Let's talk about Revisionism (by Latuff)

Mr. Latuff spends his life drawing crude cartoons which compare Jews and Nazis. His work is extensively used by the National Alliance and the World Church of the Creator. The haters of Indymedia, whose bigotry rivals that of any white supremecist, must love beating off to his drawings of subhuman Jews.

Cartoons and paranoia
Latuff - 17.02.2002 02:00

According public statement published on Internet by Swiss non-governmental organization Aktion Kinder des Holocaust, Warsaw Ghetto cartoon from Latuff´s "We are all Palestinians" series "stands for the extermination of the Jewish people and the state of Israel".

http://www.akdh.ch/latuff2.htm

Is this cartoon by Latuff, published at indymedia-switzerland, anti-Semitic? An analysis.

The cartoon evokes a clear association of a WWII ghetto in Poland. The figure shown is obviously based on the image from the infamous photograph of the little boy who is threatened by an SS-man armed with a gun. Hardly any other picture from any ghetto has the same symbolic and emotional impact.
Further associations are stirred up. A Jewish community, living in Poland for centuries, is brutally violenced and detained to a Ghetto for one single reason: Because they are Jews. There is no political or strategic military goal behind this "ghettoization", only the thorough extermination of the Jewish population. The ghettos in Eastern Europe are part of the holocaust; they are the waiting room for the extermination camps.
The caption in the bubble "I am Palestinian" picks up the figure of the devastated Jewish child and transforms it into a different one. Now the Palestinians are the ghetto-child whose fate is in the hands of oppressors who clearly intend his extinction. But the oppressors, too, are in the picture. Through the sentence "I am Palestinian" it is made clear that the ghetto wardens of today are not the Nazis anymore, but the Israelis. The picture conveys the clear association that the Jews themselves do nowexactly the same what the Nazis did to them in the Thirties and Forties of the last century. From a psychological point of view this means that the Jews suffer from an obsessive-compulsive urge to re-stage the ghetto trauma again and again to be able to face it at all and thus may have the trace of a chance to free themselves from it. For this purpose all means seem justifiable to the Jews = Israelis. The "Jews" are the "Germans" of the Middle East, the murderous invaders who attack as well - and foremost - children. Their only goal is the total extermination of the Palestinian people.
Enough said about the heavy symbolism of the picture´s antagonism between the "people", symbolized by a child, and the "black wall" (execution wall at Auschwitz?). It is part of the above explanation.
Jews are reduced to a symbol here and the holocaust thus intrumentalized as a clever catchphrase to insinuate that the holocaust a) was not a singular experience and b) that the Israelis do exactly the same, i.e. follow a comprehensive genocidal agenda. Jews are "allotted" just victim-status, which they have to live by. If they don´t, they are automatically labelled with the "global conspiracy" stereotype, which portrays them as aspiring tyrant rulers of the world. The emblematic set-up of the Israelis = Nazis symbol has become a much-used topos within the Arab world since the foundation of Israel 1948. It is published regularly in Arab newspapers, although in a much more direct way (Moshe Dayan meets Hitler and gets a compliment as his (Hitler´s) "best disciple"). In the picture we are discussing here this is done much more subtly, but not any less anti-Semitic.

The icon of the "global Jewish plotter" who poses as a victim, yet is a perpetrator, is a figure frequently used in the 19th and early 20th century. Depending on the point of view of the critic, Jews were either revolutionaries threatening law and order or cannibal exploitative abusers. Both of those images imply that "the Jews" are following an agenda of taking over global power.

The relativation of the holocaust and the denial of its singularity is a further anti-Semitic symbol, which allows to intrumentalize the extremely emotional topic of the holocaust in a populist and polemic fashion for other purposes and which implies invariably elements of excuse for German society as well. The cartoon abuses, polemically, sensationally and luridly, the suffering of the Jewish people in the holocaust to cast the Jews as the evil incarnated in the Middle East. This is no cartoonist, legitimate larger-than-life illustration to make a point, this puts an end to any dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis. No communication is possible between the mutely murderous black wall and the helpless child. The only solution is a demolition of the wall and as the wall stands for Israel = Jewry, when all is said and done, the cartoon stands for the extermination of the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

Latuff,

you need to make a few cartoons focusing on how some Jews do not support Israeli policy of colonialism, of Zionism beyond 1967 boarders.

Your points are all well taken. But there also comes a time when you need to think about things from an even higher moral ground -- like Martin Luther King, Jr. In other words, there's a time and place to stress love just as much as shine line on injustice with shocking art. I think you could benefit from occasionally turning your eye towards that kind of balance.

It's very easy for critics to claim you're simply anti-Semitic. Do you want that? I think the ability to stick that label on you does a disservice to you.

Your call

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

Oh, and to others, don't go posting that Martin Luther King, Jr. quote about Zionism here, OK? I've researched that quote and there's no record of his staying that. You can find this research on the net if you search hard enough. I don't have the links handy at the moment.

I'm Jewish.

I hate what Israel does to Palestinians just as much as I hate what SOME Arabs do to Israelis

Millions of Jews can understand what Israel does, and these Jews do not approve. There's a large peace movement in Israel and a level of debate in Israel that would friggin shock the living hell out of Americans not accustom to open discussion about the Middle East.

Richard, are you Jewish? Hmmm....

Frankly, I find the cartoons disturbing, but that's because there's a kernel of truth behind the images. The images wouldn't attract the attention of people like you if there wasn't some threat, some truth.

Indymedia is not a cesspool of hate in any greater percentage or share as any other place in society. Any reasonable person knows there are Zionist and Arab supporters that speak strictly from hate through Indymedia, but they both are in the minority. So, don't go painting the system with your bullshit broad brush strokes.

Latuff might be anti-Semitic. I'm not sure yet. That's why I challenged him to focus on more than just the atrocities by SOME Jews. Just because someone points out that SOME Jews are responsible for violence doesn't make them anti-Semitic. And making the argument that Israelis are only responding to Arab violence is a simplistic argument. "Fault" is shared by both sides.

Nice post, jentry.

I have seen the odd inclusion of Palestinian attrocities in Latuff's series, and I discovered yesterday he's been contributing to Gush-Shalom for around 2 years:
http://gush-shalom.org/media/pics/
I suspect the lack of symmetry in the cartoons may be a reflection of the situation.

shalom-shalem

Jentry - what would you say about a cartoon portraying an African-American as a ugly ape-like creature raping a white woman. What would you think of someone who defended this cartoon by saying "I find the cartoon disturbing, but that's because there's a kernel of truth behind the images" - because after all some black men do rape white women. I would think both the cartoonist and defender are vile bigots and most reasonable people would agree. However, when Jews are the targets of an attack, it seems to be difficult to find reasonable people on the Left.

"what would you say about a cartoon portraying an African-American as a ugly ape-like creature raping a white woman"

No tolerance for genocide

The television camera lens moves with seeming effortlessness from the pictures of suffering and death at the Hebrew University to the carnival in Gaza City, where thousands take to the streets in celebration of the pictures from Jerusalem. Gazing at the revelers on the screen, one strains one's eyes to find an expression of shame, guilt, or remorse on the faces in the crowd. One unconsciously prays to discern anything that would show that those in front of the camera are there by accident or because they were forced to be there. But no, the faces on the screen are uninhibited, joyful ones.

Far from being forced to participate in the festivities, each and every one of the people at the parade in Gaza makes a personal decision to leave his or her home and join the crowd in applauding the mass murder of Jews. They are there because they support the murders. They are there because such murders make them happy.

These Gazans, and their counterparts at Balata refugee camp near Nablus, were not celebrating a military victory. There was no battle at the cafeteria in the Frank Sinatra International Student Center. These Palestinians men, women, teenagers, and small children came together to celebrate another massacre in their genocidal campaign against the Jewish people.

Yes, genocide. The Palestinians have reached a point in this war where it has now become clear that their goal in this struggle is not the end of the so-called "occupation," but rather the organized, premeditated mass murder of Jews because they are Jewish. That is, the Palestinian goal today is genocide.

In a seminal article in Commentary magazine this past February on the recent rise of anti-Semitism, Hillel Halkin argued, counterintuitively, that the Holocaust is the main reason why it is so difficult for Jews today to accept the fact of anti-Semitism. In his words, "The Holocaust has made some Jews less, rather than more, able to see anti-Semitism around them. This is because if the Nazis demonized the Jew, they also demonized the anti-Semite." In short, if an anti-Semite is not a Nazi, then it is hard for Jews to perceive him as a threat.

Just so, even as generations of Jews adopted "Never Again" as their rallying cry, the Holocaust made it difficult for us to notice when genocide is adopted as a policy against the Jewish people, without gas chambers present. The fact that the Palestinians currently lack the means used by the Germans to perpetrate their genocidal policy against the Jews blinds us from the fact that their desire to do so is the same as that of the Germans in the 1930s and 1940s.

The absence of the trappings of the Nazi Holocaust also prevents us from properly identifying repeated massacres of Israelis by Palestinians. Contrary to what we tell ourselves, these attacks are not expressions of rage or reactions to specific actions by the IDF. They are acts of genocide perpetrated against Jews as Jews because the Palestinians have descended to the level of depravity where they do not view the Jews as human beings whose murder is an inherently immoral act.

The fact that the Palestinians don ski masks and keffiyehs rather than brown shirts and swastikas also makes us undervalue the fact that, like the Nazis, the Palestinians are utilizing all their technological know-how and military resources to kill Jews and are making their best efforts to constantly improve and enhance these resources to increase their kill rate.

Daniel Goldhagen showed in his masterful book, Hitler's Willing Executioners Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, that contrary to popular belief, the Holocaust was not a Nazi-specific affair, but rather a German affair. While Hitler and his Nazi Party dominated Germany, the Germans allowed themselves to be dominated. While the Nazis were the architects of the Holocaust, they perpetrated it with the active support and participation of many rank-and-file Germans from all walks of life, in all sectors of German society regardless of membership in the Nazi Party.

Such is also the case in Palestinian society today. It is not just Hamas or Tanzim or Islamic Jihad that we must fight, but Palestinian society itself must be transformed for there to be peaceful coexistence. All major indicators point to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians is complicit in the aim of committing genocide against the Israelis. Poll after poll shows that a solid majority of Palestinians from all socio-economic levels supports suicide bombers and other forms of terrorism against Israel. In fact the polls show that the higher the socio-economic level of the respondents, the stronger their support for terrorism.

Virulent, Nazi-style Jew hatred and dehumanization has become for the Palestinians, as for the Germans before them, the central unifying theme of society. The best-seller lists in the PA for years have included such works as Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Being a relative of a suicide bomber is a status symbol.

From the schoolrooms to the mosques to the daily papers to the art studios, Palestinians teach, preach, write and paint in praise of genocide. Even Yasser Arafat's purportedly democratic and pro-Western opposition has no moral qualms about massacring Israelis. Leaders like the much-feted Sari Nusseibeh argue against suicide bombings not because they are morally reprehensible, but because of their tactical inconvenience.

In an interview on Al-Jazeera television on July 14, translated by Palestinian Media Watch, Nusseibeh praised everyone involved in jihad against Israel. Explaining that he did not want to pass moral judgment on the murderers when he signed a petition a month earlier calling for an end to suicide bombers, Nusseibeh said that terrorism presents no moral dilemma, it is only a question of whether or not "political benefit" accrues from killing Israeli civilians.

Nusseibeh's explanation echoes the official PA condemnations of every attack. There is never a moral judgment made, only a cost-benefit analysis. That killing Jews is acceptable is quite simply taken for granted.

Once we understand that this is the situation in Palestinian society, we reconcile ourselves with the fact that we are not in a struggle against a political movement for national sovereignty. We are being victimized by a genocidal campaign for our violent elimination supported by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

To defuse the danger presented to Israel by the genocidal Palestinians, we must also look to the German experience and take our cue from the Allied policy for the de-Nazification of postwar Germany. In World War II it was clear to the Allies that Germany would have to undergo a long process of social and political transformation before the Germans could again be trusted with sovereignty. The first step on the road was an unconditional surrender of the German army to Allied forces. As part of their military surrender, German nationals were forcibly deported from the strategically vital Danzig corridor and East Prussia, which were handed over to Poland. The Germans ceded all claims to the territory and deported nationals were banished with no right of return.

Furthermore, the surrender terms for Germany involved the stationing of a permanent occupation force on German soil, which still exists today, 58 years later, and forced limitations on German military capabilities and troop levels.

The transformation of German politics involved permanently banning anyone involved in the Nazi regime or supportive of that regime from participation in German political life.

There is no longer any room to doubt that the Palestinians, to become a nation that will live at peace with Israel, must undergo a similar transformation. Whether Israel can force such a process onto the Palestinians by itself or whether such a transformation will necessarily take place as part of a reshuffling of the Arab world that supports its genocidal program remains to be seen. But what is clear enough is that there can be no negotiations, no legitimacy, and no tolerance for a society whose central organizing principle is the physical elimination of the Jewish people.

"How Jews love to kill"

no - only the reichwing Zionists & Judeofascists - who don't represent the majority of Jews:

"according to the American Jewish Identity Survey (2001), less than 22% of all Jews declare themselves Zionist."
http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html


How war-by-deception zionists love to make strawmen...

Poor skinhead. Unarmed and scarcely able to lay claim to even a neighborhood in their ancient lands. To compare such a pitiful and powerless lot to that of israeli settlers [ backed by the biblical god, jewish wealth , and the american empire]---- well --- it aint fair ---it just aint fair. And barring a dramatic 'shift' in world affairs ,I see little hope of meaningful change. Sad , so sad.

"Jewish Wealth" - I could not have said it better myself.

Bob,

The rebuttal to your argument is straightforward. I think you might even be tempted to agree, should you elect to read the following at a leisurely pace. Before I dive into your argument, let me first preface the conversation by saying this issue has very little to do with whether a person defines themselves as "on the Left" or on the Right, even though those ideological leanings can influence ultimate conclusions.

I'll address your question first: You ask, "what would you say about a cartoon portraying an African-American as a ugly ape-like creature raping a white woman."?

I would call that vile racism. Surprised? (vile for more than one reason/dimension, which you'll soon understand)

I would also call the cartoon of the (presumably) Jewish settler (colonialist) above racist. That's right, a racist depiction of a Jew. Even more surprised?

The racism is in fact THE POINT! It's racist, but far more focused on social institution of the Israeli STATE, the racism of Israeli STATE policies, not Jews as a people -- never mind the "collateral damage" to Jews as a people, to borrow from Pentagon-speak. Zionism doesn't equate to racism, as some Arabs would like the world to believe (and even a small minority of Jews trying to stir shit up -- generally speaking, the same minority that helped to fund Hammas in the early years).

The fact is that the current STATE policies of Israel are extremely racist. It's impossible to magically draw a dividing line between STATE racism and the action of SOME participants in that society. Some Jews are indeed racist. But one can point out that these Jews exist, to shine a light on said Jews and their support for a racist STATE policy, while at the same time, not be anti-Semitic -- not be a Jew hater, or a "self hating Jew" as the moronically feeble arguments self-examining Jews often hear from our reactionary Jews brothers.

Americanism (whatever that is) doesn't equate to racism in full and by default (because Americanism isn't a singular thing), even though overt institutions of racism existed in America's history, and at previous times in America, the STATE was vastly more racist than it is today (long way to go, but...). Just as one could point out that most whites were racist in early American history, it must be noted that some whites were radical abolitionists and anything but racist. The example of whites in America isn't all that great because an overwhelmingly majority of whites in the 1800s believed in the "White Man's Burden" self-justifying crap. But my point is still valid. People that tar and feather as anti-Semitic anyone that criticizes Israel are often divorced from the reality that Israeli STATE policy and the ideas of many (NOT ALL) Israeli Jews are flat-out racist. Again, that's not to excuse Arab racism and violence at all. But just because "they" do it doesn't mean that "we" are pristine, god-like creatures.

You can choose to argue about the degree to which Israelis are reacting to Arab affronts, but that's a moot argument. Without getting into which side is more "just", both sides share blame. Let's leave that side argument there -- on the side. Stick to the meta issue of racism.

There's another dimension to the rebuttal worth getting into:

The act of rape (by any "race") is a singular act by a singular aggressor ("gang rape" being the exception), not a single person acting in a specific way that is congruent and in keeping of STATE policy. Even though there may be thousands of singular rape events in any given year in the U.S., generally speaking there does not exist a superstructure of culture that institutionalizes those rapists in the context of one "race" against another -- one group of rapists against a different group of victims. I qualified my remark ("generally speaking") because one can make an ironic argument that, given the fact that rape is a crime of power and not lust, one could theoretically do a sociological study addressing a hypothesis that blacks have a higher tendency to commit rape crimes as they lash out in a society that dis-empowers blacks (similar sociological studies have been done to explain why US social inequality leads to higher drug use in disadvantaged populations, etc.). Frankly, every person is responsible for their actions and there is no excuse for anyone to rape. But the point is clear: Despite your argument, the only race "card" you can actually draw with any rooting in reality is actually quite likely the opposite you intend! A cartoon portraying an African-American as an ugly ape-like creature raping a white woman would not only be racist, but it would have the sociological context ass-backward when it comes to which "race" groups actually have the majority of power in American society (again, rape is a crime of power, not lust). Indeed, when such cartoons/images were prevalent -- in the 1940s on back -- the absurd irony of the double racism stands out, crystal clear. It is not only racist given the image of the "ape-like" creature, but it's racist in turning the sociological context of the action ass-backward -- a double-whammy. BUT HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE -- THE KEY TO THE SECOND REBUTTAL, SO LISTEN-UP. There's no "double-whammy" with the cartoon depiction of the Jew above. The image of the Jew alone is a racist depiction. But the sociological context IS NOT ass-backward. The Jew above is a representation of the STATE of Israel, the CURRENT policies of Israel. To have a "double-whammy" racist cartoon depicting rape that would fit your incorrect argument structure, you would have to have a racist depiction of WHITE person raping a woman!

Bob, don't try to understand the world through dialectical thinking. It's going to send you down the intellectual craper ;-) The world is never black & white, us vs. them, either-or, etc. It's one friggin messy place, and the less TV we all watch the closer we'll come to preventing the extinction of the human race.

Peace be with you,

Jentry



----------------------------------------------------
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It does not seem so much to be a discussion about Israeli policy towards the Palestinians (which it should be), but a discussion about critics of this wicked and racist policy being "anti-Semites" or "self hating Jews."

Framing it in that context is counterproductive. Assume, for arguments sake that Latuff is an anti-Semite, (which he isn't) and those amongst who object to what is happening to the Palestinians are indeed "self-hating Jews" (which is a rather pathetic cliche, doesn't one think) the point remains the same;
Israel's atrocious policy concerning the West Bank and Gaza. There is more than a kernel of truth in what critics say, there is a veritable cornfield.

Harking back to the lame canards of yesteryear, doesn't take away from theses facts or the history of the Zionist movement itself. Zionism is based on two rather ugly isms; chauvinism and nationalism. There is no getting away from that fact, no matter how one tries.

What we suggest is that Israel makes a serious and honest peace with the Palestinians, (not the fake peace of the "Barak peace"), which entails the establishment of a Palestinian state in the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza and a allowing a good percentage of those people living in Israel who fled in the wake of the events of 1948 to return, if it can be shown that they left due to coercion or force.

Thanks

Hi, could someone please post this cartoon of the ape-like black person raping a white woman? It sounds quite droll and amusing, I'd like to see it. Thanks!

Hello "Jews for a Free Palestine"

I dig this: "There is more than a kernel of truth in what critics say, there is a veritable cornfield" Touché -- and I stand correctly. That was a sloppy choice of words on my part. I actually find nothing in your message that I disagree with. Perhaps you might not have seen that I'm attempting to speak to fence sitters, Jewish or otherwise. But the fact is, there's nothing in my message above nor the one I'm about to post that distorts the true dynamic here: Israel is a colonial occupying power, and it's policies are racist. I think you may have read all these messages too quickly.

Peace

OK Bob, round 2.  I'm going to use blue text for my writing, and your text is in red.  Perhaps this will be helpful/appreciated.  I will address every word you wrote.  With respect to:

You said something very important that I don't think you fully appreciate - you stated that "[t]he Jew above is a representation of the STATE of Israel, the CURRENT policies of Israel." Throughout history, the Jew has been used to represent what is hated, feared or misunderstood. The Jew, not as an individual but as an archetype, has been alternatively the symbol of modernity and backwardness, of cosmopolitanism and insularity, of capitalism and communism. People suffered from disease, economic problems and political upheaval and blamed the Jew.

So far, I'm 100% in agreement with the above.  I TOTALLY appreciate the above.  So there.  Here's where you begin to lose logical fortitude and spin into an intellectual pothole:

Today those who claim to stand against racism, colonialism and violence have chosen a ready target for their apathy - the Jew again, this time representing the "racist" state of Israel. 

With respect to the above sentence, you need to explain yourself more before I can conclude with certainty I understand exactly what you mean.  Frankly, it sounds like nothing more than a simplification at best -- at best, an example of either-or, us-them dialectical thinking gone awry.  It's clear that if you take the world's six some-odd billion people, subtract the 800 some-odd million from the first world (I'm being generous!) and subtract the 1.2 billion in the Islamic world, you're left with about 4 billion.  In that group of Asians, Latin Americans, Africans and such, many experience racism, colonialism and violence and don't think too much (if at all) about how their problem is a reflection (nor caused by) the Jew, Jewish scapegoating.  Brazilians, for example, would be foolish to think their primary oppressor is Israel or Jews, and I would venture to guess that very few fall into that scapegoating!  When I think of my African American friends that are keenly aware of social justice issues, most of them don't see the Jew as the problem (I mention this example on purpose, because even though the majority of African Americans don't scapegoat the Jew, some do -- but that fails to prove your logic because it does nothing to address organic Israeli-STATE-generated racism/policy, and I'm merely being courteous to you, spelling out where there might be a thin veneer on your argument in the US context that might make sense.  But it's a bogus argument, nonetheless. 

There is something to be said about shining a light on all those fools that run around bitching about a Zionist conspiracy controlling the world through the banks and the media.  That's age-old as far as conspiracy theories go, and there are shadows of that casting into the modern era, as people talk about the power of Israel over America.  Yes, there's power there, but I would suggest to my non-Jewish readers here (you of the left, right, peach, tangerine or what have you) that American WASP interests are perfectly happy with the way the Middle East geopolitical map lays out, and how championing the Jewish state serves WASP/colonial interests first and foremost, Israel and Jews as an afterthought.  After all, you need to deal with the fact that the Bush family history is dripping with financial support to Nazi Germany.  But we see George H. W. Bush didn't have much trouble going along with a pro-Israel game plan in his career for the very reason that it was good business, good geopolitical strategy overall.  (I probably just lost about 80% of the readers, but everything I just said is documented historical fact -- look it up, and pay special attention to the 1942 decision by Congress to shut down Union Bank on grounds of trading with the enemy).  And I have a similar skepticism about George W, although according to J. H. Hatfield, in his biography Fortunate Son:  George W. Bush And The Making Of An American President, W's first love -- and the love of his life -- was a Jewish girl his family forbid him to marry.  Perhaps W doesn't take after dear old racist dad?  Who knows.  

Again, to foreshadow your response, I think it's logically sound to debunk those that think the world is run by an evil Jewish/Zionist conspiracy.  But you can't go from that and turn around and divorce responsibility for STATE racism and STATE colonialism localized in the form of Israel.    

With respect to your next sentence:

Just as your historic antecedants were able to readily list the evils the Jew of their era was responsible for, starting with the killing of Christ. 

You demonstrate that you didn't read my message with care.  I actually didn't list any historical examples of evils by Jews, and I certainly didn't reference the killing of Christ.  Bob, you're probably mixing me up with some other person you're debating.  Romans killed Christ, and anyone that argues otherwise is ignorant.

You conclude with this:

Just as then, in a world of change, confusion and suffering, it is comforting to have a ready scapegoat.

Uh, I think Islam and Muslims are getting / going to get the primary shafting this go-round.  Ten years from now, when our social services are really in the shitter because America spent $500 billion a year on defense/"intelligence"/homeland security (when paying for real defense and fixing the root causes costs less, but I can't write a god damn book here and will not expound), I will not be surprised to hear fringe and perhaps even mainstream American voices blaming those Muslims for our troubles, and for screwing us with $50-70/barrel oil (which will actually be caused by generic supply/demand).

Why do I get the felling you're Jewish, like me?  That statement just rolled off your keyboard with a natural ease that suggests you really take this subject quite personally.  I'm not scapegoating anyone -- and certainly not my fellow Jews.  But I certainly can see Israeli State colonialism and call it what it is:  colonialism.  I'm sorry if you have yet to evolve your awareness sufficiently to understand the meaning of "no justice, no peace."  Injustice anywhere represents the threat of injustice everywhere, and some Jews seem to be pretty darn lazy in their use of the defense you just put forth.   

Now, I need you to answer a single yes/no question to lend credence to the possibility that you are not just an agent provocateur (others:  if he fails to answer this question with a resounding "Yes", he deserves extreme scrutiny -- or should be ignored).  Ready Bob?  Is racism a motivating factor for an IDF soldier that enters a Palestinian home in the occupied West Bank, eats food from a Palestinian family's refrigerator, and then urinates in the refrigerator when finished?  Yes or no?  You asked me if I thought the black rapist cartoon was racist and noted yes and explained why, and I went one step further and noted where racism comes in with Latuff's cartoon (way above and beyond the call of duty ;-)    Let's see what you've got for us, Bob.

I've been enjoying Latuff cartoons for a while now and I don't recall seeing any that were anti-jewish. I do remember quite a few that were anti-Israeli, and I thought they were great because I am against everything Israel is doing over there. I am an american and I wouldn't be getting upset if some cartoonist were portraying the american army committing war crimes BECAUSE THEY DO. I'm not in the army, and thusly I don't worry about people who might see it and misinterperit it as all americans.

Now in Israel's case it's more difficult because the zionist movement has been working to blur the distinction between jews and zionism. This is noone's fault but israel's. Zionist jews SHOULD feel targeted and should be squirming when they see this because it's a true portrayal of the war crimes they commit every day. Jews living in israel who do not agree with their countries policy of occupation do not have any grounds on which to deny the horrors of their countries military. Just like I cannot deny the horrors of my own countries military. I do not try to make people think that things are different than what they are. In fact I openly welcome anyone who wants to portray my countries military this way because if I was (and I am) a peace activist I would want the world to know the attrocities that are being committed by those in the military representing the country in which I reside.

Anti-israel is not anti-semitism. If you have a problem with how closely zionism is related to judaism, go complain about it to someone else. Or do something about it.

REVISION!

I think there's something to be said for drawing a distinction between soldiers in the U.S. Army too. There are brave and honest soldiers that defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC (e.g., Scott Ritter. etc.). You too are painting the world in black and white to make an ideological point.

I happen to agree that there's no moral ground upon which Israelis or Jews or Zionists can justify the policies of the State of Israel, and there's nothing in my messages above that suggest otherwise.

Enough said. Over and out.

"There are brave and honest soldiers that defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC..."

When was the last time you saw an American soldier stand up to a politician or corporate bandit and demand the constitution be upheld? They are drones who do what they are told.

I only WISH they would really protect our "freedoms." Instead, they let corrupt politicians pass things like the patriot act and start programs like the "Information Awareness Office" headed by criminals and liars from the nixon era like John Poindexter, or launch "independent" investigations into 9/11 headed by such independent people such as war criminal Henry Kissinger.

Yeah, the government sure is good at guarding sheep with wolves.

Put a corporate criminal in charge of corporate crime investigations.
Put a war criminal in charge of war crime investigations.
Put a lying criminal in charge of watching everyone's every move.

Whats next? Are we supposed to start sending all of our children to the Catholic priests for daycare now too?

in denial

That cartoon is counter-productive in my view.

Regardless of the verity of the message, using such stereotypical characterizations will be perceived as racism. It's fodder for accusations of anti-semitism, which only benefit pro-occupation propagandists.

This is a grave and sensitive issue, demanding a relentless yet rational approach to informing the American public.

Please don't add to the noise Latuff.

You're the one that apparently needs to get real. I said I wasn't going to post, but I just have to since I even provided an example (Scott Ritter) in my message, which you apparently was unable to see. Then, you ask me that question???? Uh, hello? Earth to "get real." I provided an example of "the last time you saw an American soldier stand up to a politician." Scott Ritter is doing in across the board, in an extremely vocal way. Another example is Major Doug Rocke, who was in the service for most of his life and is now getting his house shot at and death threats because he's dared to stand-up against the corrupt U.S. military and complicit politicians on the issue of depleted uranium. Go over to http://www.Flashpoints.Net and listen to the December 25 interview. But then, I guess you're some ideologically principled activist that thinks, for example, that "all cops are pigs" and other stupid and counter-productive abstractions. Maybe yes, maybe no. If no, great. But if yes, look buddy, it's clear that you are hell bent on keeping the world simple, black and white, dialectical. That's your loss.

The system and nature of the U.S. armed forces is for the most part corrupting as it serves empire. But to say that the human beings in that system are not reachable, not potential allies to quite a different agenda is to miss an opportunity (an opportunity missed, in my opinion, on the basis of stupidity, short sightedness, dialectical ideological thinking, and most importantly, some residual element somewhere in your personality that actually finds some sort of need to rationalize yourself against those evil others -- you will miss this last point for sure, but others will read and get it).

Don't respond. Think.

But I thought Jo Jo's cartoon was funny . . .

Hitler and the Palestinian Arabs

by Chuck Morse

26 December 2002

Pro Palestinian spokespeople play bait-and-switch on the charge of Jew-hatred as the motivating factor behind suicide bombings with sanctimonious stock lectures on Christian complicity in the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. They blame Israel for "occupation" without explaining why Muslims, where they maintain substantial populations, seem incapable of living peacefully in countries they don´t control, such as, besides Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus and elsewhere. These premises are false on three counts. Nazism was not Christian but neo-Pagan, Moslem imperialism today echoes Nazi aggression, and Arabs share a historic complicity in the Nazi Holocaust. In fact, understanding Arab support for Nazism places the present Israel-Arab conflict in its proper context.

Britain was so concerned with Nazi inroads into the Arab world in 1938, the eve of World War II, that they issued the infamous White Paper limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine, contributing to locking Jews into a Europe that was being overrun by Hitler. Former British Prime Minister Lloyd George, in a 1939 address, called the White Paper, "An act of national perfidy that will dishonor the name of Britain." The White Paper violated international law as established by the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Faisal-Weizmann agreement of 1919. These agreements, recognized by the world community, supported the creation of a Palestinian Jewish State and encouraged Jewish immigration. Emir Faisal, heading the Arab delegation to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, had formally recognized the future Jewish state in a signed document that explicitly called for Jewish immigration to Palestine. Nevertheless, the British gave in to pressure from the anti-Jewish faction led by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a major participant in the Holocaust. On July 1, 1937, the British-appointed Mufti asked the German Consul-General of Palestine "to what extent the Third Reich was prepared to support the Arab movement against the Jews." Following this meeting, the Mufti was visited in Palestine by Adolf Eichmann, who was getting "acquainted with the country and the life and to establish contact with people." Around the time of Eichmann´s visit, a prolonged and organized campaign of atrocities against the Jews of Palestine was launched.

Also around that time, the Mufti became a paid agent of the Nazi Abwehr and was put in charge of counterintelligence and sabotage. When the British stopped an Abwher shipment of arms to the Mufti in Palestine, through Saudi Arabia and Iraq, the Mufti re-located to Baghdad, where he directed Arab and Nazi finance, diplomacy and propaganda. In 1941, the Mufti inspired a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq led by General Rashid Ali. Collaborating with his masters in Berlin, he would declare a Jihad against Britain, which he called "the greatest foe of Islam." The British backed a successful counter-coup and the Mufti proceeded on to Berlin, where he was appointed by the Nazis as titular head of a Nazi pan-Arab government-in-exile.

On November 21, 1941, the Mufti met with Adolph Hitler and recorded the following in his diary:

The Mufti said : “The Arabs are Germany´s natural friends... They are therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in a war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and the unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq.”

Hitler: “Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.... Germany´s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. The moment that Germany´s tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.”

Hitler and the Mufti were planning to first exterminate the Jews of Europe and then the Jews of the Middle East. The Mufti, who visited Nazi death camps several times, organized support for the Nazis from amongst Muslims in Russia, the Balkans, and the Middle East. He headed the "Arab Bureau" in Berlin, where he directed a massive network of Arab-Nazi collaborators. He organized tens of thousands of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims into military units known as Handschar divisions, which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies, and he attempted to organize an Arab-Nazi Legion. Handschar fighters would be discovered battling against Israeli independence in 1948.

In 1943, in a speech in Berlin, the Mufti stated: "The Treaty of Versailles was a disaster for the Germans as well as for the Arabs. But the Germans know how to get rid of the Jews. It is that which brings us close to the Germans and sets us in their camp... up to today." On March 1, 1944, in a radio broadcast to the Arab people from Berlin, the Mufti stated: "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor." The Mufti initiated some of the most virulently pro-Nazi and Jew-hating broadcasts in history.

Declared a war criminal at Nuremberg, he would spend the rest of his life living in opulence in Cairo. His broadcasts, pamphlets, intelligence network and sabotage against Israel would continue after his death in 1974. In his memoirs, he wrote, "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations, and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: ´The Jews are yours.´"
--------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Morse is a talk show host on AM 950 WROL-Boston and author of Thunder out of Boston, Why Iìm a Right-Wing Extremist, and The Gramsci Factor.

I've seen way too many pro-Israelis write in about how the Palestinians never existed and that they only came in *after* Jews started immigrating there. This is a lie that serves to absolve Zionists of the crimes they committed against Palestinians -- massacres and expulsions. Zionists also talk about territorial expansion the way Hitler did -- "our land is too small, we need more," and "whoever can take it by force gets to keep it." Zionists are behaving like Nazis in so many ways including denying the atrocities they've committed (like the destruction of Palestine and the on going destruction of any trace of Palestinians and their culture).

The shrill responses from Israel's supporters above just goes to show that Latuff is right on the mark once again.

I Love Latuff!

would this count?

I love brilliant artist too!

posting of articles like the above is one method racist trolls try to shut down honest and productive discussion.

it fails. most just skip past the big eyesores

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand the answer.

"This", incidently, refers to a post that was hidden (as ifyou couldn't tell).

In the future, write to us about this stuff at:

imc-sf-editorial [at] lists.indymedia.org

Tell us the URL, and we'll deal with it as soon as we can.

Posting a comment about it in the thread is totally and completely useless. By the time we read your comment, we've already seen the post. (Duh!) What we need help with is spotting ones that we *don't* see.

I wouldn't have thought it would be faster for you to check email than to just scroll through latest comments, but I don't really know about the process on here - I'm just a regular person avoiding my own work. I'd send email if I see really bad stuff, but apparently I wouldn't understand.

Deconstructing JoJo.
The genius of JoJo is that he underscores the ludicrousness of ethnic and religious strife. Because he sometimes employs ethnic/religious humor to highlight the dourness of some on the left and right, he, JoJo, offends. His style, at times, is retro and pre-pc, but no one is spared his wit: he's an equal opportunity flamer! He's a younger and infinitely more good looking satirist/humorist than say Don Rickles or Jerry Seinfeld.
GoJoJo

Latuff uses satire as a weapon to reveal state racism.

All Joey does is use the issue of the existence of race hatred for humor that has no political higher purpose. Without that purpose, it's just lame -- childish. It may be funny, but it's still retarded, at best.

Joey's comments like "fatty" when talking about a protestor's picture a few months ago and the below are one in the same. Joey comes off like he's 13 years old.

Joey is no genious. Anything but.

Sorry I was short with you earlier. Battle fatigue.

Any disagreeing with the party line is a troll and we champuions of free speech should NOT listen to him.

Why did we fight Chadwick and Marrry Francis Berry if now we can censor everythingf ourself - we just call them trolls or zionist or whatever and we do not have to listen to them any more.

Questions for you supporters of Palestine

Who are the Palestinians?
Yashiko Sagamori

If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:

When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.

And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology* for history won't work here. The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a "nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve piece in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

Dear brothers and sisters-in-arts,

I would like to thank you, open-minded and progressive Jews and non-Jews for support to my efforts on exposing Israeli war crimes and hatemongers. However, we must to be aware about racists trying to hide thsemselves behind defense of Palestine to attack Jews. The point of my cartoons is NEVER on Jewish race or religion, but criminal policies from Israel and its supporters.

"The holohoax justifies killing Palestinians
by No more Jew propaganda" published one of my cartoons out of context. In original artwork, sleeve of shop-assistant have not a Star of David but a message ("May I help you?"). Intention of this cartoon is to raise a question: why not a single Hollywood movie on Palestinian massacre?

I don't see any problem with movies about Holocaust, on the contrary. People need to be always educated about nazi doctrine and intolerance. But why not on Israeli massacre of Palestinian civilians with heavly armed tanks, Apache helicopters and soldiers?

I will not admit that my cartoons can be used by Holocaust deniers and racists. My art art is not for nazis to dance over the bodies of innocent people killed in concentration camps (Jews, gays, gypsies, etc). I beg to San Francisco IMC to remove this altered cartoon along these other fascist crap.

My message is clear. I do not support Palestinian-haters AND Jew-haters. For all of you Holocaust deniers, my message of "support": FUCK YOU!

Latuff

Right On Latuff!

This is the best thread on here at the moment . . . informative, hilarious, even former troll remnants.

Your speech is free as a bird. Go spout it on the rest of the net, not here. Here. You will be courteous, and not p*ss off our friends and allies. Otherwise, you're outa here. If you don't like it, tough.

Got the picture?

Now get with the program.

....one of those "progressive Jews" (radical, actually ;-) that knows the difference between criticism of the State of Israel (Latuff) and Jews as a people (not Latuff).

I'm not even going to use the term anti-Semitism anymore, as it's bogus from the get-go. Arabs are Semites, and most Jews today actually don't have Semitic blood. But hell, just another shade of gray in our world most care to see in black and white, either-or, dialectical nonsense.

Jentry

=====
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

western's have an april full's day during a year
But jews have days inevery mount for lie.

San Francisco IndyMedia sure does have a faster website than New York's. It must be all that dot com action over there. New York's IndyMedia is so fucking slow,sometimes I just don't know why I bother.

PS. thanks Vince I love you too

"TREATMENT OF ISRAEL STRIKES AN ALIEN NOTE",

If a visitor from a far away galaxy were to land at an American or Canadian university and peruse some of the petitions that were circulating around the campus, he would probably come away with the conclusion that the Earth is a peaceful and fair planet with only one villainous nation determined to destroy the peace and to violate human rights.

That nation would not be Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Russia or Iran. It would be Israel.

There are currently petitions circulating on most North American university campuses that would seek to have universities terminate all investments in companies that do business in or with Israel. There are also petitions asking individual faculty members to boycott scientists and scholars who happen to be Israeli Jews, regardless of their personal views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. There have been efforts, some successful, to prevent Israeli speakers from appearing on college campuses, as recently occurred at Concordia University. There are no comparable petitions seeking any action against other countries that enslave minorities, imprison dissidents, murder political opponents and torture suspected terrorists. Nor are there any comparable efforts to silence speakers from other countries.

The intergalactic visitor would wonder what this pariah nation, Israel, must have done to deserve this unique form of economic capital punishment. If he then went to the library and began to read books and articles about this planet, he would discover that Israel was a vibrant democracy, with freedom of speech, press and religion, that was surrounded by a group of tyrannical and undemocratic regimes, many of which are actively seeking its destruction.

He would learn that in Egypt, homosexuals are routinely imprisoned and threatened with execution; that in Jordan suspected terrorists and other opponents of the government are tortured, and that if individualized torture does not work, their relatives are called in and threatened with torture as well; that in Saudi Arabia, women who engage in sex outside of marriage are beheaded; that in Iraq, political opponents are routinely murdered en masse and no dissent is permitted; that in Iran members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Jews, are imprisoned and sometimes executed; that in all of these surrounding nations, anti-Semitic material is frequently broadcast on state-sponsored television and radio programs; in Saudi Arabia apartheid is practised against non-Muslims, with signs indicating that Muslims must go to certain areas and non-Muslims to others; that China has occupied Tibet for half a century; that in several African countries women are stoned to death for violating sexual mores; that slavery still exists in some parts of the world; and that genocide has been committed by a number of countries in recent memory.

Our curious visitor would wonder why there are no petitions circulating with regard to these human rights violators. Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza -- an occupation it has offered to end in exchange for peace -- worse than the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Are the tactics used to combat terrorism by Israel worse than those used by the Russians against Chechen terrorists? Are Arab and Muslim states more democratic than Israel? Is there any comparable institution in any Arab or Muslim state to the Israeli Supreme Court, which frequently rules in favour of Palestinian claims against the Israeli government and military?

Does the absence of the death penalty in Israel alone, among Middle East nations, make it more barbaric than the countries which behead, hang and shoot political dissidents? Is Israel's settlement policy, which 78% of Israelis want to end in exchange for peace, worse than the Chinese attempt at cultural genocide in Tibet? Is Israel's policy of full equality for openly gay soldiers and members of the Knesset somehow worse than the policy of Muslim states to persecute those who have a different sexual orientation than the majority? Is Israel's commitment to equality for women worse than the gender apartheid practised in Saudi Arabia?

Our visitor would be perplexed to hear the excuses made by university professors and students for why they are prepared to delegitimate Israel while remaining silent about the far worse abuses committed by other countries. If he were to ask a student about the abuses committed by other countries, he would be told (as I have been): "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel now."

This reminds me of an incident from the 1920s involving then-Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell. Lowell decided that the number of Jews admitted to Harvard should be reduced because "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus, Judge Learned Hand, pointed out that Protestants also cheat, Lowell responded, "You're changing the subject; we're talking about Jews."

It is not surprising, therefore, that as responsible and cautious a writer as Andrew Sullivan, formerly editor of The New Republic and now a writer for The New York Times Magazine, has concluded that "fanatical anti-Semitism, as bad or even worse than Hitler's, is now a cultural norm across much of the Middle East and beyond. It's the acrid glue that unites Saddam, Arafat, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and the Saudis. They all hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed."

Our intergalactic traveller, after learning all of these facts, would wonder what kind of a planet he had landed on. Do we have everything backwards? Do we know the difference between right and wrong? Do our universities teach the truth?

These are questions that need asking, lest we become the kind of world the visitor would have experienced had he arrived in Europe during the late 1930s and early 1940s.

"That nation would not be Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Russia or Iran. It would be Israel."

Why on earth would it be Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Russia or Iran? Why not the most dangerous country in the world - US with president moron.

Join the ranks of those that take time to post sources and URLs.

Your message is presented as if you wrote it.

It was an article by Alan M. Dershowitz. A copy of it can be found here:

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec02/dershowitz.htm

"Oh, and to others, don't go posting that Martin Luther King, Jr. quote about Zionism here, OK? I've researched that quote and there's no record of his staying that. You can find this research on the net if you search hard enough. I don't have the links handy at the moment."

Here are the references to Martin Luther King's stance on Zionism. As you can see, MLK did indeed make pro-Zionist statements:

(From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," _Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., _This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr._ (New York, 1971), pp. 234-235.

Here's one of the sources that points to the bogus original citation to Saturday Review. You can find others. Ironically, the ideological folks at CAMERA did the research noted below. CAMERA is a propaganda / attack dog outfit, stylized on the model of FAIR. But sometimes they get their story straight. This is the first URL I found searching the net, so I'll just use this one. But when I researched before (for a few hours), I found other information proving that the letter is bogus. Anyone can research further if they wish.

With any good propaganda, there must be a major element of truth. To deceive, 95% of the message should be true, thus earning generalized acceptance of the whole. That is what this MLK letter achieves. He was against racism of any sort, but he would not have approved of Israeli STATE racism and colonialism against Palestinians. There are some propagandist that use this bogus letter as a way to not defend against racism against Jews, but as a way to blur the issue of Zionism and attempt to defend Israeli STATE racism and colonialism.

There's nothing wrong with saying MLK condemned racism against Jews. But some propagandists using this bogus "letter" would have people believe that MLK would defend Israel's STATE racism and colonialism, which is simply laughable, even at first glance. MLK was against any and all racism.





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

http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

“Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” *

* Note from jewish-history.com: We searched the archive of Saturday Review where this letter allegedly was published. This periodical is a weekly, not a monthly, so there were four issues published during the month of August, 1967. Of these four issues, two contained 76 or more pages. On p. 76 of one issue, were classified ads, on p. 76 of the other issue, a review of the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. There were no articles by Dr. King on Zionism or any other topic. Nor is there any anthology of Martin Luther King entitled This I Believe.

Dear jewish-history.com visitor:

We received the following message from the media watchdog group CAMERA:

We am sorry to inform you that the “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” allegedly written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is apparently a hoax. Although, the basic message of the letter was indeed, without question, spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard, where he said: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism.” [ from “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel” by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24. ].

We were initially doubtful of the authenticity of the “Letter to an anti-Zionist Friend” because the language in the first paragraph seemed almost a parody of language used in Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. And it was an odd coincidence that the “Letter” was listed as being published in one of the few magazines whose archives are not able to be checked online. Additionally, we could find no reference to the “letter” prior to 1999, which was odd because the text is such a dramatic denunciation of anti-Zionism-one that would have been cited widely.

However, we then found the “letter” in a reputable 1999 book (“Shared Dreams,” by Rabbi Marc Shneier) whose preface was written by Martin Luther King III. Since the King family is known to be extremely careful with Dr. King’s legacy, we assumed they must have verified the accuracy of the book before endorsing it.

Additionally, we found that quotations from the “letter” were used on July 31, 2001, by the Anti-Defamation League’s Michael Salberg in testimony before the U.S. House of Representative’s International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. The same “source” (Saturday Review, August 1967) for the “letter” that was mentioned in the Schneier book was also cited in the testimony. Since many in the Anti-Defamation League had actually worked with Martin Luther King, Jr in the civil rights struggle, we assumed again they would be very knowledgeable about King’s work and would have thoroughly checked anything they chose to read before Congress. Based on the apparent verification of the “letter” by the King family and the ADL, we sent the “letter” to you on MLK Day.

However, because we do not ordinarily rely on anyone else’s research, we decided to double-check, by searching back issues of Saturday Review* (Rabbi Shneier’s book had referenced the “letter” as being published in the August 67 Saturday Review). Lo and behold, there is no such letter in any of the August issues, nor do the page and volume numbers cited conform to those actually used by that publication. CAMERA also checked with Boston University, where Dr. King’s work is archived. The archivists too were unable to locate any such letter. We can only conclude that no such letter was written by Dr. King. (Please note we are not implying that the apparently bogus “letter” originated with Rabbi Schneier.)

Since the message of the letter (Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism) was one Martin Luther King, Jr. had indeed articulated, we can understand why the King family and the ADL did not feel the need to verify the “Letter to an anti-Zionist friend.” We at CAMERA apologize, though, for not looking past their endorsement when we had initial doubts about it. This episode is a reminder of the importance of verifying the authenticity and accuracy of sources, even when they appear to be solid.

Below is a January 21, 2002 op-ed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who worked closely with Dr. King. In the op-ed, he shares Dr. King’s views on Israel, views which stressed Israel’s democratic nature and Israel’s need for security. And he also relates that Dr. King said, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came from Dr. King’s 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that no one will think it is from the debunked “letter.”

The op-ed by Congressman Lewis appears below.

With our sincerest apologies,

Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA

Monday, January 21, 2002
(San Francisco Chronicle)

Here's one of the sources that points to the bogus original citation to Saturday Review. You can find others. Ironically, the ideological folks at CAMERA did the research noted below. CAMERA is a propaganda / attack dog outfit, stylized on the model of FAIR. But sometimes they get their story straight. This is the first URL I found searching the net, so I'll just use this one. But when I researched before (for a few hours), I found other information proving that the letter is bogus. Anyone can research further if they wish.

With any good propaganda, there must be a major element of truth. To deceive, 95% of the message should be true, thus earning generalized acceptance of the whole. That is what this MLK letter achieves. He was against racism of any sort, but he would not have approved of Israeli STATE racism and colonialism against Palestinians. There are some propagandist that use this bogus letter as a way to not defend against racism against Jews, but as a way to blur the issue of Zionism and attempt to defend Israeli STATE racism and colonialism.

There's nothing wrong with saying MLK condemned racism against Jews. But some propagandists using this bogus "letter" would have people believe that MLK would defend Israel's STATE racism and colonialism, which is simply laughable, even at first glance. MLK was against any and all racism.





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

http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

“Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” *

* Note from jewish-history.com: We searched the archive of Saturday Review where this letter allegedly was published. This periodical is a weekly, not a monthly, so there were four issues published during the month of August, 1967. Of these four issues, two contained 76 or more pages. On p. 76 of one issue, were classified ads, on p. 76 of the other issue, a review of the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. There were no articles by Dr. King on Zionism or any other topic. Nor is there any anthology of Martin Luther King entitled This I Believe.

Dear jewish-history.com visitor:

We received the following message from the media watchdog group CAMERA:

We am sorry to inform you that the “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” allegedly written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is apparently a hoax. Although, the basic message of the letter was indeed, without question, spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard, where he said: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism.” [ from “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel” by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24. ].

We were initially doubtful of the authenticity of the “Letter to an anti-Zionist Friend” because the language in the first paragraph seemed almost a parody of language used in Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. And it was an odd coincidence that the “Letter” was listed as being published in one of the few magazines whose archives are not able to be checked online. Additionally, we could find no reference to the “letter” prior to 1999, which was odd because the text is such a dramatic denunciation of anti-Zionism-one that would have been cited widely.

However, we then found the “letter” in a reputable 1999 book (“Shared Dreams,” by Rabbi Marc Shneier) whose preface was written by Martin Luther King III. Since the King family is known to be extremely careful with Dr. King’s legacy, we assumed they must have verified the accuracy of the book before endorsing it.

Additionally, we found that quotations from the “letter” were used on July 31, 2001, by the Anti-Defamation League’s Michael Salberg in testimony before the U.S. House of Representative’s International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. The same “source” (Saturday Review, August 1967) for the “letter” that was mentioned in the Schneier book was also cited in the testimony. Since many in the Anti-Defamation League had actually worked with Martin Luther King, Jr in the civil rights struggle, we assumed again they would be very knowledgeable about King’s work and would have thoroughly checked anything they chose to read before Congress. Based on the apparent verification of the “letter” by the King family and the ADL, we sent the “letter” to you on MLK Day.

However, because we do not ordinarily rely on anyone else’s research, we decided to double-check, by searching back issues of Saturday Review* (Rabbi Shneier’s book had referenced the “letter” as being published in the August 67 Saturday Review). Lo and behold, there is no such letter in any of the August issues, nor do the page and volume numbers cited conform to those actually used by that publication. CAMERA also checked with Boston University, where Dr. King’s work is archived. The archivists too were unable to locate any such letter. We can only conclude that no such letter was written by Dr. King. (Please note we are not implying that the apparently bogus “letter” originated with Rabbi Schneier.)

Since the message of the letter (Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism) was one Martin Luther King, Jr. had indeed articulated, we can understand why the King family and the ADL did not feel the need to verify the “Letter to an anti-Zionist friend.” We at CAMERA apologize, though, for not looking past their endorsement when we had initial doubts about it. This episode is a reminder of the importance of verifying the authenticity and accuracy of sources, even when they appear to be solid.

Below is a January 21, 2002 op-ed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who worked closely with Dr. King. In the op-ed, he shares Dr. King’s views on Israel, views which stressed Israel’s democratic nature and Israel’s need for security. And he also relates that Dr. King said, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came from Dr. King’s 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that no one will think it is from the debunked “letter.”

The op-ed by Congressman Lewis appears below.

With our sincerest apologies,

Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA

Monday, January 21, 2002
(San Francisco Chronicle)

Here's one of the sources that points to the bogus original citation to Saturday Review. You can find others. Ironically, the ideological folks at CAMERA did the research noted below. CAMERA is a propaganda / attack dog outfit, stylized on the model of FAIR. But sometimes they get their story straight. This is the first URL I found searching the net, so I'll just use this one. But when I researched before (for a few hours), I found other information proving that the letter is bogus. Anyone can research further if they wish.

With any good propaganda, there must be a major element of truth. To deceive, 95% of the message should be true, thus earning generalized acceptance of the whole. That is what this MLK letter achieves. He was against racism of any sort, but he would not have approved of Israeli STATE racism and colonialism against Palestinians. There are some propagandist that use this bogus letter as a way to not defend against racism against Jews, but as a way to blur the issue of Zionism and attempt to defend Israeli STATE racism and colonialism.

There's nothing wrong with saying MLK condemned racism against Jews. But some propagandists using this bogus "letter" would have people believe that MLK would defend Israel's STATE racism and colonialism, which is simply laughable, even at first glance. MLK was against any and all racism.





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

http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

“Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” *

* Note from jewish-history.com: We searched the archive of Saturday Review where this letter allegedly was published. This periodical is a weekly, not a monthly, so there were four issues published during the month of August, 1967. Of these four issues, two contained 76 or more pages. On p. 76 of one issue, were classified ads, on p. 76 of the other issue, a review of the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. There were no articles by Dr. King on Zionism or any other topic. Nor is there any anthology of Martin Luther King entitled This I Believe.

Dear jewish-history.com visitor:

We received the following message from the media watchdog group CAMERA:

We am sorry to inform you that the “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” allegedly written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is apparently a hoax. Although, the basic message of the letter was indeed, without question, spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard, where he said: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism.” [ from “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel” by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24. ].

We were initially doubtful of the authenticity of the “Letter to an anti-Zionist Friend” because the language in the first paragraph seemed almost a parody of language used in Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. And it was an odd coincidence that the “Letter” was listed as being published in one of the few magazines whose archives are not able to be checked online. Additionally, we could find no reference to the “letter” prior to 1999, which was odd because the text is such a dramatic denunciation of anti-Zionism-one that would have been cited widely.

However, we then found the “letter” in a reputable 1999 book (“Shared Dreams,” by Rabbi Marc Shneier) whose preface was written by Martin Luther King III. Since the King family is known to be extremely careful with Dr. King’s legacy, we assumed they must have verified the accuracy of the book before endorsing it.

Additionally, we found that quotations from the “letter” were used on July 31, 2001, by the Anti-Defamation League’s Michael Salberg in testimony before the U.S. House of Representative’s International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. The same “source” (Saturday Review, August 1967) for the “letter” that was mentioned in the Schneier book was also cited in the testimony. Since many in the Anti-Defamation League had actually worked with Martin Luther King, Jr in the civil rights struggle, we assumed again they would be very knowledgeable about King’s work and would have thoroughly checked anything they chose to read before Congress. Based on the apparent verification of the “letter” by the King family and the ADL, we sent the “letter” to you on MLK Day.

However, because we do not ordinarily rely on anyone else’s research, we decided to double-check, by searching back issues of Saturday Review* (Rabbi Shneier’s book had referenced the “letter” as being published in the August 67 Saturday Review). Lo and behold, there is no such letter in any of the August issues, nor do the page and volume numbers cited conform to those actually used by that publication. CAMERA also checked with Boston University, where Dr. King’s work is archived. The archivists too were unable to locate any such letter. We can only conclude that no such letter was written by Dr. King. (Please note we are not implying that the apparently bogus “letter” originated with Rabbi Schneier.)

Since the message of the letter (Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism) was one Martin Luther King, Jr. had indeed articulated, we can understand why the King family and the ADL did not feel the need to verify the “Letter to an anti-Zionist friend.” We at CAMERA apologize, though, for not looking past their endorsement when we had initial doubts about it. This episode is a reminder of the importance of verifying the authenticity and accuracy of sources, even when they appear to be solid.

Below is a January 21, 2002 op-ed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who worked closely with Dr. King. In the op-ed, he shares Dr. King’s views on Israel, views which stressed Israel’s democratic nature and Israel’s need for security. And he also relates that Dr. King said, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came from Dr. King’s 1968 Harvard University appearance, so that no one will think it is from the debunked “letter.”

The op-ed by Congressman Lewis appears below.

With our sincerest apologies,

Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA

Monday, January 21, 2002
(San Francisco Chronicle)

SF Indymedia didn't seem to be taking the post. I waited for 20 minutes befor hitting resubmit.

" He was against racism of any sort, but he would not have approved of Israeli STATE racism and colonialism against Palestinians"

That's your opinion.

But I'm POSITIVE the father of non-violent resistance would have been against Suicide Bombers who murder civilians in the hope of "liberation."

Unlike you, he would certainly see that there are most definitely alternatives to violence. That's why he was a better man than you are.

And quit pretending Israel is a "racist state" when it treats its Arab citizens better than Arab nations treat their own citizens, and treated the Palestinians in the territories pretty well too before the intifada. At least, this is the truth if you don't swallow their propaganda hook, line and sinker.

MLK wouldn't make that mistake.

I don't support Palestinian violence of any sort, and nothing I have posted in any of the messages above can possibly be twisted as such. But you are not interested in dialog, it would appear. Your intent appears to be a weak attempt to smear me.

I agree. MLK, Jr. would never support Palestinian suicide bombers.

I wish that Palestinians would adopt MLK Jr.'s entire political organizing strategy, to be perfectly frank. I've felt as much since 1987, the first intifada.

I would agree with you that Israel treats its Arab citizens better than some examples found elsewhere in the Arab world. But there are instances of racism in Israeli society as it pertains to Israeli Arab citizens. Ultimately, however, your argument is a canard. Israeli treatment of Arab Israeli citizens is irrelevant when considering Israeli treatment of Palestinian Arabs in Israeli Occupied territories. Israel does indeed have state institutionalized racism toward Palestinians in occupied territories.

What you miss... as always... is very simple.

What you miss is context.

Most critics of Israel miss this.

Why the occupation? Well because of the many wars launched by Arabs do destroy Israel; wars of Conquest.

Why the roadblocks, searches, et cetera? Well because of the suicide bombers and gunmen trying to murder Israelis.

I admit I've become increasingly flippant on my posts here, mostly because I found serious dialogue is nearly useless. It doesn't take long before I'm attacked as a "Zionist Sociopath" or some other sickening insult, so I figure I'd just speak the language people here understand.

The reason I bring up human rights in neighboring countries is very simple.

Yes, you are right; there is still Racism against Arabs in Israel.

This is a problem. In fact, Racism is a problem in every country in the world.

Israel and many Israelis do want to solve the problem, though it is aggravated by the violence of the intifada and the wars.

The United States, too, has problems of Racism. As does every country in the world. Some are particularly noxious, such as Sudan, Lebanon, Russia, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and many more.

BUT...

People on Indymedia focus on Israel to the exclusion of all other racism problems. Israel, where at times Arabs have taken discrimination cases to the Supreme Court... and WON. Israel, which has far more avenues to address discrimination than all her neighbors.

Does she get praise for this? Far from it. She only gets condemnation. From people who can't be bothered to addressed literal Slavery in Sudan, they criticize the land distribution of Israel. The number of threads on indymedia having to do with Israel FAR OUTNUMBER the threads on human rights violation on any other nation. Aside from Israel and the United States, practically every country in the world gets a free pass, as far as Indymedia is concerned.

Why? Two reasons.

Hatred of the West/Capitalism/U.S.

And Hatred of Jews.

No matter how exemplary Israel is, it attracts far more than its share of criticism, not because these people care about the Palestinians, but because they don't like the ideas of Jews governing themselves.

You think I'm kidding? Hey. Let me tell you one thing about the Arab world.

The Arab nations could not care less about the Palestinians.

From the beginning, the Palestinians have been an excuse, a distraction, a reason to hate Israel. It is not now, nor has it ever been a humanitarian concern.

If the Arab nations actually cared about the Palestinians, they could have solved the refugee problem 50 years ago. They could solve it now if they want to. Instead, they prefer to let these people suffer and keep them isolated.

Why? So they can be used as pawns against Israel.

Oh, they fool the world all right. They even fool the Palestinians sometimes into thinking that the Arab States actually give a shit. They don't. You think that if Israel was conquered in 1948 or 1967 that the Arabs would have given it to the Palestinians? Hardly. They would have chopped it up and split it amongst themselves. They'd do that now. They never wanted a Palestinian state. To this day, they don't want one.

If the Palestinians made peace with the Israelis, and coexisted as two separate states, that would be the biggest affront to the Arab world yet. Which is why they'll never allow it.

"The number of threads on indymedia having to do with Israel FAR OUTNUMBER the threads on human rights violation on any other nation"

Absolutely - I'm paying for moron-jr. government to murder civilians. The other HR violators aren't doing it with my tax money. Plus, moron media covers only one side of the story - as illustrated quite well with the Christmas Holiday murders and assassinations - and that infuriates people who have to read idiot moron media for their news, to know those a--holes are blatantly biased and still have jobs. Someone has to tell the true story.

"Why? Two reasons.

Hatred of the West/Capitalism/U.S.

And Hatred of Jews."

Wow, you claim to understand the Arab world but you don't even know what Osama said? I'll give you a hint - there were three requests.

Unfortunately, the actual sensibility of your ideas about hatred is so limited that there's no point in addressing you on them. You might as well be the moron himself.

Hello "Hey"  

I'm going to use my blue text when responding, leaving your text in full and in red for ease of following along.   Please note that there are, once again, areas where I agree with you, and that I'm not interested in slamming you.  Relax and read with leisure if you wish the following.  Perhaps I may stir some new ideas for you.

I have elected to take one of your paragraphs out of order, as I'd like to address that first and foremost:

I admit I've become increasingly flippant on my posts here, mostly because I found serious dialogue is nearly useless. It doesn't take long before I'm attacked as a "Zionist Sociopath" or some other sickening insult, so I figure I'd just speak the language people here understand.

That's OK.  I understand.  And sometimes, the people reading/posting here don't spend much time nor take much care.  You don't seem like a "Zionist Sociopath."  But perhaps you can understand how it's pretty easy for people to not cut people some slack, how calm discussion gets tossed out the window.  Please don't consider the following as a cheap shot directed at you.  But I think you can see an example of how it's easy to jump to conclusions by looking at your previous post to me and Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Hey Mr. Hey (grin), I've been rash and hasty with responses many a time.  No one's perfect.  

You note:

What you miss... as always... is very simple.

What you miss is context.

Nope, I say. :-)   And it's presumptuous for you to say "as always" as you haven't seen many of my messages (the above isn't "many") nor do you know me.  In truth, what you are doing below is selectively presenting history, which lets you distort context.  Here are some examples:

Most critics of Israel miss this.

Why the occupation? Well because of the many wars launched by Arabs do destroy Israel; wars of Conquest.

That's correct in the first order, but it breaks down when one includes additional history, particularly with respect to history following 1973.  The occupation in the early years could be justified on the grounds of "strategic depth," a term used in military science and in the international relations field, meaning the buffer necessary to guard against future attack.  But by the 1970s, a growing number of IDF generals and Israeli intelligence officers were stating in public and on record that Israel's military and intelligence (read:  early warning ability) superiority was so profound that "strategic depth" was no longer something that had to be secured.  This all happened after the 1973 war.  This represented an evolution in the military doctrine, and it was this very shift that contributed to Israel's willingness to let go of the Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt.  By the mid to late 1970s, Israel no longer needed the West Bank to prepare for and win a defensive war against Jordan and other allied Arabs.   The Golan Heights is a different issue, as there is strategic depth gained from owning the high ground.  But when it comes to the West Bank, even the IDF knows and publicly notes as much that an extra 20 some-odd miles (the West Bank buffer) has minimal impact on Israel's ultimate security against an invasion from the East.

Simultaneously to the evolution of IDF doctrine in the 1970s, we had the Labor Party officials (yes, the Labor Party) talk about building settlements in the West Bank as "facts on the ground," that would eventually change the very map of what was to be seen as Israel.  This, Mr. Hey, was pursuant to colonialism, not military defense.  

Why the roadblocks, searches, et cetera? Well because of the suicide bombers and gunmen trying to murder Israelis.

This statement is somewhat true, as the roadblocks and searches and such do help in the short-run, and you can make a weak argument that the measures are needed to prevent said atrocities.  But it's "weak" because it's ultimately counter-productive;  it actually increases terrorism because Palestinians grow up in that world.   

Amusingly enough, we can often seen Israeli politicians talking about how the fact that a suicide bombing hasn't been seen in "x" number of weeks is proof of the usefulness of checkpoints and military incursion into "Area A" (the part of the West Bank where Israel left Palestinians mostly to themselves before).  These Israeli tactics are useful only in the short-run.  The occupation is the problem.  Racism and brutality is the problem.  And again, I'm not saying that the Palestinians are in their right to attack Israelis with suicide bombers.  I think that's stupid on their part, in addition to being an abomination. Furthermore, I'm not saying that finding a permanent peace settlement is going to be easy, nor am I saying that the Palestinians have never been duplicitous during peace negotiations.  But I will say that many segments in Israel's political landscape want very much to torpedo peace efforts, and work very hard to destroy the possibility for success by presenting offers that don't go far enough, Barak's mythical Camp David offer included (by the time the Taba discussions occurred in Jan. 2001, negotiators for Barak did indeed get much closer to a workable offer to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians were close to accepting it, but things fell apart because Sharon was coming to power in a few weeks and Clinton was going to ride off into the sunset).

The reason I bring up human rights in neighboring countries is very simple.

Yes, you are right; there is still Racism against Arabs in Israel.

This is a problem. In fact, Racism is a problem in every country in the world.

It's important to underscore that with that series of sentences above, you just validated many of the arguments I was presenting.

Israel and many Israelis do want to solve the problem, though it is aggravated by the violence of the intifada and the wars.

I agree with you, 100%  It's like a chicken and egg sort of thing.  And Israelis indeed have themselves in a pickle.  But the thing is, Sharon (and many in the Labor Party) are trying to solve this problem by building a wall two to three times more formidable than the Berlin Wall, with some mythical idea that security can be achieved by walls.  The walls don't need to be built on land, they need to be torn down in people's minds.  I'm not saying that's going to be easy.  I'm not saying I have the solutions.  But I'm smart enough to know that building walls on land is not going to solve the problem.

The United States, too, has problems of Racism. As does every country in the world. Some are particularly noxious, such as Sudan, Lebanon, Russia, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and many more.

BUT...

People on Indymedia focus on Israel to the exclusion of all other racism problems. 

I agree.  There is an over-emphasis on Indymedia on this issue, with warring and irrational voices coming from all sides.

Israel, where at times Arabs have taken discrimination cases to the Supreme Court... and WON. Israel, which has far more avenues to address discrimination than all her neighbors.

Great point.  Another great example that Robert Fisk talks about often is how Israel's own review of the Lebanon travails of the IDF and Sharon was an extremely damning review of Israeli policy and action.  (for those that don't know, Robert Fisk is one of the world's best journalists covering the Middle East, and you can read his stuff at the Independent -- just plug his name in a search engine and you'll find tons of articles and sources on him)

Does she get praise for this? Far from it. She only gets condemnation. 

I'd be the first to lambaste those offering condemnation.  

From people who can't be bothered to addressed literal Slavery in Sudan, they criticize the land distribution of Israel. 

Sorry, on that point, you're off base.  You can't construe ignorance or indifference about slavery in Sudan as a point that makes stronger your case against those that criticize Israel.  

The number of threads on indymedia having to do with Israel FAR OUTNUMBER the threads on human rights violation on any other nation. 

This bothers me too.  Earlier this evening, I looked at some of the other threads on SF Indymedia and was really surprised to see that this thread has far more sane and fact-focused discussion than most of the others.  

The rest of Indymedia is pretty bad too, but SF Indymedia seems to get a greater share.

Aside from Israel and the United States, practically every country in the world gets a free pass, as far as Indymedia is concerned.

What?  Come on, you don't really believe that?  Surly you're just being casual, a case of you being flippant (you described yourself above:  "I admit I've become increasingly flippant...").  You don't have to try very hard to see hundreds of examples of posts condemning racism and more in other nations/regions.

Why? Two reasons.

Hatred of the West/Capitalism/U.S.

This is a little simplistic.  It can be true in some instances, although not universally.   I don't think the Anarchists, Communists, or other far left types universally get any particular additional buzz by going after Israel just because they have a hatred for "West/Capitalism/U.S." (and actually, your argument isn't fair at face value either, because many in the far left in fact have a love for the West and some aspects of the U.S., but I'll grant you that isn't a very common reality -- it's more common with the "less hard" left liberal types, the Green Party types and so forth, and those people get similarly pained).

In any event, the fact is, the U.S. is the big boy on the block, so you should expect a considerable degree of emphasis on the U.S. -- but you're exaggerating, to be sure.

And Hatred of Jews.

No question about it.  100% agreed.  Those that happen to hate Jews and also use Indymedia, it would seem also post many articles/comments.  Rise above it by being a voice of reason and calm discussion, Mr. Hey.  Do your part.  You need not agree with anything I've written, but resist temptations to be "flippant."

No matter how exemplary Israel is, it attracts far more than its share of criticism, not because these people care about the Palestinians, but because they don't like the ideas of Jews governing themselves.

Sorry, but this is what's called bifurcation in logic/debate parlance.  It's a bogus logical construct.  Yes, Israel is exemplary for some things.  But that doesn't permit one to make a subsequent defense against Israeli State racism, State racism that exists simultaneously to instances where Israel is exemplary -- and nor, for that mater, does it excuse Israeli colonialism.  I know this might sound a bit odd to you.  But you have to realize that both can exist at the same time.  Again, as I've said over and over and over and over again in my messages in this thread, the world is not black and white, either-or, dialectical...  Look at the U.S. today.  It's exemplary that we have come as far as we have with race relations, doing away with slavery and so forth, and that compared to Sudan, we look like the beacon of Freedom.  Does this mean that we don't have problems?  That the U.S. doesn't have real living racism and injustice existing simultaneously?  Hmm... Maybe we should go ask Senator Lott.

You think I'm kidding? Hey. Let me tell you one thing about the Arab world.

The Arab nations could not care less about the Palestinians.

From the beginning, the Palestinians have been an excuse, a distraction, a reason to hate Israel. It is not now, nor has it ever been a humanitarian concern.

This is mostly true in my view.  I'd only differ with you on the fine points.  I think it's actually more common to see Arab dictators and corrupt monarchs use bashing of Israel as a tool to distract (the word you correctly use!) their local populations from the injustice on the home front.  The Arab dictators and monarchs don't attack Israel for sport, but for clear reason:  to quell focus on domestic problems.  This is particularly true in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where the press is often explicitly told that they can bitch, exaggerate, incite and moan about Israel freely, but to never cross the line and direct scorn towards the home leader.  If you read about the "dissident" Saudi Arabian writers in London, for example, you can get an appreciation for this -- London has a huge Arab community. 

If the Arab nations actually cared about the Palestinians, they could have solved the refugee problem 50 years ago. They could solve it now if they want to. Instead, they prefer to let these people suffer and keep them isolated.

This is another example of bifurcation.  You're pointing out one truth, and then claiming that another proposed phenomena is true.  There are (as you would agree, I'm sure) many reasons why Israel and the Palestinians have not come to peace.  

Why? So they can be used as pawns against Israel.

Oh, they fool the world all right. 

Na... you're off bases on that too.  The Arab states are actually ready to give in to a new dynamic.  They're willing to see an Israeli State, to fully recognize it and have normal relations, and to give up the ability to attack Israel in the media, per our example above.  In part, they realize that there's going to be a lot of money to be made from the U.S. and Europe as we Western tax papers fork over money to shut everyone up (er...I mean, build a new world) following a permanent settlement. 

They even fool the Palestinians sometimes into thinking that the Arab States actually give a shit. They don't. 

You're oversimplifying again.  The Arab States act with great duplicity.  They don't have lasting organic passion or interest for Palestinian rights.  But they do have periodic and genuine support.  And the "Arab Street" certainly is universal in it's support.

You think that if Israel was conquered in 1948 or 1967 that the Arabs would have given it to the Palestinians? Hardly. They would have chopped it up and split it amongst themselves. 

You're probably right.  

They'd do that now. 

No, I doubt that.  The geopolitics are much different today, and the validity and strength of the Palestinian national consciousness is way to established today, in both the minds of men and on the books of international law.  1948 might have seen that, when far less established history of international law recognizing the Palestinians as a group without a nation (but a group, nonetheless, with legal authorities in the form of the Palestinian National Authority that even issues passports!).  But today?  No way.  

They never wanted a Palestinian state. To this day, they don't want one.

Again, you're probably right on the first point, but the latter is quite debatable.

If the Palestinians made peace with the Israelis, and coexisted as two separate states, that would be the biggest affront to the Arab world yet. Which is why they'll never allow it.

It would indeed be an affront, but the rewards are tangible in other areas.  On that basis alone, I disagree -- and we can agree to disagree and still be civil.

Peace,

Jentry

Way to go Latuff!  Your last two cartoons are fantastic.   

- Jentry

 

 

 

source:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555172

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555389

 

My God! Someone actually seriously responded to my post! I haven't seen such a miracle since... well for a while.

Okay Jentry let me take a look here. We agree on some points, which seems to be an essential item. Some things we agree on:

1) People can be rude on Indymedia
2) Many of the problems in the present situation stem from response to terror
3) Israel has race problems (like all nations) but is self-critical and has avenues for correction.
4) Arabs for the most part don't/didn't care about the Palestinian people.
5) Much of the bias against Israel stems from a Hatred of Jews (Anti-Semitism)

This is more than I usually get.

On some points of our contention:

"
That's correct in the first order, but it breaks down when one includes additional history, particularly with respect to history following 1973.  The occupation in the early years could be justified on the grounds of "strategic depth," a term used in military science and in the international relations field, meaning the buffer necessary to guard against future attack.  But by the 1970s, a growing number of IDF generals and Israeli intelligence officers were stating in public and on record that Israel's military and intelligence (read:  early warning ability) superiority was so profound that "strategic depth" was no longer something that had to be secured.  This all happened after the 1973 war.  This represented an evolution in the military doctrine, and it was this very shift that contributed to Israel's willingness to let go of the Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt.  By the mid to late 1970s, Israel no longer needed the West Bank to prepare for and win a defensive war against Jordan and other allied Arabs.   The Golan Heights is a different issue, as there is strategic depth gained from owning the high ground.  But when it comes to the West Bank, even the IDF knows and publicly notes as much that an extra 20 some-odd miles (the West Bank buffer) has minimal impact on Israel's ultimate security against an invasion from the East."

(Sorry that I don't really have the ability to color code my posts the way you do)

DIfferent generals have different ideas, of course. Without the West Bank, Israel's narrowest point is 8 miles wide. Though Israel's military technology may have improved, it is still certainly a risk to give away the West Bank.

So here comes a very serious problem; would Israel be giving the West Bank to a friendly neighbor- or a hostile nation?

If somehow we're able to achieve a peaceful two state solution- and there's no longer any rhetoric amongst the Palestinians of "liberating Palestine from the river to the sea"- then there's no problem.

While hostilies exist, this could be a very dangerous risk. Some Israelis are still willing to take this chance; others are not. But Arafat himself has told his people and the Arab nations that the West Bank would be a "Trojan horse", a launching point for the next invasion of Israel.

Perhaps someday Israel will be able to yield the territories to a peaceful Palestinian neighbor. Personally, I don't think its very likely as long as Arafat lives. Someday he'll die, be it assassination or natural causes, and there's a chance he could be replaced by someone more apt towards peace. Until then, I don't trust him, and neither does most of Israel. He recently cancelled the election scheduled for January, and his term ended 2 years ago, yet somehow he's still there. I don't know if the Palestinians can reasonably advance under his leadership.

"simultaneously to the evolution of IDF doctrine in the 1970s, we had the Labor Party officials (yes, the Labor Party) talk about building settlements in the West Bank as "facts on the ground," that would eventually change the very map of what was to be seen as Israel.  This, Mr. Hey, was pursuant to colonialism, not military defense. "

I believe the dictionary definition of colonialism is going to a far away land to exploit its resources for the profit of the home nation, in which case I don't believe the settlements are colonialist. (The cost far more to maintain than they could every conceivable bring in as profit)

But yes, though some settlements are military outposts, and others are just suburbs of larger cities, there are some that are ill-conceived. There are some Jews who believe the fullfillment of Zionism is to have Jews living in all of historical Israel/Palestine. They'll talk about the Jewish community that lives for centuries in Hebron (Before the Arabs murdered them in the 1920's) and the existence of Jewish Holy Sites in the area.

But someday they'll be withdrawn for a peace agreement. Maybe.
If they aren't withdrawn for the peace agreement, and their land is given to a Palestinian state, then they'll find themselves under Palestinian rulership most likely, and the Palestinians will do whatever they want.
Is this bad? Arabs live in Israel, as citizens with rights. Can Jews live in Palestine, as citizens with rights? Or would the new Palestinian state need to be Judenrein?

As long as the violence in the conflict drags on, the solution for the settlements becomes farther off the mark. They're not a priority with me; I'd withdraw them for peace. They're even getting on the IDF's nerves, because it takes so much extra manpower to provide them with security; the IDF has taken down some settlements in recent months.

But for a peace treaty, I believe Israel would withdraw them. She withdrew settlements from Sinai after making peace with Egypt; she'd likely to the same here. But the proper response is negotiation, not murder.

"This statement is somewhat true, as the roadblocks and searches and such do help in the short-run, and you can make a weak argument that the measures are needed to prevent said atrocities.  But it's "weak" because it's ultimately counter-productive;  it actually increases terrorism because Palestinians grow up in that world.   
Amusingly enough, we can often seen Israeli politicians talking about how the fact that a suicide bombing hasn't been seen in "x" number of weeks is proof of the usefulness of checkpoints and military incursion into "Area A" (the part of the West Bank where Israel left Palestinians mostly to themselves before).  These Israeli tactics are useful only in the short-run.  The occupation is the problem.  Racism and brutality is the problem.  And again, I'm not saying that the Palestinians are in their right to attack Israelis with suicide bombers.  I think that's stupid on their part, in addition to being an abomination. Furthermore, I'm not saying that finding a permanent peace settlement is going to be easy, nor am I saying that the Palestinians have never been duplicitous during peace negotiations.  But I will say that many segments in Israel's political landscape want very much to torpedo peace efforts, and work very hard to destroy the possibility for success by presenting offers that don't go far enough, Barak's mythical Camp David offer included (by the time the Taba discussions occurred in Jan. 2001, negotiators for Barak did indeed get much closer to a workable offer to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians were close to accepting it, but things fell apart because Sharon was coming to power in a few weeks and Clinton was going to ride off into the sunset)."

Well, I disagree with some of this, but I suppose you knew I would.

Let me do the easy stuff first; one of the reasons Sharon was elected is because Barak was totally humiliated by Arafat's refusual to negotiate. While Barak was making some of the largest concessions Israel ever made- probably the largest she ever will make- Arafat not only declined, but refused to negotiate better terms; in spite of the fact that Clinton himself was at these meetings, so Arafat should have known that if he agreed, not only was Israel bound, but that the United States would also have an involvement to see that things worked as written. But he turned it down. A humiliated Barak was replaced by Sharon. Bush replaced Clinton, and Bush ignored the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict until 9/11 made him rethink foreign policy.

As for the stuff of roadblocks being effective, they do stop hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks. Sharon's strategy of reoccupying the territory and making the cost of terrorism far higher than any potential rewards may have a chance to succeed. I'm not sure its the best solution, but I wouldn't be too quick to turn it down. Yes, in the short term it may inspire more terrorists, but maybe in the long term people will realize it's not getting them anywhere? I think you're a bit hasty to say that it will increase Terrorism in the long term. I'm not sure you really know. I don't really know. Even the Psychologists probably don't know.

But Israel is a democracy; whereas the Palestinians never get to change leaders, Israel gets to change them as fast as a merry-go-round. Maybe Sharon's approach would work if given enough time. Maybe Metzna's would work, given enough time. Maybe the problem is switching from one to another with every new Prime Minister.

I once heard a lecturer describe 9 potential solutions to the conflict, 7 of which won't work. I'm a little too testy to type them in now, but if you're interested maybe I will next time.

"Great point.  Another great example that Robert Fisk talks about often is how Israel's own review of the Lebanon travails of the IDF and Sharon was an extremely damning review of Israeli policy and action.  (for those that don't know, Robert Fisk is one of the world's best journalists covering the Middle East, and you can read his stuff at the Independent -- just plug his name in a search engine and you'll find tons of articles and sources on him)"

Well, I know more than one Israeli who is quick to acknowledge the mistakes Israel made in Lebanon. But again, Israel is a democracy with a free press, and Jews are argumentative people, so there actually is a very high degree of self-criticism.

One pet peeve of mine on Indymedia are the people who claim that the peacenik Jews are the "real" Jews or the "non-evil" Jews. Or that real Jews "Aren't" Zionists. Naturally I disagree with that. Not that the peaceniks aren't real, or that they're opponents aren't real. It's a diverse society with many different positions. I think most of them however support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which to me is the epitome of Zionism. Of course, you can find Jews who claim Israel shouldn't exist. Hell, I once heard a "Jew" claim the Arab nations should wipe Israel off the map. Of course, I took some offense at that... I mean... what kind of Jew would advocate the slaughter of her own people? We have our crazies and our lunatics.

But the Palestinian Authority is not a democracy, does not have guaranteed free speech. They're pretty much intimidated to follow the party line, so its hard to know how they really feel about things. It's pretty stifling... kinda like most Socialist groups in San Francisco. (haw haw, that was a joke)

Anyway, this is enough for now. I know I didn't get to all your points. If there's something I missed that you'd like me to respond to, just let me know.

"As for the stuff of roadblocks being effective, they do stop hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks."

And better still, this way Israel creates the most hardcore terrorists in history through this fascist method of 'protection,' killing numerous civilians and creating intense poverty and degradation.

While a handful of Israelis might be safe, Isreal itself has now infuriated many people all over the world by the use of these. My introduction to realizing how horrific the situation there is, was through a 'here's what happens at a checkpoint' flier. I realized it's an apartheid situation. I was sickened.

So sure, save a handful now - maybe, no real stats or evidence since the checkpoints only grow, and do not go away, apparently - and lose many many more through treating people in a subhuman way. Plus, educate the ENTIRE world on how oppressive and vicious Israel is to civilians - this supposed 'democracy.' But apparently only a 'democracy' for Jews on the right side of the fence. On the other side of the fence, all responsibility stops and it switches from 'democracy' to killing women, and today, a nine-year-old throwing a rock. As long as Israel's soliders are continually killing civilians, Israel will be looked down upon by the world.

As for your issue that the Palestinians are the Arab's responsibility - that sounds racist to me. Because they are all Arabs it's their job to take care of a people that ISRAEL has control over? So any Arab in the world is pre-determined to take care of all other 'Arabs?' That's a racist view. The world is full of people, and people take care of people.

It isn't for you to decide who needs to come to the aid of the Palestinians. It a normal and decent world it would be the UN - but in this world Isreal shoots UN workers.

So naturally, the world looks down on countries that treat anyone in this way. Lot's around the world hate the US, and for good reason. The US and Isreal and going down the tubes all over the world. People don't feel sorry for a country jammed chock full of weapons that shoots women, children, UN workers, etc. and tries to say it's in the name of 'defense.' The world knows about this game.

The settlements and checkpoints have already trashed Isreal in the world's eyes, drawn many parallels to other horrific treatments from history.

By the way, did you ever SEE the maps from the plan that Arafat rejected? If so, what can you tell me about them?

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with Jentry, without your idiocy butting in.

I already went over your claims, and I'm not going to go over your deluded lies about Israel or her history. I'm just not in the mood, nor am I convinced that you're worth the effort.

Incrediably, National Pentagon Radio had a story this morning about a group of Israeli women who go around to the checkpoints and have been doing so for 2 years, trying to make sure bad stuff doesn't happen. Thank god for those people - they said they were tired of going to marches and accomplishing nothing, and wanted to DO SOMETHING.

One Palestian man they interviewed was so thankful they were there. He said that the only exposure that Palestinians get to Israelis is the soldiers, so he was saying it was so important for people to SEE these women, arguing with the soldiers and watching and reporting.

But when the women tried to get the soldiers to allow women and children through first, the soldiers shut the whole checkpoint down.

Checkpoints are a huge issue that the world is watching - the outcome of these places is not some thing I'm telling deluded lies about. Slowly, more and more people are getting educated about them.

The problem is when you try to justify every level of mistreatment - beatings, unlawful imprisonments, murders, expulsions, degradation - in the name of safety for one group.

Does my butt look huge?

TA, don't be a moron.

It's called cause and effect.

Before the intifada, there were no checkpoints, and Palestinians had easy access to Israel.

Then the intifada started, and Palestinians were smuggling bombs and suicide bombers into Israel to murder civilians.

So Israel established checkpoints to search incoming Palestinians for bombs.

For a while they let innocent looking people go through more easily, until bombs were smuggled in by "pregnant" women, and inside ambulances. So now they have to search those too.

If you want to know where the blame for the checkpoint lies, blame the initifada, blame the suicide bombers. If you think any nation in the world should have a free and open boarder to a territory sending people in to kill their civilians, then you're just a totally naive schmuck.

Actually, you're a naive schmuck anyway, but if you discuss the checkpoints without discussing suicide bombers, than your argument is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

That's interesting, but really: Does my butt look huge??

This is really important!!!!!