Total number of comments: 71 (since 2010-05-12 06:44:19)
Homer
over 50
-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Allison Deger
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
"Talk about why Helen Thomas is nursing 62-year-old pain."
Helen Thomas' pain doesn't matter in America because she doesn't qualify: She's not Jewish. She was entrapped and exploited - as an old, tired woman - by a Jewish rabbi who would not be capable of feeling any moral pain I could recognize.
"Because Beinart's piece really is inside baseball. And maybe the New York Times Magazine was right to pass on the piece. It's an entre-nous thing, entre-Jew. A fight among American Zionists."
And the New York Review of Books, which published Beinart's piece, is itself "an entre-nous thing, entre-Jew." I read it, but I often feel like an outsider looking in on an exclusive group of inbred intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals whose organizing principle is Jewish elitism borne of isolation from most of America. I know this is not an entirely accurate assessment (and especially does not apply to people like Tony Judt or Henry Siegman) but after decades of watching Jews monopolize the discourse in America I now notice that my own judgments about their activities have begun in part to be colored irrationally by resentments that until lately I was scarcely conscious of.
Today's Washington Post has an editorial entitled, "Managing the Gaza Blockade."
link to washingtonpost.com
The WaPo editorial board writes that the Israeli blockade which has "choked off many consumer goods and supplies" has had a "worthy but futile purpose: to pressure Hamas to alter its refusal to recognize Israel" prior to a peace agreement and reciprocal recognition from Israel. Thus, according to WaPo, prolonged and brutal collective punishment of a civilian population for political purposes can be worthy. Worthy of what?
But the political purpose Israel has had in mind for the blockade is not as described so misleadingly by WaPo. It has been to discredit the democratically-elected government of Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinian people, so as to prevent the formation of a unified Palestinian coalition government and the eventual unification of Gaza with the West Bank and East Jerusalem in a Palestinian state.
As if to confirm this interpretation of their true meaning, WaPo continues:
"Easing controls over Gaza runs the risk of giving Hamas a major boost at the expense of the rival Palestinian Authority.... The already-dramatic contrast between the West Bank and Gaza can continue to grow, to Hamas's disadvantage, even if Gazans are a little less miserable."
Somehow I doubt that Fred Hiatt & crew are suddenly emoting over the fate of the unfortunate Gazans. Like those of neocons everywhere, their sympathies have been aroused by the plummeting moral support for Israel throughout the world.
"But in defending its actions and justifying them so ardently before all of the facts of the flotilla fiasco were fully known, in effect they were placing a huge wager that they would not alienate a North American JEWISH STREET that was quite conflicted on the flotilla. And while for federation veterans placing all of the system's chips on Israel seems fairly safe -- and MORALLY REQUIRED -- it comes at a time ...." (emphasis mine)
Notice how these people are concerned about alienating with their actions only the "Jewish street", not the much more substantial "non-Jewish street." This conforms to a deeply ingrained pattern: American Jews believe they don't need to care what non-Jewish Americans think. They perceive their Lobby and its supporting elements to be all-powerful, so why worry beyond the tribe?
Elliot, just to be clear, when I mentioned Holocaust guilt I was not trying to characterize any feelings of the Jewish community, whether they be of guilt over the horrific event, or identity with it.
I was referring to the artfully induced guilt of the American population at large, for an event that 99.9999 per cent of them had nothing to do with. Artfully induced, in my opinion, for political purposes. As for personal identification with the Jewish Holocaust, only sick-minded goyim would seek that kind of identification for themselves.
Speaking of the (damn) media, the NY Times, in its regular feature called "Opinionator: The Thread", has a piece entitled "Is the Embargo Good for the Jews?"
link to opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
This is a specific instantiation of the general question frequently posed by the Times: "Is [fill in the blank] Good for the Jews?"
If they wanted to relax their Judeo-centric perspective for a moment, they might consider adding balance by running a parallel piece called "Is the Embargo Good for the Gazans?"
Charles Krauthammer, the noted psychoanalyst of the victimhood/hubris syndrome, has an article in today's Washington Post, entitled "Those Troublesome Jews". (I think this is about the fourth such piece I have read from Dr. K with the same title.) This is his concluding paragraph:
"The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution."
Here is the solution that Dr. K says Israel must adopt, and in fact has adopted: "forward active defense", by which he means naked military and covert preemptive aggression against any potential antagonist.
Krauthammer says, "The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million ...." If by that he means the Jews of Israel, then I think that for once I must agree with this man's premise. But I think that a better solution can be found than the one he proposes, and the one that he maliciously says Iran proposes.
How about the one that Helen Thomas proposes?
"In the US, Zionists control the narrative through the media alone ...."
The control of the media is almost absolute, with the only major exceptions being a few sites on the Internet like Mondoweiss, antiwar.com, and Counterpunch. But Zionist control of the discourse extends well beyond the media. It intrudes into all major think tanks, the halls and conference rooms of government and commerce, and casual conversation among ordinary friends.
Everyone dreads being tagged with the label of "anti-Semite". The Zionist smear machine, led by the ADL and like-minded groups, is so deadly efficient that it can at will end the career of almost anyone in public life, in business, or in the professions.
The great coup of the Zionist movement was to capture the American film, TV, and book publishing industries. This enabled them to create The Holocaust Industry (if I may borrow Finklestein's phrase), churning out many thousands of movies, TV programs, and books in the new "Holocaust" genre.
Whatever other purposes these productions may have served, as a whole they clearly have been designed to accomplish a single-minded goal: to implant in the American population the idea that for all time we are responsible for, to blame for, and guilty of the Jewish Holocaust. This implicit lesson, combined with the oft-repeated mantra of "Never Again!", teaches us that we must provide protection for the ever-expanding Jewish Power Structure in America, whatever the costs to us. For otherwise, we are by definition guilty of "anti-Semitism", that greatest of all evils.
The dread of "anti-Semitism", reinforced daily by the media, leads Americans to accept the capture of their government by a foreign power, and the shutting down of their freedom of discourse by that same foreign power.
Yes, the Israelis can afford to allow some freedoms in their own press, as long as they can continue to prevent the same in ours.
"... as long as you remember you are not permitted to criticize Israel nor mention the Israel lobby."
Unless you happen to be Jewish, of course; then we might check your record to see if you are reliable and have the right affiliations.
"The host of the show, Brooke Gladstone, introduced it by saying in so many words, If you're not Jewish, you may not understand why this is important ...."
Is Brook Gladstone Jewish? If he is to be heard on NPR, I would assume (statistically) that he probably is.
This is SOOO... like NPR: "This program, like most of our programs, is produced by Jews mainly for Jewish ears, but if you are not Jewish you are welcome to listen along if you like. We like to present things from a Jewish perspective because it's mainly who we are (we got rid of that hick Bob Edwards and Garrison Keillor's next) and besides that's mainly where our money comes from. We know it's called "N"PR but you gotta know this is a meritocracy so we focus on NYC and the surrounding area. Fridays are Sabbat-interest days and Sundays are post-Sabbat-interest days, but you yokels out in the Middle American heartland can listen along if you like as long as you remember you are not permitted to criticize Israel nor mention the Israel lobby. This is "N"PR, National Public Radio."
The problem of grossly disproportionate Jewish representation in the Ivy Leasgue and other elite colleges is not limited to the student bodies. After Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court (which no one dares openly oppose because she is Jewish - Obama's clever gambit!), a Jewish friend mentioned to me that she had read that 40 per cent of the Harvard faculty is Jewish. I have not confirmed that this is a fact, but I don't doubt its approximate accuracy. It has become traditional that the Harvard president will be Jewish, as well as the incumbents of major dean positions.
That is why I said above that Harvard is Israel-occupied territory. If Stephen Walt had not had tenure in 2006, he would have been out of there in a flash.
The arrogance that the American Jewish community has shown in seizing control of the levers of power is likely to come back to haunt them someday. At least when they held equivalent power, the wasps constituted a majority - not a tiny minority claiming some sort of exclusive merit.
Can it really be true that Israel is a nation of paranoid psychopaths? I remember after 9-11, when people were talking about it possibly being a Mossad-facillitated operation, I thought No, it could not be, they are not psychopaths.
Now I do wonder. It is hard for me to get into the mind of a confirmed Zionist They are truly scary.
“… then ask yourself what in heaven’s name this guy is doing at Harvard?”
I think the answer is that Harvard is Israel-occupied territory – as are Stanford, the U. of California system, and a number of our other fine universities.
"... pro-government protesters, who were chanting: ‘No citizenship without loyalty!’"
If Jewish Zionists can apply that principle to non-Jews in Israel, maybe we in America could apply the same principle to Zionists whose main allegiances clearly lie with a foreign country that is a danger to American security.
From Anthony Cordesman's piece:
"It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it tests the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews.”
In my view, of course, it is time that the special relationship with Israel be ended. Accomplishing that requires that the Israel Lobby be defeated. Achieving that requires that the Jewish Power Structure controlling the U.S. government and mainstream media be dismantled. And that will require an insurrection that will shake the foundations of Washington and Wall Street. It will take time, but eventually it will happen.
Potsherd and Chaos, I don't think that the backlash has to be motivated by anti-Semitism. Opposition to excessive Jewish political power need not equate to antipathy toward Jews as individuals, as a religion, or as a "people". I certainly hope not.
I do recognize that there will be more of that than exists currently in America. But responsible opponents of excessive Jewish political power and media influence will know and remember that the enemy is Zionism, not American Jews or Jewry itself.
It is way past time that American Jews in particular, the principal enablers of the monster that calls itself the Jewish State of Israel, begin to be very concerned about the image they are projecting to other Americans. There are many things about Israel that are deeply antithetical to traditional American values, and unfortunately the mainstream American Jewish community permits no daylight between themselves and Israel, nor between the U.S. government and Israel. What many Jews refer to as their commitment to Israel is seen by many non-Jewish Americans as pernicious allegiance to a foreign power that endangers their nation.
If this deplorable situation doesn't improve fast, it is not going to go nearly so well for American Jews as a group.
Sorry, Debonnaire, but the last I heard Mel Gibson had been brought to heel. They always get their man.
Bumblebye, "Jewishness" becomes a problem if, and only if, it is the criterion used to exclude the vast majority of Others from positions and possibilities of influence or opportunity. Then it becomes detrimental to the principles of a democratic, pluralistic society - whether in America or in Israel.
Sin Nombre, from the writer of the NYT article you cited:
"As a Jewish child I was regularly instructed, both subtly and openly, that Jews, the people of Maimonides, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk and Meyer Lansky, were on the whole smarter, cleverer, more brilliant, more astute than other people."
This is the kind of solipsistic, self-celebratory navel-gazing by Jewish writers on Jewish subjects in the NY Times that I have come to despise. Do they never get their fill of it? I know I do.
"I dont foresee a flip any time soon. But with the right trigger, when Israel goes too far, when US Jewish leaders miscalculate ...." (MRW)
The trigger may happen any month now. If Israel conducts a massive air attack on Iran (with or without tactical nukes), it's going to be a new ballgame. Organized American Jewry will come out in support of Israel, the craven U.S. Congress will issue an AIPAC-drafted resolution praising the attack, and the American public will know that Obama was opposed to Israel's aggression even as he reluctantly commits American forces in Israel's war.
That will be the beginning of the end of Jewish political power in America. Germany lost a lot that was good when it lost its Jews. I don't think we in America will lose our Jews in that way. But things will get rather unpleasant before they begin to get better again, and a lot of people will have their lives changed for the worse.
I personally suspect that American Jews have not been exposed to an accurate history of the years in Germany leading up to the rise of the Third Reich (one that does not focus solely on Jewish victimhood). If they had, and if they have an accurate picture of the political changes that have occurred in America over the last half century, they would be more concerned about the precarious position that the Jewish establishment now occupies at the pinnacle of the American power structure.
The most rational response I see to this situation is for the American Jewish establishment to relax their grip on the levers of power. The best way to start would be to suppress the peculiar Jewish tendency toward exclusivity: the inclusion of Jews and the exclusion of The Other. That would go a long way toward building, or rebuilding, the bridges to the rest of American society.
"Jewish nationalism trumps Jewish intelligence, once again. The struggle of our generation."
Yes, but the struggle will soon widen: Jewish nationalism versus Jewish and NON-Jewish intelligence. There can be no doubt who will lose that struggle. Get on the winning side.
Donald, thanks for the long response. I hope you are not too offended by the "self-righteous" jibe. I don't disagree with any of your substantive remarks. I myself have asked decentjew several times to desist from any calls to violence, or the like. That's partly because I want to be able to read the other kinds of things he has to say.
Maybe you and I see decentjew, as a Jew, differently. I am not Jewish, and my guess is that you are not either (correct me if you wish). I think it is quite likely that he feels profound pain about Israel and that it is intense. The fact (and I accept it as fact) that he is Jewish makes his pain all the more poignant for me, and all the more meaningful (Shmuel would seem to understand that point). Accordingly, I don't see him as someone on the sidelines, with no skin in the game. His intense pain over Israel is precisely what I want American Jews in general to feel - until there is a just peace with the Palestinians and true democracy in Israel.
As for myself. as an American, I don't think I have been an innocent bystander either. I'm partly responsible for the deplorable situation of the Palestinians.
"I do not recognize their right to life, liberty ...."
decentjew, you wrote a very good piece here with one small exception: the statement above. You have a lot of ability and useful feeling that apparently runs deep. Don't waste it by advocating solutions that moral people will reject.
If it's any consolation, I don't agree with Donald's seemingly self-righteous analysis of your psychology. But I would advise you to pay attention to what Shmuel counsels.
As everyone who follows this story would know, this list is just a small fraction of the Jews in highly influential or controlling positions in American media. The complete list would be a very long one. Top management of our media is almost exclusively a Jewish country club.
That reflects and explains a great deal about modern American society.
"'If we think a crime has been committed, then working with the host government we have the option of our own investigation,' Crowley said."
In this case, the "host" government would be Turkey, since the murder occurred in international waters on a Turkisk vessel which, I believe, was flying the Turkish flag.
decentjew, I ask you again to moderate your language - for your own sake and for the reputation of this blog. I don't really want to see you banned from here, but statements like this are unacceptable:
"If the US will not assume its responsibility then yes I DO support independent attacks on Israel..their trains, busses, museums, shopping centers, discoteques, ice cream parlors, water companies, electricity companies, the ministry of health, the ministry of labor, the ministry of finance, the knesset and everywhere else, without restriction."
Have you considered the possibility that legal action might be taken against you for making such statements in the U.S? Incitement to violence is not protected speech.
I understand (I think) the feelings you have about this, but there are more effective, and more moral, solutions than the violent approach you keep advocating.
Chaos, when I checked Olbermann's Wikipedia entry a couple of weeks ago, it indicated that he was of non-Jewish German descent. Where did you get your info that he is Jewish?
I think it is still true that many "white" people you see on TV are not Jewish. I know I've seen several.
"... in the name of 'security' the monster is devouring itself."
Well said.
decentjew, do you think you could improve your attitude and moderate your language? Dissent can be a valuable thing when it is expressed decently. You seem to be intelligent enough to know what that entails.
I remember reading only a few of your comments, but based on those I would say that many of your most cogent and telling remarks have been expressed also by a number of others on this blog. The difference is that these other contributors used milder language that did not advocate violence or reflect extreme prejudice. If your objective is to persuade, then think some more about it.
Huh?
Thank you for saying that, Chaos. The destruction of our erstwhile free press by the Israel Lobby is perhaps my greatest concern about our current mess. It would be a cause for some hope if only a thorough study could be published showing how this undermining of one of our basic freedoms has been accomplished.
"I imagine that if Terry Gross would talk about it honestly, she would say that she believes in anti-Semitism as a real living force in American life and the life of the west. I sense that about her; it is in her outsider-identification. And I sense that this concern with anti-Semitism ordains the Jewish state in her mind, and rationalizes a lot of its behavior."
Paranoia about anti-Semitism leads to behaviors that lead to anti-Semitism. Cool it, dude. Cool it, lady. You're O.K.; I'm O.K.
Consider this (noting the thick sarcasm) from Gideon Levy in today's Ha'aretz:
"The Israel Defense Forces too came out looking bad again. The magic evaporated long ago, the most moral army in the world, that was once the best army in the world, failed again. More and more there is the impression that nearly everything it touches causes harm to Israel."
The wages of militarism are death, as "the Army that has a country" may be learning now.
Thanks for your answers, potsherd and Roha. I especially liked Roha's last paragraph: That would be a start toward Israel becoming "a country like other countries", a democracy like other democracies, a true homeland (among others) for Jews.
There are people who write to this blog claiming to be anti-Zionist. One wonders how deep their "anti-Zionism" goes. Do they advocate ending all official U.S. aid to Israel, including military assistance? Also, unofficial aid? Do they want an end to the "special relationship"? Do they approve of non-Jews being anti-Zionist (anti-Israel) also? Is that legitimate in their eyes, without the suspicion of anti-Semitism? Is it O.K. with them that non-Jews criticize and do political battle with the Israel Lobby, broadly defined?
Most fundamentally, for these self-proclaimed anti-Zionists, what place should be granted Jews in the "Holy Land", and on what terms?
Chosen, thanks for the course in Realpolitick and the philosophy of Realism. I consider myself to be quite pessimistic most days, but you are several rungs below me, which is an achievement worth noting.
I would suggest that you look more closely at the changes taking place now in Israel and in the U.S. We may soon be watching a new ball game on both shores, played with a new set of rules. No genocides necessary.
Chosen, by popular demand you must now prove you are not a hasbarist agent provocateur (aka troll). You must give the secret password and show the communal handshake. Are you carrying one of the secret artifacts (e.g., a wine bottle cork) in your pocket?
Shmuel, I would wager that you are "more convincing" in these matters, in part at least, because you are more articulate and thoughtful than most. My reservations on that point still stand, if only because non-Jews are potentially so much more numerous in their aggregated effectiveness.
On this we agree most definitely: Phil and Adam don't run this blog because they believe that they are better than non-Jews. The "perception problem" I referred to - to the extent it exists - is a broad-based one, and I wasn't applying it to anyone I know of on this blog.
Sorry, Dan, I see I was wrong: You were right in emphasizing the importance of Israel and its agents in the U.S. in determining American foreign policy. I think Walid and droog have the wrong idea about the primary direction of influence, as anyone should readily see by observing Israel's behavior.
Dan, your criticism of Walid is off-target. It seems highly likely that certain high officials in the Obama administration, sympathetic to the view that the isolation of Hamas must be maintained, were privy to plans for Israel's attack (with the erroneous assumption that there would be little bloodshed).
Perhaps it is you who is "denying the power of the lobby." Israel knows that its Lobby still controls what Obama is free to do vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Who is that guy we were told "has Obama's back"?
Please do explain, Dan.
BenjaminS: "Shmuel is right, it is clearly apparent that jewish dissent has, and still is effective in shaping discourse within Israel and in the diaspora ...."
You and Shmuel are probably right about this part. But in America Jews are only about two percent of the population, albeit a highly significant two percent. And America is still a quasi-democracy where votes count.
My feeling is that in this country most non-Jews tend to give heaviest weight to the opinions on Israel expressed by other non-Jews. They assume that Jews are pro-Israel and that any exceptions are rare anomalies. But if they hear someone they know to be non-Jewish publicly express criticism of Israel, they sit up and take notice. They want to know how dare he do that.
That's how it has been for a good many years now - until recently.
But things have begun to change among American non-Jews in their views about the permissibility of criticizing Israel. As this trend accelerates, it is perhaps inevitable that Jews will lose their privileged place in the discourse. All that seems to have many American Jews uncomfortable (as it always has), because when non-Jews demand it the special relationship with Israel will be ended.
GodsChosen, in the future please omit any suggestion that you advocate or favor violence - against anyone. If you would do that, I would be willing to consider your opinion on other matters.
Shmuel: "It’s not about being better than non-Jews; it’s about recognising the fact that we are more convincing and our words carry greater weight when we criticise Israel and Jews."
I'm not sure that the latter half of this sentence is entirely true. More convincing to whom? Greater weight with whom? If non-Jewish criticism in America of Israel, and Jewish supporters of Israel, carries so little weight, why is there such a concerted effort on the part of the Jewish community to suppress any such non-Jewish criticism, using the ad hominem attacks we've come to know so well? Isn't the reason likely to be that non-Jewish criticism is considered to be far more threatening to Israel than that from fellow tribesmen?
As to the part about (not) "being better than non-Jews", I think you have a genuine perception problem there. A great deal of Jewish behavior in this area (with you excluded) leads non-Jews to have a different view.
Shmuel: "There are things we, as Jews can do and say, that are much harder for our non-Jewish friends, and we have a duty to take advantage of that, but there are lines that even we may not cross."
Shmuel, I pay close attention to your moderate views, so I would greatly appreciate it if you would elaborate on your meaning in the sentence above. What kinds of things can Jews say and do that are harder for non-Jews? Why do you think that is so?
"We" can cross lines that others cannot (but what if they dare to do so?), but "even we" cannot cross some lines? What, exactly, do Jews "have a duty to take advantage of"? Is this a new kind of noblesse oblige, assumed by a modernly privileged ethnicity?
I'm not finding fault with your opinion here. I would truly like to understand it.
The hyperlink to the Guardian editorial does not appear to be working in Phil's post. Here is the URL:
link to guardian.co.uk
Of course, there is an opposite way to look at it. The Israeli censorship and almost total blackout of news after the incident have created deep distrust in everything Israel says about it, and have helped to perpetuate an intense thirst throughout the world for accurate and complete reporting of the story.
Hopefully, this will force the U.S. to acquiesce in the formation of a U.N. board of inquiry. As we saw after Operation Cast Lead, Israel can't be trusted to investigate its own actions.
From El Amrani:
"And the Free Gaza flotilla organizers did not plan ahead — they did not have representatives who could be easily available in Israel/Palestine near where TV cameras were, few on the boats to talk by telephone, or others elsewhere who could go to studios. This oversight really impacted the early TV version of the crisis, allowing the other side's message to dominate."
This was indeed an unfortunate oversight on the part of the flotilla organizers. It reduced the immediate impact on world (and especially U.S.) public opinion that might have been achieved by these valiant activists who put their lives on the line for the people of Gaza.
radii, I also recall how shocking I thought it was that, immediately after the Columbia disaster, more on-air attention was devoted to the unfortunate Israeli than to all the other astronauts combined. I'm sure that many Americans found this anomaly striking and disturbing.
That year, 1963, was the beginning of my acute realization of the extent to which Israel-Firsters control the U.S. media. It is a matter of grave national importance. What I continue to ask is this: What are we going to do about it?
These are brave, proud people. They deserve all the support the world can give them. Israel deserves to be banished from the planet.
Sorry if I misread you, Chaos. I'm feeling oddly shell-shocked (as well as outraged, impotent, ashamed ...) right now, even as I sit safely in my own home.
Chaos, if you are believing the IDF press reports (which Israeli newspapers, under military censorship, have no choice but to accept), then I have a stretch of tidal marsh in the Mississippi Delta I would like to sell you.
This incident has proven once again that the American media are Israeli-occupied territory. Notice how they all rush to promulgate the Israeli lies, so carefully concocted in advance.
You can bet that Israel's cowardly attack was coordinated with Rahm Emanuel.
Israel has demonstrated once again that it is a monster regime. It's only a matter of time before it self-destructs in its own sordid iniquity. When that day finally comes, few will care.
"Never forget, Tennis Channel is owned by Ken Solomon, a guest of AIPAC last year."
How could we ever forget that the American media are owned, operated, and controlled by the Jewish Power Structure? They remind us of it every day of the week. Forget? There's no escaping the fact, however we might wish we could.
Steve Walt just refuses to get it: Only Jews have a right to comment on foreign policy, Israel, the Middle East, and related matters. When will he ever learn to stay in his place?
I wonder if they got paid anything for it, in spite of The Atlantic reneging on the deal.
Chait, Beinart and the others illustrate my thesis: There is no such thing as a liberal Zionist - not any more. You can be a liberal or you can be a Zionist, but there is no logical space remaining where you can be both. To deny that or to attempt to evade its implications is simply to undermine one's own moral integrity.
The Israel lobby in those days, though powerful in its ability to exploit the Holocaust, was not nearly so well organized in 1956, and therefore had less direct power in American politics.
The turning point came with the 1967 war, when the Lobby began to greatly intensify and expand its organizing efforts (having learned valuable lessons in the Labor and Civil Rights Movements). Then the 1973 Yom Kippur War made the "existential threat" newly palpable to the bulk of American Jews, and a point of no return was reached in U.S. politics: Like it or not, we crossed our Zionist Rubicon.
The socioeconomic and political factors which gave rise to this dramatic transition make for a uniquely fascinating study in modern historical development. Some would describe it as the great tragedy of the latter 20th Century, not just for America but for the world.
Mr. Bradley, the strategic purpose of the missile "defense" dome is clearly not defensive. Hizbollah is not going to launch an offensive, unprovoked rocket attack against Israel.
Rather, the purpose is purely offensive. It enables Israel to protect its northern flank against retaliatory missiles from Lebanon when Israel launches its sudden, unprovoked air attacks against Iran.
Thus, to no one's surprise the Congress, at the direction of AIPAC, is facilitating the impending Israeli (and American) hot war against Iran.
I agree with Jeff Blankfort: All the evidence points to steadily increasing power of the Lobby to get whatever it demands.
Readers of this blog may be interested in a two-hour documentary airing tonight (Thursday) on PBS. Entitled "Cinema's Exiles", it chronicles the flight to America of German Jewish film-makers, screenwriters, and actors from Europe in the 30's and 40's.
Remarkably, from a Jewish perspective it explains in detail how new Jewish arrivals, involved in the nascent movie industry in Hollywood, mounted a concerted effort to find jobs for other Jews, initially mainly from Germany, thereby transforming the industry. For those Americans who still don't understand how their film industry came to be so thoroughly dominated by the Jewish fragment of the population, this documentary provides many relevant insights.
Thanks are due to the Jewish monied interests in Hollywood and NYC whose financial backing made this production possible. It is in the spirit of the new Jewish triumphalism, celebrating the many uniquely Jewish triumphs in American society. Great as this documentary is, it is only one of hundreds of such productions with a Jewish focus shown each year in American film and TV. What is remarkable about this documentary is the unrestrained way it touts Jewish contributions, to the exclusion of others. Of the dozens of personages ("exiles") highlighted in the film, almost all were Jewish. Sound familiar?
I can remember a time a few decades ago when American Jews seemed a bit more reluctant to trumpet their ubiquitous accomplishments when they might imply the systematic exclusion of others. There is a lesson conveyed to young non-Jewish viewers of this documentary: It helps a great deal to be Jewish in trying to make a career of the kinds of film-industry work depicted. If you are not Jewish, expect that there may be unspoken obstacles.
So what has all this got to do with the ludicrously lop-sided Congressional vote authorizing still more American free aid to Israel - assistance which the American people themselves desperately need? Why, everything, if you stop to think about it. It's all about the sources of power in a society.
wb, you seem to be residing in a kind of isolated dreamland. It appears that you have muddled a lot of disparate ideas together in order to claim that the great majority of non-Jewish Americans don't give a hoot about I/P and the Middle East, and that this alleged indifference explains why so few of them can be seen speaking or writing about the subject in our major news outlets. Dream on.
This is not the America of the 1970's, which you use as your model. Americans today are much more concerned about how events in the Middle East may impact their lives. Among the 98% of Americans who are not Jewish, I suspect there are a great many more people today with a strong interest in Middle Eastern affairs than there are among the two per cent who are Jewish. And your suggestion that non-Jews keep quite because they don't want to be impolite to "vulnerable" Jews is laughable. (How many non-Jewish Americans today do you imagine would think of American Jews as vulnerable, when what they see all around them in the national culture suggests something entirely different?)
Many American universities today have departments of Jewish and/or Middle Eastern studies (courtesy of the generosity of wealthy Jewish donors). By a wide margin, there generally are more non-Jewish than Jewish undergraduate students enrolled in these courses. There are many more non-Jewish than Jewish students taking courses in journalism, political science, government, economics or other disciplines that might lead to a career in journalism or academia - a career that might enable them to be heard or seen on matters relating to U.S. foreign policy, and particularly relating to the Middle East.
So please try again to rationalize it: Why are the great majority of those permitted to speak or write nationally about the M/E people of the Jewish persuasion?
wj, the "liberal" and not-so-liberal Jewish communities in America did their very best to destroy each of M&W. They only failed in their vicious attacks because the two professors had tenure and were highly respected "conservative" scholars in their fields, and because their book was of such outstanding quality.
Your spurious example only demonstrates my point. The ordeal of M&W has taught many young, less secure scholars and writers not to try and emulate them. The personal costs to such a non-Jew would be prohibitive. Ironically, by demonstrating this, the Lobby has used M&W to accomplish its ends in suppressing free speech concerning I/P and the American Jewish power structure. The Lobby always wins in the end.
It is not just the NYR. Almost all major sources of political news and commentary in the U.S. require or "expect" that almost everyone writing or talking about Israel/Palestine must be Jewish or must be in good standing with the Jewish lobby. (At the moment, I can't think of any exceptions.) This lockout of the goyim is not accidental or coincidental; it is orchestrated and pepertrated by Jews themselves. Don't look elsewhere for the causes.
The surest way for a non-Jew in America to have his or her public career ended is to be caught uttering criticism of Israel, or of the Jewish power structure in this country that enables Israel's monstrous behavior. Free speech in America? For whom? Jewish power good for America? Don't make me laugh.
There is an obvious solution to this conundrum: Amend the Constitution so that commitment of U.S. armed forces to war requires prior authorization by the Knesset.
No, in the 21st Century it would NOT "be easy to find parallels to the settlers in other colonial situations."
On the other hand, I think that this is merely how the world pictures Israelis now, not "how the world now sees Jews" generally. Most Jews in Manhattan are not packing AK-47s in the streets already.
But maybe they will before it's over.
Thanks for your comment, MC, and thanks for the link to your own website. Though I had only a few minutes to peruse it (as yet), I saw much thoughtful discussion there of issues of interest to readers of Mondoweiss.
A wasp: You know, Ernest, the rich are not like us.
Another wasp: No, Scott, they have more money.
.............................
Weiss: You know, Mooser, we Jews used to be smarter than everybody else, but I'm afraid it's no longer true.
Mooser: I think Jews are pretty much the same as other people ....
Homer: No, Mooser, they have more power and money (per capita).
This is just a sudden thought and I know I will probably get creamed for it, but how did it happen that Jews gained so much power and influence in America? I mean, I just woke up from a forty-year nap (or was it twenty?) and I thought the wasps were safely in control when I lay down. Look, Jews were only about two percemt of the population back then. Did they get the atomic bomb?
What happened? And what's all this talk above about nepotism? Wouldn't that be illegal racial or religious discrimination under the recent civil rights legislation of around 1965?
annie writes, "i hope this thread doesn’t descend into some judaism bashing thing."
Absolutely. On the other hand, apart from the worthy Jewish critics of Zionism on this blog, one might wish that a larger segment of the American adherents of Judaism or "Jewishness" (or whatever the correct term) would publicly repudiate the elements of their culture that promote and sustain the monstrous excesses of Zionism.
annie writes, "so yes, i absolutely believe this is learned acceptable behavior."
I do so hope (and believe) that it is simply learned behavior. I would hate to think that it is genetic in origin.
But then we should take a closer, more critical look at the culture that produced this distinctive pattern of behavior, shouldn't we? How did it arise in this country? Why does it thrive?