Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Accusations of anti-semitic chic are poisonous intellectual thuggery
If the past few weeks have demonstrated anything, it is the frequency with which allegations of anti-semitism surface in modern political debate. Ken Livingstone, the Church of England and The Guardian (over articles comparing Israel and apartheid) are the most recent to find themselves in the firing line. This is the backdrop against which an unofficial parliamentary inquiry on anti-semitism under former Foreign Office minister Denis McShane concludes its hearings in Westminster today.
A sober reflection on the nature of the problem is badly needed to take the sting out of the issue and establish groundrules that everyone can respect. But there is a suspicion that others have a different objective. In announcing the inquiry, John Mann, the MP who chairs the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism, said: "Anti-semitism is back in fashion and can be found on the streets of Islington, Aldershot and Bethnal Green." This is no random list: Bethnal Green is included because of its large Muslim population, Aldershot because it is where a Jewish cemetery was desecrated last year, and Islington because it is widely regarded as the spiritual home of Britain's leftwing intelligentsia. It is this last group that has become the target of particular vilification.
Variants of this theme have become common since the breakdown of the Middle East peace process, and especially since 9/11. The left is said to be in the grip of what the rightwing American columnist George Will has called an "anti-semitic chic". Instead of declaring its hatred of Jews openly, this new antisemitism is expressed indirectly through criticism of Israel or even opposition to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. A particularly meretricious version suggests that opposition to American foreign policy, or even criticism of neoconservatives, is really a coded form of anti-semitism.
This accusation isn't confined to the rough and tumble of the post-9/11 transatlantic debate, either. The normally measured Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has cited "a leftwing anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media" as one of the main sources of anti-semitism. He doesn't spell it out, but we all know who he means. The argument is not just that there are individuals who harbour anti-semitic views, but that something in the political culture or ideology of the left predisposes it to anti-semitism. This is said to be the real reason why it criticises Israel.
There is no shortage of examples, from Karl Marx to George Orwell, of prominent leftwing figures making offensive remarks about Jews. Instances of anti-capitalism spilling into "rich Jew" bigotry are also well documented. More recently, Tam Dalyell blamed government support for Israel on "a cabal of Jewish advisers" - comments that were deservedly condemned.
But these personal expressions of prejudice stand out precisely because they conflict so sharply with the left's universalism and its opposition to ethnic discrimination. A more sweeping charge is that this universalism is itself a source of anti-semitism since, in its maximalist interpretation, it denies Israel's right to be a Jewish state. But the few still calling for a single "secular, democratic state" in the whole of historic Palestine are making a statement about the inadmissibility of defining statehood according to religious or ethnic criteria that they apply as a universal norm. Impractical and idealistic this may be, but it is not anti-semitic, and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is.
In any case, this is a minority view on the left, and has been for a long time. Decolonisation forced the mainstream left to incorporate expressions of national and ethnic identity into its worldview. The reaction of the democratic left to Israel's creation was largely positive as a result. It helped that Israel was governed from the left, but the example of a persecuted people creating a successful, independent state inspired a profound admiration for Zionism.
So what changed? The answer is 1967 and Israel's subsequent emergence as a power determined to annex territory beyond its legally recognised borders. The unbearable truth is that the left that identifies with the Palestinians today is largely the same left that identified with Israel in the 50s and the 60s. Moreover, it does so for largely the same reason: instinctive sympathy for the underdog. For some, the idea that anyone could see the conflict in these terms is literally unthinkable, so they are forced to impute to Israel's critics the motive of Jew-hatred.
At best, this betrays a lack of empathy - at worst, something less forgivable. From Golda Meir's denial that the Palestinians existed to Ehud Barak's dismissal of them as congenital liars, there is a long tradition of prejudice that regards the Palestinians as lesser beings deserving of lesser rights.
A more subtle argument accepts that Israel is open to criticism, but complains that it is singled out to an extent that reveals an underlying anti-Jewish prejudice. Or to put it another way: "Others get away with it, so why can't Israel." Despite its cynicism, this argument deserves an answer, and it is provided, as it happens, by Israel's staunchest supporters. Israel, we are rightly reminded, is a democracy. Is it not legitimate, therefore, to expect it to uphold the democratic values we share in common? Far from being held to a higher standard, as its supporters often protest, Israel seems to operate with a greater impunity, and to do so with western acquiescence. This is the real reason why the issue is felt so deeply on the left and why unofficial boycotts are emerging to fill the moral void left by our feeble leaders.
A final objection takes issue with the left's supposed "demonisation" of Israel. Although often overdone, one suspects that comparisons with apartheid provoke anger because they contain an uncomfortable element of truth. More clear-cut are analogies with Nazi Germany. These should be deplored on grounds of both historical truth and taste. But are they anti-semitic as opposed to just plain obnoxious? Those who resort to them know they are bogus, but they understand their shock value and hope to shame and anger Israel and its supporters into modifying their behaviour. Indeed, as a debating tactic, it is indistinguishable from the one deployed by those levelling charges of anti-semitism against the left. They do it not because they believe it, but because they know the left takes its anti-racism seriously and is susceptible to this kind of blackmail. There has been enough of this intellectual thuggery on both sides, and it's time someone called a stop to it.
This is one way in which the report of the parliamentary inquiry could contribute something positive. Real anti-semitism is a serious and growing problem, and there is a need for political consensus about how to tackle it. But debate is poisoned and consensus becomes difficult when allegations of anti-semitism are bandied about for reasons that have nothing to do with fighting racism. An inquiry that wants to confront anti-semitism should also confront those who cheapen the term through reckless misuse.
David Clark is a former adviser to the British government.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4528.shtml
Variants of this theme have become common since the breakdown of the Middle East peace process, and especially since 9/11. The left is said to be in the grip of what the rightwing American columnist George Will has called an "anti-semitic chic". Instead of declaring its hatred of Jews openly, this new antisemitism is expressed indirectly through criticism of Israel or even opposition to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. A particularly meretricious version suggests that opposition to American foreign policy, or even criticism of neoconservatives, is really a coded form of anti-semitism.
This accusation isn't confined to the rough and tumble of the post-9/11 transatlantic debate, either. The normally measured Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has cited "a leftwing anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media" as one of the main sources of anti-semitism. He doesn't spell it out, but we all know who he means. The argument is not just that there are individuals who harbour anti-semitic views, but that something in the political culture or ideology of the left predisposes it to anti-semitism. This is said to be the real reason why it criticises Israel.
There is no shortage of examples, from Karl Marx to George Orwell, of prominent leftwing figures making offensive remarks about Jews. Instances of anti-capitalism spilling into "rich Jew" bigotry are also well documented. More recently, Tam Dalyell blamed government support for Israel on "a cabal of Jewish advisers" - comments that were deservedly condemned.
But these personal expressions of prejudice stand out precisely because they conflict so sharply with the left's universalism and its opposition to ethnic discrimination. A more sweeping charge is that this universalism is itself a source of anti-semitism since, in its maximalist interpretation, it denies Israel's right to be a Jewish state. But the few still calling for a single "secular, democratic state" in the whole of historic Palestine are making a statement about the inadmissibility of defining statehood according to religious or ethnic criteria that they apply as a universal norm. Impractical and idealistic this may be, but it is not anti-semitic, and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is.
In any case, this is a minority view on the left, and has been for a long time. Decolonisation forced the mainstream left to incorporate expressions of national and ethnic identity into its worldview. The reaction of the democratic left to Israel's creation was largely positive as a result. It helped that Israel was governed from the left, but the example of a persecuted people creating a successful, independent state inspired a profound admiration for Zionism.
So what changed? The answer is 1967 and Israel's subsequent emergence as a power determined to annex territory beyond its legally recognised borders. The unbearable truth is that the left that identifies with the Palestinians today is largely the same left that identified with Israel in the 50s and the 60s. Moreover, it does so for largely the same reason: instinctive sympathy for the underdog. For some, the idea that anyone could see the conflict in these terms is literally unthinkable, so they are forced to impute to Israel's critics the motive of Jew-hatred.
At best, this betrays a lack of empathy - at worst, something less forgivable. From Golda Meir's denial that the Palestinians existed to Ehud Barak's dismissal of them as congenital liars, there is a long tradition of prejudice that regards the Palestinians as lesser beings deserving of lesser rights.
A more subtle argument accepts that Israel is open to criticism, but complains that it is singled out to an extent that reveals an underlying anti-Jewish prejudice. Or to put it another way: "Others get away with it, so why can't Israel." Despite its cynicism, this argument deserves an answer, and it is provided, as it happens, by Israel's staunchest supporters. Israel, we are rightly reminded, is a democracy. Is it not legitimate, therefore, to expect it to uphold the democratic values we share in common? Far from being held to a higher standard, as its supporters often protest, Israel seems to operate with a greater impunity, and to do so with western acquiescence. This is the real reason why the issue is felt so deeply on the left and why unofficial boycotts are emerging to fill the moral void left by our feeble leaders.
A final objection takes issue with the left's supposed "demonisation" of Israel. Although often overdone, one suspects that comparisons with apartheid provoke anger because they contain an uncomfortable element of truth. More clear-cut are analogies with Nazi Germany. These should be deplored on grounds of both historical truth and taste. But are they anti-semitic as opposed to just plain obnoxious? Those who resort to them know they are bogus, but they understand their shock value and hope to shame and anger Israel and its supporters into modifying their behaviour. Indeed, as a debating tactic, it is indistinguishable from the one deployed by those levelling charges of anti-semitism against the left. They do it not because they believe it, but because they know the left takes its anti-racism seriously and is susceptible to this kind of blackmail. There has been enough of this intellectual thuggery on both sides, and it's time someone called a stop to it.
This is one way in which the report of the parliamentary inquiry could contribute something positive. Real anti-semitism is a serious and growing problem, and there is a need for political consensus about how to tackle it. But debate is poisoned and consensus becomes difficult when allegations of anti-semitism are bandied about for reasons that have nothing to do with fighting racism. An inquiry that wants to confront anti-semitism should also confront those who cheapen the term through reckless misuse.
David Clark is a former adviser to the British government.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4528.shtml
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"A more subtle argument accepts that Israel is open to criticism, but complains that it is singled out to an extent that reveals an underlying anti-Jewish prejudice. Or to put it another way: "Others get away with it, so why can't Israel." Despite its cynicism, this argument deserves an answer, and it is provided, as it happens, by Israel's staunchest supporters. Israel, we are rightly reminded, is a democracy. Is it not legitimate, therefore, to expect it to uphold the democratic values we share in common?"
PRECISELY --- this is a PERFECT example of the antisemitism which is being discussed. There is no subtlety involved.
The "Zionist" is NOT quite saying "Others get away with it, so why can't Israel." What the person acusing YOU of being motivated by anti-semitism is arguing is that by the very fact that you ONLY seem interested IF it's the Jews you are demonstrating that it can't be what they are doing but the fact that it's them.
You are misunderstanding the countercharge. Saying that "others do it" is NOT a defense for one's actions. But saying that "when others do it, you show no particular concern, but when I do it you do" IS evidence about YOUR motivations -- not MY actions but YOURS. When you are called "an antisemite" it is not because of what the Jews are doing but why you are doing what you are doing. Perhaps the confusion is one of terminology. You think the term "antisemite" means a person who hates Jews while at the same time bnelieving that they have no reason for this hatred, believe that they have no justification by which they could explain their hatred. NONSENSE. It means simply "hatred of Jews". I have never met an antisemite who did not claim to have some good reason for his or her hatred.
And sorry -- but giving as a reason "Israel is a democracy" IS no reason whatsoever. Democracy describes HOW decisions are made and is no guarantee that the decisions made will be good, just, moral, or have any of that sort of virtues. All democracy means is that whatever decisions were made, for good or ill, those were the decisions of the people and not something imposed upon them.
OK -- let's proceed from here. The queston is why, if acusations are being made by antisemites the Jews feel that THESE can and should be discounted. The reason is simple. There can be no satisfying of demands from that source. After all, they will always be doing SOMETHING which can be justly criticised (isn't everybody doing SOMETHING). In other words, there is NOTHING which Jews can do which will satisfy those ciriticising for motivations of anti-semitism << except presumably ceasing to exist >>
PRECISELY --- this is a PERFECT example of the antisemitism which is being discussed. There is no subtlety involved.
The "Zionist" is NOT quite saying "Others get away with it, so why can't Israel." What the person acusing YOU of being motivated by anti-semitism is arguing is that by the very fact that you ONLY seem interested IF it's the Jews you are demonstrating that it can't be what they are doing but the fact that it's them.
You are misunderstanding the countercharge. Saying that "others do it" is NOT a defense for one's actions. But saying that "when others do it, you show no particular concern, but when I do it you do" IS evidence about YOUR motivations -- not MY actions but YOURS. When you are called "an antisemite" it is not because of what the Jews are doing but why you are doing what you are doing. Perhaps the confusion is one of terminology. You think the term "antisemite" means a person who hates Jews while at the same time bnelieving that they have no reason for this hatred, believe that they have no justification by which they could explain their hatred. NONSENSE. It means simply "hatred of Jews". I have never met an antisemite who did not claim to have some good reason for his or her hatred.
And sorry -- but giving as a reason "Israel is a democracy" IS no reason whatsoever. Democracy describes HOW decisions are made and is no guarantee that the decisions made will be good, just, moral, or have any of that sort of virtues. All democracy means is that whatever decisions were made, for good or ill, those were the decisions of the people and not something imposed upon them.
OK -- let's proceed from here. The queston is why, if acusations are being made by antisemites the Jews feel that THESE can and should be discounted. The reason is simple. There can be no satisfying of demands from that source. After all, they will always be doing SOMETHING which can be justly criticised (isn't everybody doing SOMETHING). In other words, there is NOTHING which Jews can do which will satisfy those ciriticising for motivations of anti-semitism << except presumably ceasing to exist >>
Israel is hardly unique in it human rights violations but there are some unqiue aspects to the conflict that make people focus on it.
1. Israel gets more aid from the US to do what it does than most other countries
2. Israel engages in acts in the open (assasinations, collective punishment, development of nuclear weapons...) that other countries would feel the need to hide since Israel as an absolute guarante oif support for the sole world superpower
3. All criticism of Israel is reacted to defensively even when by human rights groups in the West
#3 is the one that is ciricular. People post to various Indymedia sites articles aboiut Darfur, Iraq, the Phillipines, Afghanistan but its only on the Israel topic that peopel in the US act so defensively. If Syria assasinates a leader in Lebanon its a crime (no questions asked) and a reason to punish Syria but when Israel assasinates political leaders one has defenders comming up with every excuse in the book as to why in certain cases extrajudicial executions are not only needed but are a good thing. CHina occupies tibet and people do focus on that in the Bay Area but aside from official defenses by the CHinese government I dont see a lot of peopel ready to make accusations and threats against anyone daring to post that the occupation of Tibet is bad. Russia is killing thousands in Chechnya and engaging in the murder of many civilians in numbers greater than one will probably ever seei nteh Israeli-Palestinian conflict and while you do get occassional one line responses equating caring about Chechen human rights with defending terrorism, you dont have the same level of antogonism against Amnesty INternational and Human RIghts watch by Russian nationalists as you do by Israel supporters when Israels actions in the West Bank are brought up. If Ken Livingston had told a reporter he was as bad as the butchers in Rwanda, it may have made the news but woulds have quickly been dismiessed as hyprbole and there wouldnt have been legal findings that he should be suspended. If a play was going to be put on in New York focusing on the Gujarat massacres in India, some Hindu nationalist groups would write news papers to complain but the play wouldnt get cancelled and you wouldnt have the NYT defending the decission to cancel the play because it didnt tell the BJP's side of the story.
You can ask over and over agains why Israel is singled out, while Israel gets to have nuclear weapons without threats by the UN, Israel gets to assasinate people (even in other countries) without investigations by international bodies, Israel gets to engage in an ocupation of a people in a way that makes it unlikely for the occupied to ever be free or get annexed, and Israel is able to dod all this with only complaints by fra left groups since when Amnesty or Human Rights Watch bring up the problems there is a huge outcry that "Israel is being singled out".
Iran is being singled out in its treatment for building nukes (since the US has allowed Pakistan, India, and Israel get nukes without threats and with continued US aid)
Syria is being singled out since the US and Israel have assasinated leaders in other countries (the US even assasinated the democratically elected Allende and probably also killed Lamumba.. Isreel has killed Hamas and Islaimc Jihad leaders in Syria and other countries using car bombs that have also killed bystanders...)
Venezuela and Haiti are being singled out since the US government and even much of the world press excused the overthrow of Aristide and the temporrary overthrow of Chavez in military coups despire both of their having been elected.
Pakistan is being singled out since the US not only defended the coup that brough Mushy to power but now refers to he rule of a dictator as demoractic. You could say its is letting Pakistan off the hook but its not, its singling out the Pakistani peopel as not being worthy of democracy.
Israel is not realy being singled out but what creates the intense focus on it in online debates is the false accustions of antiSemitism (that really betray those fighting against real antiSemitism)and the abundance of those willing tp spend every second of the day online to defend just about every action Israel takes and demonize people like Racheal Corrie who would be universally seen as heroic if she had done the same thing against government repression in any other country (how many remember the man who stood in front of the tanks in Tianamen square and how many defenders of China would try to post comments about how the guy almost looked like a pncake or was a naive idiot to every forum displaying his picture) If there seems to be irrational hatred towards defenders of Israel (with the name of such peopel getting equated rightly or wrongly with Zionists) you really have to look at the bahvrior of those defending Israel to understand why (even more so than Israels actual behavior)
1. Israel gets more aid from the US to do what it does than most other countries
2. Israel engages in acts in the open (assasinations, collective punishment, development of nuclear weapons...) that other countries would feel the need to hide since Israel as an absolute guarante oif support for the sole world superpower
3. All criticism of Israel is reacted to defensively even when by human rights groups in the West
#3 is the one that is ciricular. People post to various Indymedia sites articles aboiut Darfur, Iraq, the Phillipines, Afghanistan but its only on the Israel topic that peopel in the US act so defensively. If Syria assasinates a leader in Lebanon its a crime (no questions asked) and a reason to punish Syria but when Israel assasinates political leaders one has defenders comming up with every excuse in the book as to why in certain cases extrajudicial executions are not only needed but are a good thing. CHina occupies tibet and people do focus on that in the Bay Area but aside from official defenses by the CHinese government I dont see a lot of peopel ready to make accusations and threats against anyone daring to post that the occupation of Tibet is bad. Russia is killing thousands in Chechnya and engaging in the murder of many civilians in numbers greater than one will probably ever seei nteh Israeli-Palestinian conflict and while you do get occassional one line responses equating caring about Chechen human rights with defending terrorism, you dont have the same level of antogonism against Amnesty INternational and Human RIghts watch by Russian nationalists as you do by Israel supporters when Israels actions in the West Bank are brought up. If Ken Livingston had told a reporter he was as bad as the butchers in Rwanda, it may have made the news but woulds have quickly been dismiessed as hyprbole and there wouldnt have been legal findings that he should be suspended. If a play was going to be put on in New York focusing on the Gujarat massacres in India, some Hindu nationalist groups would write news papers to complain but the play wouldnt get cancelled and you wouldnt have the NYT defending the decission to cancel the play because it didnt tell the BJP's side of the story.
You can ask over and over agains why Israel is singled out, while Israel gets to have nuclear weapons without threats by the UN, Israel gets to assasinate people (even in other countries) without investigations by international bodies, Israel gets to engage in an ocupation of a people in a way that makes it unlikely for the occupied to ever be free or get annexed, and Israel is able to dod all this with only complaints by fra left groups since when Amnesty or Human Rights Watch bring up the problems there is a huge outcry that "Israel is being singled out".
Iran is being singled out in its treatment for building nukes (since the US has allowed Pakistan, India, and Israel get nukes without threats and with continued US aid)
Syria is being singled out since the US and Israel have assasinated leaders in other countries (the US even assasinated the democratically elected Allende and probably also killed Lamumba.. Isreel has killed Hamas and Islaimc Jihad leaders in Syria and other countries using car bombs that have also killed bystanders...)
Venezuela and Haiti are being singled out since the US government and even much of the world press excused the overthrow of Aristide and the temporrary overthrow of Chavez in military coups despire both of their having been elected.
Pakistan is being singled out since the US not only defended the coup that brough Mushy to power but now refers to he rule of a dictator as demoractic. You could say its is letting Pakistan off the hook but its not, its singling out the Pakistani peopel as not being worthy of democracy.
Israel is not realy being singled out but what creates the intense focus on it in online debates is the false accustions of antiSemitism (that really betray those fighting against real antiSemitism)and the abundance of those willing tp spend every second of the day online to defend just about every action Israel takes and demonize people like Racheal Corrie who would be universally seen as heroic if she had done the same thing against government repression in any other country (how many remember the man who stood in front of the tanks in Tianamen square and how many defenders of China would try to post comments about how the guy almost looked like a pncake or was a naive idiot to every forum displaying his picture) If there seems to be irrational hatred towards defenders of Israel (with the name of such peopel getting equated rightly or wrongly with Zionists) you really have to look at the bahvrior of those defending Israel to understand why (even more so than Israels actual behavior)
Um: Israel is hardly unique in it human rights violations but there are some unique aspects to the conflict that make people focus on it. All criticism of Israel is reacted to defensively even when by human rights groups in the West
No. If you actually read the posts, you'll find the Israeli government is widely criticized by many Zionist posters.
"All" is imprecise. Some criticism is indeed responded to defensively- particularly criticism that crosses the line into anti-semitism.
Um: People post to various Indymedia sites articles about Darfur, Iraq, the Phillipines, Afghanistan but its only on the Israel topic that peopel in the US act so defensively.
No. All of these issues have their controversy.
Um: If Syria assasinates a leader in Lebanon its a crime (no questions asked) and a reason to punish Syria but when Israel assasinates political leaders
Israel does not assassinate political leaders. Israel assassinates terrorists. If the PA had done their job, and arrested and tried the terrorists, it would not be necessary
Um: CHina occupies tibet and people do focus on that in the Bay Area but aside from official defenses by the CHinese government I dont see a lot of peopel ready to make accusations and threats against anyone daring to post that the occupation of Tibet is bad.
Welcome to Indybay. Here's what they say about Tibet.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1801565.php
"How is Americans trying to arbitrarily impose their values on a billion-member, millenia-old civilization, not the same old western imperialistic chauvinism, whatever the ideology in which it comes wrapped? Whine all you want about Tibet..."
"The Dalai Lama likes to tell this story differently because he's a skulking US-empire pet weasel, i.e. a pretty typical monarchist. When Mister "Wondrous Pacifist Enlightenment" reviewed the troops in '58, he bitched at them because they weren't efficient enough killers yet. This guy is one of the biggest frauds of the 20th century, and so are his politics..."
"The average American's understanding of China's invasion of Tibet is severely manipulated and just simply abysmal"
Um:Russia is killing thousands in Chechnya and engaging in the murder of many civilians in numbers greater than one will probably ever seei nteh Israeli-Palestinian conflict and while you do get occassional one line responses equating caring about Chechen human rights with defending terrorism, you dont have the same level of antogonism against Amnesty INternational and Human RIghts watch by Russian nationalists as you do by Israel supporters when Israels actions in the West Bank are brought up.
And why? Why is this topic garnering so much attention when worse atrocities go virtually ignored? Is it because Big oil has a vested interest in keeping this conflict on the front page? For years the blacks of South Sudan have been victims of an onslaught that has taken more than 400,000 million lives, and left over 2 million in exile. Colin Powell calls it "the worst human rights nightmare on the planet." Yet the papers are virtually silent. Why? Is it because Big Oil is gleefully pumping away at the oil deposits in Darfur, and they need to keep this issue silent?
Um... Israel is able to dod all this with only complaints by fra left groups since when Amnesty or Human Rights Watch bring up the problems there is a huge outcry that "Israel is being singled out".
How many reports have Human Rights watch done on Darfur? How many has AI done? Why isn't the publicity propotionate to the tragedy? Whats your theory?
Um: Iran is being singled out in its treatment for building nukes (since the US has allowed Pakistan, India, and Israel get nukes without threats and with continued US aid)
The president of Iran is a megomaniac. Iran warned the United States on Wednesday it could inflict "harm and pain" to match whatever punishment Washington persuaded the U.N. Security Council to dole out for Tehran's refusal to halt atomic research.
Um: Israel is not realy being singled out but what creates the intense focus on it in online debates is the false accustions of antiSemitism (that really betray those fighting against real antiSemitism)
All of Israel's defenders at Indybay are extremely cautious accusing anyone of anti-semitism. However there are anti-semites here. And defenders of anti-semites. We just call it where we see it.
Um: and the abundance of those willing tp spend every second of the day online to defend just about every action Israel takes and demonize people like Racheal Corrie....
Rachel Corrie is not demonized. She seemed like a sweet, albeit misguided girl who was taken advantage of by her handlers at the ISM, who regarded her as infinitely more useful in death than she was in life, and admitted as much.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1806689_comment.php#1806722 (thank you, Becky- its great to have you back)
"...ISM handlers, who overtly state they work directly with Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the PFLP, asked Rachel Corrie to retrieve a dead body from a closed military zone. Why didn't the Palestinians remove the body themselves? Perhaps because someone could get shot doing so, and it would be better if Rachel was dead than them.
Second, they assigned Rachel to protect a "well" located in the exact same area where underground tunnels deliver weapons and actual terrorists across the Egyptian border, and where air vents are often dug to service those tunnels."
Um: If there seems to be irrational hatred towards defenders of Israel (with the name of such peopel getting equated rightly or wrongly with Zionists) you really have to look at the bahvrior of those defending....
If there is irrational hatred , you need to look for the underlying pathology. And the answer lies with the accuser, not the acused.
No. If you actually read the posts, you'll find the Israeli government is widely criticized by many Zionist posters.
"All" is imprecise. Some criticism is indeed responded to defensively- particularly criticism that crosses the line into anti-semitism.
Um: People post to various Indymedia sites articles about Darfur, Iraq, the Phillipines, Afghanistan but its only on the Israel topic that peopel in the US act so defensively.
No. All of these issues have their controversy.
Um: If Syria assasinates a leader in Lebanon its a crime (no questions asked) and a reason to punish Syria but when Israel assasinates political leaders
Israel does not assassinate political leaders. Israel assassinates terrorists. If the PA had done their job, and arrested and tried the terrorists, it would not be necessary
Um: CHina occupies tibet and people do focus on that in the Bay Area but aside from official defenses by the CHinese government I dont see a lot of peopel ready to make accusations and threats against anyone daring to post that the occupation of Tibet is bad.
Welcome to Indybay. Here's what they say about Tibet.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1801565.php
"How is Americans trying to arbitrarily impose their values on a billion-member, millenia-old civilization, not the same old western imperialistic chauvinism, whatever the ideology in which it comes wrapped? Whine all you want about Tibet..."
"The Dalai Lama likes to tell this story differently because he's a skulking US-empire pet weasel, i.e. a pretty typical monarchist. When Mister "Wondrous Pacifist Enlightenment" reviewed the troops in '58, he bitched at them because they weren't efficient enough killers yet. This guy is one of the biggest frauds of the 20th century, and so are his politics..."
"The average American's understanding of China's invasion of Tibet is severely manipulated and just simply abysmal"
Um:Russia is killing thousands in Chechnya and engaging in the murder of many civilians in numbers greater than one will probably ever seei nteh Israeli-Palestinian conflict and while you do get occassional one line responses equating caring about Chechen human rights with defending terrorism, you dont have the same level of antogonism against Amnesty INternational and Human RIghts watch by Russian nationalists as you do by Israel supporters when Israels actions in the West Bank are brought up.
And why? Why is this topic garnering so much attention when worse atrocities go virtually ignored? Is it because Big oil has a vested interest in keeping this conflict on the front page? For years the blacks of South Sudan have been victims of an onslaught that has taken more than 400,000 million lives, and left over 2 million in exile. Colin Powell calls it "the worst human rights nightmare on the planet." Yet the papers are virtually silent. Why? Is it because Big Oil is gleefully pumping away at the oil deposits in Darfur, and they need to keep this issue silent?
Um... Israel is able to dod all this with only complaints by fra left groups since when Amnesty or Human Rights Watch bring up the problems there is a huge outcry that "Israel is being singled out".
How many reports have Human Rights watch done on Darfur? How many has AI done? Why isn't the publicity propotionate to the tragedy? Whats your theory?
Um: Iran is being singled out in its treatment for building nukes (since the US has allowed Pakistan, India, and Israel get nukes without threats and with continued US aid)
The president of Iran is a megomaniac. Iran warned the United States on Wednesday it could inflict "harm and pain" to match whatever punishment Washington persuaded the U.N. Security Council to dole out for Tehran's refusal to halt atomic research.
Um: Israel is not realy being singled out but what creates the intense focus on it in online debates is the false accustions of antiSemitism (that really betray those fighting against real antiSemitism)
All of Israel's defenders at Indybay are extremely cautious accusing anyone of anti-semitism. However there are anti-semites here. And defenders of anti-semites. We just call it where we see it.
Um: and the abundance of those willing tp spend every second of the day online to defend just about every action Israel takes and demonize people like Racheal Corrie....
Rachel Corrie is not demonized. She seemed like a sweet, albeit misguided girl who was taken advantage of by her handlers at the ISM, who regarded her as infinitely more useful in death than she was in life, and admitted as much.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1806689_comment.php#1806722 (thank you, Becky- its great to have you back)
"...ISM handlers, who overtly state they work directly with Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the PFLP, asked Rachel Corrie to retrieve a dead body from a closed military zone. Why didn't the Palestinians remove the body themselves? Perhaps because someone could get shot doing so, and it would be better if Rachel was dead than them.
Second, they assigned Rachel to protect a "well" located in the exact same area where underground tunnels deliver weapons and actual terrorists across the Egyptian border, and where air vents are often dug to service those tunnels."
Um: If there seems to be irrational hatred towards defenders of Israel (with the name of such peopel getting equated rightly or wrongly with Zionists) you really have to look at the bahvrior of those defending....
If there is irrational hatred , you need to look for the underlying pathology. And the answer lies with the accuser, not the acused.
It seems that this article is basically sayig that the Left deserves a 'pass" for its Anti-Semitism. If you don't like being called an anti-semite then stop your Jew hating behavior.
saying that criticizing israel is automatically anti-semetic is bull shit.
first off: i come from a jewish family!!! but that doesn't mean that i have to blindly accept that everything that israel does is wonderful and right! are there anti-semeites among the people who criticize israel? sure! but there are anti-semites among the people who SUPPORT israel too! they support israel because a)israel is fighting against muslims (who a lot of right-wingers hate even more!) b)if israel wins as a jewish state, they think that maybe all they jews will move there and they won't have to deal with us anymore! c)part of the book of revelations is that all the jews have to return to the promised land before the second coming of christ! that is why people like pat robertson 9not famous for his love of jews) support israel!
quite a few of the criticisms of israel, come out of israel itself! that includes most of the books written about israeli apartheid (which, if you actually look at israel, the palestinian territories, and the infrastructure that connects the jewish settlements, is a very accurate desciprtion), as well as forms of oppresion. the ISRAELI SUPREME COURT has described policies within the recognized boundaries of israel as "creeping apartheid"! that's not even addressing the territories!
as for people claiming that we're anti-semetic because we only criticize israel, that's bull shit too! i criticize every state, and every injustive worldwide, and so do most people who criticize israel. the fact that most israelis are jewish has nothing to do with it; the fact that the actions of the israeli state are illegal, unjust, undemocratic, vicious, and just plain wrong has EVERYTHING to do with it! i would criticize any state that did the same thing: jewish, white, black, christian, hindu, atheist, whatever! to most of us, it doesn't matter what race or religion the state comes from, it's about the actions.
in this case however, race/religion is brought into play because it is one of the important justifications used my those who SUPPORT israel. israel wants to be the "jewish state." how many supporters of this support "muslim states" or "christian states" ? the fact that this is completely descriminatory and undemocratic seems to slip past the supporters of israel. that is the only reason that it is brought up by people wh odon't supprt israel's policies.
claiming that if you criticize israel, you are anti-semetic is just as much bs as claiming that if you criticize america you "hate freedom". i know quite a few israel supporters who would laugh at the second claim, yet spew the first. it is astounding to me.
yet, people use this because it works. politicians and public figures are so scared of being called "anti-semetic" that they don't dare criticize israel. that is why supporters of the israeli apartheid state keep saying it, and until we're able to refute it quickly and easily, they'll keep saying it. but it will still be just a bunch of bull shit.
first off: i come from a jewish family!!! but that doesn't mean that i have to blindly accept that everything that israel does is wonderful and right! are there anti-semeites among the people who criticize israel? sure! but there are anti-semites among the people who SUPPORT israel too! they support israel because a)israel is fighting against muslims (who a lot of right-wingers hate even more!) b)if israel wins as a jewish state, they think that maybe all they jews will move there and they won't have to deal with us anymore! c)part of the book of revelations is that all the jews have to return to the promised land before the second coming of christ! that is why people like pat robertson 9not famous for his love of jews) support israel!
quite a few of the criticisms of israel, come out of israel itself! that includes most of the books written about israeli apartheid (which, if you actually look at israel, the palestinian territories, and the infrastructure that connects the jewish settlements, is a very accurate desciprtion), as well as forms of oppresion. the ISRAELI SUPREME COURT has described policies within the recognized boundaries of israel as "creeping apartheid"! that's not even addressing the territories!
as for people claiming that we're anti-semetic because we only criticize israel, that's bull shit too! i criticize every state, and every injustive worldwide, and so do most people who criticize israel. the fact that most israelis are jewish has nothing to do with it; the fact that the actions of the israeli state are illegal, unjust, undemocratic, vicious, and just plain wrong has EVERYTHING to do with it! i would criticize any state that did the same thing: jewish, white, black, christian, hindu, atheist, whatever! to most of us, it doesn't matter what race or religion the state comes from, it's about the actions.
in this case however, race/religion is brought into play because it is one of the important justifications used my those who SUPPORT israel. israel wants to be the "jewish state." how many supporters of this support "muslim states" or "christian states" ? the fact that this is completely descriminatory and undemocratic seems to slip past the supporters of israel. that is the only reason that it is brought up by people wh odon't supprt israel's policies.
claiming that if you criticize israel, you are anti-semetic is just as much bs as claiming that if you criticize america you "hate freedom". i know quite a few israel supporters who would laugh at the second claim, yet spew the first. it is astounding to me.
yet, people use this because it works. politicians and public figures are so scared of being called "anti-semetic" that they don't dare criticize israel. that is why supporters of the israeli apartheid state keep saying it, and until we're able to refute it quickly and easily, they'll keep saying it. but it will still be just a bunch of bull shit.
"saying that criticizing israel is automatically anti-semetic is bull shit. "
Who's said that? Please point to anyone in this thread who's said that.
@%<
Who's said that? Please point to anyone in this thread who's said that.
@%<
"but that doesn't mean that i have to blindly accept that everything that israel does is wonderful and right! "
While you're at it, who's telling you to blindy accept that everything that Israel does is wonderful and right?
@%<
While you're at it, who's telling you to blindy accept that everything that Israel does is wonderful and right?
@%<
Once more, with feeling:
It is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel. All Israels do it. Most American Jews do it. There are times , however, when criticism of Israel crosses the line into anti-semitism.
I find Natan Shransky's litmus test "3D's of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization " a useful model: Schransky says:
We must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.
*The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
*The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.
*The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism. "
It is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel. All Israels do it. Most American Jews do it. There are times , however, when criticism of Israel crosses the line into anti-semitism.
I find Natan Shransky's litmus test "3D's of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization " a useful model: Schransky says:
We must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.
*The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
*The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.
*The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism. "
>*The first "D" is the test of demonization.
Iran and N Korea are probably the most demonized countries in the media. Muslims are the main evil characters on action shows like 24 (they are often white lookig Muslims but they are portrayed as having little respect form women and having sex slaves. Chavez, Aristide, and even Chirac have been demonzed in the past few years. Chirac was compared to the VIchy government by Republicans which is similar to a Nazi comparison and the Bush PR machine has made very direct comparisons between Chavez and Nazis.
>*The second "D" is the test of double standards....the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored
There is a US embargo on Cuba and Syria and Iran are before the security council for their actions which were not very different from actions done by the US, India Pakistan and Israel (on nukes and assasinations...)
Cuba, Iran, and Syria are definitely singled out for special mistreatment by the US for actions done by other US allies (like China which does get let off the hook since without it US companies would make a lot less money)
You can get arrested in the US for spending money in Cuba and companies can face sanctions for doing business in Iran... yet somehow Israel is portrayed as being a country that is a victim and being singled out...why..because a small group of people without much power spend a lot of energy criticizing it? The group of people in the US who focus all their energy on Tibet and Taiwan is larger than those who focus on Israel (it really is, you just dont see them at antiwar protests much) but since some do focus on Israel that means that those poeple are unfair towards Israel (even though those who focus on Tibet and Taiwan are not being unfair for the focus even though it's similar case of focusing on a specific real problem since one cant focus on everything)
"When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored"
Israel may receive more condemnations but Security Council actions against Syria have been more severe as they probably will be in the case of Iran's nukes too (whereas the security council wont try to force actions over Isreali nukes). China has a veto so its not singled out for the same reason the US isnt (and the same reason the UN never actually acts against Israel even though it pays lipservice to the Palestinian plight).
"when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism."
well
"...Since its creation, Magen David Adom has been denied membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since it has refused to replace its red Star of David emblem with a red cross....Despite the continued lack of official recognition, since the mid 1990's, there has been extensive and growing co-operation between the MDA and the ICRC including, among other things, a USD$2.2 million expenditure on strengthening ties between the two organisations, the signing in 2004 of a two year co-operation statement, the permanent placement of an ICRC co-operation officer in MDA headquarters, and extensive support of the MDA's blood bank activities. In addition, there are bilateral cooperation agreements between MDA and a number of national Red Cross societies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magen_David_Adom
I dont really see antiSemitism in this although the name Red Cross is cleraly Christian and it wasnt until this year that they came up with a religiouslly neutral symbol that local subgroups coudl use...
"when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism. "
I dont quite get what "right to exist" means. Does Israel recognize the right for a Palestinians state to exist in the West Bank and Gaza? Does the US recognize Cuba's right to exist? Does Pakistan recognize India's right to exist in Kashmir? Does China recognzie Tibet's right to exist? Does Russia recognize Chechnya's right to exist? Do Basque seperatists recognize Spain's right to exist? Does everyone recognize Western Saharra's right to exist? Does China recognzie Taiwan's right to exist? Do Native Americans who feel their land was stolen recognize the US's right to exist on their stolen land? Do most Kurd's who want a seperate state recognize Turkey, Iran, and Iraq's right to exist with their current boundaries. Do most Israelis recognzie Hamas' right to exist?
Existance doesnt seem like something that really relates to rights. Much of the US was clearly stolen in violation of treaties but even though you could find a lot of people to accept that this is true, would saying that "Manifest Destiny"was racist and wasnt based off a "right" of the white colonizers to take the US West be the same as saying the US doesnt have a right to exist. I would bet that many Native Americans would refuse to sign a declaration declaring "the right of the US to exist" but would refusal to sign that signal a desire for genocide or merely a statement that Native Americans feel historically wronged. How is this different for Palestinians. Most Palestinians will probably never recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist but does this matter if one sees "right" as meaning that the founding of the state was morally right.
You may say that this isnt what "right to exist" means, but there really isnt any other clearcut meaning. Most Palestinians probably would acknowledge that a state of Israel exists and there is little chance of it not existing in the near future but when you ask is its current existance moral you end up with a question that still reflects on the history (ask a Native American or aboriginal Australian if the existance of the US or Australia is moral and you would be hard pressed as to what you are actually asking and what an answer of no would really mean).
Of course Hamas' charter does go farther and does include antiSemitic views but before their win who supported Hamas (Fatah definitely didnt support them when they had majority support) and after their win changes to the charter became negotiating chips that have little actual meaning. Why should it matter if Hamas recognizes Israel? If they do and still support bus bumbings isnt that worse than if they dont but stop supporting violence? If they dont but want to negotiate with Israel isnt that better than if they do but refuse to negotiate (and Israel doesnt seem to obviously recognzie the right for a Palestinians state to exist and also doesnt want to negotiate with the new government no matter what they do) I think demanding that Palestinians "recognize Israel" makes more sense since more Palestinians do already if you show them a map than most people in any other country aside from Israel itself (in the US due to a bad eductaion system I bet you would be hard pressed to find more than 10% who recognize Israel in this way). Sure Im sortof playing wordgames but so is anyone demanding Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" since the demand is essentially an effort to make Hamas say "uncle" and isnt really a demand that carries with it any substance.
But I've strayed a bit and your original point was to list signs that Western Leftists (ie people opposed to the Iraq war and on the bad side of Carl ROve) were antiSemitic for focusing exlcusively on Israel (as some focus exclusively on Tibet or Darfur) for demonzing Israel (as all countries that do bad things are demonzied by groups that focus on them) and for not recognizing "Israel's fundamental right to exist" ( do bicycles have a FUNDAMENTAL right to exist or do they only exist because we desire them to do so)
Iran and N Korea are probably the most demonized countries in the media. Muslims are the main evil characters on action shows like 24 (they are often white lookig Muslims but they are portrayed as having little respect form women and having sex slaves. Chavez, Aristide, and even Chirac have been demonzed in the past few years. Chirac was compared to the VIchy government by Republicans which is similar to a Nazi comparison and the Bush PR machine has made very direct comparisons between Chavez and Nazis.
>*The second "D" is the test of double standards....the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored
There is a US embargo on Cuba and Syria and Iran are before the security council for their actions which were not very different from actions done by the US, India Pakistan and Israel (on nukes and assasinations...)
Cuba, Iran, and Syria are definitely singled out for special mistreatment by the US for actions done by other US allies (like China which does get let off the hook since without it US companies would make a lot less money)
You can get arrested in the US for spending money in Cuba and companies can face sanctions for doing business in Iran... yet somehow Israel is portrayed as being a country that is a victim and being singled out...why..because a small group of people without much power spend a lot of energy criticizing it? The group of people in the US who focus all their energy on Tibet and Taiwan is larger than those who focus on Israel (it really is, you just dont see them at antiwar protests much) but since some do focus on Israel that means that those poeple are unfair towards Israel (even though those who focus on Tibet and Taiwan are not being unfair for the focus even though it's similar case of focusing on a specific real problem since one cant focus on everything)
"When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored"
Israel may receive more condemnations but Security Council actions against Syria have been more severe as they probably will be in the case of Iran's nukes too (whereas the security council wont try to force actions over Isreali nukes). China has a veto so its not singled out for the same reason the US isnt (and the same reason the UN never actually acts against Israel even though it pays lipservice to the Palestinian plight).
"when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism."
well
"...Since its creation, Magen David Adom has been denied membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since it has refused to replace its red Star of David emblem with a red cross....Despite the continued lack of official recognition, since the mid 1990's, there has been extensive and growing co-operation between the MDA and the ICRC including, among other things, a USD$2.2 million expenditure on strengthening ties between the two organisations, the signing in 2004 of a two year co-operation statement, the permanent placement of an ICRC co-operation officer in MDA headquarters, and extensive support of the MDA's blood bank activities. In addition, there are bilateral cooperation agreements between MDA and a number of national Red Cross societies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magen_David_Adom
I dont really see antiSemitism in this although the name Red Cross is cleraly Christian and it wasnt until this year that they came up with a religiouslly neutral symbol that local subgroups coudl use...
"when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism. "
I dont quite get what "right to exist" means. Does Israel recognize the right for a Palestinians state to exist in the West Bank and Gaza? Does the US recognize Cuba's right to exist? Does Pakistan recognize India's right to exist in Kashmir? Does China recognzie Tibet's right to exist? Does Russia recognize Chechnya's right to exist? Do Basque seperatists recognize Spain's right to exist? Does everyone recognize Western Saharra's right to exist? Does China recognzie Taiwan's right to exist? Do Native Americans who feel their land was stolen recognize the US's right to exist on their stolen land? Do most Kurd's who want a seperate state recognize Turkey, Iran, and Iraq's right to exist with their current boundaries. Do most Israelis recognzie Hamas' right to exist?
Existance doesnt seem like something that really relates to rights. Much of the US was clearly stolen in violation of treaties but even though you could find a lot of people to accept that this is true, would saying that "Manifest Destiny"was racist and wasnt based off a "right" of the white colonizers to take the US West be the same as saying the US doesnt have a right to exist. I would bet that many Native Americans would refuse to sign a declaration declaring "the right of the US to exist" but would refusal to sign that signal a desire for genocide or merely a statement that Native Americans feel historically wronged. How is this different for Palestinians. Most Palestinians will probably never recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist but does this matter if one sees "right" as meaning that the founding of the state was morally right.
You may say that this isnt what "right to exist" means, but there really isnt any other clearcut meaning. Most Palestinians probably would acknowledge that a state of Israel exists and there is little chance of it not existing in the near future but when you ask is its current existance moral you end up with a question that still reflects on the history (ask a Native American or aboriginal Australian if the existance of the US or Australia is moral and you would be hard pressed as to what you are actually asking and what an answer of no would really mean).
Of course Hamas' charter does go farther and does include antiSemitic views but before their win who supported Hamas (Fatah definitely didnt support them when they had majority support) and after their win changes to the charter became negotiating chips that have little actual meaning. Why should it matter if Hamas recognizes Israel? If they do and still support bus bumbings isnt that worse than if they dont but stop supporting violence? If they dont but want to negotiate with Israel isnt that better than if they do but refuse to negotiate (and Israel doesnt seem to obviously recognzie the right for a Palestinians state to exist and also doesnt want to negotiate with the new government no matter what they do) I think demanding that Palestinians "recognize Israel" makes more sense since more Palestinians do already if you show them a map than most people in any other country aside from Israel itself (in the US due to a bad eductaion system I bet you would be hard pressed to find more than 10% who recognize Israel in this way). Sure Im sortof playing wordgames but so is anyone demanding Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" since the demand is essentially an effort to make Hamas say "uncle" and isnt really a demand that carries with it any substance.
But I've strayed a bit and your original point was to list signs that Western Leftists (ie people opposed to the Iraq war and on the bad side of Carl ROve) were antiSemitic for focusing exlcusively on Israel (as some focus exclusively on Tibet or Darfur) for demonzing Israel (as all countries that do bad things are demonzied by groups that focus on them) and for not recognizing "Israel's fundamental right to exist" ( do bicycles have a FUNDAMENTAL right to exist or do they only exist because we desire them to do so)
The state prosecution is distancing itself from comments from a state attorney this week that two human rights organizations are serving interests that undermine the existence of the State of Israel.
"The comments of the attorney reflect neither the prosecution's position nor the position of the state, and were not authorized ahead of time and certainly not retroactively," State Prosecutor Eran Shendar said in a letter Wednesday.
Shendar's letter came in the wake of a Haaretz report published on Tuesday that quoted attorney Nira Mashriki of the Tel Aviv prosecutor's office as saying in an official statement that HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual and B'Tselem - Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories work for interests that "besmirch" the state and its security forces, and "cause it damage in the world."
The report caused a storm in the Justice Ministry and generated protests from HaMoked and B'Tselem. In addition, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz-Yachad) asked Shendar and the attorney general to bring Mashriki before a disciplinary hearing. As of press time, the prosecution has decided not to do so, but has begun an urgent inquiry into the matter.
"The state's position has been and continues to be that HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual and the B'Tselem organization are human rights organizations," Shendar wrote to ACRI legal adviser Dan Yakir.
Shendar's assistant, attorney Elad Rosental, said the prosecution planned to issue a revised version of the statement Mashriki had written and was submitted to the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court in reference to a lawsuit brought by an East Jerusalem resident against the state. He said the "inappropriate" comments would be excised.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/692172.html
"The comments of the attorney reflect neither the prosecution's position nor the position of the state, and were not authorized ahead of time and certainly not retroactively," State Prosecutor Eran Shendar said in a letter Wednesday.
Shendar's letter came in the wake of a Haaretz report published on Tuesday that quoted attorney Nira Mashriki of the Tel Aviv prosecutor's office as saying in an official statement that HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual and B'Tselem - Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories work for interests that "besmirch" the state and its security forces, and "cause it damage in the world."
The report caused a storm in the Justice Ministry and generated protests from HaMoked and B'Tselem. In addition, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz-Yachad) asked Shendar and the attorney general to bring Mashriki before a disciplinary hearing. As of press time, the prosecution has decided not to do so, but has begun an urgent inquiry into the matter.
"The state's position has been and continues to be that HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual and the B'Tselem organization are human rights organizations," Shendar wrote to ACRI legal adviser Dan Yakir.
Shendar's assistant, attorney Elad Rosental, said the prosecution planned to issue a revised version of the statement Mashriki had written and was submitted to the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court in reference to a lawsuit brought by an East Jerusalem resident against the state. He said the "inappropriate" comments would be excised.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/692172.html
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Bigotry toward Muslims and Anti-Arab Racism Grow in US;
Dubai and the Quran
The constant drumbeat of hatred toward Muslims and Arabs on the American Right, on television and radio and in the press, has gradually had its effect. This according to a Washington Post poll. Even in the year after September 11, a majority of Americans respected Islam and Muslims, but powerful forces in US society are determined to change that, and are gradually succeeding. As they win, Bin Laden also wins, since his whole enterprise was to "sharpen the contradictions" and provoke a clash of civilizations.
Some 25% of Americans now say they personally are prejudiced against Muslims. And 33% think that Islam as a religion helps incite violence against non-Muslims, up from 14% after September 11.
The Bush administration policy is to continually insinuate that the Muslim world is the new Soviet Union and full of sinister forces that require the US to go to war against them. But at the same time, America has warm relations with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, etc., etc. When Saudi Arabia's then crown prince (now king) Abdullah came to the US, Bush brought him to the Crawford ranch, held hands with him and kissed him on each cheek.
This two-faced policy and self-contradictory rhetoric has contributed to growing hatred and bigotry toward Muslims in the US, which is no less worrisome than the hatred Jews faced in Europe in the 1920s. It is dangerous because of what it can become.
The subtext of bigotry and racism is what has blindsided the Bush administration with regard to the port deal for a company based in Dubai. Dubai is like the Fifth Avenue of the Middle East-- the place with the pricey shopping and the tall skyscrapers and the extravagant fashions. Dubai businessmen are no more likely to take over US ports and allow them to come to harm than US businessmen are. They want the deal in order to make money. Bush knows this very well. But since he has spent so much time fulminating against shadowy and sinister forces over there somewhere, he has spooked the American public and members of his own party.
The Big Lie eventually catches up with you.
The hatemongers are well known. Rupert Murdoch's Fox Cable News, Rush Limbaugh's radio program and its many clones, telebimbos like Ann Coulter, Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham, Congressmen like Tom Tancredo, and a slew of far rightwing Zionists who would vote for Netanyahu (or Kach) if they lived in Israel-- Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, David Horowitz, etc., etc. And finally, there are many Muslims who have an interest in whipping up anti-Islamic feeling. Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress helped maneuver the US into a war against Iraq with lies about a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection and illusory WMD. The dissident Islamic Marxist group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is now placing equally false stories about Iran in the Western press and retailing them to Congress and the Pentagon.
The hatemongers think that the American public is sort of like a big stupid dog, and you can fairly easily "sic" it on whoever you like. Just tell them that X people are intrinsically evil and that the US needs to go to war to protect itself from them. Then they turn around and blame those of us who don't want our country reduced to footsoldiers in someone else's greedy crusade for being "unpatriotic."
All human beings are the same. They all have the same emotions. All laugh when happy and weep when sad. There are no broad civilizations that produce radically different behavior in human beings. All are capable of violence. (Christians killed tens of millions in the course of the 20th century, far, far more than did Muslims). Few commit much violence except in war. You can walk around any place in Cairo at 1 am perfectly safely, but cannot do that everywhere safely in many major US cities, including the nation's capital, Washington, DC. Even the idea of Islam as a cultural world or civilization opposed to the Christian West is a false construct. Eastern Mediterranean honor cultures (Greece, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Syria) have more in common with each other across the Christian-Muslim divide than either has in common with Britain or the US. And, Muslim states don't make their alliances by religion. Egypt was allied with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, then switched to the US in the 1970s and until the present. Four of the five non-NATO allies of the US are Muslim countries. Turkey is even a full NATO ally and fought along side the US in the Korean War.
Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.
Quran 5:82 says (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell-- quite the opposite.
When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:
5:82. " . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: 'We are Christians.' That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud."
So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them "nearest in love" to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.
The tendency when reading the Quran is to read a word like "kafir" (infidel) as referring to all non-Muslims. But it is clear from a close study of the way the Quran uses the word that it refers to those who actively oppose and persecute Muslims. The word literally meant "ingrate" in ancient Arabic. So the polytheists ("mushrikun") who tried to wipe out Islam were the main referents of the word "infidel." Christians, as we see above, were mostly in a completely different category. The Christian Ethiopian monarch gave refuge to the Muslims at one point when things got hot in Mecca. The Quran does at one point speak of the "infidels" among the Jews and Christians (2:105: "those who committed kufr/infidelity from among the people of the Book.") But this verse only proves that it did not think they were all infidels, and it is probably referring to specific Jewish and Christian groups who joined with the Meccans in trying to wipe out the early Muslim community. (The Quran calls Jews and Christians "people of the book" because they have a monotheistic scripture).
People often also ask me about this verse:
[5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as friends; these are friends of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them.
This is actually not a good translation of the original, which has a very specific context. In the Arabia of Muhammad's time, it was possible for an individual to become an honorary member or "client" of a powerful tribe. But of course, if you did that you would be subordinating yourself politically to that tribe. The word used in Arabic here does not mean "friend." It means "political patron" (wali). What the Quran is trying to do is to discourage stray Muslims from subordinating themselves to Christian or Jewish tribes that might in turn ally with pagan Mecca, or in any case might have interests at odds with those of the general Muslim community.
So the verse actually says:
[5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as tribal patrons; these are tribal patrons of one another. Those among you who become clients of these belong with them
Since the Quran considers Christians nearest in love to Muslims, it obviously does not have an objection to friendship between the two. But apparently now it is some Christians who have that hateful attitude, of no friendship with "infidels."
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/bigotry-toward-muslims-and-anti-arab.html
Bigotry toward Muslims and Anti-Arab Racism Grow in US;
Dubai and the Quran
The constant drumbeat of hatred toward Muslims and Arabs on the American Right, on television and radio and in the press, has gradually had its effect. This according to a Washington Post poll. Even in the year after September 11, a majority of Americans respected Islam and Muslims, but powerful forces in US society are determined to change that, and are gradually succeeding. As they win, Bin Laden also wins, since his whole enterprise was to "sharpen the contradictions" and provoke a clash of civilizations.
Some 25% of Americans now say they personally are prejudiced against Muslims. And 33% think that Islam as a religion helps incite violence against non-Muslims, up from 14% after September 11.
The Bush administration policy is to continually insinuate that the Muslim world is the new Soviet Union and full of sinister forces that require the US to go to war against them. But at the same time, America has warm relations with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, etc., etc. When Saudi Arabia's then crown prince (now king) Abdullah came to the US, Bush brought him to the Crawford ranch, held hands with him and kissed him on each cheek.
This two-faced policy and self-contradictory rhetoric has contributed to growing hatred and bigotry toward Muslims in the US, which is no less worrisome than the hatred Jews faced in Europe in the 1920s. It is dangerous because of what it can become.
The subtext of bigotry and racism is what has blindsided the Bush administration with regard to the port deal for a company based in Dubai. Dubai is like the Fifth Avenue of the Middle East-- the place with the pricey shopping and the tall skyscrapers and the extravagant fashions. Dubai businessmen are no more likely to take over US ports and allow them to come to harm than US businessmen are. They want the deal in order to make money. Bush knows this very well. But since he has spent so much time fulminating against shadowy and sinister forces over there somewhere, he has spooked the American public and members of his own party.
The Big Lie eventually catches up with you.
The hatemongers are well known. Rupert Murdoch's Fox Cable News, Rush Limbaugh's radio program and its many clones, telebimbos like Ann Coulter, Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham, Congressmen like Tom Tancredo, and a slew of far rightwing Zionists who would vote for Netanyahu (or Kach) if they lived in Israel-- Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, David Horowitz, etc., etc. And finally, there are many Muslims who have an interest in whipping up anti-Islamic feeling. Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress helped maneuver the US into a war against Iraq with lies about a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection and illusory WMD. The dissident Islamic Marxist group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is now placing equally false stories about Iran in the Western press and retailing them to Congress and the Pentagon.
The hatemongers think that the American public is sort of like a big stupid dog, and you can fairly easily "sic" it on whoever you like. Just tell them that X people are intrinsically evil and that the US needs to go to war to protect itself from them. Then they turn around and blame those of us who don't want our country reduced to footsoldiers in someone else's greedy crusade for being "unpatriotic."
All human beings are the same. They all have the same emotions. All laugh when happy and weep when sad. There are no broad civilizations that produce radically different behavior in human beings. All are capable of violence. (Christians killed tens of millions in the course of the 20th century, far, far more than did Muslims). Few commit much violence except in war. You can walk around any place in Cairo at 1 am perfectly safely, but cannot do that everywhere safely in many major US cities, including the nation's capital, Washington, DC. Even the idea of Islam as a cultural world or civilization opposed to the Christian West is a false construct. Eastern Mediterranean honor cultures (Greece, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Syria) have more in common with each other across the Christian-Muslim divide than either has in common with Britain or the US. And, Muslim states don't make their alliances by religion. Egypt was allied with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, then switched to the US in the 1970s and until the present. Four of the five non-NATO allies of the US are Muslim countries. Turkey is even a full NATO ally and fought along side the US in the Korean War.
Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.
Quran 5:82 says (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell-- quite the opposite.
When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:
5:82. " . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: 'We are Christians.' That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud."
So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them "nearest in love" to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.
The tendency when reading the Quran is to read a word like "kafir" (infidel) as referring to all non-Muslims. But it is clear from a close study of the way the Quran uses the word that it refers to those who actively oppose and persecute Muslims. The word literally meant "ingrate" in ancient Arabic. So the polytheists ("mushrikun") who tried to wipe out Islam were the main referents of the word "infidel." Christians, as we see above, were mostly in a completely different category. The Christian Ethiopian monarch gave refuge to the Muslims at one point when things got hot in Mecca. The Quran does at one point speak of the "infidels" among the Jews and Christians (2:105: "those who committed kufr/infidelity from among the people of the Book.") But this verse only proves that it did not think they were all infidels, and it is probably referring to specific Jewish and Christian groups who joined with the Meccans in trying to wipe out the early Muslim community. (The Quran calls Jews and Christians "people of the book" because they have a monotheistic scripture).
People often also ask me about this verse:
[5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as friends; these are friends of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them.
This is actually not a good translation of the original, which has a very specific context. In the Arabia of Muhammad's time, it was possible for an individual to become an honorary member or "client" of a powerful tribe. But of course, if you did that you would be subordinating yourself politically to that tribe. The word used in Arabic here does not mean "friend." It means "political patron" (wali). What the Quran is trying to do is to discourage stray Muslims from subordinating themselves to Christian or Jewish tribes that might in turn ally with pagan Mecca, or in any case might have interests at odds with those of the general Muslim community.
So the verse actually says:
[5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as tribal patrons; these are tribal patrons of one another. Those among you who become clients of these belong with them
Since the Quran considers Christians nearest in love to Muslims, it obviously does not have an objection to friendship between the two. But apparently now it is some Christians who have that hateful attitude, of no friendship with "infidels."
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/bigotry-toward-muslims-and-anti-arab.html
In the top story about Iran right now on the BBC you can see the 3 Ds that makes Rice's hatred for Iran antiSemitic (or more acurately the equivalent against Muslims)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4790352.stm
Demonization:
"central banker for terrorism"
Double standard
"Ms Rice said Iran seemed determined "to develop a nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community"."
(while there has been no similar outcry over India, Pakistan or Israel getting nuclear weapons in the last decade and India/Pakistan have fought large scale wars with each other in the recent past)
The third "D" is the test of delegitimization:
You don't see it directly in the article but its hinted at when RIce refers to the Iranian opposition since its no secret that the US not oinly wants to overthrow the government of Iran but wants to make it a secular state rather than an Islamic state
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4790352.stm
Demonization:
"central banker for terrorism"
Double standard
"Ms Rice said Iran seemed determined "to develop a nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community"."
(while there has been no similar outcry over India, Pakistan or Israel getting nuclear weapons in the last decade and India/Pakistan have fought large scale wars with each other in the recent past)
The third "D" is the test of delegitimization:
You don't see it directly in the article but its hinted at when RIce refers to the Iranian opposition since its no secret that the US not oinly wants to overthrow the government of Iran but wants to make it a secular state rather than an Islamic state
"Why is this topic garnering so much attention when worse atrocities go virtually ignored? Is it because Big oil has a vested interest in keeping this conflict on the front page? For years the blacks of South Sudan have been victims of an onslaught that has taken more than 400,000 million lives, and left over 2 million in exile. Colin Powell calls it "the worst human rights nightmare on the planet." Yet the papers are virtually silent. Why? Is it because Big Oil is gleefully pumping away at the oil deposits in Darfur, and they need to keep this issue silent?"
Because you are willing to defend Israel and nobody defends Sudan.
With the US in Iraq and the world facing conflicts everywhere due to the hatred the US war in Iraq generated nobody really has the energy to send in troops in S Sudan and a war by Western powers in an Arab/Islamic area its not 100% obvous that sending in troops would save that many lives.
A lack of focus on Sudan reflects a knowledge that the problemn cant be resolved through diplomatic means (since Sudan as a whole is so poor international pressure and boycotts would be meaningless and work even less effectively than the current ones against Burma)
You can hold a rally at your school about Darfur (as there have been at both UCB and Stanford in the last year) but its not clear who such protests are really aimed at pressuring since unlike in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one doesnt have a proSudan lobby that one must overcome to change US poilcy (the current inaction is mainly because there isnt anything obvious the US can do that wont risk escalation and the US doesnt have the troop resources to have an Iraq sized conflict in N Africa right now)
The Israel-Palestine conflict is different. If you hold a rally for the plight of the Palestinians you get proIsrael people showing up calling Palestinians animals, saying peacekeepers like Racheal Corrie were terrorist lovers (read racist whites yelling n**r lover at freedom riders in the 1950s) and even proIsrael peopel dressed as suicide bombers in a stereotypical "black face" look one couldnt get away with when demonizing any other group without getting kicked off campus for a hate crime.
When you have this level of hatred obvious there is more talk, more posts online and even more rallies in reaction to rallies than in the case of something like Darfur where you are very unlike to ever see one counterprotester making fun of the victims or celebrating when humanitarian aid workers get killed.
While people falsely accuse Palestinian protesters of being antiSemitic for complaining about occupation, one actually does wonder if Tia and others are not antiArab for their focus on Darfur. The Darfur conflict is real and most proetests on campuses are real but it seems to be used like a pawn in forums like this with peopel using it to defend Israel without really proposing anything to solve the conflict (its reasonably clear that the US Left isnt whats holding up action on Darfur so why is it used to attack the Left when the inaction is comming from the same people in power who generally support Israel over the Palestinians). There is also a hint of racism in the usual way Darfur is described since both sides look the same and the Janjaweed and their victims are both really local groups (like Rwanda) where generalizations of the conflict to being about evil Muslim Arabs attacking innocent nonArab Christians is partly an invention of those using the conflict for other political ends and probably hurts the chances for the victims of Darfur from ever being saved (since by framing the conflict in an antiArab antiIslamic context, support for a crackdown on the Janjaweed by nieghboring governments becomes much harder than if it was just portrayed as being specific to Sudan and not part of the Wests war to save trhe world from Arabs and Musllims)
Its strange how even a sigle article can at the same time describe the conflict as Muslism Arab vs nonMuslim African and then mention
"Both groups are dark-skinned and Muslim, and have intermarried for centuries. Ethnic identities used to be much more blurred, but leaders have exaggerated the differences since the late 1980s, when the militia campaigns began."
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/11198858462.htm
Arab I guess mean language not ethnic background and the victims are mainly Muslims but thats not usually pointed out since it makes the whole "Muslisms are engaged in genocide thing" sound about as racist as someone demonizing all Africans for the genocide in Rwanda.
Of course one can alternatively look at the huge war that took place last decade in the DRC (and of course Rwanda) and see how the world ignored millions of deaths because it wasnt part of some larger conflict, but it is still a bit troubling when people reframe the genocide for their own political agendas without appearing to really care about the victims of the genocide.
Because you are willing to defend Israel and nobody defends Sudan.
With the US in Iraq and the world facing conflicts everywhere due to the hatred the US war in Iraq generated nobody really has the energy to send in troops in S Sudan and a war by Western powers in an Arab/Islamic area its not 100% obvous that sending in troops would save that many lives.
A lack of focus on Sudan reflects a knowledge that the problemn cant be resolved through diplomatic means (since Sudan as a whole is so poor international pressure and boycotts would be meaningless and work even less effectively than the current ones against Burma)
You can hold a rally at your school about Darfur (as there have been at both UCB and Stanford in the last year) but its not clear who such protests are really aimed at pressuring since unlike in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one doesnt have a proSudan lobby that one must overcome to change US poilcy (the current inaction is mainly because there isnt anything obvious the US can do that wont risk escalation and the US doesnt have the troop resources to have an Iraq sized conflict in N Africa right now)
The Israel-Palestine conflict is different. If you hold a rally for the plight of the Palestinians you get proIsrael people showing up calling Palestinians animals, saying peacekeepers like Racheal Corrie were terrorist lovers (read racist whites yelling n**r lover at freedom riders in the 1950s) and even proIsrael peopel dressed as suicide bombers in a stereotypical "black face" look one couldnt get away with when demonizing any other group without getting kicked off campus for a hate crime.
When you have this level of hatred obvious there is more talk, more posts online and even more rallies in reaction to rallies than in the case of something like Darfur where you are very unlike to ever see one counterprotester making fun of the victims or celebrating when humanitarian aid workers get killed.
While people falsely accuse Palestinian protesters of being antiSemitic for complaining about occupation, one actually does wonder if Tia and others are not antiArab for their focus on Darfur. The Darfur conflict is real and most proetests on campuses are real but it seems to be used like a pawn in forums like this with peopel using it to defend Israel without really proposing anything to solve the conflict (its reasonably clear that the US Left isnt whats holding up action on Darfur so why is it used to attack the Left when the inaction is comming from the same people in power who generally support Israel over the Palestinians). There is also a hint of racism in the usual way Darfur is described since both sides look the same and the Janjaweed and their victims are both really local groups (like Rwanda) where generalizations of the conflict to being about evil Muslim Arabs attacking innocent nonArab Christians is partly an invention of those using the conflict for other political ends and probably hurts the chances for the victims of Darfur from ever being saved (since by framing the conflict in an antiArab antiIslamic context, support for a crackdown on the Janjaweed by nieghboring governments becomes much harder than if it was just portrayed as being specific to Sudan and not part of the Wests war to save trhe world from Arabs and Musllims)
Its strange how even a sigle article can at the same time describe the conflict as Muslism Arab vs nonMuslim African and then mention
"Both groups are dark-skinned and Muslim, and have intermarried for centuries. Ethnic identities used to be much more blurred, but leaders have exaggerated the differences since the late 1980s, when the militia campaigns began."
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/11198858462.htm
Arab I guess mean language not ethnic background and the victims are mainly Muslims but thats not usually pointed out since it makes the whole "Muslisms are engaged in genocide thing" sound about as racist as someone demonizing all Africans for the genocide in Rwanda.
Of course one can alternatively look at the huge war that took place last decade in the DRC (and of course Rwanda) and see how the world ignored millions of deaths because it wasnt part of some larger conflict, but it is still a bit troubling when people reframe the genocide for their own political agendas without appearing to really care about the victims of the genocide.
Tia: "Why is this topic garnering so much attention when worse atrocities go virtually ignored? Is it because Big oil has a vested interest in keeping this conflict on the front page? For years the blacks of South Sudan have been victims of an onslaught that has taken more than 400,000 million lives, and left over 2 million in exile. Colin Powell calls it "the worst human rights nightmare on the planet." Yet the papers are virtually silent. Why? Is it because Big Oil is gleefully pumping away at the oil deposits in Darfur, and they need to keep this issue silent?"
Um: Because you are willing to defend Israel and nobody defends Sudan.
Tia: When comments were posted regarding Sudan at Indybay, posters were accused of creating a smokescreen to rationalize Israeli terrorism. We started posting the comments anonymously, and that worked just fine. The American Jewish Community is on the forefront of organizing aid for Sudan. Holocaust museums are publicizing it. The World Jewish Service is organizing action groups through synagogues and community centers. When we say never again, we mean it for everyone.
Um: With the US in Iraq and the world facing conflicts everywhere due to the hatred the US war in Iraq generated nobody really has the energy to send in troops in Sudan and a war by Western powers in an Arab/Islamic area its not 100% obvous that sending in troops would save that many lives.
Tia: There are Afrcan Union troops stationed in Dafur, but not enough. They are given orders to protect aid workers, not refugees.
Um: A lack of focus on Sudan reflects a knowledge that the problemn cant be resolved through diplomatic means (since Sudan as a whole is so poor international pressure and boycotts would be meaningless and work even less effectively than the current ones against Burma)
Tia: In the meanwhile, China is happily pumping out Darfurs' oil, and is vetoing any Security Council resolution to step up aid or intervention.
Um: You can hold a rally at your school about Darfur (as there have been at both UCB and Stanford in the last year)
Tia: There was just a information session at UCB yesterday.
Um: but its not clear who such protests are really aimed at pressuring since unlike in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one doesnt have a proSudan lobby that one must overcome to change US poilcy (the current inaction is mainly because there isnt anything obvious the US can do that wont risk escalation and the US doesnt have the troop resources to have an Iraq sized conflict in N Africa right now)
Tia: We can pressure Congress to increase funding to the African union soldiers so they can do their work- perhaps if funding is increased enough- they can begin protecting the refugees.
Um: The Israel-Palestine conflict is different. If you hold a rally for the plight of the Palestinians you get proIsrael people showing up calling Palestinians animals, saying peacekeepers like Racheal Corrie were terrorist lovers (read racist whites yelling n**r lover at freedom riders in the 1950s)
Tia: Have you ever gone to any of these rallys? I go to nearly all of them locally. We tell people if they bring any racist, sexist or offensive signs they are not welcome to march with us. We tell people to be polite. We make sure everyone is informed. If people act inappropriately, we call them on it. In Berkeley, when Netanyahu was scheduled to speak last year, he was physically prevented from doing so. When Daniel Pipes was scheduled to speak, he was rudely disrupted, over and over again. When Finklelstein, Pappe, and Weir were paraded through the Bay area over the last few months, we made no attempt to interfer. We went, sat patiently through their lies, and then asked intelligent questions. "Allison weir, do you feel it impacts your journalistic integrity to have your work used on former KKK head David Dukes website?". "80 % of the Palestian children killed in this conflict were older teengae boys. Do you feel this indicates the use of Palestinian children as child soldiers?". We did not interupt, interfer or threaten the speakers. Its not our way.
Um: and even proIsrael peopel dressed as suicide bombers in a stereotypical "black face" look one couldnt get away with when demonizing any other group without getting kicked off campus for a hate crime.
Tia: Black propaganda. At the Jeruslaem bus rally, the people dressed as suicide bombers and Hamas terrorists were not pro -Israel people. They screamed at us in Arabic. http://www.zombietime.com/bus_19_berkeley/ good pictures and videos of the rally- see for yourself.
Um: When you have this level of hatred obvious there is more talk, more posts online and even more rallies in reaction to rallies than in the case of something like Darfur where you are very unlike to ever see one counterprotester making fun of the victims or celebrating when humanitarian aid workers get killed.
Tia: The hatred isn't coming from the regular pro-Israel posters at Indybay, or from the pro- Israel people at the rallies. If you see this, point it out to me. I When Arafat was ill, the posters at this site were, by and large, respectful- check out the archives. When Sharon had his stroke, well, check it out for yourself....
Um: While people falsely accuse Palestinian protesters of being antiSemitic for complaining about occupation, one actually does wonder if Tia and others are not antiArab for their focus on Darfur.
Tia: I don't accuse people who support Palestinians of being anti-semitic, unless, of course, they are. There are regular posters on Indybay that are quite racist. They know who there are. Some don't even deny it anymore. When someone tells me to go back to Poland, that is a racist statement. When someone tells me Israel's security barrier causes considerable hardship for the Plaestinians, it is an invitation to a discussion. I don't consider myself anti- Arab or anti-Muslim. I am however, anti- fundamentalist.
No one is going to examine China's role in this conflict, because without the cheap merchandise that flows in from China filling the shelves of the WalMart near you, life as we know it would end. But we can do a helluva a lot more by providing humanitarian aid to the refugees- by fixing the wells that were destroyed by the militias, by re-unifying families, providing food, medicine, etc. For example (yes, I'm a girl scout leader), the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts provides job training for young refugees away from their families- and provides information on reproductive/womens health issues.
Um: Of course one can alternatively look at the huge war that took place last decade in the DRC (and of course Rwanda) and see how the world ignored millions of deaths because it wasnt part of some larger conflict, but it is still a bit troubling when people reframe the genocide for their own political agendas without appearing to really care about the victims of the genocide.
Tia: Thats not what we are doing here. According to Dennis Prager:
"The world is filled with evil, and young idealists like Rachel Corrie don't like it. Which is lovely. But they don't confront real evil because they know they will get hurt. That's one reason there are no "peace activists" or "human shields" confronting Islamic terror, North Korean totalitarianism, or Chinese Communist despotism.
So, what's an idealist to do if she refuses to confront real evil but wants to feel good about herself? Ironically, confront those who fight real evil. That's why Rachel Corrie and the millions marching to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq have never uttered a peep against Palestinian terror, Iraqi totalitarianism or North Korean gulags. "
I think he has a good point. I think some people are looking for a cause, but a safe one. ISM brings young people to Israel to protest the security barrier. Then, after a day of protest, they pat themselves on the back and all go out and go to the movies or to dinner or to an Internet cafe. Its activism without disomfort. Americans overall are selfish and lazy- they don't want to have to risk 10 days in Darfur eating millet gruel and getting shot at.
Um: Because you are willing to defend Israel and nobody defends Sudan.
Tia: When comments were posted regarding Sudan at Indybay, posters were accused of creating a smokescreen to rationalize Israeli terrorism. We started posting the comments anonymously, and that worked just fine. The American Jewish Community is on the forefront of organizing aid for Sudan. Holocaust museums are publicizing it. The World Jewish Service is organizing action groups through synagogues and community centers. When we say never again, we mean it for everyone.
Um: With the US in Iraq and the world facing conflicts everywhere due to the hatred the US war in Iraq generated nobody really has the energy to send in troops in Sudan and a war by Western powers in an Arab/Islamic area its not 100% obvous that sending in troops would save that many lives.
Tia: There are Afrcan Union troops stationed in Dafur, but not enough. They are given orders to protect aid workers, not refugees.
Um: A lack of focus on Sudan reflects a knowledge that the problemn cant be resolved through diplomatic means (since Sudan as a whole is so poor international pressure and boycotts would be meaningless and work even less effectively than the current ones against Burma)
Tia: In the meanwhile, China is happily pumping out Darfurs' oil, and is vetoing any Security Council resolution to step up aid or intervention.
Um: You can hold a rally at your school about Darfur (as there have been at both UCB and Stanford in the last year)
Tia: There was just a information session at UCB yesterday.
Um: but its not clear who such protests are really aimed at pressuring since unlike in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one doesnt have a proSudan lobby that one must overcome to change US poilcy (the current inaction is mainly because there isnt anything obvious the US can do that wont risk escalation and the US doesnt have the troop resources to have an Iraq sized conflict in N Africa right now)
Tia: We can pressure Congress to increase funding to the African union soldiers so they can do their work- perhaps if funding is increased enough- they can begin protecting the refugees.
Um: The Israel-Palestine conflict is different. If you hold a rally for the plight of the Palestinians you get proIsrael people showing up calling Palestinians animals, saying peacekeepers like Racheal Corrie were terrorist lovers (read racist whites yelling n**r lover at freedom riders in the 1950s)
Tia: Have you ever gone to any of these rallys? I go to nearly all of them locally. We tell people if they bring any racist, sexist or offensive signs they are not welcome to march with us. We tell people to be polite. We make sure everyone is informed. If people act inappropriately, we call them on it. In Berkeley, when Netanyahu was scheduled to speak last year, he was physically prevented from doing so. When Daniel Pipes was scheduled to speak, he was rudely disrupted, over and over again. When Finklelstein, Pappe, and Weir were paraded through the Bay area over the last few months, we made no attempt to interfer. We went, sat patiently through their lies, and then asked intelligent questions. "Allison weir, do you feel it impacts your journalistic integrity to have your work used on former KKK head David Dukes website?". "80 % of the Palestian children killed in this conflict were older teengae boys. Do you feel this indicates the use of Palestinian children as child soldiers?". We did not interupt, interfer or threaten the speakers. Its not our way.
Um: and even proIsrael peopel dressed as suicide bombers in a stereotypical "black face" look one couldnt get away with when demonizing any other group without getting kicked off campus for a hate crime.
Tia: Black propaganda. At the Jeruslaem bus rally, the people dressed as suicide bombers and Hamas terrorists were not pro -Israel people. They screamed at us in Arabic. http://www.zombietime.com/bus_19_berkeley/ good pictures and videos of the rally- see for yourself.
Um: When you have this level of hatred obvious there is more talk, more posts online and even more rallies in reaction to rallies than in the case of something like Darfur where you are very unlike to ever see one counterprotester making fun of the victims or celebrating when humanitarian aid workers get killed.
Tia: The hatred isn't coming from the regular pro-Israel posters at Indybay, or from the pro- Israel people at the rallies. If you see this, point it out to me. I When Arafat was ill, the posters at this site were, by and large, respectful- check out the archives. When Sharon had his stroke, well, check it out for yourself....
Um: While people falsely accuse Palestinian protesters of being antiSemitic for complaining about occupation, one actually does wonder if Tia and others are not antiArab for their focus on Darfur.
Tia: I don't accuse people who support Palestinians of being anti-semitic, unless, of course, they are. There are regular posters on Indybay that are quite racist. They know who there are. Some don't even deny it anymore. When someone tells me to go back to Poland, that is a racist statement. When someone tells me Israel's security barrier causes considerable hardship for the Plaestinians, it is an invitation to a discussion. I don't consider myself anti- Arab or anti-Muslim. I am however, anti- fundamentalist.
No one is going to examine China's role in this conflict, because without the cheap merchandise that flows in from China filling the shelves of the WalMart near you, life as we know it would end. But we can do a helluva a lot more by providing humanitarian aid to the refugees- by fixing the wells that were destroyed by the militias, by re-unifying families, providing food, medicine, etc. For example (yes, I'm a girl scout leader), the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts provides job training for young refugees away from their families- and provides information on reproductive/womens health issues.
Um: Of course one can alternatively look at the huge war that took place last decade in the DRC (and of course Rwanda) and see how the world ignored millions of deaths because it wasnt part of some larger conflict, but it is still a bit troubling when people reframe the genocide for their own political agendas without appearing to really care about the victims of the genocide.
Tia: Thats not what we are doing here. According to Dennis Prager:
"The world is filled with evil, and young idealists like Rachel Corrie don't like it. Which is lovely. But they don't confront real evil because they know they will get hurt. That's one reason there are no "peace activists" or "human shields" confronting Islamic terror, North Korean totalitarianism, or Chinese Communist despotism.
So, what's an idealist to do if she refuses to confront real evil but wants to feel good about herself? Ironically, confront those who fight real evil. That's why Rachel Corrie and the millions marching to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq have never uttered a peep against Palestinian terror, Iraqi totalitarianism or North Korean gulags. "
I think he has a good point. I think some people are looking for a cause, but a safe one. ISM brings young people to Israel to protest the security barrier. Then, after a day of protest, they pat themselves on the back and all go out and go to the movies or to dinner or to an Internet cafe. Its activism without disomfort. Americans overall are selfish and lazy- they don't want to have to risk 10 days in Darfur eating millet gruel and getting shot at.
"Tia: When comments were posted regarding Sudan at Indybay, posters were accused of creating a smokescreen to rationalize Israeli terrorism."
Thats true when its comments on posts about Palestine but not when there are actual posts (not comments) about Sudan.
"We started posting the comments anonymously"
So far the only real Sudan related posts I've seen were not your comments but some ones from students at Stanford who held a protest about Darfur. A comment on a Palestine related post about Sudan is clearly not about Sudan. You could as easilly have posted it on a post about local housing issues, animal rights issues, polution issues or drug war issues and ask why people focus on Sudan rather than those issues but you chose Palestine related posts.
"When we say never again, we mean it for everyone."
Everyone hates bad things. Hollocaust museums usually have ok politics compared to overtly proIsrael groups.
"Tia: There are Afrcan Union troops stationed in Dafur, but not enough. They are given orders to protect aid workers, not refugees."
Thats similar to a lot of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. I do wonder in this case if the reasons preventing real aid to the victims of genocide seems like it depends on local will not pressure from the West. When the US is hated as much as we are now I wonder how helpful protests here really pressure the people who need to be pressured.
"Tia: In the meanwhile, China is happily pumping out Darfurs' oil, and is vetoing any Security Council resolution to step up aid or intervention."
Yep, what can you do? Its like Tibet or Chechnya in that unless you are Chinese or Russian there really is nothing you can do, since they are powerful enough to be able to stand up to outside pressure and in both China and Russias case pressure from the West can easilly backfire (since standing up to the US is always a way to rally public support)
"Tia: There was just a information session at UCB yesterday."
Yep and its good to know people in the US care but how much can we actually do?
"Tia: We can pressure Congress to increase funding to the African union soldiers so they can do their work- perhaps if funding is increased enough- they can begin protecting the refugees."
Thats a thought and could work but since Sudan isnt going to allow any real intervention and after the war between all regional countries in the DRC last decade I wonder how easy it would be to get neutral peacekeeping without escalating the level of violence. Its already a genocide so it couldnt hurt to do something I guess. Neutral troops that cant be portrayed as enemies of Islam would be needed (since the world is in such a mess after Iraq and teh Danish cartoons EU or US troops probably wouldnt work). Maybe China could send peacekeepers... it would be a great PR move on their part....
"Tia: Have you ever gone to any of these rallys? I go to nearly all of them locally. We tell people if they bring any racist, sexist or offensive signs they are not welcome to march with us."
There are several levels of offensive signs. There are the Republican/Protest Warrior signs that are offensive since they are right wing, there are the veiled racist signs and then there are the overtly racist signs. The signs that the main groups (your group I guess) have the veiled racist ones. I think I saw a sign that said something like "If Palestinians loved their childern as much asd they hated.." one by one of the more mainstream groups and that could almost been seen as directly racist (since it suggests that unlike all other people Palestinians dont love their children). The overtly racist ones about mysogyny in the Arab world (which exists among most Arab men as it does among most men...if real rapes may have happened by a handful of African American men of white women that doesnt mean a sign saying "stop blacks from raping white women" isnt overtly racist)
Near the bottom of this post I found some examples of the signs I was talking about:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/06/1683383.php
"..when Netanyahu was scheduled to speak last year, he was physically prevented from doing so."
Netanyahu isnt exactly a mainstream politican. I wouldnt be surprised if many left-wing students in Israel wouldnt protest and prevent him from speaking at certain Israeli universities from reasons unrelated to the Palestinian conflict.
"When Daniel Pipes was scheduled to speak, he was rudely disrupted, over and over again."
I think the same people behind that weer the sam people who prevented David Irving from speaking at Berkeley a few years earlier. Pipes may ocassionally talk reasonably but hes pretty uch in the same league as Irving and David Duke when you read some of what he writes.
"When Finklelstein, Pappe, and Weir were paraded through the Bay area over the last few months"
Finklestein courts conflict and purposefully provokes (in a similar way to Pipes) to make points that dont have to be made in such a controversial manner. I thought Weir lives here and received death threats after speaking on campus...
"Tia: Black propaganda."
Is the guy in the following pic a fake:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2_racist.jpg
thats from the following post I just found:
https://www.indybay.org/news/2004/07/1689995.php
"Tia: The hatred isn't coming from the regular pro-Israel posters at Indybay, or from the pro- Israel people at the rallies. If you see this, point it out to me."
One poster seems to like calling Palestinians Palis (which may be racist since its sounds similar to a common racist British epither) and Becky has argued in defense of an Israeli takeover of the Temple Mount (which I think most Israelis would see as a crazy demand). There are a lot of racist antiArab and antiMuslims posts here but most dont use regular nicks do it could just be the same people who post racist things on every post about police brutality.
"I When Arafat was ill, the posters at this site were, by and large, respectful check out the archives. When Sharon had his stroke, well, check it out for yourself...."
Thats true. Its not true outside of this site where even Air America had a really tasteless skit on Al Frankens show (shich I admittedly still listen too) on the day Arafat died. Nobody ever gains politically by making fun of the dead or engaging in rude comments but I guess people get angry and do counterproductive things on both sides.
"Tia: I don't accuse people who support Palestinians of being anti-semitic, unless, of course, they are."
Thats a bit tautological. Im guessing you mean that you believe they are. Is Nessie or TW antiSemitic. Both seem crazy and obssessive but Im not sure if they are antiSemitic.
"There are regular posters on Indybay that are quite racist. They know who there are. Some don't even deny it anymore. When someone tells me to go back to Poland, that is a racist statement."
People can be nasty and Nessie and TW are pretty much insane and hate everyone who posst on this site. I'm also Jewish and my great-grandparents came from Ludtz; I dont mean to joke but you really should "go back" as a tourist sometime, my parents went and visisted one of the few remaining Synagogues which was surrounded by armed guards because antiSemitism there really still is that bad (unlike here or even in Iran which is safer for native Jews than most other Middle Eastern countries even though its obviously still pretty bad) Poland is beutiful and the food is surprisingly similar to what I always thought was Jewish food (at least in my family) and you can see a lot of Jewish history in Poland even if there are few Jewish Poles left.
"I am however, anti- fundamentalist."
The PA before Hamas wasnt fundamentalist. It was largely because of the undermining of Fatah by both Israel and the US that you ended up with Hamas (in the recent years I could see that this is a bit arguable but the rise of fundamentalism on the Middle East over most of the Cold War was largely due to the destruction of secular nationalist groups that were proUSSR that used to be the main opposition groups before they were largely destroyed by the late 80s leaving only Mosques as safe places to organize and fundmentalists as the main funders... to see a recent example of how this worked look at Chechnya where the Chechens were definitely not fundamentalist until after the 2nd Chechen war when Khattab came in from Jordan to support a struggle that had no chance of conventional success)
""The world is filled with evil, and young idealists like Rachel Corrie don't like it. Which is lovely. But they don't confront real evil because they know they will get hurt. That's one reason there are no "peace activists" or "human shields" confronting Islamic terror, North Korean totalitarianism, or Chinese Communist despotism."
Its interesting that his choice of evil countries are all evil countries that are at least nominally (in the case of China) enemies of the US. Protesting against the USSR during the Cold War would have obviously been counterproductive since the danger of the arms race and US PR against the USSR was so intense that this outweighed any real efect a protest here could have had on human rights abuses there.
Protesting Israel wouldnt be as dangerous as trying to get into China or Russia (or Burma) to protest but according to most journalist groups reporting on Gaza is one of the most dangerous jobs one can do. And with protests against Israel there is the obvious danger one faces in terms of smears when you do anything. Someone like Robert FIsk did amazingly objective and dangerous journalism from Lerbanon during the war there and it was only after all the threats and smears that he began editorializing against Israeli policy.
"That's why Rachel Corrie and the millions marching to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq have never uttered a peep against Palestinian terror, Iraqi totalitarianism or North Korean gulags. "
Are you trying to equate opposition to the Iraq war with support for Saddam?? Sure if you opposed the Iraq war you could have qualified your statements with statements denouncing Saddam but the effects of a US invasion being so obvious (which is why the largest protests in world history took place in the weeks before the US invasion) wouldnt qualifiying in that way just confiuse the message. A US invasion of N Korea would result in the death of millions in N and S Korea (and thats probably why it wont happen) but to equate opposition to a US invasion of N Korea with support of totalitarianism is just manipulative support for war rather than someting I can imagine anyone seriously believing.
"ISM brings young people to Israel to protest the security barrier. Then, after a day of protest, they pat themselves on the back and all go out and go to the movies or to dinner or to an Internet cafe."
Thats true of any activism but with 2 deaths, what the ISM was doing obviously invoved personal risk. Corrie knew the poeople in the house she was defending when she died and you can look at any of the reports Israel did on her death to see that the house didnt contain tunnels, guns or any such thing.
" Its activism without disomfort. Americans overall are selfish and lazy- they don't want to have to risk 10 days in Darfur eating millet gruel and getting shot at."
Im not sure if going to Darfur and eating their millet would save any lives. The problem is that armed groups are killing people and while going there involves risks right now it would seem a bit suicidal for something that couldnt result in much. As you mentioned earlier the need is for local peacekeepers or perhaps ones from countries less tied into the global conflict with Islam.
Thats true when its comments on posts about Palestine but not when there are actual posts (not comments) about Sudan.
"We started posting the comments anonymously"
So far the only real Sudan related posts I've seen were not your comments but some ones from students at Stanford who held a protest about Darfur. A comment on a Palestine related post about Sudan is clearly not about Sudan. You could as easilly have posted it on a post about local housing issues, animal rights issues, polution issues or drug war issues and ask why people focus on Sudan rather than those issues but you chose Palestine related posts.
"When we say never again, we mean it for everyone."
Everyone hates bad things. Hollocaust museums usually have ok politics compared to overtly proIsrael groups.
"Tia: There are Afrcan Union troops stationed in Dafur, but not enough. They are given orders to protect aid workers, not refugees."
Thats similar to a lot of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. I do wonder in this case if the reasons preventing real aid to the victims of genocide seems like it depends on local will not pressure from the West. When the US is hated as much as we are now I wonder how helpful protests here really pressure the people who need to be pressured.
"Tia: In the meanwhile, China is happily pumping out Darfurs' oil, and is vetoing any Security Council resolution to step up aid or intervention."
Yep, what can you do? Its like Tibet or Chechnya in that unless you are Chinese or Russian there really is nothing you can do, since they are powerful enough to be able to stand up to outside pressure and in both China and Russias case pressure from the West can easilly backfire (since standing up to the US is always a way to rally public support)
"Tia: There was just a information session at UCB yesterday."
Yep and its good to know people in the US care but how much can we actually do?
"Tia: We can pressure Congress to increase funding to the African union soldiers so they can do their work- perhaps if funding is increased enough- they can begin protecting the refugees."
Thats a thought and could work but since Sudan isnt going to allow any real intervention and after the war between all regional countries in the DRC last decade I wonder how easy it would be to get neutral peacekeeping without escalating the level of violence. Its already a genocide so it couldnt hurt to do something I guess. Neutral troops that cant be portrayed as enemies of Islam would be needed (since the world is in such a mess after Iraq and teh Danish cartoons EU or US troops probably wouldnt work). Maybe China could send peacekeepers... it would be a great PR move on their part....
"Tia: Have you ever gone to any of these rallys? I go to nearly all of them locally. We tell people if they bring any racist, sexist or offensive signs they are not welcome to march with us."
There are several levels of offensive signs. There are the Republican/Protest Warrior signs that are offensive since they are right wing, there are the veiled racist signs and then there are the overtly racist signs. The signs that the main groups (your group I guess) have the veiled racist ones. I think I saw a sign that said something like "If Palestinians loved their childern as much asd they hated.." one by one of the more mainstream groups and that could almost been seen as directly racist (since it suggests that unlike all other people Palestinians dont love their children). The overtly racist ones about mysogyny in the Arab world (which exists among most Arab men as it does among most men...if real rapes may have happened by a handful of African American men of white women that doesnt mean a sign saying "stop blacks from raping white women" isnt overtly racist)
Near the bottom of this post I found some examples of the signs I was talking about:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/06/1683383.php
"..when Netanyahu was scheduled to speak last year, he was physically prevented from doing so."
Netanyahu isnt exactly a mainstream politican. I wouldnt be surprised if many left-wing students in Israel wouldnt protest and prevent him from speaking at certain Israeli universities from reasons unrelated to the Palestinian conflict.
"When Daniel Pipes was scheduled to speak, he was rudely disrupted, over and over again."
I think the same people behind that weer the sam people who prevented David Irving from speaking at Berkeley a few years earlier. Pipes may ocassionally talk reasonably but hes pretty uch in the same league as Irving and David Duke when you read some of what he writes.
"When Finklelstein, Pappe, and Weir were paraded through the Bay area over the last few months"
Finklestein courts conflict and purposefully provokes (in a similar way to Pipes) to make points that dont have to be made in such a controversial manner. I thought Weir lives here and received death threats after speaking on campus...
"Tia: Black propaganda."
Is the guy in the following pic a fake:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2_racist.jpg
thats from the following post I just found:
https://www.indybay.org/news/2004/07/1689995.php
"Tia: The hatred isn't coming from the regular pro-Israel posters at Indybay, or from the pro- Israel people at the rallies. If you see this, point it out to me."
One poster seems to like calling Palestinians Palis (which may be racist since its sounds similar to a common racist British epither) and Becky has argued in defense of an Israeli takeover of the Temple Mount (which I think most Israelis would see as a crazy demand). There are a lot of racist antiArab and antiMuslims posts here but most dont use regular nicks do it could just be the same people who post racist things on every post about police brutality.
"I When Arafat was ill, the posters at this site were, by and large, respectful check out the archives. When Sharon had his stroke, well, check it out for yourself...."
Thats true. Its not true outside of this site where even Air America had a really tasteless skit on Al Frankens show (shich I admittedly still listen too) on the day Arafat died. Nobody ever gains politically by making fun of the dead or engaging in rude comments but I guess people get angry and do counterproductive things on both sides.
"Tia: I don't accuse people who support Palestinians of being anti-semitic, unless, of course, they are."
Thats a bit tautological. Im guessing you mean that you believe they are. Is Nessie or TW antiSemitic. Both seem crazy and obssessive but Im not sure if they are antiSemitic.
"There are regular posters on Indybay that are quite racist. They know who there are. Some don't even deny it anymore. When someone tells me to go back to Poland, that is a racist statement."
People can be nasty and Nessie and TW are pretty much insane and hate everyone who posst on this site. I'm also Jewish and my great-grandparents came from Ludtz; I dont mean to joke but you really should "go back" as a tourist sometime, my parents went and visisted one of the few remaining Synagogues which was surrounded by armed guards because antiSemitism there really still is that bad (unlike here or even in Iran which is safer for native Jews than most other Middle Eastern countries even though its obviously still pretty bad) Poland is beutiful and the food is surprisingly similar to what I always thought was Jewish food (at least in my family) and you can see a lot of Jewish history in Poland even if there are few Jewish Poles left.
"I am however, anti- fundamentalist."
The PA before Hamas wasnt fundamentalist. It was largely because of the undermining of Fatah by both Israel and the US that you ended up with Hamas (in the recent years I could see that this is a bit arguable but the rise of fundamentalism on the Middle East over most of the Cold War was largely due to the destruction of secular nationalist groups that were proUSSR that used to be the main opposition groups before they were largely destroyed by the late 80s leaving only Mosques as safe places to organize and fundmentalists as the main funders... to see a recent example of how this worked look at Chechnya where the Chechens were definitely not fundamentalist until after the 2nd Chechen war when Khattab came in from Jordan to support a struggle that had no chance of conventional success)
""The world is filled with evil, and young idealists like Rachel Corrie don't like it. Which is lovely. But they don't confront real evil because they know they will get hurt. That's one reason there are no "peace activists" or "human shields" confronting Islamic terror, North Korean totalitarianism, or Chinese Communist despotism."
Its interesting that his choice of evil countries are all evil countries that are at least nominally (in the case of China) enemies of the US. Protesting against the USSR during the Cold War would have obviously been counterproductive since the danger of the arms race and US PR against the USSR was so intense that this outweighed any real efect a protest here could have had on human rights abuses there.
Protesting Israel wouldnt be as dangerous as trying to get into China or Russia (or Burma) to protest but according to most journalist groups reporting on Gaza is one of the most dangerous jobs one can do. And with protests against Israel there is the obvious danger one faces in terms of smears when you do anything. Someone like Robert FIsk did amazingly objective and dangerous journalism from Lerbanon during the war there and it was only after all the threats and smears that he began editorializing against Israeli policy.
"That's why Rachel Corrie and the millions marching to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq have never uttered a peep against Palestinian terror, Iraqi totalitarianism or North Korean gulags. "
Are you trying to equate opposition to the Iraq war with support for Saddam?? Sure if you opposed the Iraq war you could have qualified your statements with statements denouncing Saddam but the effects of a US invasion being so obvious (which is why the largest protests in world history took place in the weeks before the US invasion) wouldnt qualifiying in that way just confiuse the message. A US invasion of N Korea would result in the death of millions in N and S Korea (and thats probably why it wont happen) but to equate opposition to a US invasion of N Korea with support of totalitarianism is just manipulative support for war rather than someting I can imagine anyone seriously believing.
"ISM brings young people to Israel to protest the security barrier. Then, after a day of protest, they pat themselves on the back and all go out and go to the movies or to dinner or to an Internet cafe."
Thats true of any activism but with 2 deaths, what the ISM was doing obviously invoved personal risk. Corrie knew the poeople in the house she was defending when she died and you can look at any of the reports Israel did on her death to see that the house didnt contain tunnels, guns or any such thing.
" Its activism without disomfort. Americans overall are selfish and lazy- they don't want to have to risk 10 days in Darfur eating millet gruel and getting shot at."
Im not sure if going to Darfur and eating their millet would save any lives. The problem is that armed groups are killing people and while going there involves risks right now it would seem a bit suicidal for something that couldnt result in much. As you mentioned earlier the need is for local peacekeepers or perhaps ones from countries less tied into the global conflict with Islam.
Its hard to know how to repond to those who equate opposition to the US war in Iraq with support for Saddam, but the Iraqi blogger Faiza's latest post relates (shes in the US right now and ran into the crazy right wingers and was pretty confused):
...
I saw a small group standing in another side of the street, holding banners like : support Saddam, sending money to terrorists in Iraq.
I was really surprised, yes, I come here to see these people and hear their vision.
so, now, every one who is against this war is supporting Saddam?
and every one trying to send money or medicine to poor Iraqi families who are suffering of poverty and lack of income and medicine and security, every one help these people will be involved with terrorism and being supporter of Saddam ?
then ,where is humanity?
how could we help our people?
who could accept and believe these ideas?
are they the majority of American people who agree with this discourse?
how could we help our brothers and sisters in Iraq?
we haven`t the chance yet to meet Ba`thist or terrorist, to support them,we have just met the families who are victims in this war, either they have lost their loved ones or their men have been arrested in jails ?
how could they manage their lives without the help of others?
how can we accept the idea of seeing our people dying and suffering and stop helping them?
who could accept that?
why should we agree that a group of sick-minded people have the right to control our noble feelings?
I am sad about what is going in Iraq , and in America..
I can see we are both victims of this war..
we both have lost thousands of souls, and Billions of Dollars since three years..
and what have we gained?
faiza
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_afamilyinbaghdad_archive.html#114191058882975187
...
I saw a small group standing in another side of the street, holding banners like : support Saddam, sending money to terrorists in Iraq.
I was really surprised, yes, I come here to see these people and hear their vision.
so, now, every one who is against this war is supporting Saddam?
and every one trying to send money or medicine to poor Iraqi families who are suffering of poverty and lack of income and medicine and security, every one help these people will be involved with terrorism and being supporter of Saddam ?
then ,where is humanity?
how could we help our people?
who could accept and believe these ideas?
are they the majority of American people who agree with this discourse?
how could we help our brothers and sisters in Iraq?
we haven`t the chance yet to meet Ba`thist or terrorist, to support them,we have just met the families who are victims in this war, either they have lost their loved ones or their men have been arrested in jails ?
how could they manage their lives without the help of others?
how can we accept the idea of seeing our people dying and suffering and stop helping them?
who could accept that?
why should we agree that a group of sick-minded people have the right to control our noble feelings?
I am sad about what is going in Iraq , and in America..
I can see we are both victims of this war..
we both have lost thousands of souls, and Billions of Dollars since three years..
and what have we gained?
faiza
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_afamilyinbaghdad_archive.html#114191058882975187
http://tinyurl.com/jqasl
decent article about the UCB event re: darfur
"Steidle said he has also lobbied the inner sanctum of the Bush administration, but has been asked repeatedly by U.S. officials to stop showing his photographs.
Steidle said the Bush administration has not pressed Sudan authorities because of the war on terror and its desire to gain intelligence on al Qaeda, which provided a safe haven for Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the 1990s.
"The United States is getting good intelligence from the Sudanese government," Steidle said, "and the U.S. doesn't want to destroy that network."
I'lll respond to the rest of your comments later
decent article about the UCB event re: darfur
"Steidle said he has also lobbied the inner sanctum of the Bush administration, but has been asked repeatedly by U.S. officials to stop showing his photographs.
Steidle said the Bush administration has not pressed Sudan authorities because of the war on terror and its desire to gain intelligence on al Qaeda, which provided a safe haven for Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the 1990s.
"The United States is getting good intelligence from the Sudanese government," Steidle said, "and the U.S. doesn't want to destroy that network."
I'lll respond to the rest of your comments later
For more information:
http://tinyurl.com/jqasl
Tia "If there is irrational hatred , you need to look for the underlying pathology. And the answer lies with the accuser, not the acused."
The constant accusations of "antisemite" are quite revealing about the accusers--the rabid defenders of all things israel.
The constant accusations of "antisemite" are quite revealing about the accusers--the rabid defenders of all things israel.
"Who's said [criticizing israel is automatically anti-semetic]? Please point to anyone in this thread who's said that."
Oh, just the entire zio-screamer establishment for the past 30 years, that's all
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062303.html
"the "new anti-Semitism," which boils down to criticism of Israel and its supporters...
And just what are these standards that Israel alone is held to? Any other country that separated out the majority of the population on the basis of ethnicity, and subjected them to draconian controls, controlling their movements, and keeping them penned up in special ghettos, would long ago have been declared an international pariah. How has Israel managed to get away with it – and, not only that, but how have they managed to go on the offensive, and target their critics as "bigots"?
Oh, just the entire zio-screamer establishment for the past 30 years, that's all
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062303.html
"the "new anti-Semitism," which boils down to criticism of Israel and its supporters...
And just what are these standards that Israel alone is held to? Any other country that separated out the majority of the population on the basis of ethnicity, and subjected them to draconian controls, controlling their movements, and keeping them penned up in special ghettos, would long ago have been declared an international pariah. How has Israel managed to get away with it – and, not only that, but how have they managed to go on the offensive, and target their critics as "bigots"?
Tia: What can we do?(re: darfur)
1). We can pressure congress to provide more money for the African Union peacekeepers
2). We can go and bear winess and document what is going on
3). We can identify worthy non-profits that are providing direct services to the refugees, and help fund them
4). We can keep the topic on the radar by writing to our local papers, and indymedia centers.
"There are several levels of offensive signs. There are the Republican/Protest Warrior signs that are offensive since they are right wing"
Tia: There is nearly no overlap between the PW's and the Zionists. At one rally, when they began chanting "4 more years", all the Zionists moved away in protest and in disgust.
"there are the veiled racist signs and then there are the overtly racist signs. The signs that the main groups (your group I guess) have the veiled racist ones. I think I saw a sign that said something like "If Palestinians loved their childern as much asd they hated.."
Tia: This is actually from a Gold Meir quote and I don't find it racist at all. When you read about developmentally delayed Palestinian children playing with guns near Israeli checkpoints, you've got to wonder who set them up like that. When you read about little kids being used as couriers to carry bombs, or as suicide bombers, you've got to wonder about that, too. Nearly 80% of Palestinain children killed in the Intifada were older teenaged boys. Are they being used as combatants? Sure looks that way. If I were a Palestinian mother, I tell my kids to stay in school- that education is the only way out. I'd tell them that all the great religions agreee that the only thing strong enough to conquer hate is love. And I'd tell them hope exists until the last breath.
" The overtly racist ones about mysogyny in the Arab world (which exists among most Arab men as it does among most men...if real rapes may have happened by a handful of African American men of white women that doesnt mean a sign saying "stop blacks from raping white women" isnt overtly racist)"
Tia: Are you serious about believing mysogyny existing among most men? Thats a disturbing belief. Are you male or female?
There is a great deal of misogyny in the Arab world, as well as anti- gay sentiment. It is institutionalized and endemic.
*forced marriages
* forced veilings
* honor killings
* low literacy rates in many communities
"..when Netanyahu was scheduled to speak last year, he was physically prevented from doing so."
"Netanyahu isnt exactly a mainstream politican. I wouldnt be surprised if many left-wing students in Israel wouldnt protest and prevent him from speaking at certain Israeli universities from reasons unrelated to the Palestinian conflict."
Tia: Free speech, Dude(ette?), free speech. Let em talk and then dissect them point by point.
"When Finklelstein, Pappe, and Weir were paraded through the Bay area over the last few months"
Finklestein courts conflict and purposefully provokes (in a similar way to Pipes) to make points that dont have to be made in such a controversial manner. I thought Weir lives here and received death threats after speaking on campus...
Tia: Yep. She made one trip to Israel/Palestine 5 years ago, and has turned it into a profitable enterprise. After speaking at Sonoma State last month, she asked for a police escort off campus. She's essentially paarnoid. She had Nation of Islam guards watching the door when she spoke at UCB last week.
"Tia: Black propaganda."
Is the guy in the following pic a fake:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2_racist.jpg
Tia: Looks like a failed attempt at street theatre. I'm not excusing it, but at Israel in the Park a few years back (mostly schools and pre-schools attending - its a family picnic- type event), the Palestinians created a cardboard bulldozer and were running down a screaming blond, over and over and over.... Ok, sometimes both sides behave badly.
"Tia: I don't accuse people who support Palestinians of being anti-semitic, unless, of course, they are."
Thats a bit tautological. Im guessing you mean that you believe they are. Is Nessie or TW antiSemitic. Both seem crazy and obssessive but Im not sure if they are antiSemitic.
Tia: It benefits no one to "talk" about others in this manner, so why bother?
"People can be nasty and Nessie and TW are pretty much insane and hate everyone who posst on this site. "
Tia: Ah, perhaps, but they definitely hate some more than others. They particularly hate me.
"I'm also Jewish and my great-grandparents came from Ludtz; I dont mean to joke but you really should "go back" as a tourist sometime,"
Tia: I hope to, someday....
"my parents went and visisted one of the few remaining Synagogues which was surrounded by armed guards because antiSemitism there really still is that bad (unlike here or even in Iran which is safer for native Jews than most other Middle Eastern countries even though its obviously still pretty bad) Poland is beutiful and the food is surprisingly similar to what I always thought was Jewish food (at least in my family) and you can see a lot of Jewish history in Poland even if there are few Jewish Poles left."
Tia: You are right. I have a Polish friend- every December I bring over what I think are Latkas- and what she thinks are Latkes. This is the food of poverty- the Polish peasants and the Jews both ate a lot of onions, a lot of potatoes, a bit of preserved salted or smoked fish. When you read about what happened in Denmark or in Bulgaria during the second World War, you realize that the locals had the opportunity and ability to save lives, but by and large they chose not to.
It makes you think how different the world would be if we focused on what we have in common, rather than what sets us apart.
"ISM brings young people to Israel to protest the security barrier. Then, after a day of protest, they pat themselves on the back and all go out and go to the movies or to dinner or to an Internet cafe."
Thats true of any activism but with 2 deaths, what the ISM was doing obviously invoved personal risk.
Tia: Read some of the deleted post on this topic. There is a lot of evidence that Rachel was set up by her ISM handlers.
1). We can pressure congress to provide more money for the African Union peacekeepers
2). We can go and bear winess and document what is going on
3). We can identify worthy non-profits that are providing direct services to the refugees, and help fund them
4). We can keep the topic on the radar by writing to our local papers, and indymedia centers.
"There are several levels of offensive signs. There are the Republican/Protest Warrior signs that are offensive since they are right wing"
Tia: There is nearly no overlap between the PW's and the Zionists. At one rally, when they began chanting "4 more years", all the Zionists moved away in protest and in disgust.
"there are the veiled racist signs and then there are the overtly racist signs. The signs that the main groups (your group I guess) have the veiled racist ones. I think I saw a sign that said something like "If Palestinians loved their childern as much asd they hated.."
Tia: This is actually from a Gold Meir quote and I don't find it racist at all. When you read about developmentally delayed Palestinian children playing with guns near Israeli checkpoints, you've got to wonder who set them up like that. When you read about little kids being used as couriers to carry bombs, or as suicide bombers, you've got to wonder about that, too. Nearly 80% of Palestinain children killed in the Intifada were older teenaged boys. Are they being used as combatants? Sure looks that way. If I were a Palestinian mother, I tell my kids to stay in school- that education is the only way out. I'd tell them that all the great religions agreee that the only thing strong enough to conquer hate is love. And I'd tell them hope exists until the last breath.
" The overtly racist ones about mysogyny in the Arab world (which exists among most Arab men as it does among most men...if real rapes may have happened by a handful of African American men of white women that doesnt mean a sign saying "stop blacks from raping white women" isnt overtly racist)"
Tia: Are you serious about believing mysogyny existing among most men? Thats a disturbing belief. Are you male or female?
There is a great deal of misogyny in the Arab world, as well as anti- gay sentiment. It is institutionalized and endemic.
*forced marriages
* forced veilings
* honor killings
* low literacy rates in many communities
"..when Netanyahu was scheduled to speak last year, he was physically prevented from doing so."
"Netanyahu isnt exactly a mainstream politican. I wouldnt be surprised if many left-wing students in Israel wouldnt protest and prevent him from speaking at certain Israeli universities from reasons unrelated to the Palestinian conflict."
Tia: Free speech, Dude(ette?), free speech. Let em talk and then dissect them point by point.
"When Finklelstein, Pappe, and Weir were paraded through the Bay area over the last few months"
Finklestein courts conflict and purposefully provokes (in a similar way to Pipes) to make points that dont have to be made in such a controversial manner. I thought Weir lives here and received death threats after speaking on campus...
Tia: Yep. She made one trip to Israel/Palestine 5 years ago, and has turned it into a profitable enterprise. After speaking at Sonoma State last month, she asked for a police escort off campus. She's essentially paarnoid. She had Nation of Islam guards watching the door when she spoke at UCB last week.
"Tia: Black propaganda."
Is the guy in the following pic a fake:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2_racist.jpg
Tia: Looks like a failed attempt at street theatre. I'm not excusing it, but at Israel in the Park a few years back (mostly schools and pre-schools attending - its a family picnic- type event), the Palestinians created a cardboard bulldozer and were running down a screaming blond, over and over and over.... Ok, sometimes both sides behave badly.
"Tia: I don't accuse people who support Palestinians of being anti-semitic, unless, of course, they are."
Thats a bit tautological. Im guessing you mean that you believe they are. Is Nessie or TW antiSemitic. Both seem crazy and obssessive but Im not sure if they are antiSemitic.
Tia: It benefits no one to "talk" about others in this manner, so why bother?
"People can be nasty and Nessie and TW are pretty much insane and hate everyone who posst on this site. "
Tia: Ah, perhaps, but they definitely hate some more than others. They particularly hate me.
"I'm also Jewish and my great-grandparents came from Ludtz; I dont mean to joke but you really should "go back" as a tourist sometime,"
Tia: I hope to, someday....
"my parents went and visisted one of the few remaining Synagogues which was surrounded by armed guards because antiSemitism there really still is that bad (unlike here or even in Iran which is safer for native Jews than most other Middle Eastern countries even though its obviously still pretty bad) Poland is beutiful and the food is surprisingly similar to what I always thought was Jewish food (at least in my family) and you can see a lot of Jewish history in Poland even if there are few Jewish Poles left."
Tia: You are right. I have a Polish friend- every December I bring over what I think are Latkas- and what she thinks are Latkes. This is the food of poverty- the Polish peasants and the Jews both ate a lot of onions, a lot of potatoes, a bit of preserved salted or smoked fish. When you read about what happened in Denmark or in Bulgaria during the second World War, you realize that the locals had the opportunity and ability to save lives, but by and large they chose not to.
It makes you think how different the world would be if we focused on what we have in common, rather than what sets us apart.
"ISM brings young people to Israel to protest the security barrier. Then, after a day of protest, they pat themselves on the back and all go out and go to the movies or to dinner or to an Internet cafe."
Thats true of any activism but with 2 deaths, what the ISM was doing obviously invoved personal risk.
Tia: Read some of the deleted post on this topic. There is a lot of evidence that Rachel was set up by her ISM handlers.
"This is actually from a Gold Meir quote and I don't find it racist at all."
It's racist since it implies that Palestinians don't love their children. You can say that you think many Palestinians don't love their children by their actions, but just because you believe a racist sterotype to be true doesnt mean it is true (all people are basically the same and there are parents who will use and abuse children in any culture...) Even if one believed the antiPalestinian propaganda about Palestinian children being used to throw rocks at tanks (rather than this being roughly similar to behavior one finds everywhere that's a spontaneous result of group tensions) it definitely doesnt add up to real child soldiers as one sees in places like Burma and various countries in Africa. Even in the case of real child soliders the quote is still racist. During the war in Liberia would an American saying "if they only loved their children as much as us white people do" be racist or merely a statement about child soldiers?
As for the mysogyny thing, it is true that the Middle East is worse than middle class culture in W Europe and the US in many of the respects you mention but its about the same as rural India (where Sati apparently still exists), much of Africa, and perhaps even similar to what one gets in some rural parts of the US and Latin America. Arranged marriage was not the norm in pre2003 Iraq, Iran has a higher rate of female literacy than much of the world (which is why much of he prodemocracy movements are women on college campuses), and among the Palestinians one has leaders like Hanan Ashwari who dont wear veils etc... Parts of E Europe and Thailand probably have higher rates of formal (even if illegal) sex slavery than one sees in many Middle Eastern Countries...
That doesnt mean that conditions in many Middle Eastern countries are even remotely excusible but when one is at a rally about Palestine with about 50% of the proPalestine protesters consisting of Middle Eastern women, there seems to be something racist about having proIsrael protesters hold up signs consisting of generalizations about Islam/Muslims and oppression of women. If the people with such signs were working with Iranian and Palestinian women to make their lives better and the Palestinian protesters were defending oppression of woman that wouold be one thing, but it doesnt seem to be the case with white men who probably have never actually talked to Arab or Muslim women hold up pictures of women in Burqas to denounce women form Middle Eastern countries (many of whom have atcually lived through oppression in those countries ) in some strange effort to defend Israel. Perhaps one can't call the signs racist (although I think those holding them do so for racist reasons) but 2 wrongs dont make a right its hard to see how antiwomen attitudes among many Palestinians men has any relation to Palestinians (both women and men) having neither a state or a vote in the country that is occupying them.
"There is a lot of evidence that Rachel was set up by her ISM handlers. "
I know a few ISM people who helped people go to the West Bank and the ones I knew were Jewish activists who were networked into Israeli peace groups and had politics that seemed a bit similar to people associated with Tikkun. Was Rachel manipulated into a dangerous situation? I am guessing she knew a bit of the risk and Peace Corp types get young people to go into even more dangerous areas with even less hope of being able to make positive change (in fact Ive heard some convincing arguments on why such aid programs have hurt parts of Africa they have sought to help by creating a situation were aid activities that could help build up a domestic infrastructure are done for free by Western volunteers and the domestic intellegensia end up leaving for jobs in Europe without helping to build up local civil society since local aid becomes seen asa job for outsiders).
A lot of the people who went into the ISM in the 90s were from the same subculture that worked with ARA in the late 80s and confronted neoNazis trying to come into small towns in the US. A few antiNazi protesters were killed trying to get neoNazis out of small towns but I wouldnt have called ARA manipulative since the danger was obvious.
It's racist since it implies that Palestinians don't love their children. You can say that you think many Palestinians don't love their children by their actions, but just because you believe a racist sterotype to be true doesnt mean it is true (all people are basically the same and there are parents who will use and abuse children in any culture...) Even if one believed the antiPalestinian propaganda about Palestinian children being used to throw rocks at tanks (rather than this being roughly similar to behavior one finds everywhere that's a spontaneous result of group tensions) it definitely doesnt add up to real child soldiers as one sees in places like Burma and various countries in Africa. Even in the case of real child soliders the quote is still racist. During the war in Liberia would an American saying "if they only loved their children as much as us white people do" be racist or merely a statement about child soldiers?
As for the mysogyny thing, it is true that the Middle East is worse than middle class culture in W Europe and the US in many of the respects you mention but its about the same as rural India (where Sati apparently still exists), much of Africa, and perhaps even similar to what one gets in some rural parts of the US and Latin America. Arranged marriage was not the norm in pre2003 Iraq, Iran has a higher rate of female literacy than much of the world (which is why much of he prodemocracy movements are women on college campuses), and among the Palestinians one has leaders like Hanan Ashwari who dont wear veils etc... Parts of E Europe and Thailand probably have higher rates of formal (even if illegal) sex slavery than one sees in many Middle Eastern Countries...
That doesnt mean that conditions in many Middle Eastern countries are even remotely excusible but when one is at a rally about Palestine with about 50% of the proPalestine protesters consisting of Middle Eastern women, there seems to be something racist about having proIsrael protesters hold up signs consisting of generalizations about Islam/Muslims and oppression of women. If the people with such signs were working with Iranian and Palestinian women to make their lives better and the Palestinian protesters were defending oppression of woman that wouold be one thing, but it doesnt seem to be the case with white men who probably have never actually talked to Arab or Muslim women hold up pictures of women in Burqas to denounce women form Middle Eastern countries (many of whom have atcually lived through oppression in those countries ) in some strange effort to defend Israel. Perhaps one can't call the signs racist (although I think those holding them do so for racist reasons) but 2 wrongs dont make a right its hard to see how antiwomen attitudes among many Palestinians men has any relation to Palestinians (both women and men) having neither a state or a vote in the country that is occupying them.
"There is a lot of evidence that Rachel was set up by her ISM handlers. "
I know a few ISM people who helped people go to the West Bank and the ones I knew were Jewish activists who were networked into Israeli peace groups and had politics that seemed a bit similar to people associated with Tikkun. Was Rachel manipulated into a dangerous situation? I am guessing she knew a bit of the risk and Peace Corp types get young people to go into even more dangerous areas with even less hope of being able to make positive change (in fact Ive heard some convincing arguments on why such aid programs have hurt parts of Africa they have sought to help by creating a situation were aid activities that could help build up a domestic infrastructure are done for free by Western volunteers and the domestic intellegensia end up leaving for jobs in Europe without helping to build up local civil society since local aid becomes seen asa job for outsiders).
A lot of the people who went into the ISM in the 90s were from the same subculture that worked with ARA in the late 80s and confronted neoNazis trying to come into small towns in the US. A few antiNazi protesters were killed trying to get neoNazis out of small towns but I wouldnt have called ARA manipulative since the danger was obvious.
An ad hominem is not a rebuttal.
Here is an example of a cartoon that is clearly racist that was posted to this site recently:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/islamcontradiction.gif
Does demonization of Jews in various Middle Eastern news sources exist? yes
Is such demonization antisemitism? yes
Is there a bit of contradiction among people complaining about demonization of Islam who personally may demonize Jews? yes
But really look at the cartoon. The portait of how Arabs/Muslim see Jews shows an ugly stereotype but so is the portrait of the guy drawing the picture and the exagerated features one sees in the portrait of someone who is Jewish are visible in the cartoon itself's depiction of an Arab (notice the nose, eyebrows and facial hair).
Next look at the innocent looking aryan in the cartoon side by side with the swarthy looking Arab/Muslim. If you didnt see anything that the cartoon charaters were doing and you put a star of David on the Muslim and a Nazi arm band on the aryan it would look a like a preWWII propagnda piece playing to the audiences association of blonde features with innocence.
Now stepping back from the overt racism in the depictions of Arabs/Muslims vs blonde Europeans, one also has the broader message of a cartoon like this. The Dane is drawing a happy picture of Muhammed and Muslims are irrationally offended whereas the Muslims is drawing an antiSemitiic picture of a Jew because of antiSemitism. In truth a few polls have shown that few Muslims were offended by the depiction of Muhammed in the cartoons and the issue was mainly one of the racist stereotypes of Muhammed in the cartoons having appeared in mainstream major European publications (no riots occured as a result of the children's book about Muhammed and there are pictures of Muhammed all over the place in Europe and Islamic countries) . European style antiSemitism (that started within the Christain Church) does exist among a small number of people in the Arab and Muslim world but the motivation for most antiSemitism revolves around Israel (this doesnt justify it any more than one could justify antiArab feelings in the US after 9/11 but it puts it in a context where one would expect it from any group and cant see it as specific to Islamic or Arab culture).
AntiSemitism exists and is a real problem. It's probable that at least some proPalestinian activists are antiSemitic and know they are antiSemitic just as it's probable that at least some proIsrael actvists are racist and know they are racist. During confrontations between proIsrael protesters and proPalestine protesters I have heard people (mainly teenagers) say openly racist and openly antiSemitic things to provoke and humiliate and those that said such things must have known what they were doing (at a protest on the UCB campus I heard someone scream "sand n**r" at an Indian proPalestinian protester and at the protest when the bus from Israel was brought to Berkeley I heard a few Palestinian teenagers chant "don't trust the news its controlled by the jews"). Im not sure how much those types of statements (especially when by teenagers) really reflects personal bigotry and how much is just due to a desire to say the most hurtful thing possible in confrontational situations (since one hears things as offensive shouted out of cars against just about any protest on any subject where people have strong feelings). The subtle antiSemitism one hears in the tone of some commentary about Zionists (hints at conspiracy and blood lust) and the statement about Palestinians not loving their kids as much as they hate Israelis or the depiction all Arabs/Muslims as mysogynistic swarthy homophobic... (as in the cartoon linked to at the beginning of this comment or the tone of some of the oppression of women signs caried by proIsrael protesters) is a bit more troubling since bigotry that doesnt recognize itself to be such seems more dangerous than sophmoric hate speech. Someone like Tom Robbins brand of antiSemitism (where Judaism is portrayed as being the start of a trend that lead to the destruction of a mythical pagan world in many of his books) seems more troubling than even the President of Iran denying the Hollocaust. One assumes that Ahmadinejad is just being hurtful and trying to provoke and probably personally knows the Hollocaust took place. He probably is somewhat antiSemitic but I wonder if his domestic policies towards Jewish Iranians is better or worse than less openly antiIsrael Iranians leaders (somehow Iran still has a Jewish minority while Iraq and Lebanon lost their last Jewish residents during the current war and the Lebanese Civil war respectively) Subtle subconcious racism like that against immigrants in the US and Europe, against Jews among some religious Christians, and against all Muslism/Arabs by many supporters of Israel seems like it has a greater long term danger than hyperbolic bigotry driven by world events where the bigotry is open enough that it can be dealt with easier (stereotypes about evil Soviets died pretty fast after the Cold War but less event driven forms of bigotry are much slower to change).
5 years ago, the argument that discussion of Israel itself could border on antiSemitism by singling out Israel would have been a bit believable. Now the world's attention is so focused on the Middle East and much of the world thinks that Bush declared war on Islam (not just fundamentalists), so its pretty expected that considering Israelis role in current Middle Eastern conflicts and Jerusalem's role in the history of Islam (from both Muhammed's time and that of Saladin) people will focus a lot of attention on Israel and the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That some who focus on the conflict will be hyperbolic (S Africa' actions toward nonwhites was like the Nazis, Indonesias massacre of the E Timorese was like the Nazis, Guatamalas massacre of indigenous populations was like the Nazis so now Israel is like the Nazis) shouldn't surprise people and even in the case of those who generalize in ways that become antiSemitic its not really comparible to other forms of antiSemitism (ie someone like Nessie will come up with conspiracy theories about any group that he disagrees with including groups he used to work with). The idea of "New AntiSemitism" and the smearing of someone like Chomsky or Dennis Bernstein or Amy Goodman or even Rabin as being antiSemitic is ugly and offensive (in addition to having the dangers of crying wolf). AntiSemitism really does exist and some people will express antiSemitic views in contexts where they can get a response. At an antiwar rally with 100,000 people and a counterprotest by 100 people with Israeli flags it wouldnt be too surprising if one or two of those drawn over to yell at the proIsrael crowd actually are antiSemitic but that reflects more on antiSemitism in the general population, which is probably less than antiArab antiMuslim hatred and perhaps similar in level to antiAsian bigotry, rather than anything specific to the antiwar movement or proPalestine movements (aside from a slightly irrational defensiveness of any group, where members will defend others seen to be in that group without realizing what they are really defending... maybe the guy dressed as a fake Arab with a belt bomb in the photo above is a hardened bigot... you dont know so, since you support Israel, you excuse the act even if personally you arent quite sure)
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/islamcontradiction.gif
Does demonization of Jews in various Middle Eastern news sources exist? yes
Is such demonization antisemitism? yes
Is there a bit of contradiction among people complaining about demonization of Islam who personally may demonize Jews? yes
But really look at the cartoon. The portait of how Arabs/Muslim see Jews shows an ugly stereotype but so is the portrait of the guy drawing the picture and the exagerated features one sees in the portrait of someone who is Jewish are visible in the cartoon itself's depiction of an Arab (notice the nose, eyebrows and facial hair).
Next look at the innocent looking aryan in the cartoon side by side with the swarthy looking Arab/Muslim. If you didnt see anything that the cartoon charaters were doing and you put a star of David on the Muslim and a Nazi arm band on the aryan it would look a like a preWWII propagnda piece playing to the audiences association of blonde features with innocence.
Now stepping back from the overt racism in the depictions of Arabs/Muslims vs blonde Europeans, one also has the broader message of a cartoon like this. The Dane is drawing a happy picture of Muhammed and Muslims are irrationally offended whereas the Muslims is drawing an antiSemitiic picture of a Jew because of antiSemitism. In truth a few polls have shown that few Muslims were offended by the depiction of Muhammed in the cartoons and the issue was mainly one of the racist stereotypes of Muhammed in the cartoons having appeared in mainstream major European publications (no riots occured as a result of the children's book about Muhammed and there are pictures of Muhammed all over the place in Europe and Islamic countries) . European style antiSemitism (that started within the Christain Church) does exist among a small number of people in the Arab and Muslim world but the motivation for most antiSemitism revolves around Israel (this doesnt justify it any more than one could justify antiArab feelings in the US after 9/11 but it puts it in a context where one would expect it from any group and cant see it as specific to Islamic or Arab culture).
AntiSemitism exists and is a real problem. It's probable that at least some proPalestinian activists are antiSemitic and know they are antiSemitic just as it's probable that at least some proIsrael actvists are racist and know they are racist. During confrontations between proIsrael protesters and proPalestine protesters I have heard people (mainly teenagers) say openly racist and openly antiSemitic things to provoke and humiliate and those that said such things must have known what they were doing (at a protest on the UCB campus I heard someone scream "sand n**r" at an Indian proPalestinian protester and at the protest when the bus from Israel was brought to Berkeley I heard a few Palestinian teenagers chant "don't trust the news its controlled by the jews"). Im not sure how much those types of statements (especially when by teenagers) really reflects personal bigotry and how much is just due to a desire to say the most hurtful thing possible in confrontational situations (since one hears things as offensive shouted out of cars against just about any protest on any subject where people have strong feelings). The subtle antiSemitism one hears in the tone of some commentary about Zionists (hints at conspiracy and blood lust) and the statement about Palestinians not loving their kids as much as they hate Israelis or the depiction all Arabs/Muslims as mysogynistic swarthy homophobic... (as in the cartoon linked to at the beginning of this comment or the tone of some of the oppression of women signs caried by proIsrael protesters) is a bit more troubling since bigotry that doesnt recognize itself to be such seems more dangerous than sophmoric hate speech. Someone like Tom Robbins brand of antiSemitism (where Judaism is portrayed as being the start of a trend that lead to the destruction of a mythical pagan world in many of his books) seems more troubling than even the President of Iran denying the Hollocaust. One assumes that Ahmadinejad is just being hurtful and trying to provoke and probably personally knows the Hollocaust took place. He probably is somewhat antiSemitic but I wonder if his domestic policies towards Jewish Iranians is better or worse than less openly antiIsrael Iranians leaders (somehow Iran still has a Jewish minority while Iraq and Lebanon lost their last Jewish residents during the current war and the Lebanese Civil war respectively) Subtle subconcious racism like that against immigrants in the US and Europe, against Jews among some religious Christians, and against all Muslism/Arabs by many supporters of Israel seems like it has a greater long term danger than hyperbolic bigotry driven by world events where the bigotry is open enough that it can be dealt with easier (stereotypes about evil Soviets died pretty fast after the Cold War but less event driven forms of bigotry are much slower to change).
5 years ago, the argument that discussion of Israel itself could border on antiSemitism by singling out Israel would have been a bit believable. Now the world's attention is so focused on the Middle East and much of the world thinks that Bush declared war on Islam (not just fundamentalists), so its pretty expected that considering Israelis role in current Middle Eastern conflicts and Jerusalem's role in the history of Islam (from both Muhammed's time and that of Saladin) people will focus a lot of attention on Israel and the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That some who focus on the conflict will be hyperbolic (S Africa' actions toward nonwhites was like the Nazis, Indonesias massacre of the E Timorese was like the Nazis, Guatamalas massacre of indigenous populations was like the Nazis so now Israel is like the Nazis) shouldn't surprise people and even in the case of those who generalize in ways that become antiSemitic its not really comparible to other forms of antiSemitism (ie someone like Nessie will come up with conspiracy theories about any group that he disagrees with including groups he used to work with). The idea of "New AntiSemitism" and the smearing of someone like Chomsky or Dennis Bernstein or Amy Goodman or even Rabin as being antiSemitic is ugly and offensive (in addition to having the dangers of crying wolf). AntiSemitism really does exist and some people will express antiSemitic views in contexts where they can get a response. At an antiwar rally with 100,000 people and a counterprotest by 100 people with Israeli flags it wouldnt be too surprising if one or two of those drawn over to yell at the proIsrael crowd actually are antiSemitic but that reflects more on antiSemitism in the general population, which is probably less than antiArab antiMuslim hatred and perhaps similar in level to antiAsian bigotry, rather than anything specific to the antiwar movement or proPalestine movements (aside from a slightly irrational defensiveness of any group, where members will defend others seen to be in that group without realizing what they are really defending... maybe the guy dressed as a fake Arab with a belt bomb in the photo above is a hardened bigot... you dont know so, since you support Israel, you excuse the act even if personally you arent quite sure)
Tia:This is the actual quote: “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”
It doesn’t imply that Arabs don’t love their children- it implies that hate is more motivating for them. I still don’t think its racist, although you are right about the danger in making ANY global declaration.
Even if one believed the antiPalestinian propaganda about Palestinian children being used to throw rocks at tanks (rather than this being roughly similar to behavior one finds everywhere that's a spontaneous result of group tensions)
Tia: Check out http://www.seconddraft.org - in particular watch the “pallywood” movie at
http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php
A lot of the images we see in the popular media are staged for our benefit. Unfortunately, a lot of times, the stone throwers” are simply used as human shields for the men with guns. Alison Weir implied as much at her talk in UCB, then dismissed it as “risk taking activity” among boys. In America, for example, if they find your kids on the street instead of in school, the authorities come a knocking on your door.
Tia: Re: the mysogyny thing
Yes, it’s a huge problem all over the world. Its going to become a huge problem in America too, as they try and take away our rights to reproductive choice.
That doesnt mean that conditions in many Middle Eastern countries are even remotely excusible but when one is at a rally about Palestine with about 50% of the proPalestine protesters consisting of Middle Eastern women, there seems to be something racist about having proIsrael protesters hold up signs consisting of generalizations about Islam/Muslims and oppression of women.
Tia: The reason this is done is because the progressives (and I always considered myself one, until the good folks at Indybay told me I was a malevolent fascist) have pretty much abandoned a democratic country that believes strongly (yet imperfectly) in individual human rights. Supporting a corrupt, manipulative organization like Hamas will not help the women of Palestine, nor will it help the gays. Thats the reason you see rainbow flags at Pro-Israel rallies, too. There is a lot of posturing on both sides. Best thing to do is go up to someone and start asking questions. If they shout at you or scream, go to someone else. You’ll find someone willing to talk. I’m always willing to talk.
If the people with such signs were working with Iranian and Palestinian women to make their lives better and the Palestinian protesters were defending oppression of woman that wouold be one thing, but it doesnt seem to be the case with white men who probably have never actually talked to Arab or Muslim women hold up pictures of women in Burqas to denounce women form Middle Eastern countries
Tia: I don’t think they are trying to denounce the oppressed women from Moslem countries- I think they are there to support them. But what I’d do if I were you- I’d go up and ask them. The real reason we “counter-protest” is to open people up to dialog. Its really the only answer in understanding each other.
...2 wrongs dont make a right its hard to see how antiwomen attitudes among many Palestinians men has any relation to Palestinians (both women and men) having neither a state or a vote in the country that is occupying them.
Tia: You know of course, that Arab women in Israel can vote, right?
"There is a lot of evidence that Rachel was set up by her ISM handlers. "
I know a few ISM people who helped people go to the West Bank and the ones I knew were Jewish activists who were networked into Israeli peace groups and had politics that seemed a bit similar to people associated with Tikkun.
Tia: I think the folks at Tikkun mean well, but are misguided. I think ISM is very different.
Was Rachel manipulated into a dangerous situation? I am guessing she knew a bit of the risk and Peace Corp types get young people to go into even more dangerous areas with even less hope of being able to make positive change (in fact Ive heard some convincing arguments on why such aid programs have hurt parts of Africa they have sought to help by creating a situation were aid activities that could help build up a domestic infrastructure are done for free by Western volunteers and the domestic intellegensia end up leaving for jobs in Europe without helping to build up local civil society since local aid becomes seen asa job for outsiders).
Tia: I did a stint in a developing country, and have also had misgivings as I grew up and older. Actually, the misgivings started while I was still there, but thats a longer story.....
It was inexcusable of the ISM to put Rachel in the position she was in without any safety training. It was inexcusable for her co-protestors to take pictures rather than help her. Whole lot of people behaving badly here.....
Its a site for liars and haters. Thats why its a David Duke favorite. "Second Draft" reveals the media manipulation that the Palestinians have been up to for years. "Anti-Zionists" hate the truth. Truth interfers with their myths about Palestinians.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$220.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network