Anti-Zionists Protest "Israel Celebration Day"

Um, one doesn't need to be labeled a "Zionist" just because they attended the ball park event. That incredibly short-sighted labelling is why many different groups on either side don't come together to resolve differences in the first place.
I was out representing my Jewish-based organization that's vehemently against the Israeli occupation in Palestinian lands, and America's incredibly destructive unilateral support of it, but I wanted to go inside because I'm Jewish and proud of Israeli statehood, even though its politics is a disgrace.
So don't expect change if you can't rise above uneducated, name-calling. Just a suggestion.

Of _course_ it speaks well of Wendy Campbell. She _always_ speaks well of herself when she refers to herself in the third person.

@%<

Top: Jess Ghannam, president of ADC (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Bottom: Richard Becker, co-founder of ANSWER

Rachel Corrie Banner, front and back, calling for the end of all US aid to apartheid Israel now!

Banners protesting Israel's illegal "Apartheid Wall".

Top photo: Policeman regards anti-Zionist activists (from left) Joseph Anderson, Jeffrey Blankfort, and Jan Bauman.

Jeffrey and Jan are both Jewish, by the way, and anti-Zionism.

Jeffrey is a veteran advocate for Palestinian rights. Please do a Google-search on him to learn more about him and his work.

By the way, Jeffrey won a huge settlement (something like $50,000) from the ADL for illegally spying on him! Way to go, Jeffrey!!!!!

Bottom Photo: Uncle Sam (Joe Webb) points to tv producer Mark Green whose sign says "Unequal Treatment of Arabs and Jews Causes Terrorism." Mark is a veteran activist on exposing Israel's undue and dangerous influence on the United States. He recently produced a 60 minute documentary called "Myth, Terrorism and Taboo". He also produced "Why Terrorism?" in 1986 featuring a debate between arch-Zionist racist Meir Kahane and former congressman Pete McCloskey. Amazingly, it's as relevant today as it was back then. For more information on these tapes, please visit http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com.

Wendy Campbell with Uncle Sam aka Joe Webb, who also opposes the U.S. support of apartheid Israel.

Wendy's wearing a kaffiyeh she brought back from her recent trip to Syria. She is a California-based film-maker whose documentaries include "Truth: Exposing Israeli Apartheid" and "Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism".

She started the Rachel Corrie Banner Project which entailed holding the huge banner (pictured above a couple posts up) in front of politicians' offices and in Union Square on the 16th of every month which she did with others for an entire year in remembrance of Rachel Corrie, the young 23 year old peace activist who was bulldozed to death by an as-of-yet unpunished Israeli soldier. Wendy, who is busy working on new documentary projects, has passed the torch onto others who also feel that Rachel Corrie and her cause must not be forgotten. Please note, she is holding a Rachel Corrie poster-sign from If Americans Knew (http://www.ifamericansknew.org).

For more information on Wendy's point of view with regards to the racist ideology of Zionism, the one-democratic-state solution, and her documentaries, please visit http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com.

If YOU want change then why not oppose Zionism? Why not be happy just to be an American citizen and renounce your "right to return" (aliyah) at least until all the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their ancestral homeland of Palestine-Israel, AND have completely equal rights.

Israel has been a disgrace from day one and is NOTHING to be proud of. If I were a Jew, I would completely DENOUNCE Zionism, and there are Jews who do just that.

Here are the websites of some of them: http://www.nkusa.org, http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com, http://www.israelshamir.net, http://www.gilad.co.uk, just for starters.

If YOU and people like you, including Christian Zionists, don't denounce Zionism as the racist ideology that it is, change may be slower than it should --- but we believe that Zionism will be delegitimized and marginalized, and we hope and pray that will be soon.

This is the most humane and just solution of all for the Palestine-Israel conflict (and don't let the Zionists fool you--- this solution is very popular and in keeping with American values)-- check this out:

http://www.one-democratic-state.org

A one state solution sounds good. A no state solution with all countries living according to anarchist principles sounds better.

But, how do we get from where we are now to the desired goal. Palestinians have just about no chance militarilly and while guerilla tactics help wear down Israel, usually those type of tactics makes the population want to get rid of the occupied territories not merge with them. Israel's military power is largely due to US support but Israel has a high tech economy that could probably keep its military powerful enough to fend off the Palestinians even without US support (especially since all signs point to behind the scenes support for Sharon by many Arab leaders/ friends of Bush who wouldnt be willing to support the Palestinians in a real struggle even if there was a chance of success). A one state solution would mean getting rid of hatreds and having the two populations live together and wouldnt mean the "end of Israel" as the right accuses, but is that a realistic thing to be demanding right now and if not does it just confuse things and make it harder for a two state solution to act as a stepping stone to a longer term situation where the boundaries between Jews and Palestinians can be abolished.

Talk of a one state solution in the Middle East makes sense to me in that its often used as a way to get the message to Israelis that if settlements keep being built and access roads keep crossing Palestinian land there is no chance for two states. But when argued about here it's often just a way to attack the idea of two states not an argument against the status quo.

Here's your post: "A one state solution sounds good. A no state solution with all countries living according to anarchist principles sounds better. "

My answer: "No need to eliminate all borders. There is a need for some kind of government, at least, a secular, multi-cultural, democracy where everyone has completely equal rights BEFORE THE LAW at the very least, and the laws must be enforced. Israel does NOT even have a Constitution. Inside Israel's "Green Line" (the 67 borders) 92% of the land is for Jewish use only. 20% of the Israeli population is non-Jewish inside the Green Line but they have to squeeze into designated ghettos on the remaining 8% of the land. Clearly Israel is an apartheid state even INSIDE the Green Line, not to mention that the poor persecuted Palestinians in the Occupied Territories of the West Band and Gaza are severely brutalized, de-humanized and cannot vote even in the government that occupies and torments them. They are even forced to pay Israel taxes without any representation!!

You wrote: But, how do we get from where we are now to the desired goal. Palestinians have just about no chance militarilly and while guerilla tactics help wear down Israel, usually those type of tactics makes the population want to get rid of the occupied territories not merge with them.

My answer: By using the same tactics as was used to end apartheid in South Africa: BOYCOTT ISRAEL, STOP ALL U.S. SUPPORT OF ISRAEL, INCLUDING POLITICAL COVER. Israel must be shunned and isolated until it gives into pressure, which must be INTENSE or else it will not work. Israel will not last long on its own without hiding behind the USA's apron strings. So we must constantly put the pressure on our politicians to STOP SUPPORT OF ISRAEL NOW. This is largely a grassroots effort and we MUST REACH CRITICAL MASS which isn't as much as you think. See how Zionists are only a small per centage of our US population, yet they have alot of clout. We can do the same. And we MUST.

You wrote: Israel's military power is largely due to US support but Israel has a high tech economy that could probably keep its military powerful enough to fend off the Palestinians even without US support (especially since all signs point to behind the scenes support for Sharon by many Arab leaders/ friends of Bush who wouldnt be willing to support the Palestinians in a real struggle even if there was a chance of success).

I say: Israel cannot exist without US support, not for long anyway. Israel's only real friend is the US (however the U.S. is "used" by Israel as its cash cow and Israel is a one-way street all the way, see http://www.ussliberty.com for instance) . Everyone else in the UN votes against Israel's immoral actions and war crimes regularly. The US is often the ONLY country that sides with Israel. Israel has defied over 70 UN Resolutions, compared to Iraq's defiance of only 17! Israel has WMD and nuclear weapons that MUST be inspected by the UN.

You say: A one state solution would mean getting rid of hatreds and having the two populations live together and wouldnt mean the "end of Israel" as the right accuses, but is that a realistic thing to be demanding right now and if not does it just confuse things and make it harder for a two state solution to act as a stepping stone to a longer term situation where the boundaries between Jews and Palestinians can be abolished.

I say: A two-state solution is unjust and official apartheid to begin with. It also means "endless process" which "soft" Zionists (such as Allen S) are so famous for. Let's just NOT allow any SPECIAL PRIVILEGES for ANYONE and that includes none for ZIONIST JEWS AND ISRAEL either.

You write: Talk of a one state solution in the Middle East makes sense to me in that its often used as a way to get the message to Israelis that if settlements keep being built and access roads keep crossing Palestinian land there is no chance for two states.

I answer: The fact is that Israel is NOW a racist, ethnocentric Jewish one-fascist-state.

You write: But when argued about here it's often just a way to attack the idea of two states not an argument against the status quo.

I answer: The status quo is completely unacceptable, as you know. We must address and confront truthfully the racist ideology that IS Zionism, which has ALWAYS from day ONE of Israel's creation as manifested itself in apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide and persecution. Zionism must be rooted out and exposed for what it is. Zionism was BORN from paranoia, an ethnocentric racism and greed for power. Therefore Zionism, as an ideology must be COMPLETELY DENOUNCED AS THE RACIST IDEOLOGY THAT IT IS AND COMPETELY MARGINALIZED AND DELEGITIMIZED NOW!

Thank you for asking. :-) Now please, do your part and spread the word.

The difference is that S Africa was structured such that the white population was dependent on the opressed majority, wheras in Israel the populations are closer in size and Israelis can have a fully functioning economy without using Palestinian workers.

There is also the public relations issue. While many white South Africans believed that when integration happened they would be killed or pushed out of the country, there wasnt much of an active violent conflict going on at the time (there had been years earlier but things were relatively peaceful for the white South Africans in the years leading up to integration). The world boycott effected South Africa but it didnt force a solution since the economy of South Africa was not doing that badly in the years before the change. World public opinion did effect how white South Africans saw themselves and made them willing to allow change (and as with Israel the government was strong enough it was an impossibility for the majority to fight for its own freedom).

Looking at Israel the views of the Israeli public are pretty far from a point where a one state solution can happen in the near term. South Africa does have a lot of similarities with Israel since it was a relatively prosperous European colony in a poverty striken region where the colonizers were not in a position to go back to Europe. But the population sizes and psychology of the populations are not at the same place South Africa was in the 80s; the whites were such a small minority in S Africa a walled off two state solution would have been impossible especially with an economy based on white owned mines and factories using nonwhite workers. Israel can exist without the Palestinians and that makes a huge difference if the model of Israelis giving up power to a slightly larger Palestinian population in a single democratic state is looked at as a possible future (it wont happen even if one wishes it would).

1992: South Africa votes for change

White South Africans have backed an overwhelming mandate for political reforms to end apartheid and create a power-sharing multi-racial government.
In a landslide victory for change, the government swept the polls in all four provinces, and all but one of 15 referendum regions.

It won 68.6% of the vote in a record turn-out, which, in some districts exceeded 96%.

The extent of change was highlighted in the Kroonstad region of the Orange Free State, where five of the seven Parliamentary seats are held by the "no" campaigners in the conservative party.

Despite being one of the most conservative districts in the whole country there was a small yes majority for change.

Only Pietersburg in the Northern Transvaal, a rural right-wing stronghold where Dr Andries Treurnicht has his parliamentary constituency as head of the CP, returned a no vote.

Pretoria, the administrative capital which has symbolised Afrikanerdom, produced a 57% "yes", in the legislative capital, Cape Town, 85% voted "yes" and in the judicial capital of Bloemfontein 58.5%.

"Today we have closed the book on apartheid,'' Mr de Klerk said in Cape Town as he also celebrates his 56th birthday.

White electors have not only voted by a 2-1 majority to abolish apartheid but also to lose their own power.

Mr de Klerk said the result was a boost for the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, Codesa, but he could not commit himself to a timetable for installing a multi-racial government, which required further discussions

Dr Treurnicht pledged never to work on the Codesa board and that CP would not join the negotiating forum.

He said: "De Klerk has won his referendum. That is clear."

But he vowed there would be a return of apartheid in the country and he blamed media propaganda, foreign intervention and threats by businessmen against employees for the result.

Nelson Mandela, the president of the African National Congress who was jailed for 27 years because of his fight against black segregation, said he was ''very happy indeed''.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/18/newsid_2524000/2524695.stm

Can you envison an article like this about Israel appearing in the near future with "the end of segregation" being replaced with the "annexation of the West Bank and Gaza with full citizenship being give to all inhabitants"? If so, a one state solution is possible.

Since property rights in S Africa remained in place, ending segregation left many inequalities intact but stability was possible under a new democracy because property rights made living in shanty towns and working for white owned factories seem less oppressive. In Israel, would it be equally acceptable if Palestinians remained in refugee camps and "the right of return" became an issue of buying back property if people every got the money? Of course inequality is bad and redistribution should occur in both countries but looking at South Africa as a model for change in Palestine ignores that integration only occured because by agreeing to political equality, the whites were not giving up much personall .

as one who is guilty-as-charged with using an israeli flag representation with swastika happily spinning in the middle of a mogen-david, please see below. (some of my best friends are anti-zionist jews.)

I did a long email on this matter, and if intersted, email me and I will send it. Israel is mass-mobilized for a racial/tribal agenda which includes dispossession of Palestinians (and worse), recidivism (eretz Israel, Euphrates to the Nile, per David Ben-Gurion, et al), militarism,violent state racism, and , worst of all, it is using the power of Jews in the US to accomplish its agenda. The Neocons run the Bush Admin, and , waiting in the Congressional wings, are another set of Neocons who will be a bit more savvy , under Pres. Kerry, in advancing the zionist agenda. Jewish money controls the Dems, and to some degree the Repubs. Seymour Martin Lipset, in a recent book , has Jewish money at over 50% in the Dem. party. Add to that, Jewish influence, and the Dems are run by jews/zionists. The neocon story has been suppressed by the Left because it is a Jewish story, and the Left is dominated by Jews. This is the simple truth, and , to state it, one is called a nazi, etc., especially by hard-line communist groups, like Answer. My Uncle Sam routine, "I want you to die for Israel", etc. addresses the issue o' what is the Iraq war for?' It is for Israel, first and foremost, empire (joint, with Israel), and oil is a distant last, as there is 100 years of oil and natural gas in the ground, per geologists, etc.

The ADC folks are scared to death of Jewish Power, and maybe they have a right to be, Answer is just communist, and their ideological blinkers make them blind to ethnic/national factors. Also, Jewish participation in these groups make it harder to tell the truth about Jewish Power. Read , for example, Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace, for some political science on Jewish Power. Also, read Israel Shahak, Jewish History;Jewish Religion, for some reality checks on Israel. (both authors are Jews, and, if they weren't, ADC/Answer would denounce them an anti-semites.)

Joe

When one says "the Jews" believe this or that, of course peopel are going to take offense. Even some of the people with the zionazi signs and with flags with the star of David replaced with a swastika are Jewish. One's ethnicity or religion may make one more likely to have certain view but it doesnt determine ones views which is why people rightly see anyone who says "the Jews" this or "the Jews" that as a racist. Equating neocon with Jewish seems pretty farfetched and can also be seen as a racist swipe. Rumsfeld isnt Jewish. Bush isnt Jewish. Cheney isnt Jewish. The religion or ethnicity of a few people several rungs down in the Bush administration seems to be of little relevence. Powell and Condi are African American; does that mean that one should go around talking about a black conservative conspiracy? What about Abizaid or Sanchez's ethnicities?

Working for Palestinian struggle is hard enough without accusations of antiSemitism. As long as voices that sound even slightly antiSemitic are not pushed out of the proPalestine struggle, the accusations will allow supporters of the status quo in Israel to create an creepy atmosphere around Palestinian organizing preventing a movement from ever reaching critical mass.

First of all, just forget about the deliberately misleading word "anti-Semitic". It is a word that the Zionists use to manipulate and smear others. However Zionists use that word so often now to describe anyone who utters any hint of criticism of Israel that it is now pretty meaningless.

In fact, the Zionists have convinced the Merriam-Webster dictionary to include as a definition of "anti-Semitism": any one who is anti-Zionism! In that case, who cares if someone calls anyone "anti-Semitic"? Especially when after all, the most vicious anti-Semites are actually the hard-core Zionists in Israel (and the US)--- since Palestinians are all truly Semitic peoples, unlike many Jews (only Arab Jews can really qualify as Semitic Jews).

As for the Neocons, most of them ARE Jewish Zionists. And they have a huge network, like JINSA, AIPAC, and the over 125+ Jewish PACs (political action committees) around the country. Zionist Jews are more highly organized, influential, politically connected, heavily represented in the US media, much more affluent than ANY other ethnic group, including WASPs, and certainly more than Blacks, or Asians. Get real about it.

Jews should reject Zionism and reject the idea of a Jewish state, if they know what's best for them and if they really care about peace and justice and equality for all. After all, a Jewish state is inherently a racist state. You wouldn't like it if the US was to insist on being a Christian state now would you?

Not to mention one lie. I've looked up "anti-Semitism" on the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

So you lied. I for one don't think you're gonna retract your statement.

Instead of coming up with reasons why the South African apartheid situation was so different, why not come up with ways to make apartheid go away in Israel-Palestine? Seems to me like you are making excuses for Israel once again and trying to NOT make the one-democratic-state solution possible. Something tells me that if Jews really want something to happen, they will make it happen. So why don't you make it happen???????? Just do it!!!!!

As for Critical Thinker, you are obviously on the ADL payroll. No one pays any real attention to your bullshit.

I'n really devastated by the self confidence with which you labeled me an ADL employee. It doesn't take long to realize you're short on deduction faculties, not to mention that your last refuge is personal attacks and unfounded sweeping conclusions as you were caught lying.

Keep up your present attitude, not excluding your pretension to know what all others think of my comments, as well as your racist intuition about Jews ability to make things come true, and see how it keeps your movement and most of its ideas marginalized. You yourself are your worst enemy.

Joe is a right winger who hates Communists. Hes like one of those right wingers in the 1950s who believe in a Communist Jewish conspiracy. Poeple like him used to run the US which is why the Rosenbergs got murdered by the state.

At protests he is pretty well marginalized and its obvious that the movement for the end to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is composed of many Jewish activists, Palestinian activists and others. If the ADL actually stood for the end of antiSemitism it would stop going after groups like ANSWER, the ISM and peopel fighting for Palestinian freedom and realize that the ocassional antiSemitic wingnuts who show up at protests also believe ANSWER is a Jewish conspiracy.

I just wanted to clariffy that I don not believe CT or others posting to this site work for the ADL, just that a group fighting antiSemitism without also taking a stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is needed. When the ADL talks about increased antiSemitism its hard to know how seriously to take them when their site is full of complaints of things that they see as "biased against Israel".

Joe,
If so many of your friends are jewish and you're not prejudiced, why do you constantly question the loyalty of jewish people within the antiwar movement. You don't question the loyalty of christians, who make up the bulk of zionists in this country.

Joe has alienated many people on many activist email lists by accusing other activists of being closet Zionists just because of their ethnicity. He hates communists has nationalist leanings and is focused on by the media who uses him to "prove" that the antiwar and Palestine liberation movements are crazy if not bigotted. But, for some reason, until recently nobody has had the guts to stand up to him. Its good to hear that at the Israel Day protest some people tried to distance him from the protest.

Blech is really an idiot to think that it's such a stretch of the imagination to surmise that most Jews ARE indeed closet Zionists.

That would be fine with me as long as they kept that in the closet except as long as their influential Zionist buddies in AIPAC , JINSA, CAMERA and the NeoCons, and the Democrats, the media and so one and so forth dominate my country so much, it's influential in a negative way on OUR one and only country, the USA.

The USA really needs to cut the cord with Israel competely. Israel is a one-way street. Our government needs to maintain separation of not only church and state but more relevant these days is we must also have separation of synagogue and state. AND we need to have affirmative action in our US media and US foreign policy departments, both dominated by Zionist Jews.

Plus dual citizenship should NOT be allowed with any foreign country!

Why is this man's presence tolerated?

Be specific.

Maybe if people ignore him he will go away and if you keep payng attention you will only encourage him?

If he isn't Jewish, Joe Webb is the only non-Jew I know whose first question about anything is, Is it good or bad for the Jews?

The reason Joe Webb is tolerated on indybay is the same reason indybay even puts up with Zionist shills and ADL spies like you, gehrig, Critical Thinker, Sarah and the rest. Indybay has an open publishing policy. I'd rather read Joe Webb's comments any day than some Zionist ADL shill. In fact, I'd like to see all Zionist comments censored by indybay personally. After all, Zionist US mainstream media censors anti-Zionist comments.

I don't know what's funnier -- the suggestion that CT and Sarah and I are "ADL shills," or the suggestion that nessie, under his "just wondering" nym, is a Zionist. Clearly, you're not watching very well.

@%<

"Hello" is just another of the many nicknames adopted by the Nazi white supremacist and National Alliance activist Wendy Klanbell.

Yes, "Hello" is one of Wendy's nyms. But I don't know of any evidence that she's a member of any Nazi or neo-Nazi group (yet). It's true that she _did_ try to promote Stormfront's "No War for Israel" site a year ago, but she stopped as soon as she found out it was a neo-Nazi front.

There's no need to lie about her; she's awful enough without embellishment.

In general, I should mention, the last few days here have been very positive ones. They also, unfortunately, demonstrate the degree to which just a few bad apples can taint an entire movement _unless_ that movement actively responds.

@%<

Dear Readers,
See how the ADL's operatives such as gehrig, Critical Thinker and Sara work their hateful "magic":

The Practice of Ritual Defamation: How Values, Opinions and Beliefs are controlled in Democratic Societies
By Laird Wilcox

FOREWORD
Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the
reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a
person, or group of persons, by wrongful, unfair, or malicious speech
or publication. For the purposes of this essay, the central element is
defamation in retaliation for the real or imagined attitudes, opinions
or beliefs of the victim, with the intention of silencing [him], and
neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so
as to discourage similar independence and “insensitivity” or
non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from
simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized
and skillfully applied, often by an organization or representative of
a special interest group, and in that it consists of several
characteristic elements.

“Ritual” defamation is not ritualistic because it follows any
prescribed religious or mystical doctrine, nor is it embraced in any
particular scripture. Rather, it is ritualistic because it follows a
predictable, stereotyped pattern which embraces a number of typical
elements, as in a ritual.

THE ELEMENTS OF A RITUAL DEFAMATION ARE THESE:
In a ritual defamation the victim must have violated a particular
taboo in some way, usually by expressing or identifying with a
forbidden attitude, opinion or belief. It is not necessary that he
“do” anything about it or undertake any course of action, only that he
engage in some form of communication or expression.
The method of attack in a ritual defamation is to assail the character
of the victim, and never to offer more than a perfunctory challenge to
the particular attitudes, opinions or beliefs expressed or implied.
Character assassination is its primary tool.
An important rule is to avoid engaging in honest debate over the
truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only
condemn it. A debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion
on its merits, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to
avoid. The primary goal is censorship or repression.
The victim is very often someone in the public eye, although perhaps
only in a modest way. It could be a school teacher, a writer, a
businessman, a minor official, or merely an outspoken citizen.
Visibility enhances vulnerability to ritual defamation.
An attempt, often successful, is made to involve others in the
defamation. In the case of a public official, other public officials
will be urged to denounce the offender. In the case of a student,
other students will be called upon, and so on.
In order for a ritual defamation to be effective, the victim must be
dehumanized to the extent that he becomes identical with the offending
attitude, opinion or belief, and in a manner which distorts it to the
point where it appears at its most extreme. For example, a victim who
is defamed as a “subversive” will be identified with the worst images
of subversion, such as espionage or treason. A victim defamed as a
“pervert” will be identified with the worst images of perversion,
including child molestation. A victim defamed as a “racist” or
“anti-Semitic” will be identified with the worst images of racism or
anti-Semitism, such as lynchings or gas chambers, and so on.
Also, to be successful, a ritual defamation must bring pressure and
humiliation from every quarter, including family and friends, who may
begin to shun him. If the victim has school children, they may be
taunted and ridiculed as a consequence of adverse publicity. If he is
employed, he may be fired from his job.
Anyone who defends a victim runs the risk of being associated with him
and similarly defamed. Even if their own reputation is beyond
question, their judgment and involvement with the victim may become an
issue. Often, the victim of a ritual defamation becomes isolated and
abandoned.
Any explanation the victim may offer, including the claim of being
misunderstood, is considered irrelevant. To claim truth as a defense
is interpreted as unrepentance, and only compounds the problem. Ritual
defamation is not necessarily an offense of being wrong or incorrect,
but rather “insensitivity” and failing to observe social taboos.
Many victims succumb early on, and go on through a “confessional”
stage, complete with apologies and remorse. They may even denounce
friends associated with the forbidden values, opinions and beliefs, or
claim that they were “duped”, as was the case with many suspected
“subversives” during the McCarthy era. If the charges against them
involve “morals,” they may claim stress or mental illness as a
defense.
The viciousness of ritual defamation is inspired not merely by
revenge, although that is an important factor, but also to create an
example so others will know of the savaging they can expect for
stepping out of line. Ritual defamation is an important means of
social control.
An Interesting aspect of ritual defamation is its universality. It is
not specific to any particular value, opinion, or belief, or to any
group or subculture. It may be used either for or against any
political, ethnic or religious minority and also by any political,
ethnic or religious minority.
Ritual defamation often appears in paradoxical forms, as in the case
of organizations claiming to oppose defamation itself, even using the
term “anti-defamation” in their name. Psychologically, this may
represent a projective mechanism, in which the organization attempts
to camouflage its own propensities in the form of an official myth, a
kind of agreed-upon fiction that perfumes its actual activities, which
are often transparently evident from its publications.
The power of ritual defamation lies entirely in its capacity to
intimidate. It embraces some elements of primitive superstitious
belief, as in a “curse” or “hex.” it also plays on the subconscious
fear most people have of being rejected by the “tribe” and being cut
off from social and psychological support systems. Only the truly
courageous and independent person can withstand the full force of a
ritual defamation, and occasionally they may even survive such an
attempt relatively unscathed.
The weak points of ritual defamation lie in its tendency toward
overkill and its rather transparent maliciousness. Occasionally, a
ritual defamation will fail because of inadequate planning and failure
to correctly estimate the vulnerability of the victim. Ritual defamers
often exhibit extensive projective mechanisms and delusions of
persecution themselves. Although it may appear to be an offensive
maneuver, it’s actually quite defensive in nature. As Eric Hoffer
said: “You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the
means he uses to frighten you.” (The True Believer, 1951).
Paradoxically, a ritual defamation often brings about the very values,
opinions and beliefs that it condemns, as in a self-fulfilling
prophecy. It enhances paranoia and hatred, and generally serves to
divide and alienate. It hardens positions and polarizes a situation as
nothing else can. A person accused of supporting a particular belief
may find himself propelled into that position. Politically, for
example, it’s quite effective in creating rebels and dissidents. It
has been used in various forms by dictatorships and totalitarian
systems all throughout history. In democratic societies it has become
a favorite tool of special interest groups to vilify and neutralize
their critics and opponents.

Windy Wendy: "See how the ADL's operatives such as gehrig, Critical Thinker and Sara work their hateful "magic""

Don't want to be called an antisemite, Windy Wendy? Stop using URLs to overtly antisemitic sites like "Compu Serb" and "Jewish Tribal Review" to back up your screeds.

I mean, really, Windy Wendy, doesn't it _bother_ you just a little to know that whatever site you're pointing to also has essays on it about how the Holocaust is really just a Jewish fraud? Doesn't that _bother_ you even a little?

Or is the standard that you used to defend the antisemite Joe Webb -- "he's not antisemitic, he just doesn't trust Jews" -- also hold for websites ("they're not antisemitic, they just think the greatest Jewish tragedy of the last century is a Jewish fake")?

@%<

It's been used far too many times, and if it means anti-zionism then its a compliment.

American Heritage: "Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism. Discrimination against Jews."

Wordnet (Princeton): "the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people"

Mirriam-Webster: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"

Oxford Concise: "hostile to or prejudiced against Jews."

Sounds pretty specific to me, Windy Wendy. And if it's been used against you too many times, Wendy, then maybe you should stop being one.

@%<

Just because gehrig and Sara chose to convert to Judaism and Zionism doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Seems like anyone who doesn't want to be or think like a J-w or Zionist or who doesn't profess allegience and loyalty and great love for J-ws gets to be called nasty names.

Click here:

http://www.sfimc.net/news/2004/06/1695815_comment.php#1696606

Yet another nickname used by the Nazi cuntbag Wendy Klanbell, a Bay Area organizer for the National Alliance. She has also disclosed her sympathies for David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan on numerous threads.

but is there any concrete evidence? What and where is it?

You expect anyone to take you seriously when you ask a question from the Zionist ZioNazi thug who posted the obscene, slanderous post above? You both can rot in Hell. Make that IsraHell.

The conflict is not between “Israelis” and “Palestinians.” The conflict is between one bunch of Palestinians and another bunch of Palestinians. By definition, anyone who lives in Palestine, is a Palestinian. Palestine is not a political entity. It is a geographic region. Israel is part of Palestine. Israelis *are* Palestinians.

On one side of the conflict are the Jews who live in Palestine, and their Druze and Arab lackeys. On the other side of the conflict is everybody else who lives in Palestine. That is who the conflict is between. The *only* just solution is that all the people who live in Palestine constitute a single society, secular and egalitarian, in which every Palestinian is equal, and where rights, privileges and duties are not parceled out on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Anything else is racist by definition.

“Two states for two Peoples” is a racist concept. It would only institutionalize the apartheid. “Ending the occupation” but “withdrawing to the 1967 borders” is a racist concept. It’s like calling for the Third Reich to withdraw to it’s 1939 borders. It doesn’t address the core of the problem. Israel itself is occupied territory. That’s the core of the problem.

And like the Third Reich before it, Israel is not just an entity in which racism is practiced, but an entity whose very existence is predicated on racism. In Israel, as in the Third Reich, inequality is institutionalized in the structure of the state, codified in it’s legal code, and ascertained primarily on the basis of ethnicity, and to a lesser extent on the basis of religion. If you are of the right ethnicity, you have more rights that you would if you were of any other ethnicity.

In the Third Reich, it was Aryans who were on top. In Israel, it is Jews. Even among Jews, there is a hierarchy based on ethnic subdivisions in the Jewish population. There are some exceptions, but in general, the Ashkenazi Jews lord it over the Sephardic, Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews and Native Peruvian converts.

This is not a democratic society. It goes through the motions of democracy, but it is not democratic, it is racist. In a democracy, everyone is equal, no matter what their ethnicity. This is not true in Israel. Ergo, Israel is not a democracy. Zionists will tell you otherwise, but they are lying through their teeth. Zionists lie a lot, and not just about democracy. They have to lie, because there is no honest defense of ethnic cleansing.

Make no mistake about it, ethnic cleansing is the source of this conflict. Ethnic cleansing is the heart, core and essence of what Zionism is all about. To be a Zionist is to either carry out ethnic cleansing personally, or support those who do. This is true of all Zionists, even the ones who are willing to settle for only doing it inside the 1967 borders.

Americans would never stand for being forced, literally at gunpoint, to live in a society where Jews had all the power, and everyone else was second class, or lower. This is exactly what the Jews of Palestine are forcing the rest of the people in Palestine to do. They are forcing them, literally at gunpoint, and Americans pay for the guns. Without American tax money, it could happen, at least not for very long.

But the tax money continues to flow. It continues to force upon the victims of Zionism a fate that no American would tolerate for themselves. This is more than a contradiction on the part of every American taxpayer, it is sheer and utter hypocrisy. No wonder we are hated.

If Americans were ever to be treated the way Zionists treat the rest of the people of Palestine, they would react exactly the same way the rest of the Palestinians are reacting. They would resist by any means necessary. For that matter, if Jews were ever to be treated the way Zionists treat the rest of the people of Palestine, they would react exactly the same way the rest of the Palestinians are reacting. They would resist by any means necessary.

Zionists treat the so called “Occupied Territories” like the Third Reich treated Occupied Poland. They bash their way in by force, steal everything they can, kill all who resist, and terrorize the rest. That is the Zionist way. Then they have the unmitigated gall to act surprised and self righteous when the people of the “Territories” rebel!?! Give me a break.

The Zionists know *exactly* what they are doing to the other Palestinians. They are not ignorant of history. It’s ethnic cleansing, plain and simple. That’s what it’s called. That’s what it is. And they know it, too. And their victims know it, and the world knows it, right along with them. The only people who don’t seem to know it, are the very ones who do the most to make it all possible, the American taxpayers.

There is no excuse for ethnic cleansing. That’s why the Zionists lie about it. They want you to *believe* they have an excuse. Don’t fall for it. They don’t have an excuse. There is no excuse to have. One does not exist. They’re guilty and they know it. The world knows it, too, and the world hates them for it. And the world hates us just as much, if not more, because we’re the ones that are making it possible. And we deserve to be hated. We’re guilty as they are.

And as long as we continue to be guilty, we will continue to hated. And as long as we continue to be hated, we will continue to be targets of the resistance. America’s complicity in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine makes every single one of us a target, you and your family, included. There is no sure defense against terrorist tactics. Our government can’t protect us. How many Americans will have to die, before the rest of us wise up, reject Zionism and stop giving the world a reason to want to kill us?

Time will tell.

In makes him an exact counter-ballance to the people who claim Palestinians dont exist and that Israel was a "land without a people for a people without a land"

Unfortunately, having extremes argue results in flamewars rather than ballance.

That slogan was correct in a factual sense: despite the current popular notion that a Palestinian people existed since the Arab imperial conquest in the 7th century, the early Zionists correctly posited that the Land of Israel a.k.a Palestine was a land without *a people*. They aspired to make it the land of the Jewish people, which, at the time, didn't have *a land*.

Of course people who refer to themselves and are internationally known as "Palestinians" exist.

See how CT seems to think that only the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were Palestinians? Seems like that's what he means. How typical of Zionist Jews.

Palestine has always been the home to many people of many races and creeds, that is until Zionist Jews came in with their completely exclusionary, supremacist version of Judaism they call Zionism, which is totally and vehemently rejected by many Torah true Jews, such as the Neturei Karta. http://www.nkusa.org, and even many so-called secular Jews who consider themselves anti-Zionists.

" Palestine has always been the home to many people of many races and creeds"

LOL!!! Many people of many races!!?? Oh you mean the various invaders and occupiers...other then that, Once islam started its expansion, invasion, occupation and colonization..."palestine" became nothing more then another islamic hellhole...
The once fertile land was destroyed by nomadic overgrazers...it wasn't until the establishment of Israel that the land became productive again...

For more info about Palestine-Israel before racist ethnocentric exclusionary murderous stealing Zionist Jews came to Palestine, check out http://www.cactus48.com

Name a country that doesnt have a population that is a mix of invaders and occupiers? China comes close but its rulership tended to be descendants of nonChinese invaders and if you go back far enough most of the population can trace some ancestry back to Turks and Mongolians. Its likely that most Palestinians have ancestors who were the preRoman invasion Jews (but after 2000 years just about everyone has ancestors who were proRoman invasion Jews).

South Africans used to use that exact same argument to justify aparthied (and the British used it to justify its African colonies and its occupation of India). Obviously when a wealthier, more technologically advanced population colonizers a poorer country there will be immediate technological advances. Does it make the people who came from the more technologically advanced country "better"? Does it justify denying basic rights in the West Bank and Gaza?

Windy Wendy: "Judaism is about EXCLUSION"

Not that Windy Wendy's an antisemite or anything.

@%<

islam: ""palestine" became nothing more then another islamic hellhole... "

This kind of bigotry helps no one.

@%<

She can't seem to help herself, so she picks a mendacious, inflammatory title and nym.

Campbell really needs to take her anti-Jewish blinders off. Only then would she be able to notice that while all the inhabitants of the Holy Land could have been considered until the State of Israel's creation "Palestinians" - and such a view certainly holds merit -, it was only the Jews among them who were considered Palestinian by the accepted definition up until Israel became independent.

I wasn't being elaborate in the statement she's complaining about, and there's a difference between lack of elaboration and deliberate omission. And yet Campbell seems to want to read into my statements what she wants to see in them. To add insult on injury, she issues yet another generalizing statement about Zionist Jews. She must be awfully proud.

>>>"Palestine has always been the home to many people of many races and creeds, that is until blah blah blah blah blah blah..."<<<

Yawn...

Nope. It's unlikely, because the vast majority of Jews worldwide never converted to Islam or Christianity.

The closest to Jews converting en masse to Islam was the prolonged conversion of Samaritans, predominantly imposed by the Muslim occupiers of the Land of Israel. Back at the beginning of the CE the Samaritans numbered several millions. Now they are only 600-700 strong. The Samaritan creed has many similarities to Judaism.

>>>"(but after 2000 years just about everyone has ancestors who were proRoman invasion Jews)."<<<

That's simply untrue. There are many tribes and peoples who do not have pre-Roman Jewish ancestors.

The last sentence should be "There are many tribes and peoples whose members do not have pre-Roman Jewish ancestors."

Dear Critical thinker,

you have me confused with some other poster. I did not label you an adl agent or anything else. I try to stick to the facts.

why don't people identify themselves and take responsibility for their words?Joe Webb

folks, I am not a right winger, i am a left social democrat who is sober about the history of communism, every communist gambit has failed utterly. time to wake up..like Perry Anderson , the brilliant editor of New Left Review, who awakened a few years ago. joe

Folks, thank you for a fair criticism.

When I say "Jews", as when other folks say Whites, or, Blacks, Asians, etc, I am referencing the general tendency of the class, in this case, Jews.

organized Jewry in the US is AIPAC and a couple hundred other Jewish organizations who line up , virtually 100%, with Israel.

Jewish Voice for Peace, etc do not include even 1% of Jews in the US. There is no significant Jewish voice for anti-zionism, etc.

Now there are great anti-zionist jews around like Jeff Blankfort, Steve Zeltzer, Barbara LUbin, etc. I even have a couple jewish friends left...having lost most of them due to these issues.

Then, there is the problem of Jewish domination on the left, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, a whole list could be stated, consistently elide, cover-up, avoid, etc, the bad news about Israel, neocons, jewish power, etc. One example, a few months ago Goodman had on her show a Nation magazine writer (name escapes me at the moment) who started talking about the neocons. She cut him off and stated that she wanted to talk about something else. standard for goodman.

Chomsky is a zionist, see page 39 of Fateful Triangle, refuses to talk about AIPAC, etc.

So, politically,"Jews" are a power bloc who have led (neocons) us into this war, dominate the left in part to keep the lid on Israel, and run the democratic party, (50% funding plus...Seymour Martin Lipset.)

The democratic party and the left has alienated white males so much that they now go Republican, about 75%. That is very dumb.

Joe

folks, free speech is an absolute. 12l5, Magna Carta, established that even the king is not above the law. We have been working on democracy for about a thousand years. Zionists have the absolute right to speak, as do anti-zionists, fascists, communists, even raw-foodists.

Please, why don't folks identify themselves and take responsibility for their words? Hiding behind anonymity is without dignity.

re my anti-communism, Fidel Castro , for example, has not learned the lesson of Magna Carta. The left is ridiculed...for good reason.

Joe

Joe Webb: "So, politically,"Jews" are a power bloc who have led (neocons) us into this war, dominate the left in part to keep the lid on Israel, and run the democratic party"

... and, after saying something like this, you wonder why you have lost most of your Jewish friends?

No wonder you and Wendy Campbell get along so well.

@%<

With "friends" like Zionazis and even "soft" Zionist J-ws, who needs them? We're not crying a beer over it, that's for sure, about "losing" "friends" like that. We go out of our way to "lose" them. We don't really want to hear their bullshit anymore.

At the same time, we do sincerely pray to God that Zionist Jews will see the light and renounce Zionism. We think it's in their best interests, as well as the world.

Windy Wendy: "We don't really want to hear their bullshit anymore."

Not that Windy Wendy's an antisemite or anything.

@%<

gehrig's an anti-semite (Palestinians are Semites) cuz he thinks that Jews and non-Jews, including the Semitic Palestinians, shouldn't have exactly equal rights in Palestine-Israel--- he thinks that Jews should have special privileges there, and even here in the USA, and that if you don't agree with him that Israel should be a Jewish supremacist state and that Jews should have special privileges even here in the USA, that you are a "nazi" and an "anti-Semite" and all kinds of nasty things.

Windy Wendy: "gehrig's an anti-semite"

* rolling eyes *

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you don't own a dictionary, or don't know how to use one if you do.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anti-Semitism

See anything ambiguous there? I don't.

Windy Wendy: "yammity yammity he thinks that Jews and non-Jews, including the Semitic Palestinians, shouldn't have exactly equal rights in Palestine-Israel yammity yammity"

Wrong again, Windy Wendy. I think they should have equal rights in the state of Palestine, and equal rights in the state of Israel. But the proposed Palestinian constitution calls for Palestine to be an officially Islamic state, and Hamas also wants Palestine to be an officially Islamic state. You don't seem to mind that, do you, Windy Wendy. Why the double standard against a Jewish state but for an Islamic state? Oh, that's right, you're an overt antisemite, that's right.

Windy Wendy: "yammity yammity yammity"

I don't call you an antisemite because you criticize Israel, Windy Wendy. I call you an antisemite because you hate the Jews.

Posted any good neo-Nazi URLs lately? Oh, that's right, you did it less than an hour ago.

@%<

OK then, it was W. Campbell who labeled me an ADL agent.

As for taking responsibility, you did lie about the definition of anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary. Why don't you take responsibility for that? Why don't you retract your previous accusation?