AUDIO: Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey Blankfort on anti-Semitism. Israel threatens Iran

to the top

On this particular broadcast, Alex Cockburn's latest drivel is that there is almost no anti-Semitism, which is an outright lie. This country reeks of anti-Semitism and will continue to do so as long as capitalism exists. The solution is a labor movement to put an end to capitalism. This has nothing to do with Israel or its reactionary, capitalist, theocratic, Zionist government. This is plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism. And the solution to the crisis in the Middle East is organizing labor, both Jewish and Arab, to put an end to their reactionary, theocratic, capitalist governments and establishing a socialist, secular Middle East. The problem is the profit motive of capitalism.

Right here on this website, there are many anti-Semitic articles. Most are hidden posts, but some are not. The latest is on the Rothschilds, the wealthy banking family, which happens to be Jewish. It does not matter what superstition they believe in, they are still capitalists. The only reason to mention them is the old Jewish control crap. See:
Arnold, Buffet, Rothschilds meeting at:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1635303.php

When Cockburn was put on the spot about his stupidity, all he could do was babble that it is not as bad as it used to be. I have news for Cockburn and all other ignorant types like him: it is just as bad as ever. This Rotshchilds crap is very old and should have disappeared long time ago.

Then there are promoters of the "Jewish control of the media" as though Christian control of the media is somehow more acceptable and both are irrelevant since the problem is capitalism and its capitalist mouthpieces.

There are also the Holocaust deniers, the "Jews are smart" promoters which are most people, including my own attorney employer, the Jews for Jesus racket which is anti-Semitic by definition, the usual harassment about Christmas we all receive, the "Jews are Shylocks" routine courtesy "The Merchant of Venice," and all the rest of it.

I think Flashpoints, which I love very much, should do much more to discuss the economic crisis in Israel and the rest of the Middle East, and the labor responses to it. There have been labor strikes in Israel by Jewish workers and that is rarely reported. The class struggle is alive and well in Israel and we need to see much more class struggle all around the world.

"On this particular broadcast, Alex Cockburn's latest drivel is that there is almost no anti-Semitism,which is an outright lie."

Zionist Jew:

Of course, that too is lie (out of context), but what does that matter? Yes, as anti-Zionist Zionist expert and prominent Jewish author Lenni Brenner says, "We Jews, AS A GROUP(!), are the most formally educated, richest or most affluent, most politically powerful ethnic group in the richest, most powerful country on earth," disproportionately represented in academia, institutions, corporations, industry, and government, are indeed an oppressed minority in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. In fact, believe it or not, not all of us Jews are rich; some of us are even poor! And CERTAINLY not all of us are smart.

True, the American ghettos we live in tend to be so-called "gourmet ghettos", hillside homes, highrise condos, and gated communities. Yes, we're all over Palm Beach, Palm Springs, Malibu, Beverly Hills, and Bel Air -- cheek to jowl with the super-rich Gentiles (who are marrying us so fast that some of us worry about extinction). But I tell you we're still an oppressed minority in the United States!! WE'RE OPPRESSED I TELL YOU, WE'RE OPPRESSED!!

It's no denying that everyone hates someone -- and some people hate Jews! Anti-Semitism is alive and well!

Why, we're right down there with Native Americans (though our reservations are more likely to be country clubs--from which we originally banned blacks--and Jewish summer camps). We're right down there with blacks (though we don't get regularly beaten and/or killed by brutal cops). We're right down there with Latinos (though we only go to the barrio for *real* burritos). We're right down there with Asian immigrants from *poor* countries (like those of Southeast Asia, who trigger-happy police also kill with little thought, as opposed to Korean and Taiwanese immigrant university students) and we too sweat it out (well in fancy upscale aerobic work-out studios, rather than clothing sweatshops). Why, if I had a shekel for everytime I heard the word "kike"...!

Yes, we have the Bronfman's (the corporate dynasty family) and the Saban's (who gave the Democrat party $7 million dollars) and who is buying out one of, if not thee, largest German media outlets. Yes we have/had Metro Goldwin Meyer and other entertainment and media megamoguls. YES, right up there with the Gentile entertainment and media moguls(who often make us CEO's)! And yes, we get Israel billions of American tax dollars EVERY YEAR, way more than blacks get the entire continent of Africa. We arm and/or subsidize Israel's entire military!! Hell, American tax dollars "made the (Israeli) desert bloom"!

But, I insist that plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism is homicidally rampant in America and that we Jews are JUST AS OPPRESSED as any other minority!! We can hardly walk down the streets of New York, LA, any other major American or Western city -- or especially, the SFSU and UC Berkeley campus! And to deny that is anti-Semitic!

"When Cockburn was put on the spot about his stupidity, all he could do was babble that it is not as bad as it used to be. I have news for Cockburn and all other ignorant types like him: it is just as bad as EVER!!!" [I'll conveniently leave out pro-Palestinian human rights activist, Jewish-American, Jeffrey BLANKFORT in my attack.] The Jewish-American SLAVERY, just like in the Old South. The LYNCHINGS of Jews every week, just like in the Old South. White Christian-American anti-Jewish POGROMS, like in Tulsa, Oklahoma, or Rosewood, Florida, where entire black communities were destroyed by whites. The American RIOTS of the first half of the 20th century against Jews -- which were then synonymous of WHITE Christian rioters rampaging against and killing blacks in scores. The Jewish segregation of Washington, D.C., just like Woodrow Wilson imposed on blacks. The egregiously racist anti-black movie "Birth of a Nation" (oops!: that was Metro Goldwin Meyer's), used to justify racial segregation in all of America. It's just as bad as it EVER was!

Why Laurie Zoloth, head of the Jewish Studies Program at SFSU, has sharply pointed out that we Jews - in the Bay Area(!) - are on the verge of another Holocaust!!! I bet that Native Americans, blacks, Latinos, and poor Southeast Asians wouldn't ever trade places with us now!

And "the usual harassment about Christmas we all receive"!! It's not enough that, unlike gentile kids, our kids get big, fancy bar mitzvah's and bat mitzvah's! A big, special event (oh, bigger than a birthday) just for them! Now, we Jews have to turn erstwhile spiritual/introspective Channukah into Christmas materialism too, just like the gentiles and just to keep up and keep our kids happy too!! I tell you it's too much!! What oppression!! From even our own kids!! Oy vey!!

I tell you this country REEKS of anti-Semtism!!--especially on the Upper East Side (i.e., Manhattan, not East St. Louis).

Anyway, it's my job to tell you and misdirect you (just like USF Professor Stephen Zunes quintessentially does) that it's not Zionist Jews (or silent Jews) or the powerful domestic Zionist/Israel lobby (that can now bring down Mayors, Representatives, Senators, or even Presidents) that have ANYTHING to do with oppression of Palestinians in Israel, it's ONLY Gentile imperialism and capitalism! (Now, if that sounds like a form of anti-Gentile racism on the part of Jews, then you're anti-Semitic.)

I meant to say (above) "as anti-Zionist, Zion*ism* [not Zionist] expert and prominent Jewish author Lenni Brenner says..."

Are you a complete fucking moron?

What a load of garbage. Way to go, you're flooding the website with total idiocy.

"total idiocy"? Which part?

“Labor Creates All Wealth” (what an irrelevant catchy name!—[*yawn*]—like some Hill & Knowlton PR slogan commissioned by so-called left Zionists) thinks that global “class struggle” is the magic pill that will bring peace and justice to the Middle East. All you have to do, s/he contends, is get the masses of so-called “class-conscious” Israeli workers -- WHERE!? -- WHAT MASSES!? -- to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with oppressed Palestinians and confront their common enemy -- overthrow rapacious global capitalism -- and hooray! A blissful “worker’s paradise” will arise!

Someone please tap me on my shoulder whenever “LCAW’s” hallucination comes true. And where in history have all/most of the workers from the racist oppressor class EVER supported, and joined with, the workers of the oppressed class to overthrow any imperialist and capitalist state!?

This is constant, duplicitous ZIONIST diversion -- sending us on a fool’s errand -- by getting progressives to chase some Land of Oz, Never-Never Land pipe dream. Or it’s clinical self-delusion. Even a couple of Bay Area Marxist/Maoist groups are trying to sell us their newspaper subscriptions and get us to join them based on this wheel-spinning, utopian fools’ errand. Or is that the point!? Why is it that every time someone wants to end some immediate suffering and oppression that is killing people right now, these diversionary or self-delusional types want us, instead, to immediately go for the world-wide Revolution, wait until we overthrow the head capitalist state (the U.S. government) and abolish world-wide capitalism instead!? -- right now!!

Israeli workers, whether they engage in labor struggles or not, OBVIOUSLY do *NOT* see Palestinian workers as their comrades, any more than the masses of American union workers during the turn of the twentieth century saw Chinese immigrant workers, Blacks, or Mexican immigrant workers as comrades. Historically, racism has run rampant throughout the white-American working class, just as Zionist racism permeates the attitude of Israeli workers. In both cases the dominant working class race was among the most virulent *SUPPORTERS* of racist oppression, because it enabled them to solidify their own privileged white status within the ranks of the labor class of the imperialist capitalist state as a whole. In fact, most American labor, easily fed anti-Arab racism, supports not only Zionism, but even the two wars against Iraq, as well as every other modern American war! The so-called “Labor” Party in Israel -- a prime example -- is no especial friend to the Palestinians, any more than, typically, racially exclusionary American unions were/are to Blacks, Latinos, or Asians. At any rate, the Israeli working class apparently supports the Sharon government.

Then LCAW – [just to show that s/he is really a ZIONIST in sheep’s clothing] – throws in a bunch of strawman arguments and further anti-Semite baiting, and associates Cockburn with racist Jew-stereotypers, “Holocaust deniers,” supposedly anti-Jewish Christmas celebrators, and even “Jews for Jesus”!

This is, indeed, *DIVERSION* and *MISDIRECTION*. LCAW’s true goal is to keep true progressives (Jews and non-Jews alike) from examining the power and influence of the Israel lobby (especially the domestic Israel/Zionist lobby) and holding it accountable for its share of the responsibility for the oppression, suffering and killing of Palestinians it causes. This inhibits progressives from doing anything effective about Israel. LCAW is trying to prevent us from noting a critical element in our country’s militarist and imperialist foreign policy: the Zionist/Israel lobby.

This misdirection critically helps to ensure Israel’s existence as a Jewish-supremacist state, even if a less brutal one (either permitting or expelling over 1 million legally subordinate Israeli Palestinians), with a geographically surrounded, subordinate “independent” bantustan state (what Apartheid South Africa also called “Homelands”) finally given over to the Palestinians. Don’t further delude yourself -- the largest Israeli settlement towns/cities will NEVER be evacuated, so it will still be a Swiss cheese state at that. South Africa’s Desmond Tutu called this “apartheid with a smiling face.”

(Likewise, Chomsky, a liberal Zionist, repeatedly tells us progressives to examine EVERY lobby in America, in analyzing domestic and foreign policy -- EXCEPT the Zionist lobby. Chomsky also supports a Zionist Israeli state “within 1967 borders.” His sometimes co-author, Edward Herman, strongly disagrees with Chomsky on this.)

So-called “liberal/left Zionists” (of course, a contradiction in terms) have even politically coerced two prominent Bay Area Palestinian leaders to participate in this delusion by also denying the critical influence of the domestic Zionist lobby, apparently (I can only guess) in desperate trade for some Bay Area “liberal/left Zionist” support.

Jeffrey Blankfort calls “left Zionists” what they are: a fifth column for the Zionist lobby within the progressive (including anti-racist and anti-war) movement. (See “THE FIFTH COLUMN ROLE OF ZIONISTS IN THE LEFT”, “The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions”, “Telling the Truth about the War”, and other Jeffrey Blankfort articles.)

Until we get rid of racism -- and the vicious, murderous Zionist variant of it -- there will be NO “unity of the working class” and no “workers’ paradise” in Israel or anywhere else! If you ever hear someone talking that nonsense about uniting the Israeli and Palestinian workers to overthrow the capitalist Israeli state and its Zionist ideology, you can just get up and leave, because then you know you are talking to a damn delusional fool and that they are just wasting your time -- naively or purposely.

The masses of Israeli workers aren’t going on any strikes to improve the lot and lives of any Palestinians. Jewish Israeli workers are taking whatever actions they do to try to hold onto their OWN economic lives in a state (like every other increasingly deregulated and financially corrupt capitalist state) where income polarity has been growing exponentially. If “Labor Creates All Wealth” would stop seeing anti-Semites under every Jewish bed, s/he might look toward the state of Israel, and Zionists here and abroad, and see some REAL racists who are actually oppressing and killing people, or supporting it. In the U.S. and the West, in general, there is far less danger of what people are doing to Jews, than what racist Zionist Jews (especially the neocons in our militarist U.S. government for the past 20 years) are doing to others.

If American or Israeli workers want to end Palestinian oppression, they don’t need to join hands and sing Kumbaya with the Palestinian working class; all they need to do is go on strikes in their own country in protest of Isreali apartheid. Or support the boycott of Israeli goods, boycott visiting Israeli Zionist academics, hold union protests of visiting Israeli politicians, and boycott Israeli cultural visits, publicly call for cessation of U.S. aid to Israel, and publicly support divestment, or privately divest their investments, from Israel -- all the things we did against South African apartheid. That would REALLY scare Israel -- just like the one Rainbow Grocery Store vote does. And better yet, if progressives and workers openly supported the Palestinian armed struggle (as they did the Black South African, the ANC’s, armed struggle), at least against the Israeli military, you’d see Israel get REALLY REALLY scared and start negotiating in serious good faith with the Palestinians! Progressive do-gooders and liberal Zionists love to keep us chasing feel-good, pie-in-the-sky, pipe dreams, as opposed to actually doing something effective.

From Hi (a.k.a. Ugh, Huh, Uhh, Hahaha, hello, etc.): "invent some sort of machine that will transform them [Palestinians] into people who eventually learn that when a greater power offers you land, rejecting the offer and attacking the greater power over and over is idiotic"

Translation: Palestinians are unpeople who should learn to kneel before their masters (who are obviously superior people in every way) and accept any crumbs the master race "gives" them, even if all that land and water was theirs to begin with.

JA: See “THE FIFTH COLUMN ROLE OF ZIONISTS IN THE LEFT”, “The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions”, “Telling the Truth about the War”, and other Jeffrey Blankfort articles...

I'm not having an easy time finding these. I found a partial article for the first one but obviously not the entire thing.

Can you post links to these articles. Or better yet, cut and paste these articles into this thread.
Thanks

Both Gulf Wars were more about Israel's security than oil. The fear is that the "oil weapon" -- a term coined by Henry Kissinger -- might be used to pressure America into bending it's policy supporting Israeli expansionism if Arabs were ever in a position to defend themselves against US attack.

I pointed out once before on indymedia that the current oil profits of Iraq cannot justify this war. The oil profits from the 750,000 to 900,000 million barrels of oil per day (at the going rate of $30/barrel) comes to less than $10 Billion per year (add it up for yourself).

Yet the current occupation is costing American taxpayers $5 billion a month or $60 Billion per year. The numbers just aren't there to justify invasion and occupation for oil profits. Also, isn't it a little insane to attempt to takeover such a volatile resource amidst embittered enemies? Iraqis have already successfully sabotaged oil pipelines on several occasions.

Anyway, after I pointed this out I was accused of being a Nazi by someone.

In any case, I think the genocide against Iraq (which cost over 1.5 million Iraqi lives and happened right under our noses) was an Israeli policy translated into American Foreign Policy. It was Madeleine Albright (who said that three out of four of her grandparents died in Auschwitz) who stated that "the price was worth it" when asked about the half a million children under the age of five who died due to sanctions on Iraq according to UNICEF.

Putting to the side for the moment the moral implications of this (the sanctions which are without precedent in modern times cost more lives than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic bombings) isn't it even just a little outside of US interests to incur such a hatred because of our support (in fact our almost unilateral arm twisting) for these genocidal sanctions?

Basically, in order to prevent an Arab country from becoming a first world country (which Iraq was on the verge of becoming) and thus prevent Arabs from ever challenging the American Zionist Jews' home away from home, the US attacked Iraq twice killing well over a million people and reducing the country to a state of anarchy.

All this was done for a racist state with a population of a little more than 5 million people (over 20% of whom are oppressed Christian and Muslim Palestinians) that is supported to the hilt American elites (a good portion of whom are American Zionist Jews by now) along with their Christian fundamentalist allies.

"Iraq never did a thing to the US" and "Translation Services" are arses.

The former is shamelessly propagating a lie about the US's "favor" to Israel, spewing libelous lies about Israel and the purpose of the Iraq invasion.

The latter is simply a rabid pro-Palestinian Jew (Zionist) hating racist.

We can't say that you didn't WARN us! You certainly captioned your post just right: "Another moron"! (See: Another moron, by Hi, Sunday August 17, 2003 at 04:59 PM.)

"Another Moron": "You are in solidary with those who deny israel's right to exist..."

JA: THAT'S RIGHT!! I WOULD MORALLY DENY ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST AS A ZIONIST, politically and legally self-defined, "JEWISH(-supremacist) STATE".

I MORALLY DENY *ANY* NATION'S RIGHT TO LEGALLY EXIST AS A RACIST/APARTHEID STATE.

I WOULD HAVE MORALLY DENIED GERMANY'S RIGHT TO LEGALLY EXIST AS A RACIST NAZI STATE. I WOULD HAVE MORALLY DENIED THE U.S. RIGHT TO LEGALLY EXIST AS A SLAVE STATE OR AS A "JIM CROW" STATE. I MORALLY DENIED SOUTH AFRICA'S RIGHT TO EXIST AS AN APARTHEID STATE. ETC.

The very definition of Israel as "a Jewish state" is, by definition, RACIST: i.e., when one *defines* a state as the global state of just one of its religioethnic groups, in spite of the fact, in Israel's case, that over 20% (over 1 million) of its citizens are not of that faith or ethnicity and about 3 million more people are held stateless. This is a state where -- by law -- non-Jews do not have the same combination of political, legal, national, civil, and institutional rights as religioethnic Jews. Succinctly put: it's not fair. And as an African American -- who also comes from a people who have suffered and been oppressed for centuries -- I can say that NO amount of suffering entitles one people to displace, subjugate and oppress another people.


SINCE YOU DID WARN US, "Hi", THAT YOU ARE JUST "ANOTHER MORON", let me pre-empt your further moronism: The U.S. does not define itself as "a white Christian nation", although historically many white-American racists have wanted to do that (to which even Jewish-Americans would rightfully protest such a racist national definition). Ireland does not define itself as, ethnically, "an Irish state" or "the state of all Irish (in the world)"; Poland does not define itself, ethnically, as "a Polish state" or "the state of all Poles (in the world)"; France does not define itself as "a French state" or "the state of all ethnic French (in the world): and not even any African state defines itself as "a black state" or "the state of all blacks (in the world)"; and NOT EVEN Germany defines itself, ethnically, as "a German state" or "the state of all Germans (in the world)" as Israel RACISTLY does with Jews -- *GENETICALLY* DEFINING THE ISRAELI STATE (since Jews claim that they are ALL genetically related) AND RELIGIOETHNICALLY DEFINING CITIZENSHIP. All of these nations, as increasingly the Western world is, including Israel, are multicultural states (composed of almost every 'race' and religion) -- theoretically with equal political, legal, national, civil, institutional rights for all its citizens, and no naturalization/citizenship preclusions racistly based on 'race', ethnicity or religion. Gandhi declared that Zionism "would be a crime against humanity."


"Another Moron": "Furthermore, if you want to help the palestinians, invent some sort of machine that will transform them into people who eventually learn that when a greater power..."

JA: NO. I do not believe in the Hitlerian-Nazi (and racist) 'morality' of "Might Makes Right". IRONICALLY and hypocritically -- you apparently do. If you do, then quit your carping about Jewish victimhood.

I do not believe in a world based on the (im)'morality' that "Might Makes Right". I believe in abolishing that (im)'morality'. Sharon and Hitler both believe(d) that their reichs would last for a thousand years. We know on the latter; we'll see on the former.

American Plantation owners thought that Constitutionally legalized and institutionalized slavery would last forever. Dixiecrat "Jim Crow" Senators said and swore that Segregation would never fall. Afrikaner politicians said and swore that South African Apartheid would never fall. The British said that the sun would never set on the British empire -- and now Britain is lucky to see the sun shine at all. A prominent Jew once said that Jews were supposed to be smart -- and that if Jews believe that Israel can continue to indefinitely oppress some 4 million Palestinians in the Middle of the Middle East, then Jews must not be very smart after all. History shows that the power of nations is never permanently constant. South African Apartheid rose and fell within a relatively few generations. And the Israeli state, as such, is a state almost wholly dependent upon, and subsidized by, another (albeit its rich Uncle Sam).

"Another Moron": "israel shoudln't care about pleasing you"

JA: Well, "Moron"(for short), you can see that I'm not exactly interested in pleasing Israel. I'm not out to please you, either. In fact, I wouldn't even personally talk to someone like you (an obvious waste of time in search of no new knowledge nor in search of the moral advancement of human consciousness and civilization) except to publicly articulate what many moral and conscious people may intuitively know, but (as numerous people have told me) have found hard to put into words.

*NOW* ..., besides your limited hardcore arch-Zionist vocabulary of name-calling..., what *you* got ta say??

"I'm not having an easy time finding these. I found a partial article for the first one but obviously not the entire thing.

Can you post links to these articles?"


Well, you can just put "Jeffrey Blankfort" in a Yahoo/Google/etc search box, in quotation marks like that, to search for an exact character string/wording, to get numerous articles by or about Blankfort.

Anyway...:

“THE FIFTH COLUMN ROLE OF ZIONISTS IN THE LEFT”
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/01/50920.html

(You can also put blankfort+indymedia , or blankfort+sf.indymedia , or blankfort+sf.indymedia.org , or sf-imc+blankfort , in a Yahoo/Google search box to get slightly different Blankfort article listings, and pull up the sf.indymedia edition of the above article to see any sf.indymedia comments posts, but the UK edition is great because you can email copies directly from their webpage.)

“The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions”
http://www.israelshamir.net/friends/neumann-blankfort-1.html

“Telling the Truth about the War”
http://feralnews.com/issues/zionist_lobby/telling_the_ruth%20about_Iraq_war_blankfurt.html

and other Jeffrey Blankfort articles...

AIPAC Hijacks the Roadmap
http://www.counterpunch.org/blankfort05272003.html

ADL U.S. Spy Networks Exposed in San Francisco
http://www.abbc.com/historia/zionism/adl-exposed.html

The ADL Spying Case Is Over, But The Struggle Continues
http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews/adl022502.html

(Also see S.F. Chronicle and S.F. Examiner articles on the ADL illegal spy case and the subsequent Blankfort-Zeltzer-Poirier lawsuit victory against the ADL.)

and many others over pages and pages of Yahoo/Google hits.

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

Jeffrey Blankfort is a freelance print journalist-essayist, photojournalist, radio journalist, longtime progressive political activist in iconic movements since the '60's, and Jewish-American pro-Palestinian human rights activist in the San Francisco Bay Area. He won a sizeable group lawsuit against the slimy Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in February, 2002, for its vast illegal spying against him, as well as other peaceful political groups and individuals (including, earlier, anti-Apartheid groups/activists).

"And where in history have all/most of the workers from the racist oppressor class EVER supported, and joined with, the workers of the oppressed class to overthrow any imperialist and capitalist state!?"

Cuba comes to mind both in 1898 and in 1959, I'm sure there are other examples as well.

I appreciate your response and, as time permits, perhaps we can both look into the history of the Cuban revolution (especially that of 1959) and report back, in lieu of someone currently more knowledgeable about the Cuban revolution posting here. I don’t specifically know, offhand, the overall racial and economic demographics of the Cuban Revolution.

My impression, though, is that many, perhaps the majority, of the working upper-middle/middle class white Cubans (who were and are often rather racist, bigoted or indifferent against black Cubans) simply (immediately, as they could and over time) left the country for Miami, rather than share integrated political, institutional, and economic power with the black Cubans. Many whites Cubans also left when they realized that Castro was serious about demonopolizing wealth and more equitably sharing the wealth, assets, and resources of the nation. Cynically manipulated by rich, right-wing Cuban exiles, even many middle-class Miami exiles have been trying, through forcing out Castro, to regain their class privilege as whites in Cuba since the Bay of Pigs.

In any event, what you had in Cuba was a situation NOT where most or a majority of the relatively privileged, even working middle-class white Cubans felt any strong moral pangs over the plight of the poor, oppressed black/peasant Cubans. You had a situation where most, or a majority, or a great many, of the white Cubans THEMSELVES (the white middle-class, the intellectuals and the politically conscious, all including the students, the nonlackey journalists, even the white professionals) felt DIRECTLY oppressed and/or brutalized by the dictator Batista TOO. And the working middle-class, the working intellectuals of various kinds, university students, and the professional class of any country generally don't like brutal cronyism dictatorships, because, of course, they don't get a chance to politically participate in, and have a say in, how their lives are run. But, even under a dictatorship, their response is usually not armed insurrection (that, they leave to others), although they may provide some support for one through civil means and may (directly/indirectly) even provide some aid to one.

This is why, after WWII, the U.S. set up a "democracy" in Japan (an essentially one-party state at that, who's corruption has eventually led to the huge financial scandals that have largely and nominally created a 'permanent'/indefinite recession), but a nominal 40-year dictatorship in peasant society South Korea, until the Korean middle-class grew large enough and strong enough to civilly overturn it through huge and disruptive mass protests. The South Korean middle class can *more* than teach Americans (with their highly self-vaunted democracy) about mass civil protests, university student activism, and bold labor strikes.

There isn't going to be any true, certainly not armed, mass "workers' revolution" in the U.S. or in Israel: not among whites here and not among Jews in Israel. (There isn’t even going to be one from among oppressed 'racial' minorities here, who don’t have the infrastructure, networks, training or material means.)This is because the *at least* relatively privileged white working middle-/lower class has sufficiently and essentially been bought off (and differentially class-subsidized) for decades through U.S. imperialism in 3rd World countries (and before that, through conquest of Native People's land and its resources), and (overseas or here) harshly oppressing or brutally exploiting others. The U.S. set up a "Jim Crow" economic system at home or brutal dictatorships in the developing world. And, of course, the Jewish working middle-/lower-class in Israel (who do you think are driving those tanks?) has been subsidized by billions up billions in U.S. aid, and bought off through continuing conquest/confiscation of the indigenous inhabitant’s land and the explicitly designed--by its founders' articulation and state definition--racist, apartheid system of Zionism, which created a subjugated, economically exploited, and oppressed class of non-Jews. [The only Jewish workers in 'Greater Israel' who would ever take up arms against the government/military are those rabid, *extremely* racist, (what I call) "redneck Jews" settlers.]

This is why even during the Great Depression did you NOT see, even then, poor/destitute white workers take up arms--and they certainly wouldn't have joined with Blacks/Latinos/Asians--against the state. (But white workers in the Civil War South took up arms to defend the rich plantation owners and slavery! And the white-American working-class and, for different reasons, the minority-American working-class, have always taken up arms overseas -- usually, willingly, as ordered -- to go fight for the rich white elite, instead of themselves.)

There have been some particularly notable historical episodes of exploited local white workers being convinced to ally themselves with exploited Black/Latino workers. This has been most notably done with by the Bay Area's ILWU (Int'l Longshore Workers' Union) or, back during "Jim Crow" segregation, when poor white and poor Black Southern tenant farmers once allied themselves (the alliance was eventually broken up by threats and force by white political and 'law enforcement' forces). Needless to say, however, not enough white workers allied to overthrow the capitalist state.

By the way, my definition of capitalism: socialism for the rich.

By the way, my definition of capitalism: socialism for the rich.

As MLK said, American capitalism preaches capitalism to the poor and practices socialism for the rich. The richer you are, the more socialism you get -- where corporate profits are privatized and corporate losses are socialized, and affluence, privilege and private wealth are subsidized.

...we know nothing about [you] except that you are a pretty sloppy and *would-be* time-consuming Zionist semi-professional [THIRD RATE] propagandist that I am *NOT* going [endlessly] back-and-forth with over STUPID shit that you're going to [endlessly] squiggle on. [All you need to know is AS AN ANTI-RACIST, I *AM* AN ANTI-ZIONIST AND I *OPPOSE* A ZIONIST STATE.]

--And I'll say it again.


I simply neither have the interest nor the time for you.

The former East Germany's formal name was "The German *Democratic* Republic"(the GDR) -- but that DIDN'T make it "a democracy", though, now did it?

Lesson: not every country that calls/claims/defines itself to be "a democracy" really is, or is necessarily a true democracy.

The USSR claimed that "Soviet 'Communism'" was the highest form of democracy and actually the only true democracy!

Apartheid South Africa called itself "a democracy"!

Lot's of countries in the world like to claim that they are, or even call themselves, democracies, when, by our standards, they really aren't. (E.g., the obvious plutocracies of Latin America or authoritarian Asian regimes.)

The U.S. called itself "a democracy" when only propertied white men were originally going to have the right to vote, when it was inexorably and ultimately exterminating virtually all the indigenous peoples of the land, when a U.S. president IGNORED the U.S. Supreme Court's prohibition and sent the so-named "Five Civilized Tribes" of Southeast Indians on a 1,000 mile death march to Olkahoma, when millions of blacks for generations upon generations were held in brutal chattel slavery, when, later, thousands of blacks were held in peonage slavery, when American apartheid was the law of the land and anti-black terrorism was protected by Southern officials, when public accommodations signs in the Southwest could legally say "No Dogs and No Mexicans", when women (a slight population majority) couldn't vote until the early-mid 20th century and were a legally/economically subjugated class even through the '60's, when blacks could still be prevented from voting until the mid-'60's, when actually at one time, all included, the clear MAJORITY of the entire people in the United States could NOT vote!! (And when, today, we have largely corporate-financed political parties and election campaigns, and a semi-controlled mainstream corporate press.)The U.S. called itself "a democracy" back when it clearly had white male minority rule (which, even with political changes, we nominally still have today--or perhaps, now, essentially, corporate rule)!

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

*THANKS* for the *EXCELLENT* Tim Wise article, nct!! (Wise -- a *very* appropriate name.) I hadn't seen that article yet, but I added it to my collection in my computer!:

Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars
by Time Wise
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=228375

Give it up, whoever. It's too early in the day for me to come on this board to find the spiel "children behaving badly" posted under my name. If you have something to say, for God's sakes, use your own name if you have one; if not, get one, but leave me out of the mix..

Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, I did not write the above.

I'm tired, I've got to get back to work, so please give it a rest.

Joseph, why all the ranting about the upper and middle classes? I was responding to your comment that "workers" from an "oppressor class...have never joined with, the workers of the oppressed class to overthrow any imperialist and capitalist state" because it was a patently false claim. White workers in Cuba did join with black workers and black workers did join forces with white workers. If not, the revolution would not have been a success.

Joseph wrote:

"I appreciate your response and, as time permits, perhaps we can both look into the history of the Cuban revolution (especially that of 1959) and report back, in lieu of someone currently more knowledgeable about the Cuban revolution posting here."

I do know something about both 1898 and 1954 although the former period is my forte. I am in the third year of my Ph.D.

Joseph wrote:

"My impression, though, is that many, perhaps the majority, of the working upper-middle/middle class white Cubans (who were and are often rather racist, bigoted or indifferent against black Cubans) simply (immediately, as they could and over time) left the country for Miami..."

Regarding 1959, clearly most of the peninsular and creole (i.e. white) working-class did not leave the island which, again, was the class you were refering to in your comments.

I have no idea why you've switched to discussing the upper and middle-classes. But, as far as the middle-class goes, I would disagree with you on that point as well. As you note, Students, intellectuals, and other elements of the middle-class were clearly aligned against Batista. Julia Sweig addresses this in "Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground."

Joseph:

"their [middle class] response is usually not armed insurrection (that, they leave to others), although they may provide some support for one through civil means and may (directly/indirectly) even provide some aid to one."

Wrong again. When you study armed struggle it is surprising to find the numbers of middle class people engaged in these types of endeavors whether in Latin America, Europe, or the United States. You seem to be forgetting that Castro was himself a lawyer and from a petit-bourgie family as was Che and most of the rest of their crew.

I think the thrust of your argument lies here:

"In any event, what you had in Cuba was a situation NOT where most or a majority of the relatively privileged, even working middle-class white Cubans felt any strong moral pangs over the plight of the poor, oppressed black/peasant Cubans. You had a situation where most, or a majority, or a great many, of the white Cubans THEMSELVES (the white middle-class, the intellectuals and the politically conscious, all including the students, the nonlackey journalists, even the white professionals) felt DIRECTLY oppressed and/or brutalized by the dictator Batista TOO."

I agree but I would argue that this is a pre-condition for cross "racial" solidarity. Marxists, liberals, and conservatives all agree that humans operate from a position of self-interest. To expect otherwise is naive and can be dangerous.

And again I need to emphasize that I find it very strange that you seem to be using the terms white working-class and white middle-class as if they were identical in meaning. Why?

Do you have an essentialized view of white Cubans based on the US media?

If not, please clarify. Thanks.

I did not write this latest spiel under my name.

i am going back to work. I cannot keep responding to whoever is impersonating me here even if it is all very intriquing, etc, etc., even highly entertaining (excuse me if I giggle here, but that last post from CT (NOT!) was priceless!

Certainly there is no way these posts can be attributed to "Critical Thinker". He doesn't have that sense of fun now, does he? (No offense, Critical Thinker. You may well be the funniest person on earth, but not on this Board).

Anyway I'm out of here 'til later.

...so I'll just zip through this, for now (fortunately I touch type rather fast):

"historian": "Joseph, why all the *RANTING*[? NOW, WHY I GOTTA BE ALL THAT!? I THOUGHT WE WERE HAVING A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.] about the upper and middle classes?"

JA: In case you haven't noticed, plenty of workers are in the middle, upper-middle, and even upper-class, financially. Most American workers are in these classes. Most workers in, by defninition, econmically developed and technically advanced countries are in these classes. E.g., there are American construction workers (especially professionally specialized ones), and some other "blue-collar" workers, who make more money than some lawyers or even many professors. (I think that I also referred to lower-class workers too in my post above--and lower-class white workers tend to be the most racist because of their economic and political insecurities.) There are all sorts of workers from janitors, to postal workers, to construction workers, to transportation workers, who economically span the income ranges, above even "white-collar" workers. Worker -- by definition -- does not necessarily mean "poor".

"historian": "I was responding to your comment that "workers" from an "oppressor class...have never joined with, the workers of the oppressed class to overthrow any imperialist and capitalist state" because it was a patently false claim. White workers in Cuba did join with black workers and black workers did join forces with white workers. If not, the revolution would not have been a success."

JA: Your paragraph above is a logical fudge/squiggle -- and says *NOTHING* about the majority of white Cuban workers or the white Cuban working-class as a whole or in general (which, I believe, was the description/context of my remarks).

Since you claim to be an "historian" and since you keep pushing the issue, then I WILL NOW DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM--OR ASSUMPTION.

IF YOUR NEXT RESPONSE DOES NOT PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION, or concede that you have none at hand, THEN I WILL NO LONGER INDULGE DEBATE ON YOUR CLAIM.

I never made the claim that NO white Cuban workers joined black Cuban workers in the Cuban Revolution. Your assertion that I have is ridiculous. I questioned whether the *majority* of white Cuban workers joined black Cuban workers in the Cuban Revolution. Other than that, I said -- in the first paragraph of my first response above -- that I did not know the racial demographics of the Cuban Revolution vis-a-vis the overall Cuban population.

Historians are not supposed to based their (especially, specific) claims on sheer speculation or assumptions. IF YOU DO KNOW, THEN PROVIDE THE *DOCUMENTATION*.

SINCE YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE SO MUCH AS A URL REFERENCE IN YOUR RESPONSE, I ASSUME THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION OR ARE TOO LAZY TO LOOK IT UP.

"historian": "I do know something about both 1898 and 1954 although the former period is my forte. I am in the third year of my Ph.D."

JA: Well, the Ph.D. students that I know are expected to provide DOCUMENTATION for their claims. WILL YOUR DISSERTATION CONTAIN ANY FOOTNOTES OR DIRECT, SPECIFIC REFERENCES? And a Ph.D. don't mean shit to me, unless someone backs up their work. All that a Ph.D. necessarily means to me is that you have an even HIGHER responsibility to document your assertions/claims. (You already admitted that the former, 1898, period is your "forte", whatever that means, so you seem to be operating outside of your specialty.) I have nabbed full professors and academic authors in their errors, in political topics that I am more familiar with, when they didn't know what they were talking about.

Just because I don't claim to be knowledgeable about the overall racial demographic participation in the Cuban Revolution does not mean that I'm going to just roll over for anything that you throw out. I do have Latin American political sources who would more knowledgeable about this, and when I have a convenient mutual opportunity, I will consult them.

"historian": "Regarding 1959, clearly most of the peninsular and creole (i.e. white) working-class did not leave the island which, again, was the class you were refering to in your comments."

JA: I said NOTHING about *"creoles"*. Dont you get points knocked off, and disrespect, for providing phony references in your academic work? *Again, Ph.D., where is your DOCUMENTATION? (1) just because they might have been too poor to find a way off the island didn't necessarily mean that most of them joined the Revolution. (2) provide DOCUMENTATION that "creole" means "white". Historically, by U.S. legal (and often social) definitions of "white", "creole" would NOT have meant "white" in America. I don't know *what* it meant in Cuba, but I have never heard that the white Cubans in Miami, or any significant % thereof, still coming from Cuba, call themselves "creole".

"historian": "Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground."

JA: I'm already familiar, offhand, with this article. And WHERE in this article does it say anything SPECIFIC about the racial demographic % of white workers in the Cuban Revolution vis-a-vis in the Cuban population??? And, if I remember correctly, that article points out that there, indeed, was a reluctance for, or disagreement with, the intellectual/academic class to actually go up in the hills and fighting alongside Castro's guerilla, or blowing up Batista's institutions, themselves, prefering various non-violent civil actions, like strikes.

"historian": "When you study armed struggle it is surprising to find the numbers of middle class people..."

JA: You're getting as squiggly in your arguments as Non-Critical 'Thinker' does.

What does your statement above say anything INHERENT and SPECIFIC about whether most of the dominant white working-class ever joins the black oppressed out of philanthrophic reasons. (Or any other reasons, short of, hypothetically, those whites being brutally oppressed themselves? It certainly didn't happen in South Africa. And it didn't happen anywhere else that I know of.) This would be my question at your dissertation defense. I would consider your statement above to be insufficient and ATHEORETICAL in addressing that issue.

I realize that I'm just buzzing--cutting&pasting--through your response, but I hate it when someone is, in effect, 'making' me repeat myself in a debate, because of their assertions. IT'S LIKE DEBATING THESE HARDCORE ARCH-ZIONISTS, which is why after a short while, I just cut 'em off -- or only pick one or a couple or a few, depending, salient political propaganda points, that often 'hang up' or 'snag' others, from the Zionist propaganda that *I* want to raise consciousness on.

Other than that, of course, I knew about Castro's and Che's professional backgrounds. But, these people were also *ideologically socialists*, who had a fully-developed political consciousness, and who were fighting against a highly corrupt, highly brutal, capitalist dictator, like other capitalist dictators who were being supported all over Latin America by the U.S. in its ruthless and imperialist rapaciousness, bringing abject suffering, dislocation, and death to millions of people.

"historian": "I agree but I would argue that this [when the whites themselves--significant segments from all classes, but especially the labor class--would feel brutally oppressed] is a pre-condition for cross "racial" solidarity. Marxists, liberals, and conservatives all agree that humans operate from a position of self-interest. To expect otherwise is naive and can be dangerous."

JA: Well...: (1) that situation certainly does not exist in the U.S. and is not currently foreseeable. White-Americans may be the *least* class-conscious workers on earth and, as I have pointed out, they have never been particularly "'race' solidarity" conscious; (2) that's not, particularly, cross "racial" solidarity: that's two parties with directly common interests fighting together. That's more like a civil war. And (3) Re "Marxists, liberals, and conservatives"...: ALL human activities could be defined by ANYONE as "operat[ing] from a position of self-interest". You're just defining any particular *relevant substance* out of the word "self-interest". Most living organisms, including humans, have a "self-interest" in not starving to death!

Did the U.S./UK become conscious "communists" because they allied with the Soviet Union in WWII? Did Northern white workers become conscious allies of blacks because they fought--actually, of course, in segregated units--alongside blacks in the Civil War? Or did white workers become conscious allies of black workers (since the grunts then were more clearly working-class) when the literally did fight side-by-side in integrated units in the Vietnam war? If they would have been that conscious, they would have almost all been, if not just a majority, conscientious objectors against an imperialist war.


Regarding your comments about Marx -- now here's where I nab YOU!: Marx was talking about (having/developing) a political CONSCIOUSNESS! Marx was talking about a fully conscious, or developing a fully conscious, working-class "class consciousness". This is certainly NOT what conservative, and not what liberal, capitalists are talking about -- some narrow(er) serf-interest. White parochial self-interest would NOT be (what they call in logic)_a SUFFICIENT "(pre-)condition"_for class consciousness. To expect otherwise is naive and can be dangerous.

Direct ruling-class oppression against white workers--alone--would not even be (again, as they say in logic) a NECESSARY condition for "cross-'racial' solidarity", because the moment that direct oppression is relieved, those white workers would likely go right back to being racist in their narrow self-interest!

Case in point are those Latin American revolutions (or for that matter, the U.S. in WWII) where women integrally participated in the war effort along with the men (in Latin America, sometimes even in combat), but were generally pushed right back into their domestic places (at least the men usually attempted to do so) after the war was won.

I know Korea better--which you DON'T know: Korean university female students who were right out there with the male university students, bringing the males rocks, and bandaging the male's wounds, or helping to evacuate wounded males, right in the middle of a riot, with the police shooting amazingly strong and dense tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets and other projectiles, were nonetheless often, otherwise, looked down upon by the male students. The brave help of the female students did not automatically create a pro-feminist conciousness among the male students, who more often still expected women to do the domestic work in a relationship/marriage.

And WWII's "Rosie the Riveter" and the many female aviators who transported fight planes -- and even taught men how to fly fighter planes -- were pushed out of there jobs/careers and right back into the kitchen after the war. No pro-feminist consciousness or subsequent desire to share the national economic/public sphere developed from the men.

An example of social/class *consciousness* was when black-American leaders were speaking up for Japanese-American concentration camp internee victims. This, when it wasn't in the Black-American self-interest to do so (we faced no such threats), and Black-Americans were catching racist hell themselves. We could have just kept quiet, or even "patriotically" *supported* it for whatever political boost, among whites and their govt, that would have given Black-Americans. It certainly couldn't have hurted us to jump on the anti-Japanese-American bandwagon!

"historian": "And again I need to emphasize that I find it very strange that you seem to be using the terms white working-class and white middle-class as if they were identical in meaning. Why?"

JA: I find it "very strange" that you seem to be drawing a line between the two.

I can only *GUESS* that you somehow draw a line between what we in the U.S. call/connote "blue-collar" and "laborers" (what's together often called "working-class") vs. white-collar workers, who often have an uninformed, capitalist-inculcated, and false class consciousness (as Marx would call it), tending to identify with the capitalists, and who often tend to resist the idea of even being identified as "labor".

Marx would call the "working-class" anyone who does not (casually put) live off of capital assets or capital investments (own the means of production). Of course, most Americans don't even know what "capital" technically means, as well as the technical/contextual meaning of Marx's other terms of capital and class analysis. And, I'm NOT about to have that long discussion with you online, because it's just too unwieldy to do so.

"historian": "Do you have an essentialized view of white Cubans based on the US media?"

JA: Yeah, I get all my information through the mainstream, corporate media. No, I just have met a few black Cubans. And a few white Cubans, who supposedly had large (upper-/middle-class) property assets (one, a friend, of mine's, family's property) that Castro wanted to "take away". I also have other resources, as and should I wish to avail myself of them in my busy schedule with other commitments.


Thanks.

Back to work...!

A blueprint for international instability, By Shlomo Avineri July 17, 2003

The atmosphere could not have been more tranquil: a former royal castle in the rolling hills of the Taunus region near Frankfurt, hosting an annual meeting, sponsored by a German foundation, of statesmen and politicians dealing with Middle Eastern problems. Europeans and Americans, Israelis and Iranians, Egyptians and Turks, Palestinians and Tunisians rubbed shoulders.

The Middle East road map, was naturally at the center of attention, and were most knowingly addressed on the opening night by a senior German government minister, himself deeply involved in Middle Eastern affairs, with great sensitivity to Israeli as well as Palestinian concerns.

The evening proceeded along the expected trajectory, until a Lebanese academic raised the issue of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. The senior German minister listened attentively, and then said: "This is an issue with which we in Germany are familiar; may I ask my German colleagues in the audience to raise their hand if they, or their families, were refugees from Eastern Europe?"

There was a moment of silence - the issue is embarrassing in Germany, fraught with political and moral landmines. Slowly, hands were raised: by my count, more than half the Germans present (government officials, journalists, businessmen) raised a hand: they, or their families, had been Vertriebene, expelled from their ancestral homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia after World War II.

It is estimated that up to 10 million were expelled; with their descendants today they make up almost double that number - almost one in four Germans. Amid the hush the German senior minister continued: He himself was born in Eastern Europe and his family was expelled in the wake of the anti-German atmosphere after 1945. "But," he added, "neither I nor any of my colleagues claim the right to go back. "It is precisely because of that that I can now visit my ancestral hometown and talk to the people who live in the house in which I was born - because they do not feel threatened, because they know I don't want to displace them or take their house."

The minister went on to explain that peace in Europe is today embedded in this realization. Had Eastern European countries thought that millions of ethnic Germans would like to return, "the Iron Curtain would have never come down." It was a highly emotional response, one that Arab representatives chose later on to ignore. But it was just one more expression of the context in which the issue of the 1948 Palestinian refugees has to be addressed.

As the German senior minister reminded the audience, there are numerous parallels in recent history to the Palestinian refugee problem. Anyone who now argues that the 1948 Palestinian refugees have a claim, in principle, to return to Israel, has to confront the question: Why not the millions of German post-1945 expellees from Eastern Europe? The German minister supplied the answer. Moreover: Had a German government insisted in talks about reunification in 1990 that all German expellees from Poland and Czechoslovakia have, in principle, a right to return to these countries, it would have been clear that what West Germany had in mind was not reunification, but undoing the consequences of Nazi Germany's defeat in 1945.

This is exactly the meaning of the Palestinian demand for the right of return. The Palestinians' insistence on it at Camp David and Taba in 2000 made clear to most Israelis that what they have in mind is not undoing the consequences of 1967 - but undoing the consequences of their defeat in 1948. At that time, it should be recalled, Palestinian Arabs and four Arab members of the UN went to war - not only against Israel, but against international legitimacy and the UN plan for a two-state solution. There is no other example of member countries going to war against UN decisions; this is what the Arab countries - and the Palestinians - did. Obviously they prefer to forget it. Clearly there is a serious humanitarian issue involved. That the Palestinians' plight has been compounded by Arab use of the refugees as political pawns for half a century is a measure of the cynicism and immorality of Arab politics.

Nonetheless, the humanitarian issue remains - and the German senior minister referred to it explicitly, both with regard to the Palestinians and to the German expellees. But for him the political consequences were clear: A return of refugees - in the German as well as the Palestinian case - is a call for instability, if not war.

The author is professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

I'd have to be blind (and I'm not) to not see the interesting posts contributed to "Critical Thinker" and directed to myself in this particular thread.

So while I am being entertained mightily at the very idea of "lust on the keyboard" (what a giant giggle that caused!), I'd like to state:

I do not credit these hilarious posts to you, Critical Thinker. If I know you (which I don't nor do I necessarily want to, really) I'd say your sense of hilarity is bordering on 10 perhaps on a scale of 1 to 100.

So while it might be a bit of a nuisance for you to see your name being tossed about, don't panic. I'm not sitting here thousands of miles away swooming over someone called "Critical thinker".

Speaking of "swooming", however, I will probably drop dead in September when I hope to meet my hero, Gwynne Dyer, visiting from London, England. I can picture it all now!

"And this is Angie, a huge fan of yours", someone who introduces us will state. Then, looking around bewildered, he'll add, "well, that's strange. She was here a moment ago".

Meanwhile, his huge fan, Angie, is flat on the floor in a dead faint!!

Oh, well, September is almost here. I'll have to practice being "cool" 'til then. Sadly, I'm never "cool".

Seriously, folks, isn't it just TOO much? Should I bring along my copy of every single column of his that's been printed in our newspaper since June 30, 1984, I wonder, and ask him to autograph all of them (Just kidding, but assuming I did???) Should I bring along his "War" book? His "Ignorant Armies Sliding into War In Iraq"? Yes, certainly, to the latter.

Like, Mr. Dyer (deep breath) would you please autograph my copy of your book?

Naah, it would have to be, Mr. Dyer (deep breath, heart be still, etc., God don't let me faint!) would you please autograph my copy of your brilliantly written and insightful book and (deep breath) tell me when we can expect (gasp) the sequel? We live to see our dreams come true, don't we??

Oh, and one more thing before I head back to work.. I'm away from the Board a mere few weeks, and I note in my absence JA is signing himself as "Joseph from Berkeley".

Of course, regardless of how he signs his posts, JA will always be my favourite person on this, my beloved SF Indymedia Board, just as he has been since the beginning, which should surprise no one considering I've stated that obvious fact right here months ago.

And I also note that his intelligence, regardless of the signature he's using, is very much in evidence (see posts above re Cuba). However, I'm going to stick with "JA" (she smiles here). If he doesn't object, of course!

So have i covered everything??? Oh, other than wishing my dear Concerned Zionist a happy (you know it will be with that lad!) holiday, and to ask where the person who signs himself as "!" has disappeared to. You're missed, sir.

And now until my next free moments, I'm out of here.

Angie
(wondering if I'll ever get back into the space I was in here two weeks ago).

Thanks for the comps. You are my favorite poster on indymedia too! Your articulateness, your marvelous usage of language, your moral commitment to global justice, your wit.

I used "Joseph from Berkeley" here (only here on this page), because that's how I'm introduced whenever I call into KPFA-fm in Berkeley or KALW-fm's "Working Assets" show in S.F., and that's how I was introduced when I called in to the "Flashpoints" program that Blankfort and Cockburn were on (provided in the audio link above). "Joseph from Berkeley" has become a much more publicly immediately-recognized name than my *real* name.

Take care!

JA

yes, the two of you can be happy in that you single out the jewish nation for defending itself, apoligize for those who seek to destroy it, and twist every single aspect of the conflict against the jews and in favor of muslims, even the muslims insane enough to blow themselves up and intentionally murder innocent people while their families praise them for becoming martyrs.

See, if israel immediately withdrew from the west bank and gaza, and attacks continued against israel, as they probably would, and more israeli jews were dying, would you change your tune and be on the side of jews for once? Probably not. You'd probably still claim that it was somehow israel's fault that israel was being attacked. Am I right?

There is no evidence to suggest that if israel left the west bank and gaza strip then the violence against israel would stop. But you aren't concerned with the safety of the 6 million jews that live in israel. You are just obsessed with rooting for the 500 million muslims to hurt israel.

GREAT to hear from you and thanks!!!. I love being your favourite person on my beloved Board here.

Do you suppose the person (s) in the post beneath yours, is referring to us when he says:

'Yes, the two of you can be happy in that you single out the Jewish nation" blah, blah, blah?

Or is he perhaps referring to the authors of this news item, including your pal, Jeffrey?

Curious as I had said nil about "the Jewish nation" in my above general commentary, nor had you commented re same.

Anyway you and I have more important things to do than be concerned with posts that sound like Hi/Ugh wrote. They all sound the same to me. A broken record by any other name.

Hope you're well and happy, my friend.

Angie

YYYAWWWWWWNNNNN......!!!

[ Did I hear some creaky complaint, getting ollld, lammme, and tirrrred...? Something about "single out the Jews"? That excuse is getting really bad breath. This, when Israelis/Zionists oppress others and those others fight back, sometimes the only way they can--with their own bodies (unlike the Israelis, with fighter jets, helicopter gunships, missiles, and tanks)?]

(No, nobody said anything about the Nazis, when Jews were oppressed. Nobody ever stands up for Jews when a synagogue is vandalized/burned or when neo-Nazis threaten to march. Nobody stood up for Alfred Dreyfus and shamed an entire country, finally leading to a spectacular victory for him that brought down a government!). Talk about wallowing in self-victimhood!: Ironically, the complaint that Jewish TV pundits--as opposed to those Jews who oppose them, who would never get on maintstream corporate TV--accuse Blacks of, when they are not celebrated for coming up with racist theories ("The Bell Curve"). ) ]

Angie: "GREAT to hear from you...!"

JA: OH...!! Hi Angie...!! Whazzzzuppp!!?

I just woke up from the weirdest dream about some boring Zionist spouting the same old line.

Angie: "Do you suppose the person (s) in the post beneath yours [above], is referring to us...? ...Or is he perhaps referring to the authors of this news item, including your pal, Jeffrey?

JA: (Oh, it was real!!) ...Must be! And to all the other morally conscious, human rights oriented, anti-Zionist Jews too.

Angie: "Curious as I had said nil about "the Jewish nation" in my above general commentary, nor had you commented re same."

JA: Uhhh/Ugh [no pun intended], *what's* your *point*...? (Haha!)

Angie: "Hope you're well and happy, my friend."

JA: Well, after this, I'm staying home tonight to email some good friends, eh!!! (I skipped a dinner meeting tonight.)

In the meantime, I hope you're well and happy too!

JA


P.S. I'm fairly sure that a Jewish friend of mine posted this in the Starhawk thread to stop her from her [namby-pamby?--I haven't read the/her article/post yet, but heard about it from him] 'balanced', pusillanimous, only-with-Zionists, equating of oppressor and oppressed:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1636014_comment.php#1636279

There must be a recognition of the Occupied-Occupier dynamic
by ... Wednesday August 20, 2003 at 11:50 AM

I have seen your post there, and I will respond in the morning; can't keep eyes open. Must be the humidity again although the fact that it's almost 3 a.m. could be a contributing factor as well.

More later, friend
Angie

PS Yes, I read that post re "occupying and occupier dynamics". Made sense to me. Nite!

I remember being taught that bell curve stuff in management class. Certain people developed a "I told ya so look on their face but totally apart from whether that theory was true or not it didn't change the fact that they were stupid.

They can claim to be the middle of a group of dumb people or the ass end of a group of smart people, I dont care.

I understand research since then has indicated "average IQ" convergance over time..... Anyway if you want to know if some one is an idiot just ask them somthing.

I've been up from a deep sleep about half an hour. I've quickly scanned the Board, saw your surprising comment addressed to myself, and will respond.

It will not be right away, believe me, as I'm off to work even if that merely means stepping into my at home office. It make sno difference where an office is located. A deadline is a deadlline (and quite frankly I'm sick to death of deadlines).

So either later on today or tomorrow I'll reply.

I will also in due course check out your "solution".

...if arch-Zionist Non-Critical'Thinker' could EVER be convinced that if European/American Jews -- who have NEVER even seen Israel -- have a racist "right to return", then indigenous Palestinians have a natural right to return???

I *WONDER*!!!

Angie, don't let NCT engage in the *STRATEGY* of sponging up your time, if you give him any time at all. If you are sucked into giving him any time, pace yourself (don't stay up into the wee hours of the morning indulging him). These Zionists specialize in *purposely*, pointlessly, sucking up the time of others in their highly polemical arguments. I usually try to respond to points of public importance, not some Zionist's personal polemics.

Good luck! Your patience was always greater than mine!

JA

My dear JA,

I accept your well intentioned advice and "thank you from my heart" as dear Uri said to me. It has such a lovely touch to it, doesn't it, and it's only apt that I, in turn, say same to you.

I note another party showed up here overnight in typical fashion, and he mentioned somewhere in one of his numerous comments a reference to my notes to "Ugh".

I don't know if it's in the Blood on your Hands thread or not, but you may have noted I've been rolling along here minding my own business since getting back to my computer on Monday evening, and in that particular thread last night, there was another spiel from "ugh" expressing horror that I was "back", etc., appropos of nil.

I responded (the poor lad with his many aliases doesn't cause grief any more) and feelilng sorry for him, I dropped him a rather pleasant (giggle) reply.

And he again reiterated I was an idiot, etc., causing me to pat him on the back in like fashion.

So why, then, do you suppose an uninvolved regular would bother intruding in something so totally unrelated to anything at all?

Shaking head in astonishment is becoming a regular habit of mine as I peruse these threads of late.

Strange, my friend, but I am becoming the "restless one" for some reason of late. It could be due to -- well, to whatever. What does it mean, pray tell?

Anyway, thanks, again, JA. I 've learned so much from you since dropping on to this board and expect the learning process to continue.

More later, friend
Angie

PS Why is it that even with a deadline looming for this p.m., I simply do not want to be bothered? With about an hour's work remaining, I want to simply ignore it, and perhaps go sit on a bench at the harbour and feed the gulls or something equally innocous. Sigh. Someone should write a song about it all.

"With about an hour's work remaining, I want to simply ignore it, and perhaps go sit on a bench at the harbour and feed the gulls or something equally innocous. Sigh. Someone should write a song about it all."

Yeah, you think someone would have, by now!

:-)

JA

So you would punish some Arabs for the actions of other Arabs, solely because they are Arabs?

You're a racist, plain and simple. Like all racists, you should die. DIY. Do it today.

I beg your pardon?

Let me state emphatically that JA most certainly IS NOT an evil person! How dare you!

LET THE ARCH-ZIONIST *SQUIGGLING* BEGIN!!!:

Non-Critical 'Thinker': "I for my part have already claimed those *FEW* Arab refugees who were deliberately rooted out deserve compensation. But I would compensate them only if the Arab states agree to compensate the Jewish refugees who had to flee those countries to Israel bereft of their property."

NCT: "As far as right of return, I would go along with it as long as the pathetic anti-Israeli JA realizes there are two provisions::

JA: I was just talking with a friend yesterday at lunch -- LAUGHING!! -- about how idiotic these arch-Zionists are on indymedia!! I just warned *you* above -- "GEE, I WONDER..." -- about NCT's SPONGE TRAP and yet he thinks that he can sponge *me* into it too!! WHAT AN ID-DIOT!!! HAHAHA...!!

NCT: "1. Only those Arabs who hadn't infiltrated the land or imported to it from neighboring countries [With "PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF PALESTINE" PROPAGANDA URL].
2. Only the original refugees (not their offspring) among those meeting the first criterion would be allowed to return."

JA: BUT *EVERY* JEW AND DEY MAMA CAN GO TO PALESTINE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR ALL ETERNAL TIME!!!

SOUNDS *FAIR* TO ME!!

NCT: "And Angie, don't pay mind to JA's attempts to contaminate you"

JA: In other words....JA *TOLLLD* YOU SO!!! -- A *BIG* ARCH-ZIONIST CALCULATED, PURPOSEFUL TIME *SPONGE*!!


NCT: "some malevolent self hating Jewish priss called Tim Wise..."

JA: Would that be like Jeffrey Blankfort too?


NCT: "I guess JA is basically an evil guy..."

JA: I'M *EEEEVILLLE*...!

I'M **EEEEEEEVILLLLLE**...!!

I'M *****EEEEEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLE****, I TELL YOU...!!!!!


(Sorry, Angie, NCT is right about that! [heehee].)

You must be having a rough day (week? life?) to respond in such a defensive tone. From your reply it is clear you do not like to engage in debate. You say you are here to "raise consciousness" but like most of the people at this site you are an ideologue, convinced in your rigid political positions. I feel sorry for you.

But to answer your primary question, sure I have to provide documentation in my papers and research. But this is indymedia where the standards are clearly much lower than in academia.

As far as sources, here are a few books for you to check out if you are interested in Cuban history:

"Bread or Bullets!" by Joan Casonovas

The following by Ada Ferrer:

Insurgent Cuba: Race, Nation, and Revolution, 1868-1898. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1999.

Cuba, 1898: Rethinking Race, Nation, and Empire. Radical History Review, 73. January 1999. 22-46.

Rustic Men, Civilized Nation: Race, Culture, and Contention on the Eve of Cuban Independence. Hispanic American Historical Review, 78. November 1998. 663-86.

The Silence of Patriots: Racial and National Discourse in Marti's Cuba. In Jose Marti's Our America: From National to Hemispheric Cultural Studies. Durham: Duke University Press. 1998.

Also have alook at Hewitt's:

Southern Discomfort: Women's Activism in Tampa, Florida, 1880s-1920s

There are some very interesting sections on the cross-racial alliances among Cuban workers in the cigar factories.

Louis Perez:

Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution

Julio Garcia Luis (ed.)

Cuban Revolution Reader: A Documentary History of 40 Key Moments of the Cuban Revolution

I'll provide some more sources when I get home from work

Joseph wrote:

"I said NOTHING about *"creoles"*. Dont you get points knocked off, and disrespect, for providing phony references in your academic work?"

"provide DOCUMENTATION that "creole" means "white".

You do not seem to know the meaning of Creole in the Cuban context. FYI, in the context of Cuba "Creole" refers to whites born in Cuba while "Peninsular" refers to Spaniards (also "whites") who migrated to Cuba in search of employment, fleeing political persecution, and so on. So, while you may have not said anything about Creoles when you talk about "white workers" in Cuba you are specifically talking about Creoles (Cuban-born whites) and Penisulares (Spanish-born whites).

Any book on Cuban history will explain this but I can personally recommend "Bread or Bullets!"

"This book takes a new approach to the study of the evolution of the Cuban labor movement after 1850. Casanovas's thoroughly researched study adds significantly to the literature on the relationship between African slaves and free urban workers before abolition, what socioeconomic and political conditions led workers to appropriate specific ideologies and strategies to improve their lives, and to what extent this sector of the popular classes assisted in transforming the colonial state. The study is most insightful when Casanovas converges the evolution of the labor movement with Spain's political developments and its colonial relationship with Cuba."
-American Historical Review

See also:

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0822940701

"Nineteenth-century Cuban colonial society and the slavery system sharply divided Cuba's inhabitants by race and origin. This deeply affected the labor movement that started in the late 1850s, as it became difficult to mobilize workers with common interests across these diverse ranks.

***Paradoxically, this also drove the workers to build class ties across divisions of origin, race, and degrees of freedom. This formed the basis for developing collective action, in the 1860s, the labor movement, under the leadership of white creoles and Spaniards, called peninsulares, joined the reformist movement of the creole bourgeoisie.***

The outbreak of the Ten Years' War in 1868 created an extremely repressive atmosphere for labor that forced thousands of Cuban workers to flee to the United States. After the peace treaty of El Zanjon in 1878. the workers who returned and those who had remained used their experience to rebuild the Cuban labor movement at an impressive pace.

This common goal led Cuban workers to fight continuously against divisions along racial and ethnic lines and to replace their moderate unionist and strongly pro-Spanish leadership with anarchists. The end of slavery accelerated the evolution of Cuban politics and the expansion of the labor movement. Spain's shift toward reactionary colonial policies in1890 halted this process and accentuated anticolonial sentiment among the popular classes.

This helped the left wing of the separatist movement, led by Josh Marti, to launch the War of Independence in 1895 with strong working-class support. Bread, or Bullets! is an important work for anyone interested in understanding Cuban society, Spanish colonialism, and labor relations in Latin America."

Also, your understanding of class is rather muddled. You make a "common-sense" claim that income equals class:

"JA: In case you haven't noticed, plenty of workers are in the middle, upper-middle, and even upper-class, financially."

But you seem to be advocating a Marxist (socialist?)perspective of class.

"Marx would call the "working-class" anyone who does not (casually put) live off of capital assets or capital investments (own the means of production)."

As you write above, in Marx's case, income does not equal class. A worker, by definition, is someone who does not control the means of production, regardless of income. For Marx, the individual's relation to the means of production in a capitialist system is the key to determing who is a worker and who is not.

So, in your case, is class income, relation to the means of production, a synthesis of the two, or something else? I think this lack of clarity contributes to your essentializing white Cuban workers and white workers in general.

But you really show your true colors when you make a statement like:

"Other than that, of course, I knew about Castro's and Che's professional backgrounds. But, these people were also *ideologically socialists*, who had a fully-developed political consciousness..."

Man I thought the all you Leninists went the way of the dinosaurs. Joseph, what is a "fully-developed political consciousness" and who decides what a "fully-developed political consciousness" is? Fidel? Che? You?

***OWWWWWWWWCH***...!!!

I GUESS YOU *GOT* ME!

You know what? I don't even *care* about your debate.

I scanned through it only to look for *%'s* symbols in your screed and I didn't see any.

SO, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED YOU DID *NOT* PROVIDE ANY OF THE DOCUMENTATION I DEMANDED.

*BYE*!

three statments in this order

1) "I guess JA is basically an evil guy..."

2) "You're a racist, plain and simple. Like all racists, you should die. DIY. Do it today.

3) "Let me state emphatically that JA most certainly IS NOT an evil person! How dare you!"

And then Angie uses the "how dare you" responce but to my surprise reading on she is refering to the older comment...

Is there anyone - ANYONE - who can come on this Board and create confusion ijust by stating anything as does the person who submitted the post above (or at least it was above when I began to type this).

I said quite clearly to Critical Thinker in response to his that, and I quote here:

"Let me state emphatically that JA is most certainly not an evil person. How dare you?".

What is there about that comment that can lead to a confusion by even the kindergarten amongst us?

Oh, but he has to be "surprised" that "Angie is referring to an older comment". What older comment one wonders, but one doesn't particularly care overly much.

It's 7:30 p.m. where I am, and time to watch BBC World News.

Free Thinker, I'll add anything of note re inquiry; likewise, Abraham.

I remember you got all touchy with me when I said that people shouldnt wish death upon your mother. you said that I had not acted strongly enough and yet you totally ignored someone wishing death upon another person here and instead chose to comment upon JA being called an "evil person".

I am noting it is classic peace activist to do things like only want peace when that suits the socialist adgenda, Only protect human rights when they are oppressed by capitalists or Only actively oppose states when those states are jewish.

The powerless can revel in their hypocracy for the most part without it ever coming and biting them in the ass.

The sequence of the posts here have nothing to do with me. Whilst I was responding immediately to CT, another one was being published; this obviously meant mine came after.

Kindly .refrain from jumping at someone until you know the facts.

You will note my post was addressed directly to CT, and if the other party hadn't been posting as I was, mine would have ended up beneath CT's where I expected it would be.

I could hardly comment on a post that wasn't there now, can I? Nor still have not read considering you were there with my name blaring away in your final sentence when I went to drop a note to Abraham and Free Thinker.

So now that you've brought it to my attention in your usual nasty fashion I shall read it.

You wasted space with your damn mad dash to appear righteous by yelling at me for something I knew nothing about as I'm not a mind reader.

When the idiot said he hoped my Mom would get cancer and die and go to hell (and all the other nice stuff certain defenders of their tittle terrorist state wish on the rest of us so often here as if any of them knew Mom or me) I was naturally distraught considering she had died recently I am not going back to that episode again..

Wishing death or misery on anyone is cruel and unnecessary, but saying that will not stop others from continuing in that fashion. I cannot understand it, of course, because it's not part of my thought process.

And while you may not think it was any consequence, I felt it was most important to state that JA is not "evil". CT was being rather childish to utter such an outrageous statement considering JA is one of the most (if not the most) intelligent people on this Board, and one of the funniest. A winning combination if ever there was one!

So I suggest, Scottie, that you walk not run to your next accusatory post.

Be a good wee lad and leave it 'til tomorrow. It is now 5 a.m. here, and between trying to dispense with work and chores and scanning this board tonight, I am not attempting to respond to your latest volley.

At some point tomorrow I will drop you a note here. I've read your "solution", but wasn't there something else I was asked by you to read as well? Oh, yes, the post somewhere. I know the one you're referring to as I'd already glanced at same. So I'll read that too.

Until then I'm out of here to sleep, perchance to dream. I was about to say morning comes early, but, hell, it's already here.

It seems there is a balancing act between individual fairness which would be letting everyone live on the land that they now live on and own it and a sort of a political practicality where it is not safe to hand land where jews live over to the palistinians unless you plan on ethnically cleansing the jews out of thw area and the palistinians dont think it would give them enough freedom (to institute sharia law or whatever) if land that they occupy was given to israel.

But if political considerations over rule personal ownership and you plan on moving out the jews then the jews can reasonably say why dont you move out the arabs?
or if the arabs get compensation then why dont the jews

I know the "1967 is the correct boarder" or the boarders during some fraction of a millisecond between britain ruling and Israel ruling the area. Or whatever but it is all as arbritrary as anything else then.

Or maybe some people are thinking
give the land back to whichever individual owned it at some arbitrary point in history
but this is obviously ridiculous for the reason above and because it has implications for almost every piece of land everywhere.
Anyway imagine you give back a piece of land that you have made improvements on to someone may have stolen or bough or whatever 50 years ago and sold to someone else who is dead who sold it to someone else who sold it to you.
You create more unfairness giving it back to the origional owner than you solve.

,,, why Israel has, from 1948 until today, continued to steal Palestinian lands? Even as we speak?

The Fourth Geneva Convention, the Oslo Agreement, the Road Map and all else besides said "no facts on the ground", no "dispossession". Ah, but that didn't deter Israel. Hell, no. None of the rules of international, ethical, or moral conduct applies to it.

he infamous "wall" is, itself, a land grab, meandering as it does, through Palestinian towns and villages, effectively making it impossible for anyone to live, and make a living, there. Which, of course, is the aim of this evil monstronity.

A Palestinian state? Yes, sure, when, under the guise of "fighting terrorism", there won't be a single acerage of what is now Gaza and the West Bank free from the state terror of Israel.

I wonder where this terrorist state will turn its attention then? Iraq? Iran? Syria? Or maybe it will invade little Lebanon again.

It will certainly keep its murderous army in the killing fields somewhere doing what it does best. We can be guaranteed of that.

Look, guys, I never let facts or reality get in the way of my opinions. For example, Israel has been extremely restrained in their attacks compared to how the average nation has and would react in their situation, yet I like to ignore that. Secondly, Israel has repeatedly tried to leave the west bank and gaza, but as they've done so, attacks against Israel have increased. Logic would suggest that the people doing the attacking just want to attack Israel regardless of what Israel does, yet I will go against logic and reason and blame Israel.

And so here we have, once again, the brain dead amongst us dashing to their computers (or in this case "computer" to impersonate me.

it would make more sense and give credence to -- oops, what am I saying? The person using my name would not know "sense" or 'credence" were they to leap up and slap him.

Oh, well, I guess when you can't say anything of note you impersonate someone else or use outlandish words and phrases as a means of identification. Hell, if I were babbling the crap the person above (and many of his pals) posted, I'd hide behind someone else as well. I'd be ashamed to let anyone, even family and friends, know who I was.


Why is it people like this impersonator of mine never comes on our board to say, by the way, did you hear what the war criminal, Sharon, said last evening on Israeli television? The man is a nut case. Or why don't we ever hear the impersonators out there posting a note quoting some of the infamous fanatical ramblings and threats of the "settlers"? Hell, no.

No, indeed. As long as enough of them can waste enough space here and elsewhere spewing their mindless drivel, they're happy. Brainwashed doesn't cover it.

Strange how they forget that long before there was a Hamas or anyone else, there was the Stern and Irgun gangs, busy introducing terror and terror techniques into Palestine. The phrase 'selective memory" doesn't begin to cover it either.

Ah, but we know!!!

Eat me! You're not so bright yourself!:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1633658_comment.php#1636838

To the ? bigoted dipshit
by Critical Thinker Thursday August 21, 2003 at 01:31 AM:

"not to mention you're too dumb to *impersonify*..."

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

RE: O 'GREAT' "CRITICAL 'THINKIFIER' "!!
by ? Thursday August 21, 2003 at 02:36 PM:

Non-Critical 'Thinker': "not to mention you're too dumb to impersonify..."

?: SPEAKING OF ***DUMMMM*** !!!: ... ***"IMPERSONIFY"***!!!???

WHAT'S **THAT**! BUSHSPEAK!!!???

BUSH EBONICS!!???

I GUESS YOU AUTHORITIZED THAT IN YOUR RESPONSIFICATION TO MY POSTIFYING! HUH?

***HAHAHAHAHA***!!!

HEY! ENDER, GEHRIG!! COME CARRY YOUR ZIONIST BOY OFF THE INTELLECTUAL FIELD OF BATTLE. TAKE HIM BACK TO TEXAS!! HE'S NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME!!!

*****HAHAHAHAHAHA*****!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!


ACTUALLY, IF THIS WEREN'T ALL SO SADLY AND IRONICALLY SERIOUS, ALL YOU ZIONISTS WOULD BE A *SITCOM*!.

STORY: "BUNCH O' CRAZY JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISTS, LUNATICS, CLAIM THAT *GOD* PROMISED THEM ISRAEL 5,000 YEARS AGO, AND THAT THEY ONCE HAD A COUNTRY 2,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEY'RE COMING BACK TO GET IT!"

Hey, "Critical Thinkifier", now even Scottie is making fun of you!

Critical Thinker has been banned from this site.

See:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1637374.php

the above was obviously not me. but I cant be stuffed loading up the email to get nessie to delete it.

...I might *guess* THERE'LL BE *MORE*!

Moral to Zionists: don't let your mouth (posts) start a fight your ass can't finish!!

Steve is forgetting that war criminal par excellence, Ariel Sharon, is Prime Minister of Israel; and he's forgetting that so he can try and convince us that every problem existing in this "conflict' is due to the evil Palestinian leadership.

Well, you're going to have a hard time convincing me of that with terrorists like Begin, Shamir, I and now Sharon having been Prime Ministers of Israel.

As if Ariel Sharon, after being smacked sharply on the wrist for his "indirect responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatila massacre had ever left.

Just because he wasn't PM doesn't mean he wasn't there, and I quite frankly don't give a damn when he became PM.

He's still a war criminal whose little trek to the Temple Mount with his merry band of thugs in September 2000 ensured that there would be a reaction from the Palestinians.

And Sharon, who knows the Palestinian pyshe better than anyone else in the region, having killed, or had killed, enough of them since 1954, knew exactly what that reaction would be.

Rainbow Grocery Casts a Vote for Israeli Apartheid
by Ex-Rainbow Shopper Tuesday August 26, 2003 at 02:32 PM.

Rainbow Grocery: Organic Arab Blood for Sale

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1638022_comment.php#1638116

If this is true...then it shows that NONSENSE about those Bay Area leftists/revolutionaries who think that all the workers from the oppressor nations will join hands with all the workers of the oppressed to overthrow state racism or any other kind of state oppression.

See "Labor Creates All Wealth's" (Les F.'s) drivel about this (Saturday August 16, 2003 at 04:38PM) just under the main article above.

Then read: "Workers’ Paradise" or Zionism
by Joseph from Berkeley -- JA (Sunday August 17, 2003 at 12:58 PM)

for a rebuttal to Les's fantasy world.

For a bit of incisive humor, you might also read: "We're oppressed in America too!"
by "Zionist Jew" (Saturday August 16, 2003 at 08:10PM).

All near the top of the page.

angie..
And Sharon, who knows the Palestinian pyshe better than anyone else in the region, having killed, or had killed, enough of them since 1954, knew exactly what that reaction would be. "
hmm
That is similar to from a Mossad psyche "Arafat should have known what the israeli reaction would be to "resistance""
or from a hamas like psyche " the jews should have known what the palistinian reation would be to them being born."
Seems that sort of logic can be used to justify anything

A bit early in the day to be dealing with you, Scottie.

I am speaking of Ariel Sharon. Did you not know that Sharon has said:

"I am known as someone who eats Arabs for breakfast This is baseless".

This comment caused Gwynne Dyer to add:

"Ariel Sharon may not "eat Arabs for breakfast", but he has a history of killing them with abandon".

You justify that, Scottie.

the next day an Israeli Prime Minister: Begin, Shamir, Ben Gurion, Sharon...

How 'laudable'.

Angie/gwynne

"Ariel Sharon may not "eat Arabs for breakfast", but he has a history of killing them with abandon".

Gwynne is using exageration as a litterary tool.

his statment is a classic example of halfway through the argument where one person makes a statement that the other is evil and no matter what evidene comes up it is always "ok that is true but everything else about you is evil"
since it is never possible to address every point it is not possible to defeat the argument.

"Gwynne is using exaggeration as a literary tool".

Thus spake Scottie above.

It was an excellent article, really; however, why don't I ask him if Scottie is correct when he arrives here in September on a lecture tour??

there is no need to ask him. just perform a simple exercise

ask yourself
how many people do you think you could kill if you took 200 nuclear weapons and "killed with abandon" if you get a number more than one or two a day then it would indicate that gwynne was exagerating
If you get one or two a day then you are killing just not "with abandon"

If you haven't, either read it or move on. How like you to wax idiotic.

Gwynne Dyer was not speaking about Sharon's recent history only. Have you forgotten Sharon has been around killing Arabs since 1954? Or was it even earlier than that? That's five decades of bloody murder, Scottie. You do the math.

to kill the Arabs he killed.

There has been Arab terrorism on an ongoing basis against the Israelis since their independence war ended 1949.
Until 5 June, 1967 Israel wasn't occupying the West Bank and Gaza, yet low and behold, there was daily terror against Israel from those territories!!!
That's why Sharon in his military capacity staged many reprisals against the areas from which the terrorists emerged, in an effort to kill those terrorists.
Do you know the local Arab population there was aiding and abetting the terrorists? Obviously you don't care.
You also don't care there hadn't been the fairly recent military technologies that allow to pinpoint the terrorists with a rather great accuracy.

Finally, If Sharon wouldn't do it, someone else would.

>There has been Arab terrorism on an ongoing basis against the Israelis since their independence war ended 1949.

And vice versa.

Strange. The "technologies" you speak of have seen quite a few innocent people being gunned down.

Just a few days ago, in fact, a "targetted' individual was wounded but an innocent bystander killed. Remember a street in Gaza not that long into the truce? Kill a so called "militant " but take his wife and infant child as well. Just about every day we hear about this behaviour on the part of Israel.

Assassinations of any individuals as carried out by Israel or anyone else is evil and very very wrong.

We have only the Israeli government's word that these people are "militants" or - gasp - "terrorists", and quite frankly nothing the Israelli government or its murderous IDF has said causes me to view it as truth. On the contrary.

Remember the massacre at Qana in 1996? Good ole Shimon Peres dismissed the deaths of 106 innocent Labanese refugees as "an accident". And in a UN compound at that! Some damn accident!.

Let's not forget that Israel was using a drone at the time, and it knew full well where its shells were landing. The drone was photographed by a Norwegian soldier making an amateur video of the shelling, and it was passed out to all the news media around the world.

Guess you didn't see that, hmmm? Or chose to ignore it.

So why don't you change your name to "down with Israeli assassinations"? It would make a lot more sense.

Any one who can come up with an excuse to defend Ariel Sharon is not someone I intend to exchange views with.

Don't bother me again.

You're lying, lying, lying.
All should disregard HB's contention.

things are here, don't reply to posts challenging your anti-Israeli opinions on this site.
Alternatively, refrain from posting altogether.

I'll take your drivel and otherwise anti-Israeli rhetoric more seriously when you start blaming the Arabs for their transgressions with equal fervor.

Don't you dare tell me what to post or not; nor don't you tell me anything about what this board is all about. That is the job of the editors, not yours.

And as long as they have no problem with my so-calkled anti Israeli comments, I'll be damned if you are going to cause me to stop expressing my views. At least I have truth on my side.

"History Buff" is not "lying, lying, lying". On the contrary his comment is most truthful.

Thus, he's being attacked in the normal fashion. I'm sure he's intelligent enough to realize that about the most the supporters of Israeli terror can do is yell "liar". Not much of a come back, is it?

Angie, you still don't seem able to get it into your thick head that when idiots make insane exaggerated claims about ariel sharon, and someone corrects the idiot, that person isn't necessarily "defending" ariel sharon, but merely correcting utter nonsense.

Furthermore, as you may have noticed, the editors here now constantly remove views that aren't identical to yours and nessie's. They leave the silly stuff, they remove the stuff that CORRECTS the inaccurate things you and others say.

Palestinians, generally, target innocent Israelis on buses and in restuarants.

Israel, generally, targets members of the Palestinian organizations who do the above.

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but the above generalizations are accurate and the norm.

For many years, leading up still to today, the actual leaders of the Palestinians were protecting (and sometimes were the actual people) in organizations who intentionally murder innocent Israeli civilians.

Every time Israel has offered a land-for-peace agreement, they received terrorist attacks.

Every time Israel has started to withdraw from Palestinian land, attacks against Israel have increased.

Every time Israel has then gone back and re-taken military control of key Palestinian towns, successful terrorist attacks against Israel have decreased.

After decades of this, Israel started to get sick of it and started to settle on some of the land they had repeatedly offered to give away yet were rejected.

For years, the more Palestinians continue to do the above, rejecting peace, teaching their kids that Israel should cease to exist, and increasing terrorism against Israel every time Israel tries to be accomodating, so now Palestinians may be permanently losing some of what was repeatedly offered to them.

Those are the facts, and they are valid not just during this latest intifada, but for many years.

Israel is the only democracy in that entire region. Is it a perfect democracy? Of course not, far from it. Is Israel a place that gives immigration advantages to Jews? Sure, yes. Do non-Jews who are citizens of Israel have an equal vote and freedom to work whatever job they want and live fine? Yes.

Is Israel surrounded by tons of nations that are NOT democracies, and are SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE in terms of human rights, barely allowing non-muslims to advance in society and the workplace, etc.? YES.

So, logic would suggest that if X amount of criticism is sent in Israel's direction for giving advantages to Jews, then 20X amount of criticism should be given to the 20-something Muslim states for the same reason.

Yet, all you hear is people who claim to be "against racism" and therefore feel it's wrong for Jews to have a "Jewish state" (even though 20% of it's citizens aren't Jews, yet have full rights), yet they SHOULD be speaking 20-times as much about the 20-something muslim nations, which combine to have about 100 times the amount of people Israel does... yet, you don't hear that. Where are all the protests demanding that the entire "Muslim world" be broken up and made 100% secular, as the fringe far left constantly demands of the one tiny Jewish state? You just see Israel get singled out, and lied about, and demonized.

It is not anti-semitic to make valid criticisms of Israel.

It is anti-semitic to single Israel out for certain reasons while intentionally not applying the same standards of criticism towards the many other nations that are "guilty" of the same, or much worse, things.

Sigh. Another one has emerged from the woodwork.

Briefly let me say this. From henceforth I shall not be responding to all of these outrageous spiels either directed to me or indirectly about me. I'm wasting much valuable time that can be put to better use elsewhere.

1. My head is not "thick", sir. In fact, I have a pleasant, well shaped head that carries much more brain power than yours does, obviously.

2. I will discuss Ariel Sharon at some future date when I get time. I don't have time now, although I might add that no one can possibly exaggerate this terrorist's fifty plus years of murderous behaviour. (Note: Don't bother having your pals respond. Remember I said I won't bother replying?? Mean it, man.)

3. The policy of the editors at SF Indymedia is theirs and justifiably so. They are the ones who are maintaining it, and putting their time, money, and energy into it so that some of us can learn something. They can do so as they see fit. If you have a problem with that, why are you here? Start your own site.

4. As for the rest of your LONG spiel, what can I say? I've heard it all before. We've all heard it before, and most of us can recite it verbatim. Impress me sometime with something of note, okay?

Or if you want a more informed view than mine, seeing as how I don't live in Israel, pick up a copy of this week's Uri Avnery article, "A Drug for the Addict". He's got the situation re the road map and "peace" in the mid east outlined brilliantly.

Why is it that you and your friends on the board here can't listen to what he's saying and learn something for God's sakes?

"mental impossible": "[anti-Zionists] they SHOULD be speaking 20-times as much about the 20-something muslim nations, which combine to have about 100 times the amount of people Israel does... "


THIS *STOOOPID*, FALLACIOUS, *IDDDIOTIC*, OBJECTION OF YOURS HAS ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY DEALT WITH AND DEBUNKED!

(LOOK UP "REFERENCE" EITHER ON THIS PAGE OR IN ONE OF THE OTHER CURRENTLY ACTIVE THREADS DEALING WITH ISRAEL!)

SO WE **AREN'T** GOING TO STOP!

SO DEAL WITH IT!!

ISRAEL IS THE ONLY -- FORMALLY AND POLITICALLY SELF-DEFINED -- IDEOLOGICALLY RACIST SETTLER-COLONIAL STATE OF ITS KIND (AFTER THE FALL OF APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA), *SUPPORTED* BY THE WEST, LEFT IN THE WORLD!

ARE BRUTAL/OPPRESSIVE U.S.-SUPPORTED ARAB DICTATORSHIPS YOUR 'GOLD STANDARD' FOR COMPARISON TO ISRAEL? WELL, GEE!: I'M NOT AS BAD AS CHARLES MANSON!

AND AS LONG AS ISRAEL GETS ABOUT 1,000 TIMES MORE U.S. AID -- BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF *OUR* TAX DOLLARS -- AS LONG AS MY COUNTRY CRITICALLY MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR ISRAEL TO MAINTAIN A "JIM CROW" AND APARTHEID STATE BRUTALLY OPPRESSING MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE -- AS LONG AS THE ZIONIST LOBBY CONTINUES TO, IN PART, SIGNIFICANTLY DEFORM OUR DEMOCRACY, INTIMIDATE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND MORALLY CORRUPT OUR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENTS -- UNDOUBTEDLY WE ARE NOT CONDEMNING ISRAEL ENOUGH IN THIS COUNTRY!