Anti-Semitism on SF-IMC

What happened to Nerdcities? It seemed to be far fetched but interesting 9/11 stuff mixed wtih - apparently, I didn't look at those parts - some anti-semitic remarks around Israel Palestine.

Now the site appears to be gone. I'm wondering if anyone knows if there was some sort of problem with apparent anti-semitism (as there was with google and sf imc, if I'm correct about that whole interchange).

Anyway, just wondering.

I've been accused of 'sounding anti-semitic' myself, but when I asked the person for an example, they couldn't think of one. I've also been treated by police as a physical threat to Jewish students at SFSU who were holding a pro-Israel rally, because I was standing with the Arabs. It changes your perspective when you experience that treatment first hand. No one who knows me personally would *ever* consider me a physical threat, and I've never shown anyone any reason to be treated that way. I wear glasses and could get easily knocked down. But because I was on one side of the line, people who looked just like me - but were Jewish - had to then be 'protected' from me, and other mix of students around me, chanting and waving signs. No cops ever stood facing the Jewish students, who, naturally, were no threat.

It's a very complex situation - a persecuted group must both continue to be protected and also be monitored for when that goes too far, and simply persecutes others.

The whole anti-semitism debate also recently imploded the Oakland Greens. It wasn't pretty, I was there. Now the pieces are being picked up again.

uhh you sound like a paranoid conspiracy nut.
do yourslef a favor and stop watching the tele. for a brief while,

The negative use term "Zionism" is a problem for many Jews.
Is it being used to mean the intent to have Israel/Palestine or just Israel for Jews only?
Or is it being used to mean that Jews should not be
living in Israel?
Regardless of whether the state of Israel should ever have been established in Palestine, many Jews feel that any solution must accept the fact that Jews are living there now.
Centuries of persecution plus the nazis' Holocaust have made
many feel desperate around this issue.
Probably it would better to use another term than
Zionism. How about "the policies of the right-wing Israeli
government"?

The illegal occupation of Palestinian territories is
unjust, brutal, immoral, & violates the 10 Commandments & other tenets of Judaism itself. It is intolerable & is causing both peoples to become victims of violence, as well as bleeding the American people of huge amounts of tax dollars which are needed here at home for our own well-being (schools, etc.). Thus the US government is responsible for
perpetuating these crimes.
Taking this stand is not anti-Semitic, it is pro-Semitic. Promoting justice in Palestine will benefit every- one. Unfortunately the facts are hidden from many people by the news blackouts in both Israel & the US. That's why we must not allow ourselves to be silenced by false charges of anti-Semitism.

Its a newswire not a forum, not a message board, there are plenty of them out there.
Its just amazing that certain "friends of Israel" who are actually hastening Israel's destruction with their behaviour, dont want to hear actual news of what happens in the former Palestine Mandate. They dont want to hear the news. They think anti-zionism is anti-semitism. Judaism is peaceful, zionism is warlike.

As supporters of democracy, we must demand that President Bush and the American government truly and justly speak out for self-determination and sovereignty for Palestinians on their own land.

**************************
For Immediate Release
JUNE 4, 2003
**************************

CFL ALERT: End The Israeli Occupation Now


6/5/2003 Marks 36 years of the illegal occupation, subjugation, and humiliation of the Palestinian people by Israel. As supporters of democracy, we must demand that President Bush and the American government truly and justly speak out for self-determination and sovereignty for Palestinians on their own land. Please take a moment to write to the President and to your Representatives and tell them that 36 years of Israeli sponsored apartheid should end. The US must implement a just and peaceful solution to this conflict immediately. Free Palestine!

TALKING POINTS:

* For 36 years the United States has continued to fund Israeli abuses of international law and human rights, contrary to the Arms Export Control Act which states that the US will not supply arms to any country that uses them on unarmed civilian populations.

* Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget. This year alone we have spent over $10 billion (grants and loans combined). This amount surpasses what we give to any other nation including African nations currently suffering from the AIDS epidemic where foreign aid is most desperately needed. With the current economic climate and the need for funding of domestic programs and issues like social security, unemployment, and education, sending aid to Israel is a gross misuse of tax-payer funds.

* Unfettered support for Israel has created a global destabilizing force that threatens the people of the Middle East and the rest of the world. We simply cannot ignore the anger and resentment towards our own nation; we should not continue to support Israel at the expense of our own security.

Please choose the appropriate letter to send! (YOU MUST PICK A SUBJECT FROM THE DROP DOWN BAR) [After you enter your contact info the appropriate addresses are provided. Simply type, or send our prewritten letter and click send. Be sure to bookmark this page so you can send ONE LETTER EVERY DAY. We have prewritten letters for your convenience.]

EMAIL AND OR CALL THE WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE COMMENTS LINE: 202-456-1111
WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
WHITE HOUSE FAX: 202-456-2461
=================================
Citizens for Fair Legislation is a grassroots organization committed to encouraging a fair domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the US/Arab world.
http://www.cflweb.org

hamas was created by the zionists. it was the only islamic organization allowed to operate within israel. they wanted they to provide a less tasteful counterbalance to the secular PLO.

you cant support zionism withut using lies.

What a crock.

I'd be more impressed with your noble, noble, noble words, Nessie, if you weren't so content to let blatant Holocaust denial posts remain in that other thread. Guess you'd rather intone those fine, fine words about how awful antisemitism is than actually, uh, you know, get those antisemitic posts off your site.

@%<

I am slightly curious as to wether Palestinians are semites being that they speak a definite semitic language.

Yesterday you said that in this forum you only comment on anti-semitism (defined to include any criticism of Israel that Barak wouldn't countenance) but that on some other unspecified indymedia you frequently weigh-in on other topics as well. Is there any chance that you'd link to examples of your doing so?

I ask because I am inclined to think that your claim of being a leftist who wants to rid the left of anti-semitism (as you define it) is disingenuous. If you link to comments on other issues that show you to be something more radical then, say, Bill Clinton (who, like you, thought the Oslo bantustan state was a great deal for the Palestineans), I'll be rather surprised.

I said this a million times, and I'll say it one more, because for once there's a thread that (Even if sarcastically) recognizes the anti-semitism on IMC. (even if they have to go with the idiotic argument that anti-Semitism is all a "Zionist plot"

The word anti-Semitism was coined by Wilhelm Marr in the 19th century. He was trying to find a way to refer to the hatred of Jews in a manner that didn't use the word "Jew hatred." You see, "Jew Hatred" sounded outdated, motivated by the church's religious differences, and ignorant. "Anti-Semitism" back then sounded more refined and acceptable.

It was also a bad word, for Jews are not the only Semites. However, Anti-Semitism always referred to hating Jews. Period. Almost without exception, the anti-Semite does not hate the Arabs. If he does, it is not the same way he hates the Jews. Jews have attracted their own unique brand of prejudice since the Romans. If Arabs receive prejudice, it's a different form from Anti-Semitism.

Yes, Anti-Semitism is a pretty bad word. But then again, so is homophobia. Phobia means fear, not hatred. A real homophobe might be someone who runs away screaming from homosexuals. Not someone who hunts them down and beats them with sticks. But that's the name that was used. Homophobia means someone who hates (not fears) homosexuals, even though this is not an exact translation of the word's roots.

Similarly, anti-Semitism refers to hatred of Jews. Again, this is not a particularly good translation of the word's roots. But anti-Semitism has historically not referred to all Semites; even the Nazis, the largest anti-Semites in history, did not hate the Arabs. Indeed, Hitler had allies and friends among certain Arab leaders.

For prejudice against the Arabs, it is better to use a term like "Anti-Arab." This is a more accurate use anyway, since prejudice against the Arabs (that they are terrorists, that they are fanatically Moslems, et cetera) are a different form from prejudice against the Jews (that they control the world, that they're all lawyers, et cetera) This distinction will allow the difficulties faced by both nations to be expressed more accurately.

Now for the controversial part.

I mentioned earlier than Wilhelm Marr coined the word "Anti-Semitsm" to make the hatred of Jews more socially acceptable than using the word "Jew hatred." Well, now we're at a time where "Anti-Semite" is no longer palatable. So people are using the term "Anti-Zionist." No doubt you will deny this. But when all the prejudices you assign to the Zionists (control the word, the media, et cetera) are of the same form that were applied to the Jews fifty years ago, I believe my accusation stands.

aaron: "Yesterday you said that in this forum you only comment on anti-semitism (defined to include any criticism of Israel that Barak wouldn't countenance) but that on some other unspecified indymedia you frequently weigh-in on other topics as well. Is there any chance that you'd link to examples of your doing so?"

Nahhhh, I don't discuss politics on Holocaust denial sites, and as long as those posts are still up in the other thread, that's what SF-IMC is.

@%<

One of the shills above wrote: "You align yourself with hamas terrorists by even using the term "zionists" in the manner that you do. "

The emotionalism attached to discussions about Zionism is a fabrication created with the intent of silencing anyone that feels it necessary to discuss Zionism. These flamers know full well that we are not anti-Semitic. The charge of anti-Semitism, when wielded by these JDL thugs, is a weapon and nothing more. Their hope is that by badgering us, we will stop discussing Israel's crimes. It is an example of a crass and unforgivable exploitation of the deaths of millions of Jews as a tool to use in the murder of millions of Arabs.

As anti-Fascists we must recognize that fascists, such as the Zionist, will use any ruse they can to silence us. Rather than whine and cry about being called anti-Semites, we should just ignore than and carry on as usual.

Sure there's are plenty of Semitic things worth being anti towards but It's ignorant and dangerous to paint everyone with the same brush.

So @,
are you saying that the jews have been the No 1 group for hating over the last couple of millenia because they ACTUALLY ARE more evil than anyone else?

Or have they just had some bad luck to have been in the wrong every time for the last few thousand years.

Neither. I dispute that Jews have been the number 1 hated group over the course of human history. Jews did VERY well within the Roman empire (much better than Christians did). Jews lived very well under the Moors in Spain and North Africa. Other groups have suffered as much, just ask the Gypsies. Also, consider the slaughter and continued marginalization of Native Americans! Hate is rotten and hate is evil, but Jews have become obsessed with their lott. Jews are not the only group suffering in this world. Take a look at the lot of the Latino and the African American in the US. It is far worse than the lot of the Jew.

Wow, what's in a name or word, and how do we get a point accross without offending the innocent?
Zionism was not coined as a negative term when the movement started 100 years ago in Europe. However, it seems recently that the only time I see someone call themselve's a Zionist, it's some whacked out West Bank settler trying to justify steeling someone else's land with the argument that the Zionist movement allows them to take what is (sic) theirs. It's easy to see why people have used the term Zionist, because the perpetrators themselve's have identified themselves as such.
This all said, I'm sure there is someone out there who identifies themselves with the original Zionist movement, but disagrees with the actions of the Israeli government and the settlers in the illegally occupied territories. So, maybe we need to be politically correct and coin a new term. Perhaps "Jewish Extremist". For government officials who have ordered the murder of innocent civilians perhaps "Jewish Terrorists". This would seperate these monsters (e.g. Sharon) from the rest of the Jewish population of the world who want to support peace (Believe me, I have many freinds in Israel, and all of them want Israel out of the West Bank!)
I'm sure some nut case out there is going to say I am anti-semetic for using such terms. But the press constantly uses the terms "Muslim Extremist" and "Arab Terrorist". There has to be some way for us to condem the deplorable actions of a government and individuals. Maybe next someone will call me anti-christian for criticizing the KKK.

Anti-Semitism is just a red herring and a way for Jews to change the topic when it comes to racist Zionism. Anything but face the truth about Zionist Israel and Zionism!

Jews need to realize that Zionism is racism and Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state. That is racist, regressive, and necessitates ethnic cleansing.

Jews don't need their own Jewish state! Many minorities and religions don't have their own independent state.

Jews need to get over themselves already. They are now the oppressors more than anyone. They are the persecutors. They are the exploiters in Israel/Palestine. Jewish victimhood is a self-fullfilling prophecy. The seeds Jews are sowing now in Israel are bound to bring very very bad karma. Zionists just can't seem to forgive and more on, but always dwell on conflict. They have a "we win-you lose" mentality, "We're OK, You're not OK", "Us against them" that really just rubs people the wrong way. Who do they think they are... the Chosen People? Ha ha ha

Actually, it was under the Romans that the Jewish people were EXPELLED from the land of Israel, which led to 2000 years of wandering. The Romans certainly were not kind to the Jews. As far as their treatment of the Christians, they were treated unkindly until the emperor converted,a nd then forcibly converted all of the Roman Empire. I think the Christians got the better end of the stick under the Roman rule, don't you?

So is your solution
A) ship all jews off to some un-named country which for some obscure reason will not mind.
B) drive all people who look jewish into the sea and tell them they can drown there.
C) give israel to the palistinians and tell them they can have a free hand to treat jews just like the other states in the region treat jews.
here are two popular rules
- no jews allowed
- anyone who is a jew or colaborates with jews can be killed by stoning.

here are some quotes
"If an Iranian Muslim criticizes the Islamic Republic, he himself can be punished; if a Jew does it, under the laws of the Islamic Republic his actions may legally affect the well being of the entire Jewish community. "
" On May 18, 2001, in a televised speech, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, directly attacked the Jews, calling Jews the enemies of the prophet Mohammad and threatened the Jews with expulsion and expropriation of their property, citing a similar action taken by the prophet Mohammad against the three Jewish tribes in Medina in which they were annihilated. "
The Jews suffer from official inferior status under Iranian Law and are not protected by police or the courts. The amount of financial compensation a Jew can receive from a Muslim in case of murder or accidental death of a relative is equal to one-eighth of that which would be paid if the victim was a Muslim.

"In practice this means that a life of a Jew in Iran has very little value. In addition, since Iranian courts routinely refuse to accept the testimony of a Jew against a Muslim, most cases of this sort are not even prosecuted and the police do not even investigate such claims"

There is lots more.. look around

where did you research your history, holywood flicks...

which movie succeeded in leaving the most impression on you, because your tale of teh jewish migration sounds like a cheap low budget predictable hollywood creation, with a lovely endin;

1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies ­not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."

10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.

12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.

21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

24. "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

this is what antisemitism is all abot taking quotes out of context to vilfy an entire nation.
it is racist to paint a people with one brush stroke yet how else would you get your point across?
you are a scum of the earth and an antisemitic one as well... fool!

What context justifies racism and ethnic hate; there is no context to justify it. It is hatred. The same as the extremist militant groups that have broken from the PLO since its inception.
In terming nazism, look for the connections between the facist movements in Europe and Palestine and the early rightest opponents to Israeli labour.
I was simply citing examples of hate speech. i dont villify Israelis at all,
http://www.gush-shalom.org
I greatly admire the brave few who stand up to right-wing facists all over the world.
Do not be afraid of telling the truth.
Stop hiding behind silly slogans and ad hominum attacks.
Anne Coulter advocated "killing the leaders" and "converting to christianity" moslem countries.
Bill O'Reilly recently stated he would like to "shoot in the head" someone who simply pointed out the truth that O'Reilly is indeed a liar. It just happened to be Al Franken, and rightists hate geeky guys like Franken and Moore.

do you suggest islamic reigmemes are some how left wing? maybe er left wing facists?

With an open publishing site, you invite anyone and everyone to say whatever they want. That is an invitation to the problems we have seen of fascist and Zionist drivel being posted, usually in multiple copies. Just delete all the obvious fascist and Zionist drivel.

Perhaps this trash is a surprise to the young people promoting this site. I can assure you, this trash is the real American society. For those of us who have to deal with real anti-Semitism everyday, this is nothing new. The United States is a profoundly backward country and that is reflected in the fact that the death penalty still exists, there is no national healthcare system, the school districts promoting religion, called creationism, condemning basic science like evolution and in the constant preoccupation on this site with the Israel garbage. There is clearly no class consciousness, no concept of labor organizing, and no socialist consciousness.

This is the same country that has not changed one iota when it comes to racism, male chauvinism, homophobia or any other scapegoating problem. Some of us have lived long enough to be able to measure how much change has occurred. My observation is that not much change has occurred precisely because this is a capitalist society, which by definition is a bankrupt social order.

I would like to see this site spend more time promoting science and exposes of the fact that the 9/11/01 events were a Reichstag Fire. When JFK was assassinated on 11/22/63, the Left did immediately begin to explore the reality that it was done by the CIA,which has now been proven in a court of law to be true. One radical national weekly, the Guardian of New York, ran lawyer Mark Lane's exposes of the government's frame-up of the CIA agent Lee Harvey Oswald, who did not kill anybody on November 22, 1963. I have concluded that the Left in the 1960s had more scientific knowledge than it does today. There is no other good explanation for the refusal of this website, KPFA or the socialist press, with rare exceptions, to do a good expose of the scientific impossibility of the government's story of 9/11/01. That means this country is even more backward than it was in 1963.

So, I am not surprised by the endless trash on this website. Just delete it and carry on.

And here we have another anti-israel freak now pretending to be a holocaust-surviving family member.

It'll never end.

Israel will survive. It is the far left in the US that will become extinct. When people who call themselves leftists, like the Oakland Greens, adopt identical beliefs to White surpremecists and Islamic fundamentalists, many reasonable people will decide that they no longer wish to be associated with the left.

The world is beginning to see Zionism for what it is: a fascist and racist ideology. We need to keep up the pressure, even if it means being falsely accused of being anti-Semites. Suffering insults is nothing compared to suffering death, as many Palestinians have found out.

Perhaps it surprises the Zionists that I believe that Israel should continue to exist. However, it should continue to exist within the borders defined by the UN, not because the founding of Israel was just (it was not just), but because it is necessary to protect the sovereignty of the individual Jews born in Israel since Israel was founded. This same respect should be given to the individual Palestinians that have as much right to self determination (and who have not committed an injustice by being in Palestine as the Israelis have).

Let me do something I rarely do -- repost one of my posts. (In general, I'm never all that impressed by those who do all their arguing via cut-and-paste; in this case I only note that at least I'm pasting my own essay.)

Those of you who aren't already brainlocked into the axiom that antisemitism is ONLY ALWAYS ONLY MUST BE EVERYTIME ALWAYS NEVER ANYTHING BUT WHOOP-WHOOP-WHOOP DANGER-WILL-ROBINSON a red herring deliberately posted by Zi-i-i-ionsts as -- in Nessie's pet phrase -- "roorback" might learn a thing or two from this. Nessie won't; Nessie can't. His blinders won't let him.

I'd put just the URL of my other posting of this -- this is only the second time it's appeared on SF-IMC, Nessie, so don't try to pull the "gehrig's a spammer" excuse to ban me -- but only admins like Nessie have search capabilities and us plebes no longer do.

And with that, until the SF-IMC editors remove the Holocaust denial posts that THEY ARE NOW QUITE FULLY AWARE OF YET DO NOT REMOVE -- let me repeat that, Holocaust denial posts that THEY ARE NOW QUITE FULLY AWARE OF YET DO NOT REMOVE -- I feel no particular need to post here anymore.

Surely, a week is sufficient time to remove a Holocaust denial post that you're fully aware of. Therefore, folks, it's now defacto SF-IMC policy to accept Holocaust denial posts. As I predicted, you were so galled at the prospect of conceding a point -- any point -- to a Zi-i-ionist, you've now closed ranks behind David Irving. Congrats and welcome to the family of Holocaust denial sites!

Remember, accepting Holocaust denial posts was the first sign that IMC-Jerusalem was turning into a cesspool. I don't have to tell you how that turned out. It's an intelligence test, Nessie -- can you read the writing on the wall?

------

Unweaving the Tangle: Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism

It's almost like a plate of spaghetti, the way these concepts are tied together, not identical and not parallel, but still woven -- Jewish identity, Zionism, Israel, and antisemitism. These intertwined ideas are so knotty and knotted together that I thought it was worth trying to pry some of the pieces apart.

a refresher on anti-Jewish stereotypes

Antisemitic stereotypes fall into two categories. Some distort the individual Jew, assigning certain physical features or temperment. This sort of rhetoric is universally rejected in the progressive movement. But there is another category, one which distorts the actions of Jews in collective, and the movement can't really pin on its "We Licked Antisemitism!" merit badge until it's addressed and dealt with both kinds.

The best-known tellings of the Jew Conspiracy stereotype are Henry Ford's -- yes, _that_ Henry Ford's -- _The International Jew_, and the Tsarist forgery _Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion_. Both depict a covert international Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world, manipulate the course of history, foment needless war, run the banks, and bend the gentile will to serve their new Jewish masters through media control, thought police, political intrigue in smoke-filled back rooms, and -- when necessary -- mass murder.

This is why I prick up my ears when I hear on the IMCs that the Zionists are involved in a covert ("If America only knew!") international conspiracy to manipulate the course of history, foment needless war, control international funding, and bend the American will to serve the pro-Zionist policymakers -- mentioning only the ones with Jewish names, of course -- through Zionist media control, political payoffs, and -- when necessary -- mass murder.

the central point

There is one central realization at the core of this issue, and either you've made it or you haven't: all categories of criticism of Israel don't have equal footing. Different comments have different motivations and different modes of expression. And those modes are not equally defensible. Some are noble, some are scabrous. It's silly to make a blanket comment that "all criticism of Israel is X," whatever the X is. It's not all the same pile. Like an Oreo cookie, like Arafat's kafiyya, it's not all black and it's not all white.

I know of people -- and they are really pretty few -- who argue that _any_ unilateral criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic (or "antisemitic in effect") because it's one-sided against the Jewish state. That strikes me as too broad a formulation, and an unnecessary and counterproductive one. An egregious anti-Israel double standard doesn't also have to be antisemitic in order to be egregious. When someone says that the nation-state is passe and should be dismantled, yet for some reason Israel is the only nation-state he ever gets around to mentioning by name (again and again) as fit for the dust heap, well, that doesn't have to be antisemitic to be blatantly hypocritical.

how to be an antisemite without mentioning Jews

I take it as axiomatic that it's not inherently antisemitic to criticize Israel. (Sure, I said that before, but no matter how many times I repeat it, somebody always comes back and tells me that I said the exact opposite.) It's not inherently antisemitic, but there are indeed ways to criticize Israel that _are_ inherently antisemitic. And I'm thinking of one in particular. By implicitly playing to the Jew-conspiracy stereotype, it is possible to build an inherently antisemitic argument about Israel or Zionism without having used the word "Jew" once. And in such cases, saying "I wasn't talking about Jews, only Zionists" is simply not an adequate excuse, not a "get out of rhetorical jail free" card.

A stereotype doesn't need to be named in order to be played to. Remember, Bush I's infamous Willie Horton ad didn't explicitly mention race. But it did trade on the stereotype of the black male as criminal interracial sexual predator. And in the year before he died of cancer, the late Lee Atwater -- who led Bush I's campaign -- apologized for the ad, and said he came to regret that ad for even _looking_ racist. He had played in the valley of the shadow of racist rhetoric, ignored the outcry, and was now truly sorry for it.

Note that Atwater _didn't_ say, "Oh, there they go again, trying to play a rhetorical card over nothing. How bogus. How typical. How cynical their mock agitation. It's all crocodile tears. My soul is perfectly pure, so my conscience is perfectly clean, and if my ad bugged them they can go pound sand. Whiners. Some of my best friends are black people." (Well, maybe he said it during the campaign, but then his consciousness raised itself.)

the ballad of Bad Boy Buchanan

I'm hampered a bit here because the only really good analysis I know of antisemitic rhetoric in the context of modern American politics is by someone I disagree with about damn near everything, William F. Buckley, Jr. In the early 90's he wrote a long essay, later developed into a book named _In Search of Anti-Semitism_, in the wake of Pat Buchanan's "Amen Corner" comments and the beginning signs of his protege Joe Sobran's descent into overt antisemitism.

Buckley's basic point is that, ethically, there's no such thing as pottering around innocently in valley of the shadow of antisemitic rhetoric, no matter how pure your heart. As soon as you see where you are -- in his lovely image, near a deep forest's cottage bearing the sign "Ezra Pound Slept Here" -- it's your moral duty to get out, for reasons that aren't all that distant in history. Jewish sensitivity to antisemitic rhetoric is legitimate, and should be respected, "for the best of reasons," because Hitler started with rhetoric alone, and by the time he was done he had taken one out of every three Jews on the planet with him.

Now, maybe Pat ("Oinker") Buchanan _thought_ he was being twinklingly, rakishly controversial by replying to his critics, "oh, you wily Zionistas, you're only _pretending_ to be upset, as part of your Zionist rhetorical Thought Police attempt to force me to etc. etc. etc. But I'll never bow before you!"

Turns out he wasn't being rakish; he was just being an asshole.

That doesn't seem to be a message for the Right alone. When you say, "there's no antisemitism in the peace movement," the message you _think_ you're sending might be "We don't accept any kind of racial prejudice, are not antisemitic, and won't let ourselves be distracted by what looks to us like politically motivated claims to the contrary." But the message received just might be: "that discomfort you're feeling -- well, it doesn't exist, and you're wrong to feel it, and grow up and shut up and stop wasting our time on non-issues."

anti-Zionism, antisemitism: separate but not separate

Given the fundamental anti-racism of the progressive movement, isn't it simply ludicrous on the face of it to suggest that it might have a problem with ethnic prejudice of _any_ kind? There is a time when I would have said yes, but my experience with anti-Zionist rhetoric on Indybay over the last year taught me a disquieting truth.

No, anti-Zionism and antisemitism aren't the same things, but neither are they without overlap.

This overlap can happen in two ways. One is the obvious case of an antisemitic infiltrator, as emblemized by the Naziboy Vanguard's (failed) false-front site, nowarforisrael.com, the latest and most visible (failed) attempt by the Volk to try to exploit anti-Israel and anti-Sharon sentiment as a recruiting tool.

The second way is much more problematic, and that is the way that otherwise good-hearted people can sometimes let their anger over Israeli policies overrule their judgment on the issue of antisemitism. In the light of the horrors of occupation and collective punishment, Jewish sensitivities may seem like small potatoes in contrast. But to look at it that way is to set up a false dichotomy, one that says that the only true way to support the Palestinians is to ignore (or even deride) the sensitivities of Jews when it comes to discourse on the subject. That's a mistake. Not all criticism of Israel is based in antisemitism, but some of it is, some of it genuinely is, and you can learn a lot about someone's character by how they react to that discovery.

how to imitate Pat Buchanan without knowing it

Time and again I have seen people on Indybay quote Holocaust denial sites without knowing it because they liked the site's coverage of the Evil Zionists Do, and they didn't bother to poke around the site enough to discover what exactly they'd been led to. This isn't just a case of once or twice; this has happened at least a dozen times. In other words, it's not isolated incidents but a pattern. Now, you can't expect everyone to have the same background in the rhetoric of hate groups that I do, so I can understand making such a mistake innocently.

But it's how you handle it that counts. Most people handle it well: "oops, sorry." That's the classy way to do it. But if your reaction when I point it out is a perfunctory, "so what, that doesn't matter, you're only attacking the source to distract us from the criticism of Israel," then you haven't done much to encourage me to trust you, and you haven't done anything to resolve the issue except to deny the issue exists at all. You've also done a damn fine imitation of Pat Buchanan.

Sometimes I've seen people go for Bonus Buchanan points -- that is, people who not only insist that they're not going to pay any attention to the charge of antisemitism, but then actively discourage _others_ from paying attention either. "Don't let them disrupt our conversation with their bogus claims! Ignore them -- shout them down -- they're only Zionists trying to slander the movement." Or triple Buchanan points -- "Gehrig obviously works for the Mossad." That's not the most helpful way for a knee to jerk.

Criticism of Israeli policy is _not_ inherently and automatically antisemitic. But neither is it inherently and automatically _not_ antisemitic. You have to deal with arguments on a case by case basis, and in at least _some_ of those cases, to reply "that's an antisemitic argument" is perfectly legitimate and moral and even the right thing to do. Which means, in turn, that when someone says "that's an antisemitic argument," that comment _itself_ is something you need to consider on a case by case basis. Don't presume the charge is automatically an empty one or a foolish one. Don't be too quick to claim the movement is perfect. If someone is honestly pointing to an example of antisemitic rhetoric, it's an infuriating mistake to do what Pat Buchanan did -- dismiss the charge out of hand and then accuse the accuser of ulterior motives. Yet I have seen that happen a hundred times on the IMCs.

If you lump _all_ forms of criticizing Israel into one heap, that oversimplification leads to you an oversimplifying conclusion: "Zionists always say 'antisemitism' when you criticize Israel." And that's a conversation stopper; it's an "I'm not listening, talk to the hand" response. This is one of those cases where, if you start out with bad assumptions, like the basic moral equivalency of all forms of criticism of Israel, you can't help but get your conclusions wrong. And that conclusion will, in turn, lead to _other_ miscommunications, or else no communication at all.

And, frankly, I really don't know anybody who says that _all_ criticism of Israel is antisemitic, because it's so obviously not the case. There are some deep-bunker-mentality folks who think that, sure, and they get airtime, but it's really not as prevalent you'd think.

what I am not saying

Since I've asked progressives to calculate the difference between the message as intended and the message as received, it's only fair to note that the same business works both ways. If I say "there is antisemitism in the movement," some people will hear me saying "the movement is antisemitic." That's an understandable bit of miscommunication, and it's not a surprise that some people get their hackles raised by it and reply, "look, there they go playing the antisemitism card."

So, let me make this clear. I'm happy to report that my interactions with the movement in CU, although it hasn't been absolutely without misunderstandings, has also been without antisemitism. If what I were saying actually _was_ "yer all a buncha Jew-haters" -- as right- wingers post on the IMCs every now and then -- you'd be perfectly right to tell me to take a hike. Again: I am not calling you all Nazis. I know you; I've had beers with you or sung Woody Guthrie with you or whatever, and I know you're not Nazis.

What I'm actually saying is this: I don't think the movement as a whole has really come to grips with that plate of spaghetti I mentioned up front. I think its heart is in the right place, but I've seen too many potentially useful and mutually informative conversations drop dead at the starting gate because of some misapprehensions or false assumptions that end up being conversation stoppers.

And more often than not these assumptions are based on trying to oversimplify complex ideas into simple yes-or-no questions. "Is anti-Zionism antisemitic?" Neither "yes" nor "no" is a right answer here. "Is Zionism an expression of Judaism?" Again, neither "yes" nor "no" is a right answer. "Are Jews Zionists?" "Is Jewish identity theological?" "Is Jewish identity based on historical ties to the Israelites?" "Is Jewish identity racial?" "Are Orthodox Jews Zionists?" And so forth. All "yes" and all "no." The historical reality is too complicated to be shoehorned into such a small question.

Why is that? Here's what I'd argue. Through most of history, your identity was tied to your land. You knew you were a Pole because you lived in Poland, or that you were Deutsch because you lived in Deutschland, or whatever. If your nation was conquered, then in a few generations your culture faded into history. Which is why you don't run into Babylonians anymore. (One of the jokes in _Catch-22_ is when the main character, Yossarian, is asked to indentify himself ethnically, and he claims to be an Assyrian.)

But there's an exception to the rule. The Jewish people were able to preserve their culture, including a language and a literature, through two thousand years _without_ a homeland. One of the repercussions is the global nature of antisemitism, the stereotype of the International Jew. The other, though, is that a lot of the usual rules about what constitutes a "nation," a "people," a "religion," don't quite hold when you try to apply them to the Jews. Because the Jewish historical experience was radically different, the usual definitions don't fit comfortably.

If we don't fit the pigeonholes, well, take it up with history. I'm not saying that it makes Jews better or worse -- just different.

the Z-word

And, since Jewish identity doesn't fit the usual rules, the political manifestations of Jewish identity _also_ don't fit the usual rules. Which is why Zionism is so much more controversial than other kinds of political group identity. My definition of Zionism is actually pretty ssimple: if you think the State of Israel should exist, you're a Zionist. That's all I mean by it. That's also pretty much what most dictionaries say it means. Lots of people have overloaded it, intentionally, with lots of other ideas, sometimes for purely rhetorical or dialectical purposes, not all of them positive, and not all of them alike.

Can you be a Zionist and support a Palestinian state? Yep. Can you be a Zionist and oppose a Palestinian state? Yep. Can you be a Zionist and think that Ariel Sharon should do the world a favor and try walking to Hawaii? Yep. Can you be a Zionist and be appalled by the Israeli use of collective punishment and excessive force in the West Bank? Yep. And so forth.

I intentionally refer to myself as a Zionist, in part because it's interesting to see how people react. When someone instantly assumes that, as a Zi-i-ionist, I must love Likud and celebrate Baruch Goldstein's birthday and want to annex the West Bank up to, oh, Paris or maybe Barrow, Alaska -- well, then I know that I'm talking to a person who generalizes all the Zionists into one lump, probably because he wants to flog the lump.

This is an excellent way to drive off a potentially important ally. It's surprising how few times it takes calling someone a racist baby-eating Nazi before he or she decides to go elsewhere to socialize. My skin's a little thicker, thanks to my experience fighting Holocaust denial on Usenet, but, you know, it shouldn't have to be. I shouldn't need thick skin to fend off pointless friendly fire.

Zionists are no more of one mind than Americans are of one mind.

There's a human rights organization in Israel -- a Zionist organization that monitors human rights abuses against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. And their name tells the whole story: B'Tselem. It's a Biblical reference. In Genesis, it says that God created humanity "in His own image" -- "btselmo." By choosing the name "B'Tselem," the organization explicitly notes that _all_ humanity is created in God's image. If your built-in assumption is that "Zionist" means "someone who loves Ariel Sharon," you're simply wrong.

My position isn't helped by the comparative invisibility of the Zionist left, thanks to the structures of the organizations. Campus Zionist groups tend to say a Zionist lefty isn't Zionist; lefty groups tend to say a Zionist lefty isn't lefty. And there are progressives who make a great show of repudiating with disgust the very _idea_ of a Zionist left. So I've had the amusing opportunity more than once of having someone "prove" I don't exist. (And the follow-up question is usually, "why aren't people like you more active in our movement, now that I've just condescendingly said you don't exist?")

The decline of the Israeli left doesn't help, but really all that means is that it's in the same condition as the American left -- not what it was, marginalized by right-wingers exploiting the public's security concerns, but far from non-existent, and far from a mere collection of reminiscing dinosaurs.

the ballad of Windy Wendy

In January or so, one of the most prolific pro-Palestinian posters on Indybay -- not Cui Bozo, who seems to have abandoned the IMCs, incidentally -- made an aside on how Zionist Jews have acted "since Biblical times." Well, sorry, kid, but if you have a problem with Zionist Jews in Biblical times, then you don't have a problem with Zionist Jews, you have a problem with Jews.

The thing is, though, she was someone who organized an anti-Israel rally that got both press coverage and a counter-demonstration, produced an anti-Israel video (you can buy it on nowarforisrael.com, but let's not go there), and was until recently a high-volume source of constant (if repetitive) input on the Indybay board. In other words, a committed activist.

When she started tipping her hand on things like Judas the Zionist, and some other old favorites like the Khazar gambit and the "Kosher Tax Scam" -- both time-honored bits of antisemitica I won't go into here -- her comments went unchallenged by the anti-Israel folks, and were only held up to questioning by various rightists (and me). And, natch, when I blew the whistle, I was told more than once by otherwise good-hearted people that I was simply trying to change the subject in order to shield Israel from etc. etc. etc. and to shut the hell up already.

And I would be lying if I said that didn't trouble me.

There are some people out there whose hearts I honestly think are in the right place, but whose inability to look at the antisemitism issue and see it as anything besides a Zionist red herring makes it impossible for me to build any serious kind of trust in them.

Something similar happened a year or so ago to the Swiss AKdH when it asked IMC-Switzerland to remove an insensitive cartoon from Latuff. Instantly the IMC network was up in arms and crying "censorship," shouting that AKdH was crying crocodile tears, it was only trying to silence critics of Israel, and there were very few voices who dared ask -- isn't it at least _possible_ that AKdH is being honestly offended, and is reacting in honest dismay? Instead, there was a stampede to condemn AKdH as a Zionist Thought-Police organization trying to stifle dissent. This was not the IMC network's finest hour. (As it turns out, it wasn't the AKdH's finest hour either, as its arguments about Latuff's cartoon became increasingly specious and unsubstantiable; in the end I think AKdH did more harm than good. I don't think AKdH was crying wolf, for reasons I'll go into below, but I think they did overplay their hand.)

The anonymous nature of the IMCs lead to another way of delegitimizing the complaint of "antisemitism," and that's to blithely assume (or presumptively declare) that the really nasty stuff that gets posted every now and then is actually posted by the Zi-i-ionists themselves. As I've shown, you don't have to get all cloak-and-dagger to find neo-nazoids posting Jewbait to the IMCs. To turn around and blame that Jewbait on the Zi-i-ionists is to add insult to injury.

how not to be cleverly ironic

The Latuff cartoon in question implictly tried to do what some protest signs at anti-Israel rallies do explicitly: equate Nazism and Zionism. (Hence the epithet "zionazi" -- an instant one-way trip to the bottom of the cred pile as far as I'm concerned.) I believe the Nazi/Israeli comparison is indefensible on a factual basis, but there's no need to even go there. Leaving all that aside, the comparison is still indefensible _morally_. I find it outrageously offensive. Progressives should know better.

Here's why. If you condemn Dubya for the historical insensitivity of his use of the term "crusade" when describing his war plans, knowing how that word means something much different to Arab nations, how then can you justify the use of the term "Nazi" -- an epithet especially upsetting to Jews -- to describe Israeli policy? One of the characteristics of antisemitic rhetoric I've seen in my years of experience fighting Holocaust denial in the Usenet newsgroup alt.revisionism is the utter glee with which antisemites will use any imaginable excuse to equate Israel to the Third Reich, no matter how tenuous a linkage, simply and solely because they know that Jewish readers find that equation specifically painful in a way non-Jewish readers don't. It is an inherently discriminatory rhetorical trick, and as such, wisdom and compassion suggest dumping that one from your rhetorical toolbox.

It's also bad rhetorical form, because the message sent is so much different than the message intended. You may think you're making a clever my-my-how-ironic comment when equating Israeli policy with Nazi policy, but believe me, that's _not_ the message you're really sending. The message you send is "I'm offending Jews? Jamming my thumb into a deep historical wound to score cheap rhetorical points? So what! Ha ha ha, full steam ahead!"

The English language is rich. History is rich. There are plenty of ways to make your point about Israel without going for the Nazi analogy. There are some people who will simply never get this, incidentally. Latuff himself is an example. All you can do is point the principle out, and hope wisdom prevails.

another guide for the perplexed


So let's get pragmatic. What do I look for when trying to decide whether a given post or poster is antisemitic? What trips my wire? As I've already said (three times, but it's amazing how some people just can't hear these words), being against Israeli policy isn't enough to make a piece antisemitic. The issue is, _how_ is it anti-Israel?

So here are the kinds of questions I ask. Each one, by itself, doesn't determine much. But if the yeses start to accumulate, then my warning lights start to flash.

* Does a given argument seek to demonize Israelis or Zionists? In other words, is it specifically designed to stir hatred against "The Zionist" rather than increase awareness?

* Does it rage against The Zionist Position, as if there's only one, as if all Zionists are alike, as if there isn't a whole spectrum of Zionist thought from far left to far right?

* Does it try to excuse antisemitism, to minimize it, or to blame it on the Zionists?

* Does the argument seek to dehumanize Israelis or Zionists, to call them monsters or vermin or hyenas or cockroaches?

* Is it a frothmouthed tirade, capslock and all, calling for the utter destruction of Israel, or gleefully celebrating the deaths of Israelis?

* Does it justify _everything_ done in the name of anti-Zionism, all the way up to suicide bombing, as morally acceptable or "chickens come home to roost"?

* To what degree does it hold _all_ Israelis, _all_ Zionists responsible for what Sharon, et al, do?

* To what degree does it echo the Jew-conspiracy stereotype, even if it is careful to exclude the word "Jew" from the discussion? ("The Zionists control the media and the elections, and if you disagree with them you're ruined.")

* Does it echo some other white-power tirade -- "Ashkenazi Jews aren't really Jews," "Everything you buy in the grocery store has a kosher tax," "The Talmud sez goyim are cattle," "Jews are inherently subject to dual loyalties," etc.

* Does it engage in, much less revel in, comparisons of Israel and Nazi Germany?

None of these points on its own is a sure-fire determinant, of course. But when you light enough lamps on this list, then you might want to take a look at _how_ you're saying what you're saying.

-- exordium

If I thought that the movement was inherently antisemitic, I wouldn't be involved in it. Instead, I think that there are some places where a little extra knowledge and a little extra sensitivity can go a long way. As my favorite essay of all puts it, "a fly in the ointment raiseth an odor; so does a little folly undo much wisdom." The movement only stands to gain by rooting out antisemitic rhetoric, but it can't do so if it remains in denial about its very existence. It's obviously not my intention to "stifle debate" about Israeli policy.

If we've ever lifted a beer mug together, chances are you know that I'm not exactly enamored of PM Sharon and the New Vaudeville Knesset. But I _would_ like it, and I don't think it's necessarily too much to ask, that discussion of Israel, Zionism, and such take place in an area of basic human respect that includes regard for -- and avoidance of -- what I've called the valley of the shadow.

You're wasting your time - the mere fact that these fools are obsessed with Israel, rather than the hundred other countries with far worse records, is prima facie evidence of their jewhatred. When was the last Indymedia post you read condemning Russia for killing tens of thousands of Chechnyans? Or the Sudan or the Congo or Algeria . . . you get the point. If you wish to see intellegent criticism of Israeli policy, open up an Israeli newspaper (Ha'aretz, Maariv etc.). What is happening here is not criticism - its selective indignation, scapegoating and demonizing - all with the same rhetoric as you see on sites run by skinheads.

The only good news is that these haters will fail - both because they are a small minority of the left but also because they can not form alliances with their brothers in hate - the Arab fundamentalists and the neo-Nazis.

That's B.S. and you know it. I am concerned about Israel exactly because my taxes fund Israel's genocide against the Palestinians. Americans died on 9/11 because of our poor relationship with the Arab world, a consequences of our corrupt relationship with Israel. These same activists opposing Israel now also opposed Apartheid in South Africa, US intervention in Central America, and many other issues that have nothing to do with Israel or Jews. Israel is on the front of the agenda right now because the Neo-Cons have put it on the agenda by usurping the foreign policy of the US to the ends of Israel.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want our resources, then you force us to become reponsible parties to your actions. If you use our resources to commit genocide, we have every right to make noise about and to denounce you.

Well, there it is, Nessie, staring you right in the face.

What will you do?

@%<

Now everybody go read this:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1598989_comment.php#1617433

I don't pretend. I certainly do come from a Holocaust family. It is an experience that was part of the fabric of our daily family life and is a basis for our political outlook forever.

As to the Zionists, their history of collaboration with the Nazis is well-established and readily available. Just as they collaborated with the Nazis, so they now collaborate with US imperialism. Most of the posts above assume Israel is in control, which is anti-Semitic. It is the US government that tells Israel what to do. Israel is a US military base to protect US oil profits in the Middle East. Its racism toward other Semites, namely Arabs, some of whom are citizens of Israel (not all were expelled or fled), is no different from the anti-Arab, anti-Jewish, anti-black or any of the many other racisms that exist in the stinking, backward USA.

As to the history of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, please see:
(1) Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of Dictators
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm
and
(2) Ralph Schoenman's Hidden History of Zionism
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/

The fact that people get so hot under the collar about Israel and fail to get equally excited about the desperate economic crisis in this country, the prison-industrial complex, the death penalty, the vicious attack on the public school system, especially the workingclass public schools, the housing, transportation and public health crises, the election fraud and the many other urgent problems of the USA is a sign of rampant anti-Semitism. The Israel garbage pales in comparison to what is going on in this country and it is this country that we who live here can and must do something to change. Only then will the Israel garbage end.

We who live here in the belly of the beast, the center of the octopus, must change conditions right here at home where we live, vote, work and pay taxes. Only we can do it and only when we make serious progressive change in this stinking, rotten, backward country will we end all the little fascist dictatorships, whether they be Israel, Saudi Arabia, and all the rest of the stinking, rotten capitalist world.

The problem is capitalism; the solution is socialism. Only by organizing labor to take state power can we put an end to the stench called capitalism both here in the USA and in Israel, and establish socialism.

After looking at history and the logic of your position
Most of us believe that your workers revolution is

A) very unlikely to be sucessful and will jut get alot of you killed (or possibly just thrown in jail if you do it half-heartedly).
B) if it is sucessful you will fall under the control of stalinists (or somthing similar)
C) even if it did suceed it would begin to colapse again due to its natural instability as beople began to seek reward for tworking harder than other people or being smarter and those with power started to take advantage of those without.
D) even if it was stable it would be less efficient than pther states like china and would lead to rapid diminishing of our power until they gained infulence over us and then changed our system to their system or at worst a satelight state system.

As a result I dont see any point in trying no matter how noble your cause sounds.

Notice the distinct lack of a Nessie-nym sweeping in and telling you that you're all off topic. Apparently it's perfectly fine for a thread on antisemitism to turn into a thread on Zionism, but let the opposite happen and before you know it -- a Nessie-nym will jump in, point to me, and accuse me of posting Nazi propaganda in a thread I wasn't participating in. It's almost like an Abbott and Costello routine.

@%<

I see how it works. First Gehrig accuses me of being all sorts of hateful things of which I am not. He then puts words into my mouth to make his biased points. He posts a site to go to the trial transcripts,under http://www.holocaustdenialtrial.com
But much to my dismay, I post the verbatim trial transcripts for day one of the same trial and freedom of press man gehrig screams. I see how fair things are. They are only fair if Gehrig has he biased and hateful way.
Gehrig, if you are going to accuse me get your facts straight. You are standing at the edge of a precipice and you will soon be freefalling. Enjoy!
By the way, the only thing I was wrong on was that you did read the trial transcripts. But you have never mentioned that you read anything by the maligned David Irving. I suppose that would be like throwing water on the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz. You never answered any of my questions either. So why should I respect your words, when you don't have the intention of ever answering anything I asked?

Now that it has been made very clear that the Zionists and Nazis are collaborators, and that US imperialism is responsible for all the miserable dictatorships in the world, including but not limited to the miserable little military base of 4 million Zionists called Israel, let us turn to our own communities, where we live, work, vote and pay taxes, and where we can do the most good.

HEALTHCARE CARE CRISIS IN SAN FRANCISCO
How many of you who are so hot under the collar about Israel plan to attend the protest against the healthcare cutbacks on June 10 at 3 p.m. and June 11 at 2 p.m. at San Francisco City Hall? See
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1617434.php

ELECTION FRAUD CRISIS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND IN 2004 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
How many of you who got yourselves arrested at the Israeli consulate and in protest of Israel, Bechtel and the bombing of Iraq in the past few months are willing to sit in at the San Francisco Elections Department to protest the election fraud that has occurred there and the continued illegal occupation of the mayor's office by a fraudulently "elected" pro-Israel mayor, who sits there with 40% of the vote plus election fraud and now only 20% support? AFTER ALL, ELECTION FRAUD IS FASCISM. It is this same fascism that is being perpetrated by the USA in Israel and by pro-Israel Republican George Bush, who is about to do it again in 2004. As to the local pro-Israel Democrats' election fraud, see and read ALL 150 PAGES, at
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
and
http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown

RECALL GRAY DAVIS; SHUT DOWN THE PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
How many of you righteous anti-Zionists are ready to not only sign the petition to recall that pro-Israel Nazi, Democrat Gov Gray Davis, who wants a bigger prison-concentration camp system for the workingclass right here in California, but are willing to support a socialist candidate for governor when the recall makes the ballot? AND THEN, when you have a candidate, how many of you are willing to go to EVERY SINGLE WORKINGCLASS COMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA, and campaign, PRECINCT BY PRECINCT on foot and by phone to build a serious, socialist workingclass voting constituency right here in the belly of the beast, where it is needed the most and where we can do the most good?

SOCIALIST FOR SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR?
And, of course, why is there no socialist candidate for mayor of San Francisco? And when we had socialist candidates for mayor, why didn't all the good anti-Zionists work their tails off, as I did, to promote that socialist candidate? We needed lots more people to help walk the precincts of the workingclass neighborhoods of San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO TENANTS NEED YOUR HELP NOW
Right now in San Francisco, we have major tenant issues that will be on the ballot in November and we need all of you good anti-Zionists to get off your duffs and help us promote an elected rent board and a rent freeze. See http://www.sftu.org/hot.html

LABOR ORGANIZING NEEDED NOW
Only 13% of American labor is organized, and that is the primary reason everything else is going backward in this country both domestically and in terms of foreign policy. Every who can must do everything they can to organize the unorganized. I can assure you, the Israel garbage is not going to organize labor. You have to deal with wages, hours and working conditions on the job and the daily lives of your fellow workers if you want to organize labor. See LaborNet for more information on the crisis in American labor:
http://www.labornet.org

WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN SAN FRANCISCO AND THE USA. If you want to put an end to the fascist, racist governments of San Francisco, California, the USA, Israel and all the rest of the world, you have to start right here at home, where you live, work, vote, and pay taxes and where you can do the most good. All politics are local. If you want any kind of change, you have to organize the workingclass right here at home, on the job and in our communities, precinct by precinct, in person, on foot and on the phone. The time is now and there is a lot of work to be done RIGHT HERE AT HOME.

To get an excellent ongoing socialist education, both in terms of labor organizing around the world, and all other issues, see:
http://www.wsws.org

RE: Chris
by @ Sunday June 08, 2003 at 09:00 AM



That's B.S. and you know it. I am concerned about Israel exactly because my taxes fund Israel's genocide against the Palestinians. Americans died on 9/11 because of our poor relationship with the Arab world, a consequences of our corrupt relationship with Israel. These same activists opposing Israel now also opposed Apartheid in South Africa, US intervention in Central America, and many other issues that have nothing to do with Israel or Jews.
YOU WROTE
"Israel is on the front of the agenda right now because the Neo-Cons have put it on the agenda by usurping the foreign policy of the US to the ends of Israel.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want our resources, then you force us to become reponsible parties to your actions. If you use our resources to commit genocide, we have every right to make noise about and to denounce you"

In case you didn't know, the US provides hundreds of millions of dollars in food aid to North Korea and their brutal Stalinist dictatorship. This truly Rogue Nation has consistently threatened the US as a bargaining chip for pressuring our country into subsidizing the ENTIRE NORTH KOREAN energy system, and much of their food aid. In the meantime this Regime has killed millions of North Koreans, starved the rest to death while stealing food aid to feed their massive millitary beureucy. Where's all the ruckus about NOrth Korea then, if your only rationalization for the nonstop critique against Israel is because we give them foreign Aid (which unlike North Korean Aid, is actually invested in Israeli society....the US is currently phasing out Millitary Aid to Israel and Boosting social Aid), then why not speak out with great passion about the most devestating, fascist, cult-like regime in the world, that of Kim Il-Jung?

Gehrig, I'm beginning to think it's hopeless.

Your essay is totally on target, but the people here do not care about addressing anti-Semitism. In fact, they seem determined to perpetuate it.

It's impossible to debate people who ferverently believe the most astounding of fabrications. Like the socialist above who claims to be in the family of a Holocaust survivor. This socialist believes the absurd lie that Zionists collaborated with Nazis. I mean, how do you respond to that kind of an absurdity? How do you debate someone who eagerly devours every lie created by fanatics, and considers truth to be a lie? There's no common ground, especially since anti-Semitism is a passion, not a reasoned position.

I respect you Gehrig, but even I'm not sure what the point is anymore. Separating IMC from anti-Semitism is like separating anti-Semitism from the Vanguardnews site; it's just too closely joined now.

Someone: "Gehrig, I'm beginning to think it's hopeless."

As Tolkien paraphrases Ecclesiastes, "Where there is life, there is hope." Some of these minds aren't going to change, because as soon as they see the word "antisemitism" their blinkers snap down and all they see is "Zionist Zionist Zionist." But I do think that enough of the readers of this board are intelligent enough to see that the issue is actually more complex than that, and see that "Is anti-Zionist rhetoric antisemitic?" is just _not_ a yes-or-no question. As I said, that essay is "for those with eyes."

If it turns out that Nessie -- who's done quite horribly over the last few days in the strutting despot department -- does carry through with his threat to ban me and delete all my posts, then I think it will be clear enough to anyone with eyes just what it was that went down here: "step thou not between an SF-IMC editor and his prejudices, nor scoreth too many points off him too joyously, or face banishment."

"Your essay is totally on target, but the people here do not care about addressing anti-Semitism. In fact, they seem determined to perpetuate it."

No, I don't think it's that. I think they just haven't figured out how rhetoric can be both anti-Zionist _and_ antisemitic, and that it's not wrong to call anti-Zionist antisemitic rhetoric antisemitic. Instead, they've got this simple rule they'll defend to the death: "If it's anti-Zionist, it _can't_ be antisemitic, and anybody saying it is is just lying to protect Israel."

I wouldn't have put so much effort into the essay if I thought that the IMCs or the progressive movement in general were a lost cause. And for the most part the reaction to the essay has been overwhelmlingly positive, except -- predictably enough -- among the "Israel is the root of all evil" crowd, the folks like Nessie who have trouble masking their disappointment whenever a good Israel-bashing winds down.

"It's impossible to debate people who ferverently believe the most astounding of fabrications. Like the socialist above who claims to be in the family of a Holocaust survivor. This socialist believes the absurd lie that Zionists collaborated with Nazis. I mean, how do you respond to that kind of an absurdity? How do you debate someone who eagerly devours every lie created by fanatics, and considers truth to be a lie? There's no common ground, especially since anti-Semitism is a passion, not a reasoned position."

Well, remember, being related to Holocaust survivors is no guarantee that you're right. The main problem with the "Zionists collaborated with the Nazis" argument is that history tells a much different story. At the same time some Zionists were sending letters back and forth to Nazi officials trying to grease the path for Jewish emigration from Europe, those same Nazi officials were promising the Mufti of Jerusalem that they would destroy the Jewish Homeland and hand it over to -- by an odd coincidence -- the Mufti of Jerusalem. History makes it pretty clear what the Nazis thought of Zionists -- oven fodder like the rest of the Jews.

But I've found that most folks who refer to Lenni Brunner's book are really only looking for a rhetorical excuse to equate Nazism and Zionism in order to spit bile at Zionism, history be damned.

"I respect you Gehrig, but even I'm not sure what the point is anymore. Separating IMC from anti-Semitism is like separating anti-Semitism from the Vanguardnews site; it's just too closely joined now."

But that's not the same thing as saying the two are joined forever. Most IMCs aren't the hatefests SF-IMC is. And most of the people who post on the IMCs -- even here -- are essentially motivated by what they think is the right thing. It's frustrating in this case because they're up against their own straw men. They just haven't all taken a close enough look at the anti-Zionism versus antisemitism stuff that I talk about in my essay, and are still stuck at the "yes-or-no question" phase. (Mind you, some of them are pretty damned proud to be stuck at that phase.)

@%<

what you cannot accept is that zionism is not immune to critics.
the authorised history of israel conflicts with unauthorised accounts who are all too often brushed aside as antisemitic
people are sick of the junkfood the publishers call history.
they are hungry for the truth and truth has been censored and marginialized and that is n acceptable.

That little "your an anti-semite" trick worked, for a while. However, when everyone we know personally that is clearly not an anti-Semite has been called an anti-Semite simply for doing what they have done all along, standing up against injustice, the accusations wear thin and in time we all learn to see the accusations for what they are - a weapon of mass deception. Zionists have been cashing in on the blood of murdered Jews for more than a half century now. Palestinians have been paying for the debt of Europeans. It don't think that's fair. No reasonable person would think that it is fair for Palestinians to suffer for what (mostly dead) Germans did more than half a century ago. You can point your fingers all you want, but we know better. Zionism stinks with the same filthy smell as Nazism. Many Jews know better too and do not consider themselves Zionists.

Do you really think food aid to North Korea compares in any way to military aid to Israel? How can you equate paying for genocide against Palestinians with paying to feed Koreans? Have Zionists become so twisted that they cannot distinguish between money to save lives and money to take lives away?

What foreign country does N. Korea occupy? What business is it of mine what kind of government the people of N. Korea choose to live under? They could overthrow their own government if they chose to. The Palestinians DO NOT REALLY HAVE their own government because they are occupied by a foreign power. Chris, you are way out of your league.

not zionism but capitalism.
they are the same cult and worship that golden calf that Moses warned the people about

Zionism is an extention of the war mongers.
it is a symptom & not the cause.
and should not be extracted as the capitalists will reappear in another form eventually.

the enemy is the system but not the people per se.
you focus on the class system and you'll focus on the world's main threat and deal w/ it in a wise way!

I and alot of people around here have been called a zionazi etc etc y'all play the same game. But you arent going to stop your side are you?

Or, put more simply, please don't drink and post at the same time.

!: "what you cannot accept is that zionism is not immune to critics. "

That's funny, that's what I say three separate times in that essay, along with the note that no matter how many times I say it, some people won't listen. Thanks for demonstrating that.

Annie -- I take it you didn't read the essay either.

@%<

Most charges of "anti-Semitism," especially concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict, are intended to do one thing: End all debate on the topic.

Zionists understand that truth and justice is on the side of the Palestinians and that they would simply lose ground in a prolonged discussion on the topic. So that's why they have to end all debate before it begins. It is basically a scoundrel's accusation -- used by the victimizer to try to look like the victim.

Also, I don't see Arab-Americans constantly complaining about anti-Arab racism on SF-Indymedia. That's probably because anti-Arab hatred is mainstream and acceptable, so any remarks on Indymedia are just dismissed as more of the same.

Thanks on that N Korea argument - it cuts through the bs.

I think another thing is that whatever actually goes on in NK isn't covered by our media, for the most part.

Why is that?

You're right. In fact, North Korea is hardly covered anywhere in the west that I'm aware of. There has been a rather short documentary a while ago that I saw, but nothing more.

Maybe the government doesn't want the outside world to know what is happening there on a daily basis.

In response to gehrig (who else?)

I am not sure why you accuse the SF IMC of being a hatefest. What exactly does this mean? Isn't this a bit of an overstatement? Open publishing certainly creates a mixed bag of postings, and in any case most of the posts aren't even about Israel.

What is your motivation gehrig? Do you want to make the SF IMC better? It certainly has it's problems, but you seem to be on somewhat of a quixotic and rather personal quest.

I have seen anti-semitism here, but I have also seen it in many other places. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? It would be very helpful if you could give specific ideas and instructions, and don't refer back to your rather long and self referential posts.

I can't prove it, however, it seems as if you want people to not read your comments so that you can hurl accusations at them later for not reading what you wrote.

Concerning the word Zionism. I rarely use the word as it has too many meanings and too much baggage attached to it. More precise terms and descriptions are much more useful, and someone who uses the word Zionazi is either anti-semitic or incredibly stupid.

In any case, gehrig, if you actually care about the SF IMC, you need to do more than rant (and this is what you do, even though you claim not to.) Persisting in your current actions calls into question your sincerity in a very serious way.

excellent post and re-post. I only hope that people will take the time to read it.

I'm also at UC, and I've never encountered real anti-Semitism from the activists I've worked with. There is some jerk posting "no war for israel" flyers, but I think that's the reality - people who are really anti-semitic are opportunistic parasites who are trying to capitalize on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and they are definitely in the minority, they're just louder on the Net and the IMC network.

But even though real anti-Semitism is a small minority of prolifically posting assholes, and too often Likudniks use charges of anti-Semitism to silence criticism of Israel, it's still out there. We who are neither pro-Israeli-right-wing nor anti-Semitism need to be on the lookout for this trap.

Gehrig's criteria for anti-semitism are totally bunk. Essentially, one can take them and interpret any anti-Zionist statement as anti-Semitic. As such they should be discarded as worthless. All he did was take pre-fab criteria for anti-Semitism and replace the word "Jewish" with "Zionist."

I also find it amusing that gehrig calls Wendy "Windy". I have never seen anyone post with as much wind as gehrig. He could go on posting all day and never have to stop for a breather.

Interestingly, the only misspellings I ever saw gehrig make were of Lenni Brenner and Neturei Karta's names. I have found that names are sometimes deliberately misspelled to make searches more difficult. Since only these two were misspelled, it seems that gehrig doesn't want anyone to search them, which would make sense because they are both anti-Zionist.

I congratulate the editors for not bowing under pressure, despite the concerted effort on the part of gehrig, a self-professed Zionist (who misleadingly says he only calls himself that because he gets off on the reaction), to encapsulate Indybay. If Indybay compromises, it will become just as ineffective in addressing the crimes of Israel as the US congress.

Yea, Gherig dismisses Brenner's well-documented presentation with some mini-anecdote about the mufti over-laid with his insufferable "i know everything" invective. I have no doubt that Brenner (a Jew, it should be noted) would chew Gherig up and spit him out if they were ever to debate the matter of Zionist complicity with anti-semites.

The fact is that quite a few of the most eloquent and radical critics of Israel in America are Jews (Chomsky, Finklestein, Brenner, to name a few) while many of the most powerful anti-semites in this country are insanely "pro-Israel". Gherig never seems interested in writing 4,000 word treatises' on the anti-semitism of the fundamentalist christians whose virulent support of Israel is based on some tawdry biblical prophecy ending in Armegeddon with the Jews turning to dust or being converted to the true religion.

Talk to us about that, Gherig. Tell us about Israel's anti-semitic allies, past and present: Richard Nixon, Billy Graham, Jerry Fallwell.....

Jeff Blankfort is my favorite. That guy pulls no punches, and he dishes out the meat and potatos. It's guys like him that check anti-Semitism, not the vindictive Israel-apologists with their squirming, pharasaic arguments and whining, lawyerly defenses of outrage after outrage.

One of my favourites, Israel Shamir, is also Jewish, and he has no qualms whatsoever in pointing out the reality of the current (and past) conflicts in the Middle East.

I have met several real anti-Semites in the course of my life. The one thing, besides hating Jews, that they all had in common was the fact that they were proud of hating Jews. Most anti-Semites will brag about how much they hate Jews.

Now, this being the case, why is it that so many Zionists think that everyone out there that does not bend over for Israel is a closet anti-Semite? Why would any anti-Semite choose to be secretive about anti-Semitism? OK, perhaps a few are, but I suspect that there are few of them. If you take the Zionists for his word, however, you would think the world is teeming with secretive anti-Semites.

Now, if one is willing to openly anti-Zionist and suffer endless attacks by Zionists that hate anti-Zionists, I would expect that if the anti-Zionist were a secret anti-Semite, the constant badgering by JDL thugs would cause the secretive anti-Semite to crack and spew anti-Semitic remarks openly. However, this does not happen. It does not happen because the targets of JDL thugs, by and large, ARE NOT ANTI-SEMITES.

There are REAL and OBVIOUS anti-Semites out there. Take for example the National Alliance, the Nazi Party, and White Aryan Resistance. However, the JDL thugs seem to spend the greatest amount of the energy attacking people that are not anti-Semites but merely anti-Zionists. These same JDL thugs leave the Nazis alone. Are they afraid of getting their asses kicked? Are they more concerned about anti-Zionism than anti-Semitism? Are they working for Israel and not for Jews? I don't know. What I do know is that they target honest activists that have opposed repressive regimes all of their lives without ever encountering such accusations of racism until they dared to speak out against Israel's repression.

Now, why to I assert that they are JDL thugs? I do so because I've run an operation investigating the sources of much of the online harassment coming from pro-Zionists. I have connected them to the JDL.

The JDL is a terrorist organization. These so-called enemies of terrorism that attack leftists on IndyMedia are terrorists themselves. If you looked into it deeply enough, you would not be surprised. Israel introduced terrorism to the Middle East. Most of Israel's greates leaders were terrorists. Zionism is a philosophy moved forward by terrorism as much as the philosophy of the modern Jihadist is terroristic.

by the Raven Monday June 09, 2003 at 01:06 AM: "There is some jerk posting "no war for israel" flyers..."

response: So, what's wrong with saying, "no war for Israel"? How is that anti-Semitic, *if* you are suggesting that? Israel is a *nation-state*--not the equivalent of all Jews or Judaism. I generally would say, "NO war for the U.S.!" [Of the *MANY* U.S. mlitary conflicts, the U.S. has only fought three legitimate wars, the Revolution (so to speak, for rich white colonial men), the Civil War and WWII]. I'd say, "No war for U.S. imperialism!"; "No war for Israeli semi-genocidal ethnic cleansing or imperialism!" "NO war for *any* [name nation-state] imperialism."

----------------------------------------

by Holocaust Family Member Sunday June 08, 2003 at 12:56 PM: "Only by organizing labor to take state power can we put an end to the stench called capitalism both here in the USA and in Israel, and establish socialism."

response: *In the meantime*... before the worldwide revolution that overthrows the capitalist enterprise and its militaries has been achieved...,should we have not ended slavery and legalized racial segregation in the U.S., gained women the right to vote and access to university education and professional employment, ended child labor (at least in industrialized countries), ended Nazi genocide, protested the Vietnam War, stopped the clearcutting of ancient redwoods, work for decent housing and nutrition, abolish political apartheid in South Africa, etc., ...abolish the apartheid ideology of political Zionism in Palestine?

Not all of us can afford to wait for the worldwide revolution to overthrow capitalism has been achieved; as bad as capitalism is (and feel free to work for its abolition), some of us have more *immediately* pressing problems to deal with--especially of life and death--that can't be put off until "The Revolution".

-------------------------------

by anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism Sunday June 08, 2003 at 10:32 PM: "It [accusations of anti-Semitism, used to squash debate] is basically a scoundrel's accusation -- used by the victimizer to try to look like the victim."

Malcolm X: "Colonialism is the perpetration that seeks to make the wolf [the colonizers/imperialists] look like the lamb and the lamb [the oppressed colonized] look like the wolf!"

--------------------------------

Anti-Semitic -- more commonly used to be, those who don't like Jews.

Anti-Semitic -- *now*, more often, those whom certain Jews (particularly Zionists) don't like!

--------------------------------

The tragic irony and hypocrisy of political Zionism -- the creators/supporters of this racist ideology calling others anti-Semites.

-------------------------------

by Hatefest 2000 Sunday June 08, 2003 at 11:32 PM: "Concerning the word Zionism. I rarely use the word...someone who uses the word Zionazi is either anti-semitic or incredibly stupid."

response: Gee, I've heard plenty of anti-Zionist Jews refer to murderous Israeli soldiers and their commanders--and certainly the likes of Sharon and certain other Israeli political leaders--not to mention those "redneck Jews" (rabid, hardcore, racist settlers) as "Zionazis". There are morally and intellectually unavoidable parallels--all except for the literal Nazi death camps themselves, which didn't start until the last few years of the Nazi era/regime. The Israeli military even admitted that it studied Nazi methods for use in the Occupied Territories!

Some anti-Zionist Jews refer to the atrocities commited by Israeli Zionist Jews, like Sharon, as "Nazis in yarmulkes [Jewish skull caps]". One of the Israeli refuseniks (see seruv.co.il) said that one of his commanders proclaimed, "Le'ts be JUDEO-Nazis!" (actually a politically incorrect label), as Israel was about to rage through Jenin, etc.

--------------------------------

To "@": I appreciate your recognition of the atrocity of Israel as a Zionist state [Gandhi referred to Zionism as "a crime against humanity"], but however Israel might exist and within whatever borders, it has no moral right to exist as a Jewish-supremacist state--no more than South Africa (or for that matter the U.S.) had a right to exist as a legally/Constitutionally white-supremacist state--no more than the U.S. had a right to exist as a Constitutionally slave nation-state.

----------------------------------

NOTE!:

I hope by now that all interested persons have seen Jeffrey Blankfort's article in Counterpunch magazine (at counterpunch.org) on Israel and the Israel lobby's hijacking of the latest U.S.-Israeli 'peace plan', the latest U.S.-Israeli PR term for "stall": "The Roadmap"

You can also just put "Jeffrey Blankfort" or Jeffrey+Blankfort in a Google search box for this and several other articles by/about Blankfort.

You can also read articles about how Blankfort and others successfully sued the slimey ADL for its immoral and illegal activities, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area.

No amount of food or fuel aid could begin to compensate the people of Korea, especially North Korea, for the destruction wrought by U.S. imperialist aggression in 1950-53. That U.S. invasion killed about 2,000,000 Koreans, the great majority in the North, and turned the North into a virtual wasteland, with hardly a building left standing. (The U.S. Air Force ran out of targets to bomb in the North!)

Despite all that devastation, the isolation from the world economy caused largely by U.S. embargo and the artificial division between North and South, the necessity to maintain a strong military to deter further U.S. agression, and whatever mistakes the North Korean government made, that country had, according to the 2002 CIA World Factbook, a life expectancy at birth of 71.3 years! Compare that to 63.55 years for Brazil, a country with far more natural resources and no threat of foreign military aggression to defend against. (Of course, it's not as good as Cuba, with a life expectancy of 76.6 years!)

I'm glad North Korea has nukes, or the potential to make and use them! Maybe they won't have to spend so much on their military if they have a nuclear deterrent -- and it might make the U.S. more "understanding" about the need to compensate the Korean people for what it did to them 50 years ago!

Date: Fri Sep 18 00:30:24 1998

ADL-Mossad

CONSIDERABLE suspicion exists that the
Anti-Defamation League not only serves as an "unofficial"
propaganda arm of the Israeli government - a role its
National Director Abe Foxman unabashedly claims - but
that it also provides information on Palestinians and
Arab-Americans to the Israeli government and its
intelligence service, Mossad.

The suspicions increased when a Chicago resident,
Mohammed Jarad, whose named appeared in Roy Bullock's
files, was arrested and accused of being an agent for
Hamas, upon his arrival in Israel to visit relatives in
the occupied territories.

Also, as revealed in an interview with the FBI,
former ADL Los Angeles operative, David Gurvitz,
acknowledged that having "learned from a law enforcement
contact that a known member of the Democratic Front for
the Liberation of Palestine," was about to travel from
San Francisco to Haifa, he "called the Los Angeles
Israeli Consulate and advised the Deputy Consul General."
Later, a Hebrew-speaking individual from the Consulate
called back to confirm the information.

Both Bullock and Gurvitz, however, denied that there
is any direct link between the ADL and Mossad. However,
a letter written by then National Director of the ADL,
Benjamin Epstein on July 7, 1961, would indicate
otherwise. Epstein was writing to Saul Joftes who was, at
the time, the Executive Secretary of the International
Council of B'nai B'rith, the ADL's parent organization,
requesting additional funds.

"Our information," wrote Epstein, "in addition to
being essential for our own operations, has been of great
value and service to both the United States State
Department and the Israeli government. All data have been
made available to both countries with full knowledge that
we are the source."

Joftes, a 22-year veteran with B'nai B'rith did not
believe that this was the proper business of the ADL and
balked; at which point B'nai B'rith decided to fire him.
Joftes turned around and sued Rabbi Kaufman, the
responsible B'nai B'rith executive, and entered Epstein's
letter as an exhibit in his behalf.

In an affidavit filed in that action, Joftes stated:
"B'nai B'rithI has become an international organization
engaged, by Rabbi Kaufman's admission, in other things
besides charitable religious and educational activities.
It is no longer non-profit. It engages in international
politics and more often than not does the bidding of the
Government of Israel. Its leaders make frequent trips to
Israel for indoctrination and instructions. I had tried
to prevent this change. That is why Rabbi Kaufman tried
to fire me.

"He was making B'nai B'rith a servant of the Israeli
Government."

That was 1961. On May 6, 1993, the ADL's
representative in Jerusalem sent a memo to National
Director Abe Foxman informing him that he had attended "a
small, farewell luncheon that Shimon Peres gave for Bill
Harrop (the outgoing U.S. ambassador). According to Wall,
"There were no other American Jewish representatives
invited."

Another well written article. Haven't seen your name around for a while. Glad to see your views again.

My comments concerning the words Zionism and Zionazi were not meant to imply that Zionists never communicated with Nazis, or that aspects of Zionism have become similar to Nazism.

I am simply stating my opinion that using the terms simply hands ammo over to the ADL, and there are plenty of ways to get one's point across with out using them.

Of course, context is very important. For example, if I said "Israelis are just a bunch of Zionazis" it would be somewhat difficult to that I wasn't being anti-Semitic. However, if I said "The ADL has been over-run by Zionists that take their orders from Israel" this is still provocative but harder to construe as anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, why not say "The ADL has been taken over by rapid supporters of the Israeli government"?


Also, in response to JA, why exactly did you ignore my condemnation of gehrig and focus on my dislike for the words Zionist and Zionazi? At the risk of sounding like gehrig, did you not read the other portions of my post? Did you simply jump to the word Zionist? This is really my point about the word.

good point Hatefest 2000

as to Lev Bronstein

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/08/wkor08.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/08/ixworld.html

hmm maybe the CIA fact book hasn't updated its stats lately

The life expectancy for women in North Korea has fallen from 73 to 70 over the past decade," said Jayanti Tuladhar, an advisor at the United Nations Population Fund.

Hmm... its better than brazil?
OK I guess they have their own problems too but your comparison is not very relevant since korea isnt much like brazil.

ok, so i hope i can post this without coming under attack. I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS. I'M NOT TAKING SIDES.

within the last year, i have felt very uncomfortable attending anti-war protests or various leftist gatherings. the reason for this is i have felt the left has become tainted with anti-semitism. not every person, not every event. but there has just been certain situations that have made me put up my guard. i started to find people using phrases that i thought i would find in a publication of the Christian Identity movement. a popular term among white supremists is the ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government). this resembles rhetoric used by some people who have said "we didn't put the zionists in control in the middle east. we want them out!" (this is what i heard a speaker at a local anti-war rally say). i'm not saying that this person hates jewish people. i'm just saying that the left needs to be careful of the language we use and of how far we take our convictions.

if people really are concerned for other peoples' well-being and safety, and if they truly care about anti-oppression, then they would make sure that their words were not mistaken for anti-semitism. what happened to compassion? is that not radical enough nowadays? i don't see the harm in sitting down with someone who is offended by anything you might have said/done and explaining you're opinions and ensure them that you are not what they say you are. by putting up that wall and attacking them back totally stops any hope for communication and understanding. how do we expect the leaders of israel and palestine to understand eachothers sufferings and to agree to peace if we can't do that in our everyday lives?

i have thought about this for a long time, and have changed my mind back and forth. but when my friends that are jewish start talking about how they don't feel safe at anti-war rallies, then i know that the left needs to make a conscious effort to address anti-semitism without bias, and to rid our movement of all forms of hatred, whether it be blatant or disguised. THANK YOU to those of you who are trying to do that on this site. for those of you who can't stop and listen to others, that makes me very sad.

i am against the occupation, against the actions of the israeli military, and i am against the actions of palestinians who attack israeli civilians. i recognize that both are the works of extremist groups. i don't let the actions of a government define an entire people.

i understand that both peoples have suffered enormous amounts throughtout histroy, and i refuse to take sides. i'm neither pro-palestinian nor pro-israeli. i am pro-peace. i don't think the situation will get better for anyone until both sides swallow their pride and make compromises for the sake of peace. how many more people must die before everyone realizes this?

ok, so i hope i can post this without coming under attack. I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS. I'M NOT TAKING SIDES.

within the last year, i have felt very uncomfortable attending anti-war protests or various leftist gatherings. the reason for this is i have felt the left has become tainted with anti-semitism. not every person, not every event. but there has just been certain situations that have made me put up my guard. i started to find people using phrases that i thought i would find in a publication of the Christian Identity movement. a popular term among white supremists is the ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government). this resembles rhetoric used by some people who have said "we didn't put the zionists in control in the middle east. we want them out!" (this is what i heard a speaker at a local anti-war rally say). i'm not saying that this person hates jewish people. i'm just saying that the left needs to be careful of the language we use and of how far we take our convictions.

if people really are concerned for other peoples' well-being and safety, and if they truly care about anti-oppression, then they would make sure that their words were not mistaken for anti-semitism. what happened to compassion? is that not radical enough nowadays? i don't see the harm in sitting down with someone who is offended by anything you might have said/done and explaining you're opinions and ensure them that you are not what they say you are. by putting up that wall and attacking them back totally stops any hope for communication and understanding. how do we expect the leaders of israel and palestine to understand eachothers sufferings and to agree to peace if we can't do that in our everyday lives?

i have thought about this for a long time, and have changed my mind back and forth. but when my friends that are jewish start talking about how they don't feel safe at anti-war rallies, then i know that the left needs to make a conscious effort to address anti-semitism without bias, and to rid our movement of all forms of hatred, whether it be blatant or disguised. THANK YOU to those of you who are trying to do that on this site. for those of you who can't stop and listen to others, that makes me very sad.

i am against the occupation, against the actions of the israeli military, and i am against the actions of palestinians who attack israeli civilians. i recognize that both are the works of extremist groups. i don't let the actions of a government define an entire people.

i understand that both peoples have suffered enormous amounts throughtout histroy, and i refuse to take sides. i'm neither pro-palestinian nor pro-israeli. i am pro-peace. i don't think the situation will get better for anyone until both sides swallow their pride and make compromises for the sake of peace. how many more people must die before everyone realizes this?

your comments are welcome.
we welcome people of all political background as long as they are genuine and benign.
You sound like you are not seeking to vilify a side at the expanse of another which is something everybody has been guilty of at one time or another.
your thoughts are enlighning. 7

I too believe all comments are welcome.

I do disagree though with some of the points -- mainly that both sides are equally to blame. I think more blame can be put on Israel than on Palestinians for a variety of reasons -- not least of which is the fact that the overwhelming number of civilian casualties are Palestinian. Also, I believe Palestinians have already compromised a great deal -- they have accepted the loss of 78% of their land and want only 22% of which Israel already controls around 45%. Israel has yet to recognize that Palestine -- let alone Palestinians -- have any right to exist whatsoever.

The solution for this conflict is not for both sides to negotiate together. That's like asking a rapist and rape victim to negotiate with one another -- in this case, we expect the occupier and occupied to "negotiate" -- nothing just can come from this. I believe the real solution rests in the hands of Americans. The problem is US government support of Israel and the massive aid without which none of this would be possible. By cutting off all aid to Israel and placing sanctions on it, this entire perpetual crisis can be brought to a halt practically overnight. The US (meaning us) must join the international consensus which upholds UN resolutions calling on Israel to pull out of the Occupied Territories.

Preferential treatment towards Israelis by pretending that this is a conflict between equals is not acceptable for people who believe themselves to be anti-racist. At best, this is subconsciously racist because it assumes that Israelis are far more important than Palestinians (why not, for example, switch the massive aid from Israel to Palestinians so that they can defend themselves on their own land? It is Palestinians, after all, who are literally fighting for their survival, not the Israelis as the media pretends).

Hey, Angie!

[Ref.: Angie Monday June 09, 2003 at 05:06 PM]

Thanks for the comps! I try my little best. But you do better! I *always* appreciate your posts and your fortitude in expressing your views. Looks like "Good Morning, Moshe -- Thoughts on Israel, Palestine" has somehow become a worldwide hit! Now, *HOW* did *that* happen!? [Scratching my head.]

Well..., roughly a week-and-a-half ago, I was on KPFA-fm's Hard Knock Radio show again, interviewed by Davey D.

('Today', Tuesday, [well, technically, yesterday] I called into Hard Knock Radio, when African American novelist and essayist Ishmael Reed was on, and I humbly and briefly talked about my article in Reed's literary magazine "Konch" -- just put "Konch" in a Yahoo/Google/etc search box to locate it and the link comes up on the first hit. Ishmael was talking about the (continuing, negative, stereotypical) image of Black males in U.S. media. My article, "RIGHT HOOK AT THE BELL, BELL HOOKS' BLACK MALE-BASHING" appears in the current issue of Konch. My article--which I think you'll find very interesting--reveals some of the irony (like Zionism) in this thing called life or the human condition. You can listen to the 4:30-5:00pm radio segment, the part where I was on yesterday, (or the entire show) on the 24-hour archive server at KPFA sister station KFCF.org . Actually, it's a 24-1/2 hour archive.)

Besides that, it's been almost an event or meeting (oh, so many) or protest or celebration (one or another of the aforementioned) just about every day/evening/night. A good friend of mine, named Dr. Hatem Bazian (remember that name), a *really* good and incisive public lecturer, was a panelist at a couple of these events, including a very well attended ISM panel event.

Occasionally I'd check back into SF-IMC for top stories, but 'today' (technically yesterday) I thought I'd check the posts. And you know this propaganda canard that legitimate criticism of Israel/Zionism is anti-Semitism -- and always evading the fact that numerous morally conscious (and even prominent) Jews oppose Zionism -- is something that I just have to stay on top of. It's like saying that condemnation of South African apartheid or American "Jim Crow" apartheid or, then, pertinent criticism of the U.S. or South African state was anti-white racism. But I know you know that. In fact, I got home late tonight, but had to check this thread again before I'm off to bed.

Anyway, it's always good to see your 'by-line'. By now, I feel like I practically know you personally--certainly as a kindred spirit (one who wants to bring humanity together, not continue to divide it).

It is fine and quite acceptable for the monitor of all thought and intent to post a little sentence " A guide for the perplexed" thinking that the masses will not recognize it as a title of Moses Maimonides great talmudic work. It is okay for this but dare not post a title of a book written by someone who has done very thorough research on WWII. I find this site very biased toward the Gehrigs of the world. Why is it called Independent media when if you list something that has a different perspective of the same thing it is deleted.?



Try sending an e mail to the url listed and you get a response that SPAM ASSASIN has identified your e mail as spam. How convenient.




As to the charge of anti-semitism being leveled at me, on the contrary, I find the Arab peoples quite civil and intelligent. They are trying to live up to their moral code but the Eastern Europeans who you worship have state sponsored abortion, state sponsored prostitution. Cheers!

JA, hi!

Wonderful to hear from you! You're keeping busy, I see. That's great!

(Grinning here). I have no idea how "Good Mojrning, Moshe" became a "world wide hit". In fact, I never knew it went beyond this board until you suggested several weeks ago that someone search Google for "Good Morning,Moshe".

Curious, I did a search, and I almost dropped dead with shock when I saw that just about every Indymedia in the world had posted same. I mean, there I sat, reading my spiel from Japan, the US, Canada (loved a comment from Vancouver which said "A Must Read") It was in South Africa, Australia, India, Paris! How did this happen, I asked myself?

I noted it was posted by a Joseph Anderson, and I assumed he must be one of the editors, so I sent off an e-mail to SF Indymedia seeking clarification, but it was returned because of some reason or another. And that was the end of that!

HOWEVER, just now as I was reading your post it clicked. "I wonder how that happened", indeed! Joe Anderson --- JA! It was you, wasn't iI? Hell, this is really cool! Imagine you doing that!!!!!

Ah (she says cautiously) may I ask why? But, hey, thanks!! It was one HUGE surprise for sure!

Speaking of Moshe, he never responded to my last post wherein I asked him about the current situation re the Labour Party in Israel.

(Giggling) had I known you were going to do that, I would have included my full name and e-mail address! Think about the rsplies it would have provoked!!!

In any event, JA, thanks for your kind words. I've been taking a bit of a bashing here over the past week or so, and your comments sure brightened up my morning.

I feel l know you too. We both share the same views ,and we obviously feel a sense of humour is an essential part of life.

It was great to see your post yesterday, and i look forward to many more.

We shall continue, won't we, to keep up the good fight. Justice for all regardless of race, colour, creed.

Much success to you,
Angie

Have a wacked-out jewish conspiracy theory? sf.indymedia.org is the place for you.

Want to change the meaning of zionism and demonize it beyond reality? Welcome home, here on sf.indymedia.org.

Want to hold all israelis in the entire world responsible for what you see some army members doing wrong? Sf.indymedia is the place for you!

Want to paint insane "zionists want to control the world" theory all over the walls? Even though the average "zionist" has nothing in common with other zionists other than supporting israel's EXISTENCE? Welcome, sf.indymedia.org loves you!

Complain that Israel does X, while never saying a thing about 20 or 30 other countries doing 2X or 5X? SF.indymedia.org is your home away from home!

Want to apoligize for islamic terrorists? Want to blur the line between militants who just want freedom and militants who seek to destroy another people regardless of what those people do, and paint all killers who are arab as just and noble? sf.indymedia.org is your new favorite site.

Enjoy making industry lists and singling out the jews on those lists? Feel uncomfortable when "too many jews" are good at something? SF.indymedia.org feels your pain.

Do all of the above, yet loudly denounce all racism and anti-semitism? Honey, I'm home!!!!!

Hatefest: "I am simply stating my opinion that using the terms [like Zionazi] simply hands ammo over to the ADL..." (That Word -- Monday June 09, 2003 at 05:36 PM)


response:

(I'm hammering this out over a late lunch, so excuse me if I lapse from being organized in thought.)

Well, I don't condemn your opinion, but are Jews who make such historical comparisons (like Einstein once did) "hand[ing] ammo over to the ADL"? I believe that people like Einstein or Norman Finkelstein or Lenni Brenner, etc., were/are trying to morally jar Zionist Jews awake by making such stark comparisons.

And if Zionist Jews in their ethnic hyper-chauvinism can't be morally jarred awake--as some of them (like what I call those "redneck Jews" settlers) *never* will be--then I think that the historical comparison is apt in starkly drawing the attention of those who don't know what Zionism is--especially in practice, methods and means. Sometimes you just have to blatantly put things (words) out front to make it clear. (Like when I say, "redneck Jews", it *clearly*, succinctly, best characterizes the fanatical behavior, primitive arrogance, mindless bigotries and homicidal mentality of those rabid hardcore Zionist settlers. These redneck Jews can give any other racists in the world 'a run for their money'.)

Zionazi itself is not a term or name I particularly use, because I don't want it to be a term exploited by duplicitous, racist Zionists as a distraction, especially if I don't have the time-opportunity to place it in historical context. In formal settings I prefer to speak with more equanimity. I prefer to make specific comparisons (like ethnic cleansing, etc.), not call names. So, you have never heard me use that name.

But if I actually *lived* under Zionist occupation (as I *am* a non-Jew), I probably *would* more commonly use the term (Zionazi) for who/what I lived under--especially for the Israeli state's worst atrocities/practices. I'm sure that to Palestinians under Israeli oppression in the Occupied Territories, it *DOES* look and feel like Nazism! I certainly *think* of Nazis when I think of Sharon, Netanyahu, Begin and the like or when I daily hear/see/read of Israel's atrocities. However, if I were Jewish, I would feel much freer to use the term Zionazi, to morally give my condemnation more power, as one of my Jewish friends boldly does (he even carries a sign using that word in certain demos/marches).

There is *no* law of physics or principle of physiology that says that a Jew can't be a fascist and/or a racist (despite what some Jews pretend)--and Nazis were particularly racist fascists, who engaged in the ethnic cleansing and religio-ethnic homicide of other people. Some Jewish Americans originally set up country clubs in the U.S., because, then, other country clubs woudn't admit Jews: those Jewish country clubs were originally, and for a long time, *closed to Blacks*. I *know* that you know Jews who don't like Blacks, in general. I hope that you also know (as I do) Jews who *do* like Blacks as a people. But, I say that one (Zionists) can't be racist abroad and be non-racist at home. The Jewish-American political establishment has become increasingly anti-Black, over the years, as it has become more prominently pro-Israel and Zionist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I would *never* say (borrowing your example quote) that "Israelis are just a bunch of Zionazis". I don't think that the statement is inherently anti-Semitic; I just think that it's too strong a generalization and in numerous instances would be incorrect.

(But what do many Jews, especially Zionists, freely say about Germans even to this day, even regarding those Germans who were merely children or who weren't even born at the time of the Nazis? What do *you* and other Jews commonly say about Germans, then and now? Do you realize that Hitler could never gain--*never* gained--a majority in the German parliament!? He had to abolish it! The Nazis rose and ruled by crass, brute intimidation--just as Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld want to rule today. And like Zionists against even anti-Zionist *Jews*, the Nazis intimidated, threatened, censored and ultimately silenced the *good* (moral) Germans too. There was *internal* *German* opposition to Hitler--and early opposition which the Western powers never supported--at every moment of his political existence. So much for scapegoating Germans as being uniquely, almost genetically, racist.)

------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also not say "The ADL has been over-run by Zionists...", because "over-run" is not a term that *I*, as a non-Jew, would personally use when describing or applied to Jews of any sort, given Hitler's historical comparison of Jews as vermin to be exterminated. I, personally, as a non-Jew, would consider the term "over-run" a somewhat historically insensitive term and I wouldn't feel that I had a right to use that term. But, if that is the case (about the take-over of the ADL by, especially, hardcore Zionists), then I could imagine ardently moral, anti-Zionist and more outspoken Jewish friends of mine using such a term. Actually, I just assumed that the ADL was, at least indirectly, a Zionist organization--it certainly is, otherwise, a slimey organization (and I've said so before) in its behavior.

If you want to criticize or condemn Israel/Zionism or ADL tactics without mentioning Nazi-era behavior/parallels/ironies, then intellectually be my guest. I have no objections. As long as every morally informed person exposes/criticizes/condemns racist ideologies--especially racist state practices--then you can pick your own intellectual and verbal route.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to your question, Hatefest, "[W]hy exactly did you ignore my condemnation of gehrig and focus on my dislike for the words Zionist and Zionazi? At the risk of sounding like gehrig, did you not read the other portions of my post?"

I didn't think that my tone sounded like I was slighting or dismissing your other points.

(Isn't it 'interesting' that lately the Zionist lobby PR machine, has imparted connotations upon the very term "Zionism" as being at least vaguely anti-Semtic [or rather anti-Jewish]. This, I guess, is a way to attempt to take away the very terms of moral and historical analysis and debate of the Zionist ideology. There have even been Zionist efforts on some university campuses--centers of debate where world issues, of course, often take place--to have the very term "anti-Zionist" labelled a *racist or anti-Semitic hate term* for whose use students could get expelled!!! Sounds Naziesque to *me* in its Orwellian censorship!)

Actually, I find gehrigs posts--especially his longer, much more voluminous tomes--rather tedious (like one of his, way above). I actually become dizzy, and my vision quickly blurs over, with boredom just trying to decollate any substance from his long, tedious abstractions; what turned out to be, after all, just thinly veiled anti-Semitic character assassination foisted against true progressives, like his voluminous strawman treatise above.

And, no: I *don't* read the many tedious, longer portions of Al-Nakba denier gehrig's voluminous tomes--all those abstract verbal machinations and loose demagogic name-likenings (Buchanan, Atwater, Buckley, Sobran, Hitler!), and anti-Semite-baiting, ultimately just to claim that self-racialized Jews have a racially superior and inherent right to the land in Palestine (the very definition of Zionism as *RACISM*). I liked the description somewhere on this page of such Zionist apologist posts as "squirming..., lawyerly [in the negative sense]..., and pharisaical", as I would find any doctrinal or ideological, and especially hypocritical, treatise defending, by definition, racism. I *didn't* ignore your condemnation of gehrig-- I *agreed* with it! If I disagreed, I would have said something.

( ** HEY GEHRIG !! ** : instead of making abstract, demagogic, general potshot, strawman arguments, why don't you be *SPECIFIC* about what some *SPECIFIC* person *SPECIFICALLY* said that you find anti-Semitic! Pick something that *I* have said, for example--or that Angie has said--or that nessie has said--or that any other anti-Zionist progressive on this page or elsewhere has *SPECIFICALLY* said!! -- and *document* it ! Note one of the rules of legitimate logic & argument made in the original article above in one of the links! Look under fallacy. )

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But, Hatefest, you made a rather strong statement about the term "Zionnazi"--"someone who uses the word Zionazi is either anti-semitic or incredibly stupid"--and I merely differed with you on that point and wanted to offer a correction. I've had this disagreement with "liberal Zionists" before [not saying that you are one], and they have subsequently admitted that I was right. (You have also attributed hypothetical statements that I have never made.)

I also, sometimes, tend to be a little suspicious of people, who would take away such intellectual and moral comparisons (by name or description) to other racist ideologies or regimes, as being "liberal Zionists", which I compare to "liberal/genteel racists". These are steadfast Zionists--nonetheless, Jewish state, ideological, ethnic chauvinists--who merely recoil at Israel's/Zionism's atrocities and worst excesses. They don’t want to see pregnant Palestinian women being forced to give birth out on the open ground in 95+-degree heat at military checkpoints, where old men and women are forced to stand for hours in the midday sun -- or 8-12-year-old kids being shot, even for throwing stones at armored soldiers. But “liberal Zionists” still *DO* want Jewish-supremacy in Palestine.

It's like "liberal anti-Semites" who, nonetheless, don't think that Jews ought to be put into gas chambers or shot--or "liberal racists" who don't think that Blacks ought to be lynched or beaten up by white mobs--just shunned and kept legally and physically separate from 'normal, decent' society.

Perhaps I should have acknowledged my appreciation of your criticism/condemnation of gehrig, even when I differed over one important point.

Sorry to take up so much space in this post.

To "hello":

Nice try at the usual anti-Semitic accusations, but unsubstantiated hyperbole means nothing. Here is my point by point reply:

> "Have a wacked-out jewish conspiracy theory? sf.indymedia.org is the place for you."

Do you have any proof that such conspiracies go beyond the usual issues with open posting? (Think about it, if anyone can post any crack-pot can post as well.)


>> "Want to change the meaning of zionism and demonize it beyond reality? Welcome home, here on sf.indymedia.org."

Nice equivocation there. So, are you referring to the people who suggest not using the word Zionism in the context of criticizing Israel, or are you referring to the people who use the word in an obvious anti-Semitic way? Also, you have an unsubstantiated claim that the people in the second group are welcome at sf.indymedia.


> "Want to hold all Israelis in the entire world responsible for what you see some army members doing wrong? Sf.indymedia is the place for you!"

You are trying to confuse the Israel government, Israelis, and people of Jewish decent. in your attempt to besmirch sf.indymedia as anti-Semitic.


> "Want to paint insane "zionists want to control the world" theory all over the walls? Even though the average "zionist" has nothing in common with other zionists other than supporting israel's EXISTENCE? Welcome, sf.indymedia.org loves you!"

Once again, to you have any proof that the people who run sf.indymedia actually agree with such nonsense. Open posting allows anyone to post (as I pointed out previously.)


> "Complain that Israel does X, while never saying a thing about 20 or 30 other countries doing 2X or 5X? SF.indymedia.org is your home away from home!"

First, people do "complain" about other countries in addition to Israel. Second, the main issue with Israel is that our tax dollars support Israel in a major way. This in no way means that there aren't countries that are worse.


> "Want to apoligize for islamic terrorists? Want to blur the line between militants who just want freedom and militants who seek to destroy another people regardless of what those people do, and paint all killers who are arab as just and noble? sf.indymedia.org is your new favorite site. "

Interesting that you should agree that there are "militants" who just want freedom. I would like to know how you determine which militants just want freedom and militants who are "killers."

Also, note that you are attempting to blur the meaning of Arab, militant, and killers here. This is an attack disguised as a logical statement.


> "Enjoy making industry lists and singling out the jews on those lists? Feel uncomfortable when "too many jews" are good at something? SF.indymedia.org feels your pain."

This non sequitur contains some rather bizarre accusations. Statements such as these are designed to elicit angry denunciations that you hope will prove whatever point you are trying to make.


> "Do all of the above, yet loudly denounce all racism and anti-semitism? Honey, I'm home!!!!!"

This is a somewhat obscure ad hominem attack as it implies that the people who run sf.indymedia are hypocrites. It does not, however, prove that sf.indymedia is anti-Semitic.


Better luck with your propaganda next time.

I basically agree with you JA, but I am not Jewish or Einstein or Norman Finkelstein or Lenni Brenner. I don't have an issue with any of them using the word(s) we have been discussing.

Once again, it's really a matter of precision. If I use the word Zionist, not being Jewish, it really makes it just too easy for people to attack me. I am not suggesting there is any innappropiateness in using the words Zionist or even Zionazi. It is, once again, a matter of context.

Notice, WWII has been over for 58 years. The Nazis lost the war and have been paying reparations for decades. I always like it when people in the U.S. call Bush a nazi. He is a republican lackey who is a capitalist. There are no nazis left. The new bad people are under the direction of a former C.I.A. asset, Osama bin Laden. Then there is the red brigade, and then there is Hamas. The mossad in certain instances are terrorists, and so is the C.I.A. So it is an injustice that the term zionazis is used when applied to anybody. World War II is over. The allies defeated Hitler and Mussolini, and Hirohito. Stalin was a different matter.

Yo Angie!

"(Giggling) had I known you were going to do that..."

WHO *MEEE*!?

**I** don't know how it got all over the wwworrrllld!! -- An *intercontinental* *transglobal* dissemination!! They don't give the *Blllacck* man that kind o' *pppower*!! (Haha!)

"Good Morning, Moshe": It was the most critically eloquent, incisive thing (essay) I have ever read about, calling into serious question or disrepute, Israel in its Zionist project!! And I have read some *very* incisive things calling Israel/Zionism into critical question. You should know that it has even been posted *beyond* indymedia--by *others* who immediately saw its eloquence.

"I've been taking a bit of a bashing here over the past week or so..."

If "Good Morning, Moshe" was all you ever wrote, you done well--you done fantastic!!!

I wish I could send it to a once-close, female, Jewish-American college roommate of mine now living in Israel. I've since lost touch with her over the years. She was once a *very* nice person who has been misled by Zionism--like a cult ideology--she just didn't know any better--into becoming 'God only knows' what kind of anti-Palestinian racist. I saw the beginnings of her transformation, especially after she moved to Israel.

She wasn't even political!! She, from the Midwest in midstate Illinois no less(!), was just in a longing, wistful search for her cultural roots and a 'brave new world pioneer' *adventure* to recolonize 'an ancient homeland'. She innocently believed all those stories handed down to her through Hebrew school, Hillel, Jewish organizations/clubs, Western (imperialist) history books, Zionist politicians, maybe her loving parents (altho they didn't want her to move so far away to Israel), etc., about "a land without a people" too, just like *I* *once* did--until I ressearched it for *myself* (I figure there are always at least two sides to a story). I feel so sad for her. [Sssighhh...]

(I suppose that we're all originally brainwashed in the U.S., by certain people who themselves--whether Christian or Jewish or others--just want to ethnically, religiously, nationalistically, etc., emotionally exploit all the rest of us for the selfish accumulation of their own power and wealth. You know, people in Europe ALL hated each other. Now I 'understand' the *30*-Years, decades-long, War(s).

I was so surprised, travelling in Europe for the first time, seeing how people 'hated' other people--even within the same country!--often over in the next town--or even over the next hill!! I heard of small European minorities that I had never heard of before, who were either 'hated' by others or 'hated' others themselves. Why would conservative Jews, like Begin, Shamir, Sharon, etc., not be part of that European spectrum? Conservative Jews in Europe even hated *other* Jews. Western European Jews hated Slavic Jews. European Zionist Jews even 'hated' Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews!--treated them as 2nd-class citizens in Palestine itself.)

Don't let those hardcore Zionists, especially those evasive circumlocutors like gehrig, get you all bogged down and suck up all your time like the time-sponges they are. (And don't let them get you sucked up into arguing the details of Zionist dust.)

I may be out from time to time, but I GOT CHYO'R BACK!!

[By the way, I was just listening to a PBS Newshour segment on the radio about 'saving private Lynch' in Iraq--another colorful U.S. military PR/propaganda lie (along with Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Distruction"). This Pvt. Lynch segment started about 40-45 minutes after the hour, if you want to catch it on one of the TV rebroadcasts of the PBS Newshour later today. (Usually the PBS Newshour itself is a govt propaganda organ, as I'm sure you know; but, every once in a while even it is forced to come clean on a govt story).]

Take care,

(I look forward to meeting you one day at some rally, demo, or political event!)

Joseph

addressing anti-semitism, by john Monday June 09, 2003 at 10:18 PM:

"but when my friends that are jewish start talking about how they don't feel safe at anti-war rallies..."


Yo John!:

That is straight-up *garbage*!

*WHEN* have you heard of *ANY* Jews being physically attacked at *ANY* anti-war rally. In fact, there are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews and Zionist condemners of Israeli behavior and policy, especially in the Occupied Territories.

There were Jews who spoke from the *stage* at anti-war rallies. (In spite of the fact that Michael Lerner couldn't horn his New Age egotistical way in.) There were Jews working, along with every other California minority, as organizers and support staff, behind the stage and in the media pits at the anti-war rallies. There were plenty of anti-war (for either the U.S. or Israel) Jews in the marches. You obviously haven't been to any of them. And you obviously don't read indymedia, because if you did, you would well know by now that *ZIONISM DOES NOT EQUAL JUDAISM*. I want "Zionists out of Palestine" too--and so do many Jews!--even some Israeli Jews.

Criminal-justice figures show that anti-Semitic hate crimes in California have actually gone *DOWN*--along with hate crimes for *every* other minority--EXCEPT FOR ARABS/MUSLIMS.

Now ***I***--a Black man--was once *physically* attacked by a white hardcore Zionist Jewish-supremacist on a nearby corner at *an anti-war rally* at the civic center in San Francisco, who objected to my *Einstein* quote sign ("It would be my greatest sadness to see [Zionist] Jews do to [Palestinian] Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews"). *NOW*, WHO'S IN PHYSICAL DANGER!?--altho I easily defended myself and was not injured.

I should have reported it to the media, since they were already there, and especially because SFPD cops there witnessed the attack--there was a documented police eyewitness report--and the police were so tense about violence breaking out that they were on him immediately and arrested my attacker.

I don't have any patience for this garbage. SFSU Zionists, like Jewish Studies director Laurie Zolith also said that *the Bay Area* was on the verge of another *Holocaust*. Do you believe that too! Tell your lyin' ass *Zionist* friends to take their propaganda somewhere else--and you stop spreading it for them too. It they are uncomfortable about the truth, then so be it: they *should* be.

The point is that Zionist Jews don't want *ANY* legitimate criticism of Zionism. That's why there is no fundamental criticism of Zionism and virtually *NO* *real* criticism of Israel in the mainstream American media. That's why Zionists reportedly got Google to stop carrying indymedia links on its search engine: censorship. That's why gehrig perhaps purposely misspells certain key search names in his lengthy treatises. Zionists know that in an open side-by-side moral comparison and analysis, in an open media debate, Zionists would *lose*.


john: "i understand that both peoples have suffered enormous amounts throughtout histroy"

But *Palestinians* had done Jews no wrong. The people who did Jews wrong were *Europeans*!


john: "make compromises for the sake of peace. how many more people must die before everyone realizes this?"

How about this compromise!: All the European and American Jews who invaded Palestine can live there *IN PEACE* as long as they will do so in a SECULR, DEMOCRATIC society with EQUAL RIGHTS for *ALL* people regardless of ethnicity (Jewish, Arab, etc.) or religion (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc.). The same thing that Jews rightfully demand in any other country. Israel can give up its Jewish-supremacist ideology. Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their confiscated homes, if they want, or to be given reparations. Those who don't want that (those redneck Zionist Jews) can *leave*, freeing up more land and resources for everyone else who wants to live in peace and equality to share.

Yes, how many more people must die before this is realized? -- before Israelis realize that there is *NO* peace with oppression. And if you truly want peace, then you too will work against oppression.


john: "i refuse to take sides"

True progressives take the side of the *oppressed*-- *whomever* they are--against *whomever* is oppressing them. That would have been for Jews in Nazi Germany or for Palestinians in Zionist Israel. What are you, politically?


Now, john..., what you got ta say?

It's past 3 a.m. here, but I wanted to respond to your last post before I tumbled into obvilion.

I read your article in Konch, and, as you predicted, I was VERY impressed (applause, applause!). Let me say that you are no slouch yourself when it comes to eloquence in writing, and you certainly know your topic. Way to go!

I think I've grown up a wee bit since I started writing on this board. In the beginning (a few months ago) when someone would pick on me, I'd be horrified and in tears. Now I find it amusing more than anything, and a little tiring. Dealing with the closed mind syndrome, you know?

Strangely enough, and I don't know why not, Gehrig has not picked on me at all - yet! God knows I must have infuriated him as well as some of the others here, but (she sighs with relief) nothing critical or otherwise to date. (I shouldn't have mentioned that, no?) I don't want to check this board tomorrow and find a MEMO from the good man.

I'm sitting here now grinning foolishly (I do it well). I still cannot believe that you sent off my wee piece of prose on a universal journey. Incidentally, where else did you put same besides Indymedia? Or do I want to know?

It's too bad about your friend. People can (and do) become brainwashed. Blessedly I was never one to be a sheep, shall we say, and I never paid any attention to anyone trying to convert me, or convince me that such and such is true, etc. I've kept an independent and inquiring mind because if we don't seek further knowledge daily, what are we seeking?

I've spent a lifetime, it seems, in libraries researching topics I am interested in. I'd much rather dig into the newspaper archives of the 1948 formation of Israel than be indoctrinated by non-truths from elsewhere.

I was quite happy a few days ago when we had a thread here about Zimbabwe. Over the past week or so I've spent numerous hours reading up on everything I can get my hands on re that particular issue. It's so much fun to learn stuff, isn't it?

Incidentally, I read your other posts here today (to John and others) and am duly impressed with your sound reasoning powers! Again, I will say you do know your subject matter!

I only watch documentaries on PBS. The only evening news I watch is BBC World, and CBC Newsworld, Canada. This is a time issue, of course. There are only so many hours in the day to go around.

And my alloted hours for today are winding down. Sleep is calling me, so I'll say goodnight.

I'll keep an eye on the board for your posts, and. again, thank you for your kind comments.

Angie

Zionists are the real anti-Semites today. They attack the Palestinian people, a Semitic people and do so supposedly in the name of Judaism-no better way to smear the good name of the Jewish people than to committ genocide and attrocities "in their name".

As with America's endless wars, Jews also say to the zionists:

NOT IN OUR NAME!

You make a very good point there.

It would not surprise me at all if the peoples of Israel (excluding some fanatics) and the peoples of Palestine (excluding some fanatics) were able to get together and discuss the issue themselves as opposed to doing it through the media, something positive might emerge.

O Muslims!
At this moment you are witnessing and hearing all kinds of aggression befalling you, ending with the victory of the aggressors. You have been humiliated and defeated by powers, large and small; powers such as America, Britain, Russia, the Yahood and even India amongst others. This happened in Afghanistan and before that in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and other places. Today it has happened in Iraq. The nations have summoned each other to attack you, just as people summon others to share from their dish, and you are subdued in the land.
Has not the time come, O Muslims, after all of this, that you take matters into your own hands and realise that your way out from these mounting injustices is the Khilafah system?
Do you not believe Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta'aala) when He explained to you how you could gain your honour and victory?

O people of power from the army and others; do you not want your pure blood to flow in the Path of Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta'aala), instead of being spilled for free on the streets aimlessly and without purpose? You will respond to the cries of the children who have been humiliated by the Kuffar. Your Khaleefah will be in front of you in the battle and not in front of you in flight. He will protect you, and you will fight behind him. And he will lead you from victory to victory and not from one defeat to another.

«ﻪﺑ ﻰﻘـَّﺘـُﻳﻭ ﻪﺋﺍﺭﻭ ﻦﻣ ﻞَﺗﺎﻘُﻳ ﺔـَّﻨـُﺟ ﻡﺎﻣ​ﻹﺍ ﺎﻤﻧﺇ»
“Verily, the Imam is a shield behind whom the Muslims fight and by whom they gain protection”.

Good night, Joseph
by Angie Tuesday June 10, 2003 at 11:07 PM:

>It's past 3 a.m. here

Really? Where are you writing from?

> I read your article in Konch, and, as you predicted, I was VERY impressed

Well..., I *didn't* say that you would be "VERY impressed". I'm not *THAT* confident about my writing or thoughts. I actually said that you might find it very interesting. But, the publisher of The Black Commentator (at blackcommentator.com) called me up today to say that he too was "very impressed" with the article and asked me if he could publish it. I really loved the article layout at Black Commentator: check it out!

(I tweaked the article a little first to fix up a one or so undisciplined sentences that always had me wincing a little. There was actually a cut&pasted, misplaced, glitch, sentence in the first paragraph that had me wincing when I saw it in Konch and whenever I thought about it. So, I moved it to the end of the paragraph.

Writing for me is, I imagine, like being a painter: I always want to tweak the final work: like, 'Oh, those should have been dashes, not commas setting off that brief clause; and that other sentence needs a semicolon; arrgh, there's one of my longer lazy sentences that should be divided; and in that still-other sentence, *now* I recall the right word I was trying to think of'; etc.! So, I got a 2nd chance to add a few corrective brush strokes to my 'painting'. I actually first wrote the article when I was *very* busy with anti-war stuff, on top of my usual activism, so it's actually not too bad. But, as one of my friends once told me about a deadline article I was working on, "Joseph, we don't have time for you to be perfect." [Haha.] )

>(applause, applause!).

Awww, shucks...

>you are no slouch yourself when it comes to eloquence in writing

Well, coming from someone who wrote "Good Morning, Moshe", I find that high praise indeed. But, I appreciate the feedback (positive or negative--either helps me intellectually grow).

>I think I've grown up a wee bit

Quite evidently more that *that*!

>since I started writing on this board.

A lot of people wonder what an African American is doing being involved in (at least actively supporting) the Palestinian struggle (such as I am). I tell them that learning about and becoming involved in *ANY* oppressed people's struggle is a profound way to learn more about your own struggle (whether personally, socially or culturally)--or even your own country, directly or indirectly. --Or just as a way to learn something important at all. I’ve learned a lot more about the African American struggle by studying and being involved in the Palestinian struggle than I would have ever learned not becoming involved in it.

I was involved in the *Korean* issue back in the late '80's, when Korean students (in California and South Korea) were trying to learn about their own history (studying the non-govt version in South Korea was illegal at the time, for which one could go to prison) and they were active to throw off the dictatorial S.K. govt that the U.S. supported for, nominally, 40 years, since the end of WWII.

Most people do not know about the U.S.-supported, South Korean govt Cheju Massacre and the Kwangju Massacre -- the Korean "Tienanmen Squares" that we never heard about--and before that and in between that South Korean govt murders and assassinations of many 1,000's upon 1,000 of dissidents.

The students were the first to call for the re-establishment of relations between S.K. and N.K.. They would just march right up to the heavily-armed DMZ. Back then, the U.S. and S.K. govt called them militant and crazy. Now the beginning of re-establishing ties is S.K. govt policy--which the U.S. keeps trying to interfere with, so that it has an excuse to keep its military presence there. Anyway, I think that Korean activists are *cool*--and the female activists (contrary to stereotypes) are just as tough as the males. And being a Korean progressive student, back then, *really* meant putting your physical safety, freedom and, sometimes, your life on the line, when you could otherwise just have a cushy university life and career. The activist students were the first in society to start figuring out that the U.S. was not--by any means--necessarily the friend of S. Korea.

There are *7 million* divided families on both sides of the N.-S. Korean border. Korea was an innocent victim of WWII, yet Germany has been re-unified for over a decade now, but Korea is still divided. There have been huge anti-U.S. govt marches in S.K., and, especially, younger generation S. Koreans say that they are more afraid of what the U.S. might do, than what N.K. might do. In another Korean war, Seoul--a city of over 11 million people--would be physically devastated, if not completely destroyed. Japan, where there are U.S. bases, could also be attacked with N.K. missiles. China, N.K.’s closest ally, would become involved again.

Isn't that something!: right after an international world war--WWII--the French are ready to send their sons into Vietnam to reconquer that; shortly after that, nationalist Jews in Palestine launch their war of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, aggression and expansion; a couple of years after that the U.S. goads war in Korea, because conservatives in our govt really want a war with *CHINA* (which MacArthur wanted to nuke)! -- that would likely also involve the, then, *SOVIET UNION* (which then had atomic bombs)!

Up to *one* month before the outbreak of the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur (Supreme Commander of the Pacific Fleet), Dean Acheson (U.S. Sec'y of State), and Senator Connally (Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relation Committe), all said that Korea and Taiwan were outside the U.S. "defense perimeter". Does this sound like April Glaspie with Saddam in the U.S.-led Gulf War? When N. Korea attacked in June, 1950, the U.S. claimed it was a surprise!--and the U.S. military immediately intervened. The war resulted in about 60,000 Americans killed & MIA, and maybe 1+ million Asians killed (including refugees we massacred), and the huge entrenchment of the U.S. military in East Asia (especially in S.Korea and Japan). And the war pretty much ended, in stalemate (that means the U.S. really lost its objectives), where it began. Having learned nothing there, we moved on to Vietnam (where we finally, like the French we financed & supplied, lost).

Maybe a half-decade after that war ends, Eisenhower, then Kennedy, start sending "advisors" to Vietnam for another (this time 10-15-year) bloody war. You know those pastry puffing French can't do any war right! There are more Mideast wars and more U.S. "conflicts" in between all of this. I would *never* fight in a war for the U.S. (or let any son/daughter, if I had one) unless, perhaps, depending on by whom, their reasons, and what their objectives were, we were directly attacked first or another country declared war on us.

And now we've got straight-up militarists in the White House and 'War [what it was originally, more accurately, called] Dept' (like the Japanese militarists in 1930's Japan--provoked by Western imperialists/colonialism and our U.S. Pacific fleet saber-rattling). And Henry Kissinger recently, calmly, said that, "Vee vill have to ally ourzelves vith some very unsavory characters in our war against terrorism." But, now our govt militarists are also religious fundamentalists who believe in, perhaps subliminally even wish to help along, the Biblical prophecy of Armagedon!

And now, American PBS-TV is showing a documentary filled with U.S. propaganda about the history of nuclear weapons development, use, proliferation and threats-- where U.S. military and nuclear policy is everything virtuous and everybody else's possession and policy (except for 'you know *who*') is everything evil or wrong. You may know that the U.S. has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in every major conflict since WWII. I can't listen to this garbage on TV anymore.

In fact, it may have escaped people's notice that the *U.S* was the FIRST (speaking of nuclear proliferation) to introduce nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula--staging literally hundreds of both strategic and mostly "tactical" nuclear weapons on land and ships. What did the U.S. *think* North Korea would eventually do?

I thought up a new sign for the next anti-war demo: "WAR IS THE BIGGEST BUSINESS IN AMERICA!!" -- and the biggest, most massive, redistribution of wealth (and now Constitutional rights) from the many to the few.

But, I digress...

>In the beginning (a few months ago) when someone would pick on me, I'd be horrified and in tears

Well, it's my morally conscious, anti-Zionist activists, Jewish friends and kindred spirit sisters & brothers who really reinforce my moral and intellectual fortitude. These friends and kindred spirits are *really* resisting a lot of sociopolitical force and politically manipulated, cultural coercion from Israel's and the U.S.'s Jewish political and establishment leaders. One of the questions I always asked Jewish friends, respectively, is, "How did you do that--resist (or even, before, internally reverse) all that pressure?"

That's a lot of manipulated cultural force to have overcome: to say, '*Yes*, there was the Holocaust, and *yes*, then, we had to flee, but we dissident Jews can't--won't--do to others what has been done to us.' Jewish friends of mine, like Jeff Blankfort (journalist and photojournalist) or Barbara Lubin (Dir., Middle East Children's Alliance, for Palestinian kids) or Rob Lipton (ISM organizer) and others you wouldn't know are *ENRAGED* at what Israel (and political Zionism) has been doing in Palestine, since even before its inception. I consider them "the White Rose" of Zionism. I'm not speaking for or quoting them, but I bet they would consider Israel a Nazi-state -- short of the literal death camps.

Well..., anyway..., the struggle has made you stonger.

>Now I find it amusing more than anything

Yes, often *sadly, tragically* amusing.

>and a little tiring.

Yes, very tiring -- in a very *tedious* way -- having to listen to the likes of certain morally atavistic people here on indymedia and the same types elsewhere -- trying to replay the same old game of ethnic conquest and subjugation.

>Dealing with the closed mind

Like a steel trap.

>I don't know why not, Gehrig has not picked on me

Maybe he saw what you did with Moshe.

I don't recall him messin' with me either, even though I certainly criticized him -- but he hasn't even had any comebacks to me.

>grinning foolishly (I do it well). I still cannot believe that you sent off my wee piece of prose on a universal journey.

Who *MEEE*!?

>where else did you put same besides Indymedia?

Where it went beyond indymedia--as I told you before--I saw that it was picked up by *others* who recognized its *obvious* articulate eloquence. I was very pleased to see others who valued it enough to include it on their *own* websites. (I did a search on it yesterday, but, unlike before, Google limited the search to "the top ten" hits for some reason.)

>It's too bad about your friend.

Yes, *VERY* sad. Especially if you knew how really nice she was.

But, in Israel, she was definitely turning into a fervent anti-Palestinian racist. She was starting to sound like one of those redneck fundamentalist settlers.

In fact, if I didn't mention it before, she also became religious. But as she wasn't ever political, she wasn't really *truly* religious either--even tho she became kosher. It was just another way to immerse herself in her cultural roots. She had definite philosophical trouble with the patriarchal--I'd say misogynist--scriptural passages, something like, "thank God I'm not a woman", and all that scriptural stuff about women being dirty and sleeping outside in tents once a month (no longer practiced, of course; but, that aside, conservative rabbis still can elect visual privileges for female converts, I hear), as well as the religious subservience and separation of women. Her sufficiently busy, modern, professional woman mom even said about her daughter (my roommate), "She can keep two sets of dishes if she wants, but *I'm* not going to!"

When we were rommates, I became her "Shabbat goy" (I think Jews jokingly call it): you know: the goy who follows her around on Shabbat and turns lights on and off for her and do trivial "work" favors. It was fun (and funny). I liked her a lot, so it was fun to do this [hypocritical] work stuff for her! Haha! I only went into this lengthy description to show you what is possible with the human psyche.

Shabbat dinners were great!--hmmmm...she was a *great* chef,and we had such a large, *beautiful* dining room (a chandelier, arches, French doors, large brick fireplace, stained glass windows, a beautiful semi-baroque dining room table (with beautiful candle holders, of course), vintage chairs, a wrought-iron balcony, in a charming, hidden-away neighborhood, hidden by two huge parks on either side) in my absolutely beautiful apartment (I wasn't rich, just resourceful): it was a fantastic way to make sure that we got together for dinner (sometimes with friends) on at least one day, in our busy schedules, at the end of every week.

And you'd know me, I love to share *anyone's* culture. I'm deeply at heart a multiculturalist and internationalist: the world is my smorgabord. (As Stevie Wonder sang, "I wish those days...would...come back, once more...!) If I knew then about Zionism/Israel what I know *now*...,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check this out later when you have time:

“Zionist Claim To Israel: Modern-Day Apartheid” (mine)
http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=3508&ref=search

“Reflections on Zionism from a Dissident Jew”, by Tim Wise
http://www.mediamonitors.net/timwise1.html

“The Jews in Palestine, 1938”, by Gandhi
(Gandhi’s statement on Palestine)
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_gandhi_1938.php

“Zionism Ignores Plight of Palestinian People” (mine)
http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=10435

"Fraud Fit For A King: Israel, Zionism, And The Misuse Of MLK", by Tim Wise
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/20wise.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...I could have gently talked her out of her morally, philosophically and psychologically ill-fated quest and flawed cultural dream. She was, then, so wide-eyed, academically inquisitive and bright, sweet, and sociopolitically innocent. Zionism was such a moral tragedy for someone like her. Now she's become an oppressor--unreachable. [Shaking my head sadly.] Now, it's like she's gone and half dead.

>Blessedly I was never one to be a sheep

I *believe* *that*!

>if we don't seek further knowledge daily, what are we seeking?

That is the question of the human predicament.

>I've spent a lifetime, it seems, in libraries researching topics I am interested in.

Reminds me *exactly* of one of my current female housemates: a constant seeker of knowledge.

>I'd much rather dig into the newspaper archives of the 1948 formation of Israel than be indoctrinated by non-truths from elsewhere.

That's like this one current housemate of mine too--exactly. I've always marveled and admired her intellectually--and her cool intellectual prowess. In fact, you remind me of a couple of similar female friends of mine.

>It's so much fun to learn stuff, isn't it?

That's why I hate having to spend time debating/debunking the likes of gehrig: So much time spent in search of no new knowledge. The only benefit--well..., besides advancing the effort in "The Struggle" for justice and to help advance world peace--is to meet kindred spirits--and really bright people--like you (in writing or in person). I've also become old friends here in Berkeley with this *really* sharp, *highly* respected, *extremely* intelligent, *very* sophisticated Palestinian friend named Hatem Bazian. (The name I previously told you to remember; you can look him up on Google, I'd guess.) Hatem - is - *COOL*.

When I was a kid, I used to imagine that I would live under a glass dome, in my own research library earth home, up in the Alaskan wilderness, with snow-capped mountains in the panorama, and listen to jazz or classical music while I worked. When I was a teenager, I used to listen to jazz or classical all the time in my room (painted in sunset and desert colors with a sky blue ceiling) when I did my homework.

Now, I mostly listen to bebop and political/social consciousness rap. But you **GOTTA HEAR** Ani DiFranco's song "Self Evident", if you haven't heard it already. Chuck D of Public Enemy said it inspired him to come out with his own 9-11 and/or anti-war rap songs.

>I only watch documentaries on PBS.

I hope that Canadian PBS is better than U.S. PBS-TV.

[I do watch "Bernie Mac" on the Fox network ('of all' networks)--the *only* intelligently written--the only humorous without being buffoonish--Black sitcom *ever* on television. (Chuck D called the WB Channel the "We Buffoons" Channel, and he called the UPN channel "the United Plantation of Neeegroes" Channel, because of their, typically, superficially and/or ignorantly written Black sitcoms.) And I love movies with strong female leading characters.]

>CBC Newsworld

I'd really be happy with Al-Jazeera TV in English. (CNN certainly isn't worth a damn.) Although I understand that heavy U.S. pressure has been put on it to slighyly compromise its news coverage at least a little. Right now, I get most of my TV news from Duetche-Welle.

>I'll keep an eye on the board for your posts

Sorry to take so long to get back to you here.

Later,

JA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. More stuff by me that you *might* find interesting:

San Francisco Chronicle (shorter version) --
"The Issue is Racism"
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/ED155503.DTL

San Francisco Chronicle, follow-up letter to the editor--
"Twisted Claim"
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/27/ED187756.DTL

Brown University Daily Herald (longer version)
"Horowitz’s ad uses racist arguments to further claims"
http://www.browndailyherald.com/stories.asp?dbversion=2&storyID=4433

(a similar version of this also appeared in a small Canadian newspaper, as well as other university newspapers.)


P.P.S My apologies to others for taking up so much space in this communication. And apologies to you to, Angie, about the long post (writing so much, I learned to touch type very fast--and I didn't have an event/meeting tonight).

Read with great interest your most interesting and informative response. This is just a wee acknowledgement of same. I'm going to be tied up most of the day, but I will send you off a reply later tonight.

Where am I writing from? (Smiling here!) From Canada, my friend, the most beautiful country on earth, where our Prime Minister is elected by the people, and where peoples of the world live in peace and harmony. The Canadian Alliance party is a bit like the current administration in the US, but their hope of ever taking over the Government is remote at best.

I will read your other work as well sometime during the day, but these past few days I've been rather lazy and now I've got to really get to it and dispense with work.

Until time permits, I wish you good health and happiness.

Angie

PS I don't know whether you've read the comments here by "A Concerned Zionist"? The first one I read I was virtually on the floor in hysterics. You can find him in the thread re Rachel Corrie (the shorter one).

angie (Hey, JA by Angie Tuesday June 10, 2003 at 07:55 AM):
"I've been taking a bit of a bashing here over the past week or so..."

Angie, I forgot to tell you...(and I'm up, briefly, in the early morning): I haven't yet read the "bashing" you've gotten, "lately". But, take it from someone who has written publicly a lot: you know, you get some really *crazy* people out there. And it's like they must have suffered some kind of brutal childhood emotional/physical abuse by parents or bullies, or had really bad/weird parents who passed down some kind of angry personal/familial "script" or something, or acting out of their victimhood, because those attackers are out to be so malicious with their highly gratuitous and personal attacks and vague name-calling. I mean some of it has downright sociopathic characteristics.

I'm sure that, besides that, some of it is just gross insecure social/emotional defensiveness. Maybe some of it is just *fear* over losing privileges (even marginal privileges) that social inequities give them. [This was originally described by W.E.B. DuBois -- and later in a book by David Roediger, of the same name, "The Wages of Whiteness", something even underclass and working-class white males were granted.] Or it's a fear of others who look different.

I mean, regarding privileges, my Zionist Jewish former roommate went to Israel hoping for a sociocultural and Mediterranean utopia at the unknown[/known] expense of the indigenous Palestinians whose land and resources Zionists had taken. I mean, Zionism gives Israeli Jews splashy waterslide amusement parks, while Palestinians are relegated 1/8 of the water resources and sometimes have to pump it by hand. Zionism gives Israeli Jews the Europeanized, Mediterranean, cafe and beach society, coastal cities of Tel Aviv and the like. Zionism gave the Israeli Jews billions of U.S. dollars every year, and either Palestinian or imported 3rd World labor to do the menial work Israeli Jews didn't want to do.

These are the same privileges that American "Jim Crow" segregation and South African Apartheid gave whites. It's the same privilege that patriarchy gave/gives men. So, *of course*, anyone who wants to abolish those inequitable institutions/ideologies are going to be attacked and called, "What, are you *crazy*!!!? Are you sick!!!? What, do you hate whites/Jews/men!!!? Are you a self-hater!? Are you an Indian-lover / a nigger-lover / a chink lover / an Arab-lover!!!?"

Even *I* was surprised at the extremely malicious, vicious or coldly sarcastic remarks made by Zionist Jews against Rachel Corrie in this indymedia. How could anyone say those malicious things against someone who had been *slowly crushed to death* by a bulldozer?--and make *fun* of it!? I'm only glad that those Zionists publicly revealed just how sick they are. I've got a strong psyche, but I just couldn't read anymore of that in that thread.

There's this racist white guy, and he used to semi-regularly call into a Black friend of mine's very popular interview call-in radio show. And with a creepy, breathy, taunting voice he'd slowly launch into racial invective. Why did he feel the emotional *need* to do this *repeatedly*?

One time he did this when I was being interviewed, and I responded to him -- after he hung up, or was finally cut off after he got too abusive -- that he must really, actually, *love* Black people, because he called into the show so often! -- of all the other radio stations/programs to listen too, he couldn't seem to get along without us!! I also said that I was *very* *pleased* that he called in! -- because white people could actually hear for themselves that there were still racists like him out there. I told him that he didn't need to keep calling in, anymore, because now we ALL knew that racists like him were still out there. He hasn't called back since.

I don't really know, but those kinds of people--fearful of losing their privileges, I guess--try to *pretend* that they represent numbers greater than the specific offensive remarks they make or than the specific ad hominem attacks they launch against you, me, et al. They are really trying to *DEMORALIZE* you from seeking and pursuing change and social justice -- and that is the true emotional purpose of their actions. Don't let them demoralize you.

I heard an obviously wise black South African religious minister, a woman (who often have to teach children to share), once say that, "The reason God distributed the world's natural resources (different minerals or different resources and different crops in different climates) unevenly on earth, God put this over here and that over there and the other somewhere else, was because she wanted us to *realize* that if we could just *learn* to *share* equitably, there would be enough for *ALL*!!!" How beautiful!!

Do you know that when I cited this eloquent moral, once in a post, I was attacked as absolutely crazy by one regular attacker (who apparently had ambitions of materially acquiring everything he could)!? He said that moral was the most ridiculous thing he ever heard!!

(Sorry for this long addendum. And sorry to take up so much of your time, here, Angie.)

why don't you two just get a room?

Your notes were most welcome and so informative!.

You sure know your stuff! I read the article and Letter to the Editor, and it showed your knowledge of the subject, a clear presentation, and rational conclusions.

Sadly, racism still exists in the US and around the world, and that, while it's deplorable, is not likely to change overly much no matter how much people pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh, I am going to take your advice. From henceforth I shall not waste my time replying to anyone trying to demoralize me. I shall only respond to someone from whom I can learn something.. Thus spake Angie! (Sorry, dear Friedrich Nietzsche).

Speaking of dead Friedrich, I love his style of writing. When reading "Beyond Good and Evil" I was fascinated with how he'd pause in the middle of a sentence and leave a few dots, a dash or two. I felt he did it deliberately so his readers could finish the sentence for him, and I did it all the time (she grins).

But, good Lord, I digress! Sorry, JA.

Your comments on Korea (North and South) was very helpful. It is not a land mass I'm overly familiar with other than the obvious scraps of info one picks up in the course of living. Another topic to add to my list!

A few days ago I was reading an excerpt from one of John Pilger's books with respect to Viet Nam, and as I read your comments re Korea, I felt I had read them before re Viet Nam, the same conniving, the same unjustified interference by the US. Any comment?

Why can't people live together in peace and harmony? There is indeed "more than enough to go around", but sadly greed raises its ugly head, power joins it, and evil usually results.

The people of Palestine -- oh, I suppose you heard the little remark, or saw it on this board, that there is no such thing as Palestine, and that it hasn't existed for over 400 years? I pointed out that according to his biographical material, Ariel Sharon was born in Palestine. So, I reasoned, in that case, Sharon must be over 400 years old. Don't know how that went over as no one responded apart from one poor soul who emphatically declared that Sharon was a "zombie" amongst unfavourable adjectives.

Getting back to Palestine, how can anyone not want to help and protect these people? I can't imagine how they must be feeling, day after murderous day in their great outdoor prison, battling curfews, checkpoints, helicopter gunships, missles, tanks, etc., etc., etc. How can we not want them to have their freedom, their dignity, their self respect that's been robbed from them over the years of malicious occupation?

How can anyone not want humankind everywhere to be free? To live and die as a free person?

Today Colin Powell stated that Abbas should "control", Hamas terrorists. Why didn't he say that Israel should control its terrorist army? Had he condemned BOTH factions, the people of Palestine might at least feel that SOMEONE is standing up for them. Alas!.

Yesterday before the suicide bombing Bush was "very angry" at Israel for the assassination attack on some Hamas members on a busy street in Gaza, killing three bystanders and injuring several others. According to reporters in the area it was so deliberate that they all felt it was a blatant attack to wreck any peace efforts.

When Hamas retaliated, just as Sharon knew they would, we have the US and UK urging everyone in the world to stop financing the "Palestinian terrorists". As I stated on this board earlier tonight, in that case, the US should cut all aid to Israel at once.

What is the reason for all the hypocrisy? Why didn't the US and UK say "and we also urge everyone to stop financing Israeli terrorists".

Have you ever read anything by US author, Edward S. Herman? He's done some great stuff about Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and he's also done some equally excellent work on terrorism, etc. I haven't read all his work yet, but his sense of honestly, intelligence, and courage soothes me.

Good Lord, look at me! I've gone on for an eternity here. Sorry, my friend. If you don't hear from me soon, it's because I'm busy at work, but I'll check this board regularly to read your posts to me or otherwise.

'Til later,
Angie

"why don't you two just get a room?"

Actually, I'm kinda glad Angie and JA are having this dialogue. Because you'll notice that the one thing missing is a squadron of Nessie-nyms rushing in to complain that they're off topic.

When a Zionist-bashing thread shifts to a discussion of antisemitism, in sweeps Nessie to do a damn fine impersonation of Il Duce.

(See http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1598989_comment.php#1617231 for notes on Mussolini Jr. in action.)

When a thread that's supposed to be about antisemitism shifts to Zionist-bashing -- utter silence from Il Duce.

Really, folks, he couldn't make it plainer if he tattooed onto his forehead: "I, Nessie, have an aggregious double standard about antisemitism, but when Gehrig brings it up, I threaten to ban him."

@%<

After four months commenting here on this, my favourite Indymedia site, it's happened!! GASP!!!

The one and only, Gehrig, has actually mentioned my name. Okay, okay, I realize he used myself and JA to get to Nessie, but we've been mentioned. Good Lord, and now what?

Never having been in this situation before, and not having any precedent to follow, I am going to seek guidance here (as we say in Court) from Nessie, himself.

Are we, JA and I, guilty of anti-semitism, and if so, where? Are we guiltiy of "Zionist bashing", and if so, where? Actually, Gehrig, Nessie, and anyone else out there, I don't even know what "Zionist bashing " means. Where I live there is no such word.

Nessie, I await your verdict. I can't speak for JA, of course, but I'm sure he will have his own comment.

Meanwhile, Gehrig and everyone else, I apologize for wandering from the topic, shall we say. I sometimes get carried away with a chance to learn something new from someone who knows what he is talking about. Don't beat me!

(He mentioned me, she grins on!) I do hope JA sees this considering only a few days ago I was telling him here in the above post that Gehrig had ignored all my coments to date).

As the author of numerous anti-semitic remarks filled with biased hate and irrationality, I will tell those of you who are not cognizant, just what anti-semitism amounts to. Anti-semitism is what Gehrig,Hello,Scottie, and anyone else says it is. Just go about and mention a book by a British author not mentioning the name of the author, you are an anti-semite. If you want, just question anything Gehrig says, and you are then a neo-nazi or in my case a fulled blooded nazi. That is nazi with an extra amount of hate added to it. Also dare question any aspect of anything dealing with events of world war II and you have become worse than Hitler. You are a holocaust denier, a word coined by a minor academic. So there you have it. You are in all cases evil and full of venom. You are what they accuse you of.

Indybay double standard in action
by gehrig Friday June 13, 2003 at 09:16 AM:

>"why don't you two just get a room?"


HAHAHA...! :-)

YOU SEE! THERE'S A SMIDGIN O' GOOD IN ALMOST *EVERYONE*!!

Maybe gehrig *CAN* be saved! Haha!

*OOOPPPSSS*...!! I WAS *WRONG*! *THAT* WASN'T GEHRIG'S IDEA OR SENSE OF HUMOR, THAT WAS "CURIOUS" (June 12 at 08:28 AM)! --GUESS GEHRIG **CAN'T** BE SAVED, AFTER ALL. OH WELL..., YOU CAN'T SAVE 'EM ALLL...!!

(Wwwelll....., I *LLLIKE* the way *CURIOUS* thinks! Hahaha...!! Jes' jokin'!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

gehrig: "Actually, I'm kinda glad Angie and JA are having this dialogue."

Oooh! At first, I thought it was *maybe* because you thought you could've *learned* something! *Wrronnnggg...*


gehrig: "When a thread that's supposed to be about antisemitism shifts to Zionist-bashing -- utter silence from [nessie]."

Yo gehrig! I didn't have time to go back and look at another one of your abstract screeds (I presume that's what your URL is), like the particularly lengthy one way above, but when people are talking about people like *YOU* (espeically Zionists) "changing the subject", I'd guess that they are referring to your lengthy, circumlocutory, *typical* red herrings and straw man arguments/discourses--if not, indeed, your logical non sequiturs. I'd guess they are talking about you engaging in one of the logic & argument fallacies referenced above in the original article (and to which I refered you before). An example of Zionists changing the subject is when Zionists want to talk about Saudi Arabia(!!), when someone is talking about anti-Semitism, Zionism, or Zionist oppression *in Palestine*.

For another example of someone who engages in the kind of stuff you do--sometimes with more sophistication and sometimes, in the very same article, with less--I refer you to one Michael Neumann for a laundry list of examples, in a single article, of this tactic in action.

Now, watch how Jeffrey Blankfort [well-known Bay Area photo-, print-, & radio journalist; veteran human rights and anti-war activist; and anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian human rights activist] masterfully and easily shreds Neumann's tactics. It could be an object lesson for you:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/blankfort_neumann.htm

Now for other interesting Blankfort articles -- like about the so-called "Roadmap" or "Israel-bashing" or the Zionist lobby or his ADL lawsuit case and victory-- just enter his name ("jeffrey blankfort" or jeffrey+blankfort) into any Yahoo/Google, etc., search box for a plethora of information.

Otherwise, I assumed that the Zionists accusing indymedia of being anti-Semitic was an argument that you guys *LOST*, here, since I didn't see anymore Zionist comebacks here. I *did* admit to digressing on the issue of Korea (also related to Western, esp U.S., imperialism), if not also on other topics, in my communication with angie. I *did* *aopologize* to others for this. Otherwise, most of it was still about Zionism, so there was still more of relevance, even with more personal, human level, stories, to share with all. Didn't *you* learn anything from the Tim Wise and Gandhi links?

Otherwise, I wanted to help angie (and, indirectly, sincere others) understand the demoralization tactics of Zionist crazies. (Sometimes the same one person will gang up in gratuitous, malicious name-calling against you, angie/others, under different names, but I haven't seen that prevelance on sf.indymedia, as sometimes elsewhere.)

Remember, it's you *Zionists* who accuse anti-Zionists of being *anti-Semitic*, so dealing with Zionism is not exactly a logical fallacy. If I had a way to give angie my email address here--without all you ADL/JDL, or Mossad wannabees, Zionists spamming me with your physical (or even death) threats, I would.

But, if *you'd like to get us more squarely back on the topic, then BE MY GUEST!: MAKE - MY - DAY!!

angie: "Oh, I am going to take your advice. From henceforth I shall not waste my time replying to anyone trying to demoralize me."

Oh, you *CAN*... I sometimes do. I still shred 'em (the crazies). Just realize what those demoralizer tactician crazies are really trying to do, and respond at your discretion selectively and judiciously. Other times I just ignore them (it pisses them off more, their looking for a rise out of you). Sometimes I just tersely zzzing 'em.

> Speaking of dead Friedrich, I love his style of writing...

Interesting.

>Your comments on Korea...

Korea is a *very* interesting study. Thankfully, I was old enough to follow what was going on in the late '80's up to now: changes that took two or three centuries to make in Europe (colonization, war, undeveloped country, poverty, imperialist-supported cold war dictatorship, rise of the middle class, the rise of student political consciousness and rebellion, overturning the dictatorship, industrialization and modernization, progressing social liberalization, and opposition candidate democracy [Kim Dae Jung and now successor]) -- all accelerated in a long exponential curve, and *observable*, IN JUST A RELATIVELY FEW RECENT DECADES in South Korea. Hopefully, re-unification will follow in the next decade. That would be a national success story for everyone, personally and politically, in the north (as some are casually starting to call it) and the south.

The definitive book, by an American, on the Korean War is Bruce Cumings two-volume "The Origins of the Korean War". Anothe highly recommended book is by the late, great, progressive journalist I.F. Stone, "(America's First Vietnam) The Hidden History of the Korean War". You would/have almost *never* see/n either of them on mainstream American TV, because they are too intellectually honest to bend to the typical U.S. propaganda interpretations expected of today's mainstrean corporate TV "experts".

>'Palestine, and that it hasn't existed for over 400 years?' ...according to his biographical material, Ariel Sharon was born in Palestine... So, Sharon must be over 400 years old.[!!]

I *like* that joke!

>Getting back to Palestine [Palestinians]... I can't imagine how they must be feeling...

Thankfully, I know many Jews who feel the same way -- or rather, these Jews *can*.

>Today Colin Powell...

Many Blacks are proud that a Secretary of State and an NSC head can be Black (and it took a *Republican* ruse), but we either have very mixed, doubtful feelings or are very embarrassed that they have to be used like this (how the administration is using them), including the Black Pentagon spokesperson in Iraq. They are all being used as liars for the imperialist U.S. -- we know.

Read Harry Belafonte's remarks on the Larry King Show on CNN. He was fantastic.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/15/lkl.00.html
(HARRY BELAFONTE -- 2ND GUEST, 2ND SEGMENT)

>When Hamas retaliated, just as Sharon knew they would...

The point is that *BOTH* are *CLEARLY* on record, previously, as opposing the U.S.-Israeli so-called peace process. Sharon previously *said* that he opposed even the wholly lopsided as usual (against Palestinians), Oslo Accords. The U.S./Israel keeps trying to shove these take-it-or-leave-it, sign-your-human-rights-away agreements down the, militarily much weaker, Palestinians' throats -- using a corrupted failed puppet, Arafat, or the U.S/Israel's new would-be puppet, Abbas. But the Palestinian people won't go for it.


Remember what Holocaust survivor Henry Siegman said (I think that I posted this before, here or somewhere on sf.indy):

Siegman's remarks on the American Charlie Rose Show on the midnight broadcast (Aug 22/23, 2002; transcripts and videotape available)--*devastatingly critical* of the Sharon government!:

Among other things, Siegman said:

- that the Sharon government was cynically and *PURPOSELY* *PROVOKING* "martyr/suicide bombers";

- that the Sharon military itself was targeting and attacking innocent civilians;

- that the Sharon government was issuing demands it *knew* no Palestinian leader could ever accept;

- and that the Sharon government was opposed to a Palestinian state *UNDER ANY CONDITIONS*.

Siegman further said that the crisis (Israel's military invasion and campaigns) in Israel’s Occupied Territories (in cities or towns like Jenin, etc.):

- was NOT really Israel’s war against terrorism;

- that it was Israel’s war to hang onto and annex the Occupied Territories;

- that it was Israel’s war to avoid dismantling the settlements;

- and a war to prevent *ANY* process towards PEACE !


>Why didn't the US...say "and we also urge everyone to stop financing Israeli terrorists".

Because then the 'nonexistent' domestic Zionist lobby would set upon "Bush, the Lesser", suddenly start writing syndicated columns about how stupid he really is, their TV pundits would suddenly start calling his general intelligence into question "in such a dangerous world", they might even work up impeachment hearings against him for lying about WMD (even tho Iraq was really *Israel's* war carried out by the U.S.), they would directly blame the economy, the huge deficit, and record unemployment on him, and "Bush, the Lesser" would be *HISTORY*!

Arrgh! I was trying to find the URL for another excellent Blankfort post on what happened to U.S. presidents who even slightly went up against the will of the U.S. Zionist lobby. I'll look for it late.

>Have you ever read anything by US author, Edward S. Herman

I've spoken with him. (He disagrees with Chomsky and agrees with Blankfort on the power and influence of the U.S. Zionist lobby on U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast.) I believe that Herman wrote the landmark book "Manufacturing Consent" with Chomsky.

>The one and only, Gehrig, has actually mentioned my name. Okay, okay, I realize he used myself and JA to get to Nessie, but we've been mentioned. Good Lord[!]

We've made the *BIG* time now!!

We **RRRATE**!!

>Are we guilty of "Zionist bashing", ...

Reminds me of the story about Mae West in court, once. When the judge sharply asked her, "Mmmiss West!! Are you trying to show contempt for the court!?", she responded, "Why *NO*, Your Honor! I'm doing my best to *hide* it!!"

>I don't even know what "Zionist bashing " means. Where I live there is no such word.

You mean it's just *assumed* that Zionism is morally wrong there? What an enlightened area you must live in!


(Zionism -- the racial [radical, militant; i.e., exclusive, executable by force] ideology of Jewish [chauvinist] separatist nationalism that claims that all the world's Jews have an *INHERENT*, *SUPERIOR*, *AUTOMATIC*, and *NATURAL-BORN* [while the Palestinians don’t] right to most or all of the land in Palestine -- based on either a 5,000 year-old religious dispensation "from God" and/or a once ancient national existence claim.

Of course, Zionists try to euphemize this into the PR statement, "the belief that Jews are entitled to self-determination in their ancient homeland, Israel", since racial, militant, separatist nationalism--with claims of an inherent racial superiority based on claimed ancient promises from God--doesn't have the same appeal it once had.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, check out this photo of "the third questioner" -- who intellectually ran David Horowitz off -- giving the media a photo op (I *know* 'the game'):

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/storys01.php?storyid=2831

:-)

This is just a brief response to your much anticipated note above. I'm up to my ears for a while, so I won't be here perusing (giggle) the mighty works that pour forth onto the Indymedia board. As I write this, I am wondering what "Reality Check" is saying about me in another thread. He's already indicated I've "lied" twice I think it was. Sigh, the things we have to deal with.

I will send you a reply later on, but before I go, WOW! You spoke with Edward S. Herman???? (She sighs). If you ever see him again, tell him he's got a huge fan in Canada!

Incidentally, what a lad! Great pic! Great headline! Are we not proud, she asked with a grin! We are, indeed! Let's see Gehrig try and argue with you!

Much more later! I can't believe you SPOKE with Edward S. Herman. Next you'll be telling me you attended a reading by Israel Shamir, who, when I mentioned his name in passing a while ago here, someone immediately declared he was a liar or worse. Can you imagine? Little minds, indeed!

Gotta run, but will write later tonight.
Angie

angie > "I'm up to my ears for a while"

Take it easy! No rush!

angie > "Next you'll be telling me you attended a reading by Israel Shamir"

I *DID*!! At the U.C. Berkeley school of law! We chatted for a while after one of his readings.

That was a while before Lenni Brenner and I went out for dinner after Lenni's San Francisco bookreading. Lenni's such a hoot: he *loves* to do character impersonations!

Well, I'm headed out to begin my Friday night with a late dinner at a favorite neighborhood small Italian bistro.

Take care,

JA

Yo angie,

Feel free not to disclose it; otherwise, so where aboat are you in Canada? It must be back out east, because of the time difference you mentioned once. Montreal? Toronto? I'm just curious--trying to imagine what fine city produced your political consciousness and sense of wonder about the world.

This 6:30 a.m. (even further east than Montreal, JA) I was dashing off a lengthy, impolite spiel re comments in another thread. I never thought I'd have to pick up the Mitchell Report again, but, alas!!

Israel Shamir, she gasps in awe! Lucky you! What was the topic? What's he like in real life? I was reading his "April is the Cruelist Month" (an article re the Deir Yassin masacre) a few days ago, and loved his line that "it appears to become Prime Minister of Israel, it helps to have a massacre in your name".

Has charges of anti-semitism plagued him too?

I really find it curious here (on this board) that if someone criticizes Israel - gasp! - the person who responds shows more hatred than the "accused".

I recently stumbled upon Uri Avnery's 26 May 03 article entitled "Bush's Choice" and loved it. He has an endearing sense of humour and a style of writing I immediately identify with.

He's had an interesting life to date; for instance, he was a member of the terrorist group, Irgun, from '38 to '42 (can you believe it???) From '48 onward he has advocated a Palestine State alongside Israel. In '74 he became the first Israeli to establish contact with the PLO, and on July 3rd, '82, he caused A SENSATION by "crossing the lines" in poor war-torn Beirut to meet Arafat, the first israeli to meet him.

Oh, that I were there! Imagine the outrage! Some members of the Israeli parliament wanted him charged with "treason", whilst peace activists gleefully called him a hero.

Speaking of "interesting lives" your pal, Lenni Brenner, sure has had a MOST INCREDIBLE ONE!

Some of the stuff I've seen on here has been disbelieving. It's not just what's said about the jewish people; it's what's also said about the arab peoples.

For instance, a few days ago I responded to a nasty comment about Palestinians wherein they were called - get this - "subhuman monsters". However, the good people at Indymedia had already removed the offending piece, and my reply ended up underneath some well written comments by "Dirk". I had to immediately send back another note assuring him he was not the object of my anger.

I stated earlier that someone calling himself "A Concerned Zionist" has me verging on hysterics . I mentioned it here, and, lo, I'm being addressed by "Laugh at the Dying", asking if I knew Concerned Zioinist was using Hitler phraseology (my words not his). Hitler had a sense of humour? Nah, you don't say? In fact, did he ever smile? "Concerned Zionist" is under the Rachel Corrie video thread.

Another incident happened following my second or third comment here. Someone took my name and used it to write a most horrid attack on jews. I almost died in horror; but, again, the editors removed same almost before I had a chance to fade into oblivion. It's really scary sometimes here, isn' t it?

What about the Israeli policy of referring to any, and all, Palestinians as militants, terrorists, etc? Isn't that another version of "anti-semistim"? Spreading hate and falsehoods about another peoples? Because we know that the Palestinian peoples are not all terrorists or militants just as all Israelis are not full of hatred towards them.

Right now I'm reading "Ignorant Armies Sliding into War in Iraq" by my print media hero, Gwynne Dyer, world famous writer, military analyst, maker of the "War" documentary, etc.

Till 'later
Angie

What kind of loser are you to have to lie every day about israel?

Israel does'nt call all palestinians "terrorists."

Just the actual terrorists.

I know that's confusing to you, and I'm sure you'll come up with some illogical, dishonest response, but hey, at least you'll be polite and corgile as you spew your shit. Yay!

Another thing. When someone says "anti-semitism," they're referring to discrimination against the jews. It doesn't matter if you like the term or not. Jews didn't invent the term. The world knows what it means. The fact that you need to take accusations of "anti-semitism" and actually change the generally accepted meaning of what the term means only makes you look even more pathetic than you already do, angie.

I rest my case!

Israel isn't an "apartheid" state or anything even remotely close. THe citizens of israel, regardless of their race, can do whatever they want. Israel's beef is with the guys next door, because the guys next door refuse to stop intentionally murdering innocent israelis. Israel will leave the guys next door alone when the guys next door get it in their heads that israel is there to stay and isn't going to be exterminated.

"The citizens of israel, regardless of their race, can do whatever they want."

Non Jewish citizens of Israel are not allowed to live in the settlements constructed in the Occupied territories. In many cases they are not allowed to live where their grandparents did before 1948. They also receive much less than Jewish citizens in terms of health, education and housing benefits.

"Israel's beef is with the guys next door, because the guys next door refuse to stop intentionally murdering innocent israelis."

Two problems with that statement. Many Israelis and their supporters don't think of "next door" (i.e. the West Bank and Gaza) as being next door. They consider the land as belonging to Israel and that the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land are "outsiders". This is a formula for promoting inequity, injustice, anger, hatred and violence.

There are Zionists who accuse Palestinians of wanting to destroy Israel, who at the same time, refuse to acknowledge that there is even such a thing as Palestinians, or that they have a right to exist as a nation. Hypocrisy.

It is true that a lot of innocent Israelis are being murdered. So are a lot of innocent Palestinians. What you need to understand is that there are Israelis and their Zionist supporters abroad who are guilty of creating injustice. They are the ones calling the shots. They are the ones who must be recognized for what they are.

"Israel does'nt call all palestinians "terrorists."

Just the actual terrorists. "


Frequently, they have claimed, after the fact, that people they have murdered were "terrorists" despite substantial factual evidence to the contrary. It is a convenient way for excusing "mistakes". They also call the people who fire back at them when they make military incursions into Palestinian areas "terrorists".

In Israel, it is against the law for a non-Jew to defend his/her home and land.

Militant settlers in places like Kiryat Arba and Hebron consider all Palestinians as terrorists. And they are part of the political support for the Sharon government.

In addition: If Israel is really selective in who it considers terrorists, why does it engage in policies of communal punishment that make all Palestinians suffer?

No offense, but are you completely ignorant?

Seriously, are you?

Palestinians can't/won't control their own terrorist groups and can't/won't get them to stop attacking Israel. This has gone on forever. So, Israel has to control the land themselves, in an effort to squish attempts by the terrorists to attack Israel.

Terrorist attacks against israel were succeeding every day when israel left the majority of land control in the lands of palestinian forces. TErrorist attacks against israel were limited to a few per month when israel took additional control of palestinian land.

Israel supporters want Israel to be safe. They don't necessarily agree in how to make that happen.

Zionists are people who want support israel's existence as it is now, a jewish state that also allows religious freedom for its citizens. They don't necessarily agree in lots of issuses as well.

The only people who have a problem with that are people like you.

Palestinians are by a far margin the greatest targets of terrorism -- Israeli terrorism.

Below, Ali Abunimah describes how Hamas was attempting to implement a unilateral ceasefire when Israel bombed them killing a four year old girl and a 30 year old woman -- both innocent bystanders -- and seriously injuring another 30 people when they fired 6 missiles from US Apache helicopters given to them freely by us.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1619300.php

JA to gehrig: "It could be an object lesson for you: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/blankfort_neumann.htm "

While you're on the Adelaide Institute site, folks, don't forget to check out all their articles promoting Holocaust denial. Check out Evans' book on the David Irving trial, _Lying about Hitler_, for more.

Now sit back and watch Nessie accuse me of changing the subject.

@%<

Brian: "Just go about and mention a book by a British author not mentioning the name of the author, you are an anti-semite."

When that British author's antisemitism is established in a well-publicized court in a case that garnered international headlines, when the same case demonstrates the author's consistent pattern of distorting or outright lying about the substance of the historical evidence in order to consistently exonerate ol' Uncle Adolf in his treatment of Jews, and if your reaction when challenged is deny Irving's Jew-bashing crankdom yet echo Irving's antisemitic screeds about how _the traditional enemies of truth_ *wink wink* are out to get him, knowing full well what Irving's implying, then -- yes, I'd say you've demonstrated a serious bias against the Jews. And there's a word for that.

Brian: "If you want, just question anything Gehrig says, and you are then a neo-nazi or in my case a fulled blooded nazi. "

Bollocks. When you pull the same tired old gambits I've seen dozens of times from Holocaust deniers and try to pretend they're simply innocent questions, then expect your bluff to be called. As it was. At which point you went down for the count. Just once, just once, try a thought that isn't straight out of the IHR playbook, and see what happens.

@%<

<<No offense, but are you completely ignorant? >>

Not entirely. I can assess facts and the historical record. Can you?

<< Palestinians can't/won't control their own terrorist groups and can't/won't get them to stop attacking Israel. >>

Israel has waged a war for more than 24 months against the Palestine Authority in which Palestinian security was a primary target. Hundreds of victims have been members of the security forces. The same people, Israel now expects to protect Israel's interests.


<< This has gone on forever. >>

In the period between 1956 and 1967 there were 36 deaths of Israeli civilians due to attacks by Palestinian guerrillas based in the West Banks. And there were no suicide bombings. Although any killings of civilians cannot be condoned, the incidents need to be considered in there context. In 1948 and again in 1952, tens of thousands of Palestinians in what is now Israel were forced from their homes and found themselves in squalid refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. These were not people you would expect to look kindly upon Israelis.

If you force people from their land or attempt to dominate them against their will, you have to expect a response. (e.g. Native Americans killing white settlers.) Sometimes conquest has been successful as a result of overwhelming force or numbers. That is true in the case of Native Americans, Australian aborigines or Native Pacific Islanders. But often it has failed. The British failed to conguer, exterminate or replace the Irish. The Russians are failing to subdue the Chechens.

This violence has not gone on forever. It has happened only as long as Zionists have attempted to wrest control of Palestine from the Palestinians. The intensity of the violence has increased as the Israelis have taken control of more land and crowded the non-Jewish inhabitants into less.


<<<So, Israel has to control the land themselves, in an effort to squish attempts by the terrorists to attack Israel. >>>

Something like that, but you are getting the cause and effect backwards. Israel has endeavored to take control of the land ever since the days of Theodore Herzl. As long as Israel endeavors to squish Palestinians they are going to get resistance, which will often be violent and brutal.

<< Terrorist attacks against israel were succeeding every day when israel left the majority of land control in the lands of palestinian forces. >>>

See my comments about the period between 1956 and 1967 above. This was before Israel endeavored to occupy and possess the West Bank and Gaza. As the number of settlements has increased and Israeli grip on the territories has tightened, the violence is increased. The correlation is obvious. The solution should also be. Remove the settlements and the Israeli army and give the land back to the people it belongs to.

<<<TErrorist attacks against israel were limited to a few per month when israel took additional control of palestinian land. >>>

A fool's conclusion. The facts say the opposite. See my comments above.

<<Israel supporters want Israel to be safe. They don't necessarily agree in how to make that happen. >>>

That's because many of those supporters have no interest in the security or future of Palestinians. They should know better. The violence stems from the injustice.

<< Zionists are people who want support israel's existence as it is now, a jewish state that also allows religious freedom for its citizens. They don't necessarily agree in lots of issuses as well. >>>

There is a paradox. Zionists want to annex the West Bank and Gaza but they do not want to accept the non-Jewish inhabitants as citizens. They don't want to extend the rights of citizens to individuals they hold in their control. There is an old saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Zionists are asking for the impossible.

<<The only people who have a problem with that are people like you. >>

My main problem is people who desire goals that are not supported by facts and reason.

Gehrig, need I say more?

No, Rio, SOME zionists want to annex the west bank and gaza, and SOME do not.

The majority of israelis do NOT want to annex those places.

Zionists are anyone who supports the EXISTENCE of israel. ZIonists are of any religion in any place in the world. If they support israel as a jewish homeland, they're a zionist.

Why do you insist on lying and spewing all this crap about "what the zionists want?" It's BULL. I'm a zionist in america. I do'nt want them to annex the west bank and gaza. All me being a zionist means is that I want israel to be a jewish homeland, to always be run by jews, but to allow 100% of it's citizens to continue to practice whatever religion they want, which is the case right now.

Why do you insist on demonizing zionism, changing the very definition of the word, and attributing your lies to it? Do you realize how absurd that is?

I support zionism. I want israel to be a jewish homeland. That's it. I don't want bad things to happen to jews or to non-jews or to anyone at all. Zionists can disagree about a million things, but being a zionist just means wanting israel to survive forever.

If you have some other definition of zionism, or some absurd claims about what "the zionists" want, then you aren't talking about zionists. Or, you're just making an idiotic and false generalization about zionists.

"No, Rio, SOME zionists want to annex the west bank and gaza, and SOME do not."

True. And most want something in between

Sharon wants to take 60%, which leaves Palestinians with a distorted hourglass shaped entity with no international borders. Even under Barak's "generous offer", the 5% of the land occupied by settlements wasn't included. This 5% controlled 80% of the water resources on the West Bank. Barak also retained for Israel, control of 10% of the land comprising the Jordan valley. It supposedly belonged to Palestinians, but would in reality be controlled by the Israeli army and would be inaccessible to them.

Palestinians were willing to agree to something close to the formula worked out at Taba in January 2001. (See http://www.mideastweb.org/taba.htm) The may even agree to it now, even with as much as they have suffered in the last 2.5 years.

"The majority of israelis do NOT want to annex those places. "

Then why is the majority voice not being heard in the Israeli government. Sharon and his cabinet are not willing to say "No!" to the Israeli right. Settlers, Molodet and others who want to annex the Occupied Territories are being heard, not people like you. If you are right, the majority of Israelis mean well, but they act like enablers for Zionist right.

If the Israeli majority were against holding the Occupied territories, why didn't they elect Amram Mitzna?

"Zionists are anyone who supports the EXISTENCE of israel. ZIonists are of any religion in any place in the world. If they support israel as a jewish homeland, they're a zionist. "

Yes, that may be true. But the way it works in reality, the Zionist who is a wolf (wanting all of Palestine) hides behind the Zionist who is a sheep (willing to settle for part of Palestine. Today in Jerusalem, the wolves run the show. The fact that there are Zionists who may be pacifists has little significance. They are ineffectual, their actions have no effect on anything.

"Why do you insist on lying and spewing all this crap about "what the zionists want?" It's BULL. I'm a zionist in america. I do'nt want them to annex the west bank and gaza."

Maybe you don't want to annex them. But your voice is not the one being listened to in Jerusalem. Over half of Sharon's cabinet is against the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Occupied territories. That is not bull or crap. Unfortunately, that's the reality.

"All me being a zionist means is that I want israel to be a jewish homeland, to always be run by jews, but to allow 100% of it's citizens to continue to practice whatever religion they want, which is the case right now."

Not in the occupied territories. 3.5 million of the 3.7 million residents of the territories have no voice in essential aspects of their lives such as the right to travel, right to build a house on their own land, right to seek medical care without interference at checkpoints, the right to farm their land and harvest their crops without being restricted by curfews or shot at by your coreligionists who that only Jews can own the land.

"Why do you insist on demonizing zionism, "

Why are you defending Zionists who behave like demons. If you were so hot to defend your version of Zionism, you should be fighting against people who are dispossesing and abusing Palestinians in the name of that Ideology. As far as I can see, your supposedly pacifist, reasonable version of Zionism, if that is what it is, has no significance in the real world other than as a blanket or camouflage for the wolves.


"changing the very definition of the word, and attributing your lies to it? Do you realize how absurd that is?"

I am not changing any definitions. Okay, Jews want a homeland. They have the opportunity to establish one within the pre-1967 borders of Israel. Is that what's really happening. Emphatically No!

Israel's army is engaged in a fight to conquer the Occupied Territories and force the non-Jewish population into acceptance and submission. That is what checkpoints, curfews, cutting water supplies, armed incursions, assassinations, destruction of houses, machine gun barrages and bombardment of residential areas, destruction of cropland and public infrastructure is all about. That is what the random killing that amounts to 15 to 20 Palestinians a week is for. Sharon wants to break the Palestinians and make them accept a peace on Israel's terms.

If you don't see that, I feel sorry for you. You're a blind fool. And I don't care what pie-in-the-sky ideology you adhere to. The Zionism practiced in Israel today is an ideology of forcible dispossession of land and ethnic cleansing.

"I support zionism. I want israel to be a jewish homeland. That's it. I don't want bad things to happen to jews or to non-jews or to anyone at all. "

Well, good for you. But as long as Israel insists on doing bad things to the people under its control, it will have to expect bad things in return.

"Zionists can disagree about a million things, but being a zionist just means wanting israel to survive forever. "

Under Sharon, it means significantly more than that and all the disagreement in the world hasn't changed things one iota.

"If you have some other definition of zionism, or some absurd claims about what "the zionists" want, then you aren't talking about zionists. Or, you're just making an idiotic and false generalization about zionists."

Let me repeat again for the conceptually challenged who dare to ignore or deny the reality in front of their faces. The only meaningful Zionism practiced in Israel today is the Zionism of expansion, forcible dispossession and ethnic cleansing.

And if you don't like it, then do something about it.

To JA, by Angie Sunday June 15, 2003 at 12:36 AM:

[Re: responses by "Stop lying", by Damn_you Saturday June 14, 2003 at 10:25, 10:26 PM]

"I rest my case!"

-----------------------

Q.E.D.!


(I gotta go to a friend's place and pick up a Noam Chomsky tape of a *THREE*-hour interview[!] he had on C-SPAN 2 a week or so ago. I'll get back to you when I get return. C-SPAN 2 also broadcast Arundhati Roy's speech about the U.S.-Iraq War at Riverside Church in Manhattan one week later [where MLK, as you know, also gave his famous anti-Vietnam War speech], but, alas[!], I missed it! Now, *that* recording would have been a prized possession. )

Adelaide Institute = Holocaust denial site
by gehrig Sunday June 15, 2003 at 12:40 PM:

" JA to gehrig: "It could be an object lesson for you: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/blankfort_neumann.htm "

While you're on the Adelaide Institute site, folks, don't forget to check out all their articles promoting Holocaust denial. "

--------------------------------

I don't know anything about the Adelaide Institute. I *DO* know that Jewish-American journalist Jeffrey Blankfort certainly isn't a holocaust denier. In fact, from what I know about his background, he probably has members of his family or relatives who are holocaust survivors themselves.

In addition, I know of *NO* Palestinians who deny the Jewish Holocaust: they simply ask how those Jews who were victims (personally/sociopolitically) of the Jewish Holocaust can perpetrate unto others, as Einstein said, "much of what Nazis did to Jews".

But I *DO* know that Blankfort considers the behavior of the successive Zionist regimes in Palestine/Israel to be Nazi-like. You should have read how he tore into Rabbi Michael Lerner for letting his (Lerner's) son serve in the Israeli military in the Occupied Territories, if at all.

You Zionists should be *EMBARRASSED* that anti-Semites can point to and even *CYNICALLY*, *DISINGENUOUSLY*, and *DUPLICITOUSLY* use morally hypocritical Zionist behavior in Palestine to assert their worst anti-Semitic stereotypes against Jews. This is *ESPECIALLY* why I emphasize, as do many Jews, that Zionism is *NOT* equal to Judaism -- because I do *NOT* believe that it is a stereotype of Jews to steal, cheat, exploit, conspire, etc., or oppress others: rather, those are the characteristics of *ANY* colonialist group and any group of (ultra-conservative) political leaders who are out to accumulate political power and wealth at the expense of another people, exploiting the religion, race, nationality, culture, etc, of 'their own people'.

------------------------------------------

gehrig: "Now sit back and watch Nessie accuse me of changing the subject."

Reposted response:

When people are talking about people like *YOU* (especially Zionists) "changing the subject", I'd guess that they are referring to your lengthy, circumlocutory, *typical* RED HERRINGS and ABSTRACT STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS/discourses (INSTEAD OF BEING *SPECIFIC*)--if not, indeed, your LOGICAL NON SEQUITURS. I'd guess they are talking about you engaging in one of the logic & argument MISDIRECTION FALLACIES referenced above in the original article (and to which I referred you before). An example of Zionists changing the subject is when Zionists want to talk about Saudi Arabia(!!), when someone is talking about anti-Semitism, Zionism, or Zionist oppression *in Palestine*.

For another example of someone who engages in the kind of stuff you do--sometimes with more sophistication and sometimes, in the very same article, with less--I refer you to one Michael Neumann for a laundry list of examples, in a single article, of this tactic in action.
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/blankfort_neumann.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, are you, gehrig, claiming that Jeffrey Blankfort is a Jewish Holocaust denier?

While you're picking up Chomsky's tape, I'm going to finish watching "Shattered Dreams", the PBS documentary re the Clinton led peace talks and following. I've seen it before, but it's always interesting.

Later.
Angie

"[T]he kinds of folks who push an ideology that required the expulsion of three-quarters-of-a-million Palestinians from their lands, and then lied about it, claiming there had been no such persons to begin with (as with Golda Meir's infamous quip), can't be expected to place a very high premium on truth." -- Tim Wise, anti-Zionist Jewish-American anti-racist activist out of Nashville, Tenn.:


"Fraud Fit For A King: Israel, Zionism, And The Misuse Of MLK", by Tim Wise
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/20wise.cfm

Also,

“Reflections on Zionism from a Dissident Jew”, by Tim Wise
http://www.mediamonitors.net/timwise1.html

Well, I went over to pick up the Chomsky tape, but my friends invited me and one of my housemates (a female one you remind me of), who is also a friend of theirs, to stay over for late night dessert, coffee, and conversation. I got back around midnight, but I've been watching this Globtrekker program on Iceland (where I hope to visit sometime in the coming year), watching/taping this DW-tv panel discussion on how 'well' Afghanistan is going (a 'model' of democracy by the U.S.), and making a couple of posts (a couple at "Truth inside Israel", http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1619176_comment.php#1619700 , where I see you have posted too). By the way, I understand that there is a video file of the Arundhati Roy, Riverside Church, speech online, but I won't have time to check it out tonight. I fell asleep earlier this evening watching "60 Minutes" (nothing too interesting that I saw), plus the late night coffee at my friends' place, so I have an extra hour grace time tonight before I have to go to sleep. What I don’t finish up tonight, I will finish tomorrow morning before I have to get ready for work.

>Israel Shamir...What was the topic? What's he like in real life?

He's got that wry, sardonic, creative sense of wit and humor that you'd expect. (It's always nice to see it live.) He's semi-soft spoken. He has a certain cadence to his voice that lends to his particular sense of humor. He's fun to listen too. You *definitely* won't doze off. He is quite amiable and spoke quite a bit at length--graciously indulging all questions or entering into brief dialogues in doing so. As I recall (if correctly), he might be a little hard of hearing, so he had to approach, nearby, any questioner beyond the front of the medium-sized law school lecture hall. Actually, it kind of gave his listening to questions and responses a more personal touch.

I can't remember if I agree with *everything* he said: I don't remember if he's a one-stater or two-stater person, whereas, as you know, altho I would respect whatever the Palestinians want, I am basically a one-stater person.

> Israel Shamir... loved his line that "it appears to become Prime Minister of Israel, it helps to have a massacre in your name".

A gallows humor "hahaha"!! Now *that* sounds just like ole Israel Shamir!

>Has charges of anti-semitism plagued him too?

I don't really know.

(One of my extremely anti-Zionist Jewish friends--he's also very Marxist and has a *very* outspoken and strong sense of social justice--says, about any hypothetical/abstract charges of his being self-hating, that he would sarcastically quip: "No, I'm not self-hating, I just hate all the *other* Jews." And then he laughs!)

>I really find it curious here (on this board) that if someone criticizes Israel - gasp! - the person who responds shows more hatred than the "accused".

I think, in criminal-justice and legal terms/argumentation, that's called [a sublimated] "[sub]consciousness of (self-)guilt".

> ...Uri Avnery's 26 May 03 article entitled "Bush's Choice"

Thanks for the ref.: I'll have to look it up.

>He's had an interesting life to date...

I think he believes that "you have to *talk* to your 'enemy'"

I think that he was also a, what I call, "true believer". These are people, whether they are Zionist irregulars (the neutral or journalistically objective term for the often loaded/subjective word "terrorist"), or cops, etc., who actually started out *believing*, unknowingly and originally having been misled, that they were fighting for a just cause, or that cops rescued cats from trees, and believed in one moral standard for everyone. And when they found out that their was regular/systemic moral corruption didn't bend to it, but actually reacted *against* it (like Avnery in Israel or Serpico in the NYPD).

> [Avnery] caused A SENSATION by "crossing the lines" to meet Arafat, the first israeli to meet him.

Yes, especially because it was *illegal*, as you may know, for any Israeli to do so. And the Israelis (the tail wagging the larger American dog) made it de facto illegal for any American official to meet/speak with the PLO back then. The Zionist lobby got, then, Amb. Andrew Young fired for exercising the same philosophy as Avnery in speaking with Arafat or some PLO official in even just a general exploratory way. Peace has always been to Israel's disadvantage--unless it meant the ethnic cleaning (by force or self-resignation) of the Palestinians.

I forget the tiresome details of all these things, but (if I understand correctly), I hear that it is *ILLEGAL* for Jews in Israel itself to transit into the Occupied Territories [what does one do if Jews have relatives/friends there?--maybe one needs a special pass]. This seems, of course, designed to keep Jews inside Israel itself ignorant of what goes on in the Occupied Territories.

When 'anti-Zionist' Jewish-American, Stanford Mideast history professor Joel Beinin gave a public lecture on relatively basic, true Israeli and Zionist history one time, a questioner asked him and he responded that most Jews inside Israel do not know the historical information he lectured about. So, like many (especially colonial/racist) societies, the govt tries to keep the colonists/citizens relatively ignorant--and, of course, always propagandized--about their own history. I call it national/historical mythology. Lord knows, the U.S. has plenty of this--to this day!

> Speaking of "interesting lives" your pal, Lenni Brenner, sure has had a MOST INCREDIBLE ONE!

Talk about sardonic quips!: he's really fun to be around and listen too. AND FOR ALL YOU ZIONISTS OUT THERE, LENNI BRENNER SAYS THAT HE **LOVES** TO DEBATE YOU!!!

Gee, a small group of *really* white-supremacist looking (ironically, even black-booted, and wearing rattling chains), JDL looking Zionist 'toughs' --all stompin' around across the floor in back of the room, as they repeatedly left and re-enterred-- showed up at one of Brenner's San Francisco lectures. They finally dared pose (after being somewhat intimidated with his knowledge) a few questions to Brenner. Well, Brenner grew up on the streets of New York (altho he points out that he was 11 years old in 'Israel' when it became a state), so altho he's getting up there in age, no one intimidates him. Brenner handily dusted them off with his knowledgeable responses and the 'toughs' quietly, finally, slllunk (yes it rhymes with skunk) out of the room.

I heard (not from him) that Lenni actually spent a some time in jail, a long time ago in New York, for possession of marijuana! Can you believe that!: one of theee world's foremost scholars, experts, and intellectuals on the history of Zionism and Israel *in jail* for possession of pot! Now *that* alone ought to tell you that pot ought to be decriminalized. But it sounds like you are probably more up on Brenner's life than I am.

(As you may know, the late astronomer Carl Sagan was also a regular pot smoker.)

> For instance, a few days ago I responded to a nasty comment about Palestinians wherein they were called - get this - "subhuman monsters".

My former Jewish housemate was, then, beginning to talk that sort of racist nonsense. That's why I said, before, that I shudder to think what she's become by now! Well, and you probably know that Israeli publications have often printed racist caricatures of Palestinians the way Nazi publications once printed those racist caricatures of Jews.

> However, the good people at Indymedia had already removed the offending piece...

Well, they should be editorially even-handed, I guess, but I almost wish they had left it up there. Americans know there are anti-Jewish racists, but they don't realize there are overt, vicious, Jewish anti-Palestinian/Muslim/Arab racists.

In fact, when I felt that I had to let Jeffrey Blankfort know, if he weren't aware--because Jeffrey is *SO* honest and *SO* adamantly pro-justice--that the Chomsky's, the Phyllis Bennis's, the Stephen Zunes's, the Michael Newman's, the Joel Beinin's (perhaps to a lesser extent), etc., all deny the power and influence of the U.S. Zionist lobby, because they are afraid of (just like gehrig tried to smear Blankfort) feeding the crazy neo-Nazis, or Aryan-supremacists, or Holocaust deniers, anti-Semitism, Blankfort said, "At this point, the Israeli govt is a far greater danger to the world and our country than those crazy neo-Nazis [who virtually *everybody* knows are lunatics]."

> [re Hitler]

In Brenner's book, Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, I think he said (I should specifically look it up to be sure) that the Zionists were the only political party that Hitler allowed to operated in Nazi Germany.

>[re "Concerned Zionist"]

I'll have to look him/her up, if I have time in my busy schedule (it's not going to be a real priority to go out of my way to look up any Zionists). And I told you that the Zionists in the Rachel Corrie thread(s) were so disgusting that I couldn't keep up with it. The only value in their remarks was that they exposed themselves for what they really were to people who didn't really know/understand. Some of those viscious, sarcastic Zionists there would make Blankfort vomit, I'm sure.

> Someone took my name and used it to write a most horrid attack on jews. I almost died in horror; but, again, the editors removed same almost before I had a chance to fade into oblivion.

Someone did that to me once on another indymedia--a *very* active Canadian site for these discussions, you might wish to know as a Canadian. But don't go there, to that site: I won't even mention the site, because there's this *really* *squiggly*, *underhanded*, *hardcore* Zionist --picture a Jewish *Grinch* and you have his character-- named [deleted]. Oh, he makes *ALL* the Zionist propagandists here look like bloody amateurs--like swaddling babies in the woods. I won't even tell you the site [or his name], because I'm afraid that someone here will contact that master propagandist there to come and really turn this site into a Zionist propaganda cesspool.

[Deleted] is a *totally* dishonest debater, who is out to endlessly suck up other people's time (I believe that he has a paid capacity to do so) like a sponge in his, ultimately, purposely circular minutiae arguments. He's *literally* got nothing else to do in his life, but propagandize 365/7/24-solid hours a day on that indymedia (I don't even think he *sleeps* any solid stretch of time). I looked at his response pattern and saw that he usually responded within *a few minutes* or a half-hour of anyone's relevant post on Israel/Zionism. Anyway, one or two of the usual, more crude hardcore Zionist there started impersonating me, and I bluntly told them not to start something they can't stop or I would start impersonating all of them at my will. Whoever it was stopped.

[Deleted] had what I called "attack aliases" that followed a regular and predictable pattern of gratuitous, malicious name-calling and other rhetorical assaults--again, as I alluded to you before, to attempt to demoralize someone interested in social/global justice. So, once it was apparent to me (because of the pattern) that they were all [deleted], I made fun of him, saying that [deleted]'s ego was so big that all he would let his attack aliases do was engage in gratuitous, malicious name-calling, but never actually make/attempt any substantive arguments ([deleted] wanted all that glory for himself).

There were also cruder hardcore Zionists there, but I told them that they were too unsophisticated compared to [deleted], so I wasn't going to waste my time on the underlings, when I could deal with all the best propaganda from the master. I felt that was the *best* intellectual insult against them (that's what I mean by ignoring certain argumentatively malicious hardcore Zionists or other crazies and rhetorical sociopaths).

Anyway, I was just briefly checking out the political consciousness at that indy site, so I didn't let [deleted] suck up my time. There were a few sharp souls up there who were taking care of [deleted]. But, [deleted] was the first Zionist who showed me that there were no intellectually persuasive arguments that one could use against someone already a Zionist because they just--like any fundamentalists--believed that *ALL* Jews internationally have, as I said before, an *inherent*, *superior*, *automatic*, and *natural-born* (as opposed to Palestinians) right to most or all of the land in Palestine--Point Blank!--or Full Stop!--as I believe you Canadians say.

I mean, I do demonstration arguments against these Zionist, but I have no illusions that *their* minds will ever be changed--especially the hardcore, fundamentalist Zionists, or the cynical Zionists who just like/want a country where Jews (*they*) are racially and economically privileged (and have/import 3rd World people as super-exploited, cheap, immigrant labor to do the menial work European/American Israeli Jews don't want to do). My arguments are to demonstrate to more objective people, or those who are not as familiar, that--or how or why--Zionists are morally wrong.

Altho one can sometimes give some younger Jews intellectual/moral pause, with more information than they are exposed to, and letting them know that they don’t *have* to support Zionism -- that they can be a culturally good, proud Jew and not support the racial ideology known as Zionism. As Brenner points out, younger Jews in the West tend to be at least a little silently uncomfortable about an ideology of racial privilege anyway, having grown up in Western countries of democratic traditions where this is since frowned upon.

Now, there are some morally honest Jews, who like many Jews (or non-Jews), were swept up into the Zionist ideology through cultural momentum (and/or the Jewish Holocaust), and some of those, like Barbara Lubin, Dir. of the Middle East [Palestinian] Children's Alliance, *have* changed their minds and *very courageously* spoken out, after thinking about it and realizing that Zionism was contradictory to their progressive moral consciousness. People like Baraba Lubin receive constant death threats and harassment from Zionist Jews. In Israel she is *regularly* strip-searched at airports coming into the country, just as a form of harassment and attempted humiliation. (Like she got onto the plane with a bomb strapped to her waist.) But, she feels that ordinary Palestinians have gone through a *whole lot* more, so she puts up with it as the price she must pay.

(Oh, since you are from Canada, check our http://www.flashpoints.net, a Pacifica radio KPFA radio program called "Flashpoints", Mon-Fri, 5:00pm Berkeley time, audiostreamed on the internet at http://www.kpfa.org . The radio program of record on Israel, Palestine.)

> ...It's really scary sometimes here, isn't it?

I said about the malicious, sarcastic, joking, hardcore anti-Rachel Corrie Zionists on the pertinent threads that it was scary knowing that these people were walking the streets in our Bay Area cities.

> What about the Israeli policy of referring to any, and all, Palestinians as militants, terrorists, etc? Isn't that another version of "anti-semistim"?

Sure. It's anti-Palestinian anti-Semitic racism.

In fact, several of my more adamant anti-Zionist Jewish friends say that they object to the continued use of the term "anti-Semitism" to describe racism against Jews, (1) has to do with the historical origin (which I am not etymologically knowledgeable about) of the epithet, (2) because there are other Semites, and (3) because they think that it is racist against others, like Blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc., that Jews should monopolize a special category of racism against themselves -- that racism is racism, and that Jews shouldn't have their own special category, as tho to diminish other racism.

At least as a Black person, I'm not a stickler about reason (3) above, altho I think that reason (2) above is a significant point (and ironic, given Zionism and its inherent racism).

> ...terrorists or militants...

Well, "terrorist/m", "militants", or for that matter such imperialist-defined "WMD" are really more POLITICAL TERMS OF ART.

If you don't have a country or a military, no matter how just one's cause may or may not be, those who do (or who don't support you) call you a "terrorist". You know, one person's "terrorist" being another person's "freedom fighter". Hitler called Jews (and Free French combatants, for that matter) in the WWII resistance movement "terrorists". Nelson Mandela and the ANC were called "terrorists". Zionist pioneer combatants were certainly called "terrorists". "Terrorist" is essentially a subjective (or loaded) word for "irregular combatants", as opposed to a regular military. The U.S., nor Israel for that matter, cannot--won't--even politically/legally *define* the word "terrorism", because they can't do so in a way that excludes much U.S./Israeli military/CIA/Mosad behavior and actions. It’s a word that those in power presume to define.

"WMD"? Well, that's apparently *anything* the U.S. says it is.

> "Ignorant Armies Sliding into War in Iraq" by my print media hero, Gwynne Dyer

Now, *there's* something, in my busy schedule, that I would go out of my way to find.

And I have seen rebroadcasts of Gwynne Dyer's documentary "War". It was excellent. It should be rebroadcast every time the U.S. goes to war, as MLK should be re-read (even by progressives, because it vivifies it, the hypocrisy of imperialist wars) every time the U.S. goes to war.

I liked what Dyer said about why *only* teenagers and early 20-somethings are trained to become combat foot soldiers in boot camp, especially in Western countries. He said that you can train older men--men in their 30's or even 40's--to become foot soldiers, and they too can be made physically fit. You just can't convince them anymore that it--going to war--is going to be any fun or some great adventure; you can't play on their insecurities about being macho.

I think he also said (esp. of the U.S.) that we were willing to blow up the entire world (during the Cold War) to insist that our economic ideas (of capitalism) were ideologically right.


"Militant"? What's that? Mandela was called "a militant". Malcolm X was called "a militant"--because he emphatically said that he was a human being and that he believed that he, and racially those like him, deserved to be treated with respect. But Sharon is *not* called "a militant"--someone who believes in a greater Israel that should extend from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates in *Iraq*!? Zionist pioneers who drove 3/4 million Palestinians off their land over an ancient religious or political claim--and those who continue to support this through the means they use--are *not* terrorists or militants?

JA: "Now, are you, gehrig, claiming that Jeffrey Blankfort is a Jewish Holocaust denier?"

No, I'm only going to claim that you're so blinded on the antisemitism issue by your hatred of Zionism that your reaction when told that you've posted the URL of a Holocaust denial site was "so what?"

And I find that very telling.

@%<

Thanks for all the info in your last post.

I must have checked that same Indymedia site. I popped in there a few months ago and was so horrified I wrote a brief note which said,: "Am I ever glad this is not my regular Indymedia site. If I had to listen to the brainwashed ramblings of [delete], I'd need to go into some form of therapy. How utterly one-dimensional. Whew! Get me out of here". There can't be any other you're referring to.

As well, "A Concerned Zioinist" is NOT a concerned Zionist in the least, but I'll let you come to your own conclusions.

However, I'd strongly suggest you read down through that Rachel Corrie Video thread irregardless of "A Concerned Zioinist". Some interesting stuff there, like an article by our pal, Israel Shamir -- and more! (ha ha ha!)

Much more to chat about, and I shall leave you with the following: http://www.avnery-news.co. I think that's the one I've been reading from.

Angie

Maybe it should be http://www.Avnery-news.co.il. It works here anyway.

As promised, I'll have much more later. SO GLAD you are familiar with ANGIE'S HERO, GWYNNE DYER.

In his War series towards the end of "Any Mother's Son will Do" (which, incidentally, followed a group of recruits at boot camp in the US) he says:

"Soldiers don't cause wars. Governments cause wars and pay soldiers to do the dying for them".

Angie

Holocaust denial -- so what?, by gehrig Monday June 16, 2003 at 09:03 AM:

" No, I'm only going to claim that you're so blinded on the antisemitism issue by your hatred of Zionism that your reaction when told that you've posted the URL of a Holocaust denial site was "so what?" "

---------------------------------------------------

Of course--as the record above shows--that, "so what?," is not what I said. Those are your squiggly words. But, I simply refer you back to Tim [very] Wise's words in my post above: "*WHO's* LYING?", by JA Monday June 16, 2003 at 02:04 AM.


Blankfort has a "hatred of Zionism" too--an *extreme* hatred -- and, if you can believe it, his being a totally, morally, outraged Jew, he's *MUCH* more outspoken than I am, by *multiples*! So, for the record again, do you want to say that Blankfort is anti-Semtic (against either Jews or Palestinians), even tho you just said "No" in your post above??? -- or shall we let your previous answer stand?

I already told you what Blankfort said about crazy neo-Nazis, Aryan-supremacists, Jewish Holocaust deniers, etc. I'd think that he'd respectively put you both on opposite sides of the same immoral racist coin: the nuts on one side and the nuts on the other. But Nazism has been soundly defeated and discredited. And now, there is only *one* country left trying to subjugate and commit (a form of) genocide and/or ethnic cleansing on Semites within its expanded borders.

gehrig, I've sensed that you've known before not to take me on, directly: you're out of your intellectual league and you're going to get your intellectual ass whooped, if you do. You don't want to look any worse than you do already, do you?

I got *my* copy of Blankfort's response *personally*, via email, but if you'd rather:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/27

*SATISFIED*?

-----------------------------------------------------

gehrig: " And I find that very telling. "

Of what? Make your point. Again, as I told you before, in correct logic & argument you have to be *SPECIFIC*. Vague innuendo does not pass for a logical argument/assertion.

Angie, I gotta get back to work, but here's a quickie discovery I made, looking up another URL above for gehrig.

There's:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/73

(especially, more interesting Blankfort comments)

from

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/messages

(you probably already knew about this Israel Shamir site)


and there's

http://www.feralnews.com

I haven't had a chance to evaluate *all* of it, but it looks interesting.

I'll check out your internet/indymedia references.

I'll get back to you later.

In the meantime, I liked your reference to Dyers quote. I always 'liked' anti-Vietnam War singer Country Joe MacDonald's verse from his famous anti-Vietnam War song:

"...And be the first one on your block...to have your son come home in a box!"

JA: "gehrig, I've sensed that you've known before not to take me on, directly: you're out of your intellectual league and you're going to get your intellectual ass whooped, if you do."

* rolling eyes *

Time to recalibrate your sensors, I'd say. What you've "sensed" is that I long ago stopped bothering to read your yammity-yammity-yammity, and Angie's as well, and if a URL for an overtly antisemitic site hadn't caught my eye when I was skimming your post I wouldn't have commented at all. I decided quite a while ago that your posts, like the Pinto of old, blow up on impact, all by themselves, and they don' t need my help to self-destruct. The Adelaide Institute URL was just icing on the cake.

JA: "Satisfied?"

I was already satisfied before your post, but if you want to dig yourself deeper into that hole, I'll just be that much _more_ satisfied. Don't let me stop you. Keep at it. Have the last word if you like, although of course you'll need to shout pretty loud from the bottom of that hole.

JA: "Of what? Make your point. Again, as I told you before, in correct logic & argument you have to be *SPECIFIC*. Vague innuendo does not pass for a logical argument/assertion."

Now JA thinks he's going to take me to logic school. It's too funny. Were all those posts of his I skipped like this one, or did I just land on the funniest one by luck?

Let me get my smallest spoon so I can spoonfeed it to you, JA. Does it _help_ or _hurt_ the progressive movement's efforts to give itself a clean bill of health on the antisemitism issue -- which is separate from the anti-Zionism issue -- when (a) you post URLs from Holocaust denial sites, and (b) don't see anything particularly wrong with that?

@%<

Gehrig, the problem with you is that you are consistantly wrong when it comes to quoting anything about David Irving. For one thing he states on his very well run web site "Traditional Enimies of Free Speech." Say it a few times, it might sink into your hate filled heart. NOw, why would anyone ask any of the questions I have asked? To put it bluntly, religiously minded people such as yourself never give adequate answers. Talk about waving the hand, and the question has somehow vanished. Since when is it a religion to believe in burnt offerings?
David Irving went to trial against that minor academic,Lipstadt, because she libeled him. His livelihood of writing history was being severly halted by that libeler, Lipstadt. Why don't you tell everyone about the Zundel trial. He won his trial on the question of the holy number. 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1....censor

Gehrig, since you have some limited knowledge of David Irving and his web site, and of the Adelaide Institute, that makes you guilty of historical revisionism, holocaust denial,and anti-semitism. Guilt by asscoiation. At least I have read from both sides, War Against The Jews by Lucy D. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,William Shirer, A Christian Response to the Holocaust, and Auschwitz and The Allies,Martin Gilbert. Cheers

Brian: "Gehrig, the problem with you is that you are consistantly wrong when it comes to quoting anything about David Irving. For one thing he states on his very well run web site "Traditional Enimies of Free Speech.""

Google the phrase "Traditional Enemies of Truth" (note that you'll need to spell "enemies" correctly) and see whether you pull up Irving's site. You will. There is Irving using exactly the phrase I attributed to him and you said I misquoted.

Don't quit your day job, Perry Mason.

And I've read _The Mare's Nest_, the one on the V-2 (as background reading to one of my favorite novels). Irving tells a good story. But when his facts were checked, oh, oh, oh, what a mess it turns out Irving made of things, all for the glory of Uncle Adolf.

@%<

Yo gehrig, you're like a toothless, ollld bloodhound: all you can do is howwwl and wwwooof -- but you cain't hunt!


gehrig: "The Adelaide Institute URL was just icing on the cake."

Oh, gee! You got *meee*! Hahahahaha...!


gehrig: " *if*... [...excuses, excuses, excuses...blah, blah, blah...yada, yada, yada...yap, yap, yap...woof, woof, woof...] ...I wouldn't have commented at all. "

Yyyyyeah! 'Rrrrrighttt...!'

Hahahahaha!

(Oh, that gehrig cracks me up!)


gehrig: " Let me get my smallest spoon "


Does it hold your brain?

Come back when you got something *SPECIFIC* to say.

All you doin' is yyyapppin' !

If you got somethin' *in-tel-lec-tu-al* to say, then be *man enough* to stand up and say it! If you *don't*, then sit yo ass back dowwwn.

In the meantime, go take your straw man premises and red herring questions somewhere else.

Well, JA, if you wondered why I haven't felt any particular need to take you seriously, that last post is a _magnificent_ example.

But I'll be charitable and give you another chance. Does it _help_ or _hurt_ the progressive movement's efforts to give itself a clean bill of health on the antisemitism issue -- which is separate from the anti-Zionism issue -- when (a) you post URLs from Holocaust denial sites, and (b) don't see anything particularly wrong with that?

@%<

JA: "Satisfied?"

gehrig: "I was already satisfied before your post"


JA: Good! Then I made my point.

Now your eyes are rolling from gettin' whomped!

And I'll give you one more chance to watch you dodge the question again. Naturally, I hope your answer is of a similar quality to your previous two supremely enlightening and scholasticly vibrant posts. You're certainly making an undeniably strong case for your deep intellectual capacity. My my my my my.

Does it _help_ or _hurt_ the progressive movement's efforts to give itself a clean bill of health on the antisemitism issue -- which is separate from the anti-Zionism issue -- when (a) you post URLs from Holocaust denial sites, and (b) don't see anything particularly wrong with that?

@%<

Angie, you can write to Shamir directly. he is not unapproachable, and he has enough charm for all of his fans.
His words touched us to a degree that not many other writers have been able to do.
He is blunt and poetic both at once, which is not an easy task for any body, for that matter.
You yourself have a charming style, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to find a dialouge.
cheers,

Perhaps because I am neither Jewish nor German, I never made the Holocaust the measure by which I judge the world. It is evident that this is what gehrig does, and that's his right.

However, as an American, I have other issues to deal with. These issues are, in my opinion, more pressing than a tragedy that happened 60 years ago. I have always tried to avoid the Holocaust, because it has taken on something of a religious aura, and I do not particularly like to engage in religious debates. Perhaps that is because I am an American, and I believe in freedom of religion, which includes both yours AND mine.

So, gehrig, why don't you accept the fact that not all people are of your religious persuasion and allow them their own freedom of belief? If the Holocaust means the same to you as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ does to others, that is all fine, but why do you feel the need to proselytize and burn heretics on Indybay?

As for you Brian, why do you feel it necessary to discredit the Holocaust on Indybay? Is that a productive thing to do? Is it worth your while to attack the deeply held convictions of people in an inappropriate forum? Frankly, I think it is in poor taste. It is no more productive than it would be for me to trumpet natural selection on a creationist website.

To both gehrig and Brian: why don't you leave the Holocaust debates alone here? I would feel more comfortable if you would take them somewhere else, such as a WWII historical discussion board.

I don't have the time or the inclination to read your entire posts Gehrig, however, you do have a somewhat legitimate question here:

"Does it _help_ or _hurt_ the progressive movement's efforts to give itself a clean bill of health on the anti-semitism issue -- which is separate from the anti-Zionism issue..."

Unfortunately, there are several problems with the question

One, you need to define what you mean by progressive movement. Does this include Indymedia? SF Indymedia? Liberals, leftists, socialists? Vaguely referring to the "progressive" movement makes a response to your question somewhat difficult.

Two, who is attempting to give the progressive movement a clean bill of health? Are a majority of the people in the progressive movement attempting to do this? Some clear examples showing a pattern would be helpful (note that I do mean clear... don't refer me back to your long ponderous posts.)

Three, what exactly do you mean by clean bill of health? Does this mean completely removing all anti-semitism from the progressive movement. The world is hardly an all-or-nothing place, so removing all anti-semitism from the progressive movement (or any group for that matter) is essentially impossible. Even if you don't mean a complete removal of anti-semitism, how do you suggest removing the anti-semitism that you imply is there? As I have mentioned before, simply stating what is wrong but offering no solutions to the problem brings into question your sincerity as well as your motives.

Four, why do you care? You continue to post on sf.indymedia.org. Is this because you wish to improve sf.indymedia.org? If not, then what exactly are you trying to do?

Thank you so much for your kind comments.

I sent Mr. Shamir an e-mail quite a while ago, but it came back "unable to deliver" or some such thing. (Maybe he's moved, she grins).

However, there is an address I have here that may be the lucky one, and he will receive my - dare I say? - fan mail?

It's astonishing, isn't it, how you can pick up an article by someone that you've never heard of , and a few words into the opening sentence, you're hooked? That's what happened when I read one of his works a few years ago. He soothes , comforts, and reassures me via the printed page.

Once again thank you so much. I will let you know, via this board, if I receive a reply from him. All the best to you.

Am watching the debate unfold with great interest!!

Did you see where a dear soul (above) had some neat comments re Israel Shamir? I later found another e-mail address and sent off a rather delightful note.

Should I receive a response (I realize he's very busy), I shall let you and the nice person above know!

Will have tons more stuff to talk about tomorrow!

The reason I brought up the holocaust on this site is because the man with all knowledge and answers,Gehrig,attaked me about it. I had recommened a book by Irving to Angie and then he attacked, so I responded. My feelings are that there should not have to be laws to enforce beliefs about WWII. Debate and research into this aspect of such a dark history should be encouraged.
Well Gehrig,you have done something noble, you actually read Irving. Of course when judged by conformist historians Irving appears to have made errors. I am sure you never even assumed that the other histories you read concerning this subject were incomplete did you? Cheers

Anti-Zionist: "So, gehrig, why don't you accept the fact that not all people are of your religious persuasion and allow them their own freedom of belief? If the Holocaust means the same to you as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ does to others, that is all fine, but why do you feel the need to proselytize and burn heretics on Indybay?"

This post was so off-base it took me a moment to see where you were even coming from. You seem to think that I'm sermonizing about the ethical or political or moral _meaning_ of the Holocaust, or its historical significance, or whatever. I have not argued _at any point in this discussion_ what the Holocaust _means_. I have only pointed out that the historical evidence for the Holocaust makes it quite clear that the event happened -- gas chambers and cattle cars and the whole bit -- despite antisemitic crackpots who say otherwise. That's not "a matter of religious persuasion" any more than accepting the moon landing is "a matter of religious persuasion," although there are also crackpots who say otherwise on that too.

The difference there, of course, is that the no-moon-landers aren't driven by a fundamentally bigoted outlook they are trying (unsuccessfully) to disguise as scholarship in order to spread lies about an ethnic group.

@%<

Brian: "The reason I brought up the holocaust on this site is because the man with all knowledge and answers, Gehrig, attacked me about it."

And the reason _I_ followed through with pointing out that Brian is relying on drooling crackpots for his version of history is that Holocaust denial serves as a handy litmus test on the antisemitism issue _completely_ independent of anything having to do with Zionism, and the way you handle the Holocaust denial issue therefore tells me a lot about how you treat the antisemitism issue in general.

@%<

Just a brief note to mention the obvious.

The thread re the Rachel Corrie video has been - what? Archived, or whatever happens to a thread here.

That's too bad because I had hoped you would have scrolled down through the comments and found what I meant when I said "Israel Shamir and more (hahaha)" in one of my wee notes yesterday.

Have to get back to work, but will be in touch soon!

Soirbheachadh math leat!!!!!
Angie
PS That's Scottish Gaelic for "great success to you".
Aren't I the clever one????

I assume that natural selection is a form of anti-semitism.

"The difference there, of course, is that the no-moon-landers aren't driven by a fundamentally bigoted outlook they are trying (unsuccessfully) to disguise as scholarship in order to spread lies about an ethnic group."

Combatting slander against one's ethnic group _seems_ like a fair enough thing to do. When I was in high school, I noticed some posters on the wall declaring that Shakespeare was of African descent. Being of British descent myself, I wasn't too happy to see that, as I thought (at the time) that it constituted theft of my heritage. That's why I can understand why you get mad about it when people say that Jews are Khazars and such. I can also understand why the term "zionazi" is offensive to you and other Jews. That's why I don't use it.

However, as an American of European descent, I have had to learn that I must put up with ethic slurs, hatred, theft of my heritage, occasional violence, and ridicule as long as I am part of an oppressor group. What right do I have to complain when my people are still holding minorities in the iron chains of servitude to the corporate slavemaster? What right do I have to put them down any further when every dollar I earn and every bite I eat is the result of the oppression of third world people? If they want to hit back at times, I can understand.

The fact that many of my ancestors were brutally murdered in the Indian wars does not give me any moral high-ground. It does not even give me the right to complain about what the Indians did. To do so would be racist, and if what I learned in school was any indication of the truth, my ancestors, including the women and children, deserved to die, because they were colonial settlers.

I find it highly unsettling that you feel that you do not need to hold yourself and your people to the standards society demands of majority Americans these days. Why must you be so selfish as to complain about what people are saying about your ethnic group? The majority of Americans would NEVER defend their own ethnic group, so why should you?

Do you think you are superior to the majority of Americans, or do you think you are any less a part of the oppressor group than majority Americans? Why isn't what's good for us good for you too?

Gehrig, for the edification of us who are not privy to your sources of books filled with pure facts and devoid of error, please list some of the errors you found in IRVINGS The Mares' Nest. Please name the authors who refuted the false facts that IRVING stated in his book. I will be able to e-mail IRVING to see if he was indeed in error with his presentation of this history. It will be appreciated. Slan Abhaile!

"I find it highly unsettling that you feel that you do not need to hold yourself and your people to the standards society demands of majority Americans these days."

I _what_? How do you figure? And can you express it without falling into the ad populam fallacy?

"Why must you be so selfish as to complain about what people are saying about your ethnic group?"

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. If I complain about antisemitism I'm being selfish? Is an African-American who complains about racism being selfish? Is an Indian-American who objects to being called a "Paki" being selfish?

Are you honestly arguing that _nobody_ has the right to complain?

"The majority of Americans would NEVER defend their own ethnic group, so why should you?"

The majority of Americans have also not had a third of their ethnicity's world population wiped out by a demagogue who got started with nothing but facility with ethnic slander.

It's a sign of Indybay at its most topsiturvical that, when I point out overt antisemitism such as the Adelaide Institute site, there are those who try to tell me _I'm_ at fault.

@%<

Oh, wow! *Gehrig* talking about *others'* supposed logical *fallacies*.

Hey, Brian, if you're going to email David Irving, here's what you should ask him -- why does his website, including two after-the-fact Radical's Diary entries -- contain no information whatsoever on the outcome of the last-ditch last-appeal of the Lipstadt verdict a few months back? That hearing was scheduled for, if I remember right, April 10th or so. On April 11th, every last word about there having _been_ another appeal mysteriously disappeared from his website, straight down the memory hole, gone even from the page he uses to schnorr for contributions from folks like you.

So ask Irving -- how come he's too embarrassed to tell even his own flock that he's run out of appeals, and that at the end of the game the Lipstadt/Penguin verdict stands unassailed and unoverturned, declaring that it's not illegal to call David Irving a lying, racist, antisemitic apologist for Nazism because it's been proven in court that that's what he is?

Is it because that would make it clear that any dollar anyone contributes on is "help me fight the traditional enemies" page must legally go straight toward paying Lipstadt's lawyers -- as Irving knew would happen if he lost the suit he brought against Lipstadt, but gambled on anyway?

@%<

Since you are so glib, answer me this little question. You assume 6 million chosen ones died at the hands of the Germans,tell me how many Christians died during the same time frame?






SLAN ABHAILE!

"Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. If I complain about antisemitism I'm being selfish? Is an African-American who complains about racism being selfish? Is an Indian-American who objects to being called a "Paki" being selfish?

Are you honestly arguing that _nobody_ has the right to complain? "

Sure! Let's all have engage in tantrums whenever our particular favored eth gets dissed.

The fact is that this country is full of racial and ethnic antagonism and prejudice. Anti-semitism is just one ingredient in a stewpot of nasty afflictions along with anti-black, anti-Arab, anti-Asian, anti-Latin, anti-native American, anti-woman, anti-gay etc. etc. inclinations. The good news is that things are not as bad now as they were in past generations. The history of racism and ethnic bias in this country is full of some real horror stories.

A concern I have about this discussion of anti-Semitism is a perception being fostered that there is some heinously evil anti-semitic tendency happening that requires special attention that other racial biases such as anti-Arabism or anti-Muslim bias do not.

As for the discussion of David Irving, in my opinion, the man and his works are despicable. Hitler and his regime were evil, period. No amount of portrayel through rose-tinted lenses changes that. The fact that Nazism wasn't the first, worst or only evil that was or is, is irrelevant.

once the smokescreen clears, david irving appears to be a coherent author who researches his subjects objectively and without a despicable agenda.

The Zionist version of history is much more despicable, as it excuses the evils that were done to Palestinians by constantly reminding us of the evils of Nazism.

It exploits both the tragic holocaust of the Jews and Arabs at once.

That should never ever be tolerated, and irving uncovers this despicable of hypocracies.

" "I find it highly unsettling that you feel that you do not need to hold yourself and your people to the standards society demands of majority Americans these days."

I _what_? How do you figure? And can you express it without falling into the ad populam fallacy?

"Why must you be so selfish as to complain about what people are saying about your ethnic group?"

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. If I complain about antisemitism I'm being selfish? Is an African-American who complains about racism being selfish? Is an Indian-American who objects to being called a "Paki" being selfish?

Are you honestly arguing that _nobody_ has the right to complain?

"The majority of Americans would NEVER defend their own ethnic group, so why should you?"

The majority of Americans have also not had a third of their ethnicity's world population wiped out by a demagogue who got started with nothing but facility with ethnic slander.

It's a sign of Indybay at its most topsiturvical that, when I point out overt antisemitism such as the Adelaide Institute site, there are those who try to tell me _I'm_ at fault.

@%< "

What I am getting at, gehrig, that if we were all to be preoccupied with the suffering and tribulations of our own ethnic group then we, consciously or not, are creating a system with which we may justify aggression against others.

BTW, It is telling that you believe some have the right to complain, but apparently not others. Could you draw up a short list of which ethnicities you feel should be permitted to air their grievances, and which should not be allowed to do so? This would be informative.

To be fair, I will include an explanation of the criteria I am using:

The standards I mentioned are those that majority Americans must live by. Majority Americans, regardless of what may have happened to their ethnic group in the past, are not, by virtue of their inherently oppressive position, permitted to criticize other ethnicities, or to respond when criticized by other ethnicities. Tim Wise elaborates on this concept in his "Honky Want a Cracker?" piece. I find it hard, very hard in fact, to believe that Zionists (who are not recognized by the OMB as an ethnic or religious minority) do not also occupy at least the same level of privilege that majority Americans occupy. Therefore, they have no more moral right to respond to criticism of their ethnicity than majority Americans.

So, according to the standards applied to majority Americans, Zionist Americans, unless they can prove that they are currently an oppressed group in America, should not respond to attacks, ethnic slurs or hatred directed against them.

The formula is actually quite simple:

If you are part of a privileged ethnic or social group in American society, it is your duty to endure attacks on your group without responding.

That is the price you must pay, and that's why you come off as selfish when you try to solidify your group's power through ethnocentric defense mechanisms.

Of course, there are those who wish to apply the rules selectively. That is another issue; one that is often neglected, but important nonetheless.

For the unfamiliar, here is an article expaining who David Irving is and what he stands for:
http://www.codoh.com/mediamad/uchi/uchirv2.html

University of Chicago free press
November 96
David Irving: "Historian" for Hitler
by John K. Wilson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is David Irving a legitimate historian or a Holocaust denier? The answer may be: both.

Irving does not have a college degree and has never been a part of academia, but his books about Nazi Germany have attracted praise from mainstream historians. His 1977 book, Hitler's War, was widely applauded, though many critics were concerned about its defense of Hitler as a man who knew nothing about the Holocaust until late in the war. One critic called Hitler's War "the autobiography Hitler didn't write."

But in recent years, Irving's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials have become more explicit. According to Irving, the Final Solution was masterminded by lesser Nazi leaders such as Goebbels without the knowledge of Hitler. Irving claims that the gas chambers at Auschwitz are a myth, and only 600,000 to 1 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust - a word he refuses to capitalize, and uses only once in the Goebbels book (referring to the Allied firebombing of Hamburg.)

The controversy over Irving reached a boiling point earlier this year, when Irving's opponents pressed St. Martin's Press to withdraw his new book about Joseph Goebbels. Publishers' Weekly called the book "repellent" and Kirkus Reviews said it was "scurrilously misleading."

The book was finally canceled when St. Martin's Chairman Thomas McCormack read it himself: "I hated it," he said "It seemed to me that the subtext was the ugly one: that Jews brought it on to themselves." McCormack called it "inescapably anti-Semitic", and said St. Martin's made a mistake in agreeing to publish the book.

Christopher Hitchens criticizes David Irving's "depraved opinions" and calls him "a sort of toxic substance," but Hitchens adds that Irving is "probably one of the three or four necessary historians of the Third Reich and of the Nazi period." But the more one learns about Irving, the more difficult it becomes to trust his history of Nazi Germany. Historian Gitta Sereny observes that Irving uses "selected quotes from Goebbels's diaries, while carefully avoiding passages which show clearly that Goebbels was only informed by Hitler himself of the annihilation of the Jews many months after it had begun." In attempting to prove the innocence of the Fuhrer he admires so much, Irving has sacrificed historical truth.

Irving's home in England is a monument to Nazism, with framed front pages of the Nazi party newspaper, a self-portrait of Hitler, and a small tin statue of "the Fuhrer: which Irving calls "rather sweet." Donald Cameron Watt, a professor of history at the London School of Economics and a onetime collaborator of Irving's, says: "Hitler is his hero, or so he wrote me at one point." According to Irving, "I was taught that Hitler was the incarnation of evil. I now see him as no greater an incarnation of evil than Churchill, Truman or Roosevelt." He calls Hitler a "reluctant anti-Semite."

Irving has a long history of anti-Semitism and pro-nazi sentiments. In 1959, Irving printed a publication full of articles admiring Nazi Germany, defending apartheid in South Africa, and asserting that "the national press" in Great Britain "is owned by Jews." At that time he said, "you can call me a mild fascist if you like," and declared that he "visited Hitler's eyrie at Berchtesgaden. I regard it as a shrine."

Irving's Holocaust denials have become more explicit since 1988. Irving now says, "I do not think there were any gas chambers or any master plan. It's just a myth and at last the myth is being eroded....eyewitness evidence is a problem for psychiatrists." Irving has said, "the holocaust of the Germans of Dresden was real. The holocaust of the Jews in the Auschwitz gas chambers is a fabrication." In February 1992, Irving declared, "The Jews are very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time." He warned that there would be anti-Semitic violence because of how the Jews "have exploited people with the gas chamber legend."

Irving says the Holocaust never happened and writes in his book that Auschwitz was the "slave labor camp" with "the highest mortality rate"- which is like saying that the electric chair is a piece of furniture with the highest mortality rate.

In the Oct. 21 New Republic, Jacob Heilbrunn writes about the disturbing anti-Semitism expressed by Irving. At a recent luncheon, Heilbrunn reports that Irving blamed the Jews for "a Jewish declaration of war on Germany. The Nazis were simply retaliating." Heilbrunn notes, "Irving's books cannot be divorced from the man and his historical mission."

One of Irving's publications is a particularly vile newsletter called, David Irving's Action Report, which includes letters from admirers, such as a fan in England who writes, "An Auschwitz survivors touring schools in my area, showing the film Schindler's List. That's what I'd call propaganda brainwashing of young children." A college student in Arlington, Massachusetts reports, "Along with a classmate at college I have become very issue-oriented and we are not content with the 'answers' of the big political parties nor their media promoters."

Irving's Action Report also prints the last letter from Reinhold Elstner, a mad German "hero" who committed suicide last year by burning himself to death in order to awaken German nationalism against "judicial zionist revenge" and "insults to former German soldiers."

But perhaps the most bizarre part of Irving's Action Report is a story he tells about Bill Casey, Reagan's CIA Director who was the brains behind Ollie North's "Arms for Contras" gun deal with Iran. Irving reports meeting Casey, and says Casey was a fan of the book, Hitler's War, as well as, according to Irving, "something of an admirer of the late Fuhrer."

Irving declares, "People ask me if I'm anti-Semitic. I say, not yet. But it's a mighty and a manful struggle not to become anti-Semitic. I have to remind myself every day, turn the cheek." He says he is "beginning to doubt" the possibility that "Jewish reviewers are capable of reviewing a book by me objectively."

For 30 years, he says, he suffered "a reign of terror" from those "minority groups" seeking to undermine him. "I know the organizations involved. I've come under their pressure and terror methods worldwide." Irving refused to say what these organizations were, and added: "This is the most extraordinary treatment of a historian since what the Iranians did to Salman Rushdie." But he has said, "When I go to Florida for three months I never use my credit card twice in the same place, so that Mossad does not know where I am."

Irving's views about other subjects are equally bizarre. Irving thinks that women were built to produce more men, and should be "subservient to men." His solution to unemployment should be to "declare the employment of a female a criminal offense." According to Irving, "God built women for a certain task, which is producing us. But they haven't lain down to accept that yet."

Irving calls himself a nationalist and a patriot." He advocates "benevolent repatriation" for non-white immigrants: "The jackboot and the whip are not the British way. We have to persuade them by the techniques of persuasion and propaganda that they're on the wrong side of the Atlantic." He has also denounced the participation of blacks in cricket leagues.

Nor is Irving a model of free speech himself. He regularly files libel suits in England against his critics, including the highly respected historian Gitta Sereny because she has criticized his books for twenty years, refuting his claim that Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust. According to Irving, "She was a shrivelled little prune then. And she is a shrivelled little prune now."

There are serious censorship issues involved. The Labor Party in England has proposed a prison sentence of up to two years for anyone who denies the Holocaust. If the anti-denier law is passed, England will join Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France in banning the ideas of Holocaust deniers.

Irving is currently barred from Germany, Australia, Italy, and Canada because of his views, and in 1992 he was fined 10,000 Marks by a Munich court for claiming that the Auschwitz gas chambers were "fakes" built after World War II to lure tourists to Poland. However, Irving has regularly traveled to Germany despite the ban.

Irving bragged to a reporter in 1992, "I have been in and out of Germany 20 times since the ban was imposed. This last time I came across in a rented truck at 4 a.m. and had not difficulty whatsoever. I was bringing in a ton of books."

Ewald Althans, a self-professed neo-Nazi leader in Munich and the guiding force behind a hate campaign against Boris Becker's black girlfriend, helped smuggle him in.

Althans fully endorses Irving: "I support David Irving. The Holocaust is a fabrication. The pictures of the dead, of gas chambers, of mass murder are filmed by Hollywood, narrated by Trevor Roper and directed by Hitchcock." Althans' office includes a huge poster of Irving, and shelves of Irving's books and videos which Althans sells along with his neo-Nazi fare. Irving has told rallies of neo-Nazis that he wished he was "as magnificent an orator as Adolf Hitler."

The danger of the laws banning Holocaust denial is that they turn bigots into free speech martyrs, and do little to alter the climate of anti-Semitism. It is far more important to point out the lies spread by anti-Semites like Bradley Smith and David Irving, than to try to prohibit them from speaking.

However, this doesn't mean that Irving is entitled to have a major publisher print his. St. Martin's Press won't publish a lot of authors, but that hardly means it's censoring them. Instead, it's showing editorial judgment - belatedly, to be sure, in Irving's case.

By printing Irving's book, St. Martin's would have given it a stamp of legitimacy, as is shown by the fact that the University of Chicago library preordered a copy of the book from them. No one is preventing Irving from publishing the book himself (as he has done). No other New York publisher would take his book (he says this is because more and more publishers have names like "Goldberg"), and he intentionally refused to seek out a "lesser" publisher, knowing that if the book was accepted it might threaten his inflated sense of victimhood.

The debate over the fate of Holocaust denial inevitable brings strong passions to the forefront. But it's good to find out that people care so much about an important - perhaps the most important - event in history.

In the end, it is not necessary to refute Irving's defense of Hitler, nor to debate the anti-Semites. But it is necessary to remember what people like Irving are so desperate to ignore.

****************************************************************************

In 1975, David Irving falsely argued that The Diary of Anne Frank was a fraud written after the war by a New York scriptwriter "in collaboration with the girl's father." ****************************************************************************


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CODOH can be reached at:
Box 439016/P-111
San Diego, CA, USA 92143

AZ: " BTW, It is telling that you believe some have the right to complain, but apparently not others."

Now, where have I _ever_ said anything remotely like that, AZ?

AZ: "Could you draw up a short list of which ethnicities you feel should be permitted to air their grievances, and which should not be allowed to do so? This would be informative. "

Could you do me the favor of not jamming arguments into my mouth that I don't agree with? Let me remind you that _you're_ the one arguing that ethnic insults against certain "priveleged" ethnicities should be given a free pass on principle -- in other words, that there are ethnic prejudices expressions of which must, by your rules, be endured in silence.

And that's nonsense. Ethnic hate is ethnic hate. Your attempt to divide ehtnic hatreds into two classes -- with some vague notion of vaguely correlated "levels of privelege" to justify it -- so that one class can be designated to be ignored a priori, well, that's simply despicable.

AZ: ""The standards I mentioned are those that majority Americans must live by. Majority Americans, regardless of what may have happened to their ethnic group in the past, are not, by virtue of their inherently oppressive position, permitted to criticize other ethnicities, or to respond when criticized by other ethnicities."

"Are not permitted"?! Who says? I must have missed that part of the First Amendment.

I also have tremendous difficulty accepting that, because there are correlations between ethnic groupings and political and economic power, therefore there are only two classes -- the ethnically in, and the ethnically out. That's an oversimplification which ignores the great range of levels of power _within_ each ethnic group.

I guess I'd also add, when the malls are open on Christmas but closed on Yom Kippur, then I'll believe that I'm a "majority American."

AZ: "Tim Wise elaborates on this concept in his "Honky Want a Cracker?" piece. I find it hard, very hard in fact, to believe that Zionists (who are not recognized by the OMB as an ethnic or religious minority) do not also occupy at least the same level of privilege that majority Americans occupy. Therefore, they have no more moral right to respond to criticism of their ethnicity than majority Americans. "

And this is the part where, again, you've gone so far off track that it took me a while to see what you were even getting at. I have been discussing antisemitism, not anti-Zionism, and I have not tried to package Zionists as an ethnicity. Are you claiming that I have, or are you changing the subject, or are you simply substituting the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew"? I'm not sure which.

Because if the latter is the case, you've just _exactly_ spelled out what my essay was about -- the use of political mummery to delegitimize or silence _all_ criticism of antisemitism in the progressive movement, even when completely removed from the issue of Zionism. Is that honestly what you intend to say -- that in a progressive forum, if someone insults the Jews in an overtly antisemitic way, the Jews in the forum have no right to complain?

@%<

These days, anti-semites who don't straight-up bash jews, but just instead rant and rave about how "zionists" control earth, how evil the jews of israel are, how jews whitewash the media, etc. think they can get away with it and not be CORRECTLY labelled anti-semitic, and get really mad when you point out their flaws.

It's funny how these closet anti-semites immediately flooded this thread on anti-semitism the moment they got the chance. Naturally they always loudly declare that they aren't anti-semitic, then go right ahead and demonize about 1/3 or 1/2 the jews on earth by placing them into certain categories.

Yes it is disgusting with what people get away with these days. Bush waging an illegal war on Iraq and claiming a military victory. He is a ruthless man with very few scruples.
Isn't it disgusting that the semitic people such as the Arabs aren't considered semitic by the lot of you biased individuals. Burn the dictionaries, gather all of the books on Islam and destory them. You bunch of blind leaders of the blind.

This Irving chap must be some strange type. Is it admissable to even view his web site? Is there a danger of my mind getting poisoned?

The protocols of the Learned elders of Zion, is an accurate description of everything that has taken place in the last century,,, to this current date.

None of you, I bet have ever read the protocols- yet you simply parrot the line the ADL wishes for you to parrot...

The Protocols of Zion is not a "Jewish" conspiracy as they wish for us to believe but a capitalist one.
A conspiracy that is brutal and victimises all regardless of their religious affiliation.

By us remaining ignorant of their plot they have succeeded in conquering all of the continents except for the Mideast.

It is time to sit down and read it , before they achieve their last goal underneath the noses of those who protect their Interests!!!

In case you didn't know this, the Protocols of the elders of Zion are a forgery used to defame Jews. Hitler used it.

I have taken a look at it though, out of curiosity. Not only does it originate the myth that the Jews "control the media." But it's such an obvious forgery, as there is nothing in it that even sounds remotely Jewish.

It's been surmised that the treatise was adapted from some other organization, possibly the freemasons. Or perhaps it is a complete fabrication.

But the fact that you believe it verbatim demonstrates your ignorance and your prejudice.

Which makes you a welcome addition to IMC!

the jews do control the media.

If you have ever taken a look at who is the CEO of major print and none-print news outlets. you will be astounded to find out the majority of the people are Jewish and have Jewish sounding name.

It of course is not a Zionist conspiracy but a masonic one.

Freemasonary and Zionism have identical roots.
Their symbolism is even identical.
Take a look at the 'one dollar bill' right over the 'bird', and what do you see... the 'star of david'

take a look at the sheriff's badge- and what do you see... the star of david.

The star of david is as ancient as the swastika and both are of similar origins.

Freemasonary and zionism is one and the same.
Many Zionist leaders were openly freemasons.
Former prime minister Rabin and later prime minister Natanyahu are just two of many historical Zionist figures who belong to the cult.

The founders of the ADL, are also freemasons, but they hide behind the Jewish religion to thwart off legitimate criticism.

In light of the above, you should attempt at reading 'the learned elders of Zion' with fresh eyes.

Peace!

Who let this guy out of the funny farm?

I bet the people touting protocols, nazis and David Irving here are really Zionist trolls.

Israeli policies in the Occupied territories and the treatment of native inhabitants of Palestine are indefensible. By insinuating connections between critics of Israel and right-wing fringe groups, Zionists can reduce or eliminate the credibility of the opposition.

Its likely that most of the discussion in this thread is by Zionists talking to themselves, and besmirching SFIMC and critics of Israeli policy in the process.

And so the blind lead the blind.

@%<

Yes, and they have been leading the blind for over 2000+ years.

There was a Zionist "Roorback" posted yesterday by someone trying to insinuate that Rachel Corrie's brother wrote an article for a fascist publication.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1620410.php

You mean, there was something you _suspect_ was a Zionist "roorback."

@%<

It was a Roorback when it was posted on NYIMC. It continued to be one when it was posted at Indybay. The individual posting as "Concerned" makes his/her intentions clear and to what extent he/she accepts the post at face value.

Concerned says, "WTF Man? If there was ever a blatant example of anti-Zionists and neo-Nazis standing together this is it. We on the left need to stand against this type of b.s. Leftists should not ally themselves with Nazis! The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend."

This is definitely not the kind of person who would give Mark Corrie the benefit of doubt and check facts first. This is the kind of person who, when discovering a trove of manure, wants to disseminate the stuff.

The article, supposedly written by Mark Corrie, was actually written by Charly Reese. The reason for its posting under Mark Corrie's name at NY-IMC is obvious.

Gehrig, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck , its not an aardvark.

"Gehrig, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck , its not an aardvark."

In other words, all you have is speculation fueled by your hatred of The Eee-e-evil Zionist, voiced in terms of absolute certainty.

@%<

"In other words, all you have is speculation fueled by your hatred of The Eee-e-evil Zionist, voiced in terms of absolute certainty. "

Emphatically No! There is ample evidence in the post and the manner that it was presented.

Can you state with absolute certainty that Indybay purposely leaves anti-semitic posts that it has the time and manpower to clean out? Is the number of anti-semitic posts any greater than the anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab posts?

Anyone who looks at the hidden files can see that there are plenty of junk posts including anti-semitic ones removed daily.

Zionists seem to to be ready to accept or infer a white supremicist motivation behind anyone who raises a criticism against Israel or Zionism. It makes it easy to excuse their own actions.

Just wondering if "Rio" and "Riobard" is the same person??? Advise. Thanks.

Is ceart go leor agat.

http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm

"Exclusivists." Just like when Yevtushenko wrote his poem about Babi Yar, and the massacre of Jews there, the Soviets tried to bludgeon him into changing it to note that all sorts of Soviets suffered and died in the Great Patriotic War.

So when you say "Ukranians died," everything's fine. "Russians died," everything's fine. "Jews died," and then some wingnut somewhere will hop up and down about how you're being "exclusivist," you bad bad bad you, then a link to the article will be posted to David Irving's website because it mentions him, and then -- natch -- the next step is that the link appears on Indybay from an anonym who can't spell "eretz."

Of course, if you actually _asked_ Lipstadt, she would have told you that she specifically is _not_ exclusivist, and that the Holocaust was not the be-all and end-all of tragic history. Ask Yevtushenko, and he'd say the same. And so would I. But it's just so much easier to throw around that "exclusivist" argument -- although only exclusively when it comes to the Holocaust.

@%<

You never did answer gehrig's question:

"Does it _help_ or _hurt_ the progressive movement's efforts to give itself a clean bill of health on the antisemitism issue -- which is separate from the anti-Zionism issue -- when (a) you post URLs from Holocaust denial sites, and (b) don't see anything particularly wrong with that?"

Why where you dancing around this question that was asked 3 times? Do you deny the Holocaust?
Just wondering...

Palestianians and Arabs as a whole are Semites!

This also includes 'Beta' and Mizrahi Jews.

Funny thing though, Ashkenazim - the ones who scream loudest - aren't!

This is why it makes me sick to see Ashkenazim talk about their birthright.

"Why where you dancing around this question that was asked 3 times? Do you deny the Holocaust?"

I don't think JA is a Holocaust denier, and I haven't claimed that he is. My question is about why he's unembarrassed about pulling stuff off a Holocaust denier site when he would have been tearing his hair out in dismay if it were a site pushing other forms of ethnic hate. In other words, why is the promulgation of ethnic hate so bad, so bad, so bad, but -- when it comes to Holocaust denial -- suddenly not so bad?

For the record, there really only seem to be two stalwart Holocaust deniers on IMCs -- at least, as far as I know -- who don't use disposable nyms. And only one of them's on Indybay. But there have been about a dozen times in the last years someone has done what JA has done -- taken some anti-Zionist article at face value, and when it's pointed out (by me) that the article appeared on a Holocaust denial site, then wheeled on me for having the audacity to object.

@%<

The biological and historical evidence demonstrates that the Ashkenazim most certainly ARE Semites.

You may have been misguided by neo-nazi propaganda claiming that the Ashkenazi are all descendants from the Khazars, but that propaganda is just that, and has no basis in reality.

It's also insulting that you claim the Ashkenazim "scream the loudest" when they also suffered the brunt of the Holocaust and European anti-Semitism.

Now THAT is disgusting.

Interesting how the holocaust is always brought up.

In my opinion, the al Nakba neutralizes any sympathy points accumulated. The state of Israel is guilty of every crime the Nuremburg trial exposed - yes including gas (maybe chambers haven't been revealed in Israel - however sufficient documentation exists concerning Israel's use of deadly gas on civilians). This doesn't mention the more than 85 UN resolutions Israel has ignored, nor the fact that Israel is even in default of the Balfour paper.
This doesn't approach the historic collaborations of the Jewish Agency with Nazi Germany, nor the fact that the majority of the Czarist Secret Police were Jews...

"The state of Israel is guilty of every crime the Nuremburg trial exposed"

Either you don't know what the Nazis were found guilty of at Nuremberg or you don't know what's happening now.

"the majority of the Czarist Secret Police were Jews"

More nonsense. The main international contribution of the Czarist police to the Jewish issue was to create the infamous forgery, _Protocols of the Elders of Zion._ That and instigating pogroms.

@%<

The facts, you can't handle the facts!

re: Nuremberg
THE NUREMBERG TRIALS: THE DEFENDANTS AND VERDICTS
http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/trials3.html

Please note that Israel is in active violation of

the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights
International Human Rights Instruments
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm

The UN charter
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-cont.htm

Numerous UN Resolutions (both Security Council and General Assembly)
It should be noted here that the United States has vetoed, where possible, a large majority of resolutions seeking censure for Israel, or demanding that Israel end a particular activity.

Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel. General Assembly Resolution 194
<http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument>, Dec. 11, 1948
"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal. Security Council Resolution 242
<http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,242>, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal. Security Council Resolution 446
<http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument>, March 22, 1979
"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination. General Assembly Resolution 3236
<http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/docs/A_RES_3236.htm>, November 22, 1974
Affirms "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to self-determination without external interference" and "to national independence and sovereignty."

Reaffirmation of a Palestinian State Security Council Resolution 1397 <http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/4721362dd7ba3dea85256b7b00536c7f!OpenDocument>, March 12, 2002
Affirms "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders."

Also see:
UN General Assembly Resolution 181 - the 1947 Partition plan of Palestine and the creation of Israel.
International Humanitarian Law: the Geneva Conventions - 150 years of international designated protection of civilians during wartime and Israel's explicit violations.
History of the Palestinian Problem <http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html> - from the Division for Palestinian Rights, United Nations


More UN Resolutions on Israel, 1955-1992

Resolution 106: condemns Israel for Gaza raid.
Resolution 111: condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.
Resolution 127: recommends Israel suspend its no-man's zone' in Jerusalem.
Resolution 162: urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Resolution 171: determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Resolution 228: censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.
Resolution 237: urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Resolution 248: condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Resolution 250: calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Resolution 251: deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.
Resolution 252: declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.
Resolution 256: condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.
Resolution 259: deplores Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Resolution 262: condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.
Resolution 265: condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.
Resolution 267: censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 270: condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.
Resolution 271: condemns Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Resolution 279: demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 280: condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 285: demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 298: deplores Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 313: demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 316: condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 317: deplores Israel's refusal to release.
Resolution 332: condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 337: condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.
Resolution 347: condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 425: calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 427: calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.
Resolution 446: determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 450: calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Resolution 452: calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Resolution 465: deplores Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.
Resolution 467: strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.
Resolution 468: calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.
Resolution 469: strongly deplores Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians.
Resolution 471: expresses deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are null and void.
Resolution 478: censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
Resolution 484: declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.
Resolution 487: strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.
Resolution 497: decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Resolution 501: calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Resolution 509: demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.
Resolution 515: demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.
Resolution 517: censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 518: demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Resolution 520: condemns Israel's attack into West Beirut.
Resolution 573: condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.
Resolution 592: strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Resolution 605: strongly deplores Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 636: deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: deplores Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: deplores Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

This list only covers the "high-points" until 1995, and does NOT cover Israel's activity to date.

And it is obvious that you are totally out of touch with the day-to-day reality of the occupied territories!

Re: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - Obviously you haven't read them.

For a document that is presently at least 100-years old, for some reason it sure has exhibited persistance. Not to speak of it's accuracy!

And if the Protocols are in fact a 'forgery' - where or what is the 'original'?

If the Protocols are in fact a 'hoax' - then why do they 'predict' so well the present?

It has been said that the 'Protocols' were originally 'extracted' from a work of fiction. If so, then why do they seem so prescient and pertinent today?

Interestingly, when one quotes the Halacha - one is accused of having read the protocols - why is this?

The state of Israel's 'law' is Halacha-based, and therefor the state of Israel is racist.

As for the reference to Russia's Czarist Secret Police - this only to show the roots of a 'persecution'.

I notice you didn't attempt to deny the Jewish Agencies links with Nazi Germany...

And I left out the Hungarian stuff... and so much more!

Funny how genetics is such a popular theme...

Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html

Russian Jewish Genetics
A collection of abstracts and reviews of books, articles, and genetic studies
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

While evidence exists linking nearly ALL population groups on earth to the middle east, there are indeed possibilities to separate the groups themselves. One of these methods is to view the occurrences of genetically transmitted disease. The following has been extracted from a paper by Lauren Friedman (full document - see below)

"The statistics on the frequency of TSD among Jews is startling. TSD potentially affects one in every 2,500 Ashkenazi Jewish newborns. Ashkenazi Jews are one hundred times more likely to have an affected child. Only about one in three hundred in the general population (non-Jews and Sephardic Jews) are carriers of the TSD gene, compared to approximately one in thirty Ashkenazi Jews."

Tay-Sachs Disease: The Absence of Hope
by Lauren Friedman
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web1/lfriedman.html

Re: Tay-Sachs disease and incidents within the Ashkenazi population
http://www.genesage.com/professionals/geneletter/05-01-00/lig/supportgroup.html

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.

Come see "enough" endorse the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ as "prescient and pertinent" and watch "Gilgamesh" try the Khazar hustle. And then hear the deafening silence from Indybay's most vocally progressive antiracists too busy absolving themselves of antisemitism to actually counter it.

@%<

Just curious, JA
by inquiring minds want to know Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 06:54 AM :
"You never did answer gehrig's question: ... "


I DON'T CARE *HOW MANY* DIFFERENT NAMES YOU WANNA GO BY, **GEHRIG** -- I'M GOING TO SAY THE *SAME* THING...

("Recap: Point made.", by JA, June 16, 6:36 PM;

*and*

"*Satisfied*..., gehrig?",
by JA, June 16, 1:01 PM;

*and*

"To: gehrig & Co. -- Al-Nakba deniers", by JA, June 15, 9:55 PM)

...I TOLD YOU *WAYYY UP* ABOVE! :


I'M *NOT* ANSWERING YOUR STRAW MAN, RED HERRING, ANTI-SEMITE-BAITING QUESTIONS.

NOW, GO SLITHER OFF IN THE STRAW SOMEWHERE ELSE! HaHa!


(gehrig's *STILL CRYING* 'cause he got **WHOMPED!!** -- and his eyes are still "rolling" from it! --Haha!)

Boy are you wrong wrong wrong! I'm not gehrig - couldn't ya tell by the way he corrected my question?
And I thought you claimed such a superior intellect -
BWHAHAHAHAH!!!

So, one more time - from me - you never did answer gehrig's question:

"Does it _help_ or _hurt_ the progressive movement's efforts to give itself a clean bill of health on the antisemitism issue -- which is separate from the anti-Zionism issue -- when (a) you post URLs from Holocaust denial sites, and (b) don't see anything particularly wrong with that?"

Why were you dancing around this question that has now been asked 5 times? Could it be that you really showed your true colors with your first statement, oh wise one?

Just wondering...and rolling MY eyes.

Pathetic...really.

Afraid of the truth, eh JA
by inquiring minds want to know Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 06:43 PM .

GIVE IT UP, ***GEHRIG*** !!!

**YOUR'RE** NOT FOOLIN' *ANYONE*!!!

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA... !!


(Oh, that *gehrig* jes' cracks me up...!!)

*WHO* ARE YOU GOING TO POSE AS NEXT, GEHRIG!!???

(*HELP* ME!! I'VE FALLEN DOWN ***LAUGHING*** AND I CAN'T GET UP!!! HAHAHAHAHA...!!!)

JA, guessing incorrectly that I've posted under another name, says: " I DON'T CARE *HOW MANY* DIFFERENT NAMES YOU WANNA GO BY, **GEHRIG** -- I'M GOING TO SAY THE *SAME* THING..."

Here's a simple hint, JA -- putting your errors into capital letters doesn't make them any less wrong. Same with asterisks.

I have never made a post on any IMC that I did not sign with my own name, "gehrig."

And I would tell you exactly how much of a fool you've made of yourself on this one, JA, except that it's such a big topic the universe would die of thermodynamic heat death before I covered a quarter of it.

And all the while it would get clearer and clearer how ill-equipped you are to answer a simple, simple question.

@%<

Some people really "milk the holocaust" for all it's worth.

I really wonder about their motives...

gehrig: " I have never made a post on any IMC that I did not sign with my own name, "gehrig." "


JA: 'Rrrrrrrighhhhhht...'

SOME ZIONIST FAIRY TALES.

1. That Jews (even Khazar converts) have an unlimited right of return to Palestine, whereas, Palestinians who were born and raised in Palestine, and ethnically cleansed by the Jews, have no right of return to their place of birth.
2. That ethnic cleansing is acceptable, even desirable, if the people being ethnically cleansed are not Jews, and those doing the ethnic cleansing are/were Jews.
3. That the theft of the property and possessions is acceptable, even desirable, as long as the people doing the stealing are Jews, and not Germans. And as long as the people whose property is stolen, are Palestinians, and not Jews.
4. That the Jews must be compensated by the Germans for lost property and possessions, but that Israel owes the Palestinians no compensation for the property and possessions the state of Israel has stolen from them since 1948.
5. That Israel is a safe haven for the Jews of the world. The fact is that since the establishment of Israel, far, far more Jews have died violently in and around Israel (about 17,000 I believe) than in all other parts of the world combined. Israel is actually a significant danger to worldwide Jewry, as their brutal treatment of the Palestinians reflects very badly on Jews generally.

Just for fun Lets see what happens whe we replace arab for jewish zionist for leftist etc etc in all of those

LEFTEST MYTHS
1. That Arabs (even Egyptian converts) have an unlimited right of return to Palestine, whereas, Jews who were born and raised in Palestine, and ethnically cleansed by the Arabs, have no right of return to their place of birth.

2. That ethnic cleansing is acceptable, even desirable, if the people being ethnically cleansed are not Arabs, and those doing the ethnic cleansing are/were Arabs.
3. That the theft of the property and possessions is acceptable, even desirable, as long as the people doing the stealing are Arabs, and not Jews. And as long as the people whose property is stolen, are Jews, and not Arabs.
4. That the Arabs must be compensated by the Jews for lost property and possessions, but that Arabs owes the Jews no compensation for the property and possessions the states of Arabs has stolen from them since 1948.
5. That Palestine is a safe haven for the Palistinians of the world. The fact is that since the establishment of "Palestinine", far, far more Palistinians have died violently in and around Palestine than in all other parts of the world combined. Palestine is actually a significant danger to worldwide Palintiniary, as their brutal

fancy that ! now it makes more sense !

anonym: "That Jews (even Khazar converts) ..."

In case you missed it.

@%<

> 1. That Jews (even Khazar converts) have an unlimited right of return to Palestine

1A. Jews are not "Khazar converts", as shown by genetic evidence.

http://www.mycweb.com/megillah/jul2000/jewish_genes.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familycohanim.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/social/14GENE.html

1B. A sovereign state, Israel gets to determine its LAW (not "right") of return -- just like all other nations.

> Palestinians who were born and raised in Palestine

1C. Most of the "refugees" were not born nor raised in "Palestine" (which back then was a British Mandate under the League of Nations designed to establish the Jewish National Home. The Arabs at the time were known as Arabs, "Palestinian" referred to Jews). Many Arabs immigrated there between the world wars, others are descendents born and raised elsewhere.

> ethnically cleansed by the Jews

1D. The majority of Arab refugees in 1948 chose to flee without ever seeing a Jewish soldier. Those who remained were safe. The ethnic cleansing was in Gaza, Judea and Samaria -- areas taken over by Arab invaders and which were made Judenrein. No Jews remained. Not one.

> have no right of return to their place of birth.

1E. As already covered, most all were not born there, nor is there such a thing as the "right of return".

> 2. That ethnic cleansing is acceptable, even desirable, if the people being ethnically cleansed are not Jews, and those doing the ethnic cleansing are/were Jews.

As already seen above (1D), this is not so.

> 3. That the theft of the property and possessions is acceptable, even desirable, as long as the people doing the stealing are Jews, and not Germans. And as long as the people whose property is stolen, are Palestinians, and not Jews.

Another lie. Jew's didn't "steal" anything.

> 4. That the Jews must be compensated by the Germans for lost property and possessions, but that Israel owes the Palestinians no compensation for the property and possessions the state of Israel has stolen from them since 1948.

4A. In cases of wrong-doing, Israeli courts have awarded compensation (including land) to those found to have a legitimate grievance.

4B. Does the author believe that the Jews who were forced out of Arab lands (800,000), their bank accounts frozen and deprived of all their possessions, should also be compensated?

> 5. That Israel is a safe haven for the Jews of the world. The fact is that far, far more Jews have died violently in and around Israel (about 17,000 I believe) than in all other parts of the world combined.

5A. Talk about sophistry! More Jews were murdered in the 55 years prior to the establishment of Israel than in the 55 years since.

5B. This is a "blame the victim" variation. Israel is bad because "we" choose to attack it?

5C. Spare us the lie that Jews were well-treated in Arab lands prior to the establishment of Israel.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1624607.php

> Israel is actually a significant danger to worldwide Jewry, as their brutal treatment of the Palestinians reflects very badly on Jews generally.

What? Even assuming that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was "brutal" (and it is NOT), why would that reflect on Jews in general? ONLY A HATIST RACIST WOULD MAKE SUCH AN ARGUMENT!

--"Even assuming that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was 'brutal' (and it is NOT [original emphasis])..."

Given the enormous amount of evidence of Israel's human rights abuses against Palestinians, KL's assertion that its treatment of them is "NOT 'brutal' " exposes a callous disregard for their suffering for decades under Israel's jackboot.

Another diversion to distract from what I had said and the lies exposed in the "fairytales" above.

As a matter of fact, the quality of life in the territories greatly INCREASED under Israeli administration. The introduction of plumbing and electricity, tractors and refridgerators, modern farming techniques, schools and hospitals brought about an unprecedented 20-year economic boom.

It was the first intifada that ruined that, followed by the corrupt rule of the PA. The 2nd intifada also ended a 3-year economic recovery.

I await a point-by-point response to my comments, especially the last one:

> Israel is actually a significant danger to worldwide Jewry, as their brutal treatment of the Palestinians reflects very badly on Jews generally.

What? Even assuming that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was "brutal" (and it is NOT), why would that reflect on Jews in general?
ONLY A HATIST RACIST WOULD MAKE SUCH AN ARGUMENT!

--"As a matter of fact, the quality of life in the territories greatly INCREASED under Israeli administration."

Don't you mean occupation?

--"The introduction of plumbing and electricity, tractors and refridgerators, modern farming techniques, schools and hospitals brought about an unprecedented 20-year economic boom."

What! What kind of bullshit is this?

Now Zionists claim that they've brought the conveniences of modern life to the Occupied Territories. I wonder how they transported those things there? With their tanks and bulldozers? Or maybe they drop shipped them from Apache Helicopters.

Now I understand how Israelis feel -- those Palestinians are just so ungrateful !!!

The fact is, what the Palestinians have, they've gotten on their own. Israel has never helped them. In fact, Israel has always been destroying their infrastructure, communities, and anything else they can get their hands on.

Occasionally Palestinians receive aid from Europe, the US, and Gulf states, but Israel has never given them a penny -- on the contrary, Israel is guilty of destroying billions in infrastructure paid for by others.

How can anyone take Zionists seriously when they lie through their teeth like this? This is so outrageous.

Actually the Zionist argument of bring modern living to the occupied territories is partially correct.

The only problem is - ALL of the improvements mentioned are for jews only on their illegal settlements!

Talk about circular reasoning!

What about the huge sums of money that Israel has which belongs to the Palestinians? We keep hearing about here in Canada. Why is this happening?

?> Don't you mean occupation?

No, under the legal definition in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Israeli administration of the disputed territories does not qualify as an "occupation".

If the Arab states disagree and wish a ruling based on LAW, they can make their case before the International Court of Justice. (They don't because they know they haven't a legal leg on which to stand, and thus they have pursued this matter in POLITICAL circuses for 36 years.)

?> Now Zionists claim that they've brought the conveniences of modern life to the Occupied Territories.

This is a known fact. Prior to 1967, Gaza was under a continuous 19-year curfew (where were the "anti-Zionist humanitarians" back then?) There were no universities in the territories.

?> Israel has never given them a penny

BS. Until sometime in the 1970s, Israel was contributing more to the UNRWA than ALL Arab states combined. Throughout the Oslo process, Israel has given the PA millions of dollars.

?> ALL of the improvements mentioned are for jews only on their illegal settlements!

BS. From a US Library of Congress research study:

|| The Gaza Strip, on the other hand, was seething with discontent when Israeli forces arrived in 1967. Its 1967 population of 350,000--the highest population density in the world at the time--had been under Egyptian rule, but the inhabitants were not accepted as Egyptian citizens or allowed to travel to Egypt proper. As a result they were unable to find work outside the camps and were almost completely dependent on the UN Relief

|| [Isareli] Labor governments sought to interfere as little as possible in the day-to-day lives of the Arab inhabitants. Political and social arrangements were, as much as possible, kept under Jordanian or pro-Jordanian control, the currency remained the Jordanian dinar, the application of Jordanian law continued, and a revised Jordanian curriculum was used in the schools.

|| [Israeli] polic[y] was the integration of the territories into the Israeli economy. By the mid-1970s, Arabs from Israel and the territories provided nearly one-quarter of Israel's factory labor and half the workers in construction and service industries.

Contemplate that previously all those people were unemployed, living on handouts.

|| [Israeli policy was] economic and social modernization. This included the mechanization of agriculture [tractors, etc.], the spread of television, and vast improvements in education and health care. This led to a marked increase in GNP, which grew by 14.5 percent annually between 1968 and 1973 in the West Bank and 19.4 percent annually in Gaza.

?> How can anyone take Zionists seriously when they lie through their teeth like this? This is so outrageous.

You doth project too much.

KL: "...under the legal definition in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Israeli administration of the disputed territories does not qualify as an 'occupation'. "

And with that, what more is there to say?

Can anyone take anything this person has to say seriously?

"Can anyone take anything this person has to say seriously?"

He's cited his source. Where's yours?

@%<

So lets enumerate what we have so far from KL:

1. There is no occupation.

2. The treatment of those under the non-occupation is not brutal -- even though 2400 have been killed, 25,000 injured or maimed, and all of them impoverished by Israel's policies of destroying their livelihood.

3. Even though Israel has impoverished them, they've actually brought them modern conveniences and have helped their economy. Those ungrateful Palestinians! How dare they not recognize all the wonderful things Israel has done for them.

4. And finally, the best one, the indigenous Palestinians have no right to their own homes and land.

I'm sure there are many, many more examples of KL's outright lies and these are only the tip of the ice berg.

But when even denying that you are militarily occupying another people when there is no question that you are, does not disqualify everything else you have to say by some people's standards, just boggles the mind.

Great Danger in Believing Junk History
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4042.htm

Nothing exemplifies the topic of junk history better than the made-for-mass consumption notions concerning Islam and its relationship to the “Judeo-Christian West”,
By Mark Glenn

07/09/03: (Arab News) Next to “junk science,” which claims that the earth is warming to the point that we will all be burned to a crisp within just a few years, the one thing that I hate most about the age in which we live, an age that renders little to no critical thinking as pertains important issues, is the area of “junk history.” There are, more so today than at any other time I think, a few things that invariably pop up in discussions that demonstrate how easy it is to sway a society’s thinking on a given topic with just a few well placed and misleading items repeated over and over again.
As someone who taught history for many years, I cannot describe how irritating it is to hear that Abraham Lincoln fought the “American Civil War” in order to free the slaves, that FDR saved this country from the Great Depression, that the first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to publish pornography, and that “assault weapons” have been the greatest source of crime and violence in the US during the last century. And yet, it is easy to see how well-intentioned people, who have not yet grasped the extent to which they have surrendered to media and government types the ability to think for themselves, can buy into these notions. They are packaged very cleverly, with bits and pieces of information that are verifiably true. And let’s not forget to consider those mouthpieces doing the convincing-very impressive. All kinds of advanced degrees from this school or another, a book tour, a radio or TV show, you name it.
Although a little late in the debate, nothing exemplifies the topic of junk history better than the made-for-mass consumption notions concerning Islam and its relationship to the “Judeo-Christian West”, and the fact that since Sept. 11, 2001 we in the US have been treated to a daily dose of propaganda surrounding this topic that has obviously led to momentous policies, in particular, the perpetual war in the Middle East.
From the beginning that “they,” the architects and authors of this junk history, decided that the Muslims were going to take the fall for the events on that day, (justly or not) we have been served a buffet of lies surrounding the religion of Islam and its history with the West. Not just out of government mouthpieces, but virtually the entire “conservative” talk show parade as well as almost every big-name Christian evangelist. Their message has been common and crude: The religion of Islam teaches hatred for all other faiths, most notably the Christian and Judaic. They point to history as proof of this, citing the “fury” with which the Muslims swept across the Mediterranean lands, forcing the conversion of Christians and Jews at the point of a sword. And now, these sirens maintain, they are attempting it again.
This is a theme over which I am constantly battling with the peoples in my circle. For the purposes of posterity I must reveal here that I am not a Muslim, but a conservative Catholic.
By a conservative Catholic, I hold to the notion that there is only one faith, and therefore one would assume that it would be in my interest, given these leanings, to jump on that same religion bashing bandwagon that many of my co-religionists have. The problem is that it would be a lie for me to maintain such a notion, as much as it would be a lie for me to maintain that it is illegal to possess a bible in public school, due to the restraints placed on religion by the first amendment, a notion, like those presently spewed against Islam, that has been illicitly conceived and perpetrated for the purposes of misinforming the public in pursuit of another agenda.
According to the readings I have done, (and I have done more than a few) the facts concerning the Muslims are these.
1. Within the religion of Islam, Christians and Jews are not considered “infidels” as we have been led to believe. In fact, a cursory study of the Qur’an will reveal that Christians and Jews are referred to as “peoples of the book,” since we are all monotheistic and trace our roots back to Abraham. The term “infidels” is reserved for pagans, or those who do not believe in the One God.
2. Christians and Jews were not “converted by the sword” as is commonly taught and believed. Christians and Jews were allowed to keep and practice their religion within those areas where the Muslims had gained hegemony. Indeed, it was in the interest of the various Muslim leaders and other secular authorities to keep it this way, since non-Muslims were taxed at a higher rate than Muslims. Obvious proof of this tolerance exists today in the fact that in many Islamic countries, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, there are millions of Christians, and who knows how many churches.
3. The conquest of Islam was not a conquest of religion, but, rather, was done in the same vein as many of the Crusades, i.e., a conquest initiated for the acquisition of territory and political power. In fact, many of the Arabs that fought within the Muslim armies in these wars of conquest were Christians and Jews.
4. The conquest of lands that had been Christian was not the blood-soaked struggle it has been taught to have been. Due to dynastic infighting within the Christian lands over who would rule, as well as problems involving the incompetence, high taxes and corruption within many of the Christian governments, the Christian subjects themselves many times welcomed the Muslim invaders who promised them lower and fairer taxes, more efficiency, and more stability.
5. Those particular passages of the Qur’an that deal negatively with the Christian religion deal specifically with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is due to the complete devotion to monotheism that the Muslims view the idea of 3 persons to be contradictory and unacceptable.
These items are not difficult to find. Get yourself a history book on the subject, and irrespective of the religious affiliation of the writer, (excepting those authors with the last names of Falwell, Swaggert, Graham, Wolfowitz, Perle, Limbaugh, Savage, or Sharon) the information will be about the same.
There are other items for my Christian friends to consider here as well.
— In many Muslim countries, it is illegal to profane the name of Jesus or of his Blessed Mother. Further, one should consider that in several countries within the Christian West, movies made depicting Jesus in a blasphemous way have been shut down because of the public outrage exhibited by, not the Christians, but the Muslims.
— The Muslims believe in the Virgin Conception of Christ and venerate his Blessed Mother more so than do most Christians, particularly those of the Protestant faiths.
— The Muslims believe in the miracles of Christ, including his raising of the dead, healing the sick and blind, and that he was the greatest of all Prophets.
— Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, considered Christians to be the greatest of friends to the Muslims, for in his words, the Christians were “free from pride, and had priests and monks among them.”
There is enough evidence lying around that even the most barely educated among us should be able to see that this “Islamic hatred of everyone not Islamic” is a sham. The mouthpieces who claim this fail to consider (or reveal) many glaringly obvious pieces of evidence. They would like us to believe that there is something organic about Islam that makes it seek to dominate the “Judeo-Christian” West. So let’s just do a short run of some evidence that reveals this as a fallacy.
Firstly, there hasn’t been a war between the Muslims and the West for many centuries. Even more importantly, since it was in the US that the attacks of 9/11 happened, consider this: From 1776 until Sept. 11, 2001, there were roughly 10 major wars that involved the US and a foreign power: The American War for Independence, The Quasi War, The War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War.
Based on this short list, it looks to me like we were fighting Christian nations, (excepting Iraq, whom we attacked first,) and that we weren’t attacked by the Muslims once. True, there was this issue with pirates from Libya attacking American ships after 1776, but it was an issue of piracy, and not an attempt to forcibly convert the nascent American nation to Islam.
Many would say to these things, “So what? The war is over now, what good does it do us to hash over all this now?” To which I would say
1. You’re a fool if you think that it is all over. It is just beginning, and
2. Even if it were all over, your reluctance to learn the truth, truth that would have prevented you and the rest of this nation from being conned by a bunch of propagandists is nothing more than an attempt to hide your willful ignorance, as well as an attempt to pretend that you had nothing to do with the prosecution of an illegal and imperialist war that has wrecked the lives of millions of people today, as well as millions more tomorrow.
So why do we hash over all this now?
Because what people believe leads to policies being enacted, and when people believe lies, as in the case of junk history, disastrous consequences can occur. The fact that we have attacked another nation that has not attacked us, destroyed its government and infrastructure, laid waste to its institutions, caused incalculable suffering to innocent men, women, and children, and that one of the pretenses offered in justifying this action was this non-existent war between Islam and the Christian West that began in the 7th century and has gone on ever since should indicate to everyone involved that there is great danger to be found in believing junk history, although, in this case, it would be better to categorize the current propaganda not as junk history, but rather as just plain garbage.
My advice to fellow Christians in the US would be this: Turn off Peter Jennings, Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh, and Hannity, get yourself a few decent history books, and try thinking for yourself for a change.

Mark Glenn, American and former high school teacher turned writer/commentator, is a frequent contributor to The March Media Resources and other online independent media sources Comments: jhfeedback [at] marchforjustice.com

Copyright Arab News

Judeo-Christian implies a European heritage, when nothing could be further from the truth.
The father of all three religions, Abraham, was an Iraqi Bedouin.
Moses, was the son of royalty in Egypt,
And the Lord and Savior was from Palestine while Muhammad was from the region.
All three religions have Middle Eastern roots.
Many folks assume that Jews and Christians are Europeans mainly because the church has spread its wings to many continents under the guise of saving the locals with the Lords’ message, only to occupy their territories!
On top of that famous portraits of biblical heroes such as the David and goliath status and the different paintings of the Lord and his Virginal mom, were executed by white Europeans who painted the middle easterners from what they saw around them , white people.
Judeo-Islamo-Christian is a more accurate abbreviation than Judeo- Christian.

This is true... but how many people are likely to agree?

This is fact, if they want to go on and believe that the founders of their Religions were of European ancestry they can do that, but that is because they are not Privy to the Truth!
They make that faulty assumption because of the many images they are sorrounded by which distort their true origin, That Are middle eastern Descent!

Once again we see a torrent of new lies entered to divert from the old lies:

?> Don't you mean occupation?

1. No, under the legal definition in Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Israeli administration of the disputed territories does not qualify as an "occupation".

2. If the Arab states disagree and wish a ruling based on LAW, they can make their case before the International Court of Justice. (They don't because they know they haven't a legal leg on which to stand, and thus they have pursued this matter in POLITICAL circuses for 36 years.)

?> Now Zionists claim that they've brought the conveniences of modern life to the Occupied Territories.

3. This is a known fact. Prior to 1967, Gaza was under a continuous 19-year curfew (where were the "anti-Zionist humanitarians" back then?) There were no universities in the territories.

?> Israel has never given them a penny

4. BS. Until sometime in the 1970s, Israel was contributing more to the UNRWA than ALL Arab states combined. Throughout the Oslo process, Israel has given the PA millions of dollars.

?> ALL of the improvements mentioned are for jews only on their illegal settlements!

5. BS. From a US Library of Congress research study:

|| The Gaza Strip, on the other hand, was seething with discontent when Israeli forces arrived in 1967. Its 1967 population of 350,000--the highest population density in the world at the time--had been under Egyptian rule, but the inhabitants were not accepted as Egyptian citizens or allowed to travel to Egypt proper. As a result they were unable to find work outside the camps and were almost completely dependent on the UN Relief

|| [Isareli] Labor governments sought to interfere as little as possible in the day-to-day lives of the Arab inhabitants. Political and social arrangements were, as much as possible, kept under Jordanian or pro-Jordanian control, the currency remained the Jordanian dinar, the application of Jordanian law continued, and a revised Jordanian curriculum was used in the schools.

|| [Israeli] polic[y] was the integration of the territories into the Israeli economy. By the mid-1970s, Arabs from Israel and the territories provided nearly one-quarter of Israel's factory labor and half the workers in construction and service industries.

7. Contemplate that previously all those people were unemployed, living on handouts.

|| [Israeli policy was] economic and social modernization. This included the mechanization of agriculture [tractors, etc.], the spread of television, and vast improvements in education and health care. This led to a marked increase in GNP, which grew by 14.5 percent annually between 1968 and 1973 in the West Bank and 19.4 percent annually in Gaza.

?> Even though Israel has impoverished them....

8. No, it did not. As I just documented, prior to the first intifadah life was good. In fact, better than what one would expect in any Arab country. So good, in fact, that one of Arafat's major gripes (see the authorized biography by Alan Hart) was that he was unable to establish bases in the territories or recruit fighters (his terrorists were recruited from destitute camps in the Arab world).

9. It was the intifadah, followed by the corrupt regime of Arafat (with tons of money squandered on arms in an era of peace and tons of money ending up in private Swiss accounts of corrupt leaders), that impoverished the territories. Just as things were getting better and a 3 year economic recovery was taking shape, the current intifada destroyed that.

10. Consider this article from the Guardian :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,893017,00.html

|| Two years ago Unrwa fed about 11,000 people in the Gaza Strip, mostly widows and those with no means of support. Today it feeds 715,000: more than half the population.

11. Proof that the intifada's terrorism causes nothing but suffering and poverty.

|| "These past two years are the worst for Gaza since the occupation began in 1967," Abdalhadi Abu Khousa, head of the Gaza section of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees, said.

12. This is as bad as its been -- since Gaza was under Egyptian control!

|| For years agricultural exports and jobs in Israel made the economy boom.

13. As I said, there was an economic boom and a tremendous surge in quality of life under the Israeli administration.

?> the indigenous Palestinians have no right to their own homes and land.

14. Arabs are indigenous to Arabia, not Judea or Israel or Palestine.

15. The earliest ancestors of some of the people today known as Palestinian Arabs arrived there in the 16th century.

16. They are as indigenous to Israel as the white man is to the New World.

17. When and how did this, let alone ALL of it, become "their land"?

18. In the mid-19th century, there were 100,000 Arabs in this part of the Ottoman empire (which was not known as "Palestine" and was not a geographic nor demographic territory). Today there are 9 million people, and even 2000 years ago, in "primitive" times, there were 7 million. What entitled these recent Arab immigrants to all the land?

19. Note that Jews were still present when they arrived. So if a scant Arab population can claim all of the land, wouldn't a similar and pre-existing claim by the Jews be more valid?

?> Within the religion of Islam, Christians and Jews are not considered “infidels”

20. They are considered dhimmis and face methodic discrimination. See:

http://www.al-bushra.org/jerus2K/christians.htm

?> Christians and Jews were not “converted by the sword” as is commonly taught and believed.

21. At times this was true, at other times it was not. See:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1624607.php

?> The conquest of Islam was not a conquest of religion, but... a conquest initiated for the acquisition of territory and political power.

22. Irrelevant. As you noted, the people who were conquered (many of whom are still subjugated in their own lands today) were "infidels", polytheists who were put to the sword if they did not convert to Islam.

23. Under Islamic Sharia law, there isn't even a separation of church and state so political and religious power is inseparable.

?> Christian subjects themselves many times welcomed the Muslim invaders who promised them lower and fairer taxes

24. Please cite examples and sources.

?> In many Muslim countries, it is illegal to profane the name of Jesus or of his Blessed Mother.

25. And this infringement on freedom of (from) religion is a good thing?

26. Were you going to mention that in some Muslim countries it is a crime to own a Christian bible?!

?> How can anyone take Zionists seriously when they lie through their teeth like this? This is so outrageous.

27. You doth project too much.

Just a GREAT clip of a montage of ridiculous, yet classic Bush fuckups. Enjoy! Download is pretty Quick.

All three founders of the Judeo. Islamo.Christian religions were Arabic.