Trending Topics:

St. Louis Jews call on ADL to cancel honor to police

Activism
on 87 Comments

In 2005 the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in collaboration with the Missouri Holocaust Museum in St. Louis, launched a pilot program “Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons of the Holocaust (LEAS)” partnering with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to “provide law enforcement professionals with a deeper understanding of the relationship between police and the people they serve.” As events on the streets of Ferguson represent the fruition of this 10 year partnership, St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace makes an urgent call:

Shame on ADL for honoring St. Louis Police!

St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace calls on all who oppose white supremacy to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as it prepares to honor the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department — a police force whose racist shooting spree targeting black youth continues, most recently in the shooting of 16-year-old Brandon Claxton in the face last weekend even as witnesses say he posed no threat.

We are disgusted by the ADL’s grotesque invocation of the Nazi Holocaust — in which countless members of our families perished — both as a tool to give the ADL and St. Louis police cover as protectors of civil rights, and to frame racism in the U.S. solely within the context of anti-Semitism. As white Jewish activists, we know that white Jews, like other white Americans, are part and parcel of U.S. white supremacist systems that serve to destroy black and brown communities.

We have cringed as the ADL positions itself locally as a champion of racial profiling legislation while sending U.S. police — including former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch — to train on population control in Israel, an apartheid police state with more than 60 years of sophisticated expertise in racial profiling, mass incarceration, settler colonialism, and ethnic cleansing targeting the non-Jewish indigenous Palestinian people.

We see the way mainstream Jewish organizations in St. Louis like the ADL, the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the Jewish Federation exercise white privilege in an attempt to silence communities of color and undermine black and brown solidarity. We are appalled when Jewish leaders who speak the language of justice are overtly racist toward Palestinians. Zionism — itself a form of white supremacy that oppresses Palestinians, Jews of color, and other marginalized groups — has no place in any antiracist movement.

We call on the ADL to cancel this ceremony and all ongoing activities that uphold white supremacy in the U.S. and Palestine. If they don’t cancel, we will be there July 31 at 11:30am at Chase Park. We urge St. Louis Jewish leaders and organizations, especially those who have been active in Ferguson, to stop playing both sides — chanting “Black Lives Matter” in the streets while working closely with racist Jewish organizations. We invite them and others in the St. Louis Jewish community to join us in working together for justice from Ferguson to Palestine and beyond.

Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to Mondoweiss today.

annie
About Annie Robbins

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

87 Responses

  1. Krauss
    Krauss
    July 18, 2015, 2:59 pm

    This is why JVP is rising faster than all the old organisations combined and why young Jews in particular are flocking to them.

    How can anyone take “communal leaders” seriously as they are for racial justice in the U.S. but make exceptions in Palestine?

    Oh, because in the U.S. we’re in the minority, but in Israel, we’re the majority. Let’s be real people: that’s all there is to it. Good for JVP for exposing this hypocrisy and leading the way to a more moral future.

    • July 18, 2015, 6:11 pm

      Why did the JVP backball Alison Weir if they are for real?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 18, 2015, 6:43 pm

        @ Giles
        Good question. Alison Weir is a top-notch American patriot and humanist. She’s an early non-Jewish tracker of injustice perpetrated by US in behalf Israel.

      • annie
        annie
        July 18, 2015, 8:36 pm
      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 18, 2015, 10:07 pm

        Katie Miranda and some others who wrote for MW like Susan Landau signed a petition supporting Weir:
        https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1oyHWpfZtMvDez5XThztcbRMbgzQqMnCibkVk4Rjh3Hw/viewform
        You can sign it at the bottom.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 18, 2015, 10:08 pm

        Citizen: interesting to observe that some of those who say to be working “from a Jewish perspective”, or trying to establish a monopoly on the movement to support Palestine, as some of us interpret it, all have been viciously undermining the efforts of Alison Weir and perversely attacking people like Atzmon, watering down the BDS principles and targets; they look as if they were intent on making “antisemitism” the main target of BDS organizations.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 18, 2015, 10:25 pm

        Hello, Giles and Citizen.
        We should presume that fellow human rights Solidarity activists are non-racist. The attacks on Weir seem to presume the opposite, and that’s an extremely problematic standard when human rights activists on a major sensitive issue are being attacked.

        Weir says that she is motivated as a journalist by the injustice of a conflict that the media doesn’t cover well. Racism is not some kind of personal motivation for her. The End the Occupation Campaign letter basically repeats the ideas in the JVP letter.

      • July 19, 2015, 9:46 am

        Et tu Annie?

      • July 19, 2015, 11:14 am

        Thanks W Jones.

        Annie.

        Read the analysis of the attacks on Ms.Weir by Amith Gupta, NYU Law Student on the thread provided by W Jones.

        I believe she does an excellent job of exposing those attacks for the hypocritical, double standard, dishonesties that they are.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 19, 2015, 11:23 am

        “this about sums it up:”

        Thanx, Annie. I read that closely. First full clear explanation I’ve read.
        Thanx.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 19, 2015, 11:27 am

        “The attacks on Weir seem to presume the opposite”

        Annie’s link explains it quite clearly. I suggest you read it, and there are numerous very convenient links to the original material.

        They also stress that Ms. Weir is free to reapply to join the coalition.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 19, 2015, 3:28 pm

        Hello, Mooser.

        Yes, I read the End the Occupation letter. Naturally, I am glad that ETO and JVP are concerned about anti-semitism, however as I mentioned, my normal presumption is that human rights activists aren’t racists unless they make clear statements to the contrary.

        It’s true that ETO has offered to allow IAK to reapply for membership. However, their review of said reapplication would depend on whether she has addressed their concerns. And that would be extremely difficult for her to do, since one of their main objections was her appearance on right wing programs, and she is committed to reaching a wide array of audiences, including both right wing American and Israeli ones. Her excuse is not that she is right wing, but that right wing audiences are particularly susceptible to militaristic anti-Palestinian messages. For example, in the US and Europe, militaristic anti-Palestinian forces have already often teamed up with right wing audiences (eg. the apocalyptic “Christian Zionists”).

        I do understand ETO’s concern with IAK appearing on right wing programs, since I consider myself generally a strong progressive, particularly in terms of economic and social justice. However IAK’s excuse makes sense too. To give an analogy, if during WWI anti-war groups were to appear on right wing programs whose audiences were open to arguments for isolationism, the so called “national interest”, and avoidance of involvement in Europe’s wars, I think that the anti-war groups’ appearances would also be acceptable – so long as very right wing programs were not the groups’ main focus.

      • annie
        annie
        July 19, 2015, 3:41 pm

        giles, you asked why – and i linked to why. i’m personally not a big fan of gang action and i like alison as a person. but i think, regardless of whether one writes it or not, when you publish something on your website (comments not included) you’re tactically endorsing the viability of that opinion even if it’s not ones personal opinion.

        for example i don’t think every article on mondoweiss represents the opinions of the editors – case in point for example analysis of syria or opinions about obama or whatever. but we don’t publish blatantly racist opinions. one can argue that it’s ok to publish racist opinions because of free speech or whatever. same goes for speaking on blatantly racist talk shows.

        but, it is not unreasonable for someone to complain about that or resent it. it is not “vicious” “fabricated” (one of the words originally used on the petition supporting weir) “unfounded” (one of the words used on the petition supporting weir) or necessarily an “attack” or “perverse” “hypocritical” or “dishonest” to object to that association.

        taking the very first example provided by ETO in their review linked above:

        ““If this hostility, even aversion, had only been shown towards the Jews at one period and in one country, it would be easy to unravel the limited causes of this anger, but this race has been on the contrary an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself. It must be therefore, since the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races, since they lived in countries very distant from each other, since they were ruled by very different laws, governed by opposite principles, since they had neither the same morals, nor the same customs, since they were animated by unlike dispositions which did not permit them to judge of anything in the same way, it must be therefore that the general cause of anti-Semitism has always resided in Israel itself and not in those who have fought against Israel.”

        this is a deeply concerning statement. without arguing the statement itself (which i think is obviously wrong because i am a person and jews are not “object of hatred to all the peoples ” if they are not an object of hatred to me — which they are not), having concern over this statement being published on weir’s website, that she would promote a thinker choosing to use this argument, is not in itself unreasonable in the least. it’s normal to question the motives and/or choice to publish.

        this is not to say i think all jvp complaints made against weir are worthy, accurate or had value — for example jvp’s claim the founding description on her website (paraphrasing: “essentially claims muslim, arab and jewish voices are unworthy”). but the list from ETO — are not unreasonable complaints and worthy of consideration.

        that said i don’t like the way this whole thing came down. it makes me uncomfortable.

        and since i chose to highlight the 1st complaint, here is ETO’s finale:

        5. As late as April 2015, Ms. Weir gave an interview to American Free Press. The front page of the American Free Press print publication declares “Civil War II: Hate group exploits tragic shooting as catalyst for vicious assault on Christian, Southern culture.” The website’s current top post is an apartheid apology and diatribe against Nelson Mandela.

        is it reasonable ETO would consider this an unacceptable association? yes, it is. whether we agree with it is not the point. the pro weir petition would have been a lot stronger had they stuck with the principle of inner movement fights being destructive to the movement. but they didn’t do that. that chose sides and made the other side distinctly wrong and unreasonable ( same MO as the original accusers — not rising above ). wheras, the concerns have validity.

        can this be worked out? i hope so. because i think alison weir is an incredible activist and has added much value to the discourse surrounding palestine and israel for a long long time. and i am a member of jvp and think they are an incredible activist organization. but as long as neither side is willing to budge, there will remain a division and it is the responsibility of both parties to recognize the value of the others concerns. it’s not one sided.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 19, 2015, 3:57 pm

        “not a big fan of gang action”

        Looks to me like they were very careful to follow the process Ms. Weir consented to when she became affiliated with them.

      • annie
        annie
        July 19, 2015, 4:12 pm

        i wasn’t clear, i didn’t mean a street gang. i meant large group decisions/expulsions like outings or shunnings within the movement (moving in a pack). i meant this whole thing has been uncomfortable for me to watch come down. and that’s the extent of what i have to say on the matter.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 19, 2015, 4:09 pm

        Poor Ms. Weir, she couldn’t get over the Berlin wall.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 19, 2015, 6:02 pm

        “Poor Ms. Weir, she couldn’t get over the Berlin wall.”

        And Col. Ann kept demanding that they got her all wrong when her opponents claimed that she was a Wright wing conservative for her efforts in the Berlin airlift. The final straw for Berlin was when she couldn’t get her story straight when explaining to the authorities in the decadent West if she was using a plane or a train to make her escape.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 19, 2015, 6:55 pm

        Hello, Annie.

        You made a generally very good analysis above from the perspective of cooperation in Solidarity activism. (dated July 19, 2015, 3:41 pm). I would be very happy if you could please write a short essay on this for Mondoweiss, because I generally share your sentiments.

        I do agree that it’s reasonable for End the Occupation to object to some of Weir’s statements or actions, like the one you cited. Like you, I think it’s incorrect to claim that Jews were “an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom (they have) established” themselves. Considering that America is one of the more tolerant countries, have they really been an object of “hatred” among Americans, generally speaking, Annie?

        Granted, this was not actually something Alison directly said or endorsed. But it’s reasonable for ETO to object to Alison having the other author’s passage mentioning the quote on her website. And if it were my own blog, I would remove it.

        At the same time, since it’s not actually from an essay that Alison fully and directly endorsed, it isn’t clear that it actually makes her racist. Does Alison herself actually believe the cited sentence in question?

        I don’t know either that just because a blog reposts an article the blog owner necessarily agrees with everything on it. It’s not as if he/she is accepting it as a law. There could be a few sentences that the blog owner would oppose. My guess is that the context – perhaps that of the 19th century Reform movement – in which the Jewish philosopher wrote the quote in question was not actually one in which the original author had an anti-semitic intent. I think he could have been making some new (for his time), radical argument about reforming religion or culture. But would it be really helpful to explain all that here, since neither you nor I would put things the way that the original author did?

      • annie
        annie
        July 19, 2015, 9:09 pm

        At the same time, since it’s not actually from an essay that Alison fully and directly endorsed, it isn’t clear that it actually makes her racist.

        that’s irrelevant to the argument since EOT did not say she was a racist. here is what they wrote:

        We feel compelled to present this information in detail as it fully conveys the gravity of the situation. This is not an isolated incident, and it is not rumor or hearsay; rather, it is a series of repeated, documented instances of accepting and condoning extreme racist speech. Moreover, the quotes below illustrate that this is not a case of re-branding legitimate criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitic; rather, it is a case of an individual favorably re-posting racist content on her website and failing to challenge racist statements made during interviews she participated in.

        her behavior is being challenged.

        the context – perhaps that of the 19th century Reform movement – in which the Jewish philosopher wrote the quote in question was not actually one in which the original author had an anti-semitic intent.

        that’s also irrelevant. what’s relevant is the context in which the author (in modern times), published on weir’s site, used the quote to underlie/buttress their argument.

        and no, i won’t be writing about this for the main page.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        July 19, 2015, 7:36 pm

        Annie, the quote you used at 3.41 is not Alison Weir’s words, it’s taken from a book by Bernard Lazare, available in full online and over 120 years old!

      • annie
        annie
        July 19, 2015, 8:46 pm

        bumble, and yes i am well aware it is not her words, which i why i wrote the preface before posting the quote (please review my preface – the context i took the time to write beginning with “i think, regardless of whether one writes it or not, when you publish something on your website ….” )

        everything i cited was on EOT’s http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=4510

        they provided the source http://alisonweir.org/journal/2012/3/27/an-analysis-on-the-attack-against-atzmon-by-roger-tucker.html

        as a matter of policy, although we (MW) may write about them, we don’t carry opinion pieces we feel are blatantly racist or bigoted. this is not an unusual policy. weir can argue she does, and it doesn’t represent her opinion, but it’s not unusual for people to not publish work they find offense — at all. i think weir is more likely the outlier here in terms of the way most people choose what to publish or republish on their blogs, online forums.

        it’s taken from a book by Bernard Lazare, available in full online and over 120 years old!

        and therefor what? you find validity in it? does it grow viable over time? that’s not something i’m in the mood to argue about this evening.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 19, 2015, 8:16 pm

        WJones,

        Naturally, I am glad that ETO and JVP are concerned about anti-semitism

        OK, you’re glad, I’m glad, it responds to everyone’s preferences but this is totally irrelevant.
        In supporting the rights of Palestinians, it’s way more important to all agree not to allow anyone to forget the extent of Palestinian rights. “Antisemitism” is not strictly speaking a common objective of Palestine solidarity.
        Those who are trying to make such a totally irrelevant goal to almost the main objective are damaging the solidarity movement. Those who are paying attention can observe a flurry of covert propaganda activities by the Zionists all over the place. Anyone coming up with nonsense like “antisemitism” when we desperately need every single hand should be shown up.

      • annie
        annie
        July 19, 2015, 9:23 pm

        “Antisemitism” is not strictly speaking a common objective of Palestine solidarity.

        au contraire “anti racism” is very much a common objective of palestine solidarity, according to bds national committee (as well as ETO – and i suggest reading who is on their steering committee and staff before making assumptions about who they represent http://www.endtheoccupation.org/section.php?id=385).

        and since anti semitism falls under the rubric of “anti racism”, apparently it’s not “a totally irrelevant goal”.

      • Rusty Pipes
        Rusty Pipes
        July 19, 2015, 8:55 pm

        For some of the reasons that ETO mentions in Annie’s link. In JVP’s initial letter to supporters, they also condemned her for her framing about the Israel Lobby and American National Interest: “Weir and IAK have a fundamental political framing that the U.S. is not implicated in the same racist and white supremacist structures as Israel. This “tail wags the dog” theory is a form of chauvinistic nationalism that absolves American interest in perpetuating injustice–not just in Israel but in other regions around the world. ” Then again, as JVP has been increasing in name recognition and in challenging establishment groups, like Hillel, about definitions about who is authentically Jewish and why Jews who affiliate with BDS are excluded from Jewish spaces and institutional funding, perhaps they decided to throw Alison under the bus.

        It is interesting that among the charges against IAK is the presence of a blog post at a time when another controversial activist, AG, was being thrown under the bus. IAK provided the opportunity for a variety of voices to weigh in, including the one with the objectionable cite. The blogpost immediately preceding that one reflects Alison’s typical stance:

        While people are suffering in Israeli prisons and being killed in Gaza, it is sad to see time and energy expended in a campaign against [AG]. I respect and like people on both sides of this controversy and am troubled over this distracting and destructive (but, I hope, temporary) split.

        I, of course, come down on the side of open discussion, even when the subject matter is difficult or troubling – in fact, that’s probably when it’s most needed. I believe in such old fashioned but critical concepts as the free marketplace of ideas, and I oppose censorship and would-be “thought police” telling others what they may or may not do, even when those attempting to do this have created valuable work that I admire.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 19, 2015, 9:41 pm

        Annie, of course that racism/antiracism stuff is on the bannerhead of the alphabet soups. I should perhaps have written more clearly: it doesn’t make sense, because it logically isn’t part of solidarity with the Palestinian people’s battle to get back their rights (not discussing these organizations.)
        And yes, I am familiar with these organizations and others and it still doesn’t make a single ounce of sense.
        For the life of me, I can’t understand what good it is going to do the Palestinian resistance to create a stupid subcategory within racism, under the title of “antisemitism”, for the purpose of picking insignificant nits as if it were for the ADL. To be used to deliberately create division and discord, perhaps used to get rid of some of the effective enemies of the Zionist state.

      • annie
        annie
        July 19, 2015, 9:54 pm

        it logically isn’t part of solidarity with the Palestinian people’s battle to get back their rights.

        then you are conceptually challenged. note in barghouti’s 10th anniversary interview http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/movement-interview-barghouti

        There are Jewish-Israeli partners in the BDS movement that play a significant role in exposing Israel’s regime of oppression and advocating for isolating it. Moreover, we are proud of the disproportionately high number of Jewish activists in the BDS movement, especially in Jewish Voice for Peace.

        or perhaps you have not been following the participation of jewish people deeply involved in teh church divestment issue?

        it still doesn’t make a single ounce of sense.

        try that line on omar barghouti. frankly, i think they know more about ” what good it is going to do the Palestinian resistance” than you do.

        Palestinian resistance to create a stupid subcategory within racism, under the title of “antisemitism”, for the purpose of picking insignificant nits as if it were for the ADL.

        palestinian resistance didn’t create a subcategory titled “anti semitism”. jews choose to define racism against themselves with their own word. people are free to use that term or not, but palestinians didn’t create anything, they used pre existing definitions. and it’s not a palestinian purpose to create “insignificant nits.. used to deliberately create division and discord.”

        as a movement i don’t think we’ll be healing any kind of division by denigrating the motives and ptv of the opposing team in these fights. it starts by recognizing your adversaries ptv even if you don’t agree with it.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 19, 2015, 10:13 pm

        If people would like to discuss this further, there are posts at both Jews Sans Frontieres and Tony Greenstein’s blog on this issue, and some lively discussion. With the ineffable advantage that I won’t be there.

        And Gilad Atzmon is also weighing in at his blog and ICH. I’ve never seen a better argument for multiple-saxophone performance. Keep all of his fingers and mouth busy.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        July 20, 2015, 12:24 am

        @echinococcus

        “Anyone coming up with nonsense like “antisemitism” when we desperately need every single hand should be shown up. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/louis-cancel-police#comment-150121

        Antisemitism is not, and never has been nonsense. It’s existance has caused the death of many people. Palestinians deserve the same rights as all people. zionists, the GOI and it’s suporters deserve the same disapprobation and denigration for their efforts to deny equality of rights let alone the commission, or support, of criminal acts by the GOI and settler movement.

        You will find very small support for Palestinian rights if you exclude those who generally find racism abhorent and support equality for all.

        I’ll hang with Mooser and Annie they’ll have me.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 20, 2015, 12:46 am

        “At the same time, since it’s not actually from an essay that Alison fully and directly endorsed, it isn’t clear that it actually makes her racist.”

        that’s irrelevant to the argument since EOT did not say she was a racist. here is what they wrote: “This is not an isolated incident, and it is not rumor or hearsay; rather, it is a series of repeated, documented instances of accepting and condoning extreme racist speech. …it is a case of an individual favorably re-posting racist content on her website and failing to challenge racist statements made during interviews she participated in.”

        Annie,

        That’s a good point that ETO didn’t actually call her racist. But if she isn’t racist, then her nonracism is relevant in that it suggests that she doesn’t “condone” the racism.

        I do think that posting an article on one’s blog usually means that an editor sympathizes with some major part of the essay. Yet is it really the case that posting an article means that the editor condones every statement in it? Could this be questionable in Weir’s case if she disclaims that her views aren’t necessarily and fully those of the essays that she posts? I sympathize a lot with Marc Ellis’ writings, but I find that some of his statements on Mondoweiss to have expressed serious intolerance, which I objected to in the comments section.

        Personally I think that it would be wise for Weir to remove this particular passage in that essay or to append an editorial comment that could explain in a positive, tolerant way the kind of ideas in this philosopher’s passage so that people wouldn’t, understandably, take it in an offensive way. I think that the French quote probably wasn’t meant in a racist way, since the author was an anarchist and key supporter of Richard Dreyfus in the scandal in France. But still, I seriously disagree with the disputed quote either even in its anarchist context, so is it really necessary to explain that author’s meaning in order to show that Weir wasn’t necessarily condoning it?

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 20, 2015, 12:53 am

        Annie,

        I’m not handicapped that way, at least not right now, because I am not a member of any of the organizations participating in this farce and I am not in any organized relationship with Barghouti’s outfit –one among Palestinian outfits, ad even if it were the only one, to all practical purposes I am (probably like most here) just a free spirit who boycotts and invites to boycott. Without holding myself to any other of the self-imposed limits of these organized campaigns.

        There are Jewish-Israeli partners in the BDS movement that play a significant role in exposing Israel’s regime of oppression and advocating for isolating it. Moreover, we are proud of the disproportionately high number of Jewish activists in the BDS movement, especially in Jewish Voice for Peace.

        Fine, he’s proud even though I don’t see what about, exactly . Personally I think it’s nice to have them in the movement, but having any outfit with a name that is specifically “Jewish”, when 97% of the population is not, is injecting an almost nationalist note in the conversation. Not the best way to fight Zionism. Also, unfortunately I have followed this kind of groups: it’s precisely these groups that are nitpicking to death with a huge chip on their shoulder re “antisemitism” as if it were any serious worry in our days. Some of them are responsible for the re-dimensioning of the scope and the aims of the boycott (pre-1967.) So, somewhat debilitating for the movement in general.

        try that line on omar barghouti. frankly, i think they know more about ” what good it is going to do the Palestinian resistance” than you do

        Of course they do. I am sure also that they are paying a lot of attention to their effctive and possible alliances, their positioning with an image in the international field, etc. One problem is that I have many more and more diverse Palestinian interlocutors, resistants most, and, as is natural in any movement, I hear very many different things. One thing I suppose the Barghouti people will be agreed with all other Resistance currents is that whatever boycott and other support actions are possible must be taken, period. That’s what we individuals do.

        palestinian resistance didn’t create a subcategory titled “anti semitism”. jews choose to define racism against themselves with their own word. people are free to use that term or not, but palestinians didn’t create anything, they used pre existing definitions

        Of course, in this case a re-creation by the Zionists of a distorted old political term.
        Yes, you assure me it’s not for the purpose of creating problems where they weren’t any, but I prefer to believe my eyes.

        as a movement i don’t think we’ll be healing any kind of division by denigrating the motives and ptv of the opposing team in these fights. it starts by recognizing your adversaries ptv even if you don’t agree with it

        .

        You sure have a point there. But see: when I work together, say with “liberals”, wishy-washies, Democrats even, staunch Goldwaterians, tea-partiers and outright racist-fascist types against some war action, I don’t inject any of my other views in that. I don’t start yelling for the exclusion of Buchanan and he doesn’t try to call for my hanging as a commie while we two are in the same line of work. So it’s not really a Pt of view question. Maybe these groups will reconsider the fight they started (again) out of matters unrelated to the aims of the Resistance. Even if they are buried somewhere in some bylaws, as a trick for creating trouble on demand.

        Sorry for the terribly prolix post. Head not working.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 20, 2015, 12:59 am

        ^What I meant is that I disagree with the quote that Annie also takes objection to.

      • tree
        tree
        July 20, 2015, 1:35 am

        old geezer,

        You will find very small support for Palestinian rights if you exclude those who generally find racism abhorent and support equality for all.

        I generally agree with most of your comments here, but this sounds like you have gotten this ass-backwards. No one is talking about excluding people like Annie and Mooser. The issue is JVP and End the Occupation seeking to exclude Allison Weir, despite her years of service and hard work for the cause, over what boils down to a disagreement on personal strategy. I think the letter that W Jones linked to sums up the issue quite well. I’ll quote from it at length.

        As active participants in the struggle for justice for Palestinians, coming from a variety of ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds, we call for an end to internal attacks on fellow activists and organizations. These only impede the work for justice.

        We appreciate the important contributions to that cause made over many years by If Americans Knew, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

        In that light, we are dismayed by the recent unfounded attacks on one of the top organizations working on this issue, If Americans Knew, and its dedicated leader, Alison Weir, by the leadership of Jewish Voice for Peace and the U.S. Campaign. Many of us are members of these groups and are unhappy at these significant actions made in our name but without consulting us.

        We recognize that important differences among these organizations exist – each has its own constituencies, approach, and style, as is the case with the scores of other organizations that together make up the solidarity movement. Some may disapprove of taking the Palestinian case to people who don’t define themselves as “liberals” or “progressives.” Others may disapprove of working with Zionist groups and failure to state that Zionism is racism, etc. We have no problem with any group articulating such differences and even making principled criticisms of another’s work – that is part of the life of any healthy democratic movement.

        But we believe strongly that secret dossiers, ideological inquisitions, double standards, misrepresentations, spreading innuendo, and attempting to excommunicate groups or individuals one disagrees with from the ranks of the movement sow unnecessary divisions and distract from what must remain our primary focus: building the broad united front that’s necessary to change United States policy in the Middle East and to help Palestinians obtain justice in their homeland.

        We also believe that the vitriolic, ADL-like accusations that Alison Weir is “anti-Semitic” and/or racist are scurrilous and without foundation. They are based on guilt-by-association arguments through which numerous committed activists – including the leadership of the US Campaign and JVP – could equally, and also incorrectly, be called “anti-Semitic” and/or racist.

        We are painfully aware that there are well funded opponents who spare no effort to undermine and divide this movement for justice and human rights in Palestine. We therefore expect those who sincerely share our goals to be mindful of the potential to fracture the movement and be judicious and principled in their critique of groups and individuals who make significant contributions to the movement.

        We call for these attacks to cease and for those initiating them to return to their main task, working for justice in Palestine.

        Sincerely,

        The Undersigned

        https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1oyHWpfZtMvDez5XThztcbRMbgzQqMnCibkVk4Rjh3Hw/viewform

        Signatories include Richard Falk, Samia Khoury, Dr. Mazin Quimzeh, Hedy Epstein, George Rishmawi, Abbas Hamideh, Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo, Lawrence Davidson, Joel Kovel, Jeffrey Blankfort and also our own Henry Noor, Susie Kneedler, and Katie Miranda, as well as over 1400 others at the moment.

      • tree
        tree
        July 20, 2015, 1:59 am

        If people would like to discuss this further, there are posts at both Jews Sans Frontieres and Tony Greenstein’s blog on this issue, and some lively discussion.

        No, thanks. I used to post there quite a long time ago, but they remind me of the “splitters” scene from “Life of Brian”. More interested in personally attacking those who don’t follow their narrow line than actually doing anything constructive for Palestinians is my take on their value, which I consider negligible.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        July 20, 2015, 2:32 am

        tree: [quoting the “Open Letter” ] we are dismayed by the recent unfounded attacks on one of the top organizations working on this issue, If Americans Knew, and its dedicated leader, Alison Weir .
        —————-

        But the objections are NOT unfounded. That’s the problem. They are very well-documented.

        We also believe that the vitriolic, ADL-like accusations that Alison Weir is “anti-Semitic” and/or racist are scurrilous and without foundation.

        ETO does NOT accuse Alison Weir herself of being anti-Semitic or racist, nor are the actual objections vitriolic, scurrilous or unfounded. Annie has already accurately and evenhandedly described the actual objections, so I will not repeat them.

        Cf. http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=4510

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        July 20, 2015, 3:17 am

        W.Jones: …one of their main objections was her appearance on right wing programs, and she is committed to reaching a wide array of audiences, including both right wing American and Israeli ones.
        —————————-

        While I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, I don’t think that is an accurate description of the particular ETO objection in question.

        The problem isn’t simply “appearance on right-wing programs” in order to get the message out; it is 1) appearance on programs that embrace extreme racist and anti-Semitic views combined with 2) making “little to no effort to challenge, confront, or rebut any of these views” and “placing Palestinian rights advocacy within the context of — rather than in opposition to — those views.”

        ETO: Principled advocates of Palestinian rights appear on media outlets that have promoted bigoted narratives, such as Fox News or CNN, in order to challenge, not reinforce, racism in all of its forms, including anti-Palestinian bias, Zionist propaganda, Islamophobia and white supremacy.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        July 20, 2015, 3:43 am

        @W.Jones: Btw, notwithstanding my previous comment, I don’t fully agree with every objection detailed in the End the Occupation statement. #2 in particular:

        ETO: In writing about a controversy surrounding allegations of the Israeli military harvesting the organs of Palestinians in 2009, Ms. Weir responded to supporters of Israel claiming this was a new “blood libel” by citing the research of Ariel Toaff, who purported to have uncovered ritual murder of Christian children by Jews in medieval Europe (the very definition of “blood libel”).

        Actually, towards the very beginning of the article in question, Alison Weir refers to the medieval anti-Semitic “blood libel” stories as “widely refuted”:

        Numerous people likened the article to the medieval “blood libel,” (widely refuted stories that Jews killed people to use their blood in religious rituals). (emphasis added)

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/28/israeli-organ-harvesting/

        ETO errs, imo, by ignoring that first response. It is only much later in the article that Alison Weir brings up the views of Ariel Toaff, not to endorse them, but rather to use his case as an example of how the ADL and other groups can orchestrate a campaign of personal attacks to force someone to recant their views.

        (I’m not familiar enough with the Toaff controversy to weigh in on it, but Wikipedia tells us: “Toaff later wrote that critics had misunderstood his book, which was arguing that the ritual use of small quantities of dried blood in magical curses had been a real practice among medieval “Ashkenazi extremists”, but that this was unrelated to the accusation of ritual murder which was the central claim of the “blood libel.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Toaff)

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        July 20, 2015, 7:50 am

        echinococcus July 20, 2015, 12:53 am:

        … But see: when I work together, say with “liberals”, wishy-washies, Democrats even, staunch Goldwaterians, tea-partiers and outright racist-fascist types against some war action, I don’t inject any of my other views in that. I don’t start yelling for the exclusion of Buchanan and he doesn’t try to call for my hanging as a commie while we two are in the same line of work. So it’s not really a Pt of view question. Maybe these groups will reconsider the fight they started (again) out of matters unrelated to the aims of the Resistance. Even if they are buried somewhere in some bylaws, as a trick for creating trouble on demand.

        Bingo! Bingo! Bingo!

        No effective alliances to accomplish anything could be formed if all participants had to hew to some purity threshold on some issue as determined by some subset of the members of the prospective alliance. That is an instantly self-fracturing and therefore self-defeating effort – if it ever tentatively congeals in the first place.

        This self-defeating purity test is exactly why coalitions are not formed in the bottom v. top economic struggle – despite such overwhelming need and common cause on that particular issue. It’s always left v. right despite the lack of even a shred of energizing and action-oriented difference at the top of that construct. The oligarchs and the Zionists (in this case) are sitting back, sipping their brandy, puffing their stogies, and laughing at us for this kind of squabbling. The Sabans and the Adelsons hold hands and know that zero serious opposition comes from/can come from these efforts.

        I always use the tragi-positive case of “Big” Jim Folsom on this. He was a former governor of Alabama who was elected twice in the 1940s and 50s (height of Jim Crow). He formed a coalition of blacks and poor whites to get elected. These groups had “ISSUES” with each other that, to put it mildly, make the JVP/ETO “issues” with Weir look like birthday greetings. Yet they successfully put themaside to make change.

        Folsom’s administrations were separated by a gap, so not only did he form the necessary coalition, he maintained it while out of office, and used it to get elected a second time. In 1959 George Wallace overtly fanned the embers of racial hatred to destroy that coalition (plus, Folsom by that time was a raging drunk; who wouldn’t be having to deal with a splintering force orders of magnitude beyond this one).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Folsom

        From the wiki:

        Folsom was among the first southern governors to embrace integration and enforcement of civil rights for African Americans. In his Christmas message on December 25, 1949, he said: “As long as the Negroes are held down by deprivation and lack of opportunity, the other poor people will be held down alongside them”.[1]

        Meanwhile Palestinians are getting killed on a daily basis. By the thousands at regular and planned intervals.

        Cue the scent of Cohiba’s and faint but hearty laughter.

        Focus. Focus. Focus.

        PS. I wish Howard Zinn was still around to explain why we little people trying to effect change keep falling for this manipulation (self- or otherwise)

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 20, 2015, 9:10 am

        You made a great point, Sibiriak, about something that I didn’t notice:
        “Actually, towards the very beginning of the article in question, Alison Weir refers to the medieval anti-Semitic “blood libel” stories as “widely refuted”.

        That is, Weir presented the libel as something that had been refuted and therefore she was not actually propagating the blood libel as her accusers claimed in one of their main points against her?

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 20, 2015, 9:40 am

        Sibiriak

        I understand that ETO contrasted Weir’s appearance with how: Principled advocates of Palestinian rights appear on media outlets that have promoted bigoted narratives, such as Fox News or CNN, in order to challenge, not reinforce, racism in all of its forms, including anti-Palestinian bias, Zionist propaganda, Islamophobia and white supremacy.

        An advocate for women’s rights or a minimum wage could go on a Fox News show where the host makes comments against women, the poor, and Muslims, but the guest might just choose to rebut the comments on women and the poor, but few of the comments on Muslims without actually approving of those comments. I think that this probably happens not infrequently and the guest simply wants to focus on her own issue without rebutting everything the host says.

        Would it really be right though to characterize the program’s guest as unprincipled or reinforcing the anti-Muslim statements?

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 20, 2015, 10:12 am

        Ritzl,

        Thanks for pointing to the impermissible idiocy of a Reinheitsgebot in wide coalitions. Purity standards are excellent for making good beer. Political coalitions make sausage at best. No one objected to JVP’s nationalist name (or structure) and I will gladly abstain from questioning their ideology and aims as long as they declare against Zionism…

        Also, it’s not as if Ms Weir, who knows how to build coalitions instead of destroying them, had been bringing offensive, outspoken antisemites to meetings or so. JVP & Co had to go out of their way to find elements of offense and dig and research for some kind of Torquemada trial assaying sulfur smells in hundred-year old quotes and people one associates with. Not the kind of behavior I’d associate with people who protest divisiveness.

      • Rusty Pipes
        Rusty Pipes
        July 20, 2015, 11:11 am

        Sorry, that’s GA, not AG. Here’s the link to Alison’s blogpost. Interestingly, the blogpost after Tucker’s is “White House Correspondents Association refuses table to Helen Thomas at upcoming dinner – on 50th anniversary of allowing women journalists to attend, a breakthrough accomplished by Helen .”

        Back in the day when I was a regular at the Garish Orange Site, Zionist trolls used to try to entrap critics of Israel by links with questionable people or sites, no matter how many degrees of separation in order to get them banned (one of the people they tried that on was Anna Baltzer because she interviewed a member of Al Awda MB while living on the West Bank). Then other critics of Israel were threatened for associating with or defending the banned.

        The rituals of circular firing squads and throwing allies under the bus are based on fear. The longer I have been involved in this movement, the more weary I have become of these games.

      • RockyMissouri
        RockyMissouri
        July 20, 2015, 12:19 pm

        Thank you for responding. That is heartbreaking.

        In the meantime, Palestinians still suffer from the terrible apartheid.

        Thank you, for being a voice.

      • annie
        annie
        July 20, 2015, 1:37 pm

        i thought of the dkos days too. as i mentioned earlier i find this whole thing really distressing and uncomfortable. and i think as a movement we’re better than this. but — i can’t dismiss the complaints/concerns as unworthy, unfounded or with no merit. there’s got to be a better way to solve (or resolve) our differences tho. it pains me this whole thing. it makes me question if were going to see a repeat of this routinely in the future.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 20, 2015, 5:20 pm

        Let’s be clear about one thing. Ms. Weir has not been silenced, censored, or blackballed. She can go on doing her work as she sees it, and associating her work with whomever she pleases, unless, of course, RoHa says it should be “whoever”. I mean, whatever.

        All that has happened is that JVP and the Coalition to End the Occupation have announced they will not coalitionize with her. Nobody has penalized her or impacted any of her resources (website, speaking, writing) in any way.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 20, 2015, 5:54 pm

        Annie,

        I agree with you: there’s got to be a better way to solve (or resolve) our differences tho. it pains me this whole thing. it makes me question if were going to see a repeat of this routinely in the future.

        We’ve already seen it happen with the Greta and Ann Wright affairs, when Wright was censured just for defending Greta, whose own fault was tweeting a video that falsely slandered Zionism and for which Greta had apologized.
        It started with Atzmon, and Atzmon has a provocative if not offensive style, but sometimes statements he was accused over weren’t actually anti-semitic.
        So based on the precedents these cases have set in a low standard for denouncing people, we can expect more of these kinds of censuring to continue.

        I understand that you don’t intend to write a post about it, but that’s actually a reason why you are a good candidate for an author, Annie, even for a short post- you are very sensitive about the different groups involved, and can write in a way that could ruffle less feathers and accept concerns of both sides while trying to address this important issue.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 20, 2015, 6:04 pm

        Let’s be clear about one thing. Ms. Weir has not been silenced, censored, or blackballed. She can go on doing her work as she sees it, and associating her work with whomever she pleases, –
        Mooser, the ETO Campaign and JVP are two of the biggest Palestinian rights coalitions/organizations. If they tell their members that they aren’t affiliating with her because she allegedly condones racism, that has a major impact on her advocacy work. It basically gives her a reputation in the activist community as someone who condones it. Once JVP and ETO tell their members this and she gets a reputation based on the allegations, it’s more pre-gaming and pressuring her based on spreading the accusations. Based on trajectory, Weir the “alleged condoner of racist” becomes Weir the “widely known racist”.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 20, 2015, 7:27 pm

        Mooser,

        That may be correct; if JVP and whatstheirface insist and sign, though, they will have exposed themselves as caring more for some tribal lèse-majesté than whatever crimes the Zionist are committing in the name of these groups’ own nationalist shingle.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 20, 2015, 8:38 pm

        “Whomever” is right, and I’m sure you know it.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 20, 2015, 10:03 pm
      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        July 21, 2015, 1:40 am

        @tree

        I’m not sure how to respond to you to be honest.

        I made specific reference to a portion of echinococcus’ post and responded to that.

        To refer to antisemitism as nonsense is beyond the pale for me. I believe in an equality of all people.

        I think Ms. Weir has made a strategic error in her approach and I don’t question the rightness or purity (?) of her goals at all and I have just made a post in that regard but it was not the purpose of the post you responded to.

        Given a choice between those who champion Palestinian rights yet ignore other forms (often deadly) of racism and the Annie and Moosers of the world then I would align with them based on my understanding of their beliefs.

        Who knows… Maybe I’m wrong. I usually am a dozen times a day.

        AsI said what I feel is the specific error of her decisions is elsewhere. I value her contributions. I believe she is sincere. I think she has made some counterprodictive choices which will have an effect which is counterproductive.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 21, 2015, 4:46 am

        Old geezer,

        Let me try to count the ways in which I mean the use of the term, and the accusations of, “antisemitism” here are nonsense.
        First, there is absolutely no defined frame: at no time do we see if it’s what we properly call racism, i.e. group prejudice strictly associated with a characteristic of birth (like “being born to a Jewish woman” or a typical name, etc. or religion (which is absolutely not a characteristic by birth and can be a fully legitimate target) or a given culture (ditto) or a supposed “racial” property in some sick mind. Then, the fact that there was no major provocation that could justify triggering a fight against an ally within a minority movement. These instances of alleged “antisemitism” of published quotations had to be researched, dug out, relativized and pulled out of context to make a case. Ergo, it tells me that the principal objective of this organization is to fight whoever doesn’t seem sufficiently in awe of the organization’s tribal feelings, not support of Palestinian objectives to regain their rights.
        Then, in a wider frame, look at today’s US and Europe and ask yourself how significant is “antisemitism” today in the grand scheme of things and if it needs additional knights errant attacking from the Palestinian Solidarity side, in the presence of all the self appointed slayers of antisemitic windmills, i.e. all the Zionist organizations, the additional Zionist organizations dedicated to “fight antisemitism” to silence criticism of Zionism…
        Surely not a serious problem in itself, and certainly not one for either calculating the diameter of the earth or fighting for Palestinian rights.

      • aiman
        aiman
        July 22, 2015, 8:09 am

        tree, +10!

  2. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    July 18, 2015, 4:52 pm

    The ADL wedded itself to White Privilege years ago. I have NO respect for those people.

  3. Citizen
    Citizen
    July 18, 2015, 6:49 pm

    All these euphemistic acronymn NGO organizations Israel First types make up to describe their Zionist agenda as American Patriotic or Justice Desired, and get US taxpayers to pay for them–we need to do an A to Z list of them. Somebody could do an App? Would go far to translate just how devious the Israel First crowd is, here in USA.

  4. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    July 18, 2015, 8:11 pm

    RE: “We have cringed as the ADL positions itself locally as a champion of racial profiling legislation while sending U.S. police — including former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch — to train on population control in Israel, an apartheid police state with more than 60 years of sophisticated expertise in racial profiling, mass incarceration, settler colonialism, and ethnic cleansing targeting the non-Jewish indigenous Palestinian people.” ~ JVP

    MY COMMENT: The ADL seems determined to turn the entire earth into one, big, ‘third world’! ! !

    WATCH: ■ Catalan Police in Israel: repression courses “Tested In Combat” [VIDEO, 05:40]

    CATALAN POLICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL VIDEO ~ February 16, 2014
    “Public security” training in Israel for police from Catalonia – or how to wage war on your own civilian population to protect the investments of bankster criminals!
    SOURCE – http://roblosricos.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/catalan-police-training-in-israel/

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson
      July 18, 2015, 8:15 pm

      P.S. Here is a very powerful testimonial regarding the impact of Israel’s “tested in combat” marketing on policing.
      An Israeli Soldier’s Story – Eran Efrati [VIDEO, 40:05]

      Published on Mar 8, 2014
      The talk by Eran Efrati was filmed in Denver, Colorado on March 3, 2014 as part of The Soldier and the Refusenik U.S. tour with Maya Wind. Eran talks about his experiences in the IDF and then more broadly discusses Israel, its relationship to the U.S. and the global expansion of militarism. The talk by Eran Efrati was filmed in Denver, Colorado on March 3, 2014 as part of The Soldier and the Refusenik U.S. tour with Maya Wind. Eran talks about his experiences in the IDF and then more broadly discusses Israel, its relationship to the U.S. and the global expansion of militarism.

      PAST COMMENTS:

      Bornajoo October 24, 2014, 3:37 pm
      @JLewisDickerson
      That was indeed a very powerful must-watch testimonial. Thank you for the link. More honest and courageous people from within like Eran urgently required
      The digger you deep it just becomes even more hideous, even more grotesque and even more evil.

      MRW October 27, 2014, 12:43 am
      Everyone should see that “An Israeli Soldier’s Story – Eran Efrati [VIDEO, 40:05].”
      If you can’t stand to watch the whole thing, the last 10 minutes will do it.

      SOURCE – http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/there-things-around#comment-717880

      • RockyMissouri
        RockyMissouri
        July 21, 2015, 12:49 am

        Eran Efrati is an incredible human being to bear witness, and offer testimony. I send the best of my heart to him. To think of the amazing strength just to make that leap, to see Palestinians as HUMAN BEINGS, is incredible.

  5. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    July 18, 2015, 8:20 pm

    RE: “We have cringed as the ADL positions itself locally as a champion of racial profiling legislation while sending U.S. police — including former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch — to train on population control in Israel, an apartheid police state with more than 60 years of sophisticated expertise in racial profiling, mass incarceration, settler colonialism, and ethnic cleansing targeting the non-Jewish indigenous Palestinian people.” ~ St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace

    SEE: “The Anti-Defamation League Sticks to What it Knows Best: Racism”, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, 2014

    . . . In the wake of the decisions not to indict officers Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo for murdering Michael Brown and Eric Garner, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – a Jewish organization purportedly founded to fight racism and anti-Semitism – has revealed itself to be once again standing on the wrong side of history. Not only did the ADL urge “calm” of protestors in the face of righteous anger against the state murder of Black people across the United States, they also stood with the St Louis grand jury: “we respect the grand jury’s integrity and their commitment to meeting the heavy responsibility thrust upon them.” And, adding insult to injury, the ADL praised the NYPD despite the shameful and brutal murder of Eric Garner and the midst of their violent repression of protestors.

    The ADL’s decision to firmly support the police and attempt to silence nation-wide collective action is no surprise given their history of collaboration with and support of police violence and surveillance in the US. The ADL directly trains tens of thousands of police and other “security forces” and leads population control training of US Police by Israeli military and police forces. By facilitating the training of US police in Ferguson and other cities, the ADL acts as a driving force in the cross-pollination of the most repressive practices and the increasing militarization of police forces in the US and Israel.

    In this context, the ADL attacked Black football player Reggie Bush for courageously affirming the link between Ferguson and Palestine. Consistent with its pattern of suppression, the ADL slammed Reggie Bush for sharing messages of solidarity from Palestinians to the people of Ferguson on social media. The ADL claims that there is no connection between racist violence in Ferguson and across the US, the repression of community resistance to this violence through mass protest, and the racist violence against Palestinians. Yet, the ADL is itself perhaps the most direct link between the racist violence against Black people and Palestinians, having literally trained former St. Louis County Police Chief Timothy Fitch in Israel. Abraham Foxman, Executive Director of the ADL, went so far as to suggest that Reggie Bush does not understand racism in either the United States or Palestine, saying: “He should stick to football.”

    We are disgusted that the ADL continues to stick to what it knows best: racism.

    Beyond the ADL, Israel’s connection to Ferguson is not strange or exceptional, but is rather, as is laid out in “Israel’s Worldwide Role in Repression”, part of its broader role in global repression. Just as the US military trains police around the world based on its long history of repressing of Black people and other oppressed communities, Israel takes the technology, military tactics, and racist brutality it has developed through its colonization of Palestine and exports them to the rest of the world.

    In the United States alone, over 9,000 US officials have trained with Israeli military and police, including the Atlanta police who killed a 92 year old Black woman, Kathryn Johnson, Oakland police who used tear gas and rubber bullets to repress Occupy Oakland, and the LAPD who are now utilizing the drone technology that Israel pioneered. Thus, when Palestinians declare their solidarity with the people of Ferguson or offer protestors advice on dealing with teargas, or when demonstrators in Missouri carry signs reading “from Ferguson to Palestine occupation is a crime,” it grows out of a deep recognition of the ways in which the struggles against racism and colonialism in the US and the struggle against racist colonization in Palestine are bound together.

    As Jews committed to full justice for Black, Brown and Indigenous people in the United States, queer and trans communities, immigrants targeted by policing and repression, and for justice in Palestine, we assert that the ADL does not represent our interests and continually aligns itself with racism in the US and Israel and works to defend them against popular challenges. We reject this racism and proudly stand with Reggie Bush. We will work to expose the ADL, stop the role it plays in police collaboration between the US and Israel, and continue to organize against Police and military violence.

    To sign on to this statement, follow this link – https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PgWafnuqHRYkwN-y0h22g4PDCiyNrNUWbdOm36dDwYg/viewform?c=0&w=1

    SOURCE – http://ijsn.net/iworr/the-anti-defamation-league-sticks-to-what-it-knows-best-racism/

    P.S. ALSO SEE:“Israel’s worldwide role in repression”, Israel/Palestine International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, Mondoweiss.net, January 16, 2013
    LINK – http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/israels-worldwide-repression

  6. hophmi
    hophmi
    July 19, 2015, 12:16 pm

    So all the Jews in JVP are white?

    • annie
      annie
      July 19, 2015, 12:56 pm

      all the jews in St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace apparently.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 19, 2015, 4:37 pm

      “So all the Jews in JVP are white?”

      “As white as corn-flakes”, like “Little Kitty” said about Mary’s Little Lamb in “I Haven’t Got a Hat”?

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      July 21, 2015, 1:18 am

      @hophmi

      “So all the Jews in JVP are white?”

      Why hops?

      Do whites count as 1 and non whites as 1+? Or do they count as 1 and non whites as 1-?

      No you aren’t a dyed in the wool racist.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 21, 2015, 1:10 pm

        “Why hops?

        Do whites count as 1 and non whites as 1+? Or do they count as 1 and non whites as 1-?”

        You’re asking me? It’s JVP who has defined being Jewish as white privilege, not me.

  7. RockyMissouri
    RockyMissouri
    July 20, 2015, 10:54 am

    I am disappointed in JVP with regard to their comments about Alison Weir. I thought they were against the bigotry of Zionists in their treatment and abuse of Palestinians.

  8. Xpat
    Xpat
    July 20, 2015, 11:27 am

    Annie, thank you for all your work on this.
    It’s not clear why Alison Weir doesn’t put an end to this this and take the easy step of disassociating herself from racists.

    • csutter
      csutter
      July 20, 2015, 12:19 pm

      Elliot: That is exactly the point.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 20, 2015, 1:40 pm

      “It’s not clear why Alison Weir doesn’t put an end to this this and take the easy step of disassociating herself from racists.”

      But don’t you see? Ms. Weir is “placing Palestinian rights advocacy within the context of — rather than in opposition to — those views.”
      Isn’t that great? Won’t that be helpful?

      • RockyMissouri
        RockyMissouri
        July 20, 2015, 2:20 pm

        I still don’t understand….?!

      • annie
        annie
        July 20, 2015, 3:14 pm

        rocky, it’s really not that complicated. i’m trying to figure out if this is willful ignorance on your part. let me spell it out to you very clearly.

        some people are upset because alison weir advocates for palestine “within the context of” a white supremacy website while not directly opposing the politics of her host.

        there are dedicated people who think this tarnishes the movement and others who do not.

        there are people who trust alison’s judgement, that speaking to all people, exercising free speech, supporting an open marketplace on ideas and opinion, is more important than always representing the movement within clearly specified ideological guidelines of anti racism. and this choice, of alison’s, has then alienated people who might naturally be aligned with her regarding palestinian activism. there are those who think her activism on, near or around or surrounding white supremacy promotes white supremacy as acceptable. iow, “rather than in opposition to” white supremacy, she advocates for palestine “within” a radio show that is affiliated w/racism.

        so there’s been a gauntlet thrown down, ‘either disassociate from these affiliations or we are disassociating w/you. ‘

        if you cannot tell the difference between arguing with a host on a show you’re on when they make racists statements vs carrying on a discussion as if someone didn’t just shit on your values just say so.

        and many people see the value of alison’s work over the decades that they do not really care what radio show she is on. whereas, some leaders in the movement feel a pressing need for a more pure moral position and she crosses it for them.

        and there are people who deeply deeply resent any org making decisions like this about a dedicated activist within our community, that it unnecessarily cause frisson/division within the movement when, instead of gatekeeping, we should be united over a common cause.

        why don’t you read word for word the statements from both alison and her accusers and her defenders if you really don’t understand. because it’s not that complicated. instead of just flapping your ‘i don’t understand’ wings.

      • RockyMissouri
        RockyMissouri
        July 20, 2015, 8:58 pm

        My interest outweighs the abilities of my mind to comprehend things clearly. It takes me a bit longer to understand different positions, and who is interested in helping the Palestinians.

        Couldn’t you have stated it a little differently than making me feel like crap.. ?

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 20, 2015, 6:08 pm

        Yes, I think that there are some things hard to understand about it, because she has actually at times spoken out against anti-semitism and because others like Lowenstein and Pappe and the Corries have been on the same program (Dankof’s) that Weir was accused over.

      • Kris
        Kris
        July 20, 2015, 10:36 pm

        @RockyMissouri, “I still don’t understand….?!”

        Me, either, so thank you for your comment, which got Annie to write this helpful explanation.

      • annie
        annie
        July 20, 2015, 10:41 pm

        sorry rocky. i should have been nicer.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        July 20, 2015, 11:50 pm

        Rocky’s “I don’t understand”statement was honest. Most readers do NOT understand the facets of this issue. She was not flapping wings, but crying out for clarity on an important kefuffle (sic).

        As for Weir’s presentation on dubious and tainted and odious radio shows— that is a judgement call. I’d think protecting the integrity of her message over reach would be more important.

      • RockyMissouri
        RockyMissouri
        July 21, 2015, 1:16 am

        Thank you, Ellen… This is just such a waste to me, and it’s splitting these groups of good people. Americans, in particular, really need to hear just what it is that Alison Weir has to say.!!

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        July 21, 2015, 1:07 am

        @Ellen

        “I’d think protecting the integrity of her message over reach would be more important. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/louis-cancel-police#comment-150121

        I agree wholeheartedly and not only from a philosophical point of view but from a practical view as well.

        Weir is more likely to turn away those with open minds, and hearts, when associating with racist media. And despite that cost she is unlikely to encounter listeners/readers who aren’t racist to the core that do follow that media. Those people are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Let the zionists cozy up to the racists and bigots, as they are fellow travellers and as they have for the past half century.

        International law, humanitarian law and equal rights for all people is more important but even if you don’t believe in it Weir does her cause, and the cause of others, a great disservice.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 21, 2015, 3:38 am

        “Weir is more likely to turn away those with open minds, and hearts, when associating with racist media.”

        I would have thought that open minded people would be prepared to find out what she has to say.

      • RockyMissouri
        RockyMissouri
        July 21, 2015, 2:45 pm

        Excellent comment, RoHa !! Open minded, indeed!

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 20, 2015, 5:32 pm

      “It’s not clear why Alison Weir doesn’t put an end to this”

      Possibly because Ms. Weir has a faulty understanding of racism, especially as it applies to I-P. I sometimes wonder if people don’t see this as a popularity contest between Jews and Palestinians, cause it’s not.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        July 20, 2015, 11:55 pm

        No it is not. And for those who do not live among and experience racism, it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine it’s depth . I don’t know if Weir’s world touches that bubble .

  9. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    July 20, 2015, 7:24 pm

    That’s a very fair summary of many of the issues about Alison Weir, Annie.
    In the unlikely event of my being asked to speak for Palestine on an anti-Semitic show I would decline. However I would not shun someone who took the view that getting out the message is everything – but Mooser’s also right to say that it’s up to the various organisations concerned to make rules about the coalitions they’ll accept.
    On the Bernard Lazare question: if Ms.Weir puts herself beyond the pale by quoting Lazare c.1890 there must be something beyond-pale about Lazare himself. I would be sorry if that view were taken. Lazare had something of Alison Weir’s ability to fall out with former allies but he was not at all inclined to let the anti-Semites get away with it. He joined the Dreyfus fray when many others, including many Jewish people, were still hanging back. His view that Jewish culture based on Shammaism and the Talmud rather than on the Bible was understandably alienating to others is certainly questionable at every point but I don’t think it is outrageous.

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones
      July 20, 2015, 7:57 pm

      M.Hughes,
      Weir didn’t actually quote Lazare, she just posted on her blog someone else’s essay that did quote Lazare. But just because you have something on your blog doesn’t mean that you agree with every statement in it. MW has at least once published an intolerant statement that I’ve objected to.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        July 21, 2015, 4:43 am

        Thanks, WJ! My idea was that in any event there isn’t much ‘guilt by association’ with Lazare because he was not on any reasonable understanding an anti-Semite.
        Ms.Weir also says – I think in her own voice! – that she dislikes the Marxist-Abunimahist idea of explaining everything as ‘settler-colonialism’. There too I sympathise with her.

  10. Doubtom
    Doubtom
    July 21, 2015, 1:59 am

    Why are they invoking the Holocaust?? Simple, it’s what they do! Next question??

  11. stopaipac
    stopaipac
    July 30, 2015, 2:27 am

    okay, this post has been hijacked by people who insist it is just fine to organize and recruit neo-nazis (that not only hate Jews, but also all people of color, and needless to say, Arabs, who they think are inferior to white people). may i remind folks this is the 21st century. rational people do not recruit american nazis (i think Alison’s petition calls them “people who don’t define themselves as “liberals” or “progressives”…but people like Clayton Douglas…. he is simply a nazi, that is simply where is politics is at). Not only is it wrong, it is stupid politics. of course people can choose to do that, and others will choose to disassociate themselves from them.
    Calling out ADL for its racism seems to me to be much better politics.

Leave a Reply