next »

[solly]

Paul Findley writes:

I also experienced firsthand what Carter now faces. Toward the end of my 22-year tenure in Congress, I spoke in favor of Palestinian rights and was critical of Israeli policies of Palestinian land confiscation and Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian lands. These actions were counter to American policy and values. They dimmed chances for peace.

As a result of my evenhanded position, the pro-Israel lobby poured money into my opponent's campaign. I overcame their challenge in 1980 but lost in 1982 by a narrow margin. Still, the message was heard loudly on Capitol Hill: Criticize Israel and pay with your congressional seat.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0702070020feb07,0,5388645.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

[suntoryboss]

You write this, and you probably claim you're not an antisemite. Did you forget your lithium today? Zionists aiding Hitler? Hey Lithium boy, AM YISRAEL CHAI!

Anti Semitic baiting is the main reason few are willing to candidly discuss the Zionist Occupation Force of Palestine. Jews are a sacred cow in American society thanks to the influence of the Zionist lobby.If you oppose the Zionist Occupation Force, you're labeled an anti-Semite, people want to run away from such labels and therefore refrain from discussing it.

The Holocaust is the same thing, few are willing to take a critical look at the role of Zionists in aiding Hitler, at why Jews were so hated in Europe or even consider the fact that many rich Jews turned poor Jews over to the Nazis to save their own skins, or how wealthy Jews helped capture communists. Jewish collaboration with the Nazis is a no no as well.

Instead, American academia focuses on calling anyone who questions such issues, loony, ignorant, controversial and other euphemisms for persona non grata.

Lesson number 1, don't rock the boat.
Lesson number 2, a post modern approach which says nothing but claims to say everything is your safest bet if you want to be seen as a part of the in crowd.

[suntoryboss]

Please don't confuse them with facts. Everything has to be Israel and the Jew's fault. I was watching some video of the producer of some arabic satellite news netowork, and he actually said, every problem in the ME is because of Israel, from bad schools to crappy roads in Morocco.. Unbelievable. They just live to hate. Jews are different, Jews beat them in wars, so they teach their kids to hate for generations.

we talk about israel all the time.  Israel is constantly, unendingly critisized by the western media.  when Wolfe says why can't we talk about it, what he means is why don't you agree with me.  You should agree with me.

Talk like everything else has its limits.  You can talk about affirmative action and explain why it is bad.  But if part of your explanation is that it is bad because blacks are inherently inferior, then you need to shut up. Or at least I think so.  The problem comes when people don't agree where the limits are.  that is when you get into the polarization we are always talking about.  I don't think that the destruction of israel is a legitimate proposal that should be discussed.  I don't think we should debate the merits, should it be destroyed as a jewish state or not. Of course this does not pertain to all discussion.  But Judt should not talk at a university any more than a white supremacist should.

other considerations, the whole discussion is conducted as if the palestinians and arabs are entirely victims. But they have victimized many.  The entire middle east used to be christian and jewish before those areas were forcibly converted.  But we stopped crying about it a long time ago.  If a christian said I hate muslims because of what happened in 900 AD we would think they were ill.  But it appears that muslims are entitled to forever hate jews because of israel.

The arabs have 22 countries, not counting the other countries which are mostly islamic.  The jews should be left to their one country.  Every wrong, assuming there is a wrong, cannot be put right.  In fact the cost of righting this so called wrong would be catastrophic not just for Israel but for the entire world.  It would increase terrorism, increase Darfurs, increase slavery.  Because the bitterness of muslims is based on the fact that they have not become the dominant culture and force in the world.  We cannot do anything about it.

[suntoryboss]

Or "I have tiny genitalia because of the Jews!"

The unseen hand of the Jews.  Controlling the media.  Controlling the banks.  Controlling the wars.  Controlling the negative discussions about Israel!  Is there any limit to this sneaky people's powers?  Stay tuned to the Chronicle for more breaking news on this international Zionist conspiracy!  Next week:  "Why can't we talk about the ingredients in matzo?"

[suntoryboss]

Who says you cannot talk about Israel? You're free to demonize and hate israel as much as you want. What's the worst that might happen? You'll be called an antisemite. Big deal, it's a word. However, draw a picture of mohammed, quote a dead pope from 600 years ago, and you'll get fatwas and embassies burned and death threats.

[solly]

Brandeis Donors Exact Revenge For Carter Visit 

Major givers reportedly withholding funds from school, sparking fierce free-speech debate on Massachusetts campus. 

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13674

[jonesey]

“The American Jewish community understands the visit by Carter to Brandeis to be reflecting a heksher” — a stamp of approval — “from the university,” said Sarna, whose field is American Jewish history. “They see it as a statement that Brandeis certifies him as kosher.

Of course, what you have here is private citizens refusing to donate money because of something they find objectionable.  This is, of course, perfectly legal, and something the university shouldn't be surprised by, especially since:

...the book’s title, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” implicitly comparing Israel’s policies towards Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza to apartheid-era South Africa. The book itself contains gross factual errors, charge critics, and a lopsided bias that lays blame almost exclusively on Israel for the failure to resolve the conflict.

Critics object especially to Carter’s claim that pro-Israel forces in the United States have a disproportionate and stifling impact on public debate of the issue — denounced by [Abe] Foxman as “the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress and the U.S. government.”

[solly]

Jonesy.

I do not think we are discussing legality here. What seems to be the issue is whether there is a debate or not.

It is the individual's right to donate where and wherever he or she pleases. (The issue of Academic funding is another can of worms similar to the political lobby issue so let's not go there.)

What I see at issue is this. The Palestine situation is very much the business of the American people as a whole. Quite apart from the 5 or so billion of taxpayer's money that flows to Israel and the several millions to the Pals, America's reputation among non-aligned nations is hugely influenced by it's handling of the case.

Therefore the debate is necessary.

Withdrawing support because an Elder Statesman was invited to speak seems to indicate a desire to see the debate stopped.

I think this is unwise and serves only to confirm what the pro-Israel faction seek to deny, i.e.

pro-Israel forces in the United States have a disproportionate and stifling impact on public debate of the issue

Surely a healthy debate is in the interests of the American people as a whole is it not? It would seem to follow that stifling that debate could be seen as putting Israel's interests before that of the American people.

Put more simply, I believe it is in everyone's interest to bring as much weight to their side of the debate as they can muster but it is somewhat underhand to turn the lights off in the debating chamber.

[jonesey]

Surely a healthy debate is in the interests of the American people as a whole is it not? It would seem to follow that stifling that debate could be seen as putting Israel's interests before that of the American people.

Put more simply, I believe it is in everyone's interest to bring as much weight to their side of the debate as they can muster but it is somewhat underhand to turn the lights off in the debating chamber.

I agree, but the problem with debate is, it forces people to actually confront the reality of a situation as it is, not how they want it to be. 

Also, emotion tends to get in the way (see our new poster, above).

[suntoryboss]

So why wouldn't carter debate dershowitz?

Jonesy.

I do not think we are discussing legality here. What seems to be the issue is whether there is a debate or not.

It is the individual's right to donate where and wherever he or she pleases. (The issue of Academic funding is another can of worms similar to the political lobby issue so let's not go there.)

What I see at issue is this. The Palestine situation is very much the business of the American people as a whole. Quite apart from the 5 or so billion of taxpayer's money that flows to Israel and the several millions to the Pals, America's reputation among non-aligned nations is hugely influenced by it's handling of the case.

Therefore the debate is necessary.

Withdrawing support because an Elder Statesman was invited to speak seems to indicate a desire to see the debate stopped.

I think this is unwise and serves only to confirm what the pro-Israel faction seek to deny, i.e.

pro-Israel forces in the United States have a disproportionate and stifling impact on public debate of the issue

Surely a healthy debate is in the interests of the American people as a whole is it not? It would seem to follow that stifling that debate could be seen as putting Israel's interests before that of the American people.

Put more simply, I believe it is in everyone's interest to bring as much weight to their side of the debate as they can muster but it is somewhat underhand to turn the lights off in the debating chamber.

[solly]

Carter and the Swarm

by Israel Shamir


http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng9.htm

[jonesey]

Solly,

You read this part of the article you posted, right?

The WASPs, with  their immense property holdings, traditions and roots found themselves marginalised by the Jews, with their death grip on the media and universities

Again, here we have the tired, old, Protocals of the Elders of Zion junk popping up again, and this on the heels of your Holocaust-denyer post earlier. 

I'm all for discussion, but not when the reason behind it is to end the Jewish state.  Or deny the Holocaust.  Or support terrorist organizations that deliberately target civilians, including women and children. 

[solly]

Jonesy.

Your response nicely illustrates the very point of this discussion does it not?

I put up an article by a highly respected Israeli writer who suggests that rather than media ownership being responsible for media bias, it is the “swarm” of individual writers that impose a “death by a thousand cuts” on any dissenting view. He writes of his own experience and that of several other writers which parallel Carter’s.

Your reply manages to reference the Protocols of Zion and the Holocaust in one sentence.
Tell me how, in one short step, you got there from Shamir’s article and your motive for doing so?

To highlight the point I wish to make, here are a few details from Shamir’s biography:

This leading Russian-Israeli intellectual, writer, translator and journalist was well known to his Russian readers, thanks to his books The Pine and the Olive and Travels in Japan, and to his translations of Joyce, Homer and Agnon into his native Russian

....grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war.

In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote Travels with My Son, his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics.

After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz and the newspaper Al Hamishmar, and worked in the Knesset as the spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party

Shamir’s reputation as a Judaic scholar was further enhanced when in 2006 his mammoth annotated translation of a medieval Hebrew classic Sefer Yohassin (The Book of Lineage) was published

He translated and annotated the cryptic works of S.Y. Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winning writer, from the original Hebrew into Russian. His work was published and reprinted many times in both Israel and in Russia. The Haaretz newspaper called this “the best translation of Agnon into any language”.

http://www.israelshamir.net/Biography.htm


Now.
If you can explain what caused you to associate an article by a writer of this stature with “The Protocols of Zion” and holocaust denial I think you will have gone a long way towards answering the question “Why can’t we talk about Israel”.

[jonesey]

Solly wrote:

Tell me how, in one short step, you got there from Shamir’s article and your motive for doing so?

Of course.  I'd be happy to. 

Mr. Shamir says, in his article:

Before Carter, we already knew  that the Zionists had established a racist apartheid regime

You see the language he uses?  This is begging the question, is it not?

Then:

a native Palestinian has no right to vote, move or work freely in his land -- that he is locked up behind the twenty-foot wall.

Again, we have two issues that the reader must agree with to go on with the article.  One, that there are "native" Palestinians, and Two, that it is "their" land.  Again, if you agree with the legality of the United Nations, it's Israel's land, not the Palestinians.  Whatever your stance is, the language is problematic.

Further down:

the US support allowed the atrocities to occur and the apartheid regime to entrench.

Again, Mr. Shamir is preaching to the choir.  What if the reader doesn't agree that Israel has an apartheid system?  What if the reader feels like the Palestinians brought the wall on themselves due to the suicide bomb attacks, and that Israel had no choice? 

And this?

man of hotter temper would call to eliminate the infamy called «The Jewish State» altogether.

Mr. Shamir appears, on the surface, at least, to be another "self-hating Jew."  Someone who feels so guilty about his own ethnic background that he, himself is calling for the end of Israel.  Where in the Middle East would Mr. Shamir go?  Iran?  Syrai?  Lebanon?  I think he'd find that these countries would be less tolerant of his right to free speech.  Whether he likes it or not, he's a Jew, and, therefore, included on the list of many Islamic terrorist organizations who would be happy to have him dead.

My Protocols of Zion comment was in relation to his comments about "The Jews" controlling the U.S. Government and the U.S. media, which is the same old song-and-dance that anti-semites have been using for years.  Really, I'm waiting for them to come up with something new.

Whenever someone goes on about "The Jews" it's an immediate red flag. 

the Jewish media lords

Really, it's all over this article.

Not to mention the fact that he quotes, at length, from Eustice Mullins, a McCarthy anti-Semite and avowed racist whose writings included paranoid conspiracy rants about the Federal Reserve.

Also, as far as his background/C.V., much of what's written there has been disputed by others, including the fact that he changed his name in 2001, and seems to associate himself with prominant neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists. 

He's been a Swedish citizen since 1992, only wrote a couple of articles for Haaretz (he was never employed there, as he says in his bio), and has been denounced by prominant Arab and Palestinian groups as well (unless you think The Jews control the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee).

My point, again, isn't that these issues aren't worth discussing, but rather that, when the websites and articles you post come from dubious sources (at best) and, increasingly, from pseudo-intellectual whack jobs, it doesn't help your cause.

[solly]

Jonesy.

Before Carter, we already knew  that the Zionists had established a racist apartheid regime

You see the language he uses?  This is begging the question, is it not?

There are, in Shamir’s article, links to articles that substantiate his statements. I’m not sure you realised this. If you click on “we knew”, you will be directed to an article by Shulamit Aloni,  the former Education Minister of Israel, in which instances of apartheid are documented.

http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html

Thus, Shamir’s statement is a fair one I think.

Again, we have two issues that the reader must agree with to go on with the article.  One, that there are "native" Palestinians

Is this in dispute?

What if the reader feels like the Palestinians brought the wall on themselves due to the suicide bomb attacks

Not sure what your point is here. What if the reader thinks the suicide attacks were brought on by Israel using an army to kill nearly 8 Palestinian children for every one Israeli child killed by Palestinian retaliation?

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

I am not sure that Shamir feels responsible or has to cater to whatever opinion the reader has.

Mr. Shamir appears, on the surface, at least, to be another "self-hating Jew."

This is puerile. Is an American who criticizes the actions of the U.S. Government a “self hating American”?

he, himself is calling for the end of Israel

May one ask where it is that Shamir states this? For the record, he calls for the unification of Palestine and Israel into one state with universal franchise.

Where in the Middle East would Mr. Shamir go?  Iran?  Syrai?  Lebanon?

I am sure, in the event of unification, he would continue to live in Jaffa.

"The Jews" controlling the U.S. Government and the U.S. media, which is the same old song-and-dance that anti-semites have been using for years.

In fact, the whole article argues against this view, hence the title. Shamir argues that it is a swarm of lesser figures – journalists etc who have attacked Carter.
While we are on this subject let us be quite clear. I believe that a substantial majority of the Western media is owned by people of Jewish extraction. Do you dispute this?
The question is, is this power being used to give a false picture of events and can we discuss it without  being accused of  adhering to some loony conspiracy theory?

the websites and articles you post come from dubious sources

I shall let the readers form their own opinions on this. Personally I find your attempt to discredit a writer of considerable achievement and '73 War veteran rather mean and serving only to confirm the opinion that Israel's supporter's prefer to cloud issues with ad hominem argument.
Shamir illustrates this himself where, after he wrote a purely factual article, the following occurred:

Then, a British Jew named Manfred Ropschitz began an ad hominem campaign against me. Other Jews joined the fray, discussing whether I am a Jew, or a “Swedish-Russian Nazi antisemite”, as if this had any bearing on the tsunami story. Instead of shrugging it off, other supporters of Palestine switched to this piquant subject. They carried their discussion from The Times to their email lists, until eventually, another Jewish “antizionist” commented with deep satisfaction: “Shamir is marginalised and brought into disrepute”.