Anti-Israel contingent September 24

The red flag is the international workingclass flag; all national flags are the bosses' flags. Rather than waste time and energy trampling on flags, never a good way to change anything, please join the labor contingent, as it is only an organized workingclass that can put an end to this stinking rotten private profit society that is the cause of war and miserable US military bases like Israel that exist to protect US oil profits. There are more of us than there are of the warmongers, whether they be Zionists or their fellow fascists, the American capitalist class. We can and must overwhelm these miserable worthless parasites who exploit the world's workingclass to maximize their profits.

The red flag used to be a symbol for the failed system of Marxism.

Now its the symbol of useful idiots being manipulated by big oil funded Arab propaganda to act against their own interests.

If you burn flags at Dolores Park, you will be arrested for:

disturbing the peace
inciting a riot or
creating a public nuisance
And you will be fined for starting a fire in a public park without a permit.

Cite the relevant statute(s).

Pay your own lawyer

Talking out your ass again. How typical.

No free legal advice for Nazi Trolls. Look it up yourself or pay someone smart to do it for you.

is just plain bad journalism. It's even worse politics. It is also what we have come to expect from much, though thankfully not all, of Indymedia.

Oh yes he does.

The handle "racist thug" has been EARNED.

And don't forget that old catch-all "disorderly conduct"

If you burn flags at Dolores Park, you will be arrested for:

disturbing the peace
inciting a riot or
creating a public nuisance
And you will be fined for starting a fire in a public park without a permit.

Then what are you doing in San Francisco? If you love Israel so much, why don't you move there? Are you a hypocrite, or what?

As soon as i finish my post-doc, I'm outta here!

Anti-racist Jews are welcome in San Francisco. Racists of any ethnic group are not.

Racists out now.

That's what the Zionists say. So do the Nazis. It's no coincidence. They're peas in a pod.

Zionists and Nazis believe *exactly* the same thing, i.e., that their own ethnic group should have more rights and power than other ethnic groups. A racist is a racist is a racist. Out with them all.

Quoting the Britannica, "Although Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the late 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient and deep-felt nationalist attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to Palestine, the promised land where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion. This attachment to Zion continued to inspire the Jews throughout the Middle Ages and found its expression in many important parts of their liturgy". ["Zionism," Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition]

Zionism has emerged even earlier than cited in the Britannica. Psalm 137 "Besides the streams of Babylon we sat and wept at the memory of Zion... Jerusalem, if I forget you, may my right hand wither, may I never speak again, if I forget you!" is a twenty-five hundred years old Zionist expression. Nehemiah, who came to Jerusalem about 440 BCE, giving up a high position in the Persian court, was a Zionist and so was Hillel who emigrated from Mesopotamia four hundred years later. So was Judah Halevi, the philosopher poet who wrote "Better a day in the land of God than a thousand on foreign soil, the ruins on the Holy mount than coronation halls..." Halevi immigrated to Israel in 1141. So were hundreds of Jewish Rabbis who immigrated to Israel in 1211, followed by Nahmanides in 1267. And so were hundreds of other Jewish spiritual leaders and scholars and thousands of their followers who came to the Land of Israel over hundreds of years, way before the modern political Zionist movement was even born.

a single, secular, egalitarian society in which it does not matter who your mother was or what name, if any, you use for deity.

No people have the right to rule because of their bloodline.

Israeli activist Susan Nathan who recently visited Ireland was interviewed by the Irish Times July 28. On August 2, the foreign editor of the paper gave permission to post the following article:

The most accurate description of Susan Nathan comes from herself: "What I do is that I live what comes out of my mouth." She is the only Jew among 25,000 Arabs in the northern Israeli town of Tamra and has taken up the cause of the Palestinians who remained inside the borders of Israel after the state was set up in 1948.

Her harshest critics could not say she has chosen a comfortable path. Friends and even some relatives have turned against her, she says, but she is standing by her controversial claim that the Palestinians in Israel are victims of apartheid-style discrimination and mistreatment.

Now she’s written a book to tell her story and make her case, The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish-Arab Divide (HarperCollins). The writing style is direct and simple: she wanted "Joe Bloggs on the street" to be able to read it and say, "I didn’t understand that it was like that". In person, too, Nathan is direct and to the point. As far as she is concerned, the issue itself is a simple one. Her Jewish co-religionists took the land from the Palestinians, who have been severely oppressed and treated as second-class citizens ever since.

She only came to this conclusion in her 50s, having been an ardent Zionist all her life. It took a long time for the penny to drop but there is now no self-doubt or hesitation.

Nathan says that initially she was "brainwashed and in love with the Zionist narrative". Very few non-Jewish people understood the power of Zionist propaganda.

"You are brought up to believe that you are outside of society, that you are forever persecuted, that Israel is your safe haven . . . It is like being part of a cult." The Zionist claim that Israel exists for the salvation of the Jews in case of another Holocaust was "a very cynical misuse of people’s fears and the Holocaust".

She is the daughter of a Harley Street physician. Her father, Samuel Levy, studied in South Africa and then Trinity College Dublin in the late 1920s and early 1930s. "He used to spend Friday night and all Saturday with the family of Chaim Herzog [future president of Israel, whose father was Ireland’s chief rabbi]."

The family came from the Baltic region. Fleeing anti-Semitic pogroms, they made their way to Odessa on the Black Sea. Family lore has it that they wanted to go to Hamburg but the ship was full so they had to sail for South Africa instead. "And that’s how we escaped the Holocaust."

Born in 1949, she grew up in South Africa and England. She got married, reared a family and got divorced when she was 50. Initially she was an avid supporter of the Israeli state. Having worked as a teacher and HIV/Aids therapist, Nathan decided at last to realise her lifelong Zionist dream of emigrating to Israel. "I applied under the Right of Return," she says. Under Israeli law, anyone with a Jewish grandparent can emigrate to Israel and become a citizen.

"It was a wonderful homecoming. I believed the Zionist ideology, I really believed this was ’a land without a people for a people without a land’. Palestinians were not on the map for me in any shape or form." She was offered "a very good job" teaching business English in Tel Aviv. Around the time of her arrival, the latest intifada rebellion erupted at the end of 2000. She saw "the wonderful achievements of our forces" being extolled on Israeli television.

"I really fell for that line," she says. But then she became very ill and had to be hospitalized and this brought her into close regular contact with Palestinians. She began to ask herself, "Where am I in this society, what is my role?" She became involved with a Palestinian-Jewish NGO dealing with deprived communities, and worked on a project in Tamra. "I started to understand the enormous similarities between Arab-Israeli society and black society during the apartheid years in South Africa."

But it’s not as if Israel adopts petty measures such as having separate Arab and Jewish toilets the way South Africa had separate toilets for blacks and whites. "In Israel it’s far more sophisticated than that, because it’s all heavily veiled. It’s very important for Israel to be seen to be democratic, Western, accepted by the US and Europe." But as far as she is concerned: "Israeli society in its current form really equals a half democracy, a democracy for Jews only."

Nathan’s version of Israeli history would not find favour in Zionist circles: "The major form of discrimination comes in the confiscation and appropriation of Arab land. All of the state of Israel is built on Palestinian land. Around 480 to 500 villages were totally destroyed during the battle of Israeli independence in 1948. And this discrimination and dispossession goes on and on and on.

"Israel is the only country in the world where you can be an eternal refugee, where you can be present but absent by law from your property, being deprived of the right of return to your property and your land, even though you own the deeds for that property and that land, and to be without compensation. It is appalling.

"And once I had seen the comparison with South Africa, I decided that I could no longer keep my mouth closed." Nathan decided to go and live among the Arabs in Israel and "help to activate change".

She vigorously rejects any allegation that she is an anti-Semitic or "self-hating" Jew. "One is not called anti-British if one criticizes the policies of the British government." This is "just a rather nasty political ploy".

But she knows there is a price to be paid for the stand she has taken. "Everything in life comes with a price." Taking a phrase from the late Edward Said, she says: "What I do with my life is the politics of embarrassment." Predicting there will be another intifada uprising soon, she adds: "Israel should have been the safest place in the world for Jews to be and actually . . . now, ironically, it has turned out to be the most dangerous." Nathan’s "personal dream" is that Israel will ultimately be a bi-national state."

Her sympathy for the Palestinians is largely unqualified and she sharply rebukes a member of the audience at a Dublin meeting who raises a question about the rights of gays and lesbians in the Palestinian Territories. The question is "incredibly offensive", she says, warning of the "moral superiority of the West".

"As far as I know, you’re not a Muslim, you don’t live in the Muslim world. The Arab world is perfectly capable of dealing with those issues in its own time and in its own way."

Speaking to her afterwards, I said many people would regard gay and lesbian rights as universal human rights, so why couldn’t outsiders raise them? "Because I don’t think people from other cultures should interfere."

As for suicide bombing, she says: "I don’t condone it. I don’t say it’s right. But I think we have to say, ’How does this come about? Why do we have this phenomenon?’" When I put it to her that the Irish were oppressed but didn’t use suicide bombers, she responds: "Yes, but did you have the entire army unleashed on you? Did you have jet-fighters bombing your homes? Did you have your homes demolished while you were in them? Did you have 40 years of brutal occupation and conniving to come to some sort of artificial peace process? Did you have that?"

there is justice in Palestine

"Jew go back to your land, Israel. That's what the Zionists say. So do the Nazis. It's no coincidence. They're peas in a pod."

The difference is that Zionists say,"Jews come back to our own land and be free", and its said with love. Nazis say it with hate. Maybe now you understand.

what if criticizing palestine was not an option?

think about it, think carefully.

It's funny how I keep seeing calls for Israel to be replaced by a secular, democratic state in what is now Israel, West Bank & Gaza. As though there is any Arab secular democratic state now. Do you think it matters what race & religion you are in Saudi Arabia? Go try and be a Jewish or Christian politician there. Why doesn't anyone complain about that?

The muslim Arabs have many states to ensure the survival of their culture, religion, & race. Why can't the Jews have the tiny state of Israel? I'm not Jewish (or Christian either for that matter) and I can see why Israel is necessary for their survival. They certainly can't depend on the benevolence of the Arabs, or the Europeans.

"...I can see why Israel is necessary for their survival. They certainly can't depend on the benevolence of the Arabs, or the Europeans."

You're leaving out a third party: the US and its strategic allies. And yeah, Israel DOES depend on US benevolence. If not for US diplomatic, military, and economic support Israel would be history already

"Why can't the Jews have the tiny state of Israel?"

Why can't Jews have their own country? No reason whatsoever. As for ripping open the center of the Arab sphere and plopping a Jewish state down in the middle of it, this was an extremely unfortunate choice-- except in terms of global empire power games, which are the real reason it happened anyway. This was such a stupid move, however, that Israel and the resentment created by Israel have become the most dangerous forces in world politics today. If the US and its co-empires wanted Jews to have a homeland so bad, why didn't we just give them Long Island? It's just as big, it's much better agricultural land, and shit they own it already.

"I'm not Jewish .. or Christian either [I'm just a] Casual Observer"

This has a real strong bullshit smell. So how come you're putting the Arab countries "failure" to adopt democracy to this calculated demeaning use? You don't think we've seen this Jedi mind trick before?

When I see this country, MY country, quit rigging elections, stop selling itself off to the highest bidder, and start embracing the TRUE SPIRIT of democracy instead of a meaningless mummified parody of same, then maybe I'll start telling the Arabs how to live. No, I take it back, not even then. IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

"Well then Israel isn't your business either snark snark snarky snark..."

Yeah it is. That's what $3,000,000,000.00 a year buys me

There is no rat, I am not religious. It is is quite obvious by this situation and most other conflicts in the world that religion is a very negative influence on the world, but that is a subject for another debate.

The reason for mentioning the lack of Arab democracies is to point out the hypocricy of those constantly calling our for a democratic state comprising all of Israel, West Bank & Gaza-as they know that the Arab population would instantly out vote the Jews and then the Jews would lose their state and be at the mercy of the Arabs. This is hypocritical in that none of these people so worried about democracy for the Palestinians seems to care about having democracy in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc.

As far as giving the Jews Long Island vs Israel, obviously the Jews have lived in the region of present day Israel since pre-Roman times and everyone knows that. And no, I don't think we need to start debating the flows of ethnicities that occured 3000 years ago.

I do not blindly support Israel and all of their actions, the occupation of the West Bank & Gaza was doomed from the start and counter-productive. Nevertheless, they need a state and they have lived there since all of recorded history.

The only thing to debate is what would a legitimate peaceful solution look like? It seems obvious that a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza makes sense, but it is never going to happen unless the PA confronts the militants.

yes, they would lose a jewish-dominated state that denies millions of others the right to determine their own fates. but white people still live in south africa, they just had to learn real quick how to be nicer and how to share a bit more. and jewish people in israel make up a far larger percentage of the population that afrikaners in south africa, so they would have solid representation in any government there, upwards of 50%. they'd lose their right to singlehandedly dominate the area, but they'd gain a newfound safety by sharing power and they'd gain a new comraderie with non-jews in the middle east and peoples of the world

of course, power has rarely been surrendered without violent uprisings, but here's to hope those in control of israel, including their benefactors like the US, can learn to share before they lose all they have fought so hard to hold onto

?yes, they would lose a jewish-dominated state that denies millions of others the right to determine their own fates.?

This basic premise is flawed. Arabs living in the "territories" are not citizents of Israel. They have NO rights in Israel. Most living in the west bank still hold Jordanioan passports...guess what, Jordan denies them rights too!
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza, what have the palestineinas done with their "right to self determination? First order of the day was to kill a few of their own, then the destruction of their own infrastructure, and of cours more missle attacks on Israel...Self determintation to a "palestinian" seems to have quite a different menaing than it does to civilized people
Saying Mustafa al Harb: " When he said self determination, I thought he meant self-destruction.".

Its important to confront Haters like these or they might taint innocents. As we begin to spiritually prepare for the New Year, its good to keep in mind that light will dispell darkenss.

what if criticizing palestine was not an option?

Always ad hominems, never rebuttals.

Yawn.

Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has purchased 5.46 percent of the Fox corporation, according to Gulf Daily News, raising concern that the conservative Fox News may soften its anti-terror stance due to the views of the new shareholder.

Soooooooooooo predictable.

what if criticizing palestine was not an option?

Then we could criticize ALL the Islamo-fascists who market in humanity, oppress women and children, and kill and terrorize the innocent, all in the name of Allah.

Finally, an intellectual articulate argument...not!

there's the one in the trash can, the video of a boot on one, and now this. someone must have been gleeful as they ran around the park photographing the flag in various compromising situations. it seems like a labor of love

and to prove that love, this person for this particular photo had to lift up a pile and set it on the flag (unless they have a dog that can crap on small targets). that's dedication!

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm

Style Over Substance
Definition:

The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is
taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

Examples:

(i) Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on
his forehead.
(ii) Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.
(iii) Why don't you take the advice of that nicely dressed
young man?

Proof:

While it is true that the manner in which an argument is
presented will affect whether people believe that its
conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion
does not depend on the manner in which the argument is
presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being
committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the
truth or falsity of the conclusion.

And because of their extremism the Palestinians will never have a state, except for Jordan of course, which they already have.

<<<<<,Its important to confront Haters
by Proud Jew Monday, Sep. 26, 2005 at 9:08 AM

Its important to confront Haters like these or they might taint innocents. As we begin to spiritually prepare for the New Year, its good to keep in mind that light will dispell darkenss.>>>>>

spiritually prepare!!! HAHAHAH Confront Haters!!! HAHAHAHA.

"dispell darkness" HAHAHAHHAHAHA HEEHEEHEEE!!


Israelis will never foregive the Palestinians for what the Israelis have done to them!!!!!

Haters!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

Israel and Martin Luther King!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"Following the invasion of Lebanon, and with gathering intensity since the first intifada of the late 1980s, the public impression of Israel has steadily darkened. Today it presents a ghastly image: a place where sneering 18-year-olds with M16 carbines taunt helpless old men ("security measures" HAHAHAH); where bulldozers regularly flatten whole apartment blocks ("collective punishment"); where helicopters fire rockets into residential streets ("targeted assassinations"); where subsidized settlers frolic in grass-fringed swimming pools, oblivious of Arab children a few meters away who fester and rot in the worst slums on the planet; and where retired generals and cabinet ministers speak openly of bottling up the Palestinians "like drugged roaches in a bottle" (Rafael Eytan) and cleansing the land of its "Arab cancer."

Haters!!!! HAHAHHAHAHAH. Peace-maker: The BUTCHER of Sabra and Shatila!!! HAHAHAHAH!!!

Give him the Nobel Peace Prize!!! HAHAHAHAH!!!!

KEEP SLINGING IT PROUD JEW!!!

hahahahahaha............YOU FINALLY GOT ME ROLLING ON THE FLOOR!!!!

COMEDY, PROUD JEW, COMEDY!!!!

yes, now the palestinians being denied equal rights in israel can be blamed on this flag desecrator in the US. now we have a new scapegoat

of course, zero responsibility resides with israelis themselves for denying palestinians equal rights for over half a century

it finally found a home!!!

HAHAHAHA

Not the extremism of flag desecration, the extremism of:

launching rockets against Israel within two weeks of Isael leaving Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas "work accident". Which other Palestinians agree was Hamas' fault.

blowing up women and children on buses, in pizza parlors, at discos, etc.

Refusing a peace offer that Rabin made (and eventually gave his life for) which gave them Gaza, virtually all of hte West bank, and allowed a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem.

Not unitiing and speaking with one voice. Wat's the point of Israel dealing with the elected Palestinian representative if Hamas or Islamic Jihad won't listen to their own leaders? Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with?

How can Israel negotiate with Hamas, who to this day calls for the destruction of Israel?

There's more, but you get the point. If it wasn't for their poor choice of terrorism as a tactic they probably could have had a state twenty years ago.

if they could just put together and army with the support of the US and other western nations and simply take over a plot of land through military force, they'd have a country by now. it worked quite well for israel

short of that, it's up to the israelis to back off and either bring them into israel as citizens or let them have their own state

after 50 years, we know better than to hold our breaths that israel will do the right thing on its own. all you will see from israelis and their apologists is long list of why the palestinians don't deserve to be granted statehood by their israeli masters

"f they could just put together and army with the support of the US and other western nations and simply take over a plot of land through military force,"

The idiots were just given a plot of land....immediately they destroyed their own infrastructure and started attackeing israel...hey, maybe they are retarded...
(Here's a novel idea...instead of an army why not build an economy...there's plenty of money out ther waiting for them, if they would kinda grow up a little bit ...PaliBabies)

"Following Arafat’s rejection of statehood and the launching of a pre-planned “Intifada”, the Palestinians, and suicide bombers attacking civilian targets, followed by missile strikes, the public impression of the Palestinians has steadily darkened. Today it presents a ghastly image: a place where arrogant 16-year-olds make videos of themselves proclaiming “martyrdom”with M16 carbines and suicide bomb belts taunt helpless civilians while kassams regularly flatten civilian areas; where Palestinians fire rockets and mortars into residential streets,n where Palestinians leaders subsidized by the EU, URWA etc. frolic in their villas, oblivious of Arab children a few meters away who fester and rot in the worst slums on the planet; and where Palestinians speak openly, in Arabic, cleansing the land of Jews and creating an Islamic State “from the river to the sea.”

"instead of an army why not build an economy"

tell that to the zionists

where would israel be without their army?

for that matter, where would their economy be without the hundreds of billions in US charity since its founding?

israelis really do want palestinians to be in bondage for all time, or else why would zionists like the one above urge palestinians to follow advice the israelis NEVER did?

Nazi troll gets really stupid now. Of course Israel built an economy and an army, both under British occupation by the way. And what have the Palestinians built? Greenhouses?

why won't israel let the palestinians build an army or have free flow of commerce to build an economy?

yeah, I know, it's the palestinians fault

you think the israelis are so magical in their productivity but they have been GIVEN inordinate amounts of resources and were given the freedom to do what is requisite to build a nation and take it by military force. not so mysteriously, the israelis deny the same to the palestinians

-

* * * * * REPOSTED DUE TO THE USUAL DELETION OF THE MOST INCISIVE AND EFFECTIVE POSTS AGAINST ZIONIST RACISM AND APARTHEID ISRAEL * * * * *

-

Thanks *MUCH* to whomever published the Susan Nathan article in a comment post above (Friday, Sep. 09, 2005 at 9:03 PM).


As for the idea that Arafat was ever given such a generous offer by Israel, which he supposedly slapped down in favor of Palestinian "terrorism" (as opposed to Israeli state terrorism), both former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and one of President Clinton's chief Mideast negotiators, Robert Malley, have debunked that piece of Zionist mythology on TV or in publication -- even if the Zionist mythology gets constantly retreaded (like most Zionist mythology, even here at Indybay).


The Zionists created a state that *IS* and *WOULD BE* the most dangerous place in the world for Jews. Yeah, put millions of Jews in ONE place! Now that's a 'great idea' if another Hitler came about (who would now have bought/developed long-range cruise or ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons). ZIONISTS ARE ARROGANT IDIOTS in the long term. ZIONISTS HAVE CREATED AN ULTIMATELY NON-SUSTAINABLE RACIST IDEOLOGY.

Of course we all know what would really happen: If a Middle Eastern country (like Iran) finally gets nuclear weapons and accurate long-range missiles, and war tensions grew really high, you would see every Jew in Israel who could rub enough shekels together get themselves and their family on the first plane, the hell *OUT* of their "Promised Land of Milk & Honey!" And the rest would even get on inner tubes to get out. WHAT JEW WOULD THEN RUN *TO* ISRAEL!?

Israel is the *DUMMEST* and most *IMMORAL* act of racial -- and RACIST -- aggression since Hitler invaded Poland. Zionism will just take longer to fall than its racially parallel militarist ideology (that of a belligerantly superior "chosen people") Nazism did. But Zionism will sooner reap similar opprobrium, as it steadily has already all around the world. Israelis can decide whether thousands more Jews will die in the process of Zionism's fall -- or take the South African approach and finally abolish Israeli Nazism/apartheid.

One of British Prime Minister Atlee's foreign ministers warned Atlee, "Clem, we've got it morally all wrong. If we go along with this [Zionism], we'll have problems for the next 50 years." That was obviously an underestimate. As they say, DO THE MATH.

And the Zionism/Israel has a toxic and distorting effect on nearly everything in our country: our government, our foreign policy, our foreign aid, our media, our academia, the integrity of our political debates, even the left in general to a certain extent, and sometimes even Indymedia (different IMC's to different extents, either from lack of education, political consciousness or elsewise infiltration, as with Madison, ironically, or Urbana-Champaign IMC's).

But, *NONE* of the Zionist excuses (e.g., "a Mufti in Jerusalem supported Hitler," "the Palestinians wouldn't take our 'take-it-or-leave-it' offer at the point of a gun in 1948 for their own partitioned state, " etc.) and other blaming the victim ruses (a tactic before 'popularized' by Hitler and Geobbels) morally absolves Zionist Jews of the fact that (as I say as an African American who also come from a people who have suffered for centuries at the hands of European Christians), *NO AMOUNT OF SUFFERING* morally entitles one people to dispossess, take, or be given the land of a third party people thousands of miles away on a far away continent and drive off or massacre at least three-quarters of a million of them, demolish literally HUNDREDS of their towns and cities, and oppress the rest with Israel's own version of Nuremburg racial (and now anti-miscegenation) laws, mostly in defacto, again ironically, concentration camps and ghettos (now too with walls that make the Warsaw ghetto wall look like a picket fence by comparison).

But, I don't expect most Zionist to take moral reconsideration anymore than one could expect most Nazis to have taken moral reconsideration: evil -- especially self-superior racist evil -- seldom does on its own. And evil wants what it wants -- REGARDLESS of intellectual or moral considerations. We anti-racists just have to expose the historical and racial double standards and reveal Zionism and Zionists for what they are to everyone else. In that, the most important thing is to point out to most Americans/Westerners who were propagandistically conditioned to believe that Palestine was (according to the still insufficiently known but infamous Zionist lie and perhaps modern history's biggest racist hoax) "a land without a people", was that indeed -- like anyplace else Europeans, toting the Bilbe and the gun, and saying they were oppressed, went to colonize -- there were *MILLIONS* of people living there.

-

"Israel is the *DUMMEST* and most *IMMORAL* act of racial -- and RACIST -- aggression since Hitler invaded Poland."

And you people wonder why your "anti-Zionist" movement has such little political support in the US?

The battle is not taking place only in America. It is taking place across the globe. Globally, Zionists are losing by an overwhelming majority. Billions reject Zionism, as well they should.

The Palestinians have lost credibility with the world, despite their well funded publicity drive, and moreso since the Gaza withdrawl. Buy a recent newpaper!

Schtarker must be reading only the Israeli and American press.

Of course I also read Al Jazeera and Electronic Intifada, but just for laughs.

<<<<<I'll respond
by Tia Monday, Sep. 26, 2005 at 10:33 AM

what if criticizing palestine was not an option?

Then we could criticize ALL the Islamo-fascists who market in humanity, oppress women and children, and kill and terrorize the innocent, all in the name of Allah.>>>>>

tia, dear, be *very* careful what you say.

Just log the threat

<<<<Schtarker must be reading only the Israeli and American press.>>>>

clearly, schtarker DOES read the american press.

if schtarker had been actually READING the israeli press, he WOULD NOT be saying this.

Yo Nazi troll, try reading sometime. You might learn something.

by the way, I WAS the one who posted the susan nathan article. naturally, it wasn't the big hit i thought it would be. some people on this thread obviously thought it would be to THEIR advantage to ignore it.

You should stop by more often, JA. It gets pretty dreary around here at IndyBay **where a certain ideological straight jacket is THE editor's choice.**

Crisis for American Jews
by Edward Said -

exerpt from Al-Ahram, May 22, 2002 (Cairo)
and Al-Hayat, May 19, 2002 (London)





A few weeks ago, a vociferous pro-Israel demonstration was held in Washington at roughly the same moment that the siege of Jenin was taking place.

All of the speakers were prominent public figures, including several senators, leaders of major Jewish organisations, and other celebrities, each of whom expressed unfailing solidarity with everything Israel was doing.

The administration was represented by Paul Wolfowitz, number two at the Department of Defence, an extreme right-wing hawk who has been speaking about "ending" countries like Iraq ever since last September. Also known as a rigorous hard- line supporter of Israel, in his speech he did what everyone else did -- celebrated Israel and expressed total unconditional support for it -- but unexpectedly referred in passing to "the sufferings of the Palestinians." Because of that phrase, he was booed so loudly and so long that he was unable to continue his speech, leaving the platform in a kind of disgrace.

The moral of this incident is that public American Jewish support for Israel today simply does not tolerate any allowance for the existence of an actual Palestinian people, except in the context of terrorism, violence, evil and fanaticism. Moreover, this refusal to see, much less hear anything about, the existence of "another side" far exceeds the fanaticism of anti-Arab sentiment among Israelis, who are of course on the front line of the struggle in Palestine. To judge by the recent antiwar demonstration of 60,000 people in Tel Aviv, the increasing number of military reservists who refuse service in the occupied territories, the sustained protest of (admitted only a few) intellectuals and groups, and some of the polls that show a majority of Israelis willing to withdraw in return for peace with the Palestinians, there is at least a dynamic of political activity among Israeli Jews. But not so in the United States.

yo JA, the vast majorityof American Jews support a two state solution. You would know that, that is, if you actually spoke to Jews.

Jews SHOULD be "gassed to death in ovens" for the enormity of their crimes in Palestine and everywhere else. Hopefully, people reading your writings on this site and elsewhere will be inspired to rise up and destroy this hideous race of subhuman sewer vermin whether by blowing up synagogues, attacking Jews on the street or by dropping bombs on their homes and "cultural centers". As pro-justice anti-imperialist activists, our cry must be:

SAVE HUMANITY! KILL ALL JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<<<<<<<<SchtarkerYid
by another anti-zionist lie Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2005 at 5:20 PM

yo JA, the vast majorityof American Jews support a two state solution. You would know that, that is, if you actually spoke to Jews.>>>>>>>>

of course they would yiddo! now that the palestinians are locked in 220 non-contiguous bantustans and soaking in toxic waste. wouldn't THAT be the perfect solution for your caste system!

better yet, at america racist-nation central, i suppose the consensus here would be the same with people of color - why don't we "transfer" (zionist terminology) all of them to north and south dakota - that's a two-state solution too.

thanks, yid, showin yer *true* colors as usual. frankly, yiddy boy, you didn't have to say it, WE ALREADY KNEW IT.

"of course they would yiddo! now that the palestinians are locked in 220 non-contiguous bantustans and soaking in toxic waste. wouldn't THAT be the perfect solution for your caste system!"

Doesn't seem to bother the Alaskans or Hawaiians that they aren't joined to the hip of the lower 48. And they are separated by thousands of miles, not tens.

Reports of AIPAC intimidating Democrats


I received the following from Rep. McKinney of Georgia:


September 24, 2005 -- Anti-war protest in Washington, DC today. Very
few Democratic members of Congress to appear. Reason: The American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), according to Democratic
insiders on Capitol Hill, put out the word that any member of Congress
who appeared at the protest, where some speakers were to represent
pro-Palestinian views, would face the political wrath of AIPAC.

According to Democratic sources on the Hill, Rep. Barney Frank of
Massachusetts was the chief conveyor of the AIPAC warning to his
colleagues. At the time of this report, three members of Congress were
to address the anti-war protestors: Reps. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA),
John Conyers (D-MI), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The word is that AIPAC
will direct its massive campaign support to Woolsey's neo-con and
pro-Iraq war primary challenger, California State Assemblyman Joe
Nation, who has strong connections to the Rand Corporation, one of
the Pentagon's chief war-making think tanks. Woolsey represents
California's Marin and Sonoma counties.

For those who have not seen Rep. McKinney's speech at the rally here
it is:

Cynthia McKinney
ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice Anti-war Rally
Washington, DC
September 24, 2005

If we didn't know it before, we certainly know it now.

A cruel wind blows across America. Starting in Texas and Montana, and
sweeping across America's heartland, it's settled here in Washington,
DC. And despite our presence today, it continues to buffet and batter
the American people.

This cruel wind blew disenfranchisement into Florida and Ohio.

It blew hardheartedness into the Capitol.

Division across our land. And wretchedness in high places.

The American people have been forced to endure fraud in the elections
of 2000 and 2004, criminal neglect on September 11th, a war started on
deliberately-faked evidence, the outing of a CIA agent to cover up the
truth, and now criminal incompetence in providing our security.

When hurricane survivors had lost everything, and it was there for
all America to see, sybaritic men, wrapped in self-righteousness,
worked to save their jobs instead of the people.

As dead bodies lay strewn about the New Orleans Superdome, military
recruiters blew into Houston's Astrodome to reap the harvest.

This ill wind that engulfs our country is also global in its impact.
It dipped into the Caribbean hitting Haiti and Cuba; it reached into
Latin America to slap Venezuela; it swept death, greed, and
destruction across Africa into Eastern Congo; and it breathes
occupation onto the peoples of Iraq and Palestine.

But just as sure as an ill wind now blows, it doesn't always have to
be so.

The people, united, can stop wars.

We can stop injustice; and we can stop indifference. The people,
united, can tear down the mightiest walls of oppression.

These ill winds have brought us high crimes and more than
misdemeanors. But they've also brought us together: one answer,
united for peace and for justice.

Let's stay together. Because we have to get rid of these ill winds
and breathe fresh breath into a new jet stream of life.

We can do it, ya'll, because they can't fool us anymore.

Haven't seen the video yet of the burning/desecration of the Israeli flags. I did see one of the "peace" protesters struggle a small Israeli flag away from an elderly Russian man, then run back into the crowd.

Thing is, the KPFA reporter I was talking to at the time saw it too.

Then there was the "peace" activists who ripped down Israeli flags from the fence at the edge of the park. The cripled man who saw was able to stop one of the thefts, but not the other.

A nearby man playing softball was able to tackle another thief of the flags and return them to the SF Voice for Israel people.

Now the whole world knows what type of people the anti-Israel activists are.

Now the whole world knows what type of people the anti-Nazi activists are.


(Reference: Those Desecrated Flags
by KPFA saw Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2005 at 1:56 AM

" ... there was the "peace" activists who ripped down Israeli flags from the fence at the edge of the park.")

"...JA and narcissie are losing the battle and they know it. If anything, American popular support for Israel is growing, not shrinking."

Uh-huh, well America is only 5% of the world's people. It's also the national home of another murderous "manifest destiny" cult, so there's a natural affinity. However, out there in the wide world beyond this vacuum bottle of disinformation and navel-gazing complacence, disenchantment with Israel is soaring. This is one of the many reasons why zionists hate the United Nations. UN General Ass'y votes put this disenchantment on bald display almost every time the Israel issue is raised. There's only a handful of tiny countries, utterly dependent on US support (e.g. the Marshall Islands), that reliably vote in Israel's favor. The US has almost every country on earth by the balls in some way, and just LLLuuvs to whip out its garlic press, but even this isn't enough to stop 95% of the GA from voting against Israel EVERY TIME. That's how incredibly unpopular Israel is. If it weren't for the global imperial hegemony of its main sponsor, Israel would be fucked. It would already be gone.

Like so many other aspects of the American Way™, the disinformation hex that's been cast over Americans can not last. I expect this utterly corrupt government to buy more time by expanding the fascist formula indefinitely, but this is a self-destruct course, a desperate straining against entropy. The more extreme it gets, the more our isolation will deepen, the more other countries (e.g. the BRICK alliance) will get their own thing going, until finally the national economy takes a long thundering shit, and then people here are going to be jolting awake big time.

Israel is the canary in the coal mine, and it's been looking real peaked. That's why the zionist PR dynamo is spinning wildly, about to blow its bearings, and it's STILL not managing to keep everyone hypnotized. If a certain shrill desparation can be heard in the voices of the zionist bark-down squad around here, this is why.

Haven't seen the video yet of the burning/desecration of the Israeli flags. I did see one of the "peace" protesters struggle a small Israeli flag away from an elderly Russian man, then run back into the crowd.

Thing is, the KPFA reporter I was talking to at the time saw it too.

Then there was the "peace" activists who ripped down Israeli flags from the fence at the edge of the park. The cripled man who saw was able to stop one of the thefts, but not the other.

A nearby man playing softball was able to tackle another thief of the flags and return them to the SF Voice for Israel people.

Now the whole world knows what type of people the anti-Israel activists are.


And there was a middle age woman who pinned a punk against the fence with her flag pole- the kid was hanging there by his fingertips after trying to steal an unattended flag. She could have beaten him. Instead she said - Im not going to hurt another human being over a piece of cloth, and she walked away. I

Now the whole world knows what type of people the Palestinian activists are.

"
Now the whole world knows what type of people the Palestinian activists are"

They're modern "Brownshirts"

We don't like people carrying Nazi flags in our city, either.

Friday Saturday and Sunday are the ISM training days. If you are "enrolled"- document everything. Make sure your recording devices have fresh batteries. We must let the world know what is going on in the name of "justice". Be brave. Be strong. Take copious notes.

Moor bunk logic.

See:

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm


It is interesting that it was this, and not the other of this morning's "typos" that they seized on. Which bait they take reveals much about people. In this case it reveals that Zionists don't give a flying rat's *ss about anyone's issues but their own.

Is that a clue?

Anyone interested in an entertaining, fact-based history and discussion of today's frauds and hucksters of 'zionism' should watch the following seven segments of Professor Norman Finkelstein's speech. Norman gave this presentation in Vancouver.

http://workingtv.com/finkelstein.html

Here you will find everything that zionists don't want you to know. an especially scathing review of Alan Dershowitz's "Case for Israel." By the way, Professor Michael Newman has also written "The Case Against Israel" - coming out very soon. You can sign up for copies at the Counterpunch.org website.

Finally, Finkelstein and ilan pappe will be giving presentations in the bay area very soon - go to the following web address:


http://www.mecaforpeace.org/

Give charity itself.

Share your time, share your energy, share your passion.
Repair the world, a little at a time, with no overhead.

Now the whole world knows what type of people the anti-Nazi activists are.


(Reference: Those Desecrated Flags
by KPFA saw Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2005 at 1:56 AM

" ... there was the "peace" activists who ripped down Israeli flags from the fence at the edge of the park.")

(Reference: Those Desecrated Flags
by KPFA saw Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2005 at 1:56 AM

" ... there was the "peace" activists who ripped down Israeli flags from the fence at the edge of the park.")

So we now know that the "progressives" are willing to steal and to lie.

But we knew that all along.

* * * * * REPOSTED DUE TO THE USUAL DELETION OF THE MOST INCISIVE AND EFFECTIVE POSTS AGAINST ZIONIST RACISM AND APARTHEID ISRAEL * * * * *

To one anonyMOUSE and one LOUDmouth.
by JA Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2005 at 6:28 PM


[ Why the JA's of the USA have so little political support
by not JA Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2005 at 11:26 AM

"Israel is the *DUMMEST* and most *IMMORAL* act of racial -- and RACIST -- aggression since Hitler invaded Poland."

And you people wonder why your "anti-Zionist" movement has such little political support in the US? ]

And ...

[ check it yourself
by gehrig Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2005 at 11:35 AM

The thing is, for all their noise, folks like JA and narcissie are losing the battle and they know it. If anything, American popular support for Israel is growing, not shrinking.

But don't take my word for it -- just as the American people.

http://www.pollingreport.com/israel ]


I'm not interested in Zionist-controlled establishment polls gerhig -- and that includes any establishment poll conducted in the U.S.. If it said any different from what you claimed, gerhig, it wouldn't have been released, and the person(s) who conducted it would have been fired -- or the polling organization who conducted it would have been smeared as anti-Semitic and put out of business. I bet that Goebbels had polls that showed that popular support was then growing too for Jews being isolated from German society. All explicitly or implicitly racist propaganda polls show what the constructors *want* them to show.

But, let's look at what's happening on the ground. Actually, support for ant-Zionism and the awareness of it as a racist ideology has grown in the U.S. -- as well as around the world. All one has to do is to look at the steadily increasing acceptance and presence of Palestinians in anti-war, anti-imperialism marches and movement, as well as how many more people with status (and whose livelihoods can't be threatened) are speaking up for them (like Cindy Sheehan). I didn't see anyone else standing in support with the apartheid 'Zionist Afrikaner Jews' counterprotesting at the anti-war march in S.F. on Saturday: it was 50,000 to 100,000 of us -- and about 40 Zionist Jews counterprotesting. All the other Jews were in the march! -- some carrying Palestinian flags (or with the Palestinians) among many of the rest of us!

Also, all one has to do is to look at the publication of the recent European poll that *Israel* tried to get *censored* (google it -- I don't have time to look up the specific date and question right now) where Israel was regarded as a central threat to world peace (probably right behind the U.S.). There's your "Light unto the Nations"! Gee, what is Israel *afraid* of??? Maybe the same thing gerhig and anonyMOUSE are afraid of. (If anonyMOUSE is right -- a *Zionist* in America/Israel of ALL people -- then why is he hiding like the gutless coward that he is!???) If anonyMOUSE and gerhig are right, then why are Zionists always runnin' around acting like -- and sometimes screaming that -- another Jewish Holocaust is "right around the corner" -- even in the Bay Area!!? Hahaha!!!

*I'M* the one who ought to be hiding, anonymously, given the Zionists and their various lobbies' track record of *SLURRING*, *DEMOGOGUING* and **TERRORIZING** (the only TERRORISTS allowed to freely roam and operate in the U.S.) against anti-racist anti-Zionist activists in this country! If you Zionists are so right about the polls you refer to, then why are most of you *HIDIN'* out anonyMOUSEly here??? The Zionists are the biggest fuckin' guttersnipe *COWARDS* on indymedia.


[ "losing the battle"
by nationalist distortion Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2005 at 11:38 AM

The battle is not taking place only in America. It is taking place across the globe. Globally, Zionists are losing by an overwhelming majority. Billions reject Zionism, as well they should. ]

Excellent point!


[ "kudos JA
by excellent - you have a way with words Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2005 at 3:48 PM"

Thanks for the props.


"by the way, I WAS the one who posted the susan nathan article. naturally,"

And props to you! I saved it to my computer!

And thanks for the other excellent article too! Not even an arch-hawk like Paul Wolfowitz gets off! That just shows how *RRRRABID* those Zionists are. Like the Zionist counterprotesters at the anti-war march. But one rabid Zionist brought his kid along -- and I'm glad that he did. His kid will have something to think about for quite a few years as he continues to grow up: Did ALLLL of us people on the march, and those of us explicitly saying that Zionism was racism, really want Jews to be put into gas chambers, or what did we mean about full equality for *everyone*, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion? Let the little kid process *that* as he grows.


"it wasn't the big hit i thought it would be. some people on this thread obviously thought it would be to THEIR advantage to ignore it."

GEE, I *WONDER* WHY...?

"You should stop by more often, JA. It gets pretty dreary around here at IndyBay **where a certain ideological straight jacket is THE editor's choice.**" ]

Yeah, actually an ANTI-ZIONIST *JEWISH* friend of mine alerted me to this thread and wanted me to throw down a little (I guess he figures that I have a certain way with words too). I've been mostly in Europe for almost two months. I posted once in a while from there. And you know what? -- and I *especially* want the *Zionists* to hear this: Not only do I *OPENLY* -- and even on the radio -- SUPPORT *ARMED RESISTANCE* to both American imperialism in Iraq and racist Zionism in Israel, I *STILL* get on planes and fly to Washington, New York, and London -- and *back* into the country!! I didn't even get pulled aside -- not *once* -- for a wand search; I didn't even have to take my shoes or belt off, anywhere! Ha-Ha-Ha you Zionists!! I didn't even smile or look pleasant at security or customs in the UK or US! -- and I never say thank you to any of them. I usually speak in short sentences in a quiet low terse voice and look as bored with the whole process as I can. Of course, I take fearless advantage of my American-born citizenship, so the Zionists just can't have me deported.

The only time I smiled readily was when I flew from Amsterdam to London -- on KLM, first class, with a cute, slender, tall, blonde off-duty Dutch stewardess named Bianca (those who fly that route regularl will know that I'm telling the truth) who moved to the seat right next to me as we flew along the Thames from the English coast to London to Heathrow on a beautiful, crystal clear sunny day, where one could see central London right below to even way past Wembley stadium to the north.

(By the way, one can park in a parking *LOT* right across the drive from the *main airport terminal* in Budapest -- so it shows that Bush is lying when he says that terrorists are targeting all the free world: it shows that it's really an oppressive, racist, militarist and/or imperialist American, British, etc, *foreign policy* that "terrorists" are targeting. Anytime I see people being patted down and having to remove their shoes in an airport, I just think to myself that it shouldn't say, "SECURITY: Passengers only beyond this point". It should say: "JUDEO-CHRISTIAN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AT WORK: Remove your belt and shoes. You may be required to extend your arms and spread your legs while we feel you up in front of everyone". And some of those public pat-down searches of women can get pretty intimate.)

"Finally, Finkelstein and ilan pappe will be giving presentations in the bay area very soon "


Ah- Norman Finklestein:

Peter Novick of the University of Chicago—made the following statement about Finkelstein’s scholarship:

"As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein . . . the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) “debate” but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. . . . No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.

Professor Novick called Finkelstein’s book “trash” and called it a “twenty-first century updating of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’”

Of course, thats why the white supremists and fascists on IndyBay like it so much


And MECA- dear Barbra Lubin and MECA- I'm going to post this again because its important- and the fact that it keeps getting deleted shows me that I've hit a nerve.

35 cents of every dollar you donate to MECA goes to salaries and administrative costs, earning it the lowest rating of all charities. Check out http://www.charitynavigator.org- check out their financials at the sec. of state website- if you want to work towards peace in the middle east and not towards remodeling Barbra Lupins house, there are better ways to give.

-

* * * * * REPOSTED DUE TO THE USUAL DELETION OF THE MOST INCISIVE AND EFFECTIVE POSTS AGAINST ZIONIST RACISM AND APARTHEID ISRAEL * * * * *

-

ANOTHER PATHETIC ZIONIST DODGE -- OR RATHER, ATTEMPTS AT:
by JA Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2005 at 3:28 PM


ZIONIST IDIOT: [greetings from the non-contiguous bantustans
by of Alaska and Hawaii Tuesday, Sep. 27, 2005 at 10:54 PM

"of course they would yiddo! now that the palestinians are locked in 220 non-contiguous bantustans and soaking in toxic waste. wouldn't THAT be the perfect solution for your caste system!"

Doesn't seem to bother the Alaskans or Hawaiians that they aren't joined to the hip of the lower 48. And they are separated by thousands of miles, not tens.]


INTELLIGENT RESPONSE:

Alaska and Hawai'i are not bantustan states -- neither in whole nor in part. Bantustans were numerous non-contiguous subordinate enclaves created and imposed by a foreign settler-colonial state with a racist national ideology under an apartheid system for the purpose of containing, controlling and subjugating the indigenous ethnic population. Exit from (and often entrance to) the bantustans was controlled by a system of passes and pass laws, as well as travel on roads outside of and between them. The air over, the land (resources) under, and the borders around -- as well as the general economy of -- the bantustans were all controlled by the ideologically racist foreign settler-colonial state. And the indigenous population was legally discriminated against, especially in government, economic activity, employment, housing, the courts, contracts, academics, travel, natural resource utilization and land ownership. This is what Israel's Occupied Territories look like. This is what Israel's proposed map of "a Palestinian state" looks like. (Of course, all of Palestine is actually foreign-occupied territory: merely consolidated and unconsolidated.)

Alaska was non-contiguous territory purchased by the U.S. from a foreign country. Hawai'i was a foreign land (a chain of islands) racistly settler-colonized by force, annexed to, and incorporated into the U.S.. The indigenous population was conquered, their society was largely dis-integrated, and they were brutally subordinated.

ASK THE NATIVE HAWAI'IANS IF THEY DON'T MIND HAVING BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE U.S., AND TURNED INTO A MINORITY IN THEIR OWN LAND -- OF COURSE ZIONIST RACISTS *WOULDN'T* THINK ABOUT THAT!

Furthermore, the indigenous population was historically forced to work as (literally or virtually) slaves on the Masters' plantation or relegated to menial employment for decades.

However, in contemporary times, in both Alaska and Hawai'i there are no state-imposed enclaves -- no state-imposed bantustans -- of subordinated ethnic groups; ALASKA AND HAWAI'I (neither in whole nor in part) ARE NOT DUMPING GROUNDS, CAMPS, OR REPOSITORIES FOR UNWANTED AND OPPRESSED ETHNIC GROUPS; there is no *legal* discrimination against native Hawai'ians, non-Euro-Americans, and non-Christians; there is no system of pass laws imposed on native Hawai'ians, or non-Euro-Americans, or non-Christians, who can all travel freely throughout the islands as they wish; and legally anyone can purchase property anywhere they can afford it.

Constitutionally, Alaska and Hawai'i are fully democratic states -- for *everyone* -- with no state-supported *legalized* discrimination based against one's race, ethnicity or religion. There is NO such *legalized* discrimination in government, economic activity, employment, housing, the courts, contracts, academics, travel (including within and across all borders), natural resource utilization and land ownership throughout Alaska and Hawai'i. Furthermore, the states of Alaska and Hawai'i reap the full *unfettered* economic benefit of federal dollars from the nation's capital, while also largely controlling the economic benefits of their own natural resources, business activity and borders. Maybe that's why residents of Alaska and Hawai'i don't seem to be "bothered" (let alone rising up in arms) about not being "joined to the hip of the lower 48". Give them stunted, economically and geographically stifled, bantustan states that look like the Israeli-proposed "Palestinian state" -- and *then* watch all hell break loose!

Native Hawai'ians can fly the Native Hawai'ian flag, if they wish; any native Hawai'ian politicians can argue for the full and absolute equal rights of the indigenous, or judicial and economic redress, or reparations in the legislature; and any Native Hawai'ian politicians can even argue for Native Hawai'ian sovereignty (in recent times a very popular movement among Native Hawai'ians) in the legislature. Succinctly put, Alaska and Hawai'i are not apartheid states.

The San Francisco Chronicle once published a multi-color-coded map of the Israeli-proposed "Palestinian state" in a special section on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Chronicle didn't even comment on the map: it just *showed* it. The local Zionists (and their organizations) bombarded the paper with angry calls and emails! Why? Because that map showed what no arguments and counter-arguments had to dispute: that the Israeli idea of "a Palestinian state" was *SO* manifestly unfair and unviable that *EVERYONE* could see it for themselves!

==============================================================


NOT SO BY THE WAY! -- *VERY* NICE PIECE OF WRITING WORK AND EXPLICATION! -- AND MUCH PROPS TO YOU ON THAT (I hope you're writing formally too, if not at *least* semi-professionally)!:

Check your own self, 'wig
by mirror Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2005 at 4:50 AM.


AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, ZIONISTS AREN'T DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE *BRAINS* -- LIKE ANY SOCIOPATHS THEY'RE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE GUNS!!

TO: JA
You are an idiot. We keep deleting your posts. Get a hint.

LOVE:
THE EDITORS

(Reference: Nuremburg press release, 1933: Leftist German Jews tear down Nazi flags!
by I saw it! Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 8:16 AM

Now the whole world knows what type of people those anti-Nazi activists are.)

" ... there were the Jewish "peace" activists who ripped down Nazi flags from the fence at the edge of the stadium.")

So we now know that the Jews are willing to steal and to lie.

But we knew that all along.

"Finally, Finkelstein and ilan pappe will be giving presentations in the bay area very soon "


Ah- Norman Finklestein:

Peter Novick of the University of Chicago—made the following statement about Finkelstein’s scholarship:

"As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein . . . the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) “debate” but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. . . . No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.

Professor Novick called Finkelstein’s book “trash” and called it a “twenty-first century updating of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’”

Of course, thats why the white supremists and fascists on IndyBay like it so much


And MECA- dear Barbra Lubin and MECA- I'm going to post this again because its important- and the fact that it keeps getting deleted shows me that I've hit a nerve.

35 cents of every dollar you donate to MECA goes to salaries and administrative costs, earning it the lowest rating of all charities. Check out http://www.charitynavigator.org- check out their financials at the sec. of state website- if you want to work towards peace in the middle east and not towards remodeling Barbra Lupins house, there are better ways to give.

To JA
by From : The editors Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 9:07 AM

TO: JA
You are an idiot. We keep deleting your posts. Get a hint.

LOVE:
THE EDITORS

Under the current state of affairs, APARTHEID ISRAELI ZIO-NAZI FLAGS *SHOULD* BE TORN DOWN, STOMPED ON, SPIT ON (IF NOT WORSE), AND BURNED -- just like the proto-Nazi flags should be torn down, stomped on, spit on, and burned -- and just like the apartheid South African flag should have been, and just like the Confederate flag should be. Anti-racists shouldn't leave *ANY* of them up, at least not unsullied.

Did Nazi troll hire you as a substitute racist while he is on vacation?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Are you also a white supremist/facist? Just wondering....inquiring minds, all that.

"Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. . . . No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."

funny..., none of you 'brave' zionists ever show up to challenge him, let alone with 'the facts'.

Is that a challenge?

Or should we just take the high road articulated by Dershowitz?

"I will not debate Finkelstein. I have a longstanding policy against debating Holocaust deniers, revisionists, trivializers or minimizers. Nor is a serious debate about Israel possible with someone who acknowledges that he knows “very little” about that country. "

So is JA a substitue Nazi troll? Are there any other Progressives embarassed by the antics of the pseudo-"anti-zionists"?

One of the biggest lies on the Left these days is that there is a difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism means advocating the genocide of Jews. Anti-Zionism means advocating the genocide of Jews who live in Israel. I'm puzzled. What's the difference supposed to be?

[should we just take the high road articulated by Dershowitz?

"I will not debate Finkelstein. I have a longstanding policy against debating Holocaust deniers, revisionists, trivializers or minimizers."]

(i.e., any knowledgeable critic of zionism.) how CONVEEENNNIENT!

He just won't debate frauds and charlatans- he'll debate the seriously misinformed and misguided- like Chomsky.

(i.e., any knowledgeable critic of zionism.) how CONVEEENNNIENT!

Finkelstein is a fraud. He's not knowledgable, not a respected academic and seems to be Chomsky's toady. That makes him a perfect speaker for the MECA crowd.

Finklestein on Chomsky worship:

“I’m a person of the left, and when you get a call from Professor Chomsky asking you to ‘find’ that a pro-Israeli book you haven’t even read was a ‘fraud’, his wish is your command.” (Norman Finkelstein 2004)

Yid- Nazi troll isn't on vacation- he's lost on another thread discussing his dog.

Tia: "He just won't debate frauds and charlatans"

like himself?

a vigorous defender of a murderer (o.j. simpson) who savagely killed a jew (Ron Goldman, along with Nicole Brown Simpson).

oh Dershowitz is a charmer all right.

a systematic plagiarizer _documented_ by Finkelstein.

oh i wonder why he won't debate Finkelstein?


Tia: "-he'll debate the seriously misinformed and misguided- like Chomsky."

ever seen him do it???... i'll bet _NOT_.

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

for more on chomsky see:

Jeffrey Blankfort: Damage Control: Noam Chomsky & the Israel-Palestine Conflict

http://leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html

The level of ignorance displayed by the above is beyond belief. For instance,calling Dershowitz, as a practicing attorney and Harvard Law professor a " a vigorous defender of a murderer (o.j. simpson)". Shall we then condemn all of our public defenders as well?. Even people that may have comitted a crime get an attoreny and a trial.

Finkelsein's specious claims of plagerism as to Dershowitz arepremised not on actual plagerismbut on Finkelstein's poor understanding of proper citation form. Finkelstein simply failed cite form 101 and then screamed "plagerism". Just pitiful.

. . . . unlike Dershowitz, doesn't privately call the President of the UC, and the Governor's Office, in an attempt to prevent a book from being published, while hypocritically holding himself as a defender of speech rights:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050711/wiener

it must have been disappointing to Dershowitz to discover that his elite Harvard connections weren't going get the problem fixed (i.e. the book squelched) behind the scenes

boy, you wouldn't think someone would go to that kind of trouble if Finkelstein's book was so lacking in merit

back when I worked in the criminal courts, they characterized such behaviour as "consciousness of guilt"

--Richard

or perhaps simple moral outrage at Finkelstein's distortions.

Tia: "He just won't debate frauds and charlatans"

like himself?
He is the foremost civil rights attorney in this country and is a brilliant speaker . Wasn't he the youngest full professor ever to teach at Harvard? #1 in his class at Yale Law School?

a vigorous defender of a murderer (o.j. simpson) who savagely killed a jew (Ron Goldman, along with Nicole Brown Simpson).

OJ Simpson was found innocent. He was tried by a jury of his peers. Our opinions regarding his supposed guilt or innocence are secondary to that fact. Even the guilty get representation in this country. The issue of whether the justice system is tilted in favor of the wealthy and connected is another matter.

oh Dershowitz is a charmer all right.

a systematic plagiarizer _documented_ by Finkelstein.

Nice try:

(From Dershowitz). First, there was no problem of attribution. My biased accuser claimed that I cited the quotations in question to their original sources, rather than to their secondary sources. Yes I did, and that is the correct method of attribution. I have asked Harvard Law School's distinguished librarian for an opinion on this issue and he has concluded as follows:


Should an author (1) who wants to use a quotation from another author (2) that he found while reading the work of a third author (3) cite to the original source (2) or to the work (3) that cited it?
It is common practice in both legal and non-legal citation to cite to the original source. [Sources Cited].

If a legal writer reads a passage from the Constitution or from a Restatement of the Law land wants to use that passage himself in a piece he is writing, he will not cite to the quoting work but to the original. Generally speaking, the legal reader is interested in the quality of the argument and the weight of the authority, not the trail of research undertaken by the author.

oh i wonder why he won't debate Finkelstein?

The same reason Gehrig won't debate you- he's dismissed you as an irrelevant rascist with an obvious agenda.

Tia: "-he'll debate the seriously misinformed and misguided- like Chomsky."

ever seen him do it???... i'll bet _NOT_.
I haven't ...doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd bet Chomsky is shaking in fear at the posssibility.

Tia: "-(Dershowitz) he'll debate the seriously misinformed and misguided- like Chomsky."

ever seen him do it???... i'll bet _NOT_.

Tia: I haven't...

End of Story.

Tia: "-(Dershowitz) he'll debate the seriously misinformed and misguided- like Chomsky."

ever seen him do it???... i'll bet _NOT_.

Tia: I haven't...

End of Story.

No, sweetpea, not the end of story. Unlike you, I do not believe that what I have seen and experienced are the sum of the human condition. Just because I haven't seen Chomsky and Deshowitz debate, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. 30 seconds on Google shows they have debated several times , from 1973 to recently.

And that, sweetpea, is the real end of story.

Dershowitz looks pretty cowardly to me, refusing to appear in debates with people like Finkelstein and Chomsky, while picking up the phone to use his influence to try to kill Finkelstein's book

all the while, claiming to be a First Amendment advocate, which is especially hypocritical, because, after all, one of the core beliefs of free speech advocates like Dershowitz is that "the truth will out"

which, apparently, was the problem here, and why he needed to strangle Finkelstein's book as quietly as possible

after all, how many times have you heard of someone in an academic environment, like Dershowitz at Harvard, actively moving to prevent someone from publishing? at best, it's a little odd, at worst, it's a complete egotistical hypocrisy

you are, after all, "Scholar", so, perhaps, you can explain

for you and me, Dershowitz subjects us to a speech standard whereby people can debate and argue about what we do, as here

for him, there is only the truth as he sees it, and book publishers should know better to publish anything to the contrary, especially when it runs the risk of revealing that it isn't quite as compelling as he makes it out to be


--Richard


[or perhaps simple...
by Scholar Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 12:51 PM

or perhaps simple moral outrage at Finkelstein's distortions.]

It seems that you are confusing concepts. "Free speech" and 1st amendment refer to no governmental interference. My perception is that Dershowitz doesn't tolerate fools nor want to dignify them by debating them. He's certainly not a coward.

I heard a story....don't know if its true...but when Renior had his first gallery opening in Paris no one came. So he wrote a letter to the newspaper, annonymously, about how obscene the New impressionist painting were. And, miracle of miracles, the day after the letter was published, the gallery was packed.

For some, any publicity is good publicity. All publicity is good publicity. Is it possible that Finklestein invented this all to drum up interest in his book? I would look into that possibility... nothing like some controversy to get people to notice you

[Nice try:

(From Dershowitz). First, there was no problem of attribution. My biased accuser claimed that I cited the quotations in question to their original sources, rather than to their secondary sources. Yes I did, and that is the correct method of attribution. I have asked Harvard Law School's distinguished librarian for an opinion on this issue and he has concluded as follows:]

. . . . . but it would be nice if Dershowitz would actually seek out an unbiased source, someone who didn't work him, and the Harvard Law School faculty, through the Law School dean

scholar: ""Free speech" and 1st amendment refer to no governmental interference. My perception is that Dershowitz doesn't tolerate fools nor want to dignify them by debating them. He's certainly not a coward."

Exactly. David Irving keeps whining that Deborah Lipstadt -- who destroyed him in that libel case -- is a "coward" for not debating him.

@%<

As to mattersof cite form, it would be my opinion that a profesional such as the Harvard Law School's librarian wouldbea terrific authority. Its not realy reasonable to asert that perhaps they might be biased due to working for the same institution. In essence, that would be silly.

unless they look and smell like him

and maybe he's down for torture even then

people who believe in torture probably deserve to be tortured themselves. it would only be fair.

Tia: "Just because I haven't seen Chomsky and Deshowitz debate, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. 30 seconds on Google shows they have debated several times , from 1973 to recently."

you looked them all up but didn't post a single reference url???...

Tia, I am geting used to these "anti-zionists". That post really means "no real response". Its an attempt at a dstraction because they can't address actual facts.

[confusing concepts
by Scholar Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 2:15 PM

It seems that you are confusing concepts. "Free speech" and 1st amendment refer to no governmental interference. My perception is that Dershowitz doesn't tolerate fools nor want to dignify them by debating them. He's certainly not a coward.]

I think that the confusion lies with you and gehrig, it's not about governmental interference, it's about obvious personal hypocrisy, trying to kill privately kill someone's book behind the scenes while publicly celebrating the First Amendment and the speech rights it provides for people like us to engage in public debate, critical of one another, without restraint

in other words, one public standard for us, a different, contrary, personal standard for him

for some reason, both of you evade this, whether knowingly or unknowingly, I can't say

as for Dershowitz and Finkelstein, turns out that they HAVE debated, contrary to my earlier statement, so Dershowitz did step up to the plate, once his attempt to prevent the publication of Finkelstein's book failed

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?id=03/09/24/1730205

(NOTE: and, this is not even the complete transcript, there is a link at the bottom for even more)

it appears that the issue is, did Dershowitz left text from a book by Joan Peters, concealing it by citations to the original sources cited originally by Peters

or, did Dershowitz just reference the content of the materials cited by Peters?

I leave this to academics, but it would be good if Dershowitz found someone to support his case other than his own librarian

in any event, to the extent that Dershowitz made the same points, while hiding the Peters connection, making it appear as if they originated with him, it is a little dishonest, for example, even when I post things to the Internet, on blogs for example, I give credit when it is due (such as, "as described by Richard Gott in his book . . . . ", or "as David Bacon has explained in an article entitled . . . . ")

whether it amounts to plagiarism as Finkelstein claims, I can't say, but it is unscrupulous, if he is making the same points as Peters, and concealing his recourse to her work

if so, he probably did it because her book has purportedly been significantly discredited, and didn't want anyone to know he was relying upon it, while making the same points

--Richard

or, you'd know that this comment is completely ridiculous

[Matter of cite form
by Scholar Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 2:30 PM

As to mattersof cite form, it would be my opinion that a profesional such as the Harvard Law School's librarian wouldbea terrific authority. Its not realy reasonable to asert that perhaps they might be biased due to working for the same institution. In essence, that would be silly.]

the cronyism involved with the hiring of library staff for a law school, and the extent to which the faculty treat them as personal servants, is pretty embarassing, and I say this as someone who encountered it first hand

and, if it's just a question of "cite form" then Dershowitz should have no problem finding someone OTHER than a librarian affliliated with his own law school to say it

if he can't, that's a pretty big problem, leaving him to sound like a cheesy litigator: (" . . . the distinguished Harvard Law School librarian . . . ") trying to impress with status, not facts

--Richard

Nazi troll has a bookstore- can we ask him?

The strange posts above are just gibberrish. I also rather doubt that Bound Together, the anarchist book store has anything so useful as a citaiton manual. When I've been in that book store (which is roughlythe size of a child's bedroom), it was full of conspiracy theories and hoary old, out dated anarchist tomes. Perhaps it draws "hippy tourists" on the Haight bu totherwise, it didn't seem like much of a going business.

...or the likes of Allan Dershowitz?

RWF: [it appears that the issue is, did Dershowitz left text from a book by Joan Peters, concealing it by citations to the original sources cited originally by Peters...

... if so, he probably did it because her book has purportedly been significantly discredited, and didn't want anyone to know he was relying upon it, while making the same points]

RWF hits the nail right on the head.

Ironically, rather than being discreited, it was critiqued, really nit picked by, of all people, Finkelstein!. However, Finkelstein's comments were rather petty, and later, discarded by the general academic community.

Much of what was in "From Time Immemorial" can been confirmed by texts and primary sources written at the relevant times such as "Rape of Palestine" by Wiliam Ziff.

...or the likes of Allan Dershowitz?

RWF: [it appears that the issue is, did Dershowitz left text from a book by Joan Peters, concealing it by citations to the original sources cited originally by Peters...

... if so, he probably did it because her book has purportedly been significantly discredited, and didn't want anyone to know he was relying upon it, while making the same points]


Joan peters' book has not been discredited (unless you count Finklestein) and is still used in many university classes. It was highly acclaimed when it came out and in most circles is considered to have impecible scholarship

. . . note that Dershowitz tried to pull strings behind the scenes to kill Finkelstein's book probably because Finkelstein was going to expose the Peters connection, and not because of the plagiarism charges, where there may be enough subjectivity involved, to avoid any clear cut conclusion that would affect his career and public image

see Porath's New York Review of Books review of Peters' book, "From Time Immemorial", in 1986:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

(as an aside, Benny Morris has done extensive research into the deliberate, planned use of intimidation and force by Israel to expel Palestinians in 1948, supplementing the 1986 discussion of it by Porath here)

anyway, here's Chomsky as well, with a summary of how the book was received by critics in Britain and Israel, and some interesting factual background as to what happened to Finkelstein because he persisted in excavating the flaws in Peters' book:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/power01.htm


[In other words, are you going to believe your own damn lying eyes...
by curious Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 3:30 PM

...or the likes of Allan Dershowitz?

RWF: [it appears that the issue is, did Dershowitz left text from a book by Joan Peters, concealing it by citations to the original sources cited originally by Peters...

... if so, he probably did it because her book has purportedly been significantly discredited, and didn't want anyone to know he was relying upon it, while making the same points]

RWF hits the nail right on the head.]

Of course Benny Morris later recanted that position and, as was discussed previously, Finklestein is a Chomsky lackey. Now theres a bit of glaring cronyism!

(1) to "who to believe":

[Joan peters' book has not been discredited (unless you count Finklestein) and is still used in many university classes. It was highly acclaimed when it came out and in most circles is considered to have impecible scholarship]

really?

well, if that's the case, why did Dershowitz sanitize his book of citations to her work?

and, even more damning, Dershowitz himself doesn't even defend Peters, as here, where he publicly distanced himself from her during the Democracy Now debate with Finkelstein:

[ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
See Joan Peters from Time Immemorial then Peters' conclusions and data have been challenged and then I quote from Said and Hitchins, I do not in any way rely on them in this book. In other words, what I did, and it's very common for scholars to do that. Is I read her books, I read Mr. Finkelstein's criticism of them I came away from enough doubt about the conclusions that although I don't regard the Peters' book in any way as a fraud, I think it was well intentioned effort to recreate and very difficult to recreate the very difficult to recreate events that existed in 1890 and 1900.]

pretty compelling defense, isn't it? "well intentioned effort", in other words, she worked hard, but the result isn't very good

and, even more amazing, he actually states that he found Finkelstein's criticism of it as credible (as a result, he had "doubt"), probably the only time in the entire interview that he said anything positive, directly or indirectly about Finkelstein

Link for the whole interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml

(2) to Scholar:

[Of course Benny Morris later recanted that position and, as was discussed previously, Finklestein is a Chomsky lackey. Now theres a bit of glaring cronyism!]

that's certainly scholarly analysis, now isn't it?

but, more importantly, it's false

Morris never repudiated his position, in fact, he subsequently complained that David Ben Gurion should have finished the job, and ethnically cleansed all Palestinians from Israel:

see this reposted interview with him from Haaretz:

http://www.rense.com/general47/ben.htm

An excerpt:

(I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake.")


--Richard

" well, if that's the case, why did Dershowitz sanitize his book of citations to her work?"

Strage questin, and I suppose it would be best to ask Dershowitz rather than draw a rather paranoid conclusion.

"Dershowitz himself doesn't even defend Peters",

Why would it be his job, as an academic, to defend someone else' s work?

"Morris never repudiated his position, in fact, he subsequently complained that David Ben Gurion should have finished the job, and ethnically cleansed all Palestinians from Israel:"

Benny Morris' previous postion was as a post-zinist and was quite different,as is made clear in the reposted interview with him from Haaretz.

By the way, Rense is a recognized, doctrinaire anti-semite.

And Ben-Gurion and transfer, well thats a different topic for another day.

a favorite Maoist tactic to create confusion and distract from the real issues



responding
by Scholar Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 4:54 PM

[" well, if that's the case, why did Dershowitz sanitize his book of citations to her work?"

Strage questin, and I suppose it would be best to ask Dershowitz rather than draw a rather paranoid conclusion.]

ANSWER: strange, only if you are incapable of recognizing the obvious, which Dershowitz himself acknowledged in the interview




["Dershowitz himself doesn't even defend Peters",

Why would it be his job, as an academic, to defend someone else' s work?]

ANSWER: Dershowitz openly said that he had too much doubt about her work to cite her as a source, and implicitly accepted the quality of Finkelstein's scholarship in regard to her book.



["Morris never repudiated his position, in fact, he subsequently complained that David Ben Gurion should have finished the job, and ethnically cleansed all Palestinians from Israel:"

Benny Morris' previous postion was as a post-zinist and was quite different,as is made clear in the reposted interview with him from Haaretz.]

ANSWER: I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I said that Morris had concluded that there was a deliberate Israeli policy of using force and intimidation to expel Palestinians. You said that he changed his position. He didn't. In fact, he said that Ben Gurion should have done more to expel all of them.



[By the way, Rense is a recognized, doctrinaire anti-semite.]

ANSWER: Rense merely reposted a Haaretz interview. A Haaretz journalist conducted the interview with Morris. I used the Rense link after a Google search because it included the full text of the interview, unlike the Haaretz one, thus preventing the reader from having to go through additional pages. Content, which you, incidentally, don't dispute. I have no idea about the content of Rense otherwise.


--Richard

The anti-Finkelstein fetish among you z-freaks is just hilarious. It's just like your anti-Galloway fetish, in which you also talk about everything EXCEPT the one thing that actually burns your asses: he rails into your Israel-as-G-d religion every time he speaks in public, and he does it really well. Just like Pilger and Fisk, two more of the all-time most reviled demons in your theology.

And now I see we can add MECA (whatever that is, also who cares?) and Barbar Lubin (of course) to this list. Oh, and Chomsky, one of the greatest academic minds of our time. And Dennis Bernstein (who's been recieving death threats, harassing phone calls, had his windshield smashed out of his car, etc. etc. for years)

You people are simply nuts!!! You've been feedback-looped with the zionist program so hard and so long and starting so young you've been driven totally fucking insane with it. No other diagnosis is tenable at this point.

Dersh-o-putz: "I will not debate Finkelstein. I have a longstanding policy against debating Holocaust deniers, revisionists, trivializers or minimizers. Nor is a serious debate about Israel possible with someone who acknowledges that he knows “very little” about that country. "

This is flat-out PROOF that Al Baby is a pathological liar. He DID debate him, on nationwide radio no less! And Finkelstein ripped him to shreds. That's why he won't debate him "out of principle" now. He knows Finkelstein can't be distracted or tricked by his symptomatic zionist dodges

"Scholar": "Finklestein is a Chomsky lackey"

No, smearing asshole, Finkelstein is Chomsky's friend and admirer and vice versa. Considering Chomsky's creds as an academician this is a really twisted upside-down case for dismissing Finkelstein. But that IS the sort of thing I expect from you.

'wig: "David Irving keeps whining that Deborah Lipstadt -- who destroyed him in that libel case -- is a "coward" for not debating him."

And your bitchy little point is ... ? Such a debate would be a TRUE trial by jury!! No politics, no money sliding under tables, no sleazola Dershoputz-type twisting of legal principle. Just two people presenting their case and may the righteous one win. Sounds GREAT!!

Casual Observer (aka furtive zionist troll): "obviously the Jews have lived in the region of present day Israel since pre-Roman times and everyone knows that. And no, I don't think we need to start debating the flows of ethnicities that occured 3000 years ago."

Then why did you?

Although I read alot of Mao as a naive undergrad, I don't consider myself a Maoist.

I don't rule out the possiility that Dershowitz might feel that he could have done a better job then Joan Peters as another possible explanation or perhaps he was, as a Liberal, demonstrating open mindendness. Of course, as we discussed above, primary sources and books written during the mandate period such as "Rape of Palestine" do confirm Peters general thesis as well.

I disagre as it does not appear to me that Dershowitz "implicitly accepted the quality of Finkelstein's scholarship". I didn't draw that inference, and I rather doubt that Dershowitz would imply that.

Morris repudiation of his previous position is made quite clear by the fact that he subsequently complained that David Ben Gurion should have finished the job, and ethnically cleansed all Palestinians from Israel." He is an interesting study in and of himself.

As to Rense, if you chose to cite his site, be aware of his recognized anti-semitism.

Its a pleasure to discuss these things with a poster that actually seems conversant and reads books. That makes you rare on Indybay. Its not my usual experience. Keep it up even if we disagree!

Yet Dershowitz may have tempted his critics by promising to give $10,000 to the Palestinian Authority if a fact in his book could be proved inaccurate.

Anybody know if that was ever paid out?

Re: Ziff; The rape of Palestine: I've got an ancient copy sitting here that I've quoted from tremendously on Indy Bay.It was written in 1930. Its been a long time since I've read from Time immemorial- I don't recall Joan Peters saying there was no significant Palestinian population in the area- I do recall her saying there was a population transfer (850,000 jews kicked out of Arab countries....)


"We should expect to find an exodus of Arabs from lands where Jews are settled. But exactly the opposite is true: it is precisely in the vicinity of those Jewish villages that Arab developemnet is most marked. Arab Haifa, profiting from the Jewish boom grew from 1922 to 1936 by 130%, Jaffa by 80% and Jerusalem by 55%...In the vicinity of the Jewish villages Arab workers earn twice the wage paid in other parts of Palestine.

Once the poorest , sorriest population in this whole section of poverty stricken masses, the Arabs of Palestine are now the richest per capita of their race"

"Fully 75% of the area in Jewish hands morever has not known the plough for centuries. The northern colonies in Galilee were built on land rendered impossible for life since roman times because of marsh and endemic disease. Tel Aviv was erected on sand dunes which were considered without monetary value. The great granary, the valley of Jezreel, now nestling so trim and green in the shining sun, wa sso deserted and pestilential when Jews bought it that it was said any bird trying to cross it would fall dead in its flight."

According to this book, the "Jews of Jerusalem constitute 72 % of its souls"

Ziff says "In the case of the peasants who sold to the Jews, with the exception of a bare five percentwho bettered themself in urban pursuits, all remained on the land. Most of them sold only part of their acresand with the money obtained got out of debt for the first time in their lives. Within the past 6 years the debt of the Arabcultivator has been reduced by 60% while his income has sharply increased. The most solicitous prodding of the Government over the last ten yearshas not been able to bring forth more than 664 Arab families that could come under the definition of displaced."

Richard: "Rense merely reposted a Haaretz interview. A Haaretz journalist conducted the interview with Morris. I used the Rense link after a Google search because it included the full text of the interview, unlike the Haaretz one..."

Indeed, Rense publishes lots of stuff from reputable sources and or thoughtful writers, but zionists will bolt through any back door they can find and the "that site/source is anti-Semitic" game is their all-time favorite (as we all know)

Conversely, when anything is published that "they" don't like- they dismiss the author as "zionist"

And AGAIN, Ziff was

1) the American counterpart of the original Israeli terrorist, Vladimir Jabotinsky, mentor to all the subsequent ones (eg Rabin, Shamir, Arafat)

2) a career liar (ad exec), most certainly a pro-Israel propagandist (why else would tia worship him this much?)

3) Like Jabotinsky, a fascist with allegiances to Mussolini in particular

http://www.cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=culture/jewish&id=p3/article3.htm

from a Jewish writer, a troubled zionist
"...as important as Israel is, I was not going to be forced to follow the likes of Jewish fascists like Begin, Shamir and Sharon, whose ideological mentor Vladmir Jabotinsky admired Mussolini's kind of politics, but not Hitler's, only because Hitler hated Jews whereas Mussolini was much more laissez faire with his Jew hatred. So convoluted were the Jabotinsky's allegiances, forces identified with him sided with the Nazis against the Communists in the Warsaw ghetto uprising."
http://www.newsinsider.org/editorials/israel_with_weariness.html

I'd love to link to more of this stuff tia. Google's coughing up 10,000 hits. So PLEEEEEEEEEZZ start with the denials again

" just shoot me instead"- no- its too easy- I won't say anything....must resist....

Zionism predates nazism? Was this even debated? You must know the psalms- the Christians as well as the Jews recite them?
try this one on for size- just about 2,000 years old.

"By the rivers of Babylon we wept. We wept as we remembered Zion.
"Sing us a song of Zion", our captors taunted
How can we sing a song of Zion in a strange land?
If I forget you, Oh jerusalem, may my right hand wither.
May my tongue cleve to the roof of my mouth.
if I forget Jerusalem even in my happiest hour"

You can't attack Ziff by calling him a zionist, based on one website.
Its still an interesting source- and the census materials he quotes should be fairly easy to verify.

"the great opponent of Weizman is the little ex-soldier, Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky is one of the few Jewish leaders with any adequate idea of the kind of policies the present Jewish crises demands. Among Hebrew nationals he is idolized. In the ghettos of Eastern Europe he is already a tradition. He is hated without reservations by the marxists who see him as their ready made enemy. As a spell binder Jabotinsky is almost without rival, He can hold an audience bretahless and will talk for 3 or 4 hours at a stretch. As an expert conniver in the business of inner Zionist intrigue he is hopeless. He is handicapped by a deficent understanding of the structural mechanics of modern warfare. He is impetuous and headstrong and a poor judge of men. "

From Ziff :The rape of palestine

How does any of this matter? Whatever Ziff thought of Jabotinsky is irrelevant- His politics are irrelevent- Ziff, with his descriptions of the barren wasteland that was Palestine at the time, his reliance on period documents and census data is still a fine resource.

Try this "one can travel, in fact from Jerusalem to Gaza, two thirds the length of the country, and see only an occassional wandering sheperd to relieve the deadly monotomy of dreary wilderness and waste" Or this " The eastern two thirds of the Jewish home is so empty to be terryifying." or "the Jew....has literally built something out of nothing".

His premise is valid- Palestine was a barren wasteland until the Jews got there- the new found prosperity the Jews brought spurred Arab immigration. And calling him a "zionist" doesn't change that.

Your attempt to discredit Ziff's book appears to be a:

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.

Now don't I get to say, without a trace of self-righteousness (ok- maybe a small trace)?

"An ad hominem is not a rebuttal"

Not being able to strike out at the accuracy of what is said and described in the content of the book, you strike out at the author. Nothing you have refernced indicates that Ziff was an unreliable researcher or that he falisified data. Lets contrast his type of research with, oh, following the thread, Finkelstein

"i'm a person of the left, and when you get a call from Prof. Chomsky asking you to find that a pro- Israel book you havent even read was a fraud, his wish is your command" Perhaps there is some honesty in that he admits this- but it casts doubts on his overall competance, does it not?

narcissie: "Why don't the editors here want you to read what Gilad Atzmon has to say about Jabotinsky?"

Maybe because Atzmon is such an overt antisemite that even groups like "Jews Against Zionism" see right through his "oh I'm only an antizionist" stance?

And, unlike SF-IMC, Indybay doesn't gleefully wink away the use of overt antisemitism as a way to stir up hatred against Israel and its supporters?

@%<

"As for ripping open the center of the Arab sphere and plopping a Jewish state down in the middle of it, this was an extremely unfortunate choice-- "

This writer first denies that a Jewish state DID exist on that land for over 1000 years. This writer denies that there has been a continuous Jewish presence on the land for 3,300 years.

This writer ignores that there are 22 Arab states on 800 times as much land as Israel has.

This writer forgets that Israel was set up by a UN resolution of the General Assembly in 1947 which ALSO granted a SECOND Arab state in Palestine (Jordan was the first!) which should have been a just allocation of the land----but instead, the Arab leaders launched a genocidal war against the Jews of Israel.

Finally, what solution does this author offer? He denies the legitimacy of a tiny Jewish state that is home to 6 million people. Where does he expect these 6 million people to go? Into thin air so that Arabs can have ALL of the land (since 800 times as much land as the Jews is not enough?????)

Those who support peace, support the right of Israel to exist as a secular democracy AND the national homeland for the Jews.

RWF: it appears that the issue is, did Dershowitz left text from a book by Joan Peters, concealing it by citations to the original sources cited originally by Peters...


Just checked with a librarian at Moffit @ UCB- this is the correct format. Sorry, folks, Dershowitz was correct.

Maybe it's because Atzmon is telling the truth. Read the selection yourselves. Look up what he said. Either it's true or it's not. Don't take a Zionists word about Atzmon, or anything. Do your own research. Find out the truth for yourselves.

[take out your style manuals
by and the answer is: Friday, Sep. 30, 2005 at 9:45 AM

RWF: it appears that the issue is, did Dershowitz left text from a book by Joan Peters, concealing it by citations to the original sources cited originally by Peters...


Just checked with a librarian at Moffit @ UCB- this is the correct format. Sorry, folks, Dershowitz was correct.]

ANSWER: I stand by my original comment, which has been selectively edited to frame the issue on Dershowitz's terms

Here it is, in full:

[it appears that the issue is, did Dershowitz left text from a book by Joan Peters, concealing it by citations to the original sources cited originally by Peters

or, did Dershowitz just reference the content of the materials cited by Peters?

I leave this to academics, but it would be good if Dershowitz found someone to support his case other than his own librarian

in any event, to the extent that Dershowitz made the same points, while hiding the Peters connection, making it appear as if they originated with him, it is a little dishonest, for example, even when I post things to the Internet, on blogs for example, I give credit when it is due (such as, "as described by Richard Gott in his book . . . . ", or "as David Bacon has explained in an article entitled . . . . ")

whether it amounts to plagiarism as Finkelstein claims, I can't say, but it is unscrupulous, if he is making the same points as Peters, and concealing his recourse to her work]

to repeat, this would require a close textual reading

(which Finkelstein has done, by the way, which you can find on his website,

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1 )

and not just calling and asking a librarian about citation forms, which is what Dershowitz would have you believe

as I said, I leave the plagiarism question to academics, and to those who want to pull out their green eye shades and read Finkelstein's analysis, check them against the passages of Dershowitz's book, and read the citations

and, in any event, as I mentioned this situation emerged because, while Dershowitz seems to want to present Peters' views in print, he doesn't want people to know the source, because even he finds her academically suspect

--Richard

WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPECT *BULLSHIT BECKY JOHNSON*, OF SANTA CRUZ, TO BE NEARBY AND READY WITH AN ARGUMENT THAT IS *LITERALLY* **WORSE** THAN *MEDIEVAL*!!

Cut-&-Pasted from JA above (Sept 27, 11:am):

"I say as an African American who also come from a people who have suffered for centuries at the hands of European Christians: *NO AMOUNT OF SUFFERING* morally entitles one people to dispossess, take, or be given the land of a third party people thousands of miles away on a far away continent and drive off or massacre at least three-quarters of a million of them, demolish literally HUNDREDS of their towns and cities, and oppress the rest with Israel's own version of Nuremburg racial (and now anti-miscegenation) laws, mostly in defacto, again ironically, concentration camps and ghettos (now too with walls that make the Warsaw ghetto wall look like a picket fence by comparison)."

And NO CRAZY "ANCIENT KINGDOM" ARGUMENT that wants to reverse 2,000 years of ethnic migration morally and *RACISTLY* entitles "Chosen People" to do the above either.

All other 'justifications' are equally *IRRELEVANT*.

"As concerns particular assertions made by Finklestein...the appropraite response is not debate but tedious examination of his footnotes. Such an examination revaeals that many of those assertions are pure invention. No facts alleged by Finklestein should be assumed to be accurate, without taking hte time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites"
Pro. Peter Novick
U of Chicago

BTW, Finklestein has been fired from NYU, Brooklyn College and several other unniversities

“Considering Chomsky's creds as an academician”, of course only as a linguistics professor not an expert on politics. No comment on Chomsky’s support of Pol Pot? And Finkelstein has as much as stated that he jumps at Chomsky’s beck and call.

Joan Peters basically said that saying there Arabs living in what became modern Israel, but that after the Zionist movement began, that there was a huge Arab immigration from other countries. Thats why the book was named, “From Time Immemorial”, because it refutes the myth that the Palestinians have lived in Israel from time immemorial. She also discusses the population transfer where 850,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries in retaliation for Israel declaring its independence.

The anti-zionists just love to smear those they disagree with (old Maoist technique?) i.e. by association with names that they don’t like such as , “facist”, “Vladimir Jabotinsky” (“ hated without reservations by the marxists”), “Mussolini” or by calling William Ziff, libelously, “ a career liar (ad exec)”or “a pro-Israel propagandist”. Who cares what the sax player Gilad Atzmon thinks anyway? His canned opinions are always within the party line and are quite predictable. One wonders what masters he serves. Of course, the actual facts and history in “Rape of Palestine” are beyond question.

Oh and the JA character is simply too off the wall to speak to.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1771406_comment.php#1771791 ?

so-called, ahem, 'Scholar' (it is to laugh): "Oh and the JA character is simply too off the wall to speak to."

(Why do the most *ignorant* -- proud of their arrogance -- Zionists always choose the most *pretentious* aliases? It must be that famous tradition of Jewish comedic *IRONY*!)

Ha-Ha-Ha!!

JA, you are lost in a fantasy. No one "kicked my butt" and no one shall. Go back to your love idea, its healthier and more appropriate.

I hear a lot of *WOOOOOFIN'*, but I don't feel no *BITE*!!

Where's the *BBBEEEFFF*!?


Let's see again:

Yo 'Scholar'!: Is that why you got your 'scholarly' ass kicked and never returned over at:
by JA Friday, Sep. 30, 2005 at 3:30 PM

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1771406_comment.php#1771791 ?


HA-HA-HA--HA-HA-HA!!!

I have to return to my orignal premise, JA you are too wacked out to really talk to. Facts, truth and history simply confuse you.

HA-HA-HA--HA-HA-HA!!!

Shabbat Sholom to all my chaverim out there!

WOOF WOOF WOOF -- WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF!!!

OR IS IT?:

ARF ARF ARF -- ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF!!!


HA-HA-HA---HA-HA-HA-HA ...!!

JA, has now made the most intellectual anti-zionist argument yet.

Perhaps I'll read your weird, hateful, brain dead rantings some other time.

ROTFLMAO !

"How does any of this matter? Whatever Ziff thought of Jabotinsky is irrelevant- His politics are irrelevent-"

Uh no, if he was a goggle-eyed pro-Israel nut, as his association with Jabotinsky implies, then this introduces a high probability of BIAS

"Ziff, with his descriptions of the barren wasteland that was Palestine at the time, his reliance on period documents and census data is still a fine resource"

Fine then, if his sources are so great why don't you tell us about them instead of posting these maudlin unreferenced quotes from his text. Just cuz he's saying such-and-such doesn't make it gospel. Only seeing his sources could possibly verify this. In any case, the chances are excellent these census records got destroyed, "lost," or falsified by other zionist whacks and he's just pulling numbers out of his ass

As someone else said: "Don't take a Zionists word about Atzmon, or anything."

"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made."

This holds up in a strictly logical sense, but it doesn't deal with the PRACTICAL matter of CREDIBILITY, meaning can this person's word be accepted without question (as you always pretend about Ziff) or should they be distrusted and their sources checked carefully? Much like Xeno's paradox, this "rule" you're quoting is an example of logic taking common sense to ridiculous destinations. It's a fallacy in itself.

This unquestioning faith in the opinions of other zionist whacks is a thing you all argue from as if it's actually persuasive:

"Scholar":
"Joan Peters ... refutes the myth that the Palestinians have lived in Israel from time immemorial."
"Of course, the actual facts and history in “Rape of Palestine” are beyond question."

Uh-huh, so what about the language of Jabotinsky's famous 1923 polemic 'The Iron Wall' in which he refers to the Palestinians as "natives" and the zionists as "invaders"? C'mon, it's a pro-Israel whack saying it so it MUST be true!!!

http://www.saveisrael.com/jabo/jabowall.htm

JA, MAN, YOU GOTTA SEE IT! This is a classic example of manipulative zionist caterwauling in which Jabotinsky uses fake logic to say
1) we shouldn't even extend the possibility of negotiation to the Arabs
2) we should just fucking kill them and scare them away like the savages they are
3) anyone who doesn't agree isn't a TRUE ZIONIST and needs to just leave

Boy, that Jabbo the Butt sure was ahead of his time

re: A Tiny Jewish State by Brainless Beck-O

No, BB brain, I don't ignore or forget any of that, it's just IRRELEVANT to my point

Hey, "Scholar," this statement

“Considering Chomsky's creds as an academician”, of course only as a linguistics professor not an expert on politics."

Is easily one of the more ridiculous things you've ever said. You just don't like his take on politics cuz he criticizes Israel -- admit it

it's refreshing and exhilarating to see that a lead article called "anti-israel" can command comments now approaching 500 - this may well lead to an all-time record at indybay, despite the indybay editors' attempts to edit out altogether truthsayers.

the norm finkelstein video and links to his site allowed mere neophites to assess for themselves the circus act called zionism with its gaggle of revisionist geese, sputtering, spattering and choking on their own lies and deceptions. as the public becomes more attuned to frauds like dershowitz in academia, everyday america, the zionists last propaganda stranglehold, is gradually rising up and speaking out. the more they find out the more repulsed they become.

in the end of course, we will bury the bankruptcy that is zionism in its well deserved unmarked grave.

If it's unmarked, how will know where to dance?

see;

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1764517_comment.php#1771953

Even if you suceed in destroying Israel, the Zionists can wait and will wait, another 2000 years, if necessary, to re-establish it.
They have more patience, more faith and more balls than you do.

Why is this misogynist crap on Indymedia?

[in the end of course, we will bury the bankruptcy that is zionism in its well deserved unmarked grave.


add your comments

"unmarked grave"
by just wondering Saturday, Oct. 01, 2005 at 9:07 AM

If it's unmarked, how will know where to dance?]

Or piss.

<<<<<If it's unmarked, how will know where to dance?]

Or piss.>>>>

1. i will be personally burying it; and

2. if i come back later and can't find it, i just need my metal detector - it won't pick up the wooden stake, but it'll zero in on the silver cross.

I'm so shocked!: "JA, MAN, YOU GOTTA SEE IT! This is a classic example of manipulative zionist caterwauling..."

...THEY'RE NOT DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ANY *BRAINS*! LIKE ALL ARMED RACIST SOCIOPATHS, THEY'RE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE *GUNS*!!

JA, the correct psychiatric medication can be a beautiful thing.

Terror Trail of Cash Leads to Iran, Saudis - Uri Dan (New York Post)
  In the war with Palestinian terrorists, Israel is learning to follow the money. What investigators have uncovered is the secret funneling of millions of dollars from Iran and Saudi Arabia to groups like Hamas in the West Bank.
  A report by the Israeli secret service showed how the money trail worked: Iran "invested more than $10 million to encourage terrorist activity against Israel."
  The money was funneled through Hizballah guerrillas in Lebanon, as well as Western Union, money launderers, and Mideast banks.
  Muntafar Abu Ralyub, a Tanzim militia commander in Jenin captured in 2004, revealed that the basic payment from Hizballah for a terrorist attack ranged from $600 to $1,100.
  If the attack resulted in the death or wounding of an Israeli, there was a $900 bonus, he said.

We are superior and Zionism is the right to the superior Jewish race to further it's roots in G-d's chosen land for us. We will exterminate the Palestinians if that's what it takes.

Yet another false post from anti-zionists. Since you regularly get caught lying why would anyone ever believe you when you post other nonsense?

Just an ongoing embarrassment to Progressives.

I meant what I said in the posting before that and stand by it.

La shonah tova chaverim!

L'shanah tovah!

L'shanah tovah tikatev v'taihatem!

La shonah tova chaverim!
Long Live Israel! Death to the Palestinians! We will crush the Arab vermin until our G-d given land is purified!
I am tired of pretending. Let's just speak the truth.

L'shanah tovah to everyone except the blatantly obvious anti-Zionist mamzer forging posts.

@%<

<<<<<<<<by JA Monday, Oct. 03, 2005 at 10:12 AM

..THEY'RE NOT DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ANY *BRAINS*! LIKE ALL ARMED RACIST SOCIOPATHS, THEY'RE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE *GUNS*!!>>>>>>>>>>

Here is a good summary of the beast - guns are only one one-millionth of the problem::::::Juan Cole described it best.


August 30, 2004
AIPAC's Overt and Covert Ops

by Juan Cole
CBS is reporting that a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst detailed to Undersecretary of Defense for Planning Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans is under FBI investigation for spying for Israel. The person passed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) confidential documents, including those detailing Bush administration policy toward Iran, and AIPAC then passed them to Israel. There are wiretaps and photographs backing up the FBI case (the FBI agents involved are extremely brave to take this on).

But this espionage case is too narrow. Consider what journalist Jim Lobe wrote about Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP) and the Pentagon Near East and South Asia (NESA) office:


"[K]ey personnel who worked in both NESA and OSP were part of a broader network of neoconservative ideologues and activists who worked with other Bush political appointees scattered around the national-security bureaucracy to move the country to war, according to retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was assigned to NESA from May 2002 through February 2003. The heads of NESA and OSP were Deputy Undersecretary William Luti and Abram Shulsky, respectively. Other appointees who worked with them in both offices included Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist previously with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI); David Schenker, previously with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); and Michael Makovsky; an expert on neocon icon Winston Churchill and the younger brother of David Makovsky, a senior WINEP fellow and former executive editor of pro-Likud Jerusalem Post. Along with Feith, all of the political appointees have in common a close identification with the views of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel."

Karen Kwiatkowski was an eyewitness in NESA, and Lobe reports:

"[S]he recounts one incident in which she helped escort a group of half a dozen Israelis, including several generals, from the first floor reception area to Feith's office. 'We just followed them, because they knew exactly where they were going and moving fast.' When the group arrived, she noted the book which all visitors are required to sign under special regulations that took effect after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. 'I asked his secretary, "Do you want these guys to sign in?" She said, "No, these guys don't have to sign in."' It occurred to her, she said, that the office may have deliberately not wanted to maintain a record of the meeting."

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group that used to support whatever government was in power in Israel, and used to give money evenhandedly inside the U.S. My perception is that during the past decade AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the political Right in the United States. In the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. WINEP has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions, even though its director, Dennis Ross, is more moderate. He is a figurehead, however, serving to disguise the far right character of most of the position papers produced by long-term WINEP staff and by extremist visitors and "associates" (Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are among the latter).

WINEP, being a wing of AIPAC, is enormously influential in Washington. State Department and military personnel are actually detailed there to "learn" about "the Middle East"! They would get a far more balanced "education" about the region in any Israeli university, since most Israeli academics are professionals, whereas WINEP is a "think tank" that hires by ideology.

I did some consulting with one U.S. company that had a government contract, and they asked me about WINEP position papers (many of them are just propaganda). When I said I would take them with a grain of salt, the guy said his company had "received direction" to pay a lot of attention to the WINEP material! So discipline is being imposed even on the private sector.

Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the U.S. and deserves our support in ensuring its security. The Likudniks like to pretend that they represent American Jewry, but they do not. And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's former dictator Pinochet, you are bigoted against Latinos.

As can be seen by Lobe's list, WINEP supplies right-wing intellectuals to Republican administrations, who employ their positions to support Likud policies from within the U.S. government. They have the advantage over longtime civil servants in units like the State Department's Intelligence and Research division, insofar as they are politically connected and so have the ear of the top officials.

So, passing a few confidential documents over is a minor affair. Pro-Likud intellectuals established networks linking Defense and the national security advisers of Vice President Dick Cheney, gaining enormous influence over policy by cherry-picking and distorting intelligence to make a case for war on Saddam Hussein. And their ulterior motive was to remove the most powerful Arab military from the scene, not because it was an active threat to Israel (it wasn't) but because it was a possible deterrent to Likud plans for aggressive expansion (at the least, they want half of the West Bank, permanently).

It should be admitted that the American Likud could not make U.S. policy on its own. Its members had to make convincing arguments to Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush himself. But they were able to make those arguments, by distorting intelligence, channeling Ahmed Chalabi junk, and presenting Big Ideas to men above them that signally lacked such ideas. (Like the idea that the road to peace in Jerusalem ran through Baghdad. Ha!)

It was these WINEP and AIPAC-linked U.S. Likud backers in the Defense Department who had the Iraqi army dissolved as soon as Saddam was overthrown. This step threw Iraq into chaos and led to the deaths of nearly a thousand U.S. servicemen so far, since an Iraq without an army would inevitably depend on the U.S. military. But with the Iraqi army gone, and with Egypt and Jordan neutralized, Syria was left the only country anywhere near Israel that could make active trouble for Sharon if he completely screwed over the Palestinians. And Syria was now weak and isolated. So Sharon has had a free hand in his expansionist aggression. And, because the U.S. public has been preoccupied with Iraq, the Likud could pursue its annexation of West Bank land and its expropriation of even more Palestinians without anyone over here even noticing. It is the best of all possible worlds for the heirs of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

The Likud policies of reversing Oslo and stealing people's land and making their lives hell has produced enormous amounts of terrorism against Israel, and the Likudniks have cleverly turned that to their political advantage. Aggression and annexation is necessary, they argue, because there is terrorism. Some of them now openly speak of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, using the same argument. But when the Oslo peace process looked like it would go somewhere, terrorism tapered off (it did not end, but then peace had not been achieved).

The drawback for the U.S. in all this is that U.S. government backing for Sharon's odious policies makes it hated in the Muslim world. (Note that Muslims who oppose Israeli aggression are often tagged as "terrorists" by the U.S. government, but right-wing Jews who go to Palestine to colonize it, walking around with Uzi machine guns and sometimes shooting down civilians, are not "terrorists.") This lack of balance is one big reason that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri hit the U.S. on Sept. 11. In fact, bin Laden wanted to move up the operation to punish the U.S. for supporting Sharon's crackdown on the second Intifada.

Likud apologists have carefully planted the false story that al-Qaeda did not care about Palestine, but that is absurd. Bin Laden always complained about the occupation of the three holy cities (Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem, the first two because of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and the third under Israeli occupation). When bin Laden came back from Afghanistan to Jidda in 1989, his first sermon at the local mosque was about the Israeli repression of Palestinians during the first Intifada.

Now the U.S.' occupation of Iraq is making it even more hated in the Muslim world. It is a policy hatched in part by AIPAC, WINEP, and their associated "thinkers." The cynical might suggest that they actively want the U.S. involved in a violent struggle with Muslims, to make sure that the U.S. remains anti-Palestinian and so will permit Israeli expansion.

All this can happen because there is a vacuum in U.S. political discourse. A handful of special interests in the United States virtually dictate congressional policy on some issues. With regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a few allies have succeeded in imposing complete censorship on both houses of Congress. No senator or representative dares make a speech on the floor of his or her institution critical of Israeli policy, even though the Israeli government often violates international law and UN Security Council resolutions (it would violate more such resolutions, except that the resolutions never got passed because only one NSC member, the U.S., routinely vetoes them on behalf of Tel Aviv.) As the Labor Party in Israel has been eclipsed by the Likud coalition, which includes many proto-fascist groups, this subservience has yoked Washington to foreign politicians who privately favor ethnic cleansing and/or aggressive warfare for the purpose of annexing the territory of neighbors.

On the rare occasion when a brave member of Congress dares stand up to this unrelenting AIPAC tyranny, that person is targeted for unelection in the next congressional campaign, with big money directed by AIPAC and/or its analogues into the coffers of the senator's or congressman's opponent. Over and over again, AIPAC has shaped the U.S. Congress in this way, so successfully that no one even dares speak out any more.

AIPAC is not all that rich or powerful, but politics in the U.S. is often evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Because many races are very close, any little extra support can help change the outcome. AIPAC can provide that little bit. Moreover, most Americans couldn't care less about the Middle East or its intractable problems, whereas the staffers at AIPAC are fanatics. If some congressman from southern Indiana knows he can pick up even a few thousand dollars and some good will from AIPAC, he may as well, since his constituents don't care anyway. That there is no countervailing force to AIPAC allows it to be effective. (That is one reason that pro-Likud American activists often express concern about the rise of the Muslim-American community and the possibility that it may develop an effective lobby.) Moreover, AIPAC leverages its power by an alliance with the Christian Right, which has adopted a bizarre ideology of "Christian Zionism." It holds that the sooner the Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, the sooner Christ will come back. Without millions of these Christian Zionist allies, AIPAC would be much less influential and effective.

The Founding Fathers of the United States deeply feared that a foreign government might gain this level of control over a branch of the United States government, and their fears have been vindicated.

The situation has reached comedic proportions. Congress is always drafting letters to the president, based on AIPAC templates, demanding that lopsided U.S. policy in favor of Israel be revised to be even more in favor of Israel. U.S. policy recently changed to endorse the expansion of Israeli colonies in Palestinian, West Bank territory.

Where Israel is in the right, this situation obviously is innocuous. The United States should protect Israel from aggressive attack, if necessary. United Nations members are pledged to collective security, i.e., to protecting any member nation from aggression at the hands of another. But given that Israel is a nuclear power with a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; given that Egypt and Jordan have long-lived peace treaties with Israel; and given that Syria and Lebanon are small, weak powers, there is not in fact any serious military threat to Israel in its immediate neighborhood. In contrast, Israel launched wars against neighbors in 1956, 1967, and 1982 (all of which it won so easily as to bring into question the necessity for the wars in the first place if they were defensive), and has since 1967 been assiduously colonizing Palestinian land that it militarily occupied – all the while attempting to avoid becoming responsible for the Palestinian populations on that land. This latter policy has poisoned the entire world.

AIPAC currently has a project to shut up academics such as myself, the same way it has shut up Congress, through congressional legislation mandating "balance" (i.e., pro-Likud stances) in Middle East programs at American universities. How long the U.S. public will allow itself to be spied on and pushed around like this is a big question. And, with the rise of international terrorism targeting the U.S. in part over these issues, the fate of the country hangs in the balance.

If al-Qaeda succeeds in another big attack, it could well tip the country over into military rule, as Gen. Tommy Franks has suggested. That is, the fate of the Republic is in danger. And the danger comes from two directions, not just one. It comes from radical extremists in the Muslim world, who must be fought. But it also comes from radical extremists in Israel, who have key allies in the U.S. and whom the U.S. government actively supports and against whom influential Americans are afraid to speak out.

If I had been in power on Sept. 11, I'd have called up Sharon and told him he was just going to have to withdraw to 1967 borders, or face the full fury of the United States. Israel would be much better off inside those borders, anyway. It can't absorb 3 million Palestinians and retain its character, and it can't continue to hold 3 million Palestinians as stateless hostages without making itself inhumane and therefore un-Jewish. And then I'd have thrown everything the U.S. had at al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and frog-marched Bin Laden off to justice, and rebuilt Afghanistan to ensure that al-Qaeda was permanently denied a base there. Iraq, well, Iraq was contained.

Fomenting a War on Iran

Here is my take on the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal in the Pentagon.

It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, the United States would take out Iraq, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying).

Franklin is a reserve Air Force colonel and former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst. He was an attaché at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv at one point, which some might now see as suspicious. After the Cold War ended, Franklin became concerned with Iran as a threat to Israel and the U.S., and learned a little Persian (not very much – I met him once at a conference and he could only manage a few halting phrases of Persian). Franklin has a strong Brooklyn accent and says he is "from the projects." I was told by someone at the Pentagon that he is not Jewish, despite his strong association with the predominantly Jewish neoconservatives. I know that he is very close to Paul Wolfowitz. He seems a canny man and a political operator, and if he gave documents to AIPAC it was not an act of simple stupidity, as some observers have suggested. It was part of some clever scheme that became too clever by half.

Franklin moved over to the Pentagon from DIA, where he became the Iran expert, working for Bill Luti and Undersecretary of Defense for Planning, Douglas Feith. He was the "go-to" person on Iran for Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and for Feith. This situation is pretty tragic, since Franklin is not a real Iranist. His main brief appears to have been to find ways to push a policy of overthrowing its government (apparently once Iraq had been taken care of). This project has been pushed by the shadowy eminence grise Michael Ledeen for many years, and Franklin coordinated with Ledeen in some way. Franklin was also close to Harold Rhode, a longtime Middle East specialist in the Defense Department who has cultivated far right pro-Likud cronies for many years, more or less establishing a cell within the Department of Defense.

The UPI via Dawn reports that "another under-investigation official, Mr. Rhode, 'practically lived out of [Ahmed] Chalabi's office.' Intelligence sources said that CIA operatives observed Mr. Rhode as being constantly on his cell phone to Israel, discussing U.S. plans, military deployments, political projects and a discussion of Iraq assets."

Josh Marshall, Laura Rozen and Paul Glastris have just published a piece in the Washington Monthly that details Franklin's meetings with corrupt Iranian arms dealer and con man Manucher Ghorbanifar, who had in the 1980s played a key role in the Iran-contra scandal. (For more on the interviews with Ghorbanifar, see Laura Rozen's weblog). It is absolutely key that the meetings were attended also by Rhode, Ledeen and the head of Italy's military intelligence agency, SISMI, Nicolo Pollari, as well as Rome's Minister of Defense, Antonio Martino.

The right-wing government of corrupt billionaire Silvio Berlusconi, including Martino, was a big supporter of an Iraq war. Moreover, we know that the forged documents falsely purporting to show Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger originated with a former SISMI agent. Watch the reporting of Josh Marshall for more on this SISMI/Ledeen/Rhode connection.

But journalist Matthew Yglesias has already tipped us to a key piece of information. The Niger forgeries also try to implicate Iran. Indeed, the idea of a joint Iraq/Iran nuclear plot was so far-fetched that it is what initially made the Intelligence and Research division of the U.S. State Department suspicious of the forgeries, even before the discrepancies of dates and officials in Niger were noticed. Yglesias quotes from the Senate report on the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger:


"The INR [that's State Department intelligence] nuclear analyst told the Committee staff that the thing that stood out immediately about the [forged] documents was that a companion document – a document included with the Niger documents that did not relate to uranium – mentioned some type of military campaign against major world powers. The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran and was, according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien [note: that's not the same as Nigerian] Embassy in Rome, which all struck the analyst as 'completely implausible.' Because the stamp on this document matched the stamp on the uranium document [the stamp was supposed to establish the documents bona fides], the analyst thought that all of the documents were likely suspect. The analyst was unaware at the time of any formatting problems with the documents or inconsistencies with the names or dates."

Journalist Eric Margolis notes of SISMI:

"SISMI has long been notorious for far right, even neo-fascist, leanings. According to Italian judicial investigators, SISMI was deeply involved in numerous plots against Italy’s democratic government, including the 1980 Bologna train station terrorist bombing that left 85 dead and 200 injured. Senior SISMI officers were in cahoots with celebrated swindler Roberto Calvi, the neo-fascist P2 Masonic Lodge, other extreme rightist groups trying to destabilize Italy, the Washington neocon operative, Michael Ledeen, and the Iran-Contra conspirators. SISMI works hand in glove with U.S., British and Israeli intelligence. In the 1960s and 70s, SISMI reportedly carried out numerous operations for CIA, including bugging the Vatican, the Italian president’s palace, and foreign embassies. Italy’s civilian intelligence service, SISDE, associated with Italy’s political center-left, has long been a bitter rival of SISMI. After CIA rejected the Niger file, it was eagerly snapped up by VP Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, who were urgently seeking any reason, no matter how specious, to invade Iraq. Cheney passed the phony data to Bush, who used it in his January 2003 address to the nation in spite of warnings from CIA. . . ."

So Franklin, Ledeen, and Rhode, all of them pro-Likud operatives, just happen to be meeting with SISMI (the proto-fascist purveyor of the false Niger uranium story about Iraq and the alleged Iran-Iraq plot against the rest of the world) and corrupt Iranian businessman and would-be revolutionary Ghorbanifar in Europe. The most reasonable conclusion is that they were conspiring together about the Next Campaign after Iraq, which they had already begun setting in train, which is to get Iran.

But now The Jerusalem Post reveals that at least one of the meetings was quite specific with regard to an attempt to torpedo better US/Iran relations:

"The purpose of the meeting with Ghorbanifar was to undermine a pending deal that the White House had been negotiating with the Iranian government. At the time, Iran had considered turning over five al-Qaeda operatives in exchange for Washington dropping its support for Mujahadeen Khalq, an Iraq-based rebel Iranian group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department."

The neoconservatives have some sort of shadowy relationship with the Mujahadeen-e Khalq Organization, or MEK. Presumably its leaders have secretly promised to recognize Israel if they ever succeed in overthrowing the ayatollahs in Iran. When the U.S. recently categorized the MEK as a terrorist organization, there were howls of outrage from "scholars" associated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, such as ex-Trotskyite Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes. MEK is a terrorist organization by any definition of the term, having blown up innocent people in the course of its struggle against the Khomeini government. (MEK is a cult-like mixture of Marx and Islam). The MEK had allied with Saddam, who gave them bases in Iraq from which to hit Iran. When the U.S. overthrew Saddam, it raised the question of what to do with the MEK. The pro-Likud faction in the Pentagon wanted to go on developing their relationship with the MEK and using it against Tehran.

So it transpires that the Iranians were willing to give up 5 key al-Qaeda operatives, whom they had captured, in return for MEK members.

Franklin, Rhode and Ledeen conspired with Ghorbanifar and SISMI to stop that trade. It would have led to better U.S.-Iran relations, which they wanted to forestall, and it would have damaged their protégés, the MEK.

Since high al-Qaeda operatives like Saif al-Adil and possibly even Saad bin Laden might know about future operations, or the whereabouts of bin Laden, for Franklin and Rhode to stop the trade grossly endangered the United States.

The FBI has evidence that Franklin passed a draft presidential directive on Iran to AIPAC, which then passed it to the Israelis. The FBI is construing these actions as espionage or something close to it. But that is like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. Franklin was not giving the directive to AIPAC in order to provide them with information. He was almost certainly seeking feedback from them on elements of it. He was asking, "Do you like this? Should it be changed in any way?" And, he might also have been prepping AIPAC for the lobbying campaign scheduled for early in 2005, when Congress will have to be convinced to authorize military action, or at least covert special operations, against Iran. AIPAC probably passed the directive over to Israel for the same reason – not to inform, but to seek input. That is, AIPAC and Israel were helping write U.S. policy toward Iran, just as they had played a key role in fomenting the Iraq war.

With both Iraq and Iran in flames, the Likud Party could do as it pleased in the Middle East without fear of reprisal. This means it could expel the Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan, and perhaps just give Gaza back to Egypt to keep Cairo quiet. Annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, the waters of which Israel has long coveted, could also be undertaken with no consequences, they probably think, once Hizbullah in Lebanon could no longer count on Iranian support. The closed character of the economies of Iraq and Iran, moreover, would end, allowing American, Italian and British companies to make a killing after the wars (so they thought).

Franklin's movements reveal the contours of a right-wing conspiracy of warmongering and aggression, an orgy of destruction, for the benefit of the Likud Party, of Silvio Berlusconi's business in the Middle East, and of the neoconservative Right in the United States. It isn't about spying. It is about conspiring to conscript the U.S. government on behalf of a foreign power or powers.








Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467

the zio-bark-bark-buffoons seem to have been sent flying by that barrage. LUVVED IT!!!

Careful though. Once the legit criticisms take hold, they escalate to the false flag shit. They'll do anything, you know

I have to say, this is the most amusing thing I've seen all day. "No anti-Semites," you say? What does that make you? Trampling the flag of a country that has every right to be there? They were there in Biblical times, and were chased out by the Romans after rioting against the Romans. Do you expect the Israelis to all go back to Europe? Or America? Or any other place? What do you propose is done with them? Where wil they go?
Are you protesting against the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians? I'd agree with you if the Palestinians weren't, you know, bombing clubs and super markets. The Israelis don't have an issue with the Palestinans, themselves. They could live happily with them, if they weren't bombing people. But they are, and as Golda Meire said, "We can't have peace with them untill they love their children more then they hate us."