Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 254 (since 2009-09-27 00:46:02)

David Green

David Green (davegreen84@yahoo.com) lives in Urbana, IL.

Showing comments 254 - 201
Page:

  • 'Tear down this wall' Hillel tells... Israel? (No, University of Illinois)
  • Finkelstein 'not going to be an Israel-basher anymore' but remains 'appalled and disgusted'
    • David Green April 7, 2012 at 3:35 pm with 2 replies

      I agree with the gist of this article from Toensing & Plitnick:

      link to merip.org

      "The essential flaw in the Mearsheimer-Walt argument is not, as many critics have said, the authors’ exaggeration of the pro-Israel lobby’s power, for although the authors do this in some instances, the thrust of their argument remains sound. It is not even their inattention to the other factors that have historically defined the US interest in the Middle East for the bipartisan foreign policy establishment. Rather, the most serious fault lies in the professors’ conclusion—soothing in this day and age—that US Middle East policy would become “more temperate” were the influence of the Israel lobby to be curtailed. This conclusion is undercut by the remarkable continuities in US Middle East policy since the Truman administration, including in times when the pro-Israel lobby was weak. And other factors—chiefly the drive for hegemony in the Persian Gulf—have also embroiled the US in plenty of trouble."

      .............

      The Attack-Iraq Caucus

      The Bush administration’s real interest in 2001 was the Persian Gulf, specifically Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In their most explosive argument, Mearsheimer and Walt state that “the war [in Iraq] was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially the neo-conservatives within it.” They then follow the trail of statements from neo-conservatives advocating the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and tie this advocacy to devotion to Israel.

      Here they run into problems of direct evidence. It is easy to show the neo-conservatives’ affinity for Israel—actually, the Israeli right—but the professors have not made the case that this affinity was a “necessary, if not sufficient cause” of the 2003 invasion. Nor is it even clear that love for Israel motivated the pro-war impulses of the neo-conservatives themselves. For instance, the professors adduce the so-called “Clean Break Paper” of 1996, which was put together by a “study group” featuring key Bush administration hawks David Wurmser and Douglas Feith, and saw removing Saddam Hussein as a key Israeli goal, to bolster their theory. The central theme of this paper, however, is promoting Israel as a regional hegemon independent of the US. Far from encouraging US action in the service of Israeli interests, this paper was entirely rooted in the idea that Israel must quickly wean itself off US support and exert its proven ability to dominate the region militarily on its own. [14]

      Mearsheimer and Walt are not the first to point to the activities of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) as especially revelatory. The genealogy of PNAC’s ideas, however, suggests a much broader set of motivations than loyalty to Israel. PNAC made its debut in 1997 by issuing a statement of principles decrying drift in US foreign and defense policy and calling instead for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” The statement was signed by six hawkish politicians, most notably Cheney and Rumsfeld. Among the signatories who were soon to be household names were I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Paul Wolfowitz.[15]

      Next came two letters, one addressed to Bill Clinton and the second posted to the House and Senate majority leaders. The occasion for the PNAC letters was the pending failure of containment in ensuring that Iraq was not reconstituting its banned arsenal. In a speech in 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had made clear that regime change was containment’s real agenda, saying that the US would back sanctions “as long as it takes” to usher in “a successor regime” that would comply with UN resolutions. [16]

      PNAC’s concern was the fate of US Middle East policy goals, not the integrity of UN resolutions. “It hardly needs to be added,” they wrote to Clinton, “that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction…the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.” Unless Saddam’s regime was taken out, “We will have suffered an incalculable blow to American leadership and credibility; we will have sustained a significant defeat in our worldwide efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction…. This could well make Saddam the driving force of Middle East politics.” The hawks gathered by PNAC did not fear Iraq’s putative weapons; they feared the potential of an “uncontained” Iraq to disrupt US hegemony in the region.

      At one level, the PNAC letters did not diverge from previous articulations of US interests in the Middle East. A September 1978 Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum listed three strategic goals for the US in the region: “to assure continuous access to petroleum resources, to prevent an inimical power or combination of powers from establishing hegemony and to assure the survival of Israel as an independent state in a stable relationship with contiguous Arab states.” Kenneth Pollack, who ran Iraq policy at Clinton’s National Security Council and then authored a book-length case for invading Iraq in 2002, writes that these goals “have guided US policy ever since.” [17]

      But the PNAC letters about Iraq sprung from a deeper ideological well. The introduction to PNAC’s full-length report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, published in 2000, summarized the group’s agenda: “At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and expand this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.” PNAC recommended adding $15–20 billion in defense spending annually, “restoring” the size of the active-duty military to 1.6 million personnel and “selectively” modernizing military hardware. [18]

      Most of the PNAC members are staunchly and vocally pro-Israel. What unites the neo-conservatives with their traditional Cold Warrior confréres Cheney and Rumsfeld is not Israel, however, but a common set of ideas about US power. The convergence of interests first appeared in the aborted Defense Policy Guidance of 1992. This document is the Pentagon’s classified internal assessment, made every two years, of comprehensive military strategy. In 1992, the task fell to Paul Wolfowitz, who set about conceiving a justification for maintaining the military at something approaching Cold War strength. He delegated the actual writing of the Defense Policy Guidance to his top aide Libby, who in turn passed it off to his colleague Zalmay Khalilzad. What Khalilzad came up with stunned Washington when the draft was leaked to the press: The US was uniquely qualified to be the sole superpower, and to maintain that status, the US should actively block the rise of any possible rival. [19]

      Khalilzad was specific: “In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.” The White House swiftly disowned the document, but it found an appreciative reader in Dick Cheney. “You’ve discovered a new rationale for our role in the world,” Khalilzad recalls being told by his boss. [20] Rebuilding America’s Defenses cites the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance as its primary intellectual inspiration. [21] When the Cheney Defense Department was reunited in the administration of George W. Bush, much of this “inspiration” made its way into the 2002 National Security Strategy. Together with Washington’s long-standing interest in Persian Gulf oil, the genealogy of PNAC suggests that the decision to invade Iraq was determined by grand ambitions for US power—not a “desire to make Israel more secure,” as Mearsheimer and Walt assert.

      And from my own article of last year:

      As quoted on this website two years ago, Chomsky has stated: "As I've mentioned several times, if the thesis about lobby power were correct, it would be a great relief to me and others who have been actively engaged for years in trying organize popular pressure to lead to abandonment of US rejectionism. We could stop all of that, just go to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Intel, Microsoft, and others and explain to them that their interests are harmed by US support for Israel, so they should terminate their investments in Israel and use their political and economic clout to put the lobby out of business. Anyone with a little familiarity with American society and political economy knows that they could do that in their sleep. That in fact is the sole activist-related conclusion that follows from the thesis. But none of the believers do it. Why?"

      link to mondoweiss.net

  • The Israel/Palestine conflict will be resolved when Arab countries kick the U.S. out of the region
  • On the passing of Novick: the political limitations of 'The Holocaust in American Life'
    • David Green March 25, 2012 at 6:34 pm

      The manner in which the Holocaust was joined with Jewish and American identity had little to do with genuine introspection among Jewish-Americans, I would suggest. I wouldn't take "beyond the melting pot" too seriously either, except as part of the neoconservative reaction to the 60s (Moynihan, Glazer). The outsized and maudlin and manipulative manner in which the Holocaust entered mainstream American discourse has everything to do with Israel and the "special relationship," as well as broader aspects of USFP. And again, it had to do with a reaction to what was perceived as "Jewish radicalism" in the 60s, including conflict with "Black Power." People like Todd Gitlin and Michael Walzer are illustrative.

    • David Green March 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm with 3 replies

      I wrote it around 2001. It was not published. I made a few minor changes and, obviously, added a preface.

  • Responding to commenters on recent bannings
    • David Green March 7, 2012 at 11:39 am

      Annie, what I mean is that USFP would pursue the same strategic interests, but in different ways. Such as, elites pursue the same strategic interests regarding China, although the context has obviously changed from 40 years ago. Without the Lobby and Israel, the U.S. would be pursuing the same strategic interests in relation to control of oil in the ME, vis a vis China, Russia, etc.

      This is to say that the power of the Lobby, as active and formidable as it is, do not fundamentally explain USFP.

      Beyond that, Annie, the mentality that you bring to MW, whether popular or not, is one of adolescent conformity to prevailing opinion. You foster a condescending in-group mentality regarding Lobby doctrine, and obviously have plenty of supporters. I think that your ideas and efforts--and those whose comments border on anti-semitism, as does steivieb's, undermine the movement for Palestinian rights.

      I have always been deeply repelled by the approach that you take to this website, which in my view is largely thoughtless, careless, and self-absorbed. You initiated insults at me from the beginning, which confirmed my views of both your style and substance, which are vacuous.

    • David Green March 7, 2012 at 10:10 am

      Mooser, you have the persona of a clever fellow. Certainly you can see the difference between somebody supporting banning, and someone supporting that banning be enforced consistently. I don't support banning. It leads to arbitrariness, subjectivity, and hypocrisy. I think Mondoweiss already has enough of all those things.

    • David Green March 7, 2012 at 10:07 am

      stevieb: "Zionism’s main, deviant characteristics have enabled the others to follow the same deviant immoral path.”

      I don't care who made this statement, Jew or Gentile. And I don't support the notion of banning. In light of people being banned, however, I question the consistency of not banning someone who makes a trash statement like this.

      Again, Keith, what is your reaction to this "analysis"?

      Zionism has contributed greatly to imperialism in the ME, obviously. It's influence has been perverse in Jewish-American culture, and in American political culture. However, there's isn't a shred of evidence that USFP would be significantly different without it. That seems to be the assumption at Mondoweiss, and I think it's misguided. That's why I think that Medea Benjamin's 10 points from last week are also, by and large, misguided. No, AIPAC isn't responsible for world hunger.

    • David Green March 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm with 12 replies

      Keith, do you think that

      “Zionism, Corporate/Financial, MIC – the trifecta of ‘evil’, if you will. But for me, the first one enables the others. Zionism’s main, deviant characteristics have enabled the others to follow the same deviant immoral path."

      is an accurate depiction of the roots of USFP?

      And it it's not accurate, how might one explain the motivation for what is probably not a careless assessment of the roots of USFP?

      Also, for the record, I don't advocate anyone being banned from Mondoweiss for any reason. Ever.

    • David Green March 4, 2012 at 12:29 pm with 21 replies

      Stevieb: "Zionism, Corporate/Financial, MIC – the trifecta of ‘evil’, if you will. But for me, the first one enables the others. Zionism’s main, deviant characteristics have enabled the others to follow the same deviant immoral path. Accepting Zionism as being American as apple pie has had extreme influence on American foreign policy, and not only in the ME. Israel’s sphere of influence and control also flows well outside of the ME."

      If that anti-semitic statement doesn't get this person banned from Mondoweiss, then nobody should be banned--nobody. Not Blankfort, not Witty. Seriously. There should be no moderation whatsoever--none. This is plain anti-semitic trash. It has no place. Or, everyone has a place. Everyone. Bring back JB and RW. Beyond the anti-semitism, it's the hypocrisy, as blatant as it can possibly be. If Zionists are responsible for all of this, why not the Holocaust?

  • Ten reasons why AIPAC is so dangerous
    • David Green March 4, 2012 at 3:00 pm

      Annie, your manner of dialogue is to tell people to read stuff, and refuse to take them seriously if they don't. Nothing about this debate requires anybody to do your homework assignment. The fact that the U.S. projects its power in the world is a truism.

      You're arguing that Ledeen is responsible for the MIC on steroids. That's not the basis for a serious argument of any kind. You don't have a serious argument. Neither does Benjamin. The movement needs one. Otherwise it's just a flurry of activity.

      Annie, do you think that Obama is less of a warmonger than Bush? Do you? You didn't respond to my question. You don't even have to do any reading to respond. So what do you think? Is he? Is he? Is he?

      I think he is. No doubt about it. Not a neocon, but a warmonger, and a child murderer. Get it?

    • David Green March 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm

      "what exactly is it about my initial comment that motivated you to engage me and where are you going with this?"

      You said it was a great list. I think it's a pretty ridiculous list. I oppose AIPAC, because it's part of the complex of forces that determines that the U.S. should rule the world. But the U.S. would still try to rule the world without AIPAC. It tries to do so in all the places that AIPAC doesn't focus its energies.

      My point is that the U.S. doesn't support democracy in the Arab world. My point is that without AIPAC, it still wouldn't. Medea Benjamin seems to imply that things would be different. You seem to agree. I don't. I think it's pretty obvious where I'm going with this. I think Benjamin has said about 8 out of 10 things that overrate the power of the Lobby, which actually isn't largely responsible for global poverty.

      I think she and you would make a more convincing case if you stuck to what AIPAC actually does, instead of ascribing to it the source of all evil.

      You say we wouldn't be on steroids and in a neocon way. Does that mean we would have diminished military capabilities? I think a statement like that needs some support. You don't offer any. Obama is just as much of a warmonger as a standard neocon. Do you get that? It's important.

    • David Green March 4, 2012 at 11:00 am

      So the U.S. isn't in the habit of supporting democracy. But things would be different if not for AIPAC. Then would we support democracy?

    • David Green March 4, 2012 at 10:17 am

      So you support U.S. imperialism?

    • David Green March 4, 2012 at 10:16 am with 9 replies

      Annie, do you believe the U.S. would otherwise be supporting democracy in the Arab world?

    • David Green March 4, 2012 at 10:14 am

      In spite of the qualifying last sentence, this is a blatantly anti-semitic pronouncment. Has to be said.

  • Dershowitz wants MJ Rosenberg fired for daring to stop Iran war push
    • David Green March 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      Keith, it seems to me that Freeman's sanitization of U.S. imperialism isn't that different from the assumptions that underly about 8 out of 10 of Medea Benjamin's much-lauded points from the other day. A fantasy of American goodness and purity, allegedly undermined by AIPAC. God love her, but why the need to be such a suck-up?

  • Video: Protesters are attacked at an 'Israel Alliance' event at U of New Mexico
    • David Green February 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm

      "You have a Lobby that has taken over the US foreign policy – almost in its entirety. As annie said once (or twice) before, it is no longer possible to separate empire foreign policy from Lobby because the Lobby has embedded its people in every branch and at every level of the state department, the NSA, homeland security and, of course, congress."

      This is conspiratorial thinking that doesn't help us to understand how USFP works. For the 10,000th time. And I'm not being personal.

    • David Green February 26, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      "i’m just trying to figure out if you are pulling rank. "

      Yes, this isn't the first time that you're trying to figure out something about me at a personal level, that has nothing to do with the substantive issue at hand. You should stop trying to figure such things out, because it's beside the point.

    • David Green February 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm

      @Cliff

      How about, for the sake of making some progress on the Palestinian issue, you stop making this a personal issue. Certainly, I could go back and collect the quotes in which Blankfort, Robbins, and others INITIATED very personal and insulting comments and questioned my motives regarding "damage control" for Zionists, my very identity, etc. I won't bother. But you simply can't claim to be objective if you haven't noticed the litmus test aspect of discourse on MW. This movement, if you call it that, needs tactics and strategy. It doesn't need a doctrine. "Israel firsters" and other labels are part of a doctrine.

      Let's follow closely what the consequences of the NM intervention will be. Let's see if it generates support and solidarity at UNM, or not. I hope that it will. But let's be honest if it doesn't. I have no doubt that the violence in these cases is initiated by Zionists. I'm not saying the mic check was a crime. But let's take a look back during the spring, let's hear some reporting from UNM on further actions, and let's see the progress that active support for the Palestinians is making there. This was a disruption, this was a tactic. It provoked violence. The responsibility for the violence is on those who committed it. But let's keep our eye on the process and its consequences. Let's have a movement, not a war.

      And stop casting aspersions on those who, I suspect, have been much more active and taken many more risks in the movement than you have.

    • David Green February 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      I've never advocated "dialogue" with Zionist groups. Never. You just make that up to fit your stereotype of people you oppose.

    • David Green February 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm with 4 replies

      Does the fact that somebody becomes enraged make the argument one way or another? I've become enraged at Zionist events several times. That doesn't in and of itself discredit or support my case.

      There are free speech issues here. They are not always paramount or determinative. They may not be relevant in some instances. But they are there, especially in an educational environment. And once again, what's good for the goose will be good for the gander. Does BDS, etc., want to go this route?

      There's serious pressure for thoughtless conformity on Mondoweiss, and all of the usual suspects above have had their say. I find it somewhat repellant, somewhat discouraging. There are those who in their self-righteousness and litmus tests make for a smaller tent, unnecessarily so.

      This is an issue that won't go away in the Palestinian movement and on Mondoweiss, whatever my involvement. Don't think that there aren't plenty of people who agree with me, however visible or invisible they may be.

    • David Green February 25, 2012 at 12:31 pm

      "Furthermore, Green pretty much makes an argument one could use against non-violent protest of settlers and the occupation generally: if you protest, they will react violently, so help save them from themselves "

      I don't accept the analogy. If you want to have a decent analogy, then sit in in administrators' offices who support connections with the apartheid state. Take risks that are at least in the same ballpark as Palestinians who put their bodies on the line.

    • David Green February 25, 2012 at 10:47 am with 10 replies

      "David Green should substantiate his lazy false dichotomy/equivocation."

      I'm obviously not defending these groups. At this point, the pro-Palestinian groups are free to organize and act in various ways. I'm not a big fan of the construct of "hate speech" (because it's been exploited by the Zionists, for one), but it should be noted that what is being practiced is a form of hate speech. Without violating free speech, efforts should be made by pro-justice students and others to broaden the notion of hate speech to include people like Darwish. It should especially be done with people like Daniel Pipes, and it has been done in the past where I live.

      My view is that events that end up in melees tend not to further the cause, whoever can be blamed.

    • David Green February 25, 2012 at 10:24 am

      Yes Cliff, you know me through and through. I don't believe there's a lobby.

      A fellow named Khalid Abu Toameh spoke at a dorm near where I live in 2009. He did a horrible presentation, and was challenged by members of the audience, including me. In fact, I lost it a little bit at the end, and called him an "idiot." But it wasn't disruptive at that point.

      But most of the audience wasn't inclined to give him much credibility. They came out of the curiosity of a Palestinian journalist supporting Israel. There was no reason whatsoever to be disruptive.

      There might be a reason to be disruptive--for example, if only Zionist speakers are invited. In fact, at the Israel Studies Project a the University of Illinois, only Zionist speakers have ever been invited. One of them, Yossi Klein Halevi, I was quite rude to in 2005. They are now under new management, and the conflict-averse director will not invite overt propagandists, preferring more esoteric scholars and artists. If he were to invite a propagandist, given the history of the program, I would show up and encourage others to show up and intervene. At this point, I would not tolerate it.

      But unless pro-Palestinian speakers are being excluded at some official level, or there is some programmatic bias, I don't see the point in being disruptive at the Darwish event. I don't see what is to be gained by it.

      Cliff, you're welcome to differ. But in doing so, you might want to stop making assumptions about people you don't know, and you might want to stop being so arrogant.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm

      "Stop pretending you care about those other people, because you honestly don’t and you know it."

      I think that there are a lot more people open to understanding Palestinian grievances than ever. They need people with the patience to explain a lot of basic stuff. They don't all read Mondoweiss or Noam Chomsky.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm with 17 replies

      "David Green is very concerned about Nonie Darwish’s right to Islamophobia."

      Nonsense. We don't believe in free speech unless that includes speech we find abhorrent.

      Daniel Pipes came to my campus a few years back. We organized a rally out front of the hall instead of going in. There was intense debate in the student newspaper and other venues about his background and ideas. He slunk in, spoke for about 20 minutes to a couple of hundred people (many just curious, but not Zionists), and slunk out. It wasn't disrupted. It was challenged, as it should have been. And even the Zionist professors backed off from expressing any support for him.

      The Zionists simply don't have speakers on campus anymore. They all speak at Hillel. That's their choice. When they speak on campus, they will be challenged, as I did with Yossi Klein Halevi in 2005. He wasn't disrupted, but he was completely rattled.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:20 pm

      Have you seen any of them speaking on campus? For them, a circus would be appropriate. The tactics would fit the event. But that's not Darwish, however loathesome she is. I think it's different. Or perhaps you can explain how they're all the same.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:18 pm with 2 replies

      "It will not be ‘debated’ for another 5, 10, 15 or 60 years."

      Nor should it be. Supporters of the Palestinians need to figure out how to organize direct action and political action. They need to stop having their chains jerked by the Lobby. That's what a helpful end of "patience" would mean.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:15 pm with 5 replies

      "I don’t think 99% of the Palestinian solidarity campus activists would agree with you."

      The vast majority that I've met over the past 15 years would in fact agree with me. Without a doubt. That doesn't mean that they're right or I'm right. It does mean that tactics need to be considered in pragmatic terms, in term of the time and place, and the historical moment.

      I believe it's time for supporters of the Palestinians to be confident, determined, and maintain their dignity in the face of hasbara. You're welcome to disagree. I'd like to see a much more bold, assertive, and well-organized movement on my campus and in my community. I've waited for years to see that. But it won't happen because some students take the bait and disrupt a Zionist talk. It will only hurt, in my opinion.

      You're welcome to inform me of the progress that has been made as a result of disrupting Zionist speakers.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:10 pm

      "david, perhaps you missed the update. there is a second video if you scroll down. notice the guy lunging into the protestors."

      I watched it. I get that the physical violence was precipitated by the Zionists. I also get that Darwish is enraging. When she came to my campus, a friend told me that she had to get up and leave and pace around the quad for an hour. I get it.

      That doesn't mean that it's helpful to the Palestinian cause for her to be disrupted. It might work better to explain to other students why she's loathesome. It might work better to be bigger than the liars and the haters. It might be worth a try.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:04 pm

      "Right, we should just sit quietly and wring our hands while the armored bulldozers and the armed settler pogroms get funded by US aid to the tune of $3 billion plus a year."

      And how does disrupting Darwish address this problem?

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm

      "In that case you must be a fan of pro-Israeli pit-bull Alan Dershowitz."

      I abhor him. And if he came to my campus, I would hope that the pro-Palestinians would ignore him. Just ignore him.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 6:41 pm

      "The Palestinian solidarity activists are protesting. The Zionists are censoring. There is a difference."

      But you can't expect those who are not yet informed and secure about this issue to respond well to this tactic, and to make the same distinction you do. They might be turned off or driven off. I'm not saying that you should pander to their sensitivities, but just pragmatically consider what will work and not work. I don't understand the resistance to just thinking this through. It's like BDS--it's a tactic. There's no reason to make it a doctrine.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 6:36 pm

      It may be clear to you and me, but what about those people who are trying to educate themselves about this issue?

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm

      "what point in history would you prefer?"

      Given that this is a point where the Palestinian case is increasingly understood, I would prefer that this be a point where their supporters modeled the dignity that they aspire to.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm with 13 replies

      It's just remarkable the amount of arrogance and hostility that is displayed by those in response to a suggestion that disruption may not be an intelligent tactic, pragmatically or morally. It's remarkable how the responses become personal, revealing a great deal of insecurity among those within the pro-Palestinian movement to think through some basic issues.

      Again, we've worked hard to make college campuses places where the Palestinian perspective can be promoted at all. Is it wise to engage in disruptive tactics at this point, or continue to educate and advocate?

      The Mondoweiss gatekeepers are much too cocky to even consider it. How predictable, and how telling.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm

      First of all, we might like to distinguish between a Congressional hearing, for example, and a speaker on a college campus. I'm not saying there are any firm and fast rules. Again, when I invite you to speak on my campus, do you want me to have set a previous example of disruption that could be answered in kind? Or do you want to invite civil debate?

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 5:14 pm

      "This video may be the first of many such altercations to come."

      So you're suggesting that a tactic of the pro-Palestinian movement should be to provoke confrontation at Zionist events? Confrontations that of course will rarely be clear in terms of who started what?

      And what do you hope to gain for the Palestinian cause by doing this?

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm

      "It’s so absurd that you think these activists are on the same level as the pro-Israel crowd."

      Actually, I'm saying they're not. I'm suggesting that the pro-Palestinian activists act like they're not.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm with 22 replies

      "this is an incredible video demonstrating how off the rails these israel supporters are."

      And exactly why did this need to be demonstrated at this point in history?

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm with 6 replies

      "there is nothing to ‘debate”. The debate is over. "

      Of course it is. So if you can't treat them in a civil way, ignore them. Show some self-confidence by having a movement that doesn't depend on violating freedom of speech.

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm with 14 replies

      So how do you feel about the Zionists disrupting pro-Palestinian events?

    • David Green February 24, 2012 at 1:34 pm with 60 replies

      There's no excuse for violence. But it's worth carefully considering the implications of the use of disruptive tactics; any tactic that is used by one group can be used by another. The Palestinian rights movement either has to have the confidence to ignore events like this and carry on with its campaign, or show up, ask questions, and debate. I don't see any benefit from this sort of disruption, on a pragmatic or moral basis. It would be better to set an example. I think we all know that many Zionsits are nasty people. Why encourage them?

  • Norman Finkelstein slams the BDS movement calling it 'a cult'
    • David Green February 14, 2012 at 5:56 pm with 12 replies

      The cult that Finkelstein refers to is not that of the tactic of BDS, but the strategy of BDS regarding a one-state solution. The distinction is important, and Finkelstein is no fool. I think the title of this post, through omission, distorts the content and tone of Finkelstein's remarks.

  • The Israel Lobby on campus in Illinois: A challenge for BDS
    • David Green February 14, 2012 at 11:58 am

      "the Lobby has certainly been responsible for perpetuating antagonism between the US and Iran."

      Of course. But it's utterly ridiculous to assert that the U.S. would be on good terms with Iran otherwise. It's just completely, totally, utterly ridiculous. The explanation is consistent with our relationship with any country that doesn't accede to our "interests."

      I don't think that this should be hard to understand. The Lobby is used to explain to much about USFP. The Lobby analysis, if you can call it that, has become a doctrine, and it's become a cult, especially on this website.

    • David Green February 13, 2012 at 8:07 pm

      The U.S. hasn't had a history of being delicate in its foreign affairs, anywhere. It's hard to see how the Lobby has determined that in the ME.

    • David Green February 13, 2012 at 6:17 pm

      Kind of like we had "good relations" with Iran after we overthrew their government and installed the Shah? Or was the Lobby responsible for that, too?

    • David Green February 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm

      I agree, of course, that more analytical nuance would be helpful, and that this is helpful; that would include in regard to Christian Zionism.

    • David Green February 12, 2012 at 3:14 pm with 2 replies

      "I think Green is still routing for institutions to come to their senses, and thus focuses on the entities corrupting institutional policies – but if we look at these institutions in their totality, I think we find them to be incapable of any such thing. Public Universities being just one very illustrative example."

      No. I'm rooting for us to finish what we started in the 60s.

    • David Green February 12, 2012 at 3:07 pm

      I wouldn't take too seriously what Eric Alterman says about anything. He's a self-promoting liberal of the worst order. If his views about Israel were to threaten his position at the Nation, he'd change them. In a second. His forte, along with Todd Gitlin, is political posturing. They want to assert the moral superiority of the non-left left. That's why the Nation has largely gone into the dumpster.

    • David Green February 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm

      Sheldon Adelson is an ignorant man who wants to feel like he's doing God's work in the manner in which he employs his ill-gotten wealth. He chooses Israel in order to feel like a big shot, and to feel that his ill-gotten gains have some larger moral meaning. If his activities clearly come into conflict with how elites view U.S. interests in the region, he'll probably be persuaded by one means or another to change his mind as to the larger moral meaning of his wealth. He'll remain ignorant in doing so.

Showing comments 254 - 201
Page:

Comments are closed.