Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 333 (since 2009-09-07 16:36:35)

Bruce

Showing comments 333 - 301
Page: 4 3 2 1

• It's Good to be the King: Netanyahu scraps elections, buys off opposition and cements power with new unity gov't
  • Bruce May 8, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Sound report.

    If Netanyahu and Barak are determined to attack Iran, I would hardly count on Mofaz' entrance into the Inner Cabinet to be a game changer. The ex-General has shown he will do or say anything to be a playa.

    I never understood the Likud/Kadima split in the first place, except as a vehicle for Sharon's grand geopolitical power play. Mofaz was never certain which party he wanted to join. The center-right members of Kadima flamed out under Livni's leadership. Don't be surprised if Likud and Kadima remarry, especially if there is a constitutional change allowing only the party with the most votes to lead a government. Such a change would be a good cover for the recomposition of Likud.

    If the Likud/Kadima alliance sticks, the true evolution and nature of the Israeli political landscape will finally be clear for even the most myopic Liberal Zionist.

• Brilliant judges rule that administrative detention is copacetic
  • Bruce May 8, 2012 at 5:48 am

    @Rusty Pipes

    Thanks for bringing The Chronicle of Higher Education review to our attention.

    I was distressed that Haaretz even ran Jon Entine's review. More so, knowing he might very well have misrepresented Ostrer's views.

  • Bruce May 7, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    @Don

    Any day I can even approach Mooser's insights is a good day for me. Unfortunately his sense of humor is beyond my reach.

• Fighting Jews-- then and now
  • Bruce April 27, 2012 at 4:35 am

    @playforpalestine

    The proposed bill implies a great deal more than "containment is not to be considered a viable strategy."

    The bill rejects a containment policy for "a weapons capable" Iran, and as Wright points out the authors have an expansive view of what "weapons capable" means. It is clear the bill rejects any enrichment on Iranian soil, and it considers any enrichment to be part of an Iranian "weapons capability". According to this bill, containing (i.e., restricting) enrichment is not acceptable. Enrichment must be completely stopped, by military action if necessary.

    Unlike you, the bill's authors do not believe that "to be 'weapons capable' Iran WOULD have to already have an advanced program in place." The author's consider enrichment to be "an advanced program."

    The Obama administration is hinting that an agreement which contains enrichment, but disallows Iran from developing nukes might be acceptable. The Senate rejects this and its bill implies war to stop enrichment if necessary. The original draft did more than imply war we are told.

    As I indicated above, there are "containment-based policies" which do not presuppose Iran's inevitable development of a nuclear weapon and thus it does matter whether Iran is only 'weapons capable', depending on the meaning of 'weapons capable' of course.

    I also remind you that American intelligence does not believe Iran has made a decision to build a nuclear weapon.

  • Bruce April 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    @hophmi

    That is not true. The only thing I’ve heard is that the President shouldn’t take the military option off the table, which frankly, no President would.

    I would suggest you become aware of the analyses of Senate Resolution 380, the passage of which is AIPAC's number one lobbying concern. The implications of this act go far beyond just keeping the military option on the table. (Supposedly the original draft had even more war mongering language, but some Democrats insisted it being taken out before they would endorse.)

    Combined with the position expressed in the Senators' letter to the President, no possible diplomatic solution that Iran could accept would be acceptable to the United States, and hence the military option would be required.

    Check out Robert Wright's analysis in the Atlantic, AIPAC and the Push to War.

  • Bruce April 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    @hophmi

    The premise is first of all wrong; American Jewish organizations are not calling for war. They are calling for strong sanctions.

    American Jewish organizations are calling for military action if Israel (and hence their parrots among the American Jewish organizations) do not believe the sanctions are working sufficiently and in time. Netanyahu has already implied at times that it is already too late for sanctions. The pro-Israeli lobby even demands that the President of the United States not be given discretion in the use of military force. It wants military action written into legislation. Just look at the AIPAC written bills in the Congress. And so the premise is not at all wrong.

    My posting resulted from talking with a number of Jews about their views on Iran. And not one who supported military action against Iran were encouraging or even in favor of their children or grandchildren serving. Are you arguing that this is not a typical reaction?

    I left out the results of an American Jewish Committee survey from late last year, as I cannot verify how their sample was determined. But the Christian Science Monitor reported

    According to a September survey of American Jewish opinion conducted for the American Jewish Committee.... if sanctions and diplomacy – the preferred path so far for the Obama administration – fail, the survey found, some 56 percent said they supported military action against Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon; 68 percent supported Israel taking military action.

    I expect that any community in America calling for our troops to engage in a military action that could easily result in war would consider itself morally compelled to contribute family members to the conflict. I don't understand why this is such a complex moral question.

  • Bruce April 25, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    @hophmi

    No "there is no campaign in the Jewish community to encourage people NOT to serve," just a very active campaign to get the USA to engage in military action at the insistence of the Government of Israel.

  • Bruce April 25, 2012 at 11:47 am

    @Dan Crowther

    As I stated in another comment, I settled on Rabbi Robinson's numbers as it seems to me if you are buried as a Jew that is a good marker as to what your family considered you.

    I would have preferred to have written this posting without even mentioning the numbers, but didn't believe I would get away with it without heavy criticism.

    My motivation was not to question why individual Jews decide whether to join the US military or not. It was to criticize American Jewish organizations for actively lobbying and pressuring for military action with Iran, while at the same time avoiding any effort to raise badly-needed recruits from their constituencies. For me it is a moral question. One should not be calling for war, if you are not prepared to see your loved ones fight in it.

  • Bruce April 25, 2012 at 11:21 am with 1 replies

    @Terryscott

    I did not write this posting operating out of a rubric of anti-Jewish stereotypes. It was based on real-life Jews and one gentile married to a Jew.

    Do you have any evidence that Jews are proportionally represented in the officer class besides the not representative West Point numbers? Any breakdown with respect to officers in combat as opposed to the medical and legal professions?

    Do you have numbers on whites? In my study of combat deaths, I did not find whites to be proportionally lower in number and blacks to be proportionally higher. And that was not what I expected.

  • Bruce April 25, 2012 at 11:11 am

    @hophmi

    I usually avoid writing off the top-of-my-head. If you want to throw some light on the number of Jews in the military, the least you should do is make yourself aware of the reports already out there and handle them in an honest manner, not just cherry pick the result you preferred. It is not that hard, just requires some time Googling.

    The 30K quoted in the Jewish Week was based on speculative projections that seemed dubious to me. I settled on the analysis of Rabbi Robinson not because he provided the lowest figure, but because he seemed to have the best insight. Obviously, Robinson must know - or at least have a good idea - of the Department of Defense's own internal numbers. Plus his correction based on his knowledge of funeral arrangements appears logical. His analysis was taken from the Jewish Week of New York if you followed the link I provided.

    I did my own sample surveys over the last two years, checking the individuals killed-in-action as reported by the Washington Post. Starting with the names, I would check the funeral announcements to see if the soldier had a Jewish funeral or not. The results never exceeded 1%. One might say, dying in a war is the ultimate commitment.

    Anecdotal data is never sufficient, but in my families two Jewish cousins served the last decade. One was a doctor who spent a good amount of time treating severely wounded soldiers transported to Germany. That was a demanding job. The other is still serving, as a dentist. He has yet to be in a combat zone so far.

  • Bruce April 24, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    @hophmi

    Don't know about Annie, but that is what I am saying.

    If American Jewish organizations are lobbying and pressuring for war, then they should recruit for that war among their own. Pretty simple.

    Would it have been right for Jewish organizations to argue for war against Germany, but done nothing to see that Jewish boys joined that fight? If you are going to employ the analogy of Iran with the Nazis, then you should make the same moral choices in both situations. That is not happening today. I defy you to show me that it is.

  • Bruce April 24, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    @Fredblogs

    The whole basis of my complaint is that the major Jewish organizations are out there doing everything they can to coerce the Obama Administration and the United States into military action against Iran (sanctions are not enough) while making no effort to organize American Jews for the fight. You are more likely to see recruiting for the IDF than the US military at Jewish institutions.

    Whether the United States is going to war with Iran or not is not the point. The major Jewish organizations are lobbying for war. Do you deny this?

    The United States military is exhausted and wants to stay home for some years. Soldiers have done multiple tours in the Middle East the last decade. Even if all this bluster is just a show-of-force, troops have to be moved. The need for fresh recruits is now, not after a war has already broken out.

    I don't believe you should advocate for war to be fought with other people's children. At least the Israelis know they will have to fight if they go to war. It probably explains the greater reluctance of Israelis for military action against Iran than that of American Jews (according to the polling out there).

  • Bruce April 24, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    Of course I know that Ahmadinejad is not the "supreme leader" of Iran, only the President. Neither is Netanyahu the "supreme leader" of Israel. The imperfect analogy is Oren's, not mine. That Ahmadinejad never had military power and that he is on the way out has made no difference in Israeli hasbara.

• The Israel/Palestine conflict will be resolved when Arab countries kick the U.S. out of the region
  • Bruce April 5, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    @Dan Crowther

    Okay Dan, more words. I went and read a number of your comments so I could get a better sense of your views and positions.

    I thought I did write the article you suggested. My very point is that all indications show that change in Israel/Palestine and the Middle East is going to emanate from there not here. The United States - much to my frustration - is a status quo nation. It does not want to change. Saying that is not the same as declaring the United States cannot change. No doubt change is being forced upon it, and in response the United States may very well take the reactionary road (in 30's and '60s leftist language).

    As you yourself say, there is no "meaningful left" left in America, but that is not because it sold out, it is because it got beat, beat badly. And the "meaningful left" certainly figured out it lost. It didn't need to see a scorecard. That is the main reason its serious adherents dropped out or splintered into other, more achievable activisms. Many mistakes were made, but all the tactics and strategies that you suggest of which I've read, were tried and experimented with. Some groups even attempted armed violence, which showed itself to be amateur adventurism rather quickly. The majority like myself who weren't willing to take that next step realized they had reached a cul-de-sac. If you have radically re-thought the strategy, then please provide some links explaining such.

    This posting is more speculative than what I'm comfortable writing. Although I deny your claim that I gave a "blow-by-blow" account of how I/P was going to be resolved, it does make some predictions about the future, which as you assert, is not for certain knowable. I loosely expressed these views to your main man Phil during J Street, and he challenged me to write them up. That gave me a chance to clarify my perspective further. Not sure whether Phil was impressed with the ideas or eager to write a title which would get me on the no-fly list. If someone has a better take, fine. You totally disagree, so write-up your analysis! I have no problem conceding to a superior argument.

    If you want to call yer fellow Americans "fckin assholes" that is your prerogative. It doesn't work for me, and I'm not sure that will encourage them to join your new team. In my conversations with friends I can ridicule the Democrats activists and liberals as well as anyone, but I realize my disdain is little more than crowd noise. It is not going to move the team down the field. Perhaps, your revealed game plan will change my view.

  • Bruce April 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    @Dan Crowther

    You seem to regularly confuse the descriptive or the predictive with wish fulfillment. Describing Saudi Arabia does not equate to "rooting" violence on it, as if my predicting violent change in Saudi Arabia at Mondoweiss is going to have any effect on what happens there one way or another. I haven't said a word about what I would want to occur in Saudi Arabia.

    As for effecting change in "open society" America (particularly directed towards its "Imperial mindset" and the conceit of its own Exceptionalism), I've been waiting to observe any significant trends since returning to the States ten years ago, and I don't find them. I mostly observe passivity, despair or right-wing populism. Please let me know what I am missing.

    Meanwhile, the US exercises a great deal of violence both internally and externally to maintain the status quo. An "open society" wouldn't lead the world in incarceration nor adopt a constitutional tenet of "One dollar, One vote" for everything. Watching the oppression already invoked against the slightest acts of rebellion do not auger well for peaceful change.

    I certainly hope I am wrong about the majority of Greeks, but I am just reading the polling, which show majorities for staying in the Eurozone and not defaulting on their debt even though they expect the austerity and negative growth to continue indefinitely. The Greeks have an election coming up - and unlike in the US - they have parties which represent real choices. This gives them a big say in what happens post-election day. And in no way was I disparaging those Greeks in the streets each day. In fact, I stated their futures were being sacrificed by the majority to keep the economy from resetting. But in case you have not noticed, "social solidarity" in Europe is lower today than its been for a hundred years. In that respect Europe is converging towards the United States.

    As for Asia, it may be a "cold" period in US activity towards the Pacific, but unlike you, I believe Asia has thrown off the yoke of the US and will never again be strapped to serve primarily US interests. Asian countries are looking out for their own perceived concerns quite successfully. The US may have leverage with those countries looking for some counterweight to China, but do you expect there will ever be another Vietnam war or US imperial adventure in Asia?

    What is the "challenge from asian economies" for the US that even mentioning it gives you the vapors? Perhaps understandably after the treatment they received during the Crisis of 1997-1998, most Asian countries have consciously built-up their currency reserves and have adopted export-led growth strategies. This has resulted in insufficient global demand and a destabilized global economy. Moreover, the economic elite in the United States decided to export our financial, physical and intellectual capital to China and Asia, as well as impart 20-30 years of US consumer marketing know-how to newly established manufacturers that would not have had a clue otherwise. This accelerating transfer to Asia, while at the same time 300 million or more relatively low-wage new workers were added to the global labor market has has had a deleterious effect on US and European workers (who happen to be more productive than ever). America's commitment to neo-liberal economics is not going to solve these difficulties. The economic transition in the US will have to be managed, as is done in many other countries.

    Despite your faulty mind-reading, I have no objections to countries entering into commercial agreements outside the sanction of the US or even the WTO. However, there are win-win solutions to the issues I raise, but they will require a major reorganization of global and regional economic structures and new economic ideologies in the United States and Europe. I don't see any reason Americans should keep buying Chinese goods, while China puts the money earned in the safe or loans it back to us. Let them spend the money on US goods or let currencies rates adjust to balance trade flows.

    If all this sounds to you as just "internalized imperial mindset," that is your mind echoing. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to fully discuss global economics in a few comment paragraphs, so maybe you should lighten up on the barbs and the jumping to conclusions.

    You keep making these cracks against all kinds of different activists, especially those involved in "identity politics" or those advocating or using tactics you do not find efficacious. True, the efforts of some are not addressing the questions that matter to you, but that does not make them unimportant. Organizing "calls for boycotts, strikes and so on" have also provided very mixed results throughout history. They are not the only strategies for change. In any case, there is almost no organizing of boycotts, strikes, etc. in the comments section of Mondoweiss. So maybe you should hang out here less and organize more in places that matter, that is if you are willing to accept your own critique.

  • Bruce April 4, 2012 at 9:14 am with 5 replies

    The idea of anti-war/pro-democracy Americans having to wait around for their Saudi counterparts to start a potentially violent revolution really says it all. It says we are much more interested in being comfortable than doing what is necessary, and Im not talking about taking up arms and all that jazz – Im talking about tossing aside all our little pet projects and focusing on the real core problems, that we can all agree on: (1) There is no rule of Law in the US (2) Our Government operates in near total secrecy (3) We live in a oligarchic society that grants undo power and influence to the wealthiest among us.

    I'm not sure it "really says it all," but it says a great deal. What is more likely to happen, the United States dealing with its "real core problems" or Saudis rebelling against their highly repressive rulers? About two-thirds of Americans are too comfortable and one-third of Americans too stressed out to "do what is necessary" to reform America. Even the majority of Greeks are to date unwilling to give up whatever they have left and recognize what they need to do to reconstitute their country. They would rather sacrifice the future of their young and sign up for an externally imposed decade of decline instead. And I don't write this with any joy.

    Not convinced its wrong to focus on the Middle East locus of the "American Empire". In terms of resources and lives consumed, it is hardly a small part, it is currently where most of the action is. The US elite may "pivot" the country towards Asia one day, but its freedom of action is going to be far more constrained than what it currently faces in the Middle East. Addressing the challenge from Asian economies rather than devoting most resources to Middle East "terrorism" will by itself indicate a sobering up to reality.

    If you have a strategy for getting America to deal with "its real core problems," please reveal. I will gladly give up my other "pet projects."

  • Bruce April 4, 2012 at 8:30 am

    @asherpat

    You are quite the mind reader, even though your reading comprehension skills are challenged. I wouldn't quit your day job and turn professional if I was you.

    The more appropriate metaphor may turn out to be "both sides are not going to quit until they kill each other." I am more optimistic though.

    Once the United States (and its minion the EU) stops treating Israel as a rich, spoiled offspring which has been allowed to terrorize the neighbors and manipulate the parents, then I expect the Israeli well-honed - hopefully not forgotten - pragmatism to kick in, resulting in a deal with the Palestinians and the key Arab States to remain in the region. Israelis tend to be less worried about "shame" or "losing face," and most concerned about not joining the "frayerim." This outlook will facilitate a resolution once they figure out that building the World's Largest Ghetto for themselves is not going to work.

    As for leaving the region, I am not sure Israel will be able to stop the long-term brain drain of its professional and high-tech educated secular population. At J Street, emigration from Israel was already an alarming issue for a number of the Israelis.

• There are two liberation movements
  • Bruce March 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm with 3 replies

    The US is now a post constitutional dictatorship in waiting, Europe is ruled by unelected bankers and their henchmen, Africa is being re-destroyed, Central and South America are back in the sights of the state dept and the CIA, to say nothing of the on-going wars and the wars on the way; We are witnessing, right now the world over, the greatest paradigm shift in generations, for the worse, by a whole lot, and we’re here talking about how to get your point across with out offending people.

    Under the circumstances, what are the reasons you are all spending so much of your time here at Mondoweiss? Seems like a very big waste of your valuable time, unless you are looking for a "safe" environment which allows you to self-indulgently express in comment-after-comment your own favorite analyses. If JVP is wasting its time - and perhaps it is - what are you doing here at Mondoweiss? At least they are out there.

• Sen. Cardin tells how he and Hillary Clinton muscled foreign ambassadors to block 'anti-American' Palestinian statehood
  • Bruce March 28, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    @lysias & @LeaNder,

    Yes, Cardin will certainly win the primary next week and almost certainly retain his Senate seat in November. My remark was more a comment on the state of American politics than the political strategy of Senator Cardin.

    I won't speculate on Cardin's reasoning for appearing before AJIRI this week, but winning more votes does not appear to be it.

    This weirdness reflects the fact that there have been very few serious challenges to Democratic Party incumbents during this year's primaries. In Maryland, progressive alternatives are nowhere to be found. Democrats might as well stay home. Anyone hoping for changes among the Democrats will have to wait at least until 2014.

    I apologize LeaNder for the ambiguity. No reason you should have been able to interpret the statement correctly.

• Israel will attack Iran-- and Obama gave tacit approval (Haaretz)
  • Bruce March 15, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    @RudyM

    I also stated to Phil that "maybe it's a well contrived show to get Iran to take negotiations more seriously. There was the leak about the message to Iran through the Russians. But such a strategy is still high-risk and could easily backfire.... Let's see if the Lobby attacks on the President die down."

    I agree that an attack on Iran will ruin the Obama Presidency, but the immediate reaction will be a rallying around the flag by the American public, high gas prices or not. This is always the case once the bombs start dropping and the reason I argued this would be a plus for Obama's re-election. If the US military only becomes involved after Iran counters, then Obama will temporarily get the benefit of the doubt. Both Bush's made the mistake of invading Iraq one year too early in the election cycle.

• When victims retaliate: A response to Bradley Burston
  • Bruce March 16, 2012 at 12:45 am with 1 replies

    Excellent, Annie.

    Bradley owes you a response.

• Palestinian and Palestine-solidarity activists issue critique and condemnation of Gilad Atzmon
  • Bruce March 16, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    @Dan Crowther

    "Israel is sucking up all the air at the White House" would not have been my title choice. That was Phil being snarky, as he tends to be when trying to write catchy titles.

    In my replies to some of the comments, I attempted to show that you don't need to assert "the fundamental role of the Lobby in our problems" to explain the phenomenon observed. One can argue that the Lobby has an effect in all kinds of areas which wouldn't seem obvious or natural - and influence that seems disproportionate - without asserting that the Lobby controls the US.

    In the end, the US and the American People make their own bad choices. If the Lobby repeatedly takes advantage, whom is at fault? It's not like Uncle Sam is a defenseless, battered housewife.

• Israel is sucking up all the oxygen in the White House
  • Bruce March 12, 2012 at 10:29 am

    @LeaNder

    You are one of the readers I most respect at Mondo, so when you find fault I listen. As I already mentioned, the way this posting came about finds it less sourced than usual.

    Aljazeera had a detailed article about the Israel-Columbia-USA connection last year as Abbas was looking for votes on the Security Council in his bid for UN membership. Columbia held the Latin American seat on the UNSC at the time. Interesting to what extent the Columbia position was out-of-step with its neighbors and countrymen.

  • Bruce March 11, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    @Leander

    Obama came into power with the intention of de-escalating the conflict with Venezuela. (After all, the Bushies had tried to overthrow Chavez, who naturally had some good reasons to hold a grudge.) But Chavez's cozying up with Iran was the deal-breaker for the risk-averse Obama. He was unwilling to take the inevitable heat from the Lobby and its friends in Congress.

    Columbia has received an incredible amount of aid from the US in the last years, quite disproportionate to the rest of South America. Is it just a coincidence that it is Israel's most reliable friend in Latin America? Is it really in the interest of the US to focus so much on Columbia to the exclusion of the rest of its southern neighbors?

    The leaders of Brazil and Turkey - with the personal encouragement and approval of Obama - successfully negotiated a safeguards deal with Iran concerning the 20% enriched uranium Iran needs for medical uses. When the Lobby and its allies in Congress squawked, the Obama administration rejected the deal, a solution that the US should have found quite acceptable. Do you think the leaders of Brazil and Turkey are going to make such an effort the next time around or that US soft-power in either country was enhanced by the episode? Do you think the US reaction encouraged Iran to negotiate further?

    Turkey should be a valuable ally for the United States as it tries to reduce its unsustainable military footprint in the Middle East. The United States valued its relationship with Turkey to such an extent, it went to great lengths to pressure the EU to accept Turkey as a candidate for membership. When Turkey opposed the Israeli attack on Gaza and when Israel killed the Turkish citizens in international waters, the United States completely defended Israel. As Turkish-Israeli relations further deteriorated over the incidents, the Obama administration put great pressure on Turkey to make-up and reinstate the Turkish-Israeli alliance as if that was the number one concern the US had with Turkey. The US pressure was taken as a humiliation in Turkey. The Lobby immediately started calling for punishment of Turkey. Suddenly, Congressmen who had opposed for years the proposed law recognizing the Armenian genocide switched their positions in favor. Whatever the merits, Armenian genocide is a red-line for Turkey. How does any of this work in favor of US interests?

    While from a US perspective, Turkey's Justice and Development Party would be a good role model for democratizing Arab states, the US has to hold back any enthusiasm since Turkey is still in the AIPAC dog house.

    As far as I know, AIPAC was not an advocate of US outsourcing to China, just of Israeli weapon sales of US technology to China. But as the years have passed and it has become increasingly obvious that the US-Chinese trade imbalances are hurting the struggling US economy, the Obama administration has been unwilling to take any serious stand vis-a-vis the Chinese. On the other hand, it has had no difficulty putting a great deal of pressure on China to support stronger and stronger international sanctions on Iran, a policy that goes against Chinese interests. What is the quid-pro-quo that gets China to accede to this? How is this deal in the interest of the US?

  • Bruce March 11, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    @piotr

    I am no fan of so-called "free trade" agreements. That is a whole other topic, however.

    Neo-liberalism may be the ideology underpinning such agreements, but it doesn't explain why the US keeps signing such bad deals for itself.

    Name a recent agreement that actually ended-up with an improved trade balance for the US? The Korean and Columbian deals were give-aways for those countries, the morality of the agreements aside.

  • Bruce March 11, 2012 at 10:00 pm with 1 replies

    @DICKERSON3870

    Actually, Phil writes all the headlines to my postings.

    Don't want to take credit where not due.

  • Bruce March 11, 2012 at 5:08 pm with 2 replies

    @Sin Nombre

    I was not trying to write a ranked list of costs. We were talking about China and the US economy, and then this subject came up. The rest were just examples that came off the top of my head.

    Robert Dreyfuss has an interesting series in which he mentions how AIPAC and the oil companies learned to get along.

  • Bruce March 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm with 5 replies

    @atime forpeace

    Let's see if I can make this sound less conspiratorial in nature for you.

    I apologize that the above posting was not more rigorously written. Truthfully, I wrote some notes to Phil and he wanted to go with them as is.

    My point to Phil was that the costs to the USA in pushing so hard to defend Israeli interests was beginning to seriously deplete our hard-power and soft-power assets (as defined by Joseph Nye). This analysis is not based on assuming Zionist control of US foreign policy. It only needs to posit that in negotiations if you want something - and the other side knows you want something - then expect to have to give up something in return. As a negotiator, if I insist on fulfillment of one of my demands, I understand that I am going to have to ease up on other demands. This is just the nature of negotiations. This dynamic is even stronger if negotiations are on-going rather than one-off.

    For whatever reasons, the US has decided to make the Iranian nuclear program its number one foreign policy concern. Diplomatically maintaining that policy has its costs. The Chinese may prefer not to see Iran have nuclear weapons, but it is not a major issue for them, while access to Iranian oil is a major objective of the Chinese. The US has in place a policy to increase economic, political and military pressure on Iran to suspend its enrichment program and curtail other aspects of its nuclear program. This pressure cannot be made operational without international cooperation. The Chinese could easily undo US efforts if it wanted. What is the price that the US has paid to get Chinese acquiescence? My assertion is that part of the deal with China is that the US will not demand tougher economic concessions from China, that the US will continue to accept large deficits in its Chinese trade and maintain US openness to Chinese goods, and in return that China will let the US continue with its Mideast policies. (Frankly, I believe China must be laughing at this trade-off, as it considers the US Mideast strategy self-defeating.)

    The connection with Israel is this. The US concern over Iran is as intense as it is due to Israeli policies and the pro-Israel lobby's insistence that Israeli interests are one and the same as America's, and should be given the same priority by the US as by Israel. If we did some reasonable polling of Americans and the US foreign policy elites, I am certain we would find that those polled would give a much higher priority to dealing with our economic relations with China and a lowering of priority to dealing with a possible Iranian nuclear weapon's program than is now in fact the case. Why the disconnect? I would argue on account of US domestic politics. The Democratic Party is heavily dependent on Jewish funding. To what extent does not get into print, but you can be certain that the Party heads and leading politicians know. Otherwise, you would have to argue that the Parties have researched every demographic aspect of their donors except religion, especially the Jewish religion. You only have to listen to the craven speeches of Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Hoyer last week at AIPAC to see how servile the Democratic leadership has become to the Israeli narrative and pro-Israeli interests.

    Republicans line up with Israel for slightly different reasons. Although less dependent on Jewish donors, they still receive sizable amounts. In this election cycle Sheldon Adelson has made everyone aware of that. Moreover, Republicans have tried to put a wedge between Jewish donors and the Democratic Party by arguing they are the more reliable supporters of Israel. The Republicans also have the Christian Zionists as part of their base, and in some ways the Christian Zionists are more extreme about Eretz Israel than the Israelis. Supporting Israeli expansion and unpeopling the Palestinians is throwing this part of the base some red meat. Right-wing nationalism always needs an enemy to fight, and Islamization is the current enemy. Iran-Israel is the front line for these people, whom comfortably sit well behind the lines. Finally, well-funded neo-Conservative institutions are part of the Israeli-lobby and important players in the mass media. Republicans want to keep the criticism from these circles to a minimum.

    In an attempt to appease these domestic political dynamics, the Obama administration keeps spending its diplomatic capital defending Israel. While each decision by itself may have been considered a small price to pay for re-election, cumulatively, these decisions add up. Putting at risk our relationship with Turkey in order to take Israel's side in the flotilla incident and then to continue to insist that Turkey make-up with Israel is not in America's interests. Being only concerned whether the new ruling forces in Egypt maintain the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty (and not the part of the treaty relating to solving the Palestinian question) does not further US interests in the Arab Middle East.

    There is no conspiracy. It is all out in the open for all to see. Israelis are just taking advantage of the situation with the assistance of their pro-Zionist allies and the American Jewish community. An alternative domestic political strategy was also there for all to see last week. When Israel went too far and so threatened American interests that even Obama was forced to act, the President came out on top. All he had to do was say that he was not willing to put the lives of American soldiers at risk to meet Israeli demands and it was game Obama. Of course it helped that the risk-averse Obama had a fresh polling of American opinions about war with Iran and that the US military is heavily opposed to another war in the Middle East.

• The battle between the US/EU and China/India to control world energy resources is being fought in Iran
  • Bruce January 31, 2012 at 2:24 am with 1 replies

    Yes, Deepak.

    Thanks for presenting this. It helps to clarify what is going on.

    Hard to believe the Europeans have exposed themselves so recklessly. What were they thinking would happen?

    Please provide us more later if you can as the situation develops.

• The antiwar movement must rise again. Now
  • Bruce January 29, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    @Citizen

    You must be kidding. I notice that there are almost 16000 comments from you that span over 159 comment profile pages. I was trying to search for a particular exchange and hit upon just one page. A selection:

    The Jewish Establishment has not changed since the days of Jesus and Saul. And the Jews have accordingly reaped both the rewards and penalties. They're up, they're down. Like the stock market. Einstein was a Jewish Ron Paul." - 31 jul 2009

    Every goy learns early on that you cannot "pick on the jews." Otherwise you're responsible for feeding the next Shoah. You cannot even take a less comedic tact and look at history, e.g.. the activity of the 1% Jews in Weimar Germany. IN short, nothing can interfere with the narrative of anti-semitic insanity. Case closed. - 1 aug 2009

    Natural growth is like circumcision. It's not natural at all.
    - 2 aug 2009

    As every Jew knows, Jews have a tradition of using comixs to further their aims: .... - 2 aug 2009

    Looks like the Jews learned well from Goebbels and Hitler, the repeated Big Lie, thanking Fortune that citizens think so little and are always easily manipulated by talk of Terror. - 3 aug 2009

    What's worse, a Nazi rag such as Julius Streicher's, or the NYRB? In terms of subscribers, neither ever had much. When you think of it in terms of a tradition of Free Speech in the homeland, the NYRB comes off really bad, more irresponsible in fact. - 3 aug 2009

    All that in the space of 4 days. I forgot how outrageous you could be. No thanks for reminding me.

    So let's take your friend Keith. After libeling me in the posting on the "New additions to the Mondoweiss comments policy" about a discussion two years ago, I repeated one of Keith's conclusions to which I most objected. We all evolve, we all write stupid ideas, and we all have made remarks that aren't clear. But nobody has defended that remark and Keith has not retracted it, nor has he explained if he thinks differently today or that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. What Keith wrote would be considered highly bigoted by an overwhelming number of Americans, and hence would discredit him except with those whom hold such bigotry. And that was just one quote from a much longer nasty essay.

    That's it. Give it a rest.

    Maybe you can get danaa to do some psychological profiling of you all and explain where all this is coming from.

  • Bruce January 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    @Brenda

    I am a student from the Sixties/Seventies in Madison and Berkeley not to mention Oslo, so I have participated in enough street marches. And I've been gassed enough times and seen friends beaten and arrested and suffer in prison to have trepidations about what can happen at such events. We will see how this one turns out.

    Believe it or not, CSPAN covered some of the ANSWER Iraq rallies and the cable networks did reports also. Maybe I was the only one in America watching. I leave it to the other representatives of middle America to judge, but I thought the speakers and speeches were not an effective way to reach the masses. It was better that they weren't watching.

  • Bruce January 29, 2012 at 9:50 am

    If ANSWER is the only organization willing to arrange an anti-war rally, so be it. We need to show our opposition in some visible manner and Feb 4th is the day.

    Hopefully, more broad-based coalitions will emerge, as happened during the Vietnam War.

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    @tree

    I did not exactly choose MW as a platform to make my appeal for starting a mass movement. Phil asked me to write up my ideas in a posting after I mentioned them to him. I did so only reluctantly, for one of the reasons you discuss, my views on some of the frequent commenters here.

    In retrospect I should not have conflated the ad hominem on this thread with those on a simultaneous thread, but it is difficult to separate responses when the same individuals are involved and when the discussion on the other thread has been so personal. And I did not initiate the personal attacks on the "New additions to the Mondoweiss comments policy."

    But I meant it, when I said it was not personal here. And it was not a needless remark. It is my judgement that the commenters I mentioned would on balance be a detriment to establishing a mass movement. They can certainly prove me wrong by initiating one.

    As for your assertion that "MW can not be the ones to kick start it because you won’t share a link to your own appeal here with those you think might be open to it because of where it appears: on Mondoweiss, with the questionable (to you) comment section," I disagree.

    What I wrote to danaa is "There are many Jews I know who would be receptive to reading postings from Mondoweiss, but I don’t send the links for fear they might read your commenting. (And I am not the only one who says this.)" Moreover, as Donald pointed out, there are many non-Jews who also would be offended by some of the comments at MW. That does not mean I don't send MW postings to some other people, both Jews and non-Jews.

    I repeat once again that it was danaa, who wrote, "“The only way out is for a critical mass of Jewish people to get together with non-Jewish Americans and stand up to the forces of doom, …” If true, and again I don't believe it is true, how are you going to motivate a critical mass of Jewish people to stand up with the analyses of MRW and danaa? Please demonstrate.

    I replied to danaa as far back as March, 2010:

    "The set of American Jews on the left which will speak out against Israel and the US-Israeli dysfunctional relationship are already visible. As you allude, they already make up an identifiable proportion of the left which criticizes Israel. From my observations over the last ten years or more, it is unrealistic to expect this group to expand greatly or quickly on its own. Other Jewish American liberals are already more critical of Netanyahu and Israel, but I would question the staying power. It will be all too easy to manipulate events to get them back into thinking there is a pending existential threat and they have to support the tribe.

    My barometer measures when non-Jews, and in particular mainstream Christians, take the lead and get out in front on this issue, challenging the Jewish community. This is where change must come from. I know too many non-Jewish progressives unwilling to get engaged on this issue. Although many of the Christian churches have decent positions on I-P, internal conflict makes them reticent to go all out as they did in the Civil Rights movement."

    I stick with that view, but I now think there is a wider community to join an anti-war movement than two years ago.

    My message was directed at Phil and Adam and the other bloggers, not at your now offended readers and commenters. I seriously doubt that Phil and Adam's willingness to take up the challenge is dependent upon whether I have "managed to turn some people off to the "message by leaving the impression that they are not clean enough to stand beside." And if Phil and Adam or the others take up the challenge, it will be up to them to decide how welcomed these people would be in such a movement and then these people will have to decide whether they want to join with Phil and Adam and the other bloggers. You have to be kidding to state that anyone's willingness to participate is dependent on me. I am only going to do what I am asked.

    I did not assert that the comments section is fringe, but I do claim that the individuals I named are fringe.

    I do accept that in a mass movement participants are going to disagree on other issues. I've participated in mass movements before. But any mass movement has to determine its rules of discussion, and to what extent "anti-semitic" or perceived "anti-semitic" comment will be allowed will most likely have to be an issue to be resolved, regardless of what I think.

    And for your purposeful choice of words, "not clean enough" or "unclean views," these are not expressions I used or would use. Is that the same as "not kosher enough" or "not-kosher views"? Or akin to "not hallal enough" or "not hallal views"? I have no idea what your or the above mentioned people's cleanliness habits are, whether you are clean or dirty. Nor am I interested. I am discussing pernicious fringe views and statements, and I am willing to engage on that basis, but if you have to alter my words to make your point, then no we don't need to discuss further.

  • Page: 3
  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    @Danaa

    When you get up to the size of a minyan, that's 10, will you then finally have enough for your own site?

    Mooser is Mooser. Nobody tells him what to do or say. I always appreciate his insights, even when he focuses on me.

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    @American

    I am not going to spend time replaying all the interchanges from the past. Just one example, Chaos and Taxi told me that I was on the wrong place at this site. That I didn't belong here. On whose authority were they speaking?

    You are having an attack of the vapors due to my stating that the United States did not fight World War II to save the Jews? What historian claims otherwise?

    Did you fight in that war? My father did, along with three of his brothers, from North Africa to Germany he marched. And he died at the age of 33 from a cancer, which has since been linked to chemicals found in munitions. Unfortunately, all the relevant war records burned in a St. Louis fire and it was impossible to determine if there was an epidemiological connection.

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    @Dan Crowther

    All this is getting too off topic, but to respond to your remarks:

    I am an outlier with respect to some of your concerns. Having spent half my life in Scandinavia, I am not anti-state, just opposed to the US state model and corporate economic control. These countries work on account of "social solidarity."

    A healthy skepticism of the state is important and I am not saying Scandinavia is utopia, but you will have a hard time convincing me social democracy is not an attractive model. As a foreigner, I received an excellent subsidized university education, rational health insurance, a share in the value of all the nation's resources, more political freedom than here, a community without poverty, a good pension, a well-functioning collective transport system, an economy driven to maintain demand for labor, and a healthy business environment. I was also able to easily start several high tech start-ups. Entrepreneurism thrives there.

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    @Shingo

    I was Goldstoned? Now who is being delusional.

    I stopped posting to this blog and forum because the comments section was dominated by you, MRW, Keith, Citizen, Danaa, American, Chaos, Witty and Hasbara trolls. I considered not the majority, but too many of the comments to be a quite negative reflection on the usually excellent postings. At the time, the comments were unmoderated. Since the commenters kept insisting they were the site and were reflective of the audience, I didn't want my writings to be associated with that community.

    Besides the site continued quite nicely without me, and Phil broadened the list of contributors with people that had more relevant experiences than mine.

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    @Shingo

    1. Would you please read more closely. I have never argued that "Jews are the key to solving this problem." That was danaa who wrote that. I was only responding to his assertion, and then replied if true, .... I have already stated that I don't believe Jews are the key to solving this problem. I sense that Phil also considers Jews to be the key. So if you want to argue this point, take it up with danaa, Phil, and/or Slater, not me.

    2. I already mentioned in posting that mass protests in UK did not stop it from entering the Iraq war. However, protests in Germany and some other countries did help keep them out of the war. As I also wrote, the situation today is different. We have the Iraq war disaster for people to remember and military troops which are not nearly as gung-ho about a new war as they were before Iraq. I am also not predicting success. But what is the alternative?

    3. Bush-Cheney wanted to bomb Iran. Those hawkish currents still exist in the Republican Party. The charge that Democrats are weak on Iran have been standard Republican fodder since Carter. Gingrich, Romney, Bachman, Perry, Caine and Santorum were not just pandering to the Israeli Lobby.

    4. I don't see how my #5 proves there is no such thing as a Liberal Zionist. I am not a Liberal Zionist, so will let them defend themselves. Once in a response to Witty, I argued that for me there is a contradiction between liberalism and zionism and I am not convinced the two are theoretically compatible, and that Israel certainly is not liberal if one looks at Zionism in practice.

    4. Whether the Jewish circles I know "still reside in a hermetically sealed bubble of self-delusion," no more than most Americans.

    5. Not sure what you mean by "Why would they need to be manipulated back into line if they already oppose an attack on Iran?" What I meant is that with the use of fear American Jews now opposed to a war with Iran could be manipulated into supporting a war. Just as Americans could be manipulated into military action, as is happening at this moment.

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 5:50 am

    @tree

    I don't need to personally approve of anyone who joins a massive, public effort. I do not even have to be part. I am just one minor sole.

    I advocated that Phil and other leading bloggers, or Phil alone if necessary, use Mondoweiss and their sites to kick-start a mass movement against further wars in the Middle East. Any organization, which is formed, doesn't have to pay any attention to what I think.

    What I did say in the comments is that if I was going to try to personally persuade people to support a mass movement I would not work with danaa, MRW, citizen, or American on account of my belief that their advocacy would be counterproductive. But let them prove me wrong. That would be great.

    Is your reading comprehension level so limited?

    When danaa, MRW, American, Citizen or you organize anything remotely similar, I will decide whether to join your effort if I meet your qualifications. Fat chance of that happening.

    If Phil and/or Mondoweiss take up the challenge, it is completely up to them how they want to work with the above mentioned individuals.

    If Annie and danaa are busy with BDS and Activists for Palestine on college campuses and these have replaced anti-war movements, then I won't be hanging with them. I believe anti-war is more than BDS and Activists for Palestine, but I respect their choices.

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 4:53 am

    @Annie

    I've expressed my view that preventing a military conflict with Iran should have highest priority for now. If that means not hanging out with you and danaa, so be it.

    But could you clarify who the "us" is?

  • Bruce January 27, 2012 at 4:38 am

    @Danaa

    You were the one that stated, "The only way out is for a critical mass of Jewish people to get together with non-Jewish Americans and stand up to the forces of doom, ..."

    I don't agree with that statement myself, but assuming its true, then somehow a critical mass of Jewish people would have to be convinced to do so. I do not see you as someone that could help convince any mass of Jews to do anything. But go ahead and try. You don't need my blessing.

    In fact, and this is my judgement and I am allowed to make it, I don't think you would be able to help convince a large group of people about anything. But again, prove me wrong.

    By your twisted reasoning, you conclude I am arguing that only Jewish people and philo-semites should take on the Israeli Lobby. Never did I imply such. Contrary to your flight of imagination, neither have I implied anything about working with non-Jews. In fact, in previous posts and comments I implored non-Jews to be more active on the I/P issue, and I recommended to Phil that he should worry less about changing the positions of Jews and Jewish organizations and instead concentrate more on working with churches such as the Methodists and the Presbyterians, which have taken relatively progressive stands on I/P. And for the record I work overwhelmingly with non-Jews.

    How did you end up determining that you and your minute gang of mutual admirers on the site make up or even represent the universe of non-Zionists and anti-Zionists? My unwillingness to make common cause with you is not due to you considering yourself anti-Zionist. I have no problem working with non-Zionists or anti-Zionists. But that doesn't mean I have to work with every non-Zionist or anti-Zionist. That you believe MRW, American and citizen give voice to Middle America and that you and Keith give voice to technocratic America is nothing short of delusional.

    You ought to find another poster child for "toothless progressivism" in America. I spend half my time outside the US and am not confined to that box. But what are your efforts or plans for effective counter-action? Writing comments taking me to task at MW and praising your friends insights here? You spend an awful lot of time on this site. What else do you do? What movement are you working on?

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    @Dan Crowther

    Europeans and Americans mean different ideologies when they talk about "liberalism." Your definition is closer to classic European liberalism and European liberal parties today.

    In America, "liberalism" is more akin to what Europeans would call "social democracy." A successful social democratic party is based upon the idea of citizen solidarity. Unfortunately in America - the land of immigrants - solidarity is a weak concept even among liberals. It has almost been driven out of the political landscape except among social conservatives, and then they express solidarity only for each other.

    I don't understand why it is so hard for upper middle class liberals and middle and lower-middle class workers to grasp they need to form an alliance for either to achieve political hegemony. The compromise is simple: liberals must offer the working class economic security and a larger slice of the pie, and the working class must support social equality. Instead, all of America has totally bought into politics as a consumer choice. We vote as if we are buying a soda. Don't like this brand or tired of another, switch (or in this case just try another candidate). There is no awareness that political alliances require stable and persistent compromise agreements. You give and you get. Consumer choice in politics gives a false sense of freedom. Under this model all the compromises are arranged outside the purview of the voters among elites.

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    @Dan Crowther

    I spend half my time in Europe, mostly Norway. These different ideological/political types become very clear if you observe European politics. The two-party system in the US obscures how similar these political groupings are from one advanced western country to another.

    If we put aside, as you want, differences on social issues, we observe a major political battle between left- and right-wing populisms. The problem is the splintering of the laboring classes. Marx seems to have underestimated how large the "petite bourgeoisie" would become in advanced economies. With the growth of the service sector and the movement to outsourcing whether domestic or international, the working/middle classes have polarized around quite different ideologies. (I thought Naomi Klein explained this very well in her book, No Logo. In the last decade, it has been right-wing populism that has made all the gains in Europe. The left is still in disarray, even thought right-wing governments have been discredited due to the economic crisis.

    I doubt the "laboring classes" can be united at this point. I wonder whether the polarization can even be effectively narrowed.

    Until now, the economic elite have maintained control in the US. But the forces of right-wing populism could easily capture the Republican Party. Watch Newt Gringich. He really understands how to manipulate the underlying resentments that fuel right-wing populism everywhere.

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    @Danaa

    Let me respond to your assertions:

    1. I agree that doing something about the pro-Israeli lobbies could prevent the bombing of Iran. But organizing a mass protest movement would be doing something, something big. The lobbies are not insensitive to public opinion. That is why they spend so much time manipulating it.

    2. Do you really think there would be no political will to bomb Iran if there was no Israeli lobby? Are the super-nationalists/hawks in the US powerless? Is there no will to control the Middle East on account of its oil? The Israeli lobby is certainly a major driver and it may be the tipping point, but I don't see the Republican position (or even the Democratic position) on Iran solely driven by the Israeli lobby.

    3. Jewish people who self-identify as being leftists by and large are opposed to bombing Iran. Many are at the forefront of what little anti-war movement there is at the moment.

    4. There are a number of Jewish liberals and moderates that when asked are not in favor of bombing Iran. Look at the polling. In fact, they are more opposed than non-Jewish Americans the last time I read the polls. My experience indicates that they are more willing than ever to disagree with the organized Jewish and Israeli leadership on this issue. I suspect they could be manipulated back into line. But a well organized and carefully positioned anti-war movement would provide an outlet for a significant number of these people to show their support, thereby dividing the community. Even elite figures such as Tom Friedman and Joe Klein have shown a willingness to attack the Israeli government lately.

    5. I have never criticized MW for the issues it covers. Phil and Adam do an amazing job. I have contributed to MW myself, and please point out a single posting of mine that would give pleasure to the pro-Israeli lobbies or get me off the Jewish S.H.I.T List. My criticism has been directed at the MW commenting community. You say it is necessary for a "critical mass of Jewish people to get together with non-Jewish Americans and stand up to the forces of doom, be they Israel, The Lobby, organized jewish organization[s] and sometimes, their own families." Yet, and don't take this personal, when I try to convince Jews to do this, you, Keith, MRW, Citizen, American and others would be the last people I would want next to me. Keith discussing "world Jewry" and MRW recommending reading David Irving would not be helpful. Can you not comprehend that? There are many Jews I know who would be receptive to reading postings from Mondoweiss, but I don't send the links for fear they might read your commenting. (And I am not the only one who says this.) They reading you would be counter-productive. It is the same reason I stopped contributing to the site. And not for a lack of courage. I already have alienated more than enough family members over I/P.

    6. I am glad Zbig is Mika's dad and therefore gained a platform on MSNBC. His remarks needed to be heard. But, as I indicated in the posting, the most and perhaps only effective force that can stop a military conflict with Iran is the US military, especially the Army. An elite soldier in the Special Forces, just back from his third tour in Afghanistan, recently told me that the Army - from the top Brass to the grunts - are opposed to another war, especially with Iran. They are exhausted and they need to stay home for some years. This was an 180 degree change in attitude from the previous time I talked to him at the start of his tour. Before I concede it is only a question of when the US attacks Iran, I would like to know for sure what is happening behind the scenes with respect to the military. Obama may not listen to us, but he does pay attention to the soldiers. Support our troops may be the best strategy.

    7. You write, "such a movement should be its own organization and its own site, with Mondoweiss adding logistic support as one of several stake-holders." At the moment, there is no movement and no site. My argument was that Phil and Mondoweiss should take up the challenge if nobody else will. It is more vital than the other important roles MW currently serves. After the movement gets ignited, Mondoweiss can hand off to an independent organization.

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 12:46 pm with 7 replies

    @Dan Crowther

    Part of the problem is "what is the left?"

    The majority of Republicans believe anyone not conservative is "far left," including Obama.

    The MSM as a rule has a rather expansive view of whom is on the left in America. It frequently includes Democratic partisans and base of voters.

    Many liberals, and probably a majority of Democrats, would not want to be called leftists. I doubt Rachel Maddow would be comfortable calling herself a leftist.

    Many of the criticisms of the left are directed at targets which don't self-identify as leftists. My own view is that the left-right dichotomy is not very helpful and that a political classification scheme with 5-6 different ideological/political types, not positioned on a straight line with two end points, would be far more explanatory.

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    @yourstruly

    Sounds all good to me.

    Any of young America on this site?

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 2:01 am

    @Duscany

    After reading about the upcoming Ronen Bergman article in the NY Times Magazine, I am closer to your despair.

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 12:37 am

    @Duscany

    A few posts back I was berated for not presenting any ideas of how to prevent an upcoming war and the resulting suffering. This was the best I could come up with or commit to.

    If you are certain that you are correct that there is nothing anyone in the US can do, may I go back to spending my remaining days on this Earth arguing with the commenters here about the collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists during the Thirties?

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 12:29 am

    @jaynot

    Actually, I believe the Pope is doing quite a good job in keeping down the number of Catholics, even with his anti-contraception campaigns. I wish Obama was as successful in preventing war.

  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 12:26 am

    @jaynot

    I am not generously volunteering this "non-movement." I am trying to find out what you have already concluded, "whether there is an anti-war left, or right for that matter, which will get off the blogs and become a movement." You may be correct that leftism is bankrupt. It certainly is sedated for the moment.

  • Bruce January 25, 2012 at 10:30 pm with 26 replies

    @kma

    I didn't name those people because I necessarily thought any of them would take up my suggestion. I chose them because they all expressed some agreement with Ron Paul's foreign policy positions, even though they quite disagreed on whether or not Ron Paul should be supported. If they are opposed to a war with Iran, then in my opinion they should support an anti-war movement. If they want to leave it to Obama's judgement, then obviously they won't be part.

    My point is that these people have some public platform - audiences larger than the original initiators of the Egyptian protest movement - and they should use their platforms to help kick-start a mass opposition. If none of these people will do it, then I am willing to try myself, but I am not pretentious enough to believe that I could be more effective than any one of these people.

    If only Phil and Adam use Mondoweiss to start this off, I will be satisfied and will lend my aid.

  • Bruce January 25, 2012 at 10:17 pm with 2 replies

    @ToivoS

    I asked Phil to change the title of my posting, as like you I do not believe this should be a movement of the left. It has to be a left-right or cross-spectrum alliance of everyone who opposes any war with Iran or any more wars in the Middle East. As far as I am concerned, the people around antiwar.com should be involved. The protests in the UK before the Iraq war involved a quite diverse coalition.

    And it has to be a single issue movement or an issue-by-issue alliance because as you say the divisions on social and economic issues are too deep to organize a stable political alliance.

    I am unable to determine what Obama's strategy is. Those that know are not talking and Obama's talk is not encouraging. I call for public protest, since I don't see how we can rely on Obama to prevent war.

• New additions to the Mondoweiss comments policy
  • Bruce January 26, 2012 at 11:42 am

    @Danaa

    You are right, this is exactly the kind of tit-for-tat that causes the need for moderation in the first place, but I wrote the tat not the tit. It would have been my preference that the tit was excised or not written at all.

    After having brought it up, including calling me a "crypto Zionist provocateur," indicating that I am motivated by "anti-Gentile chauvinism," and presenting "baseless charges and gross misrepresentations of other people’s comments," Keith now writes that he tries to avoid personal attacks and that "Our mutual dislike is not an appropriate topic for discussion." Amusingly, you put it down to TSS.

    Let readers go through the postings for Bruce Wolman and determine for themselves if they are the writings of a "crypto Zionist provocateur." There was one posting of mine that had your friends in an uproar, a less than flattering discussion of Ahmadinejad at the UN, and then my comments in the discussion about the Jews and Zionists roles in the Holocaust.

    I keep reading here about how everything needs to see the sunshine, how all points should be up for discussion, and that people should be free to speculate as they see fit. Keith exercised what he considers his prerogative, but when someone replies to his libels, he calls it thread jacking.

    I don't recommend that anyone bother to read Keith's "PERVERSE TRIANGLE." I did, and I openly admit that I reacted to statements such as this:

    This financial success [of the Jews] has been significantly aided by Jewish organization and activism inspired and guided by Zionist ideology. Make no mistake, without the aggressive ideological and organizational solidarity centered on Zionism, it is unlikely that the Jewish elites would be nearly as successful as they are in relation to the gentile majority.

    Sorry, but I just don't see how Sheldon Adelson making a fortune on his Las Vegas casinos has been "aided by Jewish organization and activism," no matter how much I may object to Adelson's political contributions on behalf of Israel, as if the Jews were responsible for Citizen's United.

  • Bruce January 25, 2012 at 10:53 pm with 1 replies

    @seanmcbride

    I agree.

    And any group of readers can form their own community blog to discuss whatever they want, under whatever rules they agree, linking to any other blog's postings they choose. In this way the Internet protects free speech without forcing a blog owner to deal with discussions that he or she doesn't want to deal with.

  • Bruce January 25, 2012 at 9:24 pm with 3 replies

    @Keith and @Adam

    Being Keith's so-called "crypto Zionist provocateur" from our previous go around, I am quite willing to reprint Keith's PERVERSE TRIANGLE posting from his NO EMPIRE blog and let all the new readers determine whether I made "a foul and baseless charge."

    Adam, since you have asked for a halt to such discussions I will not reprint for now. But if Keith is allowed to continue along this line, then I will. And if you are going to allow his remarks to stand that I am a "crypto Zionist provocateur" and that my response to him was an "indication of anti-Gentile chauvinism," then I insist that I be allowed to reprint his remarks.

• Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama
  • Bruce January 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    @American

    I am not moving on because you or Danaa say so or because you think it is ridiculous.

    First, according to Wikipedia, there was a Chicago Herald that merged with the Examiner in 1918 to form the Chicago Herald-Examiner, a Hearst paper. The Herald-Examiner was consolidated with the Chicago American in 1939. The Chicago Tribune bought the Chicago American in 1956 and renamed it Chicago's American. The paper was converted to Chicago Today in 1969 and ceased publication in 1974.

    I cannot find any indication there is a Herald Tribune in Chicago as you state. There is a Herald News, a Chicago Sun-Times suburban publication, as Mr. Black pointed out to me before I wrote my comment. The Herald News is not nor has it been connected to the Tribune. The Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune remain competitors to this day.

    Google Chicago Herald Tribune and nothing comes up. No matter what care I have taken to not mis-interpret Mr. Black, some of you still want to nitpick. But if you are going to do that, you should make certain your nits are accurate.

    No matter what are the pedigrees of the Chicago papers, Mr. Black states he never worked for any of them, a fact you ignore.

    Second, I pondered how to most accurately telescope what Mr. Black said about"hiding in anyone's house". He told me he never hid out in anyone's house, but he doesn't want to go so far as to say that he never stayed over in somebody's house for a few days or so after The Transfer Agreement was published. He was on the road a great deal during that time. A simple way to resolve this is for MRW to reveal the name of Marilu Henner's brother and his contact information. Mr. Henner can then confirm whether or not he hid Mr. Black.

    Mr. Black was unequivocal with me. Whether he has been totally honest is something I am trying to determine. Neither you nor MRW have demonstrated otherwise. I am not a witness here, but so far I am still comfortable Mr. Black's case is looking good, and I would think he would be willing to wager with you on the outcome.

  • Bruce January 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    @Danaa

    I have to suspend this exchange, as I do want to finish a posting answering the question: "what should be done to try and stop a war with Iran."

    In the previous comment thread, I dialogued on a number of different points that MRW raised without "hounding him". In one comment, having read Mr. Black's book, I wrote that I doubted Mr. Black reached the same conclusions as Jeffrey Blankfort. MRW responded with specific information/facts/personal knowledge about Mr. Black, which MRW claimed proved I was wrong. I was prepared to believe MRW, but decided to write Mr. Black to confirm. That is what I do.

    Mr. Black denied the specific facts MRW made about him. This is not the same as different interpretations of the facts or different historical conclusions being drawn. In my mind and most likely in the law, there is a difference between writing somebody joined the American Nazi Party in 1956 and writing this person speaks like a Nazi. Both statements could be libelous, but if false the first statement certainly is. One of these two individuals is not telling the truth, or one or both are suffering from serious memory lapses.

    I have not been the one to give The Transfer Agreement such prominence on MW. And I am not among the commenters who insisted that this is an important issue that should have been discussed on MW and which should continue to be discussed on MW. Hence, I don't understand your insistence on my dropping it.

    Besides, MW and Edwin Black are now involved and the issue is not going to be dropped regardless of what I think. I hope to be able to diffuse the problem.

  • Bruce January 24, 2012 at 11:25 am

    @Annie and @LeaNder

    I am only reporting what Mr. Black told me.

    As I wrote previously, the body of the different editions are the same. The changes were in the front and back material. The forwards from the different editions are available on Mr. Black's web site.

    After he has recovered from his surgery, Mr. Black is willing to answer questions from MW.

  • Bruce January 24, 2012 at 11:19 am

    @Danaa

    I presented Mr. Black's response to MRW's ad hominem claims on the previous thread, but MRW did not respond. I believe Mr. Black deserves a response, so I repeated the comment on this thread where MRW participated. There is no other way to contact MRW. Certainly, an individual has the right to contest false claims about his person. It is in the law. From Mr. Black's perspective this is not over.

    I read The Transfer Agreement solely due to it being referenced here so often on this site. Claims about the book and the author should be subject to discussion, or does only your interpretations have standing on MW? False accusations should be settled, whether from MRW or Mr. Black.

    "And I am telling you to cut it out." On what authority are you making this threat? As far as I am aware, nobody has assigned Danaa responsibility for censoring or determining which comments may appear on MW. You have no standing here in that respect nor do you grant anything on this site, including anonymity.

    If you are curious about something, why don't you do some work instead of just popping off? You should be able to find a copy of the 1984 edition. (See my note to Annie.)

    Finally, don't flatter yourself by believing regularly writing comments on MW is doing anything about stopping another war in the Middle East.

  • Bruce January 24, 2012 at 10:16 am

    @Annie

    There is a copy of the 1984 edition in the Library of Congress. There are 1984 editions for sale on Amazon. Exactly what are the significant changes that someone is suppose to take note of?

  • Bruce January 23, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    @Annie

    I have no idea how common it is. But if an original publisher did not want to print further editions, it would not be unheard of. I have seen publishing contracts where publishing rights return to the author if the publisher refuses to print further editions. Obviously, the original publisher signed off on the change. The facts about the plates are what Mr. Black told me. I have no reason to doubt him.

    Where is the analysis showing the body of the text is different between editions? I cannot find such a reference on Google.

  • Bruce January 23, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    @MRW

    First, there is no Chicago Herald Tribune.

    Second, re-reading your original comment it is difficult to determine whether you claimed that the JDL had a contract on Mr. Black for two years, or that he was hiding out at your friend's brother for two years. From the above comment, I assume your friend is Marilu Henner.

    I just spoke with Mr. Black again. He never worked for the Chicago Tribune or any other Chicago newspaper. As mentioned, on his website he did at various times write some freelance articles for various Chicago papers.

    Mr. Black claims he never hid out at anyone's house for any memorable period of time, has no recollection of working with anyone named Henner, nor knows of any contract ever put out on his life.

    What is the name of Marilu Henner's brother, who you claim Black hid out with? How can he be contacted? Your friend, Marilu Henner, has superior autobiographical memory, so I'm sure she can confirm your story if it is true.

    Mr. Black insists you reveal who you are and provide evidence for your charges made at Mondoweiss. I might remind you that nobody else involved beside yourself is writing under anonymity.

    The rest of us deserve to know who is not telling the truth here.

  • Bruce January 23, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    @Annie

    I bought the latest edition online.

    It was Edwin Black that said the plates used for the different editions were the same. The forwards for the different editions are on his web site.

  • Bruce January 23, 2012 at 12:42 am

    @MRW

    Did you not see the response from Edwin Black to your comments?

    I repeat below. You owe the site an explanation.

    Had a 45-minute phone conversation with Edwin Black this morning.

    He vociferously denies your claim that he was in hiding for two years due to a JDL contract on him. No hiding, no JDL contract. During the time you mention, Black was syndicated in Israel. Hardly a place you would be writing for if you were hiding from the JDL. Black states he has always remained a public person since publication of The Transfer Agreement.

    Moreover, he denies your claim that there are substantial differences between the 1984 version of The Transfer Agreement and other editions. In fact, it can’t be true since all the pages of later editions except those so marked are photographic reproductions of the 1984 edition. Even the typos are the same.

    Mr. Black insists you reveal your name, and the name of the person at whose house you claim he was hiding for those two years.

    If in fact, Mr. Black is telling the truth, and I have no reason to doubt him, you either owe this site and Mr. Black an apology or you need to back up your claims. If you can’t substantiate them, then you should not have made them public in the first place.

    Needless to say, Mr. Black does not agree with Blankfort’s analyses and conclusions. He is at the moment recovering from major surgery, but he is willing to give Mondoweiss an extensive interview when he is 100%. However, he is very annoyed at the site for letting you spread such nonsense about him.

    On a personal note, I am quite pissed about the wasted time you caused me for taking you seriously. I actually went to some efforts to find a 1984 version of the book.

• A regular commenter on this site seeks a more temperate comment board
  • Bruce January 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    @hostage

    I would agree with Slater that the problem of the refugees was urgent, but I would not agree with him that it was irrefutable that Palestine was the answer. Personally, and up until now I have not expressed my views, I am sympathetic to the UNSCOP majority report and regret that Truman did not listen to his advisors who promoted it. A long time ago I wrote on Mondoweiss that I/P was an unresolved problem created by the UN and that the UN should fix it.

    Yes, I criticize the (lack of) effort by the western powers to prevent the Nazi persecution of the Jews. There was 6-7 years before the war with the Axis powers when much stronger actions could have been taken.

    I have some notes on your bullet points. I may respond to them later if I have more time, but have already spend considerable time on this.

    It seems the issue will come up again I am sure.

  • Bruce January 20, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    @MRW

    Had a 45-minute phone conversation with Edwin Black this morning.

    He vociferously denies your claim that he was in hiding for two years due to a JDL contract on him. No hiding, no JDL contract. During the time you mention, Black was syndicated in Israel. Hardly a place you would be writing for if you were hiding from the JDL. Black states he has always remained a public person since publication of The Transfer Agreement.

    Moreover, he denies your claim that there are substantial differences between the 1984 version of The Transfer Agreement and other editions. In fact, it can't be true since all the pages of later editions except those so marked are photographic reproductions of the 1984 edition. Even the typos are the same.

    Mr. Black insists you reveal your name, and the name of the person at whose house you claim he was hiding for those two years.

    If in fact, Mr. Black is telling the truth, and I have no reason to doubt him, you either owe this site and Mr. Black an apology or you need to back up your claims. If you can't substantiate them, then you should not have made them public in the first place.

    Needless to say, Mr. Black does not agree with Blankfort's analyses and conclusions. He is at the moment recovering from major surgery, but he is willing to give Mondoweiss an extensive interview when he is 100%. However, he is very annoyed at the site for letting you spread such nonsense about him.

    On a personal note, I am quite pissed about the wasted time you caused me for taking you seriously. I actually went to some efforts to find a 1984 version of the book.

  • Bruce January 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    @Opaleye

    I just want to say that I find your analysis here first rate and hope you continue.

  • Bruce January 20, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    @Jeffrey Blankfort

    As for the second part of your original statement, towards the end of your comment you write "... that's just what I was trying to say" in response to my statement, “After Hitler’s takeover, the German media was completely censored by the Nazis with severe punishment for those who disobeyed Nazi edicts. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the Nazis exploited any statements or ideas of the Zionists that matched their own ideology and enhanced their own designs?” So, if I accept your interpretation of your statement and your assertion that our two statements are saying the same thing, then the disagreement is considerably narrowed.

    You then ask me, ".., but do not the Zionists have some responsibility for putting those ideas out there in the first place?" Yes, they do. But if you are going to judge them as you do, then you need to put their decisions and actions within a proper historical context. Edwin Black makes an honest effort at that. You don't even try.

    You now state, "The Zionists’ anti-Semitic propaganda didn’t start the fire but I would argue that they fed it." Well, how much? Of this Nazi firestorm, how much combustion was the result of the Zionists' anti-Semitic propaganda? How does it compare in influence to the anti-Semitic proclamations of Luther for example? Or the blame Nazis assigned to the Jews for losing the War, even though German Jews were well represented in that conflict? You can't even explain why such a small group of the German Jews were able to have some a disproportionate influence on the attitudes of the German people.

    You raise economic differences as a reason for the anti-Semitism. Well how far wealthier were the German Jews? Last time I checked, Bosch, Krupp, Thysen, Siemens, Porsche, none of them were Jewish. How much of German industry was owned by Jews? The Germans gave all these rich titans of industry a pass because the Zionists convinced them the Jews were the problem, is that what you are claiming?

    If you want to join a historical site such as the Institute for Historical Review - they seem to like you there - to discuss these issues I have no objection. But to bring them up for discussion on MW as if you are some kind of expert on the subject, when you are not, I do have a problem with that.

    One last question: What is my tribal encapsulation?

  • Bruce January 20, 2012 at 4:01 am

    @Jeffrey Blankfort

    Excuse me Jeffrey, you stated there is a question: "Whether there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them?"

    A question has an answer. Either there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them, or there would not have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings .... The first part of the question certainly implies that the existence of political Zionism ... was a necessary condition for the Jewish holocaust. The second part of the question implies it was not a necessary condition.

    You don't state the first part of the question is not true, you only assert that we cannot answer the question, so the first part of the question might be true, just as I stated you suggested. If this not what you meant, why mention the question at all?

    Why not just assert the second part of your statement, "… there is no question but that dangerous piece of nonsense was what the Zionists were peddling in pre-Hitler Germany in their efforts to “out” the largely assimilated German Jews who would have no truck with them. In other words, the Zionists were feeding whatever antisemitic sentiments their fellow Germans already harbored. No, I am not blaming the Zionists for the holocaust–they couldn’t have imagined it– but that they helped to poison the atmosphere which allowed it to happen is indisputable."?

    So if I understand you correctly, you are only claiming that the Zionist "views were quite likely a contributing factor" to the Holocaust, which is encapsulated in the second half of your statement. Since the meaning of the first half of your statement is confusing at best or not what you meant, we should be able to agree to just drop it. But please note I didn't make anything up.

    I will try to find time to address the rest of your reply tomorrow.

  • Bruce January 20, 2012 at 12:47 am

    @MRW

    Now your bad. I've never indicated I was young. In fact, I am older than you.

    Recently, I came across your personal history that you presented some postings back. Fortunately, I didn't have to make a 180 degree about-face like yourself. In 11th grade I had a teacher that introduced us to Paul Goodman's "Growing Up Absurd" and "Compulsory Miseducation" as he headed out the door to another profession, so I learned early to have a healthy skepticism for the ways of education and the value of independent study. I also ended up hanging out at some top universities for about 12 years all together, so I believe I had paid my dues in the reading and research department and know the limits of elite institutions. I also have spent more time abroad than in the United States.

    No offense, but I can think of a few better ways to spend my time than looking for a "fair shake" from the comment boards at MW. I've received a few too many of those already. I will be going back on hiatus after this set.

    I will take my chances not studying further the collected works of David Irving, and try to keep sharpening my knowledge without the benefit of the power of your board.

  • Bruce January 20, 2012 at 12:21 am

    @Annie

    I certainly understand that "who is a jew?" has once again become an issue.

    For most of my life, I thought Hitler settled the question. But I realize some Jews and organizations want to reopen the definitions.

    I keep asking my family whether the leadership has ex-communicated me. Don't want to mention the J-identity if that is resented by the community-nation-people-religion, or whatever being Jewish means today.

    Myself, I've been trying to keep the definition of anti-Semitism quite narrow, as my main concern has been all the false charges of it flying around these days. Israeli diehards have cheapened the charge to the point that more and more people are seeing it almost as a badge of honor to be called an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew. I hardly apply the word anymore, especially on MW, as it gets you accused of a sensitive nose and more comments than anybody would ever want to handle.

    So personally I would not call arguments such as dimadoks anti-semitic. His take is more just another way to call certain Jews self-hating, except he is being polite and instead implying they are self-neutered or self-exiled.

    To be honest, I find the Zionists hosted on MW neither interesting nor challenging. They are mostly either trollish or doltish. I don't read the comments as much as I use to, so maybe I am missing some new blood. But let's face it, the Zionist A and even B-teams avoid this site, and you are left with Witty. Need I say more?

    I quite respect the Magnes Zionist, but I expect he would get quickly torn to shreds if he actively participated in the MW comments sections.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Note:

    The italics in my comment did not appear.

    Therefore, the two quotes from Blankfort are not marked out.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 6:07 pm with 1 replies

    @Robert Werdine

    This is a well-written comment. Thank you.

    I would just like to remind you that Donald did not call for any banning of comments. As I understand him, he asked for self-restraint.

    In fact, on this blog it has been asserted on numerous occasions that "the Jews of Germany, and Zionists, did contribute to the persecution by the Nazis." It is quite clear from the comments on this posting, that there is not going to be self-restraint on this issue from part of the commentariat. In fact, they see it as an important point to raise in order to debunk certain, in their words, "Zionist myths".

    I left being a regular contributor at Mondoweiss after taking on a similar set of comments more than a year ago. After going at it for several days with a substantial core of the commentariat, I burned out. Although I stopped commenting, I did decide to recently respond to a comment that suggested the Jews contributed to their own persecution by the Nazis. In fact the comment went further and stated that the German reaction should be seen as a lesson for the present. Mind you I let that comment stand unchallenged for awhile to see if anyone else would respond. As you may have noticed, there are commenters on MW who have no problem instantly adding 5-10 comments per post, but not in this case.

    The problem is that such views do get out in the open on MW, but nobody challenges them. If you are going to be the one to refute them with facts and evidence, that would be great. It is quite time consuming. Otherwise, they go unanswered and some readers begin to believe these claims are true. Worse, outsiders draw the conclusion these are core beliefs of the site.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    @Citizen

    Most think its very uncool or outrageous.

    "Over it" means they don't suffer from Islamophobia or Arabophobia. Not so sure that extends to the Arab states themselves. Like Saudi Arabia is not considered a kewl place to go visit.

    Even a few of the few committed Zionists I know are active in Jewish-Islamic inter-religious groups. Go figure!

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    @Citizen

    I don't need you to introduce me to the writings of Marx or Freud.

    Exactly what is my simplistic view of the multiple causation of anti-Semitism that you have discerned from my comments?

    And are you promoting Marx's and Freud's explanations for anti-Semitism?

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    @Citizen

    I certainly believe that most of us are just human and that's how I try to approach history and political questions and other people.

    That said, I don't believe that the Zionists up until the establishment of Israel have been given that break on MW. In particular, I find the stuff about the Nazi period obnoxious. Just being frank.

    Initially, I don't think the on-the-ground story of the Jews and the non-Jews during the Nazi era were discussed very much due to fact that the picture was very mixed and people did not want to raise all the issues. Even the Jews found the era embarrassing and were slow to want it portrayed. Remember, up until then a significant number of Germans still believed the Jews had been responsible for what happened to them.

    I was living in Norway when the Holocaust TV series first appeared in Europe. The show was cathartic and changed popular attitudes. Throughout Europe it led to an outpouring of media coverage, a good deal about the negative aspects of the period. An example: although Norway did manage to rescue half of its small Jewish population at the beginning of the war, former Jewish residents of Norway who were non-citizens were not allowed to return to Norway after the war from their exile or from the concentration camps.

    Let's be honest, there was heroic efforts but there also collaboration and opportunism. Somebody ended up living in or taking over the property of all those missing Jews. Fortunately, Europe did learn something from WWII - maybe not enough - and its people behave differently from back then. At least, so far.

    I don't share your view that "the many actions of non-Jews to not harm, or help Jews in any small way they could without causing harm to themselves or their family has never really been documented." Over the years I see this material all the time, but maybe I am looking for it. True, there is no grand opus or collected works, but it might be useful if someone put together an inventory. I might add that leaving the Israeli government aside, I have always found Jewish survivors to be extremely grateful in interviews to anyone that helped in their rescue. I am amazed that one still sees articles in the Jewish or local press about victim and rescuer finally being re-united.

    Whatever the reason is that Americans died in WW2, it was not to save the Jews of Europe. The American record of the period is not one of which to be proud. The predecessors of Ron Paul were strongly opposed to doing anything on behalf of the Jews, reducing Roosevelt's room to maneuver considerably.

    As to future honorifics, I am afraid we will have to wait for the next catastrophe.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    @Citizen

    I admire Arendt and her work. She has been an influence.

    If only, I could have risen to 10% of her abilities.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    @Danaa

    I don't have any problem with the issues mentioned above being handled in history departments and in historical journals, blogs, etc. where one can assume certain levels of expertise and at least some awareness of and commitment to methodological rules. But when history is raised in a supposedly activist site such as MW, then all too often there is some other aim besides a search for historical accuracy of a fact being presented.

    Like yourself, there are people reading MW who want to learn. History is just as much about the facts that are not included as the ones that are.

    What I am about to say is not critiquing anything else that Blankfort has written. Blankfort forthrightly stated in MW that he is for "the complete dismantlement [of Israel] by the international community." He further makes it clear that for the record he is "not only anti-Zionist", but "anti-Israel since it is Zionism revealed in all its ugliness, in three dimensions and living color." I have now read enough of Blankfort here to feel comfortable saying that a main component of his strategy is to discredit Zionism in all ways possible, including going all the way back to its formation in the late nineteen hundreds. Blankfort is free to choose his program as he sees fit. My complaint is that what he passes as history is propaganda. I only raise the issue because I believe it discredits the wider credibility of the MW site and reduces the effectiveness of MW's advocacy.

    So here is the part of Blankfort which has led me to comment:

    Whether there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them, is a question that we can never answer...

    If it's a 70 year-old question that cannot be answered, why raise it on MW? Maybe Blankfort cannot answer this question, but most historians who are not of the persuasion that cannot be mentioned can answer it. To still suggest today that "political Zionism" or certain Zionist views might have been a necessary cause for the Nazis murderous assault on the Jews is quite amazing. Please show any historical studies making such a broad claim.

    ... but there is no question but that dangerous piece of nonsense was what the Zionists were peddling in pre-Hitler Germany in their efforts to “out” the largely assimilated German Jews who would have no truck with them. In other words, the Zionists were feeding whatever antisemitic sentiments their fellow Germans already harbored. No, I am not blaming the Zionists for the holocaust–they couldn’t have imagined it– but that they helped to poison the atmosphere which allowed it to happen is indisputable.

    This no-question is a far lesser claim than the question with no answer, but I question how much historical weight it should be given. First, there were at least four of five competing parties in the Zionist movement. They did not unite around the above antisemitism trope. Second, since by Blankfort's own admission, most German Jews were not even Zionists, why did their fellow Germans end up letting themselves be "fed" on the writings of these particular Zionists? Third, what does "feeding sentiments" even mean? Fourth, it should at least be mentioned how common this "nonsense" about race, ethnicity and eugenics was during the time in question. All kinds of people who were neither German nor Nazis talked along these lines.

    So I ask, how significant was this Zionist "help" in poisoning the German atmosphere? After Hitler's takeover, the German media was completely censored by the Nazis with severe punishment for those who disobeyed Nazi edicts. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Nazis exploited any statements or ideas of the Zionists that matched their own ideology and enhanced their own designs?

    Would the history of Nazi Germany been in any way different if the Zionists had not existed? I argue not.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    @tree

    As I already replied to another of your comments, you are creating another myth or shall we say a straw-myth.

    Where is this totally ahistorical myth that “no one else” helped the European Jews and that only the Zionists did so besides your imagination?

    I am not a Liberal Zionist so I have disagreements with Slater, but you are misrepresenting hum when you state "he believe[s] the myth that only Israel can or will protect them against some possible future threat against Jews." Unfortunately, I don't believe there are any Liberal Zionists interested in dialogue left on the site to ask if they do in fact believe the myth.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 11:45 am

    @MRW

    My apologies. I misread a comment from Leander.

    Why I try not to write comments after midnight.

  • Bruce January 19, 2012 at 11:38 am

    @Tree

    According to Segev, "At the beginning of 1933 there were about half a million Jews in Germany, some 1 percent of the total population; another 200,000 lived in Austria. About a third of the jews of these two countries were murdered; the rest managed to get out in time."

    There is nothing contradicting "getting out in time" and "Neither the Western powers nor any other state intervened to save the German Jews or provide them refuge in any numbers." Do you have documentation demonstrating state intervention or sufficient refugee programs to solve the problem?

    Walter Benjamin fled Germany for France, where he lived for many years. He "safely crossed the French-Spanish border and arrived at the coastal town of Portbou, in Catalonia. The Franco government had cancelled all transit visas and ordered the Spanish police to return such persons to France, including the Jewish refugee group Benjamin had joined. Expecting repatriation to Nazi hands, Walter Benjamin killed himself with an overdose of morphine tablets on the night of 25 September 1940." You might count Benjamin among the rescued Jews from Germany. I do not.

    If you consider it necessary to debunk certain "Zionist myths," I do not object. But in the process you should not create your own. You write, "One of the Zionist myths that has not been sufficiently exposed is that only the Zionists tried to save European Jews ..." Who makes this claim? Israel and the main Jewish organizations recognize that non-Jews and non-Zionists made heroic efforts to save Jews during the Nazi era. Have you never heard of "Righteous Gentiles" and the honors they receive? Nobody has heard of Raoul Wallenberg?

    You also wrote that by extension Zionists claim, "only Israel provides the possibility of some possible future rescue." If that is your concern, then argue against that assertion. It does get discussed. More than a few times in Ha'aretz, for example.

    I entered this discussion due to certain comments specifically made about the Transfer Agreement. In earlier comment threads, several referred to Edwin Black's book on the subject. After having read the book, in my view its conclusions have been misrepresented on MW. The Zionist leadership adopted a harsh strategy based on what they considered a realistic, nuanced assessment of the implications of the Nazi's ascension to power. That leadership certainly didn't believe that Palestine was going to solve the European Jewish refugee problem. If you are going to describe the ugly aspects of that policy, then you should also present a fair synopsis of the reasoning behind it and the historical context in which it was made.

  • Bruce January 18, 2012 at 3:40 am

    @Citizen

    You are claiming Arendt as a soul sister? You better hope she doesn't rise up from the grave. She didn't suffer misappropriation gracefully.

  • Bruce January 18, 2012 at 2:31 am

    @Annie

    I should have been more specific. By "ethnic wars", I meant broader ethnic politics in an American context. America may not be an ethnic nationalist country, but ethnicity has very much been an important part of American politics. It is still true today, but my friends and I see a significant change in their kids and their friends. America's multi-ethnic society has resulted in a rather strange nationalism, but that is another story.

    While it may be true that "it is an aberration of our [the USA] natural political state to support the idea of ethnic nationalism," the United States is a settler/immigrant state and Israel so far has been fairly successful in portraying itself similarly. If Israel can be reframed as an ethnic nationalist state, that would be a game changer. Meanwhile, Israel has also done well in gaining support in Australia and Canada, two other settler/immigrant nations. None of the four have yet to come to terms with what they did to their native populations. Their tolerance level for such introspection is limited.

    You keep telling me that the train has left the station. That sounds as if I can sit back and watch you get to your destination. Good luck!

  • Bruce January 18, 2012 at 2:00 am

    @Annie

    I wasn't able to find any MW readership data released by Adam on New Year's Day in the archives nor on any day near the 1st. Is there a link?

  • Bruce January 18, 2012 at 1:43 am

    @MRW

    My uncle, 1 of nine, is presently going around telling people that I am prejudice against whites and Jews and that people tell him I hate Americans and Jews. So I am afraid comparing this to a "family dinner fight" is not very comforting at the moment.

  • Bruce January 18, 2012 at 1:36 am with 3 replies

    @MRW

    You didn't read Black's "Transfer Agreement" either by your own admission below.

  • Bruce January 18, 2012 at 1:34 am

    @LeaNder

    I can't see how Black's historical work supports MRW's conclusion, which he stated above, "but to suggest that Zionist Jewish behavior before WWII did not provoke Hitler’s responses and create horrific unintended consequences is an insanity, and just plain historically wrong." I just read 30 or more pages of Nicosia, and although I see disparities with Black, I don't see how the differences support MRW either.

    In all these discussions of the period, none of these people believe it is important to mention the incredible violence and repression that was part of Nazi rule from the start. The NSDAP was proud to be totalitarian. There is no use telling them that "it did happen" without making clear what happened. They seem not to know or care.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    @MRW

    The name of the historian which supports Blankfort? Edwin Black would hardly agree with Blankfort's analyses and conclusions as expressed in the interchange on MW.

    Anybody can pluck a set of facts together to form a narrative of choice. Lawyers do it everyday. Writing history requires dealing with counterfactuals and counter-interpretations. Where do we see this from Blankfort?

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    @Annie

    Thanks for the clarification. I now understand the division of labor.

    Everyone understands almost immediately that the zios are not a reflection of the site. Nobody else links to the zios on MW and writes, "see what they are saying on MW." Not true for the non-zios commenters. While I have no problem with holding the zios to standards, I am still not convinced it is a symmetric problem.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    @Chu

    I'm not sure to which comments you are referring. Early on I probably did make some ad-hominem attacks on Witty, but then I stopped. What was the point? I admit I often don't understand his logical reasoning sufficiently to offer cogent rebuttals.

    When I wrote articles, I always tried to reason with my commenters. Often it was worthwhile, but always exhausting and very time requiring (up to 2-3 days).

    I flamed out when I decided that certain commenters dominated the comment sections and then engaged them contentiously for a week on Zionist History during the Thirties. I was labelled one of those who search for odors plus other things, which is pretty funny if you knew my actual situation. But I knew what would be the end result, so I accept responsibility for what happened.

    As I say, every community deserves their site to hang out and every individual can decide whether they want to be part of that community.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    @Annie

    I wasn't necessarily thinking of Jewish students. Will take a look at your link.

    But I agree with the observation that "they don't like arguments about who is a jew or comments challenging their concepts of their own jewishness."

    I have no problem with the site dealing with uber zios. But there are so few zios left now on MW, I'm not sure what more you want Donald to do. Besides Witty, a case all his own, the rest are only here to tweak everyone else. Donald was addressing another issue. I believe the comments to his posting will add clarity to what MW is really about.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    @Annie,

    Well, you and Phil have the data, so I will have to accept what you say. Are there any actual demographic statistics on the readership of the site?

    I don't see any signs that those kids are participating in the comments section. Some of the younger commenters who were quite good seem to have dropped out.

    Any young people out there?

    Maybe you and Phil can ask some of those students when you see them what they like and dislike about the site.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    @Citizen

    As I said, I didn't claim the ones I talk to are representative. I would love to see some data and surveys.

    But the kids I know are not egg shells either, but they are definitely over the ethnic wars. Class wars are another issue.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 7:30 pm with 9 replies

    @yourstruly

    Jewish zionists enabled them, but in the end was their analysis wrong? Tragically, the situation of the German Jews did turn out to be a lost cause. Neither the Western powers nor any other state intervened to save the German Jews or provide them refuge in any numbers.

    Would the boycott of Germany succeeded had the Zionists supported it wholeheartedly? Would the boycott have ended Nazi rule? A number of people on this site claim that the call for the boycott enabled the Nazis.

    I would suggest reading "The Transfer Agreement." Believe me it is not a book on the Zionist Top 10 Reading List.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 7:20 pm with 3 replies

    @Annie

    It might be sufficient to have some commenters that knew what they were talking about. If David Irving entered the boards, would that be okay?

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    @kylebisme

    I believe Donald raised the form of bigotry that he believes is a problem on Mondoweiss and that should be addressed.

    When I speak before a group of Americans about anti-Arab bigotry, do I need to preface my remarks first with the importance of fighting anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism?

    You all act as if MW does not have a definite POV and is some kind of open forum where all participate.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 6:41 pm with 14 replies

    @ Annie,

    I am glad to hear that you have cleaned up the zio speak and cleared out the trolls, but I am wondering what is the site's stand on the extended discussions with respect to pre-WWII historical revisionism, in particular Jeffrey Blankfort's comments on the "Ron Paul and the left" posting. Let's say from Blankfort's response to Slater up until your own comment on the John Stewart show. I doubt Blankfort and his supporters can find any serious historian of the era who would endorse his potted version of what he passes as history. Is this a subject that could also be discussed in a posting, and if not what are the reasons for the different standard?

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 5:38 pm with 1 replies

    @Chu,

    Do you believe "false charges of antisemitism" do not get adequate coverage on Mondoweiss? There already is a de facto rule as far as I can see: If a false charge is made out in public, it will likely be the subject of a posting. If you make a false charge or even anything less than an iron-tight case, you will be hammered in the comments section.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm with 3 replies

    @Citizen

    Personal venom is fairly rampant on MW [especially when a posting appears which the commenting in-crowd disagrees with].

    Just look at the comments to Liz Ratner's last blog. Were those not overwhelmingly ad hominem attacks?

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm with 5 replies

    @Donald,

    If MW is to be an in-group blog, reinforcing the group's messaging and cohesion, then I have no problem with it acting as do most political blogs targeted at the already convinced or converted. Just give me my talking points is how most readers come to those sites.

    However, MW still has the slogan "The War of Ideas in the Middle East" - and although I have never been happy with the metaphor - it implies reasoned argument and a broad discussion on ideas, not ad hominem attacks of people's motives and identities.

    Taking on a well-funded, well-organized, elite-backed mainstream ideology requires not only backbone, but also finesse and political skills. Outreach is essential. With this in mind, my own belief is that MW would accomplish more if comments were nixed. As this thread shows, the current commenters are quite happy with the situation as is.

    I'm not sure that Adam and Phil have data on the readership, but my sense is that the breadth of the reader demographic has peaked. That is what the comment flow indicates.

    You are an empathetic, sensitive guy, so your level of tolerance is probably higher than most. Personally, I think time would be better spend working with one of the direct action groups concerned with I/P or stopping upcoming wars in the Middle East.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 2:51 pm with 3 replies

    @yourstruly

    Would you agree with this statement, "since the USA is a racist terrorist entity how can justice and freedom loving people not hate it?"

    Not sure either statement moves the discourse along very far.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    @Annie

    I'm not claiming that my experience is representative, but while I find that young people do have their awareness of the Palestinians widened by forwarded articles from Mondoweiss, they have almost no tolerance for the frank ethnic remarks all too common in the MW comment section. It is a clear turn off to the way they have been socialized. My sample of youth find the comments here icky. Be curious to know the age profile of MW commenters.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 2:29 pm with 2 replies

    @Avi-G,

    Your comment is a perfect example of what is wrong with too many of the comments on MW.

    You searched through my articles and comments and they led you to conclude that I don't have anything to say about anti-Palestinian attitudes/racism? No, you searched on the word "invented" in my comments to reach some predisposed theory about me.

    As I wrote, my comment was the only one on Mondoweiss in a long time. I doubt it matters why I wrote that comment, but part of the reason was I just finished reading Edwin Black's, "The Transfer Agreement".

    Gingrich's remarks about the "invented people" occurred after all of my comments less 2, so of course you wouldn't have found "invented" doing a search of my comments.

    I assume that not one of the articles on MW agreed with Gingrich's absurd statement that the Palestinians are an "invented people". I did not see one that is for sure. So why would I feel compelled to comment my objection to Gingrich? That territory was well covered on MW. My comment would not have added anything.

    So where does that leave me with respect to righteous indignation? Right where I was before my last comment.

    What a waste of time.

  • Bruce January 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm with 35 replies

    @ Donald,

    Thanks for raising the issue of the comments on Mondoweiss. Besides mentioning that not only liberals can be driven away from the site, I support your view completely. The plethora of "unhelpful comments" was the reason I stopped contributing to Mondoweiss.

    Only last week one of the commenters - unchallenged until I finally replied after a long absence - suggested that the Jews provoked the German working class into supporting the Nazis. And further what resulted should be a lesson for the present.

    I value Mondoweiss for the information and analysis it conveniently provides in its postings, vital material that is mostly absent from large swaths of the media. Hoping that we ultimately can have some agency on events in the Middle East, I want to see Mondoweiss' influence increase. Mondoweiss should be a place to which others can get comfortable with a different perspective than that they currently hold. It should be a reference site to which other sites will readily link. For all the reasons that you mention I believe that the "unhelpful comments" detract from these aims.

    In my opinion Phil does an incredible job in presenting varied views and analyses. He has taken considerable heat for doing so. Personally I found him helpful as an editor and empathetic to a fault toward his writers. To this day Mondoweiss reflects the interests of Phil. Hence, as you noted we have reporting of the Middle East mixed with discussions of Jewish identity and the sociology of Jews, particularly American Jews. These are all topics that ought to be discussed, but with care and with limits to speculation.

    The comments are dominated by a group of active readers who identify themselves as a community and consider their contributions as essential to the site. While different views do get expressed, it does not take long to notice the skew in judgements and temperaments. Sometimes the exchanges in the comments are very informative, but all too often they turn into brutal put downs and ad hominem attacks. The current comment interchanges easily open the site to attack and scare away potential contributors and readers.

    In my opinion, the ambience of the site's posting area is not in sync with the atmospherics in the comments. One recent example, it is obvious that Phil respects Liz Ratner. Yet, her last posting and Ratner personally were trashed by the alpha-tribe of the comments section.

    This is a difficult question. The so-called Mondoweiss community deserves to be heard and should even have their own space to carry on their discussions. Due to my own hopes for the site I wish they would take their community off-site, where they could say whatever they want to each other on whatever topic. They could discuss Mondoweiss postings to whatever community standards they adopt. For whatever reasons, they want to organize around Mondoweiss and call it their own. This drives away other people.

    Ultimately, Mondoweiss is both the postings, the comments, the contributors and the readers. It is what it is. The comment problem has been festering for a long time. While I welcome your plea, I doubt it will change anything. Only Phil and Adam can determine whether they want the site to be different.

• Paul's challenge to progressives
  • Bruce January 4, 2012 at 12:34 am

    @teta mother

    You are not on thin ice, you are wallowing in deep shit. You need a very serious reality check of your own, as in maybe you should research your potted rendition of history.

    While Untermeyer was calling for a boycott of Hitler's government and economy in those 1933 Madison Square rallies, the Nazis were running around killing and terrorizing German Jews, vandalizing and coercing boycotts of their businesses, and ordering the removal of Jews from the German professions. The boycott calls were a reaction to the appointment of the Hitler government and the Nazi depredations, not the cause. The problem was not hard-working Germans, it was unemployed Germans. That could be traced to the WWI reparations demanded by the Allies and the global depression, not the Jews.

    Millions of trade unionists and Christian organizations in Europe and the US supported the call for boycott. In light of Hitler's genocidal intentions and maniacal attitude towards the Jews, evident from his first days in office, it is quite tragic that the boycott movement did not succeed. The reasons for that are another story.

• More responses to Ron Paul's surge
  • Bruce December 31, 2011 at 1:42 am

    @Charon: I have to disagree. Ron Paul's core belief in Austrian economics, his extreme defense of "private property rights," his strong opposition to any progressive taxation and his insistence on unrestricted campaign finance from corporations as well as citizens leads directly to amplifying one dollar, one vote. No spinning at all.

  • Bruce December 31, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Forgive me for not applauding and cherishing this moment, despite Paul's contributions to the national discourse. For me the big question is why couldn't we coax a single candidate to run that believed in the issues we support, which Paul alone has taking advantage of. Having those issues associated only with Paul and all his excessive baggage is a major failure and a terrible augur for the future. God, yesterday I listened to Chris Mathews pontificate that Hillary was unbeatable for the 2016 nomination. May I not live that long.

  • Bruce December 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm with 3 replies

    I agree it is way past time to build parallel institutions, but I don't see how Paul's plan helps one way or the other. What are the current obstacles that Paul eliminates?

    If the federal government is neutered tomorrow and the states fill the void, who would seize control and what would the states look like? Vermont might be a nice place to live, but I am not sure so many of us could fit there.

    I agree liberals and the working class need to find a way to build a stable coalition, but again I don't see how Paul's plan helps, except as something to rally against. The biggest obstacle to building counter-institutions is the One Dollar, One Vote nature of the American economy and political system. Paul's unwavering defense of "property rights" reinforces and amplifies One Dollar, One Vote not the opposite. Just listen to Paul in this from 1998. He toned it down a little for a speech to the JBS last year.

• Muslims ban Christmas and rape white women, in latest Latma satire
  • Bruce January 2, 2012 at 11:42 am with 2 replies

    @Cliff

    Krauss disappeared for some reason.

    I doubt you will see them posted.

  • Bruce December 31, 2011 at 1:01 am

    Krauss, I read Norwegian.

    Your Aftenposten link presents no facts about so-called "muslim rapes" in Norway. In fact, the article doesn't even discuss mugging rapes, or what you call assault-rapes at all (some people consider all rapes an assault), but rather party rape, which mostly involves young Norwegians.

    The NRK link includes an interview with Hanne Kristin Rohde from the Oslo Police Department. She discusses some of your above statistics. The segment on mugging rape and foreigners is not that long, since Rohde spends most of the interview also discussing date rape. Why don't you transcribe the relevant part of the interview and let the readers here decide for themselves what your evidence says about the situation in Oslo?

    Believe me I am not talking out of my a** on this subject.

• Mamas, dont let your boychicks grow up to be pundits
  • Bruce November 27, 2010 at 2:57 pm with 1 replies

    Dan,

    So many misconceptions.

    As to your first question, Phil can speak for himself, but I am relatively certain that if you had sent him an email with the same posting as I did, he would have posted it. That's how many, no matter their ethnic origin, started writing for Mondoweiss.

    As for censorship on the site, do you read the comments (your own, for example)? Are you saying the site lack's "objective" or even "subjective" observations about Jews in the postings and comments?

    That my posting "is nothing more than rubbing an incredibly self righteous sense of entitlement in the "the dear gentiles" faces" says a great deal more about you than me. What is the honor in serving as a "media whore" and sucking up to power as the "Hack Thirty" list clearly implies? All that hard work at "careerism" to end up being one of the country's leading Hacks? Who wants to be entitled to that? Certainly not Phil nor me. Since you didn't get it, ironically pointing out that gentiles were falling behind in hacking for the elite, is actually something gentiles should be proud of.

    My post wasn't an inside joke among Jews. It was an inside joke among Mondoweiss readers? Do you think most Jews would find the posting funny? If yes, you obviously don't know many.

    Just to set you straight, Jews don't learn "how to be less than honest, conniving and money hungry in late afternoon hebrew school." We learn that in public or private schools and from American culture. In hebrew school, we learn how to be bored out of our minds while our friends are busy playing sports or having fun. It is good training for a "careerist" path through America's elite Universities on to a job in the professions serving the people that do matter.

    And while you ponder what generalization my posting made about Jews, and whether or not you have a "deep seeded hatred for Jews," maybe you should spend a few minutes examining all the other "careerist" minorities and ethnics that have recently attained status in the U.S. Establishment - the Barach Obamas, the Eric Holders, the Robert Johnsons, the Condoleeza Rices, the Colin Powells, the Clarence Thomases, the Fareed Zakarias, the Samuel Alitos, the Angelo Mozilos, the Maureen Dowds. Or my favorite WASP example, David Gergen. Are they any different than the Jews?

• Katrina to Birthright to Gaza--a young Jew's progress
  • Bruce March 20, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    LeaNder,

    After reading your comment I went back and read the comment threads from Ahmadinejad and some others from that time to refresh my memory, and although there were some rough exchanges at times, there was a discussion. At least for me, there seems much less of that today. The personal abuse, one-line attacks and piling on have increased greatly, while the challenging back and forth has decreased. Even if people vehemently disagreed with you back then, it was rare that a long follow-up explanation was just dismissed as nonsense. (Witty excepted.) And I didn't notice a few people so dominating the threads, as happens now.

    I also see less voices like yourself commenting.

    Maybe it is just my perception and maybe the comment section will self-correct, but at the moment I find it a regression and I believe it harms the sites ability to influence new people.

  • Bruce March 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Thanks for putting in your 2 cents. You made my point much better than me.

  • Bruce March 20, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Glad you cleared that up. Sabrosky came up a week ago, and I was shocked to see the name again. I tried to close out this thread, but it won't die. Danaa was the latest to address me on it.

  • Bruce March 20, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Danaa,

    I could care less about Keith's anger. It is his historiography and social theories which I oppose. I find them wrong and dangerous, and they emanate from the same muddy thinking under which Palestinians and Arabs are continually attacked in our own media and society. So I beg to differ. I think the issue is important for everybody.

    And I find the sociology in your first paragraph very poor social science, even if I don't dispute a number of the pronouncements that follow.

  • Bruce March 20, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Yes, Danaa, under no circumstances do not ignore listening to the interview as Dr. Alan Sabrosky reports with 100% certainty that 911 was a Mossad operation, ultimately leading to the deaths of 60,000 Americans. And that the United States and Israel will definitely be going to war and America will obliterate Israel.

    Should I do a posting on this momentous news that all of our intelligence agencies have either missed or covered-up? Where is that evidence again?

    And don't miss Alan's plug for Phil Weiss and this site, at least on the version I heard.

    What else do you, MRW and Citizen want us to know?

  • Bruce March 19, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    What are you whimpering about?

    It was a public Blogger blog for bloody sakes. I didn't rifle your private diary or anything. If you didn't want people to see it, then you should have restricted access. It was up for months.

    I forgot to mention that the post came from your blog not a Mondoweiss comment, as I did in the first posting. I stand corrected, although your handle was at the bottom and I did say it was a post. I doubt anyone was that confused.

    Are you planning to answer Colin's questions?

  • Bruce March 19, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Who wants to silence you, Keith?

    Here is another one of your posts that I am helping you get out to the world (emphasis mine):

    ZIONazis

    How long before we recognize the obvious? How long before we throw caution to the wind and simply tell it like it is? How long before we cease to shrink from naming the Israel uber alles crowd for what they are? Hasn’t the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (with US help) gone on too long? Hasn’t Israel’s ongoing, recurring warfare against the surrounding Arab countries (with US help) gone on too long? Isn’t it obvious that the Zionist (American and Israeli) plans to remake the Middle East through warfare will eventually lead to the use of nuclear weapons and possible nuclear annihilation? Isn’t it clear that fundamentalist Zionism has become so extreme that the only obvious comparison is with Nazi extremists? ZIONazis!

It should be noted from the start that without the Nazi Holocaust it is doubtful that Israel would even exist. Perhaps that is why the Zionists as a group more than any other Jews cooperated with the Nazis, as they had with other powerful anti-Semites in their single-minded quest to establish the state of Israel. Dr Rudolph Kastner was a notorious Zionist who helped the Nazis exterminate thousands of Hungarian Jews in order to gain the release of 600 Zionists. Various rescue attempts and immigration plans for settling Jews in the US, Canada, England, Australia and South America were opposed by the Zionists because it was thought it would undermine Zionism. Zionist Jewish Agency Chairman Yitzhak Greenbaum once quipped that “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland.” Yet, in spite of all this, the Zionists have been able to exploit the Holocaust to achieve their nationalistic objectives and to deflect criticism of the ethnic cleansing, mass-murder, terrorism and other human rights abuses of the racist state of Israel.

What cannot be emphasized strongly enough is the degree to which Zionism is on a downward spiral of increasing extremism. This would be bad enough in a country which is a nuclear-armed aggressor in that vitally important “cauldron of animosities” that is the Middle East. But, worse yet, this virulent, racist strain of Manichean irrationality has infected the upper echelons of the Empire. Forget about global warming, nuclear winter is the likely consequence of the actions of men who have abandoned the rational thinking of imperial sociopaths in favor of ideologically induced insanity. These nut-cases couldn’t accurately perceive reality if their lives depended on it. Given their way, they will kill us all pursuing their delusions. ZIONazis!

    posted by Seattle Keith | 5:17 PM

  • Bruce March 19, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Last weekend I spent a great deal of time responding to all of the comments, including yours. I provided arguments from AmericanHeritage, Al-bushra and David McBride to counter Keith's assertions. None of you responded to these quotes except Shingo, who made up an answer and then provided more quotes from Schoenman with no analysis. Keith then offered a quote from Lilienthal, which also said nothing.

    You then complained that I said there was a ban on immigration in the US, and I readily accepted your complaint, and revised my assertion to a ban on increasing immigration quotas. Whether this was a major lie, as Keith claims, I leave to other readers.

    Last week you recommended I read Brenner, which I did. I have already given my verdict in a comment from that thread. I have to thank you, as reading Brenner showed Shingo was faking it and Shoenman was malicious with his quotes.

    When I wrote up the errors of Keith, Shingo and Schoenman, you all just dropped the subject. Nobody was quoting Schoenman further, but Chaos came up with one of his sci-fi fantasies envisioning what my views on Goldstone are.

    You then went on to give your interpretation of American Immigration policy in the Twenties and Thirties, and I responded where I disagreed.

    Now you want me to read further. At the moment, I am away from home so I cannot consult Segev who you mention and Pape, among others that I have. When I get the chance, I will look at these. But I have spent too much time on this discussion, and want to move on. I'm comfortable with Mondoweiss readers drawing their own conclusions from the discussion so far, or they can continue the debate about Zionists and US immigration policies in the Thirties with you and others. I can live with either.

  • Bruce March 19, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Actually mooser was responding to this comment from Keith:

    "I am very pleased that Phil continues to highlight the significance of Jewish kinship networks in contributing to Jewish success. The disproportionate representation of Jews in positions of wealth and power is a significant aspect of the political economy that some sort of understanding of the phenomenon needs to occur.

    No doubt there are multiple factors involved, however, if we abandon the racial determinist analysis that Jews are genetically more intelligent than Gentiles, what environmental factors might offer insight. I think the kinship network is a significant factor. This raises the interesting question as to why this kinship group exists. Why do people with somewhat different religious beliefs (Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reformed Jews, secular Jews), and different ethnic/racial backgrounds (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc.) share psychological kinship with their fellow self-defined Jews?

    To pursue this further, to what extent has Zionism replaced Judaism as the ideological unifier of the Jews? To what extent has perceived anti-Semitism contributed to this kinship of perceived mutual defense? How has the Holocaust contributed to Jewish feelings of Jewish kinship? Finally, to what extent has support for Israel been the organizational unifier of the Jews?
    Summing up, to what extent has Zionism and support for Israel contributed to Jewish kinship and organizational effectiveness, and to what extent has this contributed to Jewish “success” in general, and to Jewish elite power-seeking success in particular? It seems to me that to talk about Israel/Palestine without discussing Zionism and its impact on both Israeli and diaspora Jews is remiss. This is a significant factor, not adequately discussed, and I welcome feedback."

    I am done with this exchange for now. Take it up with mooser.

  • Bruce March 19, 2010 at 3:51 am

    I will leave the final words to you and Mooser.

    PERVERSE TRIANGLE from Keith's NO EMPIRE Blog:

    As Israel’s ethnic cleansing (and potential genocide) of the native Palestinians continues, there has been a recent focus on the Jewish lobby and its power to influence American foreign policy. While providing helpful publicity to Jewish/Zionist influence on U.S. governmental decision making, these descriptions of the Jewish lobby’s influence tend to be overly simplistic and to incorrectly describe the relationship between the lobby and Israel, which is usually described as the lobby taking its marching orders from Israel. In my view, the reality is a sort of perverse triangle in which American elites (including Jews), American Jewish Zionists (organized American Jewry), and Israeli Jewish elites cooperate and compete, each trying to exploit the others to obtain power-seeking advantage. In other words, the American Jewish power-elite exert considerable influence on the Jewish state, and support Israel to the extent that they perceive that it benefits them.

    Zionism represents a return to traditional Jewish service to elite power, an attempt to replace Jewish religious ideology with blood and soil nationalism, and a means by which the Jewish power-elite reign in Jewish socialist/Marxist aspirations. The Jewish service to elite power needs to be qualified insofar as capitalism has permitted Jews to become a significant component of the power-elite, wildly out of proportion to their population base. In days of old, the diaspora Jewish elite prospered by serving the gentile monarch and nobility, but could never hope to rule directly as long as they remained Jews. Nowadays, he who has the gold rules, and Jewish financial power has resulted in the Jews becoming a significant part of the capitalist nobility. This financial success has been significantly aided by Jewish organization and activism inspired and guided by Zionist ideology. Make no mistake, without the aggressive ideological and organizational solidarity centered on Zionism, it is unlikely that the Jewish elites would be nearly as successful as they are in relation to the gentile majority.

    A key to understanding Zionism’s significance is to be aware of the significant changes that occurred to Jewish identity during the last two hundred years. According to Israel Shahak, from about 800 AD until 1800 AD, Jews were bound by a common religion (classical Judaism), organized into reasonably autonomous communities, administered by Rabbis who had considerable authority over the Jews in their area. It was a tightly knit group that usually functioned as a de facto middle class which provided loyal service to the Gentile nobility in ruling the Gentile peasants. During this period, Jews were identified as followers of the Judaic religion.

    Beginning about two hundred years ago, Gentile monarchs began to restrict the power of the Rabbis to engage in coercive discipline against the Jews in the community. This, in turn, led to a breakdown of Jewish exclusivity and in-group solidarity. Only the Orthodox Jews reflect classical Judaism. Conservative Jews, Reformed Jews, and secular Jews have all broken the bonds of Jewish religious solidarity to varying degrees. The breakdown of Jewish exclusivity both facilitated the assimilation of most Jews into Western society and weakened the organized power of world Jewry. The bonds of solidarity between the secular and Reformed Jews and the Orthodox Jews became tenuous. So to, the power of the Rabbis to command obedience from the reformed and secular flock. In essence, Jewish religion had lost its viability as a common ideological bond uniting the worlds Jews.

    About 150 years ago, central and eastern Europe underwent a wave of nationalism. Unlike Western Europe which ideologically conceived of a nation of its citizens, central and eastern Europe tended to unite along racial and ethnic lines. Germany was described as a nation of the German people, etc. This “blood and soil” nationalism tended to identify the nation as belonging to the dominant ethnic group, and to treat other ethnic groups as foreign residents. It was during this period that the Jews (particularly in eastern Europe) tended to lose their religious identification and acquire a racial/ethnic identification. This change in perception was true for Gentiles and Jews alike. It was during this period that the concept of a racially derived “Jewish people” was born. In fact, the writings of some of the early eastern European Zionists concerning the unalterable uniqueness of the “Jewish race” are quite similar to the racial arguments of the anti-Semites, including the Nazis. Further, there was considerable cooperation between the Zionists and the anti-Semite Gentile elites as the Zionists attempted to garner support for creating a Jewish state for the Jewish “race.”

    The rise of blood and soil nationalism in central and eastern Europe posed a threat to the Jews living there. At the most basic level, the emphasis on racial purity (as defined by the racists) would mean that the Jews would at best be consigned to the status of foreign residents in an alien land. Additionally, there was a certain residual resentment among the Gentile masses concerning the perceived Jewish complicity in royal tyranny. Finally, there was the strong identification of Jewish involvement in the international Socialist and Marxist movements which were ideologically internationalist, therefore, viewed by the nationalists as traitorous.

    Whereas the Jewish Marxists sought to overthrow the existing social order in favor of a worker supported dictatorship, the Jewish Zionists worked to create a Jewish version of blood and soil nationalism via the creation of a Jewish state. At the least, this would tend to ameliorate the anti-Marxist basis of anti-Semitism (for the Zionists at least), and would provide a unifying secular ideology to organizationally unite the Jews. Additionally, this Jewish state would be the Jew among nations. That is, the Jewish state would relate to other nations as the traditional diaspora Jewish communities related to the surrounding Gentile communities in which they were located. In effect, the Zionists always conceived of Israel as serving the interests of the western Imperial powers at the expense of the local Arab population. An “outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism,” as Herzl phrased it to the Ottoman Sultan. It was recognized that western Imperial support was necessary to create and maintain a Jewish state in Palestine.

    As the majority of the world’s Jews abandoned the fundamentalist discipline of classical Judaism for a less rigid expression of religion, the religious aspect of Judaism no longer was capable of uniting the various groupings into a unified whole. Zionism has come to replace Judaism as the overarching unifier of the Jewish people. In this regard, Zionism may be thought of as a form of secular religion with Israel functioning as a god-head surrogate. The secular devil is anti-Semitism which is depicted as an innate, irrational never-ending hatred of Jews. The Holocaust is Hell. One consequence of this is to cause many (most?) Jews, and certainly almost all Jewish Zionists to dismiss criticism of Jewish/Israeli behavior out of hand as anti-Semitism.

    Two essential points worth noting: 1) Zionism and support for Israel are the modern secular equivalent of classical Judaism insofar as they unite world Jewry in an organized manner. This organizational power facilitates American Jewish elite power seeking vis-à-vis the less organized American Gentile elite. 2) Perceived threats to Israel’s security are seen by many (most?) Jews as threats against Jews in general, hence, there is increased internal Jewish group solidarity during times of middle-east conflict involving Israel. In other words, perceived threats to Israel reinforce Jewish identity amongst most Jews, and provide the motivation to keep them organized and active. Peace and justice in the middle-east would significantly reduce the perceived threat to Israel and shared sense of group victim-hood which unites the Jews, hence, peace is perceived by the Jewish elites as a threat to their power. Because of this, most American Jewish elites support Israeli militarism and oppose compromise and peace.

    The role of American Jewish Zionist elites in influencing both U.S. and Israeli policies is of critical importance. It is important to understand that a just and peaceful resolution of the middle-east conflict, in which Israel is no longer engaged in never-ending war with the Arabs, would deflate the emotional appeal of the myth of a never-ending threat to world Jewry at the hand of the Gentiles. While this would likely prove beneficial to most Jews, Zionism as an organizing ideology would suffer greatly. As a consequence, the Zionist Jewish elites would lose much of their organizational advantage vis-à-vis the Gentile elites. It is for this reason that the Zionist elites need ongoing conflict and war between Israel and the Arabs to create the myth of Israeli/Jewish victim-hood, the emotionally potent irrational fear which binds together world Jewry in psychologically defensive solidarity. It is for this reason that the American Jewish Zionist elites tend to support the more aggressive, right-wing elements in Israel, and to strongly oppose any Israeli compromise with the Arabs over Eretz Yisrael.

    A few additional comments are in order. First, Zionism is a fundamentalist ideology with characteristics similar to various other fundamentalist ideologies/religions. It is as pointless to argue rationally with a Zionist as to argue rationally with a Christian fundamentalist, a Moslem fundamentalist, a diehard Nazi, or a diehard Marxist. A true Zionist has a rigid, emotional commitment to Zionism highly resistant to change. Secondly, exploiting this fundamentalist commitment, the Zionists have achieved an extraordinarily effective level of organization, both in the U.S. and worldwide. This organization and emotional commitment enable the Zionists to raise funds and direct Zionist activity in an awesome manner. This enables the organized, affluent Zionist minority to exert considerable control over the non-Zionist majority.

    An amazing thing is the extent to which Jewish Zionist power-seeking is largely invisible to most people. After about 200 years of Gentile pressure on the Jews to assimilate into the wider society, American Jews have overwhelmingly abandoned their distinctive dress and appearance (except for some Orthodox Jews), and are more-or-less visually indistinguishable from non-Jewish Americans. The result is that most Gentiles cannot readily identify who is a Jew, which would be fine if almost all Jews were simply individuals who happen to be Jewish. Alas, that is not the case. As Rabbi Stephan Weiss put it: “I am not an American citizen of Jewish faith. I am a Jew.” The reality is that many Jews, particularly organized Jews, and most certainly Zionist Jews, are ideologically bound together in solidarity, bias, and certain focused goals, including mutual power-seeking. Yet, to the casual observer, this significant social kinship of organized Jews is not obvious. How many people are aware that President Clinton’s middle-east peace envoys (Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, etc) are Jewish and reflect a strong pro-Israel bias?

    Most Gentiles are unaware of the wildly disproportionate number of Jews that are in key positions in government. Or in the Federal Reserve. Or are key players on Wall Street or in the media. Or that about half of all U.S. billionaires are Jews (who comprise less than 3% of the population). Now if you say this to a general audience, you are labeled an anti-Semite. On the other hand, Jews in general, and organized Jews in particular, are much more aware than Gentiles of who is a Jew and who isn’t. The consequence is that the Jewish elite form a sort of (more-or-less) invisible kinship group that subtly discriminates in favor of their fellow Jews and against Gentiles. United by an ideology that states that Gentiles are irrational Jew haters, and that there is safety amongst your fellow Jews, how could it be otherwise?

    A critically important point is that the wildly disproportionate success of the American Jewish elite is in no small measure a consequence of the bonds of solidarity and kinship among the Jews. This, in turn, is made possible by the emotional impact on Jews of the Nazi Holocaust (continually misrepresented to minimize non-Jewish victims), and by the organizing dynamic of Zionism. It seems to me quite likely that without the Holocaust (which the Zionists aided and abetted), Zionism would not have been successful, Israel would not have been created as a Jewish state, and American Jewry would not have been united by Zionist ideology. Furthermore, the Holocaust provided the powerful motivating force of primal fear which the Zionists were able to exploit, as well as appearing to validate the myth of eternal persecution which underlies this irrational ideology of eternal victim-hood. This is why Jewish dominated Hollywood continues to churn out an endless stream of Holocaust movies (while ignoring the “holocaust” of the Black slaves and the genocide of the American Indians), and why Arab resistance to U.S./Israeli aggression is depicted as anti-Semitic Arabs who want to drive the Jews into the sea.

    Of course, the problem of Israeli militarism is not just a consequence of Jewish/Zionist/Israeli elite power-seeking. Israel has functioned, and continues to function, as a U.S. strategic asset. Israel can be thought of as America’s “French Foreign Legion” of the middle-east. Not completely reliable or trustworthy, but immensely valuable nonetheless. Israel provides significant support for America’s corrupt vassal states, and its ongoing subversion and wars of aggression against its Arab neighbors tend to weaken and divide the Arabs, providing a sort of violent and chaotic stability which facilitates U.S. imperial control. It is quite possible that without Israel, many of the Arab governments would have been overthrown long ago and replaced with secular nationalist regimes, a prospect which both the U.S. and Israel dread, and which they have successfully worked to prevent. Much has been made of the high cost of U.S. “aid” to Israel which totals billions of dollars per annum. An alternative view, however, is that the U.S. has acquired the valuable services of a highly effective mercenary force on the cheap, without the political consequences of direct U.S. involvement.

    Additionally, Israel provides various unsavory services for the American Empire which the U.S. wishes to avoid undertaking. From training the Shah of Iran’s notorious secret police, to providing weapons and training to Central American death squads, to testing new American weapons on live Arabs, Israel has supported some of the worst mass-murderers in the world. Furthermore, through the use of local Jewish sayanim (helpers), the Israeli Mossad is able to provide valuable covert services for the American CIA. Finally, both the official Jewish lobby and the rest of the Zionist network can be used to influence Congress, the media, NGO’s, and other governments in support of administration policies. This last point is of critical importance. U.S. support for Israel is inseparable from U.S. Imperial ambitions. Likewise, Israel’s territorial ambitions require that the U.S. remain a militaristic empire. The Zionist network provides essential support for both Israeli militarism and U.S. Imperialism.

    What all of this means is that the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, are likely to undergo continued U.S./Israeli violence and injustice for the foreseeable future. U.S. geostrategy seems focused on military control of the planet’s hydrocarbon energy reserves. This will likely entail continued, ongoing warfare and intimidation against independent Arab nations. And while the Palestinians would not appear to be a significant concern of U.S. geostrategy, they are significant in regards Zionist ideology. The Israeli Zionists need to continue making war on their neighbors and the Palestinians to maintain Israeli Jewish solidarity in their increasingly right-wing, militaristic, Gentile-phobic society. American Jewish Zionists also want to see Israel at war with its neighbors so that this can be misrepresented as an existential threat to the survival of the Jewish nation, and by extension Jews everywhere. This provides the motivational energy which powers Zionist organization and Jewish solidarity which is the primary reason for the American Jewish elites power-seeking success.

    In other words, the prospects for peace and justice in the middle-east are bleak to non-existent as long as the American elites (including significant Jews), the American Zionist elites, and the Israeli Zionist elites continue to strongly oppose peace and justice. It should be further noted that history demonstrates conclusively that power-seeking elites are not constrained by considerations of elementary decency and morality. How else to explain the frequent episodes of mass-murder down through history, of which the Nazi Holocaust is but one?

    Mooser March 15, 2010 at 11:06 am
    “and I welcome feedback.”

    And I can give you all the feedback you should need in one sentence, chump: Jews are no worse than anybody else.
When you can show me that other religious associations have spurned the temptations of temporal power, money and status, and have used their religious associations entirely for good, I’ll be ready to worry about the Jews.
All you are telling me is that Jews act like other people. I already knew that.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    Leander,

    I always thought you and Shafiq would be excellent moderators for the comments section.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Keith, that's a nice narrative, but let's discuss what really happened.

    First, where did I suggest that Phil should ban you from the web site?

    The first exchange started when you wrote, "I don’t have the time to dig through all of my books trying to locate numerous quotes to buttress my assertion that the Zionists did all in their power to encourage Jewish immigration away from the U.S. and Britain and toward Israel. Suffice to say that it is a common theme for those who write on the topic from a factual, rather than hasbara, perspective. However, because this is an important topic, I have located just a few quotes to give you a flavor of what transpired."

    You then offered three quotes, all discussing pre-1948. One was definitely attributed to Schoenmen, and it appears that the second was also. A third was an ambiguous quote from Kolko. I showed that one of the quotes from Schoenman was cut so that its meaning differed from the original source and then I gave counter-factuals to the second quote. I asked you about your books because you claimed they backed your assertion, and I showed that the quotes you gave did not. Shingo at least offered an apology. It is boring to have to repeat all this. But for whatever reasons, you decided not to provide more information to back your assertion. While I attacked your historical claims, you went on to question my motives - what you said must disagree with my ideology; I must not like you. By the way what is my ideology?

    It was you who claimed the topic was important. Not me. Had you not insisted it was important, I would not have taken it up. Now you claim I did not fare too well in that discussion. I am still waiting to hear of the first historian other than Schoenman, who is not a historian, that agrees with you. You think your friends on Mondoweiss are decisive in determining historical questions?

    Okay, now we have a list of other sources. Which ones agree with your historical claims, and can you give us some specific references to show that they do in fact agree with you? I have read some of these books myself, so I am interested.

    So let's jump to today's comment and assertions. I did not call you an anti-Semite or a well-meaning idiot. A lot of other people wanted to talk about this. I wanted to discuss your claims, which I deemed anti-Semitic. I asked some questions to indicate my reasons. Maybe you did not mean how I interpreted the comment. Okay, forget about me. Colin Murray went through your text and reached his own conclusions. He also asked a number of questions. But you don't feel the need to answer him either. Except now we have to ask what are Crypto Zionists? I read on Google Juan Cole was one.

    In your last paragraph you mention Phil discussing Jewish kinship or Jewish power. I don't have much disagreement with Phil about Jewish power, but after today's discussions and reading your comments on Jewish kinship I believe Phil is off the mark, and will be criticizing him if he posts along similar lines again. I don't see Jewish kinship or nepotism to be different from many other ethnic groups.

    To again reiterate, I have not suggested you be banned from the website and you haven't showed where I have. But I don't think your comments should get a free ride just because your friends think so. Mine never have. And I did say I was going to monitor comments more closely, as I thought too many were damaging the reputation of the site. I will leave the shaming to you.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    There are lots of ambiguous comments - or your gray area - I have not responded to these. I focused on a few that I considered unambiguous.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Donald,

    It is almost impossible to follow which comments are responding to which on this site. I believe #125 & #129 were in response to #105.

    I have no problem with your comments on the site.

    But some are calling for a double standard here to compensate for the double standard outside. I was trying to give a warning not to support that, not claiming you were doing that.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Donald,

    Obviously I wasn't clear.

    I agree that there is a double standard in society and the media. So criticize this and call it out, but don't legitimize as compensation a double standard on Mondoweiss that we will give real anti-Semitism a pass while coming down hard on the Zionists.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    The populist right has staying power nobody believed possible ten years ago.

    And it is coming to America. The two party system submerged its presence in the Republican base for a long time.

    They have the momentum at the moment.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Actually on the second comment when you started up about your online game experiences. What did that have to do with Morgan's story?

    "There was a lot of pressure on me to sit down and shut up,” and the few times anybody did voice anything, it was only in private to me."

    I bet there was. I bet not even all the Americans who asked you "to sit down and shut up" were Jewish.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Eva,

    I didn't reply to your question, "If I say that deprived Afro-American neighbourhoods show evidence of fraudulent use of unemployment benefits, does it have the same impact as me saying that affluent Jewish-American neighbourhoods show evidence of tribal nepotism in obtaining key posts in banking sector, media and politics?" as I wanted to think about it.

    I'm not sure what the impact of either is. If unemployment benefit fraud is no worse in African-American neighborhoods than in other neighborhoods, then I would say the statement has the wrong impact. If nepotism among Jewish-Americans is no different than any other ethnic group, then that statement also has the wrong impact.

    I tend to think that Phil is making too big a deal about tribal nepotism among Jews. Is it really different with any other group. My Italian-American friend just walked down to his old job a few months ago and got his just college graduated son a fantastic job while most of his friends remain unemployed. Another WASP friend just placed his son at the Huffington Post. And the Obamas sent their kids to Sidwell Friends, based on their grades? Are most of the jobs down in Little Havana allocated based on merit? Nepotism is as American as apple pie.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Well for me, in general anti-Semitism today has now been reduced to a subset of racism, and not the worst case either. As far as this site, we certainly should be worried about racism and call it out when we see it.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    One thing I learned today is that more comments are being deleted than I thought. So the problem may be more in readers not using the Report Abuse button sufficiently. I could easily reproduce a couple of hundred vulgar comments that are still standing.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    David,

    Donald believes I have been too harsh with you, and I concur. Most of the questions I directed to you really are for Keith, as it was his writings I was questioning.

  • Bruce March 18, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    LeaNder,

    I just haven't read anything about the Germans that were moved by the Nazis east to find Liebesrom, so I am not going to comment. I wouldn't doubt anything you say.

    On the West Bank settlers, I wouldn't hesitate to say that those who are physically confronting the Palestinians have been "mean and nasty," and I certainly think all are morally wrong for settling east of the Green Line. And the Palestinians have the right to physically defend themselves.

    But most of the settlers are in isolated blocs and are not carrying out the obscene behavior that we've seen in Hebron, for example. In fact, a number of the settlers I've met (granted a small sample) are personally pleasant. That doesn't make their ideology and politics any less lethal.

    I think Chaos' projection from his online gaming experience to a social psychology of the settlers is quite a stretch.

Showing comments 333 - 301
Page: 4 3 2 1