Rainbow Grocery Casts a Vote for Israeli Apartheid

Yes it's terrible, but I'm not surprised. If you talked to some of the workers, they really just aren't politically aware and only care about their own deal - going out to clubs or looking cool or whatever - like the average person. A lot of people in SF are like this.

At least they tried, and I'm sure there ARE people there who really care and tried to push this through.

But yelling at Rainbow isn't going to help. It's a great place and it's been around a long time.

If you have any idea of what sort of pressure they'd come under if they did this, you are aware of part of why they probably chose to back down.

As Nessie has mentioned elsewhere on here, Rainbow is important because it works against the larger problem, which is capitalism. It has a role, and the role is important. It can't fight all fights. I'm guessing that losing it - which could easily happen under the pressure of the right-wing Zionists - wouldn't be worth anything we could really gain from a boycott.

Don't stop shopping at Rainbow - organize. Continue to work toward a boycott in the future. Like rental houses, roommates and workers turnover, a new place develops, the rules change. Maybe you could help steer pro-Palestinian people looking for work toward Rainbow. Maybe over time, courage will grow.

The situation there is ready to explode any minute. The pressure is growing by the second on Iran, Israel is letting the missles fly like crazy, and Syria is being targetted. Plus, bombings almost every other day. Things are ready to blow. It's only a matter of time, and scary to think about.

And who's probably behind it? The Cabal, who else. I support the person who's theory on here was that the cabal et al are trying to cause chaos amongst the Iraq factions, then bring in the puppet to come out with a fake verbal attack against the US, etc. It's all a set-up, is my guess. But it's anyone's guess what will happen.

Pretty soon, a Rainbow boycott may be meaningless.

Remember, don't vote for Howard Dean! He wants a TEN YEAR occupation of the Middle East by the US and Israel.

The problem with the decision is that it mirrors the larger problem in the progressive US community generally. It goes something like this, yes I'm a feminist, pro-labor, anti-capitialist, anti-racist....but Israel is different, its "complex": This is the Israel exceptionalism argument, thus "creating Warsaw ghetto like conditions for a population of 3 million people is bad, but you see, its complex" The only real complexity is the fact that the situation is seen as complex only in in the US and Israel. Everywhere else, its pretty simple, if you didn't like what happened to native americans, why would you be confused about this situation? Its a large settler colonial land grab, Sharon is absolutely clear on this, as is most of the far right that runs Israel. How much more information does a progressive store actually need to make a decision? I'm not angry, simply sad, everyone is advocating non-violent action to stop the occupation, Tikkun types are constantly talking about ending the occupation, but whenever the rubber hits the road, whether it be suspending/stopping US aid or boycotting, all of a sudden there are complexities and friction and problems. How else will pressure be brought to bear? Constantly wringing ones hands about this clearly heinous US supported and Israeli prosecuted occupation without any substantive action is almost immoral. By the way, I'm an ISM particpant and a member of a Jewish Voice for Peace. I'm in this struggle for the long haul and agree that we can't give up hope, well meaning and committed people both in Israel and Palestine aren't.

Being a native San Franciscan, a lifelong socialist and opponent of Israel, and never having shopped at Rainbow Grocery as it is certainly not in walking distance to this car-free resident, I am not surprised that the people at RG refused to boycott Israeli products and not upset at all.

First of all, I am surprised they carry anything made in Israel. I have never seen any food products or anything else that I purchase at the supermarket, hardware store or clothing stores where I shop that is made in Israel.

Secondly, the Israel garbage has almost no significance to the average American, even those who keep up with things like elections, police brutality, government corruption and the like. The average person has absolutely no concept of what is going on in Israel. Most workers in this country are too busy trying to survive. The Israel garbage just does not register on their list of top concerns. Talking to most Americans about Israel is like talking to me about football: You would get a stone face at best.

Thirdly, little Rainbow Grocery is not the center of the earth, not even of San Francisco. Any boycott of the tiny handful of Israeli goods they may carry would only be symbolic. The symbolism would be helpful, but it is not the end of the world if they do not boycott Israel's exports. I really cannot imagine what Israel exports that Rainbow Grocery stocks. Perhaps it is the pastry, halvah, which is also made in this country.

Fourthly, our much larger boycott of South African goods and companies to end apartheid did not end the poverty of the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa, as capitalism did not end. As to our boycott, it was only secondary to the massive labor strikes in South Africa that caused the capitalist class to finally end apartheid and free Nelson Mandela as a means of trying to save their bankrupt social order. They now have what we have, de facto segregation. It will take more labor organizing to end capitalism and its accompanying segregation and poverty.

You may wonder why I call it the Israel garbage. Israel is just a US military base that exists to protect US oil profits in the Middle East. The horrors perpetrated by the US puppet government in Israel are just as heinous as the horrors perpetrated by the US puppet governments everywhere else in the world, whose countries do send lots of goods to this country, such most of Latin America and Asia. I do not hear of any boycott of goods made i n Latin America, Asia, the poor countries of Europe such as Ukraine, Russia, etc.

I think we should all spend more time labor organizing to put an end to capitalism. That will certainly end the miserable hellhole called Israel, as well as all the other fascist fiefdoms.

RAINBOW CAVES IN 2 THE STATUS QUO

...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 racism or any other kind of state oppression.

See: AUDIO: Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey Blankfort on anti-Semitism
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1635249_comment.php#1637817

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

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.

Nice. Well put. Concise.

Then what are *YOU* doing here?

You must really *LOVE* us -- you can't seem to do without us!

So you inadvertently admitted you're a rabid loon and a wackjob who answers to all of WTF's descriptions.
Otherwise you would have denied them. In any rate. that's what a self respecting person would do.

To: "??" Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 01:24 AM.

Oh, you're too clever for *mee-eee*!

I guess I'm just not a "self-respecting" person!

Next time I'll try to remember to deny some nutty, fanatical Zionist's (and his love-hate relationship's) accusations.

Bwhahahaha, you must be on crack or something. Otherwise, why did you type
"To: "??" Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 01:24 AM."?

See what I mean? You're even more pathetic than WTF estimated.

You guys have a very weird definition of "apartheid," apparently.

The "progressives" publishing and posting comments on this site can't stand for the imperfect democracy standards of Israel, which they dub "Apartheid". But they're willing to give the much worse, undemocratic standards present anywhere else in the Third World a free pass.

These "progressives" only demand Israel become secular, notwithstanding Israel is far from being a theocracy, but don't demand real theocracies (or other not entirely secular countries) become secular.

The conclusions?
These "progressives" espouse secularism and anti-racism ONLY where Israel is concerned.
Which begs the conclusion they are really anti-Israeli "anti-Zionists" and not progressives.

??: " Bwhahahaha, you must be on crack or something. Otherwise, why did you type
"To: "??" Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 01:24 AM."? "


?: I've heard of a dancin' fool, but not a laughin' **FOOL**!!

Go back and *LOOK* ya blind bumpkin!

"??": "See what I mean? You're even more pathetic than WTF estimated."

?: 'YEAH', ' I *SEE* WHAT YOU MEAN ' !

(What a Zionist *dolt*! The Zionist idiot can't find his ass with both hands! Hahaha...!)

HEY, LET'S EVERYONE LAUGH ALL TOGETHER AT THE ZIONIST TOWN *IDIOT*!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....!!!

RE: Their true colors are evident
by ?? Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 03:17 AM.

You know what? You Zionist's whole entire regurgitated LAME line of objections has already been covered and responded to in another thread:

Jeffrey Blankfort: The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions
by Jeffrey Blankfort
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1635628_comment.php#1638163

Instead of you boorish, loudmouth Zionists boring us even more with screeds and reams of your lame-ass brainwashed apologisms, just go over to that thread and read all the answers to your windbag grousings. It'll save ALL of us some typing time. If those responses don't answer your grousings, I guess that you'll just have to give up on us anti-racist anti-Nazi anti-Zionists AND GO *ELSEWHERE*!!

your insane madness, denial and delusions go on ad nauseum. All you want is that we chant amen to all your drivel.

Without good, sane and fair minded people posting on this site, you would lose your reason for operating a computer (posting psychotic "anti-Zionist" bollocks) and probably get on the fast track to dope addiction followed by death.

He said, among other things, "how quickly you remove dissenting comments."

All criticism of our editorial policy must go in the proper thread, or it will be removed. This is the proper thread:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1548433.php

He also posted a link to an enemy website. Comments which include links to enemy websites will be removed no matter where they are posted. No, you cannot advertise that crap here. If you see one we missed, please email us about it. Include the URL. We’ll deal with it immediately.

We can be reached at:

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

We do not, FWIW, remove dissenting comments. We remove comments that are in support of the status quo. Support of the status quo is not dissent. If you want to read comments in support of the status quo, go somewhere else. It’s a big web. There are plenty of sites that support the status quo. SF-IMC does not exist to provide a soapbox for supporters of the status quo. If that’s what you’re looking for, you're in the wrong place. Leave.

   
Linda S Heard: 'Anti-Semitic' labels used as political tools
 |  | 26/08/2003
 

Star of "Braveheart", Mel Gibson is the latest in the line of actors, writers and celebrities to bedealt a blow to his career: a label planted on anyone who dares to reflect Jews or Israel in anything other than a favourable light. Yes, you've guessed it, the dreaded term "anti-Semite". His crime?Gibson directed, produced and financed The Passion - a movie based on the Christian Gospels, centring on the life and crucifixion of Jesus.

In an attempt to deflect the accusations of various Jewish interest groups, Gibson organised a series of private screenings so as to gauge the views of journalists, film critics and religious leaders, including Jews, none of whom perceived the movie as being anti-Semitic.

"Neither I, nor my film are anti-Semitic," stressed Gibson. "Nor do I hate anyone, certainly not the Jews. They are my friends and associates, both in my work and social life." If Gibson seeks prolongation of his Hollywood career, he may have to go a lot further with his protestations than that in order to shake off the anti-Semitic slur.

While there is no doubt that anti-Semitism has existed throughout the ages and should be condemned, as should all form of racism and bigotry, it is also true that the label is currently often misused and deliberately so.

What is "anti-Semitism"? Its etymology is confusing as it does not mean "hatred of Semites", which would also include most Arabs. The term has come to mean solely "hatred of Jews" and implies an irrational hatred, hatred due to their religious, ethnic or cultural differences.

In other words, "anti-Semitism" is another way of saying " bigoted or racist attitudes towards Jews"… or it should be. It is true to say that the pogroms against Jews in Russia and the Nazi Holocaust were, indeed, horrific racist acts against a people, anti-Semitic mass murders, but it is also true that accusations of anti-Semitism are brandished by the Israeli government and Jewish groups as protective mantels deflecting not only anti-Jewish/Israel bigotry but also justified criticisms of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians.

Gretta Duisenberg, wife of the governor of the European Central Bank and Chairperson of Stop the Occupation, was blacklisted by Israel as an anti-Semite for flying a Palestinian flag from the balcony of her home.

The writer A.N. Wilson metamorphosed into an "anti-Semite" in Zionist eyes for daring to compare the damage inflicted upon the Church of the Nativity by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) with the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

Aggressive policies

A French ambassador was deemed an anti-Semite for describing Israel as "a small shitty country", a remark related to the aggressive policies of the Israeli government, rather than the Jews as a people.

Actor Marlon Brando blotted his copybook when he announced on Larry King Live "Hollywood is run by Jews.

It is owned by Jews and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering."Even though this may technically be a reality, it is also considered an anti-Semitic statement because it is perceived to bolster that old canard used by genuine anti-Semites - that of a Jewish conspiracy to run the world.

Vanessa Redgrave is an actress who has spent her life as an advocate for the less fortunate. Yet she has been badly maligned by those who point the finger of anti-Semitism. Redgrave opposed the Vietnam War and championed freedom for Soviet Jews, receiving the Sakharov Medal for her efforts.

Despite her good works, in 1980, effigies of the actress were burned outside CBS studios in both Hollywood and Philadelphia all because she had been selected to play the role of a concentration camp in-mate in "Playing for Time", a movie made for television.

Jewish Defence League leader Irv Rubin said of the casting: "It's a horrible insult. Six million Jews will roll over in their graves."

The Boston Symphony Orchestra went as far as to cancel a performance of Oedipus Rex narrated by Redgrave, concerned that her involvement would offend the Jewish community. The cause of the outrage? Redgrave had previously financed and narrated "The Palestinian", a documentary about the Palestinian struggle.

Nowadays, Zionist organisations and websites are targeting Arabs as so-called "anti-Semites" citing political cartoons in the Arab press as well as programmes on Arabic channels as "evidence" of this.

Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism they say in a grotesque distortion of the essence of anti-Semitism while conveniently forgetting the apartheid wall being constructed through Palestinian lands, the thousands of Palestinian youths languishing in Israeli prisons, the land grab of the illegal settlers and the extra-judicial assassinations regularly perpetrated by the IDF - In short, the evils of occupation.

The more "anti-Semitism" is used as a shield against political criticism, the more it is devalued and the less clout it will carry when attached to real haters of everything Jewish. There is even a label given to Jews who speak out against Israeli aggression - "self-hating".

Those who deplore the treatment meted out by the Israeli authorities to the Palestinians are either one or the other whereas activists against the policy of other governments are often perceived as humanitarian.

Truth be told

If the truth be told, the Semitic recipients of racism in today's world are not the Jews but the Arabs who in the U.S., and to a lesser extent in Europe, are having to unfairly defend themselves from slurs of religious extremism or even links to terrorism.

The Arabs are the ones who are today suffering from negative stereotyping as well as having to respond to insults piled on to their culture and religion.

Perhaps "anti-Semitism" should be expunged from our lexicon. Its blatant misuse has destroyed both lives and careers, often without foundation. Its interpretation is too broad and its definition shaded with historical connotation. Let's instead say it like it is.

People who hate Jews simply because they are Jews are either religious bigots or racists no different from those who hate Muslims, Arabs or any other religious group or ethnicity.

Turning once again to the issue of Mel Gibson, surely his film should be judged on its own merits. It's a portrayal of the Gospels as he sees them. If audiences adjudge it anti-Semitic, then this will reflect at the box office. If not, then Gibson will be vindicated.

The film's viewers should be the appraisers, not just the guardians of Zionist ideology waiting to cry foul on every occasion someone momentarily steps on their oh, so sensitive, and largely disingenuous toes.

The writer is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at:

lheard [at] gulfnews.com

if rainbow were to boycott israel, they would be committing a federal crime.

yes, you read that correctly. it is illegal for a US business to boycott israel.

now, i'm all for boycotting israel. racism = zionism. the totalitarian arab states exist because the US props them up and does not allow democracy in the region.

however, if it means my favorite gorcery store is going to close, forget it. buy a few falafel mix boxes from israel and leave it to the CONSUMER to boycott their shit.

to the original poster: save you anger for the federal government which is currently run by ex-trotskite zionist filth.

it criticized our editorial policy in an inappropriate thread.

All criticism of our editorial policy must go here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1548433.php

Put it anywhere else, and it will be removed.

Apartheid is apartheid is apartheid and it is wrong, even in racist, anti-democratic, apartheid, Zionist Israel, a "Jewish state".

There should be NO DOUBLE STANDARDS with regards to Jews and to Israel.

Zionism is pure, unadulterated, poisonous, murderous racism.

Check out http://www.boycottisraeligoods.org for more info on how to boycott apartheid Israel.

The current wacko urban legend is that ex Trots run the US foreign policy. Here is an authoritative article on the topic. And by the way, Stalin supported the creation of the state of Israel, a move opposed by Trotskyists at the time.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The historical roots of neoconservatism: a reply to a slanderous attack on Trotskyism

World Socialist Web Site

By Bill Vann
23 May 2003
Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

The May 20 edition of the Spanish-language daily El Diario/La Prensa in New York City published a column by the newspaper’s political editor Vicky Pelaez entitled “From permanent revolution to permanent conquest.” The thrust of the piece is an attempt to trace the current policies of the extreme right-wing clique that dominates the Bush White House and the Pentagon to the American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s.

This article is by no means unique. A number of print and on-line publications ranging from the Sunday Times in Britain and El País in Spain to the web site antiwar.com and that of the John Birch Society have featured similar material. In some cases, these articles are motivated by internecine disputes within the American right. In other cases they represent a confused attempt to explain the eruption of US militarism that has developed under the Bush administration, and the role played in it by a tight-knit group of hard-right ideologues centered in the Pentagon.

Ms. Pelaez’s column is distinguished only by the crudeness of the fabricated details that she employs to further her arguments. After tracing the undoubted influence of the right-wing German-born political scientist Leo Strauss (See: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/stra-m26.shtml) upon many of those dubbed neoconservatives in the Bush administration, she proceeds to the alleged Trotskyist connection.

Pelaez writes: “But strangest of all is the political position of all those [Bush administration officials] cited above. The investigation reveals that the parents of all of them were Trotskyist militants, anti-Stalinists and belonged to the movement of the 1930s to the 40s that arose when Leon Trotsky abandoned the Soviet Union and denounced Stalin as a revisionist and a dictator. Of course, the United States supported with all its might the Trotskyist movement, which was spread worldwide; this included here in New York the CIA’s organizing their congress at the Waldorf Astoria in 1949 (The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders.)”

She continues: “The children of the made-in-the-USA Trotskyists, their names are Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Feith, David Wurmser, etc., became part of the liberal anticommunist movements between the 1950s and 70s. Later they converted themselves into neoconservatives and transformed Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution into Permanent Conquest based on Strauss. Then they put it into action after taking power, calling it Permanent Expansion, justifying it by saying that ‘everything that is good for America is good for the world’ and that ‘the United States has the right to attack any country if it perceives the existence of any danger.’”

In responding to the above collection of historical distortions and outright falsehoods, one is reminded of Leon Trotsky’s remark, “Even slander should make some sense.” Trotsky was speaking of the absurd amalgams constructed by the Kremlin to cast him as an agent—depending upon the foreign policy requirements of the day—of German, British, US, or Japanese imperialism.

Pelaez’s piece employs similar amalgams, portraying Trotskyism as an instrument of imperialism and drawing a straight line from Trotsky’s founding of the Fourth International 65 years ago to the Bush administration’s policy of aggression today.

When the article refers to the “investigation” that uncovered the supposed Trotskyist connection, it is not clear whether she is referring to the work of the Sunday Times, which she cites in the previous paragraph, her own probe, or the analysis made in the book she subsequently refers to. She fails to include a closing quotation mark in the passage containing the supposed meat of this investigation, making the source for her assertions even more obscure.

Where is the evidence that the US “supported with all of its might” the worldwide spread of the Trotskyist movement? Washington’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies, endorsed the Moscow Trials in which the leaders of the October Revolution—including Trotsky, tried in absentia—were convicted in monstrous frame-ups and sentenced to death. Under conditions in which he was being pursued by assassins of the Stalinist secret police, the GPU, Trotsky was denied asylum not only in the US, but in every other country of the world, save Mexico. The nationalist government of President Lazaro Cardenas admitted him as an act of defiance against Washington, with which it was in conflict over the nationalization of Mexico’s oil. When Trotsky was assassinated in 1940, Washington refused even to allow his corpse to be brought across the border for a memorial meeting.

As for the American Trotskyist movement, 18 of its leaders were jailed under the Smith Act, becoming the first to be persecuted under that infamous anti-communist law. They were imprisoned for opposing war and refusing to renounce the struggle for socialism. Individual leaders—including Carl Skoglund, the organizer of the 1934 Minneapolis general strike—were threatened with deportation.

The Stalinist Communist Party USA, it should be noted, enthusiastically backed these repressive measures, which would later be turned against it as well. There is ample evidence that FBI and CIA spying on American Trotskyists has continued right up to the present.

To substantiate her claim of US government support for the Trotskyists, Pelaez cites Stonor Saunders’ book to the effect that the CIA organized a Trotskyist congress in 1949 at the Waldorf Astoria. It is certainly a novel idea that the Trotskyists, a party of workers with limited resources, would have chosen the Waldorf for its congress. In any event, it is pure fantasy. No such meeting ever took place.

It is doubtful that the El Diario columnist ever read Stonor Saunders’ book. The 1949 conference at the Waldorf that the book refers to was organized not by the Trotskyists, but by a group of prominent American intellectuals—Aaron Copland, Arthur Miller, Norman Mailer, Lillian Hellman—with the support of the Soviet government. Its purpose was to oppose the onset of the cold war and plead for a continuation of the wartime Washington-Moscow alliance.

A group of liberals and “independent socialists” led by philosophy professor Sidney Hook attended the congress and challenged its organizers over the repression in the Soviet Union, including the murder and jailing of hundreds of thousands of socialists.

The CIA followed this event with some interest and forged relations with some of those who attended. None of the figures involved were connected to the Trotskyist movement, though some had expressed intellectual sympathy with Trotsky before his assassination nine years earlier.

To cobble together the Waldorf Astoria conference, Trotskyism and the CIA as Pelaez does is neither factual nor serious. An understanding of history and the evolution of different political tendencies requires an element of political precision that is sadly lacking in her comments.

Likewise, the claim that all those occupying senior posts in the Bush Pentagon are the “children of Trotskyists” is patently false. There are, however, connecting links between the political struggles within the Trotskyist movement more than six decades ago and the neoconservatives of today. They are to be found in particular in the careers of two individuals: the late Max Shachtman and Irving Kristol. The latter is a prominent figure in the right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). When, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush appeared before the AEI to deliver a speech outlining his vision for global military aggression, he began with a verbal tip of the hat to Kristol, who is widely regarded as the “godfather of neoconservatism.”

In 1939, as a student at the City College of New York, Kristol joined the Young People’s Socialist League, as the American Trotskyist youth movement was then called. The YPSL was affiliated to the Trotskyist party, then organized as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). He quickly gravitated to an emerging petty-bourgeois tendency within the party led by James Burnham and Max Shachtman, and in a very short time had followed them in breaking with the SWP.

Just before his death, Trotsky led an intense political struggle against these very elements, thereby laying the essential foundations not only for the development of a Marxist party of the working class in the United States, but for the development of the Fourth International worldwide.

Both the Fourth International and the Socialist Workers Party had been founded in 1938. By the autumn of 1939, a bitter faction fight had erupted within the SWP precipitated by the outbreak of the Second World War and, in particular, the signing of the non-aggression pact between Hitler’s Germany and the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union.

The faction that emerged in the SWP under the leadership of Burnham and Shachtman took the position that as a consequence of the pact between Hitler and Stalin it was no longer possible to consider the USSR a workers’ state in any sense of the word, and the Fourth International was compelled to repudiate its program of defense of the USSR against imperialist attack.

Despite his vehement opposition to the existing Soviet bureaucracy, Trotsky rejected the attempt to equate the USSR, which had emerged as a product of a workers’ revolution, with imperialism in general and the Nazi regime in particular. He stressed that, notwithstanding the abominable crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the social foundations of nationalized industry established by the October 1917 revolution remained. The Soviet Union, he insisted, was a society in transition between capitalism and socialism, its historical fate yet to be determined.

His political prognosis was of an alternative character: either the working class would overthrow the bureaucracy through a political revolution and return the Soviet Union to the socialist internationalist principles upon which the 1917 revolution was based, or the bureaucracy would destroy the foundations of the workers’ state and preside over the restoration of capitalism. Tragically, the second variant has been borne out by events.

In the 1939-40 fight within the SWP, Trotsky took great pains not only to refute the immediate arguments of the Burnham-Shachtman faction regarding the concrete issues of the Stalin-Hitler pact, the Soviet invasion of Finland, the events in Poland, etc., but also to draw out their deeply reactionary political and theoretical implications. As is so often the case in political struggles within the Marxist movement, lurking behind these programmatic differences were profound historical and class questions. Trotsky showed that those backing Shachtman and Burnham would be propelled far to the right by the logic of both their arguments and their philosophical method, which was rooted in a rejection of dialectical materialism. He warned prophetically that those who begin by rejecting dialectical materialism end up not infrequently in the camp of reaction.

The battle waged by Trotsky against the petty-bourgeois opposition in the SWP represented an imperishable contribution to the development of Marxism. The documents of this struggle are available in a volume entitled In Defense of Marxism.

The political turn by these elements took place in the context of a series of catastrophic defeats for the international working class, the apparent strengthening of the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy, and the onset of another world war. Their rejection of the defense of the Soviet Union was bound up with the rejection of a revolutionary and internationalist perspective. Disillusioned with the prospects of the working class extending the October 1917 revolution and putting an end to capitalism on a world scale, they adopted the grim perspective of a new totalitarianism, which they saw extending for an entire epoch.

Trotsky’s prediction of the political trajectory of this opposition within the SWP was quickly borne out. Burnham moved very rapidly to the right, rejecting socialism, soon voicing support for atomic war against the Soviet Union and then becoming a leading ideologist on William F. Buckley’s National Review magazine.

Shachtman’s turn to the right was somewhat less abrupt. He continued to claim adherence to socialism and even the Fourth International for nearly another decade. At the time of his split with the SWP, he remained personally devoted to Trotsky. For his part, Trotsky rejected Shachtman’s path unconditionally. In April 1940, just four months before his death, he declared: “If this be Trotskyism then I at least am no Trotskyist...Had conscious agents of the class enemy operated through Shachtman, they could not have advised him to do anything different from what he himself has perpetrated.”

By 1950 and the outbreak of the Korean war, Trotsky’s warnings about the trajectory of Shachtman and his followers were fully confirmed when they supported the US military intervention. The SWP, in the teeth of the McCarthyite witch-hunt, opposed the US aggression and demanded the withdrawal of all US troops from Korea.

Moving steadily to the right, Shachtman became a key advisor of the anti-communist AFL-CIO bureaucracy and the US State Department. He cemented political alliances with Cold War Democratic Party liberals such as Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the hawkish Democrat from the state of Washington who was known as the “Senator from Boeing” for his championing of the military industrial complex. Jackson was an intransigent opponent of every arms treaty with the USSR and a persistent advocate of trade sanctions against Moscow. He spearheaded the campaign to use the issue of Soviet Jews as a weapon in the Cold War and was an unconditional supporter of the Israeli state.

In 1972, Shachtman, as an open anti-communist and supporter of both the Vietnam War and Zionism, backed Jackson in the Democratic presidential primary. The Shachtmanites, who had changed their name from the Workers Party to the Independent Socialist League in the early 1950s, later entered the dwindling ranks of the American Socialist Party, and eventually renamed themselves the Social Democrats USA.

Paul Wolfowitz, who is today the number two official at the Pentagon, and Doug Feith, an undersecretary of defense, as well as Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser—all prominent advocates of the war against Iraq—are former Democrats who worked for Jackson in the 1970s. Another Jackson protégé, Elliot Abrams, has been placed in charge of White House policy on the Middle East.

Whatever connection these elements may have had with Shachtman were the result not of the latter’s former connection to Trotskyism, but rather their agreement with the politics of anti-communism, militarism and Zionism that Shachtman had embraced over the course of some three decades following his break with the Fourth International.

In Shachtman’s political evolution—a descent into reaction by someone who had played a leading role in the building of the socialist movement and the defense of Trotsky against Stalinist persecution—there is an element of tragedy. Irving Kristol, on the other hand, began his turn to the right as a political cipher, having spent an extremely brief period in association with the American Trotskyists.

Kristol has nonetheless traded on that early and, from a political and historical standpoint, accidental association with Trotskyism in his climb up the ladder of right-wing think tanks. His son, William Kristol, is the editor of the Weekly Standard, a mouthpiece of the Republican right.

There is no doubt that both Shachtman and Kristol used political skills that they had gained in the Marxist movement to further the cause of reaction. Far from being responsible for the political evolution of these individuals, however, the Trotskyist movement fought out the political differences and rejected the opportunist tendency they represented long before it had evolved into an open supporter of US imperialism. The subsequent political path of Shachtman and Kristol only vindicated the objective significance of the struggle of Marxism against opportunism.

Throughout its history, the Trotskyist movement has been subjected to a continuous barrage of dishonest denunciations and vilification from both Stalinist and capitalist reaction. But to claim that somehow Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution is the foundation for a policy of “Permanent Conquest” advocated by Washington today is one of the grossest fabrications yet.

Trotsky elaborated his theory of Permanent Revolution as a world-historical conception of the relationship between the Russian revolution and the world revolution; between the democratic and socialist tasks posed in the backward countries and the role of the working class as the sole consistently revolutionary class in modern society. Embraced in practice by Lenin in 1917, this theory became the guiding perspective of the Russian Revolution itself.

With the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR, Trotsky defended his thesis—that the problems of the Soviet Union, and all other fundamental problems confronting humanity, could be resolved only on the level of the world economy and through the development of the international revolutionary struggle—against Stalin’s retrograde theory of “socialism in one country.”

To draw some connection between these revolutionary conceptions and the policy of plunder pursued by the Bush administration by means of a journalistic turn of phrase is a travesty of historical or political analysis, and only serves to obscure the ideological roots of the neoconservative movement. Those who at one point had some connection with socialist ideas and ultimately came to support Reaganism and now Bush did so by repudiating Marxism, along with the ideal of social equality and opposition to imperialist aggression. They could not be more removed from and hostile to the revolutionary perspective of Trotsky.

Trotskyism remains the authentic contemporary representative of international socialism. Anyone familiar with the work of the World Socialist Web Site, which reflects the views of the International Committee of the Fourth International, is well aware that it has taken the most intransigent stand against US aggression abroad and the policies of repression and social reaction within the US. The foundation for the socialist and internationalist politics of the WSWS lies in the Trotskyist movement’s continuous struggle against revisionist tendencies—including Shachtmanism—that ultimately reflect the pressure of hostile class forces upon the revolutionary party of the working class.

I am disappointed by the vote but I am not surprised. Zionism is insidious and is institutionalized in this system called U.S.A. I am pretty sure that there would be no disagreement if Rainbow was asked to deshelve Nazi products, or to deshelve Apartheid South African products. But so many people have been so intensely brainwashed by zionist propaganda that they don't know or see the truth when it is staring them in the face. I totally support the continued boycott of Rainbow and any other store that carries Israeli made products. The genocide of the Palestinian people is real, whether Rainbow wants to acknowledge it or not. Many American corporations got rich off of Nazi Germany, I don't want anyone to get rich off of Nazi Israel.

"Those who at one point had some connection with socialist ideas and ultimately came to support Reaganism and now Bush did so by repudiating Marxism, along with the ideal of social equality and opposition to imperialist aggression. They could not be more removed from and hostile to the revolutionary perspective of Trotsky."

I'm not exactly convinced. If the Soviet Union could slide into imperialist aggression without ever repudiating Marxism why is it so impossible to believe that Kristol and Shachtman found their way to Reaganism through Trotsky?

well, in my humble and not really important opinion, the comments in the comment file on this issue once again are being used to stammer out one liners about israel, palestine, apartheid and seemingly witty comparisons of israelies to nazis. Okay, what I'm saying is that your arguments are catch phrases and on this particular issue, did you miss the part in Rainbow's statement whereby they explained how they got to their decision. I believe the word is democracy. Now, how can any of you compare israel to a nazi (aka fascist) state and then turn around and berate the cooperative for not making a fascist decision? They told you there is still disagreement on the issue, they explained their practice and still you're unhappy. Could it be that y'all that make this audacious comparison are secretly fascists, not satisfied until your will is done by your... grocery CO-OP!!!??? Stick to the issues folks and save your rhetoric for your ass kissing, democratic candidates... sheesh.

"7 shakes": "did you miss the part in Rainbow's statement whereby they explained how they got to their decision. I believe the word is democracy."


Democracy: That's how America reached the decision to Constitutionalize slavery, support segregation, and deny women the right to vote; and how South Africa reached the decision to have Apartheid.

A democratic decision to support immoral laws/ideologies is no virtue.

How many philosophers and human rights icons have pointed out that

"All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

You must know a few things about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, hot shot, judging both from the manner you respond to posts sporting dissenting views to your own and how you brand them all "Zionists".

We shall overcome.

" You have shown me that you don't care about the injustice done to Arabs"
"It doesn't surprise me, Rainbow employees aren't politically informed"

How typical of the sophmoric ways people try to belittle or intimidate those they can't force to agree with them. I am a
(non-jewish) Rainbow employee. Sorry you cowards, but I am informed and simply do not cower to the likes of you dogmatic assholes who demand everyone see the world through their prejudices. Ever notice how no one complains about us selling food from countries whose human rights records are appaling when it is a commmmunist, socialist, or Islamic country? You people are hypocrites and this whine (" You hate Arabs!!") simply is meant to prevent disent and force everyone to conform to your double standards and self serving ideology. Get a life, and yes, please shop elsewhere, we are not the kind of place where the customer is always right- try Safeway if that is your philosophy.

Yet another reason not to shop at Rainbow.

Wow, I am very surprised you did not cave in to the demands of the anti-Zionists. Good job.

You know, when this first came up last November, the Dismantle-Israel types said, "just give us a chance to make our case." They had almost a year to make their case, presumably gave it their best shot, and as a whole Rainbow found that case unpersuasive.

The deeper message is this: if an anti-Israel boycott can't work even in a bulk-granola-and-veggie-burger grocery Bay co-op, then I can't imagine a place in the US where it would, and the boycott-Israel crowd is tilting after windmills if they think it ever will.

Or, pragmatically, the attempt to co-opt the memories of the anti-apartheid movement and apply them to Israel is as much a losing strategy as the attempt to rhetorically link Zionism and Nazism. The people know better.

@%<

Rainbow's policy is disappointing but not surprising.

Too many in the progressive community make exceptions for Israel -- this includes human rights organizations which frequently do not accept Palestinian testimony about incidents which have happened to them even though they accept testimony from others around the world in similar circumstances.

Zionists typically come on this board and complain of Israel being "singled out" by the progressive community. From my experience it has been the other way around with Israel's worst atrocities being ignored or justified by many who would not do the same in other conflicts.

The most striking case was Israel's invasion of Lebanon in which 20,000 people (overwhelmingly civilian) were killed through indiscriminate bombing of small towns and Beirut in a three month period in the summer of 1982. All that is remembered about this is the horrible massacres at Sabra and Shatila but no one recalls Israel's direct bombardment of the Lebanese cities with our weapons. In fact, at the time, Nuclear Freeze protests refused to allow Lebanese Americans to speak out about Israel's invasion which was an apocolypse happening at that time and not just some hypothetical nuclear war that could have happened.

I'm not sure why this is although I think part of the problem are bad faith liberals (like Michael Lerner of Tikkun) who on the one hand talk peace but on the other do what they can to block effective tactics like a boycott of Israel (Lerner, incidentally, sent his son to "serve" in the IDF -- would it be liberal for a white man to send his son to defend Apartheid South Africa?).

Anyway, Palestinians have been suffering far too long and there still seems to be more solidarity with Israel than with Palestinians for many who consider themselves pro-peace and anti-racist. This is changing, but as the Rainbow vote shows, there is still a long way to go.

Uhh, from 1948 to 1967 arabs controlled the west bank, gaza, and east jerusalem, and all they did was keep attacking israel instead of forming a palestinian state.

From 1967 to the early 1990's, palestinians refused to agree that they would not attack israel, and refused to agree that israel was even israel, and just kept hitting israel with terrorist attacks.

In the 1990's, israel finally convinced arafat to give up the PLO and form a new thing, the PA, and actually show that he's willing to act responsibily. All he did was continue to allow palestinians to hit israel with terrorist attacks while giving them speeches about how someday israel will cease to exist.

In 2000, palestinians were again offered their own state (something arab countries never actually offered them) by israel, and arafat rejected it and urged his people to start an idiotic, self-destructive intifada which certainly has done nothing but make things worse and make israel angier.

If you want to help the palestinians, gather a group of good, well-meaning palestinians who aren't fundie nutcase terrorists, put them in charge, give them the means to control their own people, and things will get better.

As long as arafat is still in the picture, and hamas cannot be controlled and continue to exist, things will be messy.

As demonstrated by "uhhhh," the way to produce effective Israeli propaganda is to make up your own history which goes against the facts but supports your ideology and then repeat it as often as possible -- taking a chapter out of Goebbels book no less ("a lie repeated 100 times eventually becomes the truth").

The PLO started moving towards a political settlement of the conflict in 1981 as shown in Noam Chomsky's book "Fateful Triangle." This was one of the reasons Israel attacked Lebanon -- to try to smother that move towards a diplomatic settlement which would have prevented them from expanding their settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As for 1948 and beyond, Palestinians have been terrorized by Israelis for decades and are the greatest victims of this conflict, but thanks to the media, all that is remembered is Israeli suffering (which was due to blowback from their own policies and actions).

"human rights organizations which frequently do not accept Palestinian testimony about incidents which have happened to them even though they accept testimony from others around the world in similar circumstances."

That's because the boards of those "human rights organizations" -- most notably Human Rights Watch (HRW) -- are filled with Zionist Jews. Jeffrey Blankfort can provide more information about this. And THE ZIONIST/ISRAEL LOBBY PUTS ON A *GREAT* DEAL OF PRESSURE (LIKE THE GREAT PRESSURE, NO DOUBT, ON RAINBOW GROCERY) to bias/compromise/corrupt their reports. You see the critical difference with Israel is that South African Apartheid state did not have a strong, wealthy, powerful--and politically intimidating--lobby in the United States, otherwise Nelson Mandela would still be busting rocks on Robben Island, and by now, helicopter gunships (never even used in South Africa) would be strafing and bombing black townships, and South African Apartheid would still be in existence.


"[Michael] Lerner, incidentally, sent his son to "serve" in the IDF -- would it be liberal for a white man to send his son to defend Apartheid South Africa?"

Lerner didn't just send his son to be in the IDF -- his son is in the *paratroopers*, as elite a division in the Zionist army as it was in the Nazi army. That's almost like having one's son in the SS or the Stormtroopers!

As Jeffrey Blankfort said, "Lerner ought to be prosecuted for child abuse!"


" Zionists typically come on this board and complain of Israel being "singled out" by the progressive community. From my experience it has been the other way around with Israel's worst atrocities being ignored or justified by many who would not do the same in other conflicts. "

Here we have the *racism* of one ethnic political group--Zionist Jews--expecting a free pass because they are Jews!


"Palestinians have been suffering far too long and there still seems to be more solidarity with Israel than with Palestinians for many who consider themselves pro-peace and anti-racist. This is changing, but as the Rainbow vote shows, there is still a long way to go."

"In fact, at the time, Nuclear Freeze protests refused to allow Lebanese Americans to speak out about Israel's invasion which was an apocolypse happening at that time and not just some hypothetical nuclear war that could have happened."


Alexander Cockburn recently said, before a packed audience, that Palestine and the Palestinian cause would be the(e) defining test in our age for progressive consciousness.


"good on you, Rainbow
by gehrig"

NOW YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU HAVE *GEHRIG* LAUDING YOU, THEN YOU REALLY HAVE MORALLY SCREWED UP **BIG TIME**!!!

THIS VOTE FOR THE ISRAELI STATE'S RACIST IDEOLOGY AND ITS APARTHEID WILL *PERMANENTLY* BESMIRCH RAINBOW GROCERY'S BAY AREA PROGRESSIVE REPUTATION AND ITS BAY AREA HISTORY, UNTIL IT IS CORRECTED. UNLIKE SO MANY PROMINENT BAY AREA LABOR, CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST ICONS, RAINBOW GROCERY CHOSE THE COWARD'S WAY OUT.

IT EXEMPLIFIES THE HISTORICAL WARNING THAT "ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING."

IT, IRONICALLY, MAKES A TRAVESTY OF THE JEWISH MORAL ASSERTION, "NEVER AGAIN"!

RAINBOW GROCERY, LIKE THOSE WHO SIDED WITH SLAVERY, LIKE THOSE WHO SIDED WITH NAZISM, LIKE THOSE WHO SIDED WITH AMERICAN "JM CROW" SEGREGATION, LIKE THOSE WHO SIDED WITH EUROPEAN COLONIALISM, LIKE THOSE WHO SIDED WITH AMERICAN NEOCOLONIAL MILITARISM IN VIETNAM, LIKE THOSE WHO SIDED WITH SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID, HAS, (IM)MORALLY, SIDED WITH THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.

From the Jewish Community Relations Council

Rainbow Grocery: Vote on Whether to Deshelve Israeli Products Aug. 1

We have learned that Rainbow Grocery will be holding a vote on August 1 on whether the store should engage in an "official" boycott of products from Israel.

Anti-Israel activists at Rainbow apparently circulated a petition for signatures with the aim of putting it before all members of the cooperative as a vote.

In case you don't recall, as an employee-owned cooperative, employees can gather signatures to qualify issues for a vote by all member/owners, much like a ballot proposition.

Our offers of providing to Rainbow's staff some background materials giving a differing perspective than that of the anti-Israel activists were met with a very cool reception, and not accepted.

Once again we have to ask that you be part of a community effort to contact Rainbow so they understand there is a large segment of the community that would find an anti-Israel boycott to be unacceptable.

To contact Rainbow:

Phone: (415) 863-0620
FAX: (415) 863-8955

Points to mention:

Of all countries — why Israel? Israel is the only country in the Middle East that protects the rights of women and minorities, as well as gays and lesbians. Only in Israel can Arab women run for office. Also, only Israel guarantees religious freedom for all of its residents, etc.

Politics don't belong in a grocery store

Rainbow includes a commitment to making "an inclusive environment that is welcoming to everyone." If so, how can they show no interest in contrary opinions? So please call, fax or email Rainbow Grocery today and let them know that we won't stand for their discriminatory double standard against Israeli products.

Please let us know what Rainbow's response is by emailing me at ysantis [at] jcrc.org.

Thank you.

Yitzhak Santis, Director
Middle East Affairs
JCRC

Rainbow letter
RWJDC Letter to Rainbow Grocery Cooperative
December 12, 2002

Rainbow Grocery Cooperative
1745 Folsom Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

To Whom it May Concern:

San Francisco’s Raoul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club (RWJDC) joins the growing chorus of disappointment and anger over Rainbow Grocery's boycott of Israeli-made products.

RWJDC was founded nearly 20 years ago with a mission, in part, to promote meaningful action on issues of concern to the Jewish community. Throughout our Club’s history we have been a source of education, information and action for San Francisco’s 30,000 registered Jewish Democratic voters.

We join the many organizations and institutions (Jewish and non-Jewish) which have united in opposition to Rainbow’s thoughtless and hurtful symbolic act of economic warfare against the people of Israel. It is dangerous to rank oppression and suffering, yet Rainbow has done so in its decision to remove Israeli-made products from its shelves. How does Rainbow determine that it is worse to see residents in Gaza killed and homes bulldozed in Jenin than for parents in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to watch their children blown to pieces by a suicide killer on a city bus? There has been far too much death and suffering on both sides of this conflict, yet Rainbow has chosen to express whose suffering it perceives greater. We resent that.

As the San Francisco Chronicle and so many others have noted this week, your website’s claim that there is “no boycott by Rainbow Grocery” because this was an act by individual departments rather than a decision by the cooperative is disingenuous at best. A boycott by any department of your store reflects upon your entire cooperative. For Rainbow to deflect responsibility for the decision lacks both leadership and integrity. Those at Rainbow have seen fit to blame the people of Israel, collectively, for the actions taken by their government, yet you expect others to feel that the acts taken by your bulk foods department should not be imputed to Rainbow as a whole. This doesn’t seem like a very consistent position.

Even one human rights violation is too many, but in this time of horrific conflict in the Middle East, we question why Israel appears to have been singled out. Unfortunately, if Rainbow were truly principled about human rights violations around the world, the shelves in your store would be close to barren. We find it painfully hypocritical that Rainbow prides itself on its progressive principles, yet ignores human rights violations in numerous Arab, Asian and African countries against women, homosexuals and those who pursue religious, political and intellectual freedom.

This boycott is an insult to San Francisco’s Jewish Community -- many of us patrons of your store. Like any community we are diverse in our politics. However, do not underestimate how united we are in opposition to this grossly hurtful gesture. We join the call upon Rainbow Grocery to take responsibility for a bad decision by apologizing to the Jewish Community and to rescind its boycott of Israeli-made products immediately.


Sincerely,



Philip A. Ginsburg
President



Cc Board of Directors, RWJDC
General Membership, RWJDC
Honorable Mark Leno, Member, State Assembly
Honorable Leland Yee, Member, State Assembly
Honorable Willie L. Brown, Mayor
Honorable Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney
Honorable Tom Ammiano, President, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Aaron Peskin, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Gavin Newsom, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Bevan Dufty, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Fiona Ma, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Gerardo Sandoval, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Matt Gonzalez, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Tony Hall, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Sophie Maxwell, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Chris Daly, Member, Board of Supervisors
Honorable Susan Leal, City Treasurer
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee
Jewish Community Relations Council
American Jewish Committee
San Francisco Jewish Bulletin
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco Examiner
San Francisco Independent

"mental impossible": "[ANTI-ZIONIST PRO-PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES] 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... [and more blah, blah, blah about singling out 'poor little Israel'] "


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, CYNICALLY OVERTHROW PROGRESSIVE BLACK (AND OTHER) POLITICIANS WHO DARE RAISE A WORD OF QUESTION, AND MORALLY CORRUPT OUR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENTS -- UNDOUBTEDLY WE ARE NOT CONDEMNING ISRAEL ENOUGH!

You support coops - but you won't allow them to decide what they want? You want to control how they do business, who they can buy from?

Why don't you just slap a "US Govt." sticker on your chest before you go tell them what they should do for their own good? (And for your own egos, but of course you've got nothing but the highest ideals in mind... right?)

how did the vote among the approx. 200 worker-members break down ? does any one know ?

Gandhi was as passionately opposed to Zionism as he was to anti-Semitism. He did not believe that TWO wrongs -- what the Nazis did to the Jews and what Zionist Jews did to the Palestinian Arabs -- made a right. What follows is Gandhi's statement on Palestine:


"THE JEWS IN PALESTINE, 1938"


SEVERAL LETTERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ME ASKING ME TO DECLARE MY VIEWS ABOUT THE ARAB-JEW QUESTION IN PALESTINE and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became lifelong companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But MY SYMPATHY DOES NOT BLIND ME TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF JUSTICE. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. WHAT IS GOING ON IN PALESTINE TODAY CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY MORAL CODE OF CONDUCT. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely IT WOULD BE A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. THE JEWS BORN IN FRANCE ARE FRENCH IN PRECISELY THE SAME SENSE THAT CHRISTIANS BORN IN FRANCE ARE FRENCH (3). If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? THIS CRY FOR THE NATIONAL HOME AFFORDS A COLOURABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GERMAN EXPULSION OF THE JEWS.

But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For, HE IS PROPOUNDING A NEW RELIGIONOF EXCLUSIVE AND MILITANT NATIONALISM IN THE NAME OF WHICH ANY INHUMANITY BECOMES AN ACT OF HUMANITY TO BE REWARDED here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is, therefore, outside my horizon or province.

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?

Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness.

Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecu­tion? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Mussalmans or the Hindus, though as a matter of fact, in essence, He is common to all and one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example....

... AND NOW FOR A WORD TO THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY ARE GOING ABOUT IN THE WRONG WAY. THE PALESTINE OF THE BIBLICAL CONCEPTION IS NOT A GEOGRAPHICAL TRACT. IT IS IN THEIR HEARTS. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. THEY CAN SETTLE IN PALESTINE ONLY WITH THE GOODWILL OF THE ARABS. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer Satyagraha (4) in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in their favour in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. AS IT IS, THEY ARE CO-SHARERS WITH THE BRITISH IN DESPOILING A PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE NO WRONG TO THEM.

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED CANONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, NOTHING CAN BE SAID AGAINST THE ARAB RESISTANCE IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING ODDS.

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. EVERY COUNTRY IS THEIR HOME INCLUDING PALESTINE NOT BY AGGRESSION BUT BY LOVING SERVICE. A Jewish friend has sent me a book called The Jewish Contribution to Civilization by Cecil Roth. It gives a record of what the Jews have done to enrich the world's literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine, agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jew can refuse to be treat as the outcast of the West, to be despised or patronized. HE CAN COMMAND THE ATTENTION AND RESPECT OF THE WORLD BY BEING THE CHOSEN CREATION OF GOD, INSTEAD OF BEING MAN WHO IS SINKING TO THE BRUTE and forsaken by God. They can add to the many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action.

Harijan, 26-11-1938

JA is a loud, ranting idiot who has made it clear he will single Israel out while intentionally not applying the same standards of criticism to anyplace else on earth.

"JA is a loud idiot"???

JA is a highly intelligent individual who, if there were any place else on earth LIKE Israel, one could expect him to criticize it as well.

There isn''t.

RE: JA is a loud idiot
by JA is a loud idiot Thursday August 28, 2003 at 11:41 PM.

*STOP* it!

YOU'RE MAKING ME *CRY*!!

HaHaHa!

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

Hi Angie!

(GO TO BED! HAHA!)

:-)

"JA is a loud, ranting idiot who has made it clear he will single Israel out while intentionally not applying the same standards of criticism to anyplace else on earth."


And Gandhi?

The same thing the poster from 11:41 PM said about JA can be said about "?" as well.
Actually, even more so.

Whatever one believes, ok. but why do they believe it? what motivates them to come to their opinions? We ostracise whomever we choose to? Is this the result of a search for truth based on wieghing the choices, or are we living under a fascism of a different stroke? all voices are considered at the scholarly table. if they are to be debunked, let them state their full case and stand up against firm questions. Ask questions of thier own. Like who funds "Indymedia?" I know who, but you can find out for yourself. It is clear the new word for "Dirty Jew" is -ZIONIST-, to use your pathetic ALL CAPS. Be very careful sirs and madams. you can't believe everything you seek.

Israel's defenders DO refute some of the charges. Others are not refuted, because Israel isn't perfect. But in the context of "Israel not deserving to exist," you HAVE to bring other nations into it, because to have one set of standards to judge one country while not applying those same standards to another is dishonest.

Pakistan, for example, was carved out of a pre-existing, very old and very established country and turned into a muslim state. If you demand that jews shouldn't have a jewish state specifically because it used to be a "multi-cultural" place (hah), then you better be demanding that pakistan cease to exist as well. Where are the anti-pakistan movements?

Israel is happy to argue her case, but one must understand that this is not something we're allowed to hear. I don't care who, but no one does anything in this world without a good reason. Our demagogic leaders would have us believe that the powers that be are some sort of foppish ill-concievers with no far vision. A simple perusal of their actions shows this to be quite false. They plan hundreds of years in advance: The way everything functions, a "blame" class has to exist for everybody's woes. that means us. and that means Israel. for middle America it might be blacks or Mexicans. Everyone is marketed to for something, including the readers of this anti-journalistic, no source-providing rag.

Most people who say they've actually even read a "study" of this land of many names jumped straight to the re-history type of books, usually reader-friendly with no footnotes or other proofs of any kind. When was it that we threw away scholarship for fascist reactionism and biased investigation, OH BUT I"M SORRY, here in the Bay it's mandatory to be biased about certain things, OR ELSE.

If you want to read an incredibly well reaserched study where Israel is defended in her position, read Joan Peters' book, "From Time Immemorial." Ms. Peters (not Jewish or Israeli) originally was to write a book about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, when her project became more involved and she realized that many of the things we are told about the origins of Israel from 1880-1949 simply aren't true. Her book outlines the inconsistancies between the facts as presented, and historic evidence. One such tidbit is the fact that the Turkish Census of 1840 listed only a bit over 100,000 people in all of "Palestine" which included what was to become Jordan (created by the Brittish as a first Palestinian state in 1923). This figure is consistant for centuries. How is it that within 30 years the Arab population had grown by over ten fold (and without acess to modern medical implements), when it had remained the same for 600 years. These are real questions. Don't believe the smokescreen.. It is important for the economic functioning of the world for the Jews to be blamed when people get hungry. all this is just the windup.

I miswrote something from my last entry. I said, "within 30 years the Arab population had grown by over ten fold..." I didnt' meant from 1840 to 1870. the time I meant was the period from 1890 to 1921, when the major population shift happened. Landless migrants from pan Arab countries began their massive entry into Palestine to partake of the employment opprtunities provided by the Jews, primarily in agriculture. Jews were not allowed to migrate in significant numbers due to the regulations of the British Mandate. Those who believe england and israel are in cahoots may be surprised to hear that during the 1948 war of independance brittian and Israel were enemies.

debate coach: "Why do Israel's supporters so often attempt to change the subject when Israel is criticized? Why do they not instead attempt to rebut he charges?"

Boy, remember back in the old days when the debate coach nym used to at least _pretend_ to be unbiased?

@%<

"??": Forget Gandhi.

Why?

Are you smarter, "??" ?

">How is it that within 30 years the Arab population had grown by over ten fold

The same way that the Jewish population grew, immigration. Arabs have as much right to immigrate as Jews do, no more and no less."

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

Immigration? From where did these Arabs immigrate??

What difference does it make? An immigrant is an immigrant. It doesn't matter where they came from. Where'd the Israelis immigrate from?

rant: "They call us "anti-semites" because we know too much [...] Or the truth about how they (AshkeNAZIS) are white Europeans who converted to Judaism and have no more connection to the Middle East than Irish Roman Catholics do."

Trust me, if you're spreading the Khazar canard, you don't have to worry over the possibility that "you know too much."

@%<

IT is important too Remember that the hampsters under the table are like two eggs in A basket, meaning that we need a palestinian state now so palestinians have no reason to attack israel, but if the palestinian state is led by the type of people who lead syria, lebanon, iran, iraq, yemen, etc. then nothing but massive war will result, and therefore it would be better to just tell the palestinians to move to jordan, only of course jordan doesn't want them, similarly to how hamsters dance

To see today's weather,
CLICK HERE > http://weather.com

Luco Brazi: " If you want to read an incredibly well reaserched study where Israel is defended in her position, read Joan Peters' book, "From Time Immemorial." "

This is A *COMPLETELY* *DISCREDITED* BOOK: THE INTELLECTUAL, SCHOLARLY, ACADEMIC, HISTORICAL, MORAL AND RACIST EQUIVALENT OF "THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION."

I don't know where he is from but...,
FOR LUCO BRAZI TO ATTEMPT TO FOIST THIS BOOK UPON US HERE TOTALLY DISCREDITS BRAZI TOO.

"FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL" IS THE RACIST'S HANDBOOK FOR JEWISH ANTI-PALESTINIAN ANTI-SEMITES.

I called Rainbow Grocery and asked to speak with public relations. I got Rod Neves, one of 4 public relation men, I asked him if our local radio station KWMR could interview two women workers I spoke with from the store who are pro-boycott , so the pubic could be educated around the facts. He said no, they would not want that to happen until after the vote was taken. I called him about 10 days or more before the vote. He said no. (That is not a democractic process Rod.) There was never a chance was there. what many peope don't know is the boycott needed a 66 percent lead to win, not 51 as you would think is normal. This "vote" was a scam, it was never real. You misrepresent yourself/lie when you say your a democratic busiess etc etc. Get on with the boycott of Rainbow. I wont be back.

Rainbow, it's time to reconsider.

You can figure that the ones promoting the boycot gave it their best shot, with the best info they had.

But it wasn't enough to convince the co-op, apparently.

Could it be that examined without bias the info didn't support a boycot? Yeah, I know, you guys are all Israel did this and Israel did that and Israelies bakes babies into bread and all that....

But leaving the hyperbole aside, and examining the issue without bias and preconception, and examining all the information available both pro- and con- ...

Maybe they figured there wasn't a case for action, based on what they studied.

And if that's so - shouldn't their decision be respected? You'd respect the decision if they examined the evidence and voted for a boycot - why not when they voted against it?

"And if that's so - shouldn't their decision be respected?"

Americans would also like to pay no taxes.

Not every group decision is well researched or considered in its consequences. Some are, some aren't. We really don't have enough info to know what was behind this one, so why make assumptions? Besides, this issue is so polarized that no one can look on it in neutrality anymore, with no bias. Anyone who claims to is a liar.

We can say why we would or wouldn't agree with this outcome, but to speculate about the decision making process is just that, speculation. No one is 'disrespecting' their decision. People are stating their opinions. Decisions in and of themselves are open to criticism and praise.

Would the mayor who made that statement above be disrespecting his constituents when he doesn't go along with them - in eliminating all taxes?

Hardly. He's protecting those who are most in need and who could die without taxes funding programs.

It has nothing to do with respect for a decision made by a group of people who work in a market. It has to do with justice and with human rights, and the precendent being set for the whole world to get acclimated to, such as targetted assassinations by a government / military as a crime policy. This used to be something the whole world objected to, something everyone considered far beneath a 'democracy' t engage in. Thanks to Bush and Sharon, it's become commonplace, and people are more worried about market workers being disrespected, than the future of a world where government atrocities against individuals are systematically ignored.

How come muslims and arabs can have a few dozen "apartheid" states and evil military dictatorships, but Jews have one DEMOCRATIC state that does favor one set of people a little, and you "peace activists" rally constantly to break up the jewish state, but don't apply the same standards of criticism to anyone else, including dozens of nations that are infinitely worse?

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.

If you don't want jews to have a jewish state, go back in history and undo the last 2000 years of horrible anti-jew events, and also undo the dozens of muslim/arab states that barely allow jews to even be jews, and then the need for zionism and the creation of israel won't even have ever occured.

Israel is the size of rhode island. There are less people in israel than in new york city. Your obsession with defeating israel and demanding that jews on that tiny sliver of earth not give any special treatment to jews is absurd.

This is why the world isn't improving. Because the people behind the "peace" movements seem to spend an INSANE amount of time wasting away yelling about israel, constantly. YOu're obsessed with the little jewish state. There are 6 BILLION humans on earth, and you're obsessed with the 7 or 8 million who live in a tiny patch of land in a mostly-desert on the other side of the planet, and then you wonder why things that actually SHOULD take priority aren't improving.

Africa is one giant disaster, flooded with aids, bad treatment of women, disease, lack of education, and civil wars.

China, infinitely bigger than israel, still illegally occupies Tibet, robbing tibet of it's ancient culture.

Syria, run by assholes, still illegally occupied LEbanon, also run by assholes.

Iran is run by religiously-crazed lunatics who appear close to becoming nuclear.

South America? Tons of problems down there.

France? 10,000 just died due to HEAT. WTF. HEAT! Buy some damn air conditioners.

The kurds? Still refugees, and unlike palestinians, no one has offered them their own state.

Saudia arabia? No jews allowed. Women get beaten if they dress wrong.

Pakistan? Women are HORRIBLY abused in some places.

SLAVERY? IT STILL EXISTS! Actual humans are still slaves. Check sudan.

There are TONS of problems all around the world. Yet an insane, overwhelming portion of time is spent obsessing on the jews, and israel, a TINY SLIVER of land on the other side of earth.

Ironically, while all the victims of the problems above DON'T have a way out and DO need help, the palestinians, led by king jackass yasser arafat, repeatedly CHOSE to reject land-for-peace offers and preferred to just keep attacking israel.

I am NOT saying that anyone should just forget the israel-palestinian situation, or that it shouldn't be pushed for resolution. I am simply saying that those of you out there who genuinely want to make a difference in the world should realize that there is a LOT of stuff you can be doing that would be FAR MORE PRODUCTIVE if you were to focus on actual larger problems that affect MANY MORE human beings on this earth instead of worrying that hamas and islamic jihad terrorists get their stupid houses unfairly knocked over after they intentionally blow up buses full of innocent israelis. The palestinian cause is an amazingly lame one to waste one's time on. If YOU ran the palestinians instead of dickheaded arafat, the problem would have been over already and there'd already be a new state.

There are 6 billion humans on earth. I know you love jews, but for your own good, try to single someone else out and actually make a difference on this earth.

bev: [About From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters:] "This is A *COMPLETELY* *DISCREDITED* BOOK: THE INTELLECTUAL, SCHOLARLY, ACADEMIC, HISTORICAL, MORAL AND RACIST EQUIVALENT OF "THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION." FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL IS THE RACIST'S HANDBOOK FOR JEWISH ANTI-PALESTINIAN ANTI-SEMITES.

There are several opinions regarding this book among scholars .
Even the scholars most critical of the book haven't been able to bebunk its central thesis. For more details, see http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2135 .

Therefore, the book has hardly been "completely discredited".
Moreover, since Peters had been an enthusiastically pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli State Dep employee at the outset of her research leading up to composing her work, we must dismiss bev's ridiculous juxtaposing of Peters with the forger/s of the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Additionally, it's noteworthy that people like bev who insist on dubbing JEWISH Palestinian/Arab haters as anti-Semites are themselves avowed anti-Semites.
Non anti-Semitic people or closet anti-Semites don't do that.

"bevie [the Zionist EVIL "Dark Side" 'twin' of bev]": "There are several opinions regarding this book among scholars."

bev ["The Force" - the anti-Zionist Jedi Master 'twin']:There are several opinions about the Holocaust too and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion too. Joan Peters is like the David Irving of the Palestinian al-Nakba (The Catastrophe - the Zionist semi-genocide and politicide against the Palestinians). "Bevie" is Peter's adulant disciple.

>You can figure that the ones promoting the boycot [against Israel] gave it their best shot, with the best info they had. But it wasn't enough to convince the [so-called "progressive" workers] co-op, apparently.<

"At least some of the German people of the Nazi era, if you believe any of them, had the plausible excuse of saying that, 'We didn't know.' There is no way that any adult Jew [or anyone else] can have that excuse today."

When Nazi era Germans are vilified, just remember what Frantz Fanon said even after the Nazi era, "Hitler is not dead." He was talking about the Nazi mentality still extant in the European/"white" mind to possess, own, and subjugate everything that they see. Now Rainbow workers can understand how "the good Germans" were intimidated from resisting what they knew was wrong too - except that "the good Germans" faced imprisonment or death for resisting. All Rainbow workers have to face down is the JCRC.

THE HUMAN GREAT MORAL LESSON (as has been pointed out others, not original to me): The suffering of the Jews shows that, if we are not morally conscious, evil can exist in *anyone*, and that even great suffering - alone - does not create a moral consciousness; but it can certainly create a bitterness and a caustic self-preoccupation capable of causing the suffering of others. Suffering - alone - can, *necessarily*, only create a desire to relieve it in oneself; not, necessarily, a desire to prevent it in others, even at ones own hand.

Bev, the rabid anti-Zionist and anti-Semite, hurls ad hominems at me after having accused on http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1638948_comment.php#1639765 (the "AUDIO LINK: THE WAR AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS" thread) all Zionists on IMC and elsewhere of consistently resorting to this and other despicable tactics...

Bev's contentions won't save her day. "The Protocols" and books put out by Holocaust deniers have no bearing on From Time Immemorial; bev is just trying to deflect attention from her grand lie at worst, or very mistaken argument at best, that the book in question has been roundly discredited from every perspective.
Neither heaping scorn on Joan Peters nor peddling the "Palestinian al-Nakba" canards will help bev.

As for the post above...informed people know the real Finkelstein is not a Holocaust Survivor; his parents are. So the poster above is a cowardly faker, and judging by his/her post - also an anti-Semite ("Now Rainbow workers can understand how "the good Germans" were intimidated from resisting what they knew was wrong too - except that "the good Germans" faced imprisonment or death for resisting. All Rainbow workers have to face down is the JCRC.")

More of my Zionist spam (I'm autistic - I can't stop doing the very exact same thing over and over and over):

"How come muslims and arabs can have a few dozen "apartheid" states and evil military dictatorships, but Jews have one state that does favor one set of people.I'm going to keep posting this very exact same ZIONIST SPAM post, over and over, even in each individual thread, in every single thread in SF-IMC!"

"We demand to be able to be just like the evil Arab states that we so often condemn. If they, according to me, can have 'apartheid', then why can't Israel? I mean, Israel essentially has a military government too! Our regime just no longer wears their general's uniforms to work. You see, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY!"

"Do non-Jews who are citizens of Israel have an equal vote and freedom to work whatever job they want and live fine? Yes! ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY!"

"We have had several Palestinian prime ministers. Many of our major cites have had Palestinian mayors. Palestinians are represented throughout the Knesset and in government in general. They can be found throughout our social institutions. Our corporations are loaded with Palestinian CEOs and boards of directors members. Palestinians own major hotels and live in splendorous grand homes on the coast of such cities as Tel Aviv. The police and our soldiers treat them no differently from Jews. They are like Asians in the U.S.: they go to the best Jewish grade/high schools with the best advance placement courses and labs, they sweep most of the academic awards, and they go to even the best Jewish universities in droves. In the science and engineering classes there are more Israeli Palestinians than Jews. They are thoroughly integrated into the best Israeli residential neighborhoods. They can be seen eating in all the best restaurants in Tel Aviv. They drive the fanciest cars. Why I even work for a Palestinian in his corporation! One of my best friends is a Palestinian! You see, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY!"

"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. Israel demands to be just as guilty. You see, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY!"

"We demand the right to have the same low standards of political morality that any other state has that has oppressed, or oppresses, another people, especially an indigenous people. We demand the same rights as any other apartheid state. We even have a right to say that those people never existed before we came to Palestine ("a land without a people"). You see, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY!"

"It is not anti-semitic to make valid criticisms of Israel. It IS anti-Semitic to single Israel out and to expect Israel to be any better than any of those nasty Arab states we condemn - just because Americans enable us to do so (brutally oppress another people just like any other brutal government) to the tune of about $10 billion American dollars each and every year in total direct and indirect aid, as well as additional tax write-offs, deductions, and other associative financial benefits, and otherwise arm us to the teeth. You see, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY!"

"Anyone who disagrees with that is anti-Semitic!"

Have you noticed!:

bevie: "Bev, the RABID anti-Zionist and ANTI-SEMITE, hurls ad hominems at ME(!) after having accused all Zionists [LIKE ME(!)] on IMC and elsewhere of consistently resorting to this [NAME-CALLING] and other despicable tactics. [Bev] is a COWARDLY FAKER! [BOY I SURE SHOWED HER WRONG!] "

The irony: It is to laugh, huh!? Ha-Ha-Ha!!

bevie: "[ "From Time Immemorial" has not been roundly discredited.]"

Yeah, and there are tobaco industry scientists that still say that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Who is the coward that posted the halfwit anti-Semitic rants from 02:33 AM, was it you, bev or "Zionist Jew"? Perhaps some other coward?

Yep, the "Norman Finkelstein" above (you probably know Bev as you're certain she is his impersonator) is anti-Semitic. I've proven that. You wanna deny it? Knock yourself out. People outside your circle can use their independent judgment and would know better.

Beats me what irony you're talking about. Bev was the one who cast the first stone in my case as far as ad hominems go.

You were right using caps to (unintentionally) highlight she's a rabid anti-Semite.
As for my convictions, I may be an apologist for Israel, Jews, Judaism and aspects of Zionism but I ain't Zionist. Can you drum that through your skull?

In keeping with bev's severely sub-intelligent line of reasoning, you think the issue of what the tobaco industry claims about cigarettes can be analogous in a certain manner as to discredit From Time Immemorial's central thesis. Who gives a shit about smoking in this thread anyway?

bevie: "In keeping with bev's severely sub-intelligent line of reasoning, you think the issue of what the tobaco industry claims about cigarettes can be analogous in a certain manner as to discredit From Time Immemorial's central thesis. Who gives a shit about smoking in this thread anyway?"

Why, YOU do bevie! To believe the warped shit you do, you've obviously been smoking 'something' - crack! - half your life! Haha!

You are so clairvoyant, aren't ya? You know, I've done that since birth.

You've just proven your anti-Zionist aptitude with logic and facts utilization...

That " No one is 'disrespecting' their decision."

I beg to differ.
----------------------------

Zionism=Nazism is living well in the United States of Amerikkka
by Donna Wallach Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 09:21 PM
dbwall [at] earthlink.net 408-293-4774 945 South 10th Street

"I am disappointed by the vote but I am not surprised. Zionism is insidious and is institutionalized in this system called U.S.A. I am pretty sure that there would be no disagreement if Rainbow was asked to deshelve Nazi products, or to deshelve Apartheid South African products. But so many people have been so intensely brainwashed by zionist propaganda that they don't know or see the truth when it is staring them in the face. I totally support the continued boycott of Rainbow and any other store that carries Israeli made products."
------------

Apartheid is WRONG
by EVEN in apartheid Israel! Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 11:08 AM

Apartheid is apartheid is apartheid and it is wrong, even in racist, anti-democratic, apartheid, Zionist Israel, a "Jewish state".

There should be NO DOUBLE STANDARDS with regards to Jews and to Israel.

Zionism is pure, unadulterated, poisonous, murderous racism.

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

Zionists read this! "??", WTF, THIS MEANS YOU!
by Reference Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 03:45 AM

RE: Their true colors are evident
by ?? Wednesday August 27, 2003 at 03:17 AM.

You know what? You Zionist's whole entire regurgitated LAME line of objections has already been covered and responded to in another thread:

Jeffrey Blankfort: The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions
by Jeffrey Blankfort
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1635628_comment.php#1638163

Instead of you boorish, loudmouth Zionists boring us even more with screeds and reams of your lame-ass brainwashed apologisms, just go over to that thread and read all the answers to your windbag grousings. It'll save ALL of us some typing time. If those responses don't answer your grousings, I guess that you'll just have to give up on us anti-racist anti-Nazi anti-Zionists AND GO *ELSEWHERE*!!

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

PREDICTABLE:
by A FARMER MARKET SHOPPER: Tuesday August 26, 2003 at 08:01 PM

RAINBOW CAVES IN 2 THE STATUS QUO

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

Yeah, they're supporting the right of Rainbow to make a decision they don't like.

Not if you're an American taxpayer it's not. We have a right to single out Israel because it's *our*money that pays for Israel's crimes. It's not about race. It's not about religion. It's about being extorted every April 15. As long as our money pays for their deaths, Israel's victims die in our names. We don't want their blood on our hands any more.

"We have a right to single out Israel because it's *our*money that pays for Israel's crimes. "

Only here you've barely got merit.
But not all of "israel's crimes" are financed by our tax money.
Also, other countries do crimes partly by using our tax money, like Egypt (gets $2.5 billion annually while Israel gets $3 billion).

So you *don't** have any right to single out Israel.

Egypt is being paid off to not combat Israel's apartheid aggression. So in a very real sense, that money goes to the exact same cause as does the money that goes directly to Israel.

Are you saying you WANT egypt to attack israel?

A) they will loose and so your cause will not be advanced
B) There alliance will be full of worse countries than israel.
C) LOTs of people will die needlessly.

The US has walked the tightrope of preventing these sorts of wars for the last few decades and seems to have done a fairly good job even though it has cost it some money in donations to the governments.

(bump to the top)

Excellent thread!

Great information!

(Guess on who's side.)

Read Jewish-American, adamantly anti-Zionist, foremost Zionist and Israeli history scholar, Lenni Brenner's book: "51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis", 2002, Barricade Books, 342 pgs.

Answer: Adolf Hitler

"Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering and deserve ALL that will come to us."

Albert Einstein

I like how these RABID anti-israel people seem to enjoy finding quotes from famous jews that they think helps their cause.

Of course, half the quotes are ALLEGED and often made up, while the rest are basically just pulled out of context, but they aren't concerned with facts, truth or reality, they have decided "israel is evil and I will find every single possible anti-israel thing I can and gather it together" and go through life with blinders on.

The palestinian intifada hasn't worked, and has just made israel like the palestinians even less. Of course, Jordan hates the palestinians, egypt doesn't want any of them coming into egypt, and syria and lebanon want no part of them as well, but the one thing all have in common is not wanting jews around them to have any power or control any land.

>The palestinian intifada hasn't worked, and has just made israel like the palestinians even less.

Don't assume that how much Israelis like Palestinians is the point of the Intifada or even that it matters at all. What matters is that, because of the Intifada, every day that passes, more and more of the world now admire the Palestinians for standing up to oppression. And the harder that Israel cracks down on them, the more heroic they appear. So yeah, the Intifada is working. It's not a military strategy. It's psy-war, and it's is working very well indeed. If the Palestinians did not stand up to oppression, I for one would not respect them one bit, nor would I speak out on their behalf. I am far from the only one who feels this way.

"What matters is that, because of the Intifada, every day that passes, more and more of the world now admire the Palestinians for standing up to oppression."

What a gloriously groteque euphemism for the intentional terrorist murder of civilians. And a false conclusion as well. Just yesterday the EU gave us their view of the methods by which, in your euphemism, "Palestinians stand up to oppression": they declared that _all_ of Hamas, not just the supposedly independent "military wing," was a terrorist organization, and the EU was therefore preparing to freeze Hamas' European assets.

Sorry to dent your rah-rah, but the second intifada has been one of the greatest self-inflicted cataclysms in recent diplomatic history, right up there with George W. Bumblepuppy's attack on Iraq.

@%<

What then do you call the bombing of the King David Hotel? Was that not standing up to British oppression?

And what about Deir Yassin, was that not the terrorist murder of civilians?

And are not the Palestinians not now merely following in the footsteps of the Zionists, who themselves took control of the land through terrorist murder?

the statistics indicate tha the palistinina intefadah is even loosing support of palistinian people. (statistics for people wanting the intefadah's goals or supporting it has been generally dropping amongst palistinians).
Although hamas support (a minority) has been growing. it is just radicalization. Just like it is on this board here..

Desperately Funny (Sept 7 at 9:21AM) : "Of course, half the quotes are ALLEGED and often made up"

Are you so desperate in defending an immoral ideology that you are alleging that this quote is made up? Also, in what context are you asserting that opposion to racism, even Jewish racism, is wrong or "out of context"? Are you asserting that Jews are so perfect that we cannot be racist?

Desperately Funny: "the one thing all have in common is not wanting jews around them to have any power or control any land."

Are you so psychotic as to claim that Jews have no power in the West?: Now, as a group, the richest, most educated, most politically powerful ethnic group in all of Western history? Let me give you a reference to another famous Jew (Freud) for psychiatric help in your deep, gross, runaway paranoia. He can also explain why severely abused people sometimes go on to become abusers themselves, as well as explain their tragic attempts to justify their abuse of others: by employing any excuse, like claiming that our victims never had it as bad as we Jews did, or that 'nobody likes our victims either' (an ironic claim that we once made about ourselves as Europe's victims).

Finally, I too do not want "jews to control the land." Palestine was not and is not exclusively Jewish. It was not "a land without a people," as falsely claimed. So, what exclusive right do we Jews have "to control the land"? I have always been an internationalist and a muliticulturalist, and believe in cooperation, not domination, between cultures. But, I feel that you are mentally to enfeebled to morally understand any of what I say. You surely would not have been one of my brightest students to say the least, so I must take my leave.

Gehrig, I thought you said that you would be leaving these threads for a while? You know, in response to retaliation against you rabid Zionists not learning your lesson and, then, once again, impersonating others. (Well, after all, Zionists are not dangerous because they have brains; they're dangerous because they have combat aircraft, missiles, and tanks!) So much for Zionist integrity, even, naturally, on your part too, gehrig, huh?

Nonetheless...,

Gehrig: "Sorry to dent your rah-rah, but the second intifada has been one of the greatest self-inflicted cataclysms in recent diplomatic history..."

We know that Sharon is a genocidal madman. But, gehrig, are YOU saying that, if Israelis could turn back the clock, and thus have precluded Sharon's triggering the 2nd Intifada, the Israeli public would send him and his merry band of thugs up to Al-Aqsa Mosque all over again? Sorry to dent your own rah-rah - unless, of course, you too are stark raving and genocidally mad. Gehrig, you too (like "Desperately Funny" above) should pay a visit to a Freudian psychiatrist. The two of you can analyze your potty training and your father, which no doubt explains your inveterate desire and hubris to brutally oppress others.

ahh the paranoia of antisemites.
Jews are not particularly powerful (there just arent enough of them) and more importnatly they don't act as a collective.. Soon you'll be trying to beat up on chineese people because they control industry throughout much of the world will you?
put the paranoia to bed please

The "?" guy above is pretty funny. I wonder if he knows people are laughing at him and his absurd "the zionists" nonsense.

Ariel Sharon isn't a genocidal madman. He hasn't actually committed gencide, therefore it's absurd to apply such a label. And in his few years in office now, about 2 palestinians a day or less have died. That's hardly a "genocide." A person without restraint would probably just nail the next hamas parade and get rid of 10,000 or so lunatics at once, probably. Sharon's avoided that, so far.

As for the name-calling against gherig, so far it appears that gherig, like almost everyone else who is normal and educated, wants israel to be safe, and wants a palestinian state to be formed, BUT ONLY if the palestinian state is controlled by SANE, MODERATE palestinians, not arafat or hamas or other such lunatics. And if no sane, moderate palestinian politicians exist to run the state, then none should exist.

"BUT ONLY if "

As though your fantasy of controlling Palestine is anything worth discussing.

@%<: "a gloriously groteque euphemism for the intentional terrorist murder of civilians"

just wondering: "What then do you call the bombing of the King David Hotel? Was that not standing up to British oppression?"

Remind the good people of this newsgroup what the King David Hotel was being used for. You _do_ know, don't you? Otherwise, you're likely to leave the erroneous impression that it was full of tourists or something. Isn't it amazing how that little detail keeps getting conveniently left out.

While you're at it, remind the good people of this newsgroup whether or not there was advanced warning to evacuate the building -- you know, the sort of thing that forms a clear and irrefutable distinction between the motive of the Irgun in bombing the King David Hotel and, say, the beltbomber who took out the blues nightclub named Mike's after midnight, when it was at its most crowded.

You can draw propaganda analogies between Leonardo da Vinci and Richard Nixon, if you leave out enough details. Doesn't mean the analogies are any good.

@%<

???: "The "?" guy above is pretty funny. I wonder if he knows people are laughing at him and his absurd "the zionists" nonsense."

?: Oh? **YOU'RE** taking me pretty SERIOUSLY- or you wouldn't be writing, let alone your plea!

Hoist by your own petard, huh? (I love when you Zionists step right in your own shit!)

???: "Ariel Sharon isn't a genocidal madman. He hasn't actually committed gencide..."

?: Neither did Hitler. Didn't kill *one* Jew himself! Unlike Sharon, who's killed plenty of Palestinians - himself!

???: "And in his few years in office now, about 2 palestinians a day or less have died."

?: So, then why are you Zionists yakkin' 'n screaming about Palestinians wanting "to drive you into the sea"? FAR FEWER than 2 Israeli Jews, and much less, have been killed per day since then. Probably more die in traffic accidents. So, then, quit your cryin' and coming to the rest of the world for sympathy!

???: "As for the name-calling against gherig, so far it appears that gherig, like almost everyone else who is normal and educated, wants israel to be safe"

?: I *DON'T* - as long as Israel is an ideologically racist apartheid state that brutally oppresses others. Israel has no right to "be safe" as long as it oppresses others. Nazi Germany had no right to "be safe". Fascist, militarist Japan had no right to "be safe". Fascist, militarist Italy had no right to "be safe". Apartheid South Africa had no right to "be safe". The U.S. military in Vietnam had no right to "be safe". U.S. military occupying and colonizing Iraq have no right to "be safe". And neither does Zionist Israel.

???: "[Jewish-supremacist gehrig supposedly] wants a palestinian [Swiss cheese, dependent bantustan] state to be formed [geographically enclosed by Israel], BUT ONLY if the palestinian state is controlled by SANE, MODERATE palestinians, not arafat or hamas or other such lunatics."

?: As long as you have a MILITANT, INSANE, LUNATIC, WAR CRIMINAL (only the U.S. internationally protects him) like Sharon (who incidentally once said that he admired the Palestinians more than the Jews, because at least they fight their enemies back, unlike, Sharon said, the Jews of Nazi Germany), you can't pass judgement on Arafat or Hamas, neither of whom ever went to Europe to drive the Jews off their land. How many internationally wanted terrorists have been prime ministers of Israel?

???: "And if no sane, moderate palestinian politicians exist to run the state, then none should exist."

?: Exactly the way I feel about Zionist Israel.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Thanks for "laughing" at me. Y'all come back again, now! Soon! Hahahaha...!!!)

Gehrig, I thought that you told us that you were going to give us a break from you?

Let's see:

-was there any warning when Jewish terrorists paraded the Palestinian men, women and children of Deir Yassin around before other Jews, before they took them away to be massacred? (A Palestinian village that had not attacked any invading European Jews.)

-was there any warning when the Jewish terrorist Stern Gang (you know, Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir's old terrorist gant) assassinated the British High Commissioner to the Middle East, and Churchill's personal friend, Lord Moyne?

-was there any warning when Jewish terrorists kidnapped two unarmed British soldiers, tortured, and lynched them, putting booby traps under their hanging bodies? (But, when two Israeli soldiers are caught in a Palestinian town and are killed, after Israel ran assassination squads through the same town, Israel calls that Palestinian "terrorism".)

-was there any warning when, once again, the Jewish terrorist Stern Gang assassinated UN Peace Mediator, the one who once rescued Jews during WWII, Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden.

(See: More "Poor little Israel" !
by gehrig: more history of Israeli aggression! Monday September 08, 2003 at 09:27 PM:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1638742_comment.php#1642325 )

-was there any warning when Israel fighter jets (trying to pose as Egyptians) attacked the USS LIberty, shooting and torpedoing the ship, killing 34 American sailors and seriously wounding 174?

-was there any warning when Israel shot the Boeing 727 passenger airliner, flying a scheduled flight over Egypt, out of the sky in 1973, killing 106 people?

-was there any warning when Israel shoots and kills journalists?

???: "Ariel Sharon isn't a genocidal madman. He hasn't actually committed gencide..."

?: "Neither did Hitler. Didn't kill *one* Jew himself! Unlike Sharon, who's killed plenty of Palestinians - himself!"

??: "?" knew full well "???" didn't mean Sharon is genocidal in the most personal sense, and knows one can be genocidal without personally murdering or killing anyone, yet needed to relieve his boredom and post something. How many Pallys did Sharon kill himself, a few or many? "?" hasn't told us.

???: "And in his few years in office now, about 2 palestinians a day or less have died."

?: "So, then why are you Zionists yakkin' 'n screaming about Palestinians wanting "to drive you into the sea"? FAR FEWER than 2 Israeli Jews, and much less, have been killed per day since then. Probably more die in traffic accidents. So, then, quit your cryin' and coming to the rest of the world for sympathy!"

??: This jerk obviously disregards that the pally terrorists don't succeed in eliminating all the Jews because of the IDF's constant, measured war against them. Therefore Israelis and their supporters have many reasons to cry to the rest of the world for sympathy.

???: "As for the name-calling against gherig, so far it appears that gherig, like almost everyone else who is normal and educated, wants israel to be safe"

?: "I *DON'T* - as long as Israel is an ideologically racist apartheid state that brutally oppresses others. Israel has no right to "be safe" as long as it oppresses others. Nazi Germany had no right to "be safe". Fascist, militarist Japan had no right to "be safe". Fascist, militarist Italy had no right to "be safe". Apartheid South Africa had no right to "be safe". The U.S. military in Vietnam had no right to "be safe". U.S. military occupying and colonizing Iraq have no right to "be safe". And neither does Zionist Israel."

??: this nutcase will hang on to the Apartheid notion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented to him, or how the Palls are mostly at fault for the opression they suffer. The cause is Palestinian terrorist violence, the effect is Israeli opression.
The comparison "?" makes, juxtaposing Israel against those countries is ridiculous. Most Palestinias strongly sympathize with Hamas and co., and these organizations want nothing short of Islamist supremacism - certainly not a totally democratic and secular state with equality for all.

???: "[Jewish-supremacist gehrig supposedly] wants a palestinian [Swiss cheese, dependent bantustan] state to be formed [geographically enclosed by Israel], BUT ONLY if the palestinian state is controlled by SANE, MODERATE palestinians, not arafat or hamas or other such lunatics."

?: "As long as you have a MILITANT, INSANE, LUNATIC, WAR CRIMINAL (only the U.S. internationally protects him) like Sharon (who incidentally once said that he admired the Palestinians more than the Jews, because at least they fight their enemies back, unlike, Sharon said, the Jews of Nazi Germany), you can't pass judgement on Arafat or Hamas, neither of whom ever went to Europe to drive the Jews off their land. How many internationally wanted terrorists have been prime ministers of Israel?"

??: "?" is renowned for his vile dishonesty, now he's using brackets to besmirch gehrig and spread yet more libel.
As to the ruling that one can't pass judgement on Hamas and other terroristic Palestinian persons and groups, it barely registers 0.01 on a crap scale of 0 to 10. It would seem another poster was on to something when s/he opined JA ("?") is a crazed lunatic that appears to be on crack.
The problem is the terrorism the Palestinian groups currently wielding influence in Palestinian society commit, not the paramilitary or terroristic past of some of Israel's former PM's.

???: "And if no sane, moderate palestinian politicians exist to run the state, then none should exist."

?: "Exactly the way I feel about Zionist Israel."

??: What do you know, at least this jerk related his feeling, as opposed to utter tripe passed as gospel.
Sane, educated, rational and normal people know there are plenty of sane and moderate politicians who can run, and some of which are running, Israel.

Jack Ass: "Gehrig, I thought that you told us that you were going to give us a break from you?"

Well, that's not the first time your reading comprehension has failed you, and it won't be the last. I said that I would go away until the spate of impersonations stopped. They did. Sorry if the reappearance of my smiling face caused you to choke on your usual breakfast bowl of bullshit. But maybe you can regain your stride by inventing a few dozen new nyms to post under.

@%<

"gehrig, the other" is "?". I've seen one of his complainst in a post some time ago: "...when two Israeli soldiers are caught in a Palestinian town and are killed, after Israel ran assassination squads through the same town, Israel calls that Palestinian "terrorism".) " - Well, here are part of the remains of their bodies (two photos): http://212.150.177.135/lynch/eating.html This post is an endangered species. It will probably be removed by the pro-Palestinian editors.

It was right to kill those Israelis. It was right to kill those Brits. And it's right to kill Americans in Iraq.

If so, rot in hell

That's what happens to imperialist invaders. Good riddence.

Your advocacy of the atrocities pictured above are illustrative of your misguided unfettered support for Palestinian murderers.

Americans would never tolerate conduct like this from other Americans. That culture is a disaster.

??: "How many *Pallys* did Sharon kill himself, a few or many? "?" hasn't told us."

?: Ask Sharon. I'm sure that Sharon would be *PROUD* to tell you.

??: "This jerk obviously disregards that the *pally* terrorists don't succeed in eliminating all the *HEEBIES* because of the IDF's constant, measured war against them. Therefore Israelis and their supporters have many reasons to cry to the rest of the world for sympathy."

?: More belly-aching. How many Palestinians would Sharon *like* to kill? You're *speculating*. I'm talking about actual numbers, *CRYBABY*!

How about this from Ha'aretz today: "At least five killed, 15 wounded in suicide bombing near Tzrifin military base. Attack took place at bus stop crowded with *soldiers* outside base near Rishon Letzion; 10 of the wounded in serious condition. Security officials said there were many *soldiers* at the bus stop." *THERE*: No "innocent victims". Happy?

I once asked an anti-Zionist Jewish human rights activist, how long, sadly, it would take Israelis - way back when they elected Sharon - to realize that Sharon would neither bring peace nor security - and how many Palestinians and (more importantly to racist Israelis) how many "innocent" Jews themselves must die before they do realize it. And how many *MORE*?

I *SUPPORT* the Armed Struggle of the Palestinians against the Israeli military. Just as I supported the Armed Struggle of black South Africans against the Apartheid government. Just as I would have supported the Armed Struggle of the Vietnamese against the U.S. military. Just as I would have supported the Armed Struggle of black slaves in the antebellum South. Just as I *SUPPORT* the Armed Struggle of the IRAQIS against the colonialist U.S. military. Just a I would have supported the Armed Struggle of the Jews against Hitler.

I *SUPPORT* the Armed Struggle of ANY oppressed people against their oppressors/colonizers. And anyone who calls themselves morally and politically "progressive" should OPENLY do so too. *That* would REALLY scare the hell out of Israel - even more than boycotts!: American progressives supporting the Armed Struggle of the Palestinian people against the Zionist state of Israel! Even Gandhi - who opposed war - said that the Palestinians had - "in the face of overwhelming odds" - every right of Armed Resistance against the brutal and oppressive Zionist colonizers.

??: "this genius will hang on to the Apartheid notion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented to him,"

?: That's what Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and many South African Jews call it too. In fact, many South African Jews say that what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians is *worse* than Apartheid.

??: "or how the Palls are mostly at fault for the opression they suffer."

?: But when the *other* Nazis in WWII Germany, the Czars, the Aryan supremacists, and the neo-Nazis said/say that about the Jews, you cry anti-Semitism. Ethnic/racial supremacists *always* blame the people they oppress for their own suffering. You can't name a single instance in history where that wasn't true.

?? "The cause is Palestinian terrorist violence,"

?: [CHUCKLE, CHUCKLE!] This, coming from someone defending a - by definition - racist state FOUNDED on terrorism and violence! BOO-HOO!

Hey, I *noticed* you *missed* one above: "HOW MANY INTERNATIONALLY WANTED TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN PRIME MINISTERS OF ISRAEL?"

??: "the effect is Israeli opression."

?: YO, GEHRIG! YOUR BOY SLIPPED UP HERE!! HE *FINALLY* ADMITTED IT *IS* ISRAELI OPPRESSION (although he doesn't know how to spell it - *twice*) AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS!!

You see, when Japan attacked the U.S., and Nazi Germany and fascist Italy declared war on the U.S., *NO ONE* called our response "oppression" - not even the countries we were at war with and bombing every day!

You see, when you just let or encourage these Zionist fanatics to just run their mouths, like "??", they eventually trip themselves up WITH THE *TRUTH*!!

No matter what Israel does, and no matter what the average Palestinian does, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are deadset in the destruction of Israel, jew by jew. They want one large islamic state on top of Israel, the west bank and gaza. That's the #1 problem. Everything else is a distant second. Occupation can be ended. Settlements can be removed. Arafat can be killed or replaced. Everything can happen, but the one thing that isn't going to change is that Hamas, who are extremely popular among Palestinians, the occupation to end AND want israel's destruction to begin.

Anyone who claims otherwise isn't being honest, or simply is ignorant of the real deal.

Israel isn't hurting israeli citizens. 20% of Israeli citizens are muslim, and they're fine. Israel is battling the people next door who seek not only the end of Israel's military control over the west bank and gaza but the end of Israel's existence. Hamas wants one large islamic fundamentalist state. That's why for years now, every time Israel withdrew from some of the west bank or gaza, attacks against israel have increased, and every time israel has gone back and re-taken military control, successful attacks against israel have lessened.

If hamas and islamic jihad ceased to exist, and a moderate ruled the palestinians these last few years instead of arafat, there'd be a palestinian state by now.

As long as fundamentalists who seek Israel's destruction have such power among the palestinian people, it would be silly for israel to give an inch.

I'm not sure what great "truth" the poster using the name "?" thinks he shared with us. Palestinains should not be oppressed, this is true. But Palestinian leadership and key organizations, who for decades always cared more about fighting with Israel than settling for a peaceful state NEXT TO Israel, are far more responsible for the current situation than anyone else. Israel was happy to make peace (official peace) with Jordan and Egypt when those countries agreed to it. Israel would be happy to be able to safely leave the west bank and gaza (their military occupation of it costs Israel TONS of money, Israel is NOT benefittingf rom it financially), but as long as groups like hamas still seek israel's removal from earth, ending the occupation makes no sense.

When palestinians (the average palestinian as well as the people with the power) GENUINELY see a peaceful two-state neighborhood in the future, that's when it'll happen. As long as Palestinians want to fight, they'll get nothing.

If Abu Mazen had full control of palesitnians all these years, there'd be a palestinian state by now.

If YOU had full control of palesitnians, there'd be a palestinian state by now.

As long as Arafat/friends, and Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, are the groups with the power to pull off attacks are in charge of the palestinians, the people as a whole will receive nothing.

Swing it against ariel sharon all you want, but it isn't his fault that for 35 years, Arafat has been the sole palestinian leader, and possibly the worst leader in the last 50 years.

As I was saying... Well, that's not the first time your reading comprehension has failed you, and it won't be the last. I said that I would go away until the spate of crazed ZIONIST ASSHOLE IMPERSONATIONS, especially of Angie, stopped. (After all, I was one of them.) Since, me and my crazed Zionist ilk have stopped, for the time being, at least in this thread, I will again further reappear under my *own* screen name and darken humanity's life with my *AVOWED* presence on SF-IMC.

My Zionist ilk and I had to stop because everytime we start up, someone much more creative than us makes us say the darnedest, *FUNNIEST* things! We start talking about which one of us wants to pork (if you'll forgive the saying) each other everywhere! (It's the only time we don't keep kosher!!) We start talking about which one of us is the biggest idiot. Which one of us has never even kissed a girl, and starts telling Angie of our secret admiration, even out of frustration, for her intellectual strength and sheer intelligence, not to mention a real *WIT* we couldn't begin to match! You know.

Of course, I still won't be answering any questions about all those warnings that Israel gave before it attacked the USS Liberty and virtually massacred its crew, or when blew up that passenger airliner out of the sky flying over Egypt killing all aboard, or assassinated a member of the Swedish royal family (the one that even saved Jews during WWII) and UN *PEACE* negotiator, or assassinated the British foreign minister and Churchill's personal friend, or massacred all the men, women, and children of the Palestinian village Deir Yassin after parading them around before all the other local Jews (could the SS have done any worse?), and all the other Zionist terrorist atrocities. No, I won't be answering any questions like *that*!

I'll just ignore questions that bear on Israel's unquestionably immoral and indefensible behavior, and instead lob another volley of my usual "Gasbag gehrig" (the eponymous analogue to 'Windy Wendy') bullshit rhetorically served up for your breakfast bowl.

In other words...,

I'M *BAAA-AAAACK*...!!!

(Nobody moral eat breakfast tomorrow and read my posts if you don't want to throw up, again!)

Look what he's reduced to. Now it's lying _and_ forgery.

@%<

Shedding some light on ?'s nuttiness
by ?? Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 07:01 AM:
"...when two Israeli soldiers are caught in a Palestinian town and are killed, ***AFTER ISRAEL RAN ASSASSINATION SQUADS THROUGH THE SAME TOWN***, Israel calls that Palestinian "terrorism".) " - Well, here are part of the remains of their bodies (two photos): http://212.150.177.135/lynch/eating.html This post is an endangered species. "

?: I'D HAVE KILLED THEM TOO!! Only you would have been lucky to even have enough remains for a photograph! I consider the Zionist Israel military (Zionist fundamentalist terrorists who even ride into battle in yarmulkes!) - and anybody that serves or unrepentently served in it, IN OR OUT OF UNIFORM - to be an *ABSOLUTELY* legitimate target. That is the rightful moral position of any progressive who supports any indigenous people engaged in an anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-'Naziesque' struggle against (especially Anglo/European) invasion, occupation, and oppression. If you had been one of those soldiers, *YOU* would have been "an endangered SUB-species" too!

HOW YA LIKE ME *NOW*!!?

About "?"
by About "?" Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 01:02 PM:
"...settling for a peaceful state NEXT TO Israel..."

There shouldn't be a relegated, compromised, bantustan state especially of displaced indigenous people that has to be "NEXT TO" *ANY* genocidal, or slave, or Nazi, or Segregationist, or Apartheid, *or* Zionist (with over a million non-Jews given the immoral choice to either live there or further give up their homes and ethnically cleanse themselves), especially settler-colonial, state in the world! Name any other country/people that would accept such a colonial invaders terms and you can have your Zionist 'paradise' *there*.

gg: "Look what he's reduced to. Now it's lying _and_ forgery."

..I'm...reduced to a single, weak, last pathetic line.

The last limp retort of an ollld Zionist gasbag. Pssssssss... [gas fizzling out]

Since 6/11.67 there has been Israeli oppression of the Pallys to some extent.

This jerk obviously disregards that the pally terrorists don't succeed in eliminating all the *HEEBIES* because of the IDF's constant, measured war against them. Therefore Israelis and their supporters have many reasons to cry to the rest of the world for sympathy.

? (JA): "More belly-aching. How many Palestinians would Sharon *like* to kill? You're *speculating*. I'm talking about actual numbers, *CRYBABY*!"

- "Pally" is sometimes used as short for "Palestinians" and I didn't mean to demean the name "Palestinian" by so doing. And what does this deranged anti-Semite mean by "HEEBIES"?
Anyway, actual numbers don't count when Palestinian terrorists want to murder all Israeli Jews.

? (JA): "I once asked an anti-Zionist Jewish human rights activist how many Palestinians and (more importantly to racist Israelis) how many "innocent" Jews themselves must die before they do realize it.

- What a wonderful progressive this jerk is - implying all Israeli Jews aren't innocent.

? (JA): I *SUPPORT* the Armed Struggle of the Palestinians against the Israeli military...just a I would have supported the Armed Struggle of the Jews against Hitler.

- Somehow I doubt this, since "?" (JA) is a rabid anti-Semite; but that's just me.
There has been a few Jewish armed struggles during WWII - revolts and escape attempts in and from ghettos and extermination camps, some of which were successful, like Warsaw ghetto and Sobibor camp, among others.

??: This genius will hang on to the Apartheid notion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented to him."

? (JA): "That's what Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and many South African Jews call it too. In fact, many South African Jews say that what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians is *worse* than Apartheid."

- It never surprises me that "?" (JA) suspends his own critical thought process and judgment when he hears/reads such condemnations of Israel that fit his outlook about Israel and embraces wholeheartedly. He has excellent excuses not to analize these characterizations and reach his own conclusions.

??: "or how the Palls are mostly at fault for the oppression they suffer."

? (JA): "But when the *other* Nazis in WWII Germany, the Czars, the Aryan supremacists, and the neo-Nazis said/say that about the Jews, you cry anti-Semitism. Ethnic/racial supremacists *always* blame the people they oppress for their own suffering. You can't name a single instance in history where that wasn't true. "

- "?" (JA) tries changing the subject. the Palestinians (with few exceptions) are guilty. I'm no ethnic/racial supremacist; "?" probably is, he's probably projecting his African-American supremacism onto me.

?? "The cause is Palestinian terrorist violence,"

? (JA): "[CHUCKLE, CHUCKLE!] This, coming from someone defending a - by definition - racist state FOUNDED on terrorism and violence! BOO-HOO! "

- Chuckle away, jerk. I fail to see the relevance of the fact I defended Israel, which was was founded also by a massive diplomatic effort and mostly NOT on terrorism (which didn't include violence against British army and police).

??: "the effect is Israeli oppression."

? (JA): "YO, GEHRIG! YOUR BOY SLIPPED UP HERE!! HE *FINALLY* ADMITTED IT *IS* ISRAELI OPPRESSION (although he doesn't know how to spell it - *twice*) AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS!! You see, when you just let or encourage these Zionist fanatics to just run their mouths, like "??", they eventually trip themselves up WITH THE *TRUTH*!!"

- I repeat: I never denied true facts. One of them is there has been a certain degree of Israeli oppression of the local Arabs, you ranting lunatic.

? (JA): "...when two Israeli soldiers are caught in a Palestinian town and are killed, ***AFTER ISRAEL RAN ASSASSINATION SQUADS THROUGH THE SAME TOWN***, Israel calls that Palestinian "terrorism".)"

- These soldiers were tortured, gruesomely lynched (disemboweled; one soldier was also set on fire) and murdered. "?" (JA) tries to excuses this with some lame excuse. Utterly pathetic.

? (JA): "I'D HAVE KILLED THEM TOO!! Only you would have been lucky to even have enough remains for a photograph! I consider the Zionist Israel military (Zionist fundamentalist terrorists who even ride into battle in yarmulkes!) - and anybody that serves or unrepentently served in it, IN OR OUT OF UNIFORM - to be an *ABSOLUTELY* legitimate target. That is the rightful moral position of any progressive who supports any indigenous people engaged in an anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-'Naziesque' struggle against (especially Anglo/European) invasion, occupation, and oppression. If you had been one of those soldiers, *YOU* would have been "an endangered SUB-species" too!"

- Fellows, "?" (JA) is a wild animal. In my opinion he should be summarily thrown out of the "progressive" camp he belongs to and not let to mingle in any civil society.

PS to "?" (JA): if you had even as much as come near me, I'd kill you. I would never let you begin carrying out your morbid wish.

?? " - I repeat: I never denied true facts. One of them is there has been a certain degree of Israeli oppression of the local Arabs, you ranting lunatic."

In an important sense, it doesn't matter what you've said or haven't said. To JA, Zionists are all the same person, thinking the same identical thoughts. So if you get a sense that he's arguing with someone else, not you -- that's because he is. He's arguing with the Uber-Zionist robot in his mind. And that's why I don't bother with him; it just got too clear that he was paying no attention to the specifics of the argument I was making, he was manufacturing straw men by the dozens, and was basically just looking for excuses to unleash one of his infantile rants.

@%<

??: "- What a wonderful progressive this jerk is - implying all Israeli Jews aren't innocent."

That was - to say the least - my point. Naturally, you think that all Israeli Jews are.

??: "- but that's just me."

*JUST* (as in "insignificant") you, is right.

??: "has excellent excuses not to analize these characterizations and reach his own conclusions."

Actually, I'd prefer to take *your* mental lilliputian word. Call it 'a weakness' that I accept the words of Mandela, Tutu, and South African Jews that even were allies/members with the ANC over yours - as well as my own perception and analysis - over yours.

Apartheid, for one example, is where one group of people set themselves up as having exclusive and superior state rights and special state privleges, and a degree of legal and physical social separation, based on 'race'/ethnicity, over another subordinate 'race'. These special rights and privileges legally begin when you specifically define a state based on 'race'. Apartheid is *really* eiptomized when you hold a subordinate 'race' *APART* and/or *stateless*, based on the situation that the state itself created and institutionalized.

(Now when you come back with your morally *LAME* retort that Palesininians have equal rights in Greater Israel or Israel itself, I will just *IGNORE* you, because the only people that believe that, anyway, are Zionists.)

??: "or how the Palls are mostly at fault for the oppression they suffer."

[ ***** Jews used to call this 'blaming the victim'. ***** When it was done against Jews, they called it "anti-Semitism". When Zionists do this against Palestinians they call it "God's will" and - just as *HITLER* claimed - "reclaiming their ancient heritage" . ]

??: "the Palestinians (with *few* exceptions) are guilty. I'm no ethnic/racial supremacist"--

??: ***** "I'M NOT A JEWISH-SUPREMACIST *RACIST*, *BUT*...!!! " *****

I couldn't have described you better.

? (JA): "[CHUCKLE, CHUCKLE!] This, coming from someone defending a - by definition - racist state FOUNDED on terrorism and violence! BOO-HOO! "

??: "- Chuckle away, AS I JERK OFF. I fail to see the relevance of the fact I defended Israel, which was was founded also by a massive diplomatic effort and mostly NOT on terrorism (which didn't include violence against British army and police)."

'YYYYEAH--.'

Relevance is the LEAST of your failings.

Once upon a time... Actually Jewish fairy godmothers founded Israel! And they lovingly baked fig pies and olive bread early every morning for the British soldiers and police. The kindly Jewish fairy godmothers also tried to give fresh baked pies and bread to the Palestinians too, but the *EVILE* Palestinians tried to blow up the fairy godmothers! Then the Zionists had to come and drive the evile Palestinians off! [No Palestinians were harmed in the making of this fable.]


??: " ? (JA): "...when two Israeli soldiers are caught in a Palestinian town and are killed, ***AFTER ISRAEL RAN ASSASSINATION SQUADS THROUGH THE SAME TOWN***, Israel calls that Palestinian "terrorism".)"

"?? - These soldiers were tortured, gruesomely lynched (disemboweled; one soldier was also set on fire) and murdered. "?" (JA) tries to excuses this with some lame excuse. Utterly pathetic. "

After 60+ years of invasion, occupation, and brutal oppression, I admire their restraint.

(Sort of like the restraint Israel uses, huh?)

??: "- Fellows, "?" (JA) is a wild animal."

That's what my girlfriend yells just as she's about to...!! (uh, nevermind!)...

R-R-R-ROWWWW....!! "OH, *YYYESSS*!, **YYYESSS**!!, ***YYYESSS***!!!"

[HAHAHA...!]


??: "the effect is Israeli oppression."

? (JA): "YO, GEHRIG! YOUR BOY SLIPPED UP HERE!! HE *FINALLY* ADMITTED IT *IS* ISRAELI OPPRESSION (although he doesn't know how to spell it - *twice*) AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS!! You see, when you just let or encourage these Zionist fanatics to just run their mouths, like "??", they eventually trip themselves up WITH THE *TRUTH*!!"

??: "- I repeat: I never denied true facts. One of them is there has been ISRAELI OPPRESSION of the local (Palestinian) Arabs." [Pruning superflous verbiage; caps added for emphasis.]

THANKS for the reconfirmation.


**********************************************************************

??: " PS to "?" (JA): IF YOU HAD EVEN AS MUCH AS COME NEAR ME, I'D KILL YOU. "

**********************************************************************

Well, that doesn't surprise me. You Zionists have had a lot of experience in this killing matter of people who have done nothing to you. YOU ZIONISTS HAVE EVEN ASSASSINATED OTHER PROMINENT *JEWS* IN ISRAEL, HAVEN'T YOU?

BUT THANKS FOR CLEARLY REVEALING YOURSELF -- AS A ZIONIST - FOR ALL TO SEE ON SF-IMC -- FOR **EXACTLY** 'WHO' AND WHAT YOU ARE.

THIS IS THE FIRST SF-IMC TRANSMITTED ***DEATH THREAT*** I EVER RECALL.

I GUESS THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU GUYS *DO* WHEN YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL RECOURSE.

(HEY, EDITORS: DOES *THAT* WARRANT BANNING "??" ?)

OF COURSE, IT WOULD COME FROM A *ZIONIST*.

(I *will* retain this record of your post and your threat, and make sure the record is forwarded to SF-IMC.)

gasbag gehrig: "And that's why I don't bother with him."

At LEAST try to FOOL someone!!

You try to "bother" with me all the time!

You just don't ever intellectually or morally succeed!

Not that I'm surprised.
"?", you think I'm I'll mourn or talk my life if they ban my ass from this site? Bring in on, JA ("?").

PS: 97% of your retort is horseshit, in keeping with your rabid and looned anti-Zionist and anti-Semite tradition.

PPS to the editor who removed my retort to "?": FUCK OFF YOU FASCIST, STALINIST BIGOT.

"?" (JA), if it were the other way around and some or all of your posts were censored you would be screaming and jumping to the ceiling like the mad lunatic and anti-Semitic crybaby that you are.

Now *you're* stealing my criticisms too, "crybaby". Can't you Zionists come up with your own? You all seem to like the word "ranting" a lot -- although that is obviously psychological projection on your parts.

Speaking of *mad* *lunatic* crybaby, let me quote just you: "FUCK OFF YOU FASCIST, STALINIST BIGOT" ... "I'D KILL YOU" ... etc., etc., etc.

Not to mention all you rabid loonie Zionists *spamming* SF-IMC.

Not to mention all you loser loonie Zionists impersonating anti-Zionists, when you've run out of anything else to say (which is always quickly, since you Zionists are a brainless lot anyway).

Lenni Brenner *strongly* suggested that people get a tape copy of a formal debate that he and another anti-Zionist Jew had with a couple of Zionist Jews. He said that we should all get the tape, because it would be very educational, that they *creamed* the Zionists. Brenner said that this was a tape you'd be showing to your friends!

Notice how gasbag gehrig admitted above that he couldn't answer my questions, or respond to my examples, of where Israel - of course, posing, as usual, as Arabs - attacked the U.S. military ship Liberty, or shot down a passenger airliner over Egypt, or previously assassinated UN officials. Notice how he couldn't even dispute the chronology of the wars that *ISRAEL* started and the civilian massacres that Israel committed/orchestrated. Gasbag gehrig couldn't dispute it, none of you other Zionists could dispute the chronology, AND NEITHER CAN *YOU*, CRYBABY "??" !!

(And gehrig is smarter - not saying much - than the rest of you.)

See: ISRAELI HISTORY 101: ISRAELI MILITARY AGGRESSION, and "Addendum":
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1638742_comment.php

Especially:
More "Poor little Israel" !
by gehrig: more history of Israeli aggression! Monday September 08, 2003 at 09:27 PM
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1638742_comment.php#1642292

No, I don't jump up and down, when anti-Zionists are censored, because anti-Zionists are censored everyday, in this "the land of the free", in the mainstream media BY YOU ZIONISTS! So, if you want to go somewhere where you can run your mouth off, unfettered and unchallenged, then *GO* somewhere *ELSE*.

CRYBABY.

See above.

What is all this pharesean way of barking? Are there only persons infiltrated by AIPAC and other nazi orgs. to take a stand here? Shame on you all for theses comments

"TONS OF LAND BEING RIPPED FROM INDIA AND TURNED INTO PAKISTAN, A MUSLIM TERRORIST STATE?"

First of all a lot of people objected to how India was partitioned but most people I have heard complain blame the British.

Do you think that all of Pakistan should be included in India. In Kashmir a majority dont want to be a part of India. In Gujarat last year, Hindu mobs (including members of the rulling party) trashed Muslim houses and burned many people alive. Ive heard extreme RSS/BJP types justify Gujarat and Kahmir but even they are not extreme enough to demand that Pakistan become part of India.

What will you argue for next, the Indonesian rape of Ache and the repression in China against Muslim seperatists in Sinkiang? Your hatred for Muslims is too transparent for anyone to take you seriously.

What? I didn't say anything about hating muslims. I certainly don't hate any religion or race.

I stated FACTS.

Fact 1 - Land was torn from India and turned into Pakistan, a state for muslims.

Fact 2 - Muslims in pakistan proceeded to harrass the non-muslims, resulting in almost all of them fleeing.

Fact 3 - Pakistan is run by fucking assholes, and the religious leaders there, GENERALLY, are extremely anti-jew (not just anti-israel, but anti-jew).

Fact 4 - India still has problems from muslim organizations/groups inside of India as well as from pakistan (over kashmir).

If truth upsets you, perhaps you need to adjust your own thinking.

Reflections on the
Gujarat Massacre

Numbed with disgust and horror, I return from Gujarat ten days after the terror and massacre that convulsed the state. My heart is sickened, my soul wearied, my shoulders aching with the burdens of guilt and shame.

As you walk through the camps of riot survivors in Ahmedabad, in which an estimated 53,000 women, men, and children are huddled in 29 temporary settlements, displays of overt grief are unusual. People clutch small bundles of relief materials, all that they now own in the world, with dry and glassy eyes. Some talk in low voices, others busy themselves with the tasks of everyday living in the most basic of shelters, looking for food and milk for children, tending the wounds of the injured.

But once you sit anywhere in these camps, people begin to speak and their words are like masses of pus released by slitting large festering wounds. The horrors that they speak of are so macabre, that my pen falters in the writing. The pitiless brutality against women and small children by organized bands of armed young men is more savage than anything witnessed in the riots that have shamed this nation from time to time during the past century.

I force myself to write a small fraction of all that I heard and saw, because it is important that we all know. Or maybe also because I need to share my own burdens.

What can you say about a woman eight months pregnant who begged to be spared. Her assailants instead slit open her stomach, pulled out her fetus and slaughtered it before her eyes.

What can you say about a family of nineteen being killed by flooding their house with water and then electrocuting them with high-tension electricity.

What can you say?

A small boy of six in Juhapara camp described how his mother and six brothers and sisters were battered to death before his eyes. He survived only because he fell unconscious, and was taken for dead. A family escaping from Naroda-Patiya, one of the worst-hit settlements in Ahmedabad, spoke of losing a young woman and her three month old son, because a police constable directed her to `safety' and she found herself instead surrounded by a mob which doused her with kerosene and set her and her baby on fire.

I have never known a riot which has used the sexual subjugation of women so widely as an instrument of violence in the recent mass barbarity in Gujarat. There are reports everywhere of gang-rape, of young girls and women, often in the presence of members of their families, followed by their murder by burning alive, or by bludgeoning with a hammer and in one case with a screw driver. Women in the Aman Chowk shelter told appalling stories about how armed men disrobed themselves in front of a group of terrified women to cower them down further.

In Ahmedabad, most people I met – social workers, journalists, survivors – agree that what Gujarat witnessed was not a riot, but a terrorist attack followed by a systematic, planned massacre. Everyone spoke of the pillage and plunder, being organized like a military operation against an external armed enemy. An initial truck would arrive broadcasting inflammatory slogans, soon followed by more trucks which disgorged young men, mostly in khaki shorts and saffron sashes. They were armed with sophisticated explosive materials, country weapons, daggers and trishuls. They also carried water bottles, to sustain them in their exertions. The leaders were seen communicating on mobile telephones from the riot venues, receiving instructions from and reporting back to a coordinating centre. Some were seen with documents and computer sheets listing Muslim families and their properties. They had detailed precise knowledge about buildings and businesses held by members of the minority community, such as who were partners say in a restaurant business, or which Muslim homes had Hindu spouses were married who should be spared in the violence. This was not a spontaneous upsurge of mass anger. It was a carefully planned pogrom.

The trucks carried quantities of gas cylinders. Rich Muslim homes and business establishments were first systematically looted, stripped down of all their valuables, then cooking gas was released from cylinders into the buildings for several minutes. A trained member of the group then lit the flame which efficiently engulfed the building. In some cases, acetylene gas which is used for welding steel, was employed to explode large concrete buildings. Mosques and dargahs were razed, and were replaced by statues of Hanuman and saffron flags. Some dargahs in Ahmedabad city crossings have overnight been demolished and their sites covered with road building material, and bulldozed so efficiently that these spots are indistinguishable from the rest of the road.

Traffic now plies over these former dargahs, as though they never existed. The unconscionable failures and active connivance of the state police and administrative machinery is also now widely acknowledged. The police is known to have misguided people straight into the hands of rioting mobs. They provided protective shields to crowds bent on pillage, arson, rape and murder, and were deaf to the pleas of the desperate Muslim victims, many of them women and children. There have been many reports of police firing directly mostly at the minority community, which was the target of most of the mob violence. The large majority of arrests are also from the same community which was the main victim of the pogrom.

As one who has served in the Indian Administrative Service for over two decades, I feel great shame at the abdication of duty of my peers in the civil and police administration. The law did not require any of them to await orders from their political supervisors before they organized the decisive use of force to prevent the brutal escalation of violence, and to protect vulnerable women and children from the organized, murderous mobs. The law instead required them to act independently, fearlessly, impartially, decisively, with courage and compassion. If even one official had so acted in Ahmedabad, she or he could have deployed the police forces and called in the army to halt the violence and protect the people in a matter of hours. No riot can continue beyond a few hours without the active connivance of the local police and magistracy. The blood of hundreds of innocents are on the hands of the police and civil authorities of Gujarat, and by sharing in a conspiracy of silence, on the entire higher bureaucracy of the country. I have heard senior officials blame also the communalism of the police constabulary for their connivance in the violence. This too is a thin and disgraceful alibi. The same forces have been known to act with impartiality and courage when led by officers of professionalism and integrity. The failure is clearly of the leadership of the police and civil services, not of the subordinate men and women in khaki who are trained to obey their orders.

Where also, amidst this savagery, injustice, and human suffering is the `civil society', the Gandhians, the development workers, the NGOs, the fabled spontaneous Gujarathi philanthropy which was so much in evidence in the earthquake in Kutch and Ahmedabad?

The newspapers reported that at the peak of the pogrom, the gates of Sabarmati Ashram were closed to protect its properties, it should instead have been the city's major sanctuary. Which Gandhian leaders, or NGO managers, staked their lives to halt the death-dealing throngs?

It is one more shame that we as citizens of this country must carry on our already burdened backs, that the camps for the Muslim riot victims in Ahmedabad are being run almost exclusively by Muslim organizations. It is as though the monumental pain, loss, betrayal and injustice suffered by the Muslim people is the concern only of other Muslim people, and the rest of us have no share in the responsibility to assuage, to heal and rebuild.

The state, which bears the primary responsibility to extend both protection and relief to its vulnerable citizens, was nowhere in evidence in any of the camps, to manage, organize the security, or even to provide the resources that are required to feed the tens of thousands of defenseless women, men and children huddled in these camps for safety.

The only passing moments of pride and hope that I experienced in Gujarat, were when I saw men like Mujid Ahmed and women like Roshan Bahen who served in these camps with tireless, dogged humanism amidst the ruins around them. In the Aman Chowk camp, women blessed the young band of volunteers who worked from four in the morning until after midnight to ensure that none of their children went without food or milk, or that their wounds remained untended. Their leader Mujid Ahmed is a graduate, his small chemical dyes factory has been burnt down, but he has had no time to worry about his own loss. Each day he has to find 1600 kilograms of food grain to feed some 5000 people who have taken shelter in the camp. The challenge is even greater for Roshan Bahen, almost 60, who wipes her eyes each time she hears the stories of horror by the residents in Juapara camp. But she too has no time for the luxuries of grief or anger. She barely sleeps, as her volunteers, mainly working class Muslim women and men from the humble tenements around the camp, provide temporary toilets, food and solace to the hundreds who have gathered in the grounds of a primary school to escape the ferocity of merciless mobs.

As I walked through the camps, I wondered what Gandhiji would have done in these dark hours. I recall the story of the Calcutta riots, when Gandhi was fasting for peace. A Hindu man came to him, to speak of his young boy who had been killed by Muslim mobs, and of the depth of his anger and longing for revenge. And Gandhi is said to have replied: If you really wish to overcome your pain, find a young boy, just as young as your son, a Muslim boy whose parents have been killed by Hindu mobs. Bring up that boy like you would your own son, but bring him up with the Muslim faith to which he was born. Only then will you find that you can heal your pain, your anger, and your longing for retribution.
There are no voices like Gandhi's that we hear today. Only discourses on Newtonian physics, to justify vengeance on innocents. We need to find these voices within our own hearts, we need to believe enough in justice, love, tolerance.

There is much that the murdering mobs in Gujarat have robbed from me. One of them is a song I often sang with pride and conviction. The words of the song are:

Sare jahan se achha
Hindustan hamara

It is a song I will never be able to sing again.

http://www.indianest.com/analysis/013.htm