Pam Geller Justifies Breivik’s Terror

[Scurrilous]

Full Title: "Pam Geller Justifies Breivik’s Terror: Youth Camp Had More ‘Middle Eastern or Mixed’ Races Than ‘Pure Norwegian’

<snip>

"Popular hate blogger Pam Geller has received scrutiny in recent days as the public became aware that the right-wing terrorist in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, had praised her blog and thoroughly cited her writing in his political manifesto. After a number of blogs made the connection, as well as the New York Times, the Atlantic, and other major outlets, Geller became incensed and began lashing out at her critics.

In a post defending herself yesterday, Geller — who has called Obama “President Jihad” and claimed that Arab language classes are a plot to subvert the United States — reached a new low. Geller justifies Breivik’s attack on the Norwegian Labour Party summer youth camp because she says the camp is part of an anti-Israel “indoctrination training center.” She says the victims would have grown up to become “future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole.”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/01/284011/pam-geller-race-mixing-breivik-right/


Pamela Geller slanders the Utoya victims (elitist anti-Semites, Hitler youth, oh and race-mixers)

<snip>

"Pamela Geller, founder of Atlas Shrugs, delayed a full response to the shootings in Norway (by her own admission). Her ideological associates, in the meantime, had been issuing statements condemning the violence - as well as the victims' politics. And now, Atlas Shrugs has finally joined this argument: this past Sunday, Geller published an analysis of the victims titled "Summer Camp? Antisemitic Indoctrination Training Center":

But the jihad-loving media never told us what antisemitic war games they were playing on that island. Utoya Island is a Communist/Socialist campground, and they clearly had a pro-Islamic agenda.

Only the malevolent media could use the euphemism summer camp and get away with it.

The slaughter was horrific. What these kids were being taught and instructed to do was a different kind of grotesque. There is no justification for Breivik's actions whatsoever. There is also no justification for Norway's antisemitism and demonization of Israel.

Think Progress caught on to the fact that an earlier version of this post referred to "race mixing" among the Norwegian youth at the camp. Specifically, a now-removed picture caption read "Note the faces which are more MIddle Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian." Even some favorable commenters on the post called Ms. Geller out on this caption. Perhaps the intent of this statement was to demonstrate that there were Muslims present at the summer camp and that their presence was (of course) related to the youth organization's "anti-Semitic" and "pro-Palestinian" agenda?"

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/pamela-geller-slanders-the-utoya-victims-elitist-anti-semites-hitler-youth-oh-and-race-mixers.html

[PDJane]

1. There is no thought behind that bunch of gobble.

I tried to read it yesterday, and couldn't manage an iota of sense.

[Dawson Leery]

2. "mixed races"?

As with the typical teabagger, they are hostile to minorities.

[provis99]

3. She's a Jew with Nazi-loving ideas on "race mixing".

Well, there are neo-Nazi Jews in Israel. Go figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezXm9jkukBo:wtf: :crazy:

[bemildred]

4. Self-serving overwrought twaddle.

SEND MONEY NOW!!!!

[King_David]

5. And this is IP because?

Oh must be because she is a Jew?

Do I get a prize?

[bemildred]

6. With rare exceptions, anything to do with Israel goes here.

And anything to do with Palestinians. Edit: and anything that will eventually cause those subjects to come up.

The real purpose of the I/P forum, like the other subject dungeons, is to segregate the flame wars so they are not so disruptive to the rest of the board, so things go down here when the arguments start, and some of us post down here to start with in order to converse with our peers without being subjected to as much ignorant yelling back and forth.

Edit: I've posted stuff from the LA Times about Jewish attitudes in LA down here, because I knew it would wind up down here.

[King_David]

7. This massacre has nothing to do with Israel or Jews.

Very peripheral.

Probably better to post it in a Medical forum as this dude is a raving lunatic.

But an IP or Even in the Jewish board ?

Not sure at all the motives for posting it here,but anyway I am glad to point it out.

[bemildred]

8. Sorry, I won't make that mistake again. nt

[azurnoir]

10. It's here perhaps because Ms Geller charges that the camp in Norway was anti-Israel

peripheral perhaps but still it is included but I understand your chagrin, some of Israel's staunchest supports do not present a face that is conducive to the the liberal image that some of Israel's other supporters wish to project, as there are those on the other side that present the same problem, it would lead a reasonable person to believe that no one person or even group should be seen as the do all end all on this particular subject

[King_David]

11. What utter crap this post is.

Sick crap.

What happened in Norway has nothing to do with Israel or The Jews,and people linking them have bigoted sick motives .

(Extreme right and left intersection alert )

[Violet_Crumble]

15. It would have helped if he didn't express his admiration of Israel and RW Jews in his manifesto...

'In the 1,500 page tome, which mentions Israel 359 times and “Jews” 324 times, Breivik lays out his worldview, which includes an extreme, bizarre, and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism, and venomous attacks on Marxism and multiculturalism.

In one passage, he lashes out at the western media which he accuses of unfairly focusing on the wrongdoing of Jews, saying “western journalists again and again systematically ignore serious Muslim attacks and rather focus on the Jews.”

In a jab at left-wing Jews, Breivik writes that pre-war German Jews were disloyal to their country, “at least the so-called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that oppose nationalism/Zionism and support multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists."'

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762

He doesn't like LW Jews, nor Muslims. Which is why the likes of Pamela Geller and Barry Rubin are weighing in with their justifications for the slaughter...

[King_David]

20. David Duke hates Jews and admires Palistinians

Is that treated as a similar situation?

Not the way some people are treating this.

No there's other ' motives' at play here.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Well, as revolting as he is, he hasn't slaughtered a bunch of kids at a summer camp...

But do tell us all what you think the other 'motives' at play here are.

[oberliner]

30. Neither has Pam Geller

Though one could argue that both have inspired others to do so.

It is fairly likely that he would've encountered Duke's writings along the way given his manifesto.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Breivik did and he wrote of his admiration of RW Jews and bigots like Geller

The other poster has been repeatedly repeating that the slaughter has nothing to do with Israel and so this OP shouldn't be in this forum. I pointed that poster to an article about the manifesto that Breivik wrote, and got a response about Duke. Duke and Breivik are not comparable in this instance as Duke hasn't slaughtered a bunch of kids the way Breivik has.

[oberliner]

45. Did he not write of his admiration of RW non-Jews and bigots like Duke?

I can't say that I have read his manifesto myself (or plan to) - so I am only going on what I've seen secondhand, but it certainly seems possible that he also admired other bigots, like David Duke (He does have a pretty prominent online presence).

With respect to your other comment, I don't think the slaughter has any more to do with Israel than to Hindu Nationalism in India which I read that the killer also went on about in his manifesto.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Not sure about Duke. It's been ones like Geller, Wilders, Pipes and Spencer...

Those are the ones I've seen listed as him showing admiration for. Like you I haven't and don't plan to read his manifesto, not even to see what he said in his one mention of Jeremy Clarkson....

I don't think for a second that his love of Israel drove him to carry out that mass-murder. What motivated him was his insane hatred of Muslims where he saw liberal and multicultural governments and individuals as working hand in hand with the Muslims to take over Europe and impose Sharia etc etc. He sees Israel as some sort of front-line in the battle against the Muslim hordes, and wanted the Palestinians expelled. The thing is, given what I've seen floating round of what he wrote, he appears to only like Jews who hate Muslims. All the rest are disloyal, and I do suspect if he didn't have Muslims to hate, Jews would be his focus of his hatred.

Larry Derfner wrote a really good article about it:

“Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multi-culturalists.

“So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multi-culturalist (nation-wrecking Jews) ARE, while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Approx. 75% of European/US Jews support multi-culturalism while approx. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP .” – Anders Behring Breivik, Norwegian mass murderer, from his 1,518-page manifesto.

What does this mean for Israel – that this neo-Nazi monster repeatedly expressed his affinity for “Israeli nationalism” together with his loathing for “the so-called Jewish liberals,” whom he called “multiculturalists”?

Let me start by saying what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that the Israeli right-wing majority – Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, Shas, United Torah Judaism, National Union and Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) – share Breivik’s ideology, which is genocidal, anti-Muslim, anti-liberal, national supremacism.

It does not mean the Israeli Right bears any responsibility, even indirect, for inciting Breivik to kill.

It does not mean that the Israeli Right sympathizes with the atrocity. While there was a flow of talkbacks in the Hebrew media showing varying degrees of support for it – as well as a trickle of talkbacks to The Jerusalem Post – the overwhelming majority of Israeli right-wingers were repelled by those murders.

So despite Breivik’s expressions of solidarity with the Israeli Right, the two are much, much more different than they are alike. Without a doubt, the nationalist/haredi alliance “did not shed this blood.”

But there is a connection between the two – and I think the right wing and all of Israel know this at some level.

http://israelleft.com/2011/07/28/the-breivik-effect-in-israel-and-abroad/

[King_David]

35. Nope.

There's no need to elaborate.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. No worries.

It probably would have been better to explain what you mean as I took it to mean that you think the motivation of those who dare to mention that Breivik admired RW Jews and Israel is antisemitism. But that sort of thinking is pretty stupid so I thought I'd give you an opportunity to explain what you meant.

[Mosby]

13. I had a post deleted recently for asking that question

so be careful I guess.

[King_David]

14. Why would it be deleted,the SICKO in Norway

Has fuck all to do with Jews and Israel.

People rubbing their hands with glee have 'motives' (nuff said)

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I'm pretty sure that's not the reason yr post was deleted...

The post yr replying to is still here, and I've seen many people ask in the past why particular OPs are posted in and they're not deleted....

[Mosby]

37. why are you "pretty sure" violet?

Do you even know what post I'm referring to?

Honestly if I really cared a lot about it I would make a post in ATA but its just not that important to me.

But hey if you want to make a post in ata asking about it knock yourself out, it was post 13 in a thread by scurrilous entitled: "norway massacre suspect aired anti-muslim pro-israel views".

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Well, because posts asking why an OP is in I/P dont get deleted

I've seen plenty as well as the post you replied to in this thread. If a post asking why also includes comments aimed at the decisions mods make, then that would probably be seen as interfering with forum moderation then I'm guessing it would be deleted. I'd imagine that would be pretty much What skinner would say as well if you asked him

[Donald Ian Rankin]

168. Have you actually bothered reading the quote from her?

It's in IP because Geller uses the opposition of those at the summer camp to Israel to minimise their murders.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Pamela Geller is a sick and very bigoted individual..

What's the bet she claims she's not Islamophobic, she's just anti-terrorism...

[shaayecanaan]

12. Another "Obama-type liberal", apparently...(nt)

[shira]

18. Team Mondoweiss are the pure liberals (progressives) apparently... n/t

[shaayecanaan]

22. I know which one I'd prefer

and Im pretty sure as to your preference as well.

[shira]

23. No one decent should prefer one type of bigot to another...

It's also rather disgusting to portray Barry Rubin as someone who has similar views to Geller, Spencer, etc.

I imagine that's how Geller and company portray Obama, as someone who has similar views to Hamas.

[shaayecanaan]

26. Actually, I think their views are almost identical

particularly Rubin's remark about the massacre victims being engaged in a pro-terrorist training camp, which sounds exactly like something Geller would say.

Do you endorse Rubin's remarks in that regard?

[shira]

27. Did you actually read all of Rubin's original article and his 2 posts defending them? n/t

[shaayecanaan]

28. His 2 posts backpedalling from them, you mean (nt)

[shira]

29. Then you didn't read all of his original article. Or all you're interested in is smearing...

....and discrediting anyone who takes a pro-Israel stance.

There's nothing in the 2 postings he wrote afterwards that is any different than what's in the original.

If you think he's backtracking, then please show exactly how he's doing so....

[shaayecanaan]

44. Do you endorse his statement that the victims were engaged in a "pro-terrorist training program"?

If not, then we are in agreement. If you're unwilling to actually endorse his statements, its a fair indication that they're beyond the pale, which is precisely my argument.

[shira]

51. No, of course not as Rubin never said that....

5. I never said and don't believe that the camp in Norway was a terrorist training camp. A terrorist training camp is a place where people are trained to use guns, explosives, and various methods to stage military attacks and then escape afterward. What went on in the camp in Norway was purely conversational, theoretical, and political. That's obvious.

[bemildred]

59. "The youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially ... a pro-terrorist program."

That's what it says.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?ID=231838&R=R1

[shira]

61. Read Rubin's Oslo article and the 2 posts he wrote afterwards...

Can you summarize in 1-2 sentences the main point of his article AND tell me if you agree/disagree?

No deflection or avoidance.

I have no problem with any part of Rubin's article.

[bemildred]

63. His opinion piece is delusional and incoherent.

To summarize it, it would have to have some sort of coherent argument, which it does not. I don't think even he knows what he means, but the implication is clearly that anyone who supports the Palestinian cause supports terrorists, and the dead Norwegians asked for it by cuddling up with terrorists.

[shira]

64. I didn't think you would honestly summarize it and then comment....

Rather, you put your own spin on it and created a strawman so you could tear it to pieces.

Pretty much what I expected.

Thanks.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Really, you should have said that you wanted bemildred to summarise yr take on it...

That would have given you the result you wanted and all would be good in the world!

for the record, after rereading Rubin's offending article, I find it as revolting as it was on the first read, and am disturbed that anyone here could say they've got no problem with any part of the article. I mean, saying the youth camp was engaged in essentially a pro-terrorist training program? That's some fucked up shit he came out with...

[shira]

85. Oh please. Where else, other than against Israel...

...is terror excused, justified, or understood as a reaction to occupation - or as a legitimate form of self defense - by otherwise rational and decent people?

Can't answer that one, right?

Duh.

Also, calls for lifting an arms blockade against Hamas is implicit acceptance of terrorism. There's really no other way to look at it. It's not as if folks who are calling for the lifting of the blockade are saying the blockade is perfectly legit and correct, and that Israel has a right to stop Hamas from arming itself with more lethal weaponry. None are saying that they'd be okay with Israel allowing all other goods in and out while keeping the arms blockade in place. Rather, they're against the blockade altogether. Let Hamas arm itself to the teeth and do whatever they wish. What other way is there to see it than as being a pro-terror position? It's not as if the same people against the blockade are in any way condemning or pleading with Hamas to stop (see Amira Hass' article below). There's zero pressure from these people against Hamas to stop what they do.

Hass wrote about this near the end of this article...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-sanctity-of-the-soaring-qassam-1.351249

In the binary thinking of those who oppose the Israeli occupation (Palestinians, Israelis and foreigners ), public criticism of the tactics used in the struggle of an occupied and dispossessed people is taboo. It is as if criticism would create symmetry between the attacker and the attacked. To a large extent, this taboo has been broken with regard to the Palestinian Authority: Many opponents of the occupation have no qualms about portraying the PA as a collaborator, or at least as the captive of its senior officials' private interests. But when it comes to Hamas' use of arms, silence falls. As if there were sanctity in the Qassam soaring high into the sky, only to fall amid the clamor of Israeli propaganda.

....

So for all those who demonstrated in support of the Gazans when they were trapped under Israeli fire, all those planners of past and future flotillas, this is your moment to raise your voices and say clearly: The Qassams merely feed Israel's madness. It is not the Qassams that will ensure the Palestinians, both in and out of Gaza, a life of dignity. It is not the Qassams that will topple the Israeli walls around the world's largest prison camp.

If for no other reason, folks who say they're pro-Palestinian should be all over Hamas for their terrorist acts so that their crazy neighbor to the east, Israel, doesn't strike back and make things worse. The fact is, they're hypocrites. This is AMIRA HASS saying it, not me. They remain silent WRT terror vs. Israelis b/c deep inside they feel it's justified. They have no right to be outraged when they're exposed for who they are.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. What did that have to do with what I posted? Nothing that I can see...

Maybe you could explain the logic that led you from reading what I said to what you posted in response, coz I'm missing the connection totally...

[shira]

93. It means, as Rubin writes, there are too many pro-Palestinian types who justify/excuse terror...

...against Israeli civilians.

1. Amira Hass (cited in the last post) admits too many pro-Palestinians are silent when it comes to Hamas' kassam terror attacks.
2. In addition to being silent WRT rarely condemning Hamas for rockets, pro-Palestinians are mostly against any type of Gaza blockade, therefore being essentially for Hamas arming up with nastier weapons to use against civilians in more terror attacks.

Justifying/excusing terror of any type is wrong.

That's what Rubin wrote about and he's correct.

Those who say Palestinians have some "right" to resistance (terror) and that suicide attacks are "noble" (like the ISM for example) are justifying terror.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. So you wanted bemildred to summarise yr take on the article. You should have just said so...

I don't know what the purpose is of demanding that someone else summarise yr interpretation of that article, but obviously it's doing something for you...

[bemildred]

82. I try and I try, but it's just never good enough.

Sigh.

But really, why would I want to put someone else's "spin on it? You asked me my opinion, you have it. There is more to this thinking business than just slapping some snappy ideas together and trying to talk louder than the next guy. I don't think Rubin has any clear idea what he means, he is emoting cleverly, not thinking clearly.

[shira]

83. No you didn't. You read 1-2 sentences and ignored all the rest including his 2 posts afterwards. NT

[shaayecanaan]

91. If someone slaughtered a group of Israeli political youth leaders...

presumably they could also be referred to as a "pro-terrorist program", given that Israel has given material support to terrorist groups in the past (such as the South Lebanon Army) and at the present (such as the PKK).

Wouldnt you agree?

[shira]

92. Uhhh.... nope. I don't see Israelis excusing or justifying terror elsewhere. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

96. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts...

The Israeli government has given material support to terrorist organisations, something that not even you allege that Norway has done vis-a-vis Hamas. You can't write that off with one of your stupid flippant responses, no matter how low your credibility is at the moment.

[shira]

97. Poor comparison...

Where do you see young Israelis at camp or anywhere else excusing, sympathizing with, understanding, or justifying terror against anyone else? That's what you implied when you made the leap from Rubin's article. Bad comparison, right?

[shaayecanaan]

103. What a digusting smear...

before the blood of the victims is even cold, and you would have people believe that the young Norwegians were sitting round a campfire toasting marshmallows and discussing what they could do to help Hamas.

It might surprise you but there are a lot of things Norwegians do with their time other than discussing Israel or Hamas.

This is probably the lowest you have ever sunk, and that is saying something.

[Violet_Crumble]

105. I'm in total agreement with you on that. I'm finding it quite revolting n/t

[shira]

108. It's far more disgusting to remain silent through years of Hamas terror against Israelis...

...only to sanctimoniously scream bloody murder once Israel does something to defend against it (either the blockade or military strikes).

Did you find what the Norwegian ambassador said to be disgusting?

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Deflection's not going to work. What you said about the Norwegian victims was revolting...

I said in another thread that Rubin's attempts to draw sympathy away from them by painting them as attending 'essentially a pro-terrorist training program' (something you claimed to agree with) is extremely insensitive and lacking in any sort of judgement whatsoever. And what he did is exactly what you did in the post Shaay commented on. There's a discussion going on in another thread about the reasons why Rubin and his cohorts would react the way they have to the slaughter in Norway, and I'd be assuming that yr reasons for reacting the way you have are pretty much the same as theirs...

[shira]

118. Those who can't see terror for what it is vs. Israelis don't have a right...

...to sanctimonious outrage, in this case or others.

The ISM thinks Palestinians have a "right" to resist (terror) against Israelis and suicide missions are "noble".

Barghouti of the global BDS movement says the same about this "right" to terrorize (resist).

[Violet_Crumble]

119. I'm not the ISM, in case you haven't noticed...

And I'm telling you that what you said about the victims of that slaughter in Norway was absolutely disgusting and lacking in any sympathy or empathy. Focus on what you said, rather than continually making up shit about what others say. I'd hoped that you'd go back and revisit what you wrote and retract that comment, but it's very clear that you have no interest in doing that, and are unashamedly unrepentent...

[shira]

122. You support the ISM, which doesn't have a problem with terror vs. Israelis

And that's the point of Rubin's article.

Not the bullshit you're trying to push...

[Violet_Crumble]

124. Still trying to deflect attention from what you said, I see...

And what 'bullshit' would I be trying to push? Pointing out that you saying what you said about the Norwegian victims was extremely insensitive and nasty? Go back and read what you said, and then come back and tell me why me taking issue with what you said is bullshit I'm pushing. And see if you can do it without trying to change the subject yet again...

[shira]

127. You're the one deflecting from Rubin's main point....

Mainly that terror is inexcusable whether it's against Norwegian kids or Israeli kids. It's not more justified against Israelis whether you think it is or not.

You should stop deflecting from the main point.

[Violet_Crumble]

130. Not at all. I'll remind you of what you said...

Where do you see young Israelis at camp or anywhere else excusing, sympathizing with, understanding, or justifying terror against anyone else?

A person who'd made that ugly comment in the heat of the moment about the Norwegian victims would have gone back and reread what they'd said and realising what they'd said, have apologised for the insensitivy they'd shown. Not you. A person who has no self-awareness of the impact of what they say wouldn't. That's Rubin and you...

[shira]

133. Yes, and as Rubin wrote "though the campers didn't see it that way, no doubt"....

The campers were calling for boycotting Israel and lifting the blockade against Gaza.

As if terror were absolutely no part of the equation and Israel is just being mean to Palestinians for no reason. So terror vs. Israelis is excused and Israel should be boycotted for whatever they do to defend against terror. Israel has no right to even blockade weapons from Hamas as Hamas is not a terrorist organization, what they do is justifiable and they should have the "right" to resist (as the ISM and BDS movements argue).

[Violet_Crumble]

136. I know that you and Rubin think they were at a 'pro-terrorist training program'

Don't you have any inkling of why what you said was so nasty? Don't you understand that when you and Rubin say things like that, yr working on taking away sympathy from the victims of the mass-murder? Have you actually expressed any sympathy at all for the victims? I can't recall if you have or not. If you hadn't, and hadn't come out with that ugly comment, I wouldn't think anything of it, but if you haven't and then came out with that ugly comment, then that's pretty bad, imo...

[bemildred]

113. Violet? Silent?

:rofl:

[Violet_Crumble]

115. Yeah, I had a chuckle at that myself..

:hi:

[shira]

17. Great. Mondoweiss bigots and their fans disgusted at the Atlas Shrugs bigots. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer fundraise on Norway attack

America's most virulent anti-Islam bloggers continue attacking all Muslims, accuse terror victims of anti-Semitism

As a writer, it sure sucks when someone murders a bunch of people based on your ideas. (I mean, I assume that sucks. Weirdly, it's never happened to me.) So you can understand why right-wing anti-Islam bloggers are all being kind of defensive, these days.

Anders Breivik, the anti-Islam terrorist who killed 77 people in Norway on July 22, read a lot of American anti-Islam bloggers, many of whom he cited in his lengthy manifesto. Breivik's favorites included Robert Spencer, a self-proclaimed expert on Islam whose "Jihad Watch" blog was quoted and cited in Breivik's manifesto, and Spencer's ally and collaborator Pam Geller, whose "Atlas Shrugs" was similarly recommended by the killer.

So some people have been like, "hey, wow guys, a crazy person took everything you write so seriously that he murdered a bunch of people, in the name of protecting his nation from the creeping 'Islamization' of Europe that you guys constantly crow about, maybe you guys should stop and think for a minute about the horrible, hateful things you all write, all the time." And Spencer and Geller have basically screeched back, "CENSORSHIP!!!!!"

They are now actually fundraising on the fact that they helped inspire a massacre. Or more accurately, they're begging for money to protect them from the imaginary witch hunt that they claim the liberals will mount. (Is this part of the witch hunt? I am always confused about whether I'm witch-hunting or not, when I call people horrid hateful bigots.) Spencer also signed Geller's fundraising blog, and if you donate more than $500 to Atlas Shrugs, ThinkProgress reports, they will send you a signed copy of Geller's book, "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance." (I assume a coordinated terror attack against radical Islam's liberal enablers is written off in the pamphlet as impractical.)

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/01/pamela_geller_norway/

[shaayecanaan]

24. Anti-Defamation League op-ed on Geller and Spencer

"The attacks in Norway seem to stem from a different source. They are the first to emerge from a relatively new, specifically anti-Islamic ideology that moves beyond religious or racial prejudices to incorporate anti-Islamic sentiment as the focal point of a larger worldview.

Growing numbers of people in Europe and the United States subscribe to this belief system; in some instances it borders on hysteria. Adherents of this ideological Islamophobia view Islam as an existential threat to the world, especially to the "West."

Moreover, they believe that leaders and governments in the Western world are consciously or unconsciously collaborating to allow Islam to "infiltrate" and eventually conquer democratic societies.

Left-wing "multiculturalist" sentiments tear down traditional European culture, they argue, allowing Muslim immigrants to replace it with "their own" culture and values. The result, they claim, will be the demographic, cultural and, eventually, political suicide of the West -- unless action is taken to stop it.

These ideas are no longer geographically isolated. The Oslo perpetrator in his manifesto quoted extensively from the writings of European and American bloggers -- including Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller -- who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam. Because of the reach of the Internet, these ideas float freely across borders and are reinforced by like-minded bigots.

This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological -- and far more deadly -- form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism."

http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Terrorism/20110801-Wash+Post+Oped.htm

Backgrounder: Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)

Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), created in 2009, promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy "American" values. The organization warns of the encroachment of shari'a, or Islamic law, and encourages Muslims to leave what it describes as the "falsity of Islam."



Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who took over the group's leadership in April 2010, view SIOA as protecting against a powerful and dangerous "Islamic machine" that stands to threaten the security and cultural fabric of the U.S. Geller, in views she outlines in her blog, has linked Islam to bestiality and rape of minors and described the Qur'an as "inspiring" violence. Geller has also charged that Muslim immigration has caused "rampant" honor killings in North America and Europe, compared Muslims to Nazis and asserted that Hitler was inspired by Islam.



Geller and Spencer work closely with David Yerushalmi, an Arizona attorney with a record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry. Yerushalmi is one of the driving forces behind Shari'a-related conspiracy theories and growing efforts to ban or restrict the use of Shari'a law in American courts. Geller and Spencer head the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a non-profit organization that was incorporated by Yerushalmi. AFDI and SIOA organize most of their activities and initiatives together, and AFDI serves as host through which Geller and Robert Spencer publish their blogs.

http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/sioa.htm

[shira]

25. Awww, I thought the ADL, Rubin, Geller, and Spencer were all rightwingers on the same team! n/t

[LeftishBrit]

32. Well, since you've brought it up, here's what Rubin has to say about the ADL's opinions.

http://dailypioneer.com/298647/Anti-Semitism-is-on-the-rise.html

No, Rubin is not in the category of Geller or Spencer, any more than Bush and McCain were in the category of the Ku Klux Klan, or Maggie Thatcher or Ian Duncan-Smith in the category of the BNP. But he is a right-winger, whereas the ADL, whether one agrees with every word they say or not, are fundamentally liberals.

[shira]

33. You realize regulars here have bashed the ADL as a rightwing, anti- Muslim organization?

Why do you figure they'd do that? I'm curious.

IMO, the JihadWatch & Atlas Thugs crew is easily as disgusting, nasty and vile as Stormfront, Mondoweiss, and BDS posers. They can all go to hell, eat shit, die, and enjoy each other's company AFAIC. It's funny (well not so much) that they've set themselves up as Team Awesome fighting against Team Evil. Of course, JW and Atlas Thugs do the same thing but in reverse. What are your thoughts on this? Agree, or not so much?

As to Rubin being rightwing, I suppose we'll agree to disagree. You think Norm Geras is rightwing and he basically wrote the Euston Manifesto along with others like Terry Glavin. Maybe they're not your kind of liberals, but I can't say I see them as rightwingers either. Those they oppose on the Left, and the reason they wrote the Manifesto, are IMO the ones with very dangerous rightwing views (leftists who are megaphones for the extreme 3rd world right). I suppose I see Eustonites like Geras, Glavin, and David Hisch in the same way as Barry Rubin on Israel. Different styles but the same message.

All, from David Hirsh to Barry Rubin and the ADL, are hated by the Mondoweiss, BDS, and Stormfront crew for one simple reason. That reason is connected to why they could care less about Palestinian moderate (liberals) like Sari Nusseibeh and Ray Hanania.

I'd be very interested in your thoughts on all this.

[LeftishBrit]

34. I do not think that Mondoweiss begins to be as vile as AtlasThugs (or Stormfront!) no.

However, comparing Mondoweiss with Rubin might be fairer, I suppose. Especially as Mondoweiss links to American Conservative (ugh!)

To clarify my views on Geras: I would not compare him with Rubin. I think he is too right wing on foreign policy, and especially on the very key issue of the Iraq war. However, he is economically progressive, and is if anything more left-wing on the topic of immigrants and minority groups in Britain than I am, let alone Rubin! I find *nothing* about Rubin liberal, except perhaps that he does not seem actively preoccupied with social issues and the Religious Right. There are plenty of ways in which Geras is liberal, even if there are a few important issues where he isn't. He and Rubin are very different kettles of fish.

I think there have been times when Foxman said things that were a bit intemperate, but I don't even remember what they were! The recent articles on the ADL site seem pretty good.

I don't know what you mean by 'megaphones for the 3rd world Right'. There are certainly *some* people who defend the likes of Mugabe or Ahmadinejad, because they're against the Western Right. And that is not progressive, or indeed sane. However, I think there are also some people who consider opposition to military intervention as exactly the same thing as *supporting* dictatorships. Often military intervention does a lot more harm than good, as in Iraq; or is totally ineffective, so that people are killed for nothing. I consider for instance that Nick Cohen's statement that “If you say it is illegal to overthrow a genocidal tyrant, then you have to say that genocide is legal", with regard to the Iraq war is fundamentally dishonest: similar to saying,"If you say that it is illegal to kill/torture/start a vendetta againt the family of a murderer, then you are saying that murder is legal".

[shira]

36. I don't think you've done your homework on Mondoweiss yet...

Here's a sample for you:
http://sadredearth.com/the-malice-of-mondoweiss/

As to leftists being megaphones for the extreme far right, here are Terry Glavin and Maryam Namazie:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-are-rich-white-left-wingers.html

Besides what Glavin and Namazie write, this "Left" advocates the most extreme anti-Israel far rightwing (Hamas, PLO) positions. Ignoring abuses within the Palestinian territories and elsewhere around the world, "understanding" and therefore justifying terror attacks vs. Israelis, against any form of Israeli self-defense, etc. I shouldn't have to tell you that the Iranian, Syrian, or Saudi position on Israel is obnoxiously vile and rightwing but it's advocated by a significant percentage of the "Left" who think much about Palestinian moderates for 2 states like Nusseibeh and Hanania.

Lastly, onto the BDS movement, as this is connected to Team Mondoweiss and they're all for BDS, the ISM, and the FGM. Would you say that a BDS campaign headed by anti-Muslim bigots that singles out only Islamic nations is "progressive" or AtlasThugs type rightwingery?

[shira]

38. I just posted another video of Norman Finkelstein on "Humanitarian Show"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=327519&mesg_id=360059

Finkelstein is considered a hero of the "Left".

There are many here who respect him. There are also many who don't publicly praise him, but they have never once condemned or criticized his views despite all his crude jokes about the Holocaust, Israel/Nazi comparisons, etc....

Noam Chomsky absolutely loves him.

=======

Finkelstein would very easily be considered an antisemite if he weren't Jewish, according to the EUMC working definition that the UCU bigots have rejected.

How do you rate the "Leftist" Mr. Finkelstein (and his fanclub including Chomsky) in comparison to the pro-war, pro-terror, Eurabia pushing AtlasThugs? Finkelstein and his cheerleaders are not just rightwingers, but as bad as the AtlasThugs, right?

Don't hold back now.

:)

[LeftishBrit]

39. Finkelstein is a right-winger; I've always said so.

His attitude to what he calls 'the Holocaust industry' is mean-spirited; extrapolating from the existence of some dishonesty by some people to a broadbrushing condemnation. Reminds me of the type of people who brand all benefit claimants as fraudulent 'scroungers'/ 'welfare queens'.

Also his claim that the Holocaust industry is a major cause of antisemitism is ridiculous and bigoted.

And his views about the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah are just as hawkish as those of Arutz Sheva, just in the other direction.

Is he as bad as Pamela Geller? No. Because very few people are. The point about Geller is that she's not just bigoted, or an Islamophobe, or a hawk, or any combination of these - she is an activist in just about every possible right-wing cause, in her own country as well as others.

[shira]

43. If you believe the only difference b/w Finkelstein and Geller....

...is that Geller is an activist for every possible rightwing cause, then what does that make someone like Finkelstein and his lot - people who are NOT for universal human rights who believe in liberalism for liberals and cannibalism for cannibals? They are on the side of the most reactionary, ultra-conservative, warmongering, misogynist, homophobic rightwing tyrants in the mideast...

You consider a western rightwinger worse than someone supportive of the most ridiculously disgusting rightwingery of the 3rd world? Whatever Geller advocates for cannot possibly be worse than the rightwingery of the elite ruling classes of the 3rd world that Finkelstein, George Galloway, and the Free Gaza pro-Hamasniks support.

[LeftishBrit]

47. 'You consider a western rightwinger worse than someone supportive of the most ridiculously

disgusting rightwingery in the 3rd world?'

Well, if you mean do I consider current western rightwingers worse than RW dictators and their cohorts abroad, then no. But I think that you are referring not to the dictators themselves, but to those whom you feel are supportive of policies that get or keep them in power.

In that context, I consider that the Iraq war (supported by most Western rightwingers) has led to a great increase in 'ridiculously disgusting rightwingery' in Iraq. Not that Saddam wasn't far RW but what is happening now is worse.

In any case, the Middle East is not what is usually considered 'the 3rd world'.

War, and world economic policies that cause or increase poverty and inequality, are far more important in causing rightwingery and dictatorship in the real developing world than some individual westerner speaking on the wrong side (even assuming that there *is* often a right side with a chance of power). Western countries are no longer directly colonial rulers, though they can have this effect by invasions as in Iraq, actively keeping dictators in power, and bad world economic policies.

And you have complained about people equating Rubin with Geller; I think that your equating almost all Western pro-Palestinian activists with Hamasniks is on the same level. Some are direct, active supporters of Hamas, but most aren't. And I am not a fan of Galloway for lots of reasons, but he really has very little power. You realize that he was defeated by a Labour candidate in the last election? He never had much direct political power and now has none at all.


In any case: I think that people generally have more power at home than abroad. Your first question about politiicans or activists seems to be 'What is their attitude to Israel/Palestine first of all, and then to the Middle East in general?' Mine is 'What is their attitude to poverty and social safety nets, at home and (where they have influence) abroad?' Any politician who has the ideological aim of tearing down welfare states where they exist, or cutting social safety nets elsewhere, is a monster of pure indescribable evil, whatever their attitude to Israel/Palestine! So is anyone who opposes civil rights and supports the persecution of minorities in the countries, generally their own, where they have influence. And also: if supporting policies that may increase the power of Hamas makes someone 'right-wing', surely so must support for the Iraq war, which has led not only to many direct deaths, but to massive civil conflict, and to a great increase in the influence of Islamism in Iraq? While I realize that you don't personally support the Iraq war, I think that you sometimes give a pass to people who do support it, which you would not give to the people whom you think support Hamas.

[shira]

49. I suppose your answer is no...

What you'll find in Rubin's writings - and will never find in the writings of the "Blame-Israel-First" crowd - is support for genuinely liberal, reform-minded Arabs...
http://www.amazon.com/Long-War-Freedom-Struggle-Democracy/dp/0471739014
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/03/arab-liberals-worry-about-islamist.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/06/10/a-saudi-liberal-on-the-arab-spring/
http://www.meforum.org/890/arab-liberals-argue-about-america

Rubin supports brave, liberal Palestinians like Sari Nusseibeh and Ray Hanania over those who are FAR more rightwing in comparison.

Rubin's most vicious critics WRT all issues I/P (some of whose views you equate to Rubin) prefer the far rightwingers and never support these liberal Arab reformers. In fact, they only use these liberal Arabs (like Nusseibeh and Hanania) for their criticism of Israel. The most "respected" NGO's in that part of the world - that you support - are no different as they all but ignore these Arab liberal reformers.

==========

I don't believe you could be more wrong than you are when you choose faux liberals/progressives - who are indifferent to or supportive of the most fascist rightwingery of the mideast - over those supportive of real liberal/progressive reform in that part of the world.

Big blindspot for you, IMHO...

[LeftishBrit]

48. On a related point...

when you refer to 'people who are NOT for universal human rights who believe in liberalism for liberals and cannibalism for cannibals': I think that in MOST cases, you are distorting the views of people who believe in self-determination for countries, and oppose military intervention, or colonial rule. This does not mean that they necessarily support right-wing policies in independent states; rather that they believe that the states should be, and remain, independent, even if this means that they pursue right-wing policies.

Some of the countries formerly ruled by the British and other empires do currently have very RW dictatorial governments. Does that mean that the British should never have ended their empire, or that anti-imperialism is a bad thing?

[shira]

50. If the anti-Israel crew supports liberal/progressive values in those countries...

...then they should strongly support liberal/progressive minded Arab reformers in those countries.

Right?

Wrong, because they don't! They smear them as rightwingers.

I would say ANYONE who supports liberal/progressive Arab reformers over those in the mideast with more totalitarian/fascist views is by definition more liberal/progressive no matter their views on western politics.

[LeftishBrit]

53. Anyone who opposes welfare states, blames poor people for their poverty, or blames immigrants or

minority groups (whether Jews or Muslims) for many of the problems of the West is a vile, right-wing monster, even if they are the most ardent progressive two-stater with regard to I/P that ever existed. If they have influence in the ME, by all means let's use it, and be grateful for it (assuming that it isn't just an excuse for war), but they are not progressives.


'ANYONE who supports liberal/progressive Arab reformers over those in the mideast with more totalitarian/fascist views is by definition more liberal/progressive no matter their views on western politics.'

Really??? WHATEVER their views on western politics? Even if they are teabaggers or BNP members? Even if they have absolutely no influence on Middle Eastern politics, while causing massive harm at home?

Frankly, this reminds me at another end of the scale of the people who treat the Iraq war as such a single-issue that they consider Ron Paul and even sometimes Pat Buchanan as by definition more progressive than otherwise liberal people who initially supported the Iraq war.

[shira]

54. You're right, not anyone, that was hyperbole...

...but you do seem to favor those who are against real liberal reform in the mideast over those who are genuinely - and for the right reasons - for it.

[LeftishBrit]

56. I don't oppose liberal reform in the mideast. I would be delighted by it.

I do not know what you mean when you say I 'favour those who are against real liberal reform over those who are genuinely for it'. I am unalterably opposed to the war in Iraq, and in general opposed to military intervention except under the most extreme circumstances - if that's what you mean. But certainly, I am a great fan of people like Nusseibeh and Hanania.

But I will NEVER support anyone who for example prefers the Republicans to the Democrats in America, regardless of their attitudes to ME politics, at either extreme (Rubin or Ron Paul). The contemporary Republican politicians in America are evil personified, as are the more right-wing Tories in Britain.

In general, unless someone is in a position where they have direct influence on another country, I think their attitudes to politics in their own country are more crucial than those to other countries. In the UK, if I had the stark choice between a generally progressive Labour politician (this doesn't include Blair) who had voted for the war in Iraq and a generally right-wing Tory who had voted against it, I would reluctantly but definitely vote for the Labourite.

[shira]

62. And yet you're more likely to criticize and condemn those who are truly working towards that end...

...than you are those opposed to it.

You are more likely to oppose those who advocate on behalf of liberal reformers in the Arab world - and for the right reasons - than you are those who are indifferent or opposed to liberal reform there. The former are neo-cons, rightwing like Norm Geras, Nick Cohen, and Barry Rubin while the latter are for the most part in your opinion, leftists who are misunderstood in their "support" of the ruling elite. You're still holding back in your condemnation of Norman Finkelstein as well as his #1 fan Noam Chomsky, who I'm certain you still consider a leftist even though he hasn't to my knowledge ever written in support of liberal Arab reformers - but has advocated on behalf of the most reactionary ruling elements in those societies (as Maryam Namazie wrote about).

"It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. . . This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class."

At least that's how I see your view on this.

Big blindspot.

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

ETA:
Here's an article in the Guardian today...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/48-arabs-palestine-abbas-zionism

One article after another from the Guardian - which professes to be one of THE leading progressive/liberal papers - giving platforms to bigots opposed to Israel's very existence. For some reason you find a voice to condemn Barry Rubin, but when it comes to this? Silence.

[LeftishBrit]

65. I don't condemn people FOR working towards that end...

and indeed I have expressed strong support for the opponents of dictators in the ME. I am a strong fan of Nusseibeh and Hanania. I am a strong fan of Westerners and others who oppose Islamism *because it is right-wing', rather than just because it is anti-American or because 30 years ago they'd have been whipping up communism as the big scare and excuse for hawkishness and xenophobia, and they need something to take its place. E.g. Namazie, Tatchell, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown - ever come across the organization 'British Muslims for Secular Democracy'?

http://www.bmsd.org.uk/

I don't hold back in my condemnation of Finkelstein - but it seems that no condemnation is enough for you. Fine. There are people whom I feel like that about too.

"It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. . . This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class."


Please don't put words in my mouth. I think that military intervention is usually wrong and counterproductive. I think that dictatorships and imperialism USUALLY result in worse oppression than the evils that they supposedly oppose. There are exceptions, but they are unusual. I do not consider rights as 'western'; I consider military intervention by westerners - or by anyone else - as military intervention! This doesn't mean that it's always wrong or counterproductive, but it usually is.

If someone supports the Iraq war, then they are NOT in favour of rights in the ME, any more than someone who supports Hamas or Iran. I can excuse a person who supported it at the time, on the grounds of the false information about WMD, but not someone who still thinks it is a good thing. So I simply don't trust people who CURRENTLY still agree with the Iraq war to make sensible decisions about foreign policy. This doesn't mean that I support all their opponents either.


And I consider Geras, Cohen and Rubin as very different people, and certainly don't lump them all together.Geras is a liberal with a few very serious blind spots, especially about the Iraq war. Cohen is all over the place, and changes his mind about so many things, that one cannot really call him anything consistently. But his views on the Iraq war are pretty bad. And Rubin is a vile right-winger.

For example:


'What we are seeing today in the West is a definitional struggle: Is the principal danger to European society "Islamophobia" or radical Islamism? If it is "Islamophobia" then it is possible to rationalize a policy ignoring the roots of terrorist attacks and radical forces in the Muslim community while tending to appease demands for more power, funding, and privileges. Otherwise, it is claimed, Muslims will be tortured, murdered, expelled, and mistreated.

Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."

Indeed, this is largely what's happening in Europe: almost is anything is justified to ensure that Muslims are happy.

Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and *the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy*, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.

There is also a different way to look at the situation: By following these policies European governments are likely to increase *not only the threat to their own stability, culture, and society from Islamism* but also to increase the likelihood of antagonism toward Muslims. After all, increasing power, demands, extremism, and violence from Islamists is going to echo on the other side far more than would a more moderate strategy in dealing with these immigrants and citizens....

In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of *this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.*'

I have put asterisks around the most worrying quotes. Rubin is not just worrying about security threats from Muslim extremism; he is claiming that Islamophobia *does not exist*; that the main or only problem is 'radical Islamism' *within Europe*. He is not talking about appeasement of Islamists *abroad*, but about Europaeans allegedly allowing Muslims - less than 5% of the population in most Europaean countries; almost non-existent in some (e.g. in Poland, perhaps the most antisemitic country in Europe, less than 0.1% of the population are Muslims) - to take over their societies. He considers them a threat to *national identity*. Reminds you of the way that antisemites talk about Jews and 'Zionists'?

And it is not only his support for Europaean xenophobia (for this is what it is, whatever its antecedents), that is a problem. He clearly supports right-wing policies at home. Here is a link to a very recent article. Is this the work of a liberal?

http://www.anatoliadaily.com/irst/index.php/authors/23-all-articles-of-barry-rubins/181-what-went-wrong-analyzing-how-the-left-hijacked-liberalism-and-the-democratic-party?format=pdf

[shira]

66. What do you make of Noam Chomsky's support of Finkelstein's vile views?

And how about the latest Guardian article here...

“Could Arab staying power ultimately defeat Zionism?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/48-arabs-palestine-abbas-zionism

Are you capable of giving a full throated condemnation of Chomsky? How about a beacon of liberal/progressive values like the Guardian? And BTW, that quote from Namazie wasn't WRT your views but rather Chomsky's.

I see your point about Rubin and agree. I admit I don't care for or read his articles (or anyone else's) about the threats of radical Islam or political Islam in Europe, America, etc.

[LeftishBrit]

69. First of all,as I have indicated here a few years ago..

I do not engage in debates here about Chomsky, as while I have never met him, he is a friend of friends (in the context of linguistics, not politics); and therefore I am likely to get emotional. I will simply say that I think people too often tend either to treat him as a guru or demonize him, and both are wrong.

I spoke about the article elsewhere.


'I see your point about Rubin and agree. I admit I don't care for or read his articles (or anyone else's) about the threats of radical Islam or political Islam in Europe, America, etc.'

OK, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that! But in my case, his views about the supposed Islamist threat in Europe and elsewhere, combined with his economic views, ARE the key issues for me. I consider people as antisemitic if they regard Jews or 'Zionists' as controlling their countries or institutions within them, or regard Israel as responsible for *other* countries' misdeeds; and I consider people as Islamophobic, or sometimes just generally anti-minorities, if they regard Muslims as controlling non-Muslim countries, threatening their 'national identity', or responsible for other countries' misdeeds. And I consider people as right-wing if they are ideologically against welfare states or wish for ideological reasons to 'shrink the state' and drastically cut public services. Or if they regard obviously centrist leaders like President Obama as 'far left'.

[shira]

72. One difference b/w us on I/P articles we read....

...is that I'm open to reading articles from both political extremes, taking the good/bad points and arguing for or against according to their merits or lack thereof.

I don't read Barry Rubin for his views on social issues or economics, but rather his analysis on I/P. If a source on I/P is for the most part trying to be honest and accurate, that's good enough for me.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. And you don't read Rubin for his nasty views on Muslims?

See, I'm striking a bit of a problem here. I would think that if someone holds views of Muslims that if aimed at Jews would be antisemitic, that alone would lead most people to distance themselves from them and not want to use them at all when it comes to the I/P conflict. I don't understand how someone who expresses views that are anti-Muslim can be seen as 'trying to be honest and accurate' when if it were someone expressing views that are antisemitic, they'd be condemned on the spot and all of their work would be tainted...

[shira]

76. That's what I said. Can't say I'm really interested...

...in talk about 'Eurabia' and such. Have you ever seen me write about that kind of stuff? I think what Rubin wrote was wrong and could be considered bigoted, but I don't believe he's a bigot himself.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. I know what you said. I just don't get why you'd not be interested in anti-Muslim bigotry....

Yr interested in antisemtism wherever it is.

Also, I don't get what the difference is between Rubin and that Atzmon guy you always say is an antisemite. I mean, how is it that what Rubin writes could be considered bigoted, but he's not bigoted, while what Atzmon writes could be considered bigoted, and he is a bigot. It just doesn't make sense...

[shira]

79. I'm a longtime reader of Rubin and I can tell the difference b/w his writings and those...

...of Geller, Melanie Phillips, etc. I only have to read for 2 minutes from the latter two authors to know that what I'm reading is filth. Rubin is not the same. Just my opinion...

[Violet_Crumble]

80. "Trust me"

Here's the thing. You've admitted that you don't read a bunch of what he writes, so I'm not sure I trust a claim of familiarity with the writer. Especially as you appear to be saying that in his case, there's a need to be a long-time reader to understand that he's not a bigot, but then in the next breath you say you don't need any familiarity at all with other writers to judge them as bigots based on what they write...

[shira]

81. Rubin doesn't write constantly about this 'Eurabia' stuff and has published a book on...

...liberal Arab reformers of the mideast who he has great compassion for. I haven't read that book, however, but he's written many articles about Arab democratizers and that means something to me. The point is, Eurabia and such is not mainly what he writes about. It's mostly analysis on current events in the mideast and I/P, and he's very good at that. If his main schtick was writing about Muslims and Islam and such, I wouldn't read him at all. Sites that obsess on Muslims/Islam tend to be extremely bigoted.

OTOH, there are sites you frequent like Mondoweiss where most posts can definitely be considered antisemitic. I realize you don't believe Mondoweiss is antisemitic but most every post they publish just drips with venom and incitement. If most of what they published was honest and accurate analysis, hopes for genuine peace, railing against Hamas/PLO extremism, etc... and only a few posts that could be considered antisemitic, that would be one thing. But it's not.

[shira]

84. Also Violet, there are pro-Palestinians I don't entirely dismiss as bigots for some of their views..

An example is Ray Hanania.

I've read enough of his articles and feel that overall he's an okay guy and peace would be possible if he were in charge. I definitely don't agree with him on lots of issues. But when I read some of what he writes, it's definitely bigoted. I overlook that and give him the benefit of the doubt based on the body of his work. It's not as if I have one standard for pro-Israel commentators and another for the pro-Palestinian ones.

What I notice with you and others here is that you're very quick to dismiss anyone pro-Israel for anything considered bigoted vs. Arabs. However, when it comes to pro-Palestinian sources, you guys very rarely concede ANYTHING is bigoted and deflect/ignore evidence, claiming that those making accusations of antisemitism are against ANY criticism of Israel and use the bigotry card as a way to deflect legitimate criticism. I doubt you'll find any circumstances of the reverse, in which you call out bigotry and those accused come back and say you're against any legitimate criticism. Big time hypocrisy.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. I'm pretty sure I haven't said you dismiss everyone you consider pro-Palestinian as bigots...

I'm pretty sure I was discussing Barry Rubin and his views on Islamophobia. I don't know who Ray Hanania is, apart from that he's a comedian, and while he'd probably be entertaining, a comedian as the leader of the Palestinian people may not have the skillset required to do the job...

Huh? I'm not sure why you turned the conversation to being about me and my views, especially when what you said is most definately incorrect. I do NOT dismiss anything anyone pro-Israel says as being bigoted. Nor do I not ignore bigotry when it comes from pro-Palestinian sources. I think what yr trying to do is enforce yr own stringent stance of what's antisemitism and the far less stringent stance of not being concerned about Islamophobia on others and using that standard to operate on.

Speaking of hypocrisy now you've mentioned it, I do consider it highly hypocritical to not be concerned about Islamophobia, yet have a completely different standard when it comes to antisemitism...

[shira]

95. Correct, I try to apply the same standard to both sides...

You should read some of Ray Hanania's columns in JPost and his own website, Yalla Peace.

If you don't ignore bigotry from pro-Palestinian sources, then how's about addressing the following from Phillip Weiss of Mondoweiss (a website you've claimed is not a hate site)...

The Hebrew sounds as bad in Miriam’s ear as German did back in the 50s, when people hated the Germans.

Emily and I go out on West End Avenue, and a blonde mother goes by with two kids. I hear her talking Hebrew and I feel anger toward her. The kids are in cute outfits. They must have some money to live in this neighborhood. I think about all the seculars who are leaving Israel, and why they don’t speak out against a basic Zionist principle: the necessity of the Jewish state.

she has an appointment with the legislative assistant to her congressman. His name sounds Jewish. I feel anger at him, and give her suggestions of what to say to the guy.

I used to get in screaming matches at dinner parties about The Subject…. I have alienated myself from my peers over this issue. They don’t want to hear. But I don’t know that I can blame them entirely. I seem to have found this spot, of righteous and critical distance. I suppose I had it in my family, too. I really need to take responsibility for my own anger.

A lot is going through my head. At the meeting, Jane said that one problem with our issue is that, Like it or not, it’s going to draw anti-Semites. They show up at lectures and talks. She’s right. I’ve met anti-Semites cloaked in their righteous criticism. I saw anti-Jewish hatred in Gaza, where they paint dustbins with the Star of David. I’ve felt that hatred of Israel myself. When you see the monstrosities of Gaza, you can’t help but feel hatred.

A friend at the meeting said that Hamas only fires rockets to get attention to the siege, which would never command world attention anyway. I know this is true, but. It isn’t like there hasn’t been violent murderous rage on our side of this struggle for a long time.

The situation is built around an edifice of rage. Ever since I got back, I keep wondering what if the Palestinians accepted. Accepted everything and anything for a state, sought the whole world’s good opinion by acceptance. Now they have 90 percent of the good opinion, but they don’t have Washington or Establishment Jews yet. What if Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, who met with them and talked with them about the west, convinced them to take another step of acceptance so that the students could get out of the territory? And forget about all the Green Lines and 1948, and the old stories. Just accept. And lo, there was a mini-state, or a bantustan, and peace and a civil rights struggle. Then maybe Israel would collapse. The hatred and animosity would disappear and so would the reason to be there. They would all move to West End Avenue.

http://sadredearth.com/key-posts/feeling-the-rage-in-new-york/

Lastly, I don't have a different standard WRT Antisemitism/Islamophobia. I wrote earlier today that Ray Hanania writes some pretty antisemitic stuff but I don't consider him an antisemite. I take antisemitism seriously. Same WRT Rubin...

[Violet_Crumble]

99. The thing is, I don't see the same standards being applied...

When Rubin says that Islamophobia doesn't exist, and that Muslims are being pandered to, I really think you should reconsider admiring him as a source of anything at all when it comes to what he says about the I/P conflict, because those sorts of opinions definately do taint his views on the conflict. You wouldn't like it if someone was promoting a writer who wrote a lot they agreed with on the I/P conflict if that writer had also written articles saying there's no such thing as antisemitism and that Jews are being pandered to, would you?

I took a bit of time earlier this afternoon to go searching out Mr Hanania to see what he's written. I don't know what he's like as a stand-up comedian, but his writing came across as pretty mild. What sort of antisemitic stuff has he written? I only read a few articles, but they were totally devoid of any bigoted comments at all...

As for Mondoweiss, it's not a hate site. If it were, the mods wouldn't be allowing us to post from it, as they're all over that sort of stuff. I tried to find the article you referred to over at Mondoweiss and couldn't find it. The link you supplied leads to somewhere else where I couldn't make out what was written because the page elements are screwed up and most of the text was covered by out of control RH boxes. I'd like to read the entire thing to understand what he's talking about. I get that he's angry, but being angry isn't antisemitic. And I doubt someone who's Jewish saying that someone else's name sounds Jewish isn't antisemitic either. Anyway, I've read a fair bit of other stuff from Mr. Weiss and if he ever said anything antisemitic, he's definately not an antisemite...

[shira]

102. I think both Hanania and Rubin are good people despite their flaws...

...and both write stuff that could be considered bigoted.

As for Rubin, unlike many on the left who say they support liberal/progressive values (being against theocratic fascism throughout the ME) Rubin has actually written a book on that in speaking out for liberal/progressive Arabs of the region who put their lives on the line fighting fascist theocracy:
http://www.amazon.com/Long-War-Freedom-Struggle-Democracy/dp/0471739014

I don't see Rubin as a bad guy, even if I don't agree with all he says politically. He speaks up Arabs advocating liberal values.

Same for Hanania, as I don't see him as a bad guy either.

If you can't see how that one piece (which I quoted) from Mondoweiss was vile and hateful, there's no way I can convince you that much of anything else is either, like WRT Hanania. Just read over the part from that Mondoweiss article I quoted. You should find at least 2-3 things VERY wrong there.

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Someone who says Muslims are being pandered to isn't a good person...

Especially so when they say there's no such thing as Islamophobia. That makes them a nasty sort who write ugly stuff about Muslims.

I asked you to provide me with some examples of Mr Hanania's antisemitic comments. I don't think I have the time to read through everything he's written, so could you point me to one or two examples please?

As I said in my previous post, I couldn't find the article that those few paragraphs were taken from, and would like to read it in context and in a form that's actually readable (which it wasn't in the link you pointed to). So you are going to have to point out what bit you think is antisemitic and why you think it's so. And then you can explain why you think it's okay for Alan Dershowitz and pro-Israeli types to say something antisemitic, but not Phil Weiss, who I have on good authority isn't a bad guy...

[shira]

109. More from Phillips Weiss....

...because of the Jewish presence in the power structure. The Senate is dominated by Democrats, and 1/5 of them are Jews, even though Jews are just 2 percent of the population. The Washington Post has said that over half the money given to the Democratic Party comes from Jews. Obama’s top two political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The news lately has been dominated by Obama aides Kenneth Feinberg and Larry Summers. And what does it mean that the Treasury Sec’y gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon’s Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)? As I have frequently said, the biggest money game in town on the Republican side is Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist Jew....

...More on Jews in the Establishment: In the last week or so I typically found myself counting Jewish names in media broadcasts. In the last week or so I typically found myself counting Jewish names in media broadcasts. Everyone from Ezra Klein commenting on Charlie Rose about the Congress to Andrew Ross Sorkin on Terry Gross yesterday, talking financial policy, to Brian Lehrer having on three different Jewish journalists today, and one of them, Nina Totenberg, kvelling about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/liberals-like-to-deceive-themselves-about-jewish-power.html

– Emily and I go out on West End Avenue, and a blonde mother goes by with two kids. I hear her talking Hebrew and I feel anger toward her. The kids are in cute outfits. They must have some money to live in this neighborhood. I think about all the seculars who are leaving Israel, and why they don’t speak out against a basic Zionist principle: the necessity of the Jewish state.

– she has an appointment with the legislative assistant to her congressman. His name sounds Jewish. I feel anger at him, and give her suggestions of what to say to the guy.

– I’ve met anti-Semites cloaked in their righteous criticism. I saw anti-Jewish hatred in Gaza, where they paint dustbins with the Star of David. I’ve felt that hatred of Israel myself. When you see the monstrosities of Gaza, you can’t help but feel hatred.

-Then maybe Israel would collapse....They would all move to West End Avenue.

http://sadredearth.com/the-malice-of-mondoweiss/

Do I think that there should be quotas on Jewish inclusion in elite institutions? No! Well: I would like Jewish participation in mainstream media roundtables on the Middle East held to 50 percent. That is my quota. These ideas have made some of my readers uncomfortable. They've made me uncomfortable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-weiss/rethinking-zionism_b_156955.html

Here's Weiss' glowing paean to a Palestinian Sniper who killed 11:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/the-legend-of-the-silwad-sniper.html#more-26199

[Violet_Crumble]

111. I wish you'd address what gets said to you instead of ignoring it...

Here it is again. This time don't just ignore it. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that Mr Hanania's never said anything antisemitic...

'I asked you to provide me with some examples of Mr Hanania's antisemitic comments. I don't think I have the time to read through everything he's written, so could you point me to one or two examples please?

As I said in my previous post, I couldn't find the article that those few paragraphs were taken from, and would like to read it in context and in a form that's actually readable (which it wasn't in the link you pointed to). So you are going to have to point out what bit you think is antisemitic and why you think it's so. And then you can explain why you think it's okay for Alan Dershowitz and pro-Israeli types to say something antisemitic, but not Phil Weiss, who I have on good authority isn't a bad guy...'

So why on earth would you ignore what I said about the article being unreadable at the link you posted, and go and post exactly the same link again? That's just bizarre.

I'm not sure what you think the other links you posted prove. The first is to an article where he discusses the belief that Jews are seen as outsiders in the US political system. He's correctng that assumption..

The second is the same dodgy link you posted before. Where is the article posted at Mondoweiss? The original would more than likely be readable...

The third is like the first. I'm not sure what yr point is with it.

The last is about a Palestinian who killed a bunch of Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint. I wouldn't call what he wrote a 'glowing paean' at all. I really think you do need to read the links you post in their entirety before saying anything else...

btw, I noticed you keep on ignoring it, but Rubin is NOT a good person. Someone who says there's no such thing as Islamophobia and says that Muslims are being pandered to is something else entirely...

[shira]

117. Pathetic. There's no point going on....

You refuse to see antisemitic bigotry.

And for some reason you feel you have a right to point out other bigotry.

[Violet_Crumble]

120. Until you decide to start addressing what gets posted, there is very little point..

Too right I refuse to see 'antisemitic bigotry' just because you say it's so. For fuck's sake, writing an article about an incident where someone killed a bunch of troops at a checkpoint isn't antisemitic. To claim it is is just ridiculous.

Too right I feel I have a right to point out not only bigotry when I see it, but to point out the hyprocisy of anyone who sees antisemitism in just about anything (as long as its not coming from a pro-Israeli type) but who admires someone who writes that there's no such thing as Islamophobia and that Muslims are pandered to...

[shira]

123. Yes, because counting numbers of Jews, being angry at hearing hebrew or Jewish names, quotas on Jews

.... being paranoid about inordinate Jewish power, and wishing Jews all leave Israel and go back to NYC is not in any way antisemitic.

Fucking pathetic.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. I've asked you several times for a link to the article that's readable...

The link you supplied wasn't. I also searched for it on Mondoweiss and couldn't find it. Anyway, since when has counting numbers of Jews been antisemitic? Or do you think the Israeli govt itself is antisemitic, coz it sure seems fixated on the number of Jews in Israel? See, given the creative interpretations I've seen you give articles here in the past, I'm just not going to take yr word on anything. I'd also like to know how writing an article about someone who killed a bunch of troops at a checkpoint is antisemitic. I'm also still waiting for you to provide even one example of Ray Hanania writing something antisemitic. I've asked several times now for that, and you don't seem interested in backing up yr claim. My guess is he's written nothing that could be considered antisemitic...

What's fucking pathetic is claiming that someone who says there's no such thing as Islamophobia and who thinks Muslims are being pandered to is a good person.

[shira]

129. That's a google cache article from Mondoweiss that Weiss deleted quickly...

...due to it being so blatantly antisemitic. What you linked to is the ONLY evidence remaining of that filth that Weiss was too fucking embarassed to leave on his site.

Why quote from Ray Hanania when you can't see the blatant bigotry from Weiss or Barghouti of BDS? You won't see it with Hanania either.

As to Rubin, he writes and advocates more compassionately about liberal Arab democratizers than anyone you idolize politically and I challenge you to prove otherwise...
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/1966.html
http://www.amazon.com/Long-War-Freedom-Struggle-Democracy/dp/0471739014

Which activists have you read approvingly who actually give a shit about liberal/progressive minded Arabs within totalitarian regimes? Not one, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

132. Well, give me the link to the cached version from Mondoweiss...

Even if what you linked to was readable, how is anyone to know that it hasn't been tampered with or changed? I'd like to read the entire thing and to see it in a readable format and have some evidence that it was ever on Mondoweiss.

Why you should provide those antisemitic comments from Mr Hanania is because in their absence it's a safe bet to assume he's never said anything antisemitic at all. See, I think you just came up with that out of thin air in an effort to show how supposedly even-handed you are when it comes to good people writing bad things...

Rubin wrote that there's no such thing as Islamophobia and that Muslims are pandered to. Expecting me to read more of his ugly crap would be like you being told that it's okay that a writer said there's no such thing as antisemitism and that Jews are pandered to and then posting a bunch of links to articles of that writer purporting that he really respects any liberal Jewish democracy. I would suggest to that person, as I've suggested to you, that there are many other people out there writing about the Middle East that don't indulge in bigotry...

That's right, Shira. If any 'activist' I read says anything that comes remotely close to giving a shit about liberal/progressive minded Arabs, I erupt in a fit of rage, print out a copy of what they've written, run outside and fling it on the barbeque as I wail 'NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!' into the sky ;)

[shira]

134. It doesn't exist anymore. That cache was from June 2009 and it's gone now.

And oh yes, of course the article was tampered with or changed...

Pathetic.

Why don't you email Weiss and ask him about it? At least it appears you see the article is nasty and hateful (so long as Weiss actually wrote it and the context doesn't help explain his bigotry). I suppose that's a start...

[Violet_Crumble]

137. We can't go any further with that one then, so let's focus on another link you posted...

This one was a link directly to an article about the guy who killed a bunch of troops at a checkpoint. You posted it as supposed evidence of Mr Weiss' antisemitic writing. How is writing an article about someone killing troops antisemitic?

And stop putting words in my mouth yet again. I haven't seen anything of the sort about the other article, coz I haven't been able to read it.

[shira]

144. Why not admit there's a problem with someone getting angry hearing hebrew or Jewish last names?

Also, Weiss wrote he attracts antisemites but didn't seem to mind much as he understands their hatred. No pause for reflection.

And how about the part about all Jews leaving Israel for NYC?

========

If in fact he wrote all that - and you can email him to ask - and the surrounding context does nothing to help him (which you can make out for the most part from that link) - then why not admit it's hateful?

[Violet_Crumble]

145. Because yr probably taking it completely out of context, that's why...

Plus I don't even know if that's what he wrote, and I'm not interested enough to waste his and my time sending off emails at yr command....

You were asked to address an article I actually could read and yet again have totally ignored what I asked. How is writing an article about a Palestinian who killed some troops at a checkpoint antisemitic? It's just you made a false claim about Ray Hanania supposedly writing antisemitic things, so I like to check these things!

[shira]

150. Fine, I emailed and we'll see how that goes...

As to Mondoweiss' paean to a sniper...

The terrain in the story reminds me of western legend, the mountains of the Spanish civil war. The Spanish Republicans' resistance to Franco's nationalists in the '30s is heroic. Think of the movie Pan's Labyrinth or the Hemingway novel For Whom the Bell Tolls. In Hemingway's novel, the brave peasant guerrillas make raids on soldiers on the road. There is no question whose side we're on; though yes, Hemingway lets us know how questionable violence is in Pilar's beautiful monologue about the civilian massacre in her village. All the fascists the republicans could get their hands on were mercilessly slaughtered, pushed off a cliff.

A modern Hemingway could never write For Whom the Bell Tolls about the Silwad sniper who made the mistake of opening his mouth. And Guillermo del Toro could never direct a Pan's Labyrinth about Palestinian resistance. Because mainstream western culture has so far only humanized one side in this struggle: the Israeli victims of the second intifadah--most of them civilians-- whose government is colonizing Palestinian land.

If you wrote an article or novel about the Silwad sniper who made the mistake of opening his mouth, a mainstream editor would demand that you humanize his victims, and tell their story too.

Can you imagine someone writing about the murder of Palestinians in this way?

The hate is strong....

[Violet_Crumble]

155. No, you'll see how it goes...

Me, I couldn't give a shit who you annoy by email, but I hope you were honest and pointed him to yr smears and rants about him...


I didn't ask you to repost a section of the article I could read. I asked you to explain what's antisemitic about someone writing about killing a bunch of soldiers. You haven't.

The hate is strong indeed, but it's not coming from Mr Weiss.

[shira]

158. Regardless, Mondoweiss' views break at least 4-5 rules WRT the EUMC def'n...

What's hateful is glorifying and writing approvingly of the murderer of 11 Israelis.

Weiss concluded with:

I'm against violence as much as anyone on this site. But the Silwad sniper and Pan's Labyrinth and For Whom the Bell Tolls remind us that human beings resort to violence when they don't have freedom.

His glowing paean to violence kinda shows he's really not against it.

And he's justifying terror at the end of the sentence, another no-no WRT the working definition...

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Gee, who else could that refer to?

[Violet_Crumble]

159. Wow, they're RULES now, are they? And troops are combatants, therefore legitimate targets...

How the hell is trying to understand why something happens support of what happens? It's very clear that people sometimes do resort to violence when they don't have freedom. What's antisemitic about that?

And as you were the loudest here in this forum about how Israel killing Palestinians during OCL wasn't murder, and you painstakingly tried to convince everyone that most of them were combatants and therefore legitimate targets, it's incredibly hypocritical (and again holding Israel to a different standard than others) for you to now call the killing of Israeli combatants murder and terrorism....

So, I guess me pointing out the above is seen by you as 'calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.'? Oh-kay....

[shira]

165. Violet, here's a link to the Phillip Weiss article. See if you can find anything hateful...

...or antisemitic in it.

Anything at all.

http://sadredearth.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mhta0271tmp

[azurnoir]

166. shira why on earth are you replying to a 2 month old comment ? and at a time when the person

to whom your replying is normally not even here?

[shira]

167. I just PM'd Violet about the post. The article couldn't be read before, but now it can.

Take a look at the article.

Do you find anything hateful or antisemitic in it, from Phillip Weiss?

Anything at all?

[Violet_Crumble]

88. I'd say very few people write constantly on one bit of particular 'stuff'

Where you and I differ is I am concerned when anyone writes about how Muslims are trying to take over a non-Muslim culture, partly because we have our own local versions of these people, and because it's every bit as ugly as the antisemitism that tries to make out that Jews are trying to control the world. It's not something to be ignored, and for most people it taints everything else that writer has to say, especially I/P related, as the subjects of Islamophobia and antisemitism are connected to it. I don't know how it works that antisemitism is connected to it, while Islamophobia is removed from the equation as being of no concern. If a writer says (and I don't care if they say it one or twenty times) that there's no such thing as Islamophobia or antisemitism, talks about how either Jews or Muslims are trying to overrun or control Western states, and (as in the case of Rubin) criticises Obama for trying to mend fences with the Muslim world, then I'd really question why anyone would be peddling that person as someone worthy of listening to.

When it comes to Rubin, apart from the lunacy of saying that the Norwegian summer camp was essentially a pro-terrorist training program, and the examples that LB offered in this thread, I tracked down the article I read where Rubin accuses Obama of appeasing Muslims.

'Obama has a strong sympathy and empathy for Muslims. In theory, that’s just fine but it has led to a policy of trying to win the love of the Muslim-majority world rather than to develop strategies that work and protect U.S. interests.'

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/05/obamas-muslim-problem.html

So, what according to Rubin is what Obama should be working on? Well, the fight against Islam, of course! I'll bold the really disturbing bit)

'Yet we see this theme everywhere in terms of Obama policy: the attempt in Afghanistan to win over the "moderate" Taliban elements; the effort to get Syria to abandon its alliance with Iran in order to be a friend of the United States; the building and restoration of mosques with U.S. taxpayer money; the wooing of the Muslim Brotherhood; and so on.

http://israelinsider.net/forum/topics/barry-rubin-now-we-see-what

Anyone who thinks that after the dark years of the Bush administration there isn't a need for the US to do some bridge-building with Muslims is seriously detached from reality, or doesn't see that Bushco did or said anything that needed redress....

[LeftishBrit]

67. Firstly the Guardian is NOT monolithic and does include a number of people who are relatively right-

wing among its writers. It is one of our few bulwarks against the truly evil right-wing British press, but it is far from perfect, and far from speaaking with a single voice. In particular, 'Comment is Free' is NOT a mouthpiece for the Guardian but allows comments from many perspectives. Secondly, this article has IMO a misleading title. It is not advocating the violent destruction of Israel, but unrealistically expecting that within the nearish future Palestinian peaceful resistance might result in a single, secular democratic state. Secular democratic states are great, but will not happen in the near future in that context. Any attempt to impose a 'single-state solution' in the near future would be totally unrealistic, and would result in long-term civil war. Rather like the invasion of Iraq, come to think of it. Imposing the impossible leads to war.

And if I had been previously silent about this particular writer, it's mainly because I'd never heard of him or read him before! He is not a very well-known or influential individual.

As regards Rubin and some other writers: the reason I condemn them is *not* mainly because of their views on I/P, but because of their views on minority groups and immigrants in the West, and in Rubin's case also because of his support for the economic Right, and clear preference for Republicans in America. In fact, in all the criticisms I've made of him, I *don't think I have actually mentioned his I/P views as a reason, one way or another*! My main criticisms are of his *generally* right-wing views! And the main reason I've made such an issue about him in particular is because he was being described here as a 'liberal'.

[LeftishBrit]

68. By the way, have you come across the writer Richard Ingrams?

A quite influential British writer over the years; an old-fashioned conservative; and definitely antisemitic (and homophobic). Here's an article about him from Howard Jacobson on EngageOnline.

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/printarticle.php?id=574

Yes, there are many mainstream right-wing antisemites. It is *not* a problem of the left in particular.

[shira]

77. Never heard of him. Love Howard Jacobson, though... n/t

[shira]

75. On I/P matters, CiF tends to publish FAR more articles that are extremely anti-Israel...

...and easy on Hamas and the rightwing extremists dedicated to Israel's demise. CiF rarely publishes "rightwing" pro-Zionist opinions.

It's not this particular writer from CiF but their stable of writers who believe in the same (or worse) nonsense. They publish outright antisemites who've written far worse. Things that simply do not belong in a liberal/progressive newspaper.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Do you keep some tally on a spreadsheet somewhere?

I'd love to see it! My experience of CiF has been that it airs the views of a vast spectrum when it comes to I/P issues, and that I/P is only a small part of the overall content on CiF.

What I think the objection is when it comes to those who claim that CiF is anti-Israel and shouldn't air the views of those they consider antisemites (of course, not having familiarity with them that you have with Mr Rubin, yr not equipped to know whether they're antisemites or whether they're just saying something antisemitic) is that they want content that doesn't gel with their own views stifled. There's no such thing as too much criticism of the Palestinians for them, and they'd like a CiF where there's exclusive focus on criticism of the Palestinians.

Why is it that you call criticism of Israel for the occupation 'anti-Israel'? Do you also call criticism of the US for the occupation of Iraq 'anti-American'?

[shira]

94. CiF publishes far more anti-Israel crap than pro-Israel.

There's very little criticism of Hamas and extremist groups on CiF.

An anti-Israel view is one that is based on:

a) slandering and libeling Israel and Israelis
b) advocating a one state solution
c) employing antisemitic rhetoric according to the EUMC working definition of antisemitism

[Violet_Crumble]

100. But where do you get that from? Have you got a snazzy graph? Statistics?

Or is it just yr perception? I'm a bit of an irregular reader of CiF and I've seen quite a few articles appear that are critical of Hamas. CiF isn't 24/7 criticise Hamas, which I suspect is what the issue may be...

Who gets to decide what's slander and libel? And since when has the EUMC working definition of antisemitism been the be-all and end-all of definitions that everyone must agree with lest they be labelled 'anti-Israel'?

[shira]

104. Your comment WRT the EUMC working definition...

FTR, Jews get to decide exactly what antisemitism is. And Jews are fine with how antisemitism is defined by major organizations in the world committed to fighting it.

By not accepting the EUMC working definition or that which the ADL or Simon Wiesenthal center says is antisemitism - and which the vast majority of Jews AGREE is antisemitism - you're essentially arguing that Jews use the "antisemitism card" dishonestly and in bad faith as a tactic to deflect criticism of Israel.

That's vulgar.

In fact, I'm not sure ANYONE here would object to what the vast majority of women, gays, asians, hispanics, blacks, and arabs consider to be bigotry WRT their ethnicities, races, gender, etc.. But for some reason what's considered bigotry vs. Jews is questionable?

That lack of sensitivity WRT Jews is astonishing.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. I didn't realise all Jews thought exactly the same way. My mistake!

I think I can safely say that Jews are just like any other group and share a wide spectrum of views when it comes to defining what is and isn't bigotry towards them. There'll be a central core where the belief is that antisemitism is hatred or discrimination towards Jews, and most people would agree on that, but it's the nuts and bolts of what specifically qualifies as hatred or discrimination where there'd be differences. I'll give you two examples. Some Jews think that all criticism of Israel from anyone who's pro-Palestinian is antisemitic. I doubt very much most Jews agree with that at all. Likewise, as a feminist, I encountered a bunch of angry feminists on another forum long before I arrived at DU who insisted that it wasn't possible for a male to be a feminist, as men are hardwired to be rapists and misogynists. I and a few other feminists strongly disagreed with that, so which bunch of feminists would you inform that they've got a lack of sensitivity WRT feminists?

So, now as well as asking you to provide something concrete to back up yr accusation about The Guardian, you can add to that a request for you to provide something concrete to back up yr claim that the vast majority of Jews AGREE with the EUMC working definition. I think what yr actually doing is taking yr own opinions and saying all or most Jews think the same way as you. What yr doing this time is instead of equating 'Israel' and 'Jews' yr equating 'Jews' and 'Shira'.* I'd hazard a guess that most Jews aren't even aware of the EUMC working definition, as I wouldn't know it exists apart from you bringing it up all the time in this forum. I personally only have two areas of issue with that definition, and that's the bit where they say it's antisemitic to demand of Israel a standard of behaviour not expected of other countries, and comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. The latter I've been discussing with you in another thread, and while the former would be fine if it was worded in a way that said while it could be antisemitic, there are other reasons for people doing it, like anger at the blatant support Israel gets from other states in its ongoing brutal occupation of the Palestinian people. And the big problem with it, of course, is that some 'supporters' of Israel take it to mean that if someone hasn't first criticised every other country for everything they do wrong, they're antisemitic to criticise Israel...

* Using the Conflate-a-tron, that last sentence reads as 'That lack of sensitivity WRT me is astonishing.'

[shira]

110. The US State Dept. agrees with the EU regarding antisemitism (nazis = jews)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/102406.htm

It's a pretty safe bet that when these independent government agencies agree with every major Jewish organization committed to fighting antisemitism, what they define as hatred towards Jews is really hate and is not debatable nor controversial. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. It's antisemitic. Only antisemites would try to argue against this.

Tell me, when the UN keeps only Israel from being represented in the Security Council and the UNHRC obsesses on Israel and saves its most damning resolutions only for Israel, do you not think that's antisemitic?

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Huh? If someone says that Nazis = Jews, then that is antisemitic...

But if someone says that they think Gaza is just like the Warsaw Ghetto, that's not necessarily antisemitic, as I discussed in some detail in another current thread that I'm not going to repeat here as you clearly ignore much of what gets said to you in replies to yr posts. To claim I'm antisemitic because I pointed that out is outright ugly, misrepresenting what I said and absolutely silly. Especially more so because you just came from arguing that when it comes to 'supporters' of Israel like Rubin, just because they say something bigoted against Muslims, that doesn't make them Islamophobic. Unlike Rubin, I haven't said anything bigoted, yet you rush in with a massive broadbrush to paint me as a bigot...

[shira]

116. Just saying that only antisemites would argue with every major institution committed to fighting...

...antisemitism, whether Jewish organizations or non-Jewish, on what is considered bigotry and hate speech against Jews.

That's all.

[Violet_Crumble]

121. And who are these people who are arguing with every major institution??

Apart from the fact that you wouldn't know the intricacies of what every major institution defines as antisemitism, pointing out that holding Israel to a different standard (something you do regularly) and that comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto does not necessarily make someone antisemitic doesn't make me an antisemite.

That's all...

[shira]

125. It's not ONLY comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto and holding Israel to a different standard...

...but also the malicious lies and slander that incite hatred, making Israel out to be a unique evil, as well as dehumanization (an example being that paragraph from Barghouti about all Israeli Jews being oppressive, settler, colonizers) which is a very crude generalization. Add to that blaming Jews exclusively where there is blame on both sides.

Both Barghouti and Phillip Weiss are antisemitic in every respect according to this flowchart, for example:
http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/1702

You don't believe in the EUMC working definition. Why? It's in accordance with the ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Vidal Sassoon Center for Antisemitism, and the US State Dept quotes from it approvingly.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. But you hold Israel to a different standard. Do you consider yrself to be antisemitic in doing so?

I bet not. And as I've explained before, comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto isn't necessarily antisemitic. Many people have a tendency when angry to compare what they're angry at to the Nazis in some way, because it's the worst thing they can think of and it's a lazy way of expressing how horrible whatever it is they're complaining about is. The ones that don't get any benefit of the doubt are those who also throw in things about 'Zionazis' and about Jews or Israel controlling the world...

I've learnt that 'malicious lies and slander' usually is applied by you to just about any criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What don't you comprehend about the obvious fact that Palestinians are going to more than likely focus on what Israel does to them to the exclusion of much else? Do you really think they should just shut up?

Gosh, a flowchart! If it's a flowchart, then it's gotta be reputable and believable! Do you also have a pie chart to add to the authenticity?

You don't believe in the EUMC working definition. Why?

Huh? Didn't you even bother reading what I said in an earlier post about the EUMC working definition? Obviously not, so I'll repost it: 'I personally only have two areas of issue with that definition, and that's the bit where they say it's antisemitic to demand of Israel a standard of behaviour not expected of other countries, and comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. The latter I've been discussing with you in another thread, and while the former would be fine if it was worded in a way that said while it could be antisemitic, there are other reasons for people doing it, like anger at the blatant support Israel gets from other states in its ongoing brutal occupation of the Palestinian people. And the big problem with it, of course, is that some 'supporters' of Israel take it to mean that if someone hasn't first criticised every other country for everything they do wrong, they're antisemitic to criticise Israel...'

I don't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. When it comes to documents and papers, I do believe in them, as I know they exist.

[shira]

131. (Edited) How do I hold Israel to a different standard?

As to Israel and Jews controlling the world, that's what Weiss' paranoid postings show. Too many Jews in power, there should be quotas.....

What I mean by lies, slander, and dehumanization....

a) Nazi parallels, as Israel commits an "act of Genocide" through a "hermetic siege of Gaza, designed to kill, cause serious bodily and mental harm, and deliberately inflicts conditions of life calculated to bring about partial and gradual physical destruction."


b) State sanctioned Apartheid within Israel.


c) Saying all jews within Israel are oppressors, colonists, settlers.


d) Saying BDS is all about human rights and justice while its goal is to destroy Israel and deny SD to Jews (the opposite of human rights and justice).


e) There is no UN sanctioned RoR for all refugees including descendants. And it was a UNGAR which carries no legal weight.


f) When asked how he's a student at a Tel Aviv University within an apartheid system, he said "oppressed" people have no choice. But he's not oppressed as he was born in Qatar and raised in Egypt. He has plenty of choices.


=====


It's one malicious lie after another that only incites hatred.

[Violet_Crumble]

135. OMG. You asked that with a straight face?

Let me give you one of many examples. Israel is a state that has all of the responsibilities and obligations of any other state. Israel, like a few other states, is carrying out a brutal occupation of territory it doesn't have sovereignty over. Yet unlike with other states in that position, you defend what Israel does, usually chiming in with accusations of antisemitism and demonisation at those who do criticise it.

a) I don't agree with using those parallels, though it should be noted that Nazi parallels are used a lot in other topics that have nothing to do with the I/P conflict.

b) I don't agree with that claim, but it's important to remember you think that any reference to Israel carrying out apartheid style policies in the West Bank is also 'lies, slander and dehumanisation'.

c) So? Us Australians with British ancestry are often called things like that by some indigenous activists.

d) That false claim about BDS is a good example of lies and slander and dehumisation.

e) There is definately a UN Resolution regarding Right of Return. It's General Assemby Resolution 194 and it explains Israel's obligations under international law to exercise their right to return to their homes. General Assembly Resolutions can carry legal weight when it comes to building a body of international law. What it doesn't have is the enforcement mechanism that Security Council Resolutions can have...

Just because you don't agree with something, it doesn't become a 'malicious lie'.

[shira]

138. Yeah, I did...

I'm against Israel's occupation, was for the Gaza and Lebanon pullouts, and am all for the conflict ending in a peaceful settlement. UNSCR242 gives Israel the right to be there until a peaceful settlement is negotiated. I defend Israeli actions that protect Israeli citizens and don't accuse EVERYTHING they do in self defense - as you are wont to do - as being illegal, cruel, evil, etc... in some kneejerk manner.

a) I don't agree with using those parallels, though it should be noted that Nazi parallels are used a lot in other topics that have nothing to do with the I/P conflict.

They're malicious lies, right? What other nation is compared to Nazi Germany as frequently as the Jewish nation is? It's holocaust inversion and it's vile.

b) I don't agree with that claim, but it's important to remember you think that any reference to Israel carrying out apartheid style policies in the West Bank is also 'lies, slander and dehumanisation'.

Right, another lie in the delegitimization effort.

c) So? Us Australians with British ancestry are often called things like that by some indigenous activists.

So that makes it okay to label all Jews in Israel in a bigoted manner as oppressors, colonists, and settlers? This is dehumanizing incitement, Violet, considering the context of I/P and the animosity that exists b/w Arabs and Jews. In any 1-state settlement, this is hate speech that would be used by Hamas and others against Jews. It's not something to lightly dismiss with a "so what".

d) That false claim about BDS is a good example of lies and slander and dehumisation.

It's not a false claim at all. It's been explained and proven to you now that BDS is against Jewish SD and for taking rights away from Jews collectively in order to grant exclusive SD to Palestinians. The complete opposite of "rights and justice" that Barghouti advocates.

e) There is definately a UN Resolution regarding Right of Return. It's General Assemby Resolution 194 and it explains Israel's obligations under international law to exercise their right to return to their homes. General Assembly Resolutions can carry legal weight when it comes to building a body of international law. What it doesn't have is the enforcement mechanism that Security Council Resolutions can have...

That UNGAR has nothing to do with descendants of refugees and it has carried absolutely NO legal weight since it was passed decades ago. It is a lie to misrepresent it as Barghouti does.

Just because you don't agree with something, it doesn't become a 'malicious lie'.

What Barghouti has advocated goes beyond disagreement and into lies and propaganda intended to incite hatred vs. a unique evil (against millions of Jewish oppressors, colonists, and settlers). Historical pogroms were based on the same garbage. Malicious lies and dehumanization intended to incite hatred vs. Jews collectively.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. There you go again totally misrepresenting my views...

I defend Israeli actions that protect Israeli citizens and don't accuse EVERYTHING they do in self defense - as you are wont to do - as being illegal, cruel, evil, etc... in some kneejerk manner.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't bother reading what I say, so in the absence of doing that, you should really stop telling me what I supposedly do or don't do.

a) Do you know what the word 'malicious' means? I highly doubt it after seeing you misuse it the way you have.

b) No, stating the bleeding obvious that Israel's policies in the West Bank are reminiscent of South African apartheid is NOT delegitimisation. How on earth does pointing it out delegitimise Israel?

c) Ah, so it's not bigoted to label Australians as colonists and oppressors, but it is bigoted to label Israelis the same? There ya go. Another example of how you hold Israel to a different standard...

d) That comment about BDS was a very good example of lies and slander. You've repeated the same thing over and over again and now are trying to peddle yr own opinion as well as accusations that just hold no water as *proof*.

e) Gosh, do you think it might not have mentioned descendents because it's from 1948? Do you think that just maybe no-one anticipated Israel's intransigence and disregard for international law would go on for decades? Also, there's no expiry date on UN Resolutions, and it carries the same legal weight as other Resolutions passed even earlier. As I said where it differs from Security Council Resolutions is there's no enforcement mechanism built into it. Yr confusing legality with enforcement. I really think yr in no position to be accusing someone of lying because they don't agree with yr strange interpretation and lack of knowledge when it comes to the UN...

As I've already said, just because you disagree with something someone says, it doesn't make them a liar. It makes them someone you disagree with.

[shira]

140. Then stop misrepresenting my views as well and I'll try to stop

...like when you accuse me of being against certain writers because they don't criticize Hamas exclusively, etc. I'll try to do better in the future, okay?

a) What's malicious is that the Jewish nation is far and away accused of being a Nazi state more than any other nation on the planet. That is holocaust inversion and is designed to make the victims of Nazis look like Nazis perpetrating the same crimes against others. NO other nation on the planet is described in such an ugly manner, with so many vile Nazi parallels. It's disgusting and you excuse it as if it's just something to disagree with and no big deal.

b) It's not just W.Bank policy that is apartheid according to BDS, but state sanctioned apartheid WITHIN Israel. What don't you get about this? Don't misrepresent BDS as something more palatable than it is.

c) It's bigoted and dehumanizing to call all Jews of Israel colonists, oppressors, and settlers. Jews, not Israelis, including Jews whose families have been there since at least the 19th century, as well as those kicked out of Arab nations. It's disgraceful that you find no problem with this.

d) I quoted for you Omar Barghouti who is against binationalism (against Jewish SD) and only for Palestinian SD. Why are you pretending the situation is the exact opposite?

e) UNGAR 194 (and you really need to read all of it as all applies, not just parts) only mentions refugees who wish to return in peace (both Jewish and Palestinian) as part of a final peace settlement. The Arab nations at the time all rejected this. Don't make it out to be something it is not. And it doesn't (neither does any future resolution) mention descendants of refugees - either Jewish or Palestinian - having any RoR. In fact, all refugees (generally speaking) are to be compensated accordingly, not just Arabs exclusively. Taking only parts of UNGAR 194 out and presenting it as something it isn't is a lie, Violet. You know what a lie is, right? Whether by ommision or commision....

[Violet_Crumble]

141. Ah, but I don't misrepresent yr views...

Even if I did, that's no excuse for you to continually misrepresent the views of myself and others in this forum...

a) Okay, so you have no idea what the word 'malicious' means. What it means is to intentionally trying to harm, to be spiteful, to operate out of malice. And where did this 'Nazi state' nonsense come from? If someone calls Israel a Nazi state, then that's clearly antisemitic. I thought we were discussing people who draw parallels between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto.

b) What I don't get is why you totally ignore what I said. You think believing that Israel's policies towards the Palestinians in the West Bank is 'lies, slander and dehumanisation', when it's clearly not. Holding an opinion that differs from yrs is not engaging in lies and slander. I disagree with anyone who says apartheid exists in Israel itself, but I'm not silly enough to think that just because I hold a different opinion that they're lying and slandering. btw, I still don't find BDS unpalatable at all, and intend to not have a hot chocolate at Max Brenner tomorrow in memory of the 'compelling' arguments you've been making against it ;)

c) Why do you just keep on repeating the same thing over and over? Do you need a battery recharged so you can get going again and address what I said about the different standard you hold Israel to in this regard? As for what you find disgraceful, given the revolting comment you made about the victims of the Norwegian slaughter, I know I'm on the right track if you think it's disgraceful...

d) You took things he'd said and proceeded to make a complete mess of things, and then pretended to ignore any response. Not a stellar debate tactic...

e) I've read the entire Resolution more than once in the past. I know what it says. I don't know what it is yr trying to say, though. Are you trying to claim that all those 700,000 refugees didn't want to live at peace with their neighbours? And it says nothing at all about a final peace settlement. Here's the section about the refugees:

'Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

I'm not sure why yr going on about descendants. I've already explained why it didn't. Did you miss that? And I'm not sure why yr carrying on about me making something of it it's not, when yr the one who brought up the Resolution in the first place, despite showing a fair bit of ignorance* about Resolutions...

* Let me see if I've got this lie-spotting thing straight. So, claiming the return of the refugees could only happen after a settlement of the conflict, even though the text says 'at the earliest practicable date' would be lying? Making out there's an expiry date on Resolutions would be lying? Confusing the difference between legality and enforcement would be lying? Me, I tend to think that those who disagree with me about the Resolution are mistaken, but if you want to call them liars, who am I to disagree and become a liar for disagreeing with you? ;)

[shira]

142. You wrote: "If someone calls Israel a nazi state, that's clearly antisemitic"

Omar Barghouti has written about Israel's dehumanization of Palestinians (making a paralllel to the way Nazis dehumanized Jews)...
http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-barghouti301104.htm

He has also written about Israel carrying out genocide of Palestinians....
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19121.htm

He has called Israel a racist apartheid state with a racist nature...
http://www.silviacattori.net/article345.html


Oh, but he hasn't explicitly called Israel a Nazi state so none of the above counts and therefore he's not antisemitic, right?

All he's done is describe Israel as a Nazi state. Its actions are nazi like. He hasn't explicitly called Israel a Nazi state.

So all's okay...

[Violet_Crumble]

143. He didn't call Israel a Nazi state...

I'd rather rely on people actually saying it than rely on yr creative interpretations...

[shira]

146. Pathetic. He all but did b/c in every way that's how he describes Israel. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

147. He didn't say it at all, yet you insisted he did...

Using the Shira 'it's lies and slander!' guide, that'd be a lie, wouldn't it? ;)

[shira]

148. It's just a racist state that dehumanizes Palestinians and conducts genocide against them....

Just like the Nazis did.

But it's not a Nazi state, oh no!

And you're defending this trash.

[Violet_Crumble]

149. He did not say just like the Nazis did...

Nor did he say Israel was a Nazi state.

I don't think he's trash, unlike that Islamophobe Rubin that you admire. I don't like it much when someone is so intent on making false claims and smearing someone they disagree with...

Also, the current Israeli government certainly does its best to dehumanise Palestinians. Of course, according to you it'd be antisemitic to say that, right?

btw, I'm off to bed now. Didn't want you to think I 'vanished' under the weight of yr intellectual arguments!

[shira]

151. Yeah, he only mentioned Nazis in the context of 'The Pianist'. Here's the EUMC...

Here are parts from the EUMC working definition (which you apparently agree with since you didn't raise issues with them) that Mondoweiss, Barghouti, and Loewenstein routinely violate:

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

I showed you how Mondoweiss and Loewenstein do this WRT Jewish power in congress, quotas vs. Jews in the press, etc.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Typical anti-Israel position here whether you agree it's wrong or not.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

I've shown you examples of this WRT Barghouti and will quote him as many times as needed. How do you explain this other than deflect or deny fact?

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Maliciously false claims of genocide and massacres fits the bill of a blood libel characterizing Israel or Israelis. Omar Barghouti fits this description as well.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

There's no question Barghouti fits the bill here as well, whether you disagree that it's antisemitic or not.

The US State Dept. agrees with the EUMC definition, as do the ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Vidal Sassoon Center for Antisemitism in Israel. So it doesn't matter if some anonymous Violet_Crumble in Australia personally thinks these professionals in the field are wrong. It's antisemitic and you're either in denial or making excuses for it. Either way it's shameful. I doubt you have a problem with any other professional major organization's definitions WRT xenophobia, racism, bigotry, etc. which is yet ANOTHER double-standard.

Here's WHY the nazi comparison is so vile and why Jews of all people on the planet, or the Jewish State, should never be compared to Nazis...

Holocaust Inversion: The Portraying of Israel and Jews as Nazis
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=0&IID=1526

Hopefully you read ALL of that and then ask yourself which other people or nations on the planet are routinely compared to Nazis, given all the conflicts, wars, and actual genocide going on at the moment. It's vile PRECISELY because the comparison is reserved PRIMARILY for Israel/Jews and is a gross double-standard.

[shira]

152. More ADL on nazi=israel antisemitism in rallies and protests....

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/Israel%20Protest%20Report%20v10.pdf

Whether it's written or spoken by the likes of Omar Barghouti, it's just as vile as all the imagery seen in the ADL report.

It's extremely dangerous as it incites irrational hatred vs. Jews.

You're just digging yourself in deeper and losing any credibility you have left by rejecting the comparison as antisemitic bigotry.

[Violet_Crumble]

154. I'm pretty sure you tell me regularly I'm losing any credibility with you...

When does the credibility run out? I must have had so much to start with!

Considering you've made a comment equating a Jew to Nazis in this forum, I don't think yr well-placed at all to be slapping the 'antisemite' label of anyone...

[shira]

157. No one rational could disagree with what every major institution committed to antisemitism...

....defines as antisemitism.

Your sources should stick to legitimate criticism and not step over the line.

[Violet_Crumble]

160. I'm not even sure what every major institution says...

And as there's very little in this world I agree with 110%, I'm quite satisfied with my own level of rationality...

Maybe you should fire off outraged emails to my sources and tell them off or something. I'm sure that like me, very few people after reading how you continued to laud Rubin even after being shown examples of his anti-Muslim writings would get too bothered about anything you say about bigotry of any form...

[Violet_Crumble]

153. He did not say 'just like the Nazis did' or call Israel a Nazi state...

Here are parts from the EUMC working definition (which you apparently agree with since you didn't raise issues with them)...

What are you babbling about now? I posted my views on that definition, which you clearly didn't read, as you proceeded to ask me if I 'believed in it' or not, and now yr telling me I didn't have issues with any of it, which I certainly did.

You clearly don't read what gets said to you, or choose to totally ignore it, so here's the same in return...

[shira]

156. He made Nazi/Israel comparisons, which is bigotry according to all major institutions committed...

...to fighting antisemitism.

So it's antisemitic whether you believe so or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

161. I think yr posts are a very good example of why the EUMC working defintion was never adopted...

...by the EU or the UK. Unfortunately there are many folk who use it for political purposes and twist what it said to suit their political agenda, especially when that agenda appears to be portraying most if not all Palestinians as raving antisemites. Not that anyone in this forum would try to do that!

Anyway, it's not antisemitic whether you believe so or not...

[shira]

162. Disgraceful. It's not just the EUMC that defines comparing Israel to Nazis as antisemitic...

It's every major institution committed to antisemitism.

ADL
Community Security Trust
Vidal Sassoon Center
Stephen Roth Center
Simon Wiesenthal Center
etc...

Your dismissal of what every major institution says that fights antisemitism is itself vulgar.

Holocaust inversion is a form of holocaust denial. Think about that next time you excuse it.

=====

ETA: As far as how the EUMC is applied today...

The FRA, in a document entitled 'Data collection and research activities on racism and xenophobia by the EUMC (2000-2006) Lessons learned for the EU Fundamental Rights Agency Working Paper 2007', stated regarding the definition:

In order to facilitate the data collection work of NFPs the EUMC developed, together with the OSCE/ODIHR and Jewish organisations, and on the basis of consultation with experts, a guide to data collection on anti-Semitic incidents. (This followed on from an earlier report in which it had identified the lack of both legal and operational definitions regarding anti-Semitism). The guide includes a proposal for a non-legal working definition to be used at national level by primary datacollecting agencies. Following feedback by the NFPs and other stakeholders the guide, which is considered as ‘work in progress’, will be reviewed.’ <11>

The working definition has been adopted or is used by a number of European and other organisations which monitor and combat hate crimes, including the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, and the National Union of Students in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights_Agency#Report:_Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism

The US State Department also uses this guide.

[Violet_Crumble]

163. If that's actually true, then they all suffer from the same flaw...

It's the same flaw that was explained to you which you chose to totally ignore. And that flaw is the example I gave before. If someone compares Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto, it doesn't necessarily mean they're being antisemitic. Unless they go on to say stuff like Jews control the world and other antisemitic things, it's likely they were indulging in one of the internet's most popular sports, Godwinising...

Just out of curiousity, could you give me the link to where that Community Security Trust define what antisemitism is? I'd like to read it...

[shira]

164. They're not flawed, it's those who spew bigotry and excuse it WRT Israel who are flawed

Here's something from the CST blog about the EUMC definition:
http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=2575

As to CST methodology in defining antisemitism:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=625&PID=0&IID=2966&TTL=Devising_Unified_Criteria_and_Methods_of_Monitoring_Anti-Semitism

Listen, people like Phillip Weiss of Mondoweiss don't only compare Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto but also make other crude Israel/Nazi comparisons like the genocide blood libel. He also goes into Jewish power, counting Jews in power, wanting quotas on Jews in the press, and he gets angry hearing Jewish last names. His site is also allied with Electronic Intifada which is also a hate site run by another vicious antisemite who is even more vulgar than Weiss.

[Jefferson23]

46. lol. n/t

[shira]

52. What problem do you have, if any, with Finkelstein's Hezbollah views?

He's for their "right" to terrorize Israelis and he ridiculed Lebanese people who wouldn't vote for Hezbollah's warmongers.

No problem?

[LeftishBrit]

55. I suppose the 'lol' is at the concept of Finkelstein being a right-winger

But is there any reason to regard him as an obvious left-winger? Does he have any political views outside of I/P and the 'Holocaust industry'? I know that many years ago he opposed the Vietnam war; but I know nothing of his views on economic or social issues or anything else outside these issues. And I do consider that his views on these issues are right rather than left. This does not mean that he may not be a good scholar (I have not read his academic writings); nor does it mean that he should be punished or denied tenure on account of his political views. The latter is a matter of academic freedom and civil liberties, and applies to right and left alike or it means nothing. But I still see no reason to call him left-wing, unless there is truly something that I've missed. The enemy of certain right-winges may still be right-wing.

[Jefferson23]

70. It was rude of me to dismiss your comments/conclusions with a lol.

I can be irreverent, one of my failings.


Your question: But is there any reason to regard him as an obvious left-winger? Does he have any political views outside of I/P and the 'Holocaust industry'?

The way you framed this I believe it is safe to say you have made your determination based on his views as you phrased it,on
the Holocaust Industry work, and Israel/Palestine. Since you have not read his academic work and have not referenced any
sources, I have no idea how you came to the conclusions you have.

Finkelstein has been much maligned, and his work certainly does not need me to defend yet when I see such blatant misrepresentation
sometimes I can't help but laugh. The campaigns against have worked, so it is important to know what you used to formulate the opinion you hold
which is not based quite frankly, in truth.

I have been introduced to Finkelstein only once after attending one of his speaking engagements, and our conversation was
on his study of Ghandi's writings, the topic of non submission. I say this in reply to your question re: his economic/
social views, I have no direct knowledge of either.

I would like to direct you to his work, if you decide to read it, I would be puzzled if you still felt uncertain of his eco/social views.
He is quite clear, he stands for the self determination/equality of all people, not exclusive to Palestinians. By what measure would he
use otherwise to defend them in the first place??

Your statements: His attitude to what he calls 'the Holocaust industry' is mean-spirited; extrapolating from the existence of some dishonesty by some people to a broad brushing condemnation. Reminds me of the type of people who brand all benefit claimants as fraudulent 'scroungers'/ 'welfare queens'.

Again, I can't stress enough that by passing his work leaves you without pertinent information. First off, by your follow up comment it leaves me to wonder you do not realize who he exposed. He expresses no scorn for legitimate recipients, he wrote this to honor those
who deserved the money. And please be aware, as I do take great offense when you reference those responsible as "some dishonesty, by some people"... NO, there were not just some, their great theft left many who rightly deserved the money and went without! The thieves EARNED
the title The Holocaust Industry, THEY, not Finkelstein, were not only mean-spirited to say they were corrupt. These individuals are the ones who dishonored the survivors. Finkelstein is very specific who he condemns, there is no broad brush and his documentation is measured not exaggerated at all.

Raul Hilberg on The Holocaust Industry: "I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

Calling it some dishonesty and by some is tempering it/minimizing it, this is ironic to me how reality turns on its head when it comes to
this subject and I/P.


Finkelstein despises those who embezzled the money from the Claims Conference and emphasized his condemnation to those
running the scam, he names names. He hates what they did and rightly so.


Your statement: "Also his claim that the Holocaust industry is a major cause of antisemitism is ridiculous and bigoted."

He does not make such a claim, he has said the Holocaust Industry has been a main fomenter of antisemitism in Europe, significant
difference from what you posted. It is bigoted to point to causation as to what can grow antisemitism? I don't think you make a
case here, not at all. He does approach the subject very seriously when asked if his work would be used by anti semites
and although there will always be people who will capitalize on an opportunity such as this, it would do a greater disservice to
avoid the truth of what happened.

I would like to add here that I do not understand what the purpose is, of identifying and relying on political labels. You seem to expend a
great deal of effort explaining how to identify who or what is left wing, right wing. I am not suggesting there are no shared agreed upon
human rights principles for the what defines the left, there most certainly are. I could be wrong here, yet I think you would agree that each
and every time you add another caveat, another dimension/sub-category it is done so only through your perspective, vantage point.

As Conservatives today in politics in the United States do not look much like they did 40 years ago, liberals have also evolved
and why I believe these labels do not tell you much. I don't appreciate liberals/Democratic politicians bastardizing the meaning, but the
reality is, they do.

You see this? Tell me what does one learn about the meaning of the labels liberal/LW/Democrat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WDCYcUJ4o


Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084



Your statement: "And his views about the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah are just as hawkish as those of Arutz Sheva, just in the other direction."

Since I do not know what you're referring to here, as you leave no hint, I will try and speak to what seems to be the general
perception of his alleged RW views.


No question, I would not consider Finkelstein a pacifist, but I fail to see how that makes him a RW. I would like to know which liberals you respect that share your opinion of Finkelstein.

Some have referred to him as a street fighting man, he has been physically involved in demonstrations, of late I do believe
he was in Egypt at some point, in solidarity. As you know he has been banned in Israel, also, I wonder if you know how many "liberal"journalists
wrote about his denial of tenure in the MSM here.


Perhaps this is what you are referring to, as I said I was not sure what evidence tells you he is a hawk.


snip*Hezbollah demands that the ordinary principles of international law be applied to Israel as well. Israel must stop treating neighboring countries as long- or short-term parking lots. It must stop indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. This is Hezbollah's message and I agree with it. When Ehud Barak recently threatened, "Maybe we'll have to occupy Lebanon again," Sayyed Nasrallah said the next day, "Maybe we''ll have to occupy the northern Galilee." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You must know that you are more or less hated by the Israeli Likud/right-wing establishment and their supporters, and indeed have been accused, inevitably, of being an enemy of Israel and an 'enabler of terrorism'. This is probably water off a duck's back to you. Nonetheless, what is your response?

Judging by opinion polls, Israel has bigger problems than me. It is among the most hated countries on the planet. It should stop acting like a lunatic state. Once it carries on like a normal country, I will be happily redirect my energies elsewhere.

Do you unequivocally condemn Palestinian attacks against innocent civilians?

It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. But it's also difficult to make categorical statements of the kind you suggest. I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts.

http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16783

More here:
Questioner:It has been said of you, intended as a compliment, that you are the "Jewish David Irving." I would agree with that. Do you, are you proud of that characterization, do you agree with it, do you take it as a compliment?

Finkelstein:Ahhh... I don't know really, honestly, how to answer that question. With all due respect, I think that's a stupid question so I can't answer it. I can't. What do you want? ... Ok, if you ask me what I think of David Irving... listen, young man, I can give you the politically correct answer and say "he's terrible, he's this and he's that." Personally, I don't like the fellow. I think he is a Nazi. However, I have to be fair. And I want you to listen. Fairness means: A) I'm not an authority on the topic on which he writes. Mostly on military history, on the German side, during WW2. Number two, historians who are authorities on him have given mixed ratings. Gordon Craig, one of the leading historians on Germany in the US who writes regularly for the New York Review of Books, Gordon Craig wrote, "his contributions are indispensable." I can't change that. I cannot say Gordon Craig is wrong. You know why I can't do it? Because I'm humble enough to say: I-Don't-Know. John Keagan, one of the leading military historians in the UK, when he testified in the Irving Lipstad trial, he testified on his side, on Irving's side, as being a good historian. So I can only report to you what other historians have said.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=99&pg=11



Norman Finkelstein would benefit imho to leave out the polemic style, but then he wouldn't be Finkelstein. One would need to strain
themselves to see him as RW. His work is not tied up in tempered moderate tones, his documentation is not digested easily and we very well know the occupation is anything but moderate and or tempered.

[LeftishBrit]

71. Well...

I have to admit that I'm not an expert on Finkelstein, and I may be missing certain things. My question on 'how can he be considered a left-winger?' was a real one, not a rhetorical one. He may really be a left-winger in certain ways but I don't know what they are.

And where I get my views of him as 'right-wing' comes from the following sources:

(1) His comments on p.85 of 'The Holocaust Industry'. Note: I have not read the book in its entirety but only seen excerpts. I do realize that the book is about frauds concerning Holocaust claims, and that he is NOT, as sometimes alleged, a Holocaust denier; that is a slander. However, I'm referring to his statement:

'As already noted, Jewish elites in the United States enjoyed enormous prosperity. From this combination of economic and political power has sprung, unsurprisingly, a mindset of Jewish superiority. Wrapping themselves in the mantle of the Holocaust, these Jewish elites pretend - and in their onw solipsistic universe perhaps even imagine themselves- to be victims, dismissing any and all criticism as manifestations of antisemitism. And from this lethal brew of formidable power, chauvinistic arrogance, feigned (or imagined) victimhood and Holocaust-immunity... alongside Israel, they are the main fomenters of antisemitism in the world today.'

The *main* fomenters? Not just that they could help to foment antisemitism, but that they are the main cause today? And this idea that it all stems from 'power' and sense of 'superiority' seems rather nasty.

(2) On a different sort of note, his comments on Hezbollah in an interview on Lebanese TV:

' I am not telling you what to do with your lives, and if you’d rather live crawling on your feet, I could respect that. I could respect that. People want to live. How can I deny you that right? But then, how can I not respect those who say they would rather die on their feet? How can I not respect that?...

Interviewer: Is there no other way than military resistance?

Norman Finkelstein: I don’t believe there is another way. I wish there were another way. Who wants war? Who wants destruction? Even Hitler didn’t want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could. So I am not saying that I want it, but I honestly don’t see another way, unless you choose to be their slaves – and many people here have chosen that. I can’t really say… I can understand it – you want to live. I can’t really say I respect it. You know, so many dead, so much destruction… Before the bodies are even buried, before the buildings are even rebuilt, the person who is responsible for it all – you can’t wait to welcome him (Bush). You can’t wait to roll out the red carpet. I can’t respect that.

In that respect, I like the Jews much more. I like their attitude. Do you know what the Jewish attitude is? Never to forgive, never to forget. I agree with that. Who roll out the red carpet less than two years after your whole country was destroyed by them? ...They are trying to figure out what the Americans are thinking. They can’t wait for their banquets. How can anyone respect that? I respect the Jews a thousand times more - never to forgive, never to forget. All the death and all the destruction – and you can’t wait to welcome him.

... How can you expect other people to respect Arabs, if you show no respect for yourselves?

<...>

If the Lebanese people overwhelmingly vote to let the Americans and Israelis have their way, I guess you have to accept that. I could see that. I couldn’t possibly say that they don’t have the right to make that choice. Listen, in Nazi-occupied Europe, you have to remember, most of the populations made the choice to live under the Nazis. All this talk about a French Resistance is just a joke – it never happened. The French Resistance… About 20% of the French population read the Resistance’s newspaper. There were maybe 10% of the French who resisted. The rest said: “Don’t resist,” because the Nazis were ruthless. You resist – four hundred are killed for each soldier who’s killed. That’s how the Nazis operated. So most of the French said, like you: “We want to live.” “Don’t resist.” But now I have to ask you, in retrospect: Who do we honor? Do we honor those who say: “Let us live,” or do we honor those who said: “Let’s resist”?'


Note that this is *not* a conversation with an American or Israeli interviewer, pointing out the case for the other side. It's a conversation with a Lebanese interviewer, promoting hawkishness over dovishness. and frankly to me reminiscent of the Israeli hawks who criticize Israeli governments for 'appeasement' and not being sufficiently tough.


'I would like to add here that I do not understand what the purpose is, of identifying and relying on political labels. You seem to expend a
great deal of effort explaining how to identify who or what is left wing, right wing.'

The reason for this, is that I think that the political right wing is causing a lot of problems in the world. Note that I do not equate 'right' and 'left' with party labels, and I most certainly do not equate 'left' with 'Democrat'. In my country, both of the parties for which I voted have at various times let me down by collaboration (I do not mean compromise; I mean very active collaboration) with the right: first New Labour with the Bushies, and now the LibDems with the Tories. I have come across, and been outraged by, arguments on DU and IRL that argue that 'the left have no monopoly on truth; sometimes right-wing ideas are valid; etc.' in defending individuals with racist or anti-minority policies (specifically on DU, I've seen this used to defend both Pat Buchanan and Dan Pipes!) Basically, I consider that - to expand, and try to avoid political labels - those who support building up the 'strong' over the 'weak', and harshness toward poor or otherwise vulnerable people; harshness toward minority groups; or foreign policy based on hawkishness and military might - are a big danger to the world. And I suppose I have a visceral reaction to such phrases as 'imagined victimhood', in part because of the frequent use of such phrases to denigrate the genuine grievances of poor people and minorities.

It may be true that Finkelstein in particular cannot be defined clearly as 'left' or 'right'. And to clarify another point: I don't think that he, or anybody, should have been denied tenure on account of his political views. Nonetheless, I find him a rather unpleasant person at least as regards his public persona.

[Jefferson23]

86. Regarding

this statement: The *main* fomenters? Not just that they could help to foment antisemitism, but that they are the main cause today? And this idea that it all stems from 'power' and sense of 'superiority' seems rather nasty.

An excerpt is not going to give you much context, and the Jewish organizations he exposed were elites, and had the illusion
of legitimacy and trust. The main fomenter of anti-semitism as he sees it imo, is the result of their nefarious enterprise, the pretense they were acting sincerely on behalf of the survivors and how many. They most certainly were arrogant and imo, self serving and with a sense of superiority. When you couple their behavior(caught red handed) with the stereotypical bigotry already assigned to Jews this unfortunately can fuel further bigotry. You may not agree on the emphasis of "most", but I would think you appreciate his point at the causation.

I don't think he is misguided here, and this is one reason he had serious concerns about the book, how some would abuse it, but to ignore it and pretend it was of minor significance would be wrong. His findings go much deeper than the excerpts you read, to deny that the Holocaust has been politicized by various groups and political leaders would be a mistake. Looking at who benefits is important.

I always find it remarkable that there is more suspicion leveled at Finkelstein than those he exposed because he documents with such precision, his outward style of unpleasantness is irrelevant. What he exposed was not a minor matter, not at all. Even today I occasionally see one of the men responsible held in high regard on this forum, they likely do not know or perhaps do not accept the findings.



Professor Raul Hilberg on Slave Laborers and Swiss Banks

Interview with Mr. Raul Hilberg, April 22, 2002

At the University of Vermont, Robert Hull Fleming Museum
"The Landscape of Loss" Photo Exhibit by Jeff Gusky
Burlington, Vermont

Interview conducted by David Ridgen
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

RIDGEN: So Mr. Hilberg, we've spoken before on the phone, at length about various issues pertaining to the numbers of survivors after the Holocaust and the term, the definition of survivors is a little bit difficult, depending on who you talk to. What's your definition of survivor and what have your findings suggested with regards the numbers of survivors at the end of the war, with regards to slave laborers and concentration camps?

HILBERG: I myself can offer several definitions of the term, depending upon the purpose of the question. If it is an assessment of all the Jews who remained alive at the end of the war and had been under German domination, the number is close to a million, because one would have to include Bulgarian Jews, Romanian Jews and so on. On the other hand, if the question is how many survived in hiding, or else as laborers, or concentration camps, then the number is much, much smaller. If it is narrowed down to the question of how many performed slave labor, then that number is well under 100,000, so great was the attrition, especially at the end of the war with lack of food and severe conditions in the camps.

RIDGEN: Okay, how do your figures compare with the numbers used in gaining restitution, or obtaining money from European governments by the World Jewish Congress and the Jewish Claims Conference?

HILBERG: According to the testimony that I've read, sworn testimony before the Congress of the United States, the working figure was 240,000 roughly, May 1945, with the assumption that one half of that number would still be alive now, aggregating 120,000. To me this is a number from the thin air.

RIDGEN: And, I'm sorry, if you can repeat the answer, and whose testimony was it?

HILBERG: This was testimony by a number of people including Stu Eizenstat who was a very high-ranking member of the United States government, authorized and directed to pursue negotiations with the German government for payment to these people for the work that they had done. Again I have to emphasize that the number he used must have been given to him by people who had no basis for the statistics they offered.

RIDGEN: And what's the upshot of that, what's the implication?

HILBERG: The implication is that the number is much too high, and that particularly in a matter of the Swiss claims, which were pursued by lawyers in the World Jewish Congress against banks in Switzerland, the problem is that there aren't enough bank accounts to justify the billion, 250 million that the Swiss banks paid. And the balance, which presumably would go to those who performed slave labor for companies that had deposits in Switzerland, would be not nearly as great, as assumed in all of these calculations. So there's a Swiss overpayment and there is from German sources an overpayment, not in the dollars per person, but in the number of persons that are assumed to be eligible for that payment.

http://normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=50


You: Note that this is *not* a conversation with an American or Israeli interviewer, pointing out the case for the other side. It's a conversation with a Lebanese interviewer, promoting hawkishness over dovishness. and frankly to me reminiscent of the Israeli hawks who criticize Israeli governments for 'appeasement' and not being sufficiently tough.


I fail to see this is indicative of a hawk, but as I said earlier, he is no pacifist. He is speaking respectfully to the very real
choices and the consequences of their decisons..what they are faced with. The alternatives are to lay down and submit or not, it is
a choice. I would ask you to consider the writings of Ghandi on these matters, I think you might be very surprised at what you find.

Of course even Ghandi may not measure up to the label of liberal for some upon close examination of his beliefs/positions regarding
submission in certain situations.

Your statement: The reason for this, is that I think that the political right wing is causing a lot of problems in the world.

The point I was trying to express and used the example with Albright's, labels can be quite unreliable...politics carries many contradictions.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. The intemperance of Abe Foxman...

I think there have been times when Foxman said things that were a bit intemperate, but I don't even remember what they were!

One was the opposition to the Park 51 community centre (or the ground zero Mosque, as I saw RWers refer to it)

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5820_32.htm

And in 2007 Foxman expressed his opposition to Congress recognising the Armenian genocide. He later went on to say that what happened was 'tantamount to genocide' (not sure how something that was genocide can be described as being tantamount to it) and said he thought Congress passing a resolution about it would hamper what should be something between Turkey and the Armenians. I doubt very much he's expressed that same view about Congress when it comes to the resolutions they pass about the I/P conflict...

I think the ADL would be better served with someone better at the helm. The organisation as a whole does do some good work, though they need to quit it with the political advocacy for Israel and focus on opposing bigotry.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Excellent and important article - thanks!

[Violet_Crumble]

60. That's a very good op-ed. And from Abe Foxman, no less...

I have one minor quibble with something he said, though.

'This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological -- and far more deadly -- form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism.

The presence of this new ideological form of anti-Islamism is clear in the Norway attacks.'

While I totally agree with him that the ideological worldview Islamophobia he talks about does have parallels with the deadly form of antisemitism that emerged in Europe in the early 20th century, I don't agree that it's a new form of anti-Islamism. I've been in this forum a long time, as as far back as 2003 I saw one or two posters in this forum (thankfully long gone) who subscribed to that form of Islamophobia and they'd post lists of countries they claimed were victims of Muslim violence, ignoring that many on the list were involved in conflicts of a territorial, not religious nature, and harp on and on about the growing Islamisation of Europe. Maybe he's not talking in terms of years, but of decades, when he talks about it being new, in which case I'd agree with him on that...

[libguy_6731]

98. disgusting.

[Scurrilous]

169. Norwegian Mass Killer Declared Insane

<snip>

"Court-appointed psychiatrists have declared Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik criminally insane.

The psychiatric evaluation found the confessed killer was insane when he set off a car bomb in Oslo, and went on a shooting rampage at a youth summer camp, killing 77 people earlier this year.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that they will recommend the confessed mass killer be placed in a mental institution, instead of being sent to jail."

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Norwegian-Mass-Killer-Declared-Insane-134674738.html

[Jack Rabbit]

170. Anybody who has a problem with other people's relationships is off balance

So says Jack Rabbit, who has Korean children, Japanese nephews, a grandnephew who is half Chinese, a quarter Japanese and a quarter everything Mr. Rabbit is -- a northwest European mutt -- and who proudly calls one out of eight of his ancestors Jews.

[Scurrilous]

171. ....

:thumbsup: