standards and markers. it doesn’t have a faith god damn it. it’s apartheid. it’s political! i’m defending myself and my ideals. they mean something to me, they mean everything to me. you can’t move me on this issue. jewishness to me isn’t what hasbarists say it is, it is what my own experience informs me of and i’m going with my friends and associates who are jews, that is what jewishness means to me. they inform me and speak for jewishness not some ugliness that is going on in the name of jewishness for the purpose of stealing land. that’s not jewishness to me that’s just ugly ugly stuff.

        i will not be moved on this issue. i refuse.

    • Max Ajl
      July 29, 2011, 12:21 pm

      Where does one locate the “interests of capitalism as a whole”? Alan Greenspan is a kike, so we can’t take his comments seriously. Where shall we turn? To “jayn0t”? To the oil companies? Since 2001 the majors have netted over a trillion dollars, they seem pretty happy with Zionism. Financial firms probably far more. But then, the finance firms especially are riddled with yarmulkes, preventing the good old ruling class from understanding its interests. This seems to post serious methodological issues. One option would be to look at corporate profits from 1991 to 2011, when the Jew state ran wild: just non-financial corporate profits went from 100 billion annually in 1991 to 800 billion in 2011. here, see for yourself: link to maxajl.com

      but then my information might be tainted. it’s also on a Jew site. I’m not sure how to solve this problem. one solution would be pogroms. another would be to just call you out as an agent provocateur, ignore you, and then work on movement building. I’ll let the movement itself decide. I am not too worried.

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 12:00 am

        max, i can tell by our snark you know what he’s saying and i don’t, it’s hard to follow. greenspan is i neoliberalist, i’m not really a fan of neoliberalism. it doesn’t have anything to do w/him being jewish. the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and were still pouring money into war war war.

        Since 2001 the majors have netted over a trillion dollars, they seem pretty happy with Zionism.

        well, this is confusing. i’m filing this under ‘over my head’.

      • tree
        July 30, 2011, 2:23 am

        max, i can tell by our snark you know what he’s saying and i don’t, it’s hard to follow.

        No, you can tell by Max’s snark that he is upset that his theory is challenged and he thinks that calling someone an anti0semite is a winning way to disagree with people. Next he’ll probably comment on how “functionally illiterate” jaynot is. Its getting pretty old.

      • Max Ajl
        July 30, 2011, 2:51 am

        Annie:

        He isn’t saying anything. He’s making an untestable theory resting on the notion that the elites who run this country don’t know what they are doing, and that the bloody American capitalist empire is being betrayed by Jewish capitalists. It’s a silly attempt at internet rabble-rousing, it’s politically feeble, and it doesn’t even rise to the level of being wrong. It mis-understands American empire and is the delusional basis for an alliance between the American working class and non-Jewish elites, all betrayed by American support for Israel. I am waiting for someone to start muttering about “gatekeepers.” 1, 2, 3…

      • Max Ajl
        July 30, 2011, 6:17 am

        Tree,
        This is not about my theory and I am not upset. It’s about the odd assumption peddled here that the Palestine solidarity movement knows the interests of the empire better than imperial managers and that we should thus negotiate for Palestinian freedom in Washington. Since you don’t seem to want to understand either the argument or the political conclusions it entails, and would rather carp about “Jewish identity” (wherever and whatever that is). This is an understanding of the conflict that is very agreeable for privileged people, because it prevents them from getting off their asses and doing something to change the structure within which we are enmeshed, a structure we are very much a part of. We can try to understand that structure with an eye to changing it, or do nothing. Or a third option: kvetch on the internet and whimper that someone accused you of antisemitism. Don’t worry. No one did. You may go to bed now. Your soul is secure.

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 5:00 pm

        ok max, for the sake of argument may i assume you disagree w/the theory our alliance w/israel makes it harder to do business with the much larger and oil rich Islamic world around it ?

        assuming the capitalist class is not in contradiction with jewish power (because the top 1% do seem to be thriving regardless or perhaps because of zionism) would you contend if there was no zionism or israel those same capitalist would be doing more business with other (non jewish) actors in the ME and it could be equally lucrative? could it be construed there is a choice to be made (in investments) and capitalists are choosing one investment over the other due to alliances? do you think our special alliance with israel does not enter into people’s choices wehen making these investments? let’s take iran for example. china is heavily invested in iran, let’s assume that investment is made because it is good for business. if (big if) the teachers association here in california checked into it and found investing their pension funds in iranian companies was a lucrative option are you positing the people who invest those funds for the calif teachers assoc would be just as likely to invest in iran as they would to investing in israel? you think all those pension funds invested in israel is strictly a matter of good (the best choice) business?

        i’m not talking about a contradiction of financial interests with the capitalist crowd nor am i implying there isn’t money to be made in israel because i am sure there is. i’m just wondering why it is you think we choose sanctions for one country and another involved in gross human rights violations we avert our eyes and keep on investing.

        and, if it is primarily a matter of what’s the best choice for the capitalist system then why do we even have or need an israel lobby? aren’t lobbies about pressuring people to go with their side when they have options? are you saying our investments in israel are because it’s simply the best financial choice?

      • Max Ajl
        July 30, 2011, 7:00 pm

        Annie:
        It’s a lot of questions, so I’ll be selective. You ask, “would you contend if there was no zionism or israel those same capitalist would be doing more business with other (non jewish) actors in the ME and it could be equally lucrative,” and the answer is, of course. Without Zionism and Israel the world would have been a better place, I think. Herzl had a shitty idea, Rothschild and American Zionists supported it for shitty reasons, the Nazis supported it for shitty reasons, the Brits supported it for shitty reasons, America has supported it for shitty reasons, and we are still counting the bodies from that support. Those shitty reasons mostly had to do with power and class – maintain their own class privilege, maintaining American capital’s pre-eminence, and so on. Some say Zionism had more to do with it than capitalist interests in terms of upper-class Diaspora Jewish support. I don’t find that argument particularly convincing. If there were no Israel, American capitalists would have made different choices, for sure, and it could have been equally lucrative – who knows. But there is an Israel, and investing in it, and reaping the profits from its main export – regional instability – has been a tremendous gift to American capital. The other question is the most important one: you write, “if (big if) the teachers association here in california checked into it and found investing their pension funds in iranian companies was a lucrative option are you positing the people who invest those funds for the calif teachers assoc would be just as likely to invest in iran as they would to investing in israel? you think all those pension funds invested in israel is strictly a matter of good (the best choice) business?”

        In one sense, yes. In another sense, no. Pension funds don’t invest in Iran because Iran is a center of power that is hostile to the United States. It’s also a special case, and very high on the enemy list – much higher than China, which is integrated into global investment and commodity circuits. So when you write, “i’m just wondering why it is you think we choose sanctions for one country and another involved in gross human rights violations we avert our eyes and keep on investing” – it’s because we don’t care at all about human rights violations and never have. We care about power. But there is also no “we,” either on our end or on the end of the capitalists. There are just lots of capitalists, jockeying with one another, making alliances, fighting, and so on, to become richer. The classic Edward Herman study found a correlation between US investments and human rights abuses, because when states kill people – even when Israel kills people – it isn’t (generally) doing it to be malicious, although malice will be a factor in individual incidents and individual psychological pathologies. It’s doing it because it’s state policy, and it’s state policy because someone with a lot of money decided that it should be state policy. In general such decisions are made because they end up making a rich person richer.

        Most importantly, union investment in Israel bonds can’t be reductively explained by the “best choice.” Starting at least in 1967, perhaps earlier, wealthy Jews started making a concerted effort to spread Zionist ideology within the Jewish community more broadly. It worked – it worked amongst liberals, it worked amongst socialist radicals, and it worked amongst trade unions, whose owners invested in Israel bonds out of “solidarity” with the Israeli “socialist” project (it never was, and never could be, socialist; capitalist through-and-through). I think elliptically part of your question is if simple profit maximization explains everything, and no, it doesn’t, especially because most of us don’t live our lives that way, and the mission of capital is to make us live our lives according to its dictates. Part of that is interfacing with the culture, through representations and propaganda – a lot of the lobby’s work. So when you ask, “if it is primarily a matter of what’s the best choice for the capitalist system then why do we even have or need an israel lobby,” I don’t think it’s a matter of the “best choice for the capitalist system,” because the system doesn’t make choices. Capitalists within it make choices. My reckoning is that what we call “the lobby” is shorthand for mostly Jewish investors with major investments in Israel, a trans-national segment of the ruling class, with its own interests, and so it pushes for a specific set of policies, and has a lot of money to throw around to do so. And you ask, “aren’t lobbies about pressuring people to go with their side when they have options?” Of course, which is why it is so weird to deny the lobby. If the lobby didn’t do anything, why would it need to exist? And why would leftist be averse to the notion that money buys access and power? What would be weird is if it didn’t.

        I actually think there’s far more to it: the lobby has become the spokesperson for ruling-class militarism, and if anyone dissents, you can tar them as antisemitic for opposing a war to keep the Jew state safe. That’s a useful service. There’s no question the lobby should be taken down, let there be no mistake about it, but we do ourselves no favors by pretending that it is responsible – or 100 percent responsible – for things for which it is either not responsible or only somewhat responsible, and which would probably have occurred in its absence. One of those things was destroying Iraqi society.

        Finally you ask, “are you saying our investments in israel are because it’s simply the best financial choice?” I think American Jewish capitalists started investing in Israel in the 1920s, perhaps earlier. Whether they did so out of their capitalist interest or out of nationalism seems like a chicken-and-egg question. What seems clear is that they made a lot of money out of it – Israel had amazing growth rates until the early 1970s. Of course, those investments coursed along patronage networks that had to do with Jewish communal affiliation. There’s nothing wrong with pointing that out. And that end result of that has been more death and suffering than there would have been otherwise. The upshot of that is that by blaming the lobby for what it has not done as well as for what it has, we orient ourselves to building a movement that will only take down the lobby and nothing else. And then when the next Middle Eastern country burns and Palestinians are locked in a two-state prison, what next? We should get the analysis straight so we don’t have to say “oops” when our victory turns to ash in our mouths.

      • Richard Witty
        July 30, 2011, 7:41 pm

        There were no other options than Zionism in 1948.

        Israel exists for compelling moral, legal, institutional reasons.

        Revisionism is useless “Without Zionism and Israel the world would have been a better place, I think. “

      • annie
        July 30, 2011, 8:01 pm

        thanks for your very thorough response. no, i don’t blame the lobby for everything wrt capitalism or controlling everything (foreign policy) thru capitalism, especially since (although we all know money makes the world go round) it takes the american public to go along with these wars. furthermore the inner workings of capital i don’t know that much about so i wary getting caught up in arguments where my understanding is limited (you’ve heard that before from me). what i do saddle on the lobby, (and btw i don’t think of the lobby as mostly Jewish investors with major investments in Israel, a trans-national segment of the ruling class although many ,or most, of them may be) it is the concerted effort to spread Zionist ideology …interfacing with the culture, through representations and propaganda”. that’s my main beef with them, it isn’t the economy. it’s messing with our concepts of equality, what american nationalism means, who represents america (read noura erakat’s “Constructing the prototypical terrorist “) and the sort of immersion thru the media of pushing us psychologically as a country to accept these wars, and that is very much something, a discourse i see mobilized by people like the israel project. so my beef with the lobby is places like the weekly standard pushing islamophobic rhetoric to the point that this country has shifted ideologically, or i sense that is the intent. now that may seem like a little thing (in terms of iraq) but without that heavy psychological pushing he country wouldn’t be behind these wars. perhaps i am wrong, but i doubt it.

        the whole money thing, it’s just not my main focus. it’s the public and our perceptions of people. it’s the idea it’s ok for a people to not have any rights, because they are less than us, and the flip side of that is somebody’s got to be better or more deserving. it’s racism. most people are poor, they are never going to see a dime of that money anyway. i am very attached to the idea of equality as a principle. it’s part of my american identity and it feels threatened to me by our support and identification with israel.

      • MRW
        July 30, 2011, 8:07 pm

        Pension funds don’t invest in Iran because Iran is a center of power that is hostile to the United States. It’s also a special case, and very high on the enemy list

        Iran is not hostile to the US. The US is hostile to Iran. When Iran offered to help the US with Afghanistan after 911, with which it has a lot of problems and wants to see the drug traffic stop along its borders, the Bush admin said fuck off.

        The reason why Iran is high on our enemy list is because of Israel, and extremist right-wing American Jews (aka The Lobby). Three quick examples.

        Israel: General Oded Tira, Dec. 2006.

        Norman Podhoretz (2007): The Case for Bombing Iran —I hope and pray that President Bush will do it, in which his tag line is “As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.”

        Norman Podhoretz (2008, and AFTER the 12/2007 NIE said Iran is not a threat to the US): Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands. He writes in this piece, “we had all better pray that there will be enough time for the next President to discharge the responsibility that Bush will have been forced to pass on, and that this successor will also have the clarity and the courage to discharge it.”

        Iran is not a threat to us. It is a manufactured threat by Jewish Crazies who don’t give a damn what it does to the US, its human treasure, or its economy.

      • MRW
        July 30, 2011, 8:20 pm

        Revisionism is useless “Without Zionism and Israel the world would have been a better place, I think. “

        (1) It’s not revisionism.

        (2) It is an assessment of the results, completely valid, and IMHO, correct.

      • MRW
        July 30, 2011, 8:50 pm

        …maintain their own class privilege, maintaining American capital’s pre-eminence, and so on. Some say Zionism had more to do with it than capitalist interests in terms of upper-class Diaspora Jewish support. [...] If there were no Israel, American capitalists would have made different choices, for sure, and it could have been equally lucrative – who knows.

        American pre-eminence had to do with its economic polices from 1791 until we adopted Milton Friedman’s ideas in 1980, and started down the road with free trade agreements in 1985, the first of which was with Israel. (Israel benefited from this exponentially, not the US.)

        From 1791 to the Civil War, tariffs paid 100% of the workings of government and wars. From the Civil War to WWI, tariffs paid 66% of the workings of government. From WWI to WWII, tariffs paid 33% of the workings of government.

        That is why we were rich after WWII, and stable.

        Britain tried to get Ulysses S Grant to engage in free trade agreements in the mid-1850s. Grant told Britain, ‘Yeah, we’ll do it in 200 years when we’re as rich as you are, in the meantime, pay the tariffs’.

        From WWII until tariffs were all but wiped out in 1980 and Friedman’s ideas were adopted, we bled dough, and turned against the economic protectionism that built our strength.

        After WWII Britain, although it had the reserve currency, was depleted. The way we are now, and unless there is a revolution in this country, we ain’t getting it back (Emanuel and Rubin gave the family store to China in the 90s). Britain lost its reserved currency status in the early 60s, and became a shell of its former self.

        America’s pre-eminence had nothing to do with Zionists, but its demise does. Don’t forget that the Jewish financial powerhouses that existed in this country long before Herzl was born were virulently opposed to Zionism, and petitioned President Wilson in 1919 not to go along with it. (Source, NYT)

        But there is an Israel, and investing in it, and reaping the profits from its main export – regional instability – has been a tremendous gift to American capital.

        It’s the other way around. The jobs, tax, and capital go to Israel.

      • Max Ajl
        July 31, 2011, 12:36 pm

        MRW:
        I appreciate the précis of an economic history of America, but have to say that someone who writes glowingly of “American pre-eminence [which] had to do with its economic policies from 1791 until we adopted Milton Friedman’s ideas in 1980, and started down the road with free trade agreements in 1985, the first of which was with Israel. (Israel benefited from this exponentially, not the US)” a version of American economic history without the genocide of the American Indians, without the slave trade and the destruction of African societies, without the brutal colonization of the Philippines, without the destruction of Vietnam, is a person with whom I disagree too much on too fundamental assumptions about the world and American history for discussion to have much value. You want to return to some Elysian Fordian capitalism, scoured of coups and massacres in Iran, Guatemala, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere. I don’t. That’s fine, people with all visions of the world can oppose the Special Relationship, the occupation, and Zionism. However, as I’ve explained to you, your understanding of the US-Israel FTA is flawed.

        Here: link to electronicintifada.net

        At this point, a few issues arise. First, Smith seems surprised that a free trade agreement would wound US “worker income.” Odd, because free trade agreements are built to benefit capital at the expense of workers. Second, readers should ask why he’s so swift to accept units like the “Israeli economy” and the “American economy” alongside their companion, the “American national interest.” (Anyone who wants to defend something like a coherent “national interest” can explain the common apprehensions of the Palestinian national interest shared by collaborators in Ramallah and peasants in Gaza’s borderlands.) Furthermore, interests can cross national lines. We need to look at who owns what, and national borders give us very little information about that.
        Smith is not unaware of the transnational nature of the ownership structures of nominally Israeli corporations — he provides some evidence of the beginnings of the acquisition of the Israeli high-technology sector by capital from the American high-technology sector. But he should have kept digging. We also know other things: that the bulk of growth in Israeli-American “trade” since 1996 has been in the high-technology sector, and that American capital is aggressively invested in “Israeli” high-technology firms. Academics Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler calculate that the correlation coefficient between the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) and the NASDAQ was .7 in the five-year span from 1996 to 2001 — meaning 70 percent of variations in the TASE are “explained” by variations in the NASDAQ — as “trade” deficits begin to mount. From 2002 to 2007, a nearly synchronous 92 percent of variations in the TASE were explained by movements in the NASDAQ, as amidst a flurry of mergers and acquisitions, “Israeli” firms became decreasingly Israeli except by physical place of production. Furthermore, Israeli state subsidies to high-technology firms, as well as state-sponsored investments in human capital and infrastructure, are astronomically high. Israel is a very nice place for many American companies to invest. Smith misses an opportunity to discuss and explain the implications of this tightly-wrought economic relationship, not least of which is that the trade deficit is mostly a statistical artifact.

        Subsequent free trade agreements would have happened with or without the Israeli FTA, and to argue otherwise is just an unserious stochastic view of history. To call it a “statistical artifact” is to note that only place of location is being transferred. The off-shoring of the American economy is a real problem, but it’s also a symptom: capitalism proceeds according to the logic of increasing its value, not according to the values of nationalism. In an age of porous borders, FTAs, and trans-national capital flows, the question of addressing off-shoring is complex, and for anyone seriously concerned about these issues, it should start with re-localizing agricultural production, not industrial production, which is too frequently about producing stuff that no one needs in the first place. You write that “It’s the other way around. The jobs, tax, and capital go to Israel,” not understanding that the Israeli industrial plant which is sending goods to America is owned by American-based investors in the first place. That is not to dismiss the issue. But it is to re-orient it from what you think it is to what it actually is. And it’s not getting taxed much, although it is making jobs. That it is not getting taxed much is part of why it got sent there in the first place.

      • tree
        August 1, 2011, 2:18 am

        Max,
        This is not about my theory and I am not upset.

        OK, but that just makes your act of slinging around the anti-semite slur even less defensible.

        It’s about the odd assumption peddled here that the Palestine solidarity movement knows the interests of the empire better than imperial managers and that we should thus negotiate for Palestinian freedom in Washington.

        I don’t think anyone can seriously say that the Palestinian solidarity movement is into “negotiating” in Washington. That’s been the PLO/PA mistake, not the fault of Palestinian solidarity movement.

        Since you don’t seem to want to understand either the argument or the political conclusions it entails, and would rather carp about “Jewish identity” (wherever and whatever that is).

        You have this habit of thinking that anyone who disagrees with your argument is either stupid, illiterate, or willfully misunderstanding it, when for the most part people understand it fine, they are just disagreeing with it. You really ought to try to get over that habit, because it doesn’t help your argument at all. Personally, I’ve found your argument on the origins of the Iraq War to be mostly simplistic post hoc ergo propter hoc, with an added dash of circular reasoning. You seem to think, or want us to think, that simply by the fact that oil prices, or oil company profits, have risen over the past 8 years this proves that the Iraq war was pushed by the oil companies, when there is neither supporting proof for such a push, nor has your analysis factored in rising demand, falling production in Mexico and Venezuela, the switch over from MTBE to ethanol as a gas additive, oil refinery destruction associated with Hurricane Katrina, tax policies, or any other factor other than turmoil in Iraq for rising prices and profits.

        And this:
        One option would be to look at corporate profits from 1991 to 2011, when the Jew state ran wild: just non-financial corporate profits went from 100 billion annually in 1991 to 800 billion in 2011.

        is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Are you really saying that US corporate profits have everything to do with Zionism? Not even the most clueless cherry tomato loving, Intel lauding hasbarist would claim such a thing.

        As for my “carping” on Jewish identity, it is no different than carping on, or more accurately, raising the issue of, white identity. White identity, including the overwhelmingly held belief among whites of their superiority and the naturalness of the discriminatory status quo, needed to be examined, discussed, dissected and rejected in order to move away from white privilege and discrimination against non-whites. It still needs work, but enough movement has been made to end legalized discrimination here, and improve the lives of some blacks.

        In Israel, the problem is not primarily one of white versus brown, although there is some structural privilege left towards Ashkenazi versus Mizrahi. The problem is Jewish bigotry towards non-Jews in general and most specifically against Palestinians and other Arabs (and this accounts for some of the anti-Mizrahi attitudes as they are seen as Arabs as well on some level in Israel.). And, unfortunately, among American Jews this same attitude, that approves of oppression against non-Jews in Israel, an oppression they would condemn mightily(and rightly) if the tables were reversed, is way too prevalent, particularly among the movers and shakers of the Jewish community, and those Jews who are opposed to this viewpoint are often silenced or ostracized. So, to that extent, American Jewish identity should be examined as well, so as to recognize this bigotry and move past it.

        This is an understanding of the conflict that is very agreeable for privileged people, because it prevents them from getting off their asses and doing something to change the structure within which we are enmeshed, a structure we are very much a part of. We can try to understand that structure with an eye to changing it, or do nothing.

        Again, you seem to think that if people don’t do exactly what you want of them then they are all just sitting on their asses doing nothing. I happen to think that a simplistic theory that rich people are solely driven by the profit motive is just as capable of keeping people sitting on their asses in despair as any other theory. Well, come the revolution, I’m sure that the Palestinians are thrilled that their oppression is right up there on the list of things to end. In the meantime, I don’t see anything wrong with doing things that would help end their suffering before the glorious revolution hits and milk and honey flow throughout the land. And one can still work on both aspects if wanted.

        Or a third option: kvetch on the internet and whimper that someone accused you of antisemitism. Don’t worry. No one did. You may go to bed now. Your soul is secure.

        Spoken by a man who kvetches on the internet and spends his time calling people “Jew baiters” and implying that those that disagree with you must be anti-semites. It doesn’t sound very revolutionary to me. Frankly, if they even give a damn, which isn’t likely, the “imperial managers” are way more likely to be laughing, rather than quaking in their boot’s at your use of insults against people who might be your allies if you could stop insulting them for a minute.

        And, lastly, to clarify, I didn’t think you called me an anti-semite in the comment I was originally referring to. You did that to jaynot. I just called you on it, from my own little kvetching couch. I have no qualms about my soul. Its not in danger from someone ranting on the internet.

      • Max Ajl
        August 1, 2011, 4:03 pm

        Tree:

        1. You don’t seem to understand the issue. I didn’t call you, or jayn0t, or anyone an antisemite, a term by now cheapened of all meaning, and especially useless on this site as a descriptive analysis, despite the fact the the bigots at DailyKos just used the REAL antisemitism marinating here as an EXCUSE for them to remain in denial. That is, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, and for what? To have a certain “conversation”? Forfend we avoid indulging a certain conversation. This is not, after all, a liberation struggle.

        Having been insulting, as opposed to you, passive-aggressive, disingenuous, brimming with a will to power, calling that which you do not understand “simplistic,” I will again make something clear to you that you people seem to not wish to understand.

        The issue is not antisemitism – as though that is a concern for me. The issue is right-wing populism, and the issue is feeding it through this non-sensical liberal conspiracy theory that if only we booted out the neocons – the neocons that rose to power by fueling an arms race in the Middle East – all would be well in our Elysial democracy. What you either ignore or find it easy to not perceive is that there is an undercurrent of apologetics for imperialism running through some of the site, and that is not conducive to building a transformative movement, and is in fact, in the American context, one of the primary obstacles to building such a movement – the desperation of privileged articulate sectors to work within the system. A desperation that also characterizes sectors of our movement.

        2. To that end, I did not call jayn0t an antisemite. I called it an agent provocateur. Perhaps that was badly judged. What it is, is a saboteur. As well as a fool. See below.

        3. You either seem to not understand or to not want to understand that the lobby discourse – putting aside to the fact that it’s a sociologically empty concept as it’s used here on this site – is the basis for a chimerical alliance based on the notion that the yahood are screwing over this country’s elite and that you folks seem to think you know how to run the country’s capital accumulation better than the quotation-marked “imperial managers.” Of course, that’s just some jargon I imported from planet Jew-Marx. Thank you for alerting me to my error. I will submit to some of Jeffrey’s Blankfort’s illiterate web-stalking for remediation. Doubtless the moderators will approve some more ruminations on the psychology of Max Ajl. It is after all “part of the conversation.”

        4. More specifically on Iraq. You claim that the issue is that “people understand it fine, they are just disagreeing with it.” But you proceed to mis-characterize the argument. Which is annoying. Doubly annoying is that the argument was explained to you, but it is not the explanation that you mis-characterize, but the argument itself. See I wrote this: link to mondoweiss.net So what you refuse to see is the fact that not all power is visible. You want us to believe that the neo-cons got us in a war that the MIC and the oil industry didn’t want, yet somehow were blocked by the same oil industry from putting in place their plan for the privatization of Iraqi oil.

        5. On the question of “rising demand, falling production in Mexico and Venezuela, the switch over from MTBE to ethanol as a gas additive, oil refinery destruction associated with Hurricane Katrina, tax policies, or any other factor other than turmoil in Iraq for rising prices and profits,” that’s correct, I haven’t submerged my analysis in an econometric regression of the effects of those various things because most of them have to do with supply-demand dynamics when the simple fact is that the ratio of reserves to consumption has been increasing over the last 40 years, not decreasing, yet oil prices are at record highs, and in any event very little of that would be associated with profiteering at the pump, the main profit vector for oil companies, since much production has been nationalized, and that with over 40 years of correlations available we know that they take advantage of “perceived instability” to jack up prices at the pump, and it strains credulity to imagine that we see a correlation that those silly folk managing the empire do not. But someone who believes that the Palestine solidarity movement knows how to manage the empire better than the empire will believe anything.

        6. I write, “One option would be to look at corporate profits from 1991 to 2011, when the Jew state ran wild: just non-financial corporate profits went from 100 billion annually in 1991 to 800 billion in 2011.” And you respond, “is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Are you really saying that US corporate profits have everything to do with Zionism?” No, I haven’t said any such thing. I have pointed out a basic flaw in the jayn0t-village idiot-saboteur analysis that posits that Zionism is injurious to the empire and capital accumulation –“capital accumulation.” One sees that basic error migrating to Abunimah’s analysis, and it’s silly.

        7. You say,

        In Israel, the problem is not primarily one of white versus brown, although there is some structural privilege left towards Ashkenazi versus Mizrahi. The problem is Jewish bigotry towards non-Jews in general and most specifically against Palestinians and other Arabs (and this accounts for some of the anti-Mizrahi attitudes as they are seen as Arabs as well on some level in Israel.). And, unfortunately, among American Jews this same attitude, that approves of oppression against non-Jews in Israel, an oppression they would condemn mightily(and rightly) if the tables were reversed,

        Where to start? Marriage within the ethnic group is at over 90 percent, Mizrahi staff the lower ranks of the army, the settlers are primarily Mizrahi, and the Israeli upper class has used intra-Jewish divisions to maintain its privilege for decades. The Ashkenazi-Mizrahi split is just what’s “left”? Incidentally you are pretty sanguine about American Jews. Actually American Jews seem pretty happy with a “post-apartheid” South Africa now that there are some black rich people to assuage a view of the world that insists that it is race and not structure that is the problem. In fact it is both, combined, interweaving, but I don’t mean to disrupt your caricature of my “simplistic” analysis, in which corporations are not legally bound to maximize profits according to their charters and their weight in the economy and the electoral process doesn’t have the preponderant effect on policy formation. Kolko was also called a strident determinist, so perhaps this is a compliment.

        8. I write from Cairo. I just spent 12 hours traveling from Gaza. Perhaps I should do better self-promotion, but I am too busy sitting on my ass in Beit Hanoun and kvetching on the internet.

        9. If my “insults” are what keeps you from joining a movement to shake up our society, there is nothing to say.

      • tree
        August 2, 2011, 4:51 am

        Max

        1. You don’t seem to understand the issue. I didn’t call you, or jayn0t, or anyone an antisemite…

        Oh come on, whose being disingenuous here? When you say this in response to someone…

        Alan Greenspan is a k*ke, so we can’t take his comments seriously…But then, the finance firms especially are riddled with yarmulkes, preventing the good old ruling class from understanding its interests…but then my information might be tainted. it’s also on a Jew site. I’m not sure how to solve this problem. one solution would be pogroms

        you are most certainly implying, in a passive aggressive manner, that jaynot is anti-semitic. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it, and for you to deny it now is simply moral cowardice.

        .. despite the fact the the bigots at DailyKos just used the REAL antisemitism marinating here as an EXCUSE for them to remain in denial.

        You’re not calling out any anti-semitism here, but yet its REAL and you think the Kossacks believe it excuses their denial of Israel’s deeds. Again, who do you think you are fooling with this non-denial denial of yours?

        Having been insulting, as opposed to you, passive-aggressive, disingenuous, brimming with a will to power, calling that which you do not understand “simplistic,” I will again make something clear to you that you people seem to not wish to understand.

        Don’t hold back, tell me what your really think. Actually you won’t “again make something clear” , because its already clear to me what you are saying and doing, and repeating over and over again that no one who disagrees with you really understands you is simply a weak and narcissistic argument, and the predictable insults only make it more so.

        The issue is right-wing populism, and the issue is feeding it through this non-sensical liberal conspiracy theory that if only we booted out the neocons – the neocons that rose to power by fueling an arms race in the Middle East – all would be well in our Elysial democracy.

        No one here has said anything like that, least of all me, and for someone with a professed concern for misunderstood and/or mischaracterized arguments, you really should not be throwing stones from such such a big glass house.

        You either seem to not understand or to not want to understand that the lobby discourse – putting aside to the fact that it’s a sociologically empty concept as it’s used here on this site – is the basis for a chimerical alliance based on the notion that the yahood are screwing over this country’s elite and that you folks seem to think you know how to run the country’s capital accumulation better than the quotation-marked “imperial managers.”

        Again with the “seem to not understand” ya-da, ya-da while mischaracterizing what others think with the off the wall idea that “you folks seem to think you know how to run the country’s capital accumulation better …”. Really, your arguments are becoming mere bluster, insults and mischaracterization.

        Of course, that’s just some jargon I imported from planet Jew-Marx. Thank you for alerting me to my error.

        Passive aggressive slurs again. How non-revolutionary.

        More specifically on Iraq. You claim that the issue is that “people understand it fine, they are just disagreeing with it.” But you proceed to mis-characterize the argument. Which is annoying. Doubly annoying is that the argument was explained to you, but it is not the explanation that you mis-characterize, but the argument itself. See I wrote this: link to mondoweiss.net

        So what you refuse to see is the fact that not all power is visible.

        Again, simply stating that “not all power is visible” is not a proof that the oil companies wanted and pushed for the Iraq War. Your assumption that the oil companies wanted or needed Iraqi “instability” to make more profits does not become fact simply because you state it, nor does it follow that the war was the major or significance cause of rising oil prices and oil company profits over the last 8 years. Again, a post hoc argument is not sufficient, even if you really want it to be. A simple look at a few comparative graphs will prove that, 1, oil prices were already rising over a year prior to the war, 2. Iraq pre war produced only about 3.5% of the world’s oil output, 3. average oil production in pre-war sanctioned Iraq was on the order of 2.4 mbd and was expected to remain at that rate under sanctions, 4. iraq’s oil production was up to more than 85% of that 2.4 mbd average in less than a year from the start of the war( making it 2.75 percent of world production) and had returned to pre-war totals by 2008, but oil prices continued to climb up until mid 2008 when the financial crisis/global recession lessened demand and sent prices crashing, and 5., world demand for oil continued to grow (22% from 2000 to 2007) while oil production was stagnant or falling, particularly in Mexico, which lost 15% of its oil production from 2004 to 2008, Norway, which lost 30% from 2000 to 2008, and Venezuela, where oil production decreased 25% from 2000 to 2008. (Last I checked the US was not at war with any of these countries.) And of course, there are refinery issues, weather events, oil spills, regulatory changes, etc, that you also must ignore because they don’t fit your pet theory.

        …I haven’t submerged my analysis in an econometric regression of the effects of those various things because most of them have to do with supply-demand dynamics when the simple fact is that the ratio of reserves to consumption has been increasing over the last 40 years, not decreasing, yet oil prices are at record highs…

        It’s statements like this that indicate you don’t really understand what you are talking about. To put it simply, oil reserves, or the recoverable amount of non-extracted oil in place, changes with economics (and technology). In other words, there is a lot more recoverable oil at $100 a barrel then there is a $50 because oil that would be economically prohibitive to extract when the price is $50 a barrel(cost greater than market price) may very well be profitable if the market price is $100 a barrel. The increased recovery cost is offset by the increased price. Therefore, it is perfectly natural and expected that oil reserves would increase along with oil prices, not decrease, as you seem to be implying. The same increase in oil reserves applies to advances in technology which have the effect of lowering the cost of extraction. And of course there’s the issue of the fudging of reserve numbers, with a higher reserve number allowing for an OPEC country to increase production. See here.

        And if you think that people should take your argument that a cabal of imperial oil managers connived in secret to raise prices by starting a war in Iraq, then you really DO need to factor out all other causes for a rise in oil prices and oil company profits rather than simply declaring that other factors don’t matter. Otherwise your analysis can not be called anything BUT a simplistic post hoc argument.

        But someone who believes that the Palestine solidarity movement knows how to manage the empire better than the empire will believe anything.

        Someone who doesn’t bother to do his homework but thinks he understands the workings of imperial managers simply because he knows how to throw a few Marxist terms around is more likely to believe he knows what he is talking about and post stupid things, including the unsubstantiated claim that the Palestine solidarity movement knows how to “manage the empire” or believes they do.

        I write, “One option would be to look at corporate profits from 1991 to 2011, when the Jew state ran wild: just non-financial corporate profits went from 100 billion annually in 1991 to 800 billion in 2011.” And you respond, “is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Are you really saying that US corporate profits have everything to do with Zionism?” No, I haven’t said any such thing. I have pointed out a basic flaw in the jayn0t-village idiot-saboteur analysis that posits that Zionism is injurious to the empire and capital accumulation –“capital accumulation.” One sees that basic error migrating to Abunimah’s analysis, and it’s silly.

        Again, a post hoc argument with nothing to back it up but the fact that corporate profits have risen over the past 20 years. Ipso facto, Zionism cannot be injurious to either the empire or capital accumulation. Shoddy argumentation at best.

        Incidentally you are pretty sanguine about American Jews. Actually American Jews seem pretty happy with a “post-apartheid” South Africa now that there are some black rich people to assuage a view of the world that insists that it is race and not structure that is the problem. In fact it is both, combined, interweaving, but I don’t mean to disrupt your caricature of my “simplistic” analysis, in which corporations are not legally bound to maximize profits according to their charters and their weight in the economy and the electoral process doesn’t have the preponderant effect on policy formation.

        For the most part I would agree with the general thrust of your argument, although not the petty snark. I simply don’t agree that seeking justice and equality for Palestinians must rely predominantly on overthrowing the class system. Besides the fact that a classless system has never really existed in modern times, and it is the height of privilege to insist that must occur before the Palestinians get some measure of justice, there is no guarantee that racism will disappear with such a system. If Israel had indeed become the Jewish socialist paradise it claimed to want to be in its formative years, the Palestinians would have still been on the short end of the stick because of embedded racism. I have no problem with working towards a better more just system than the rotten, money is speech, profits are all, US capitalist system. I just don’t see why inherent racism should not likewise be overthrown at the same time, or before, if possible, instead of being excused by subordinating it to the “revolution”.

        I write from Cairo. I just spent 12 hours traveling from Gaza. Perhaps I should do better self-promotion, but I am too busy sitting on my ass in Beit Hanoun and kvetching on the internet.

        Good for you. I am aware, as you know I am. Too bad you can’t see that dishing it out but not being able to take it doesn’t lead to good self-promotion either.

        If my “insults” are what keeps you from joining a movement to shake up our society, there is nothing to say.

        Please don’t flatter yourself. Your insults have nothing to do with my actions, of which you are entirely ignorant even though that doesn’t stop you from jumping to erroneous conclusions. Good night. I hope you get some rest from your long, no doubt arduous, journey.

      • Max Ajl
        August 2, 2011, 5:53 am

        Tree,

        Maybe I’m being unclear. I didn’t call jayn0t antisemitic. I think it has a childish analysis that’s meant to look antisemitic so that when someone is looking for some poison at this website to discredit it, they can find it. As for its motivations, I didn’t say they were racial. I said they were the motivations of a saboteur. The other issue is that how the issue is raised has no clear political conclusions, and being muddied, in the case of some arguments, people will draw the conclusions they’re meant to draw. Of course there is real antisemitism here. It’s usually in the mouths of the Israeli “anti-Zionists” so drenched in their racialized upbringing that they think that in fact all Jews are like Israelis. But such nuances will not enter the consciousness of the Cossacks.

        If you don’t think there is a strong element of thinking within the Palestine solidarity movement that we know how to run the country’s affairs better than its managers do, I don’t know what to say. That is the basic argument of the Walt and Mearsheimer book, which makes sense – that is exactly what they are arguing as defense intellectuals, that they have a superior plan for empire. The fact that those assumptions remain unarticulated does not mean they are not real or the bedrock of analysis.

        Your comments on OIL prices are not irrelevant, but not exactly the point either, and since yes, alternative sources of oil production come on line as prices rise, that hardly accounts for concomitant profit rises within the oil majors, which would be roughly linear, or at least a far less steep increase than that which is plainly visible if you plot profits of the oil majors. In the case of Iraq, the sanctions regime was deteriorating, and the point of American policy going back decades has been to keep Iraqi oil in the ground. Furthermore, you mischaracterize the graphs. Price went up between 1995 and 2000, and so did supply, and all at price points well below that required to make the deep-sea exploration or the bituminous extraction profitable. It is beyond me how you characterize the 2000 – 2005 period as one of stagnant or declining production. That’s not what your graphs say. It’s only partially a question of supply and demand anyway. Supply and demand in a cartelized market like the oil market is an effect of the distribution of power to begin with. link to cmes.hmdc.harvard.edu

        I don’t ignore that because it doesn’t fit my “pet theory.” All theories ignore a number of facts to begin to get to the core dynamics. But more relevantly, I wrote, “very little of that would be associated with profiteering at the pump, the main profit vector for oil companies, since much production has been nationalized, and that with over 40 years of correlations available we know that they take advantage of “perceived instability” to jack up prices at the pump, and it strains credulity to imagine that we see a correlation that those silly folk managing the empire do not.” What would you have us conclude from the fact that the downstream managers of the oil business jack up prices at the pump, not oil prices, every time there is regional instability? Do you think the 4.30 at the gallon reflects their supply-shock fears? Do you really think that? They don’t have to lobby for war. Others become the public face. The question that serious analysts will ask is why they don’t block these wars.

        Their unwillingness to block them seems sufficient to conclude that they want them, and why they enter electoral alliances with pro-Israel, pro-war parties, particularly in Republican administrations, and that this is simply a better explanation for American Middle East policy than that it’s all to protect Israel, and even more erroneously, that such support has hindered ruling class accumulation. What that argument reduces to is that they stabbed us in the back. All of this is part of a marginal but waxing political attempt to split Palestine solidarity from the left. That is a project Phil encourages. See the “very helpful” a couple screens up. That is messed up. And finally that is the ideological conceit of right-wing populism. If in the current European and American political atmosphere that doesn’t strike you as a threat, I don’t know what to tell you, except that above all things, I do not want to tell you “I told you so” over a pile of American children shot up at a left-wing summer camp.

  10. mymarkx
    July 30, 2011, 11:25 am

    Annie, when you say that you “see a distinction at least idealistically between the US government and the capitalist class,” do you mean theoretically rather than idealistically, i.e., that while the US government and the interests of the capitalist class have, in reality, totally merged so as to be indistinguishable, fulfilling Mussolini’s definition of fascism, in theory this should not be the case?

    You (and Max, despite his snark and condescension) are correct that support for Israel serves the interests of the capitalist class well, particularly with regard to Middle East oil, the blood diamond trade in the Congo, and the global arms trade. and Jaynot is wrong on that point.

    Being anti-fascist, I am always disappointed when struggles against neo-colonialism and imperialism do not join the greater struggle against neoliberalism and capitalism. It is tragic when the oppressed are sold on consumerism and materialism and seek money and possessions, just as the wealthy do, instead of fighting for equality, dignity, respect, and justice for all. My personal goal isn’t to exchange one set of capitalists for another, but to oust all oligarchies and establish socialist governments of, by, and for the people everywhere. Ending oppression doesn’t mean trading one set of oppressors for another, the way we trade Democratic and Republican corporate panderers back and forth with no obvious benefit to the majority, but creating governments that actually vest power in the hands of the people and put people before profits.

    I support BDS because it is aimed squarely against the capitalist interests of Apartheid, imperialism, colonialism, and war profiteering, but I haven’t forgotten that ending Apartheid in South Africa did not end the economic oppression of the South African poor. Janine Roberts’ book, Glitter and Greed, explains exactly how that happened, and it is no coincidence that the interests of Israel and the United States coincided with the interests of the South African Apartheid regime, and that the US and Israeli governments supported South African Apartheid for as long as they possibly could.

    Those who believe that the US is a democracy or a republic rather than an unabashed tyranny where politicians serve the interests of business and do not allow public opinion to influence policy decisions, are easily misled by CIA propaganda, and the results can be disastrous, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya, where the US, Israel, and their allies wantonly kill civilians and destroy a country’s infrastructure for the purpose of securing its natural resources. The first step in solving any problem is to understand the nature of the problem. As far as I can tell, most people in the US and many Palestinians have yet to reach that level of social consciousness.

    • annie
      July 31, 2011, 11:52 pm

      The first step in solving any problem is to understand the nature of the problem.

      i agree with that. please check my new responses to you upthread.

  11. jayn0t
    July 31, 2011, 10:15 pm

    Mymarkx was right to point out Annie’s inconsistency in using the term ‘white apartheid’ but flinching at the term ‘Jewish apartheid’. It’s to Annie’s credit that she accepts his point.

    But he could go further. He says some Jews benefit from ‘white privilege’. ‘Calling Zionist Israeli Apartheid “Jewish Apartheid” does not condemn all Jews, it accurately describes a system of Apartheid based on religion that privileges Jews over non-Jews.’. Right. So what about the way the Western world has discriminated between discriminations, between apartheids? Its abandonment of white apartheid, contrasted with its continuing, unconditional support for Jewish apartheid? Is that ‘Jews benefitting from white privilege’? No – to be consistent, Mymarkx would have to call it ‘Jewish privilege’. Not just in Israel, but in the Western countries.

    By the way, I used the term ‘peace profiteers’ to be ironic. I don’t accept the moralistic term ‘war profiteers’ is useful in analyzing the way capitalism works.

    • annie
      August 1, 2011, 12:13 am

      jaynot, the crime of apartheid already addresses discrimination based on ethnicity, therefore the term ‘jewish’ apartheid, as you are using it, would be redundant.

      domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them

      international law recognizes racial descrimination as :

      Legal

      The UN does not define “racism”, however it does define “racial discrimination”: According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

      the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[11]

      This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[12] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means “any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin”.[13

      iow, this is not a ‘jewish’ crime. unless you can demonstrate how “domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them” has a distinctly ‘jewish character’ . because if it does then every non jew has a responsibility to reject jewishness. really, it’s like opening a can of worms. i don’t think it is fair, helpful or appropriate to define a religion or ethnicity by it’s extremists. it’s not a cult for heavens sake. i won’t do it for christians or muslims so i’m sure as heck not about to start doing it for jews. we might as well join the fruitcakes down on the corner screaming muslims are trying to impose sharia law on everyone. it’s no different.

      • mymarkx
        August 1, 2011, 12:47 am

        Yes, those screaming that Muslims are trying to impose Sharia law on everyone, are fruitcakes. EXCEPT in the case of an Islamic state that imposes Sharia law on all citizens of that state. In that case it is just a statement of fact.

      • tree
        August 1, 2011, 2:37 am

        jaynot, the crime of apartheid already addresses discrimination based on ethnicity, therefore the term ‘jewish’ apartheid, as you are using it, would be redundant.

        Not true, because apartheid doesn’t delineate who is being “separated”( the English meaning of “apartheid”) from whom. Since apartheid, a South Africa word, was used to describe separation of white from blacks, I suppose a case could be made that “white apartheid” is redundant, but “Jewish apartheid” is not, as it specifies who (Jews) are being separated from whom (Palestinians). Perhaps the Hebrew term hafrada should be used, and in that instance the term “Jewish hafrada” would be redundant, but since most people don’t know the term, it probably won’t be universally used.

        iow, this is not a ‘jewish’ crime. unless you can demonstrate how “domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them” has a distinctly ‘jewish character’ . because if it does then every non jew has a responsibility to reject jewishness. really, it’s like opening a can of worms. i don’t think it is fair, helpful or appropriate to define a religion or ethnicity by it’s extremists.

        Replace every use of the word Jewish in your comment about with the word “white”. It makes no sense.

        iow, this is not a white crime. unless you can demonstrate how “domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them” has a distinctly ‘white character’ . because if it does then every non-white has a responsibility to reject whiteness. really, it’s like opening a can of worms. i don’t think it is fair, helpful or appropriate to define a religion or ethnicity by it’s extremists.

        It isn’t defining a religion or ethnicity by its extremists. Its defining a system of oppression by who is in the superior position. It isn’t condemning all Jews, or “Jewishness” for what is going on in Israel, anymore than white apartheid in South Africa was condemning all whites fro what was the policy in South Africa in years past. Or are you trying to claim that apartheid in Israel is based on whiteness and not on Jewishness?

      • annie
        August 1, 2011, 3:09 am

        Replace every use of the word Jewish in your comment about with the word “white”. It makes no sense.

        i think it makes sense. “domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them” does not have a distinctly ‘white character’. obviously in the history of mankind domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them has not been limited to white people. ESPECIALLY when applying the UN definition applied wrt ‘race’ as it applies to the legal definition of aparthied. (based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin ). peoples have been dominating and oppressing other groups of peoples since the beginning of mankind.

        Or are you trying to claim that apartheid in Israel is based on whiteness and not on Jewishness?

        no, i am claiming israel’s apartheid is based on colonial expansion. i am claiming religion is being used to justify what greedy people have always done, and they are using the masses the way they have always used the masses. it’s a land grab w/a biblical twist.

        btw, you totally rocked the discourse on your recent response to max. i really appreciate your logic. i googled Post hoc ergo propter hoc and learned something. ;)

      • tree
        August 1, 2011, 3:27 am

        Hi annie. I think I’m not making my point clear. Let me try this. If someone referred to a “Jewish extremist” or a “white extremist” or an “Arab extremist” or “Norwegian extremist” would that necessarily mean that it was tarring all Jews or whites or Arabs or Norwegians as being extremist in character, or would it merely be a descriptor of the the type of extremism the individual was exhibiting? That is what the term “Jewish apartheid” is, to my mind. Merely a descriptor of whom is benefiting from the particular apartheid system in Israel.

        It doesn’t have anything particular to do with Judaism or “Jewishness” or a Jewish ethnicity, except in a very broad sense to affirm that Jews, in this instance, are just as capable as everyone else on the planet of bigotry and discrimination, no more no less. To acknowledge this is not to disparage Judaism, Jewishness,etc, but simply to put them on the same plane as everyone else.

        btw, you totally rocked the discourse on your recent response to max.I really appreciate your logic.

        Thanks. I”m sure that sentiment won’t be universal. But I appreciate your comment.

      • annie
        August 4, 2011, 8:40 pm

        hi tree, sorry to get back to you so late, i didn’t see your comment til just now. the extremist analogy doesn’t work for me because you are identifying one person not a strategy or tactic or operation. but to use another example let’s look at 9/11. i have a problem calling that muslim terrorism. it was terrorism carried out by muslims (if indeed it was) but the terrorism itself wasn’t muslim. terrorism doesn’t have an ethnicity. at least i don’t think it does. the whole islamic terrorism or jewish terrorism of christian terrorism..i just don’t find it helpful. this norway thing, was it christian terrorism? does mowing down 100 people have a religion? because the racists tried to say it did, they tried to call it islamic and had it been they would have called it islamic but they are not calling it christian now are they? so do we become like them? no we take the ethnicity out of it. i’d rather identify it with his political construct. remember, this country is supporting that apartheid, the christian zionists are supporting it big time. so it is really zionist apartheid. lots of people who are facilitating this are not jewish. the locale is always a safe bet, like SA apartheid. or the politics. that’s just my preference.

  12. mymarkx
    August 1, 2011, 12:16 am

    Some western countries did abandon white Apartheid. The US didn’t do so until after the South African election boycott, when the Apartheid regime could no longer be described as a legitimate government with the consent of the governed, and of course Israel never did abandon South African Apartheid–at the time the regime fell it still had Israeli support.

    The way that capitalism works in the US and Israel, two of the world’s biggest arms dealers, cannot be properly analyzed without using the term war profiteers. It would be like trying to analyze the psychology of those who commit or command military crimes against humanity without using the term war criminals. Capitalism itself is amoral and no analysis of capitalism can be useful if it doesn’t take that into account. If you reject a phrase because it is moralistic, would you also reject human rights because they are also moralistic?

  13. Kathleen
    August 2, 2011, 12:59 pm

    “I am grateful to Phil and Adam for taking on the herculean task of cracking open a much needed conversation, for I know without this conversation there will be no resolution and no way as Americans we can facilitate peace in both Palestine and Israel”

    Me too! I am also grateful to so many others who have tried to break this wall of silence down for decades. Norman Finkelstein, Jimmy Carter, Tutu, Mearsheimer and Walt and so many more.

Leave a Reply