Anti-AIPAC book invisible on Amazon was the title of a Daily Kos diary by BranfordBoy yesterday.
The reaction to the diary tells us that the right wing Zionist cabal that has made a home at Daily Kos is still highly active, giving the site the usually tale that, criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. This meme is one of the favorites of the Likudniks, and now that Kos has banned over 18 proPalestinian bloggers from the site, the right wing Zionists assigned there from GIYUS and the Israel Project are in control. They reached this nadir with the help of the Hunter, who writes like a former junior high school English teacher, and his personal friends, MBNYC and Eric S, and their Zionist friend jhritz, an over the hill, wannabee jazz singer from San Francisco, or so she claims.
Here is BranfordBoy’s take on this new book on AIPAC, which may be intended to compete with Mearsheimer and Walt’s frank disclosure of how the US was and is being led by Israel in the foreign policy realm.
Interesting. If you’re looking for Grant F. Smith’s new book, “Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal”, don’t bother going to Amazon.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/16/142432/295
“All of these people [in the Israel Lobby] are pleading a special interest. I am an American.” — President Harry S. Truman
Here is a book review of Smith’s work:
Grant F. Smith’s latest book, “Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee From The 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal,” reveals the controversial history of the influential lobbying organization, known as “AIPAC”. It comes on the heels of his insightful tome, “Deadly Dogma,” an expose’ of the Neocons, where he evidenced their lethal scheme, which they called “A Clean Break,” to destabilize Iraq. (1) In this new book, “Foreign Agents,” Mr. Smith argues that AIPAC, a corporation, should be required to register as a foreign agent for Israel. He accuses it of morphing into a “secretive political intelligence-gathering and covert operations powerhouse…and Israeli-controlled entity in America.” Naturally, AIPAC disagrees with him.
Mr. Smith begins building his case against AIPAC by referring to Capitol Hill hearings held by the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate. The probe, in 1963, was chaired by the late Democratic Senator from Arkansas, James William Fulbright. He suspected that the precursor to AIPAC, the American Zionist Council, (AZC), was given “seed money,” via covert means, by “the Israeli government” to run a propaganda front for it in the U.S. At the time, the CEO for AZC, “Si” Kenen, (now deceased), was registered, (since 1948), with the U.S. Justice Department and required by the “Foreign Agents Registration Act” (FARA) to file reports disclosing fully his activities on behalf of Israel-based entities. As the result of Fulbright’s investigation, a supposed “conduit” funding operation run by the AZC was “closed down.” The AZC had reportedly received “more than $5,000,000 from the `Jewish Agency’ to create a favorable public opinion…for Israeli government policies.” Kenen stopped filing with FARA in 1971.
Sen. Fulbright, however, paid a heavy price for challenging the opaque operations of the alleged unregistered foreign lobby. He was defeated in his bid for reelection in 1974, with the help of the Israel Lobby. Can anyone imagine this mostly cowardly Congress of today checking the reported excesses of AIPAC?
Mr. Smith also details the testimony of some of the key witnesses, who appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and their cross examination by Chairman Fulbright. It makes for fascinating reading. A letter from the head of the Rabinowitz Foundation, one Victor Rabinowitz, to Fulbright, dated July 29, 1963, is also illustrative. Rabinowitz conceded: “I did not know at the time the `Jewish Agency’ was a representative of the Israeli government…The [Rabinowitz] Foundation did not wish to be `a conduit of funds’ from the Israeli government or the Jewish Agency.” Later, another witness disputed Rabinowitz’s statement. This exchange about potentially using “a conduit” to avoid FARA took place only nine years after an Israeli terrorist attack on U.S. targets in Egypt, known as the “Lavon Affair.” (2) Mr. Smith connects that covert operation directly to one of the putative architects of the U.S. Israel Lobby through original research which this writer hasn’t seen in any other book.
One of the chapters in Mr. Smith’s book focuses on alleged “economic espionage” by Israel in this country. He claims it has led to “major losses and problems for export-oriented industries.” Mr. Smith quotes Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt to reinforce his opinion. They wrote in their seminal critique of the Israel Lobby, in March, 2006: “Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals, like China, in what the State Department called `a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers.’ According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any ally.’ In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s, a new controversy erupted in 2004, when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel’s…willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.” (3) Incidentally, Pollard, the most notorious of Israel’s spies, got a life sentence for his treachery.
Mr. Smith cites a dated survey that indicated that about “80 percent of the members of Congress now have former AIPAC interns on their staffs.” That survey was taken almost a decade ago. It was mentioned in a 1998 presentation by Dr. John Duke Anthony, the head of the National Council on U.S. Arab Relations, “NCUSAR,” and spotlighted in the prestigious “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs” magazine. (4) It would be worth finding out AIPAC’s true Capitol Hill penetration today, but such relevant statistics are rarely, if ever, available for a variety of reasons.
Just to show you how much things have changed over the years, in the early `50s, Israel received around $15 million in aid a year from the U.S. Last year, it rang our bell for about $3.5 billion in freebies! Recently, another outrage was reported. Israel will extract $30 billion more in military aid from our treasury over the next ten years, while many of our cities, and bridges, like the one that recently crashed in Minneapolis, MN, are rusting away. (5) By the way, Mr. Smith hails from Minneapolis.
In the realm of “Election Law Violations,” Mr. Smith cites a number of cases where AIPAC-related operatives had allegedly run afoul of election laws in pushing for their candidates to win and/or looking to defeat candidates in the Congress who had dared to criticize Israel’s conduct. Two politicos who lost as the result of the putative unsavory electoral tactics of pro-Israel types were ex-U.S. Sen. Chuck Percy (R-IL) and ex-Rep. Paul Findley (R-IL). AIPAC’s position was that it wasn’t “coordinating strategy” in any campaigns and had “no consensus” on any political candidates. A secret AIPAC memo reprinted in “Foreign Agents” reportedly shows that this was simply another deception.
The Larry Franklin case, mentioned above, is Mr. Smith’s main hammer against AIPAC. Franklin, who was working in the Pentagon, pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2005, to passing “classified” and highly sensitive documents to two officials of AIPAC, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. The documents were then passed on to an Israeli diplomat. In other words, Franklin was “spying” for Israel. He received a sentence of 12 years and 7 months. Rosen and Weissman were fired by AIPAC. However, AIPAC was never indicted in the federal case. The duo, however, Rosen and Weissman, have been charged with violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Their trial date is set for Jan. 14, 2008. One commentator, Robert Dreyfuss, said it should be called, “The AIPAC Case.” He submitted that it was AIPAC, who was originally under investigation by the FBI, dating back five years, and that Franklin simply got caught up in its net. (6) Another analyst, Justin Raimondo, a fierce critic of the cunning Neocons, suggested the trial will throw light on how the U.S. was “lied” into the Iraqi War by “a Fifth Column” of intriguers. (7) I wonder if Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s name will come up?
Finally, the book, “Foreign Agents,” is a searing indictment of AIPAC in the Court of Public Opinion. It also exposes how its tentacles influence the Mass Media. Marylanders now know, too, that one of its U.S. Senators, Barbara Mikulski, receives “daily” phone calls from AIPAC honchos, as she persists in voting to fund the unjust and illegal Iraqi War. (8) Folks who wonder, too, why there has never been a full Congressional hearing on the Israelis’ vicious assault, in 1967, on the USS Liberty, will have to look no further then this treatise. (9) While, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (IND), two of AIPAC’s assets on Capitol Hill, are hawking for a U.S. led attack on Iran, the U.S.-subsidized-Apartheid state of Israel is crushing the life out of the Palestinians and making more enemies for us in the Islamic World. (10) I submit that this book should be read by every American who cares about the fate of the Republic.
Poor AIPAC. Bradfordboy continues with his gripe about Amazon:
Despite it’s claim to having the “earth’s biggest selection of books,” a search on Amazon for Grant F. Smith or “Foreign Agents” turns up nothing. Even an ISBN search, usually the surefire way to locate a book on Amazon produces no reply.
While the conspiracy theorists go to work on this, the rest of us can find the book at Barnes & Noble.
The Amazon blackout made me angry enough to order a copy.
To help the search engines, here’s the complete bibliographical info:
Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal
by Grant F. Smith
Paperback
ISBN: 0976443775
Pub. Date: August 28, 2007
A typical right wing Zionist pro-AIPAC post to the diary is this slimy post:
·Good on Amazon! (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
JPhurst, Doodad, EnderRS
The world is full enough of anti-Israel trash without polluting the waters further.
I hope the publisher goes bankrupt.
I weigh 666 pounds in zero gravity; COME AND GET ME!
by thirdnostril on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:41:46 AM PDT
The following posts had some of the right wing Zionists recommending it, with trollish comments that would not bother Kos or his dog, Hunter.
Uh-oh! I sense a Zionist cabal (13+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
brittain33, JPhurst, delphine, arielle, homogenius, Bouwerie Boy, MajorFlaw, MBNYC, Doodad, GoldnI, zemblan, ArgusRun, Runs With ScissorsDamn, and I thought I was at all of the meetings. I don’t know when we decided this one. I wonder if I didn’t pay my dues this month.
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” – Albert Einstein
by dfb1968 on Thu Aug
(And then the piling on, all in defense of AIPAC)
You didn’t get the email? (10+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
delphine, arielle, homogenius, Bouwerie Boy, MajorFlaw, MBNYC, GoldnI, Niniane, dfb1968, Runs With ScissorsWe held an emergency meeting last Tuesday to address this.
The Publishing Committee tried to pressure Amazon, but it came down to the IT Department to hack into their system and replace all mentions of the book with favorable reviews of Fiddler on the Roof and Yenta.
Also the lox was oily and Agent Scorpio (aka George Soros) was late again.
“A problem has been detected and Bush has been shut down to prevent damage to your country.”
by ArgusRun on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:49:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]I wonder if this book… (8+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
delphine, arielle, MajorFlaw, MBNYC, GoldnI, ArgusRun, dfb1968, Runs With Scissorsships with a tinfoil wrapper?
TFYQA – think For Yourself, Question Authority
by Niniane on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:50:41 AM PDT
I draw attention to this diary not to bash Daily Kos. We went well beyond that months ago. It is a Daily Kos funeral. Daily Kos relinquished liberal-progressive principles some time ago in fear of AIPAC and its Democratic supporters (Hillary). Daily Kos is now a supporter of same old DLC/AIPAC foreign policy, which means we will be in Iraq for years to come, and until the right wing Zionists figure out a way to take the West Bank without too much quibble from American liberals, there will be no settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More deaths, perhaps, but no settlement for sure.
I don’t know about taking over. From the looks of it, things seem to go both ways in that thread’s comments. Do you know if anyone was banned as a result?
Would a list help?
shergald (twice)
Curmudgiana
Fairleft
Desert Peace
Ben Heine
Sabbah
Umkahlil
Eileen Fleming (twice)
Anna Baltzer (later reinstated, now inactive)
Servant Savant
Opakapaka
Diaries
mattes
npbeachfun
howardx
JuniperLea
StupidAssHole
TeresaInPa
Petronella
Yes, there are supporters coming out of the woodwork. But the above listings make clear that proPalestinian advocates are not very welcome.
No, I meant newly banned as a result of that thread.
yeah, and Hunter writes like a junior high school english teacher? Yeah, right. Hunter writes better than anyone on that site, or this.
I’ll take Booman any day over Hunter. In fact, Meteor Blades and any of the other frontpagers as well. Those who can do; those who can’t teach. Bye Hunter.
He still actively censors pro-palestinian views, so I don’t like him, and I don’t care how well he writes. It is perfectly understandable Shergald dislikes him and thinks he is a jerk.
Calling Hunter the best writer on either Booman Tribune or Daily Kos is an incredible insult to many writers who consistently outshine that particular, erm, “gentleman”.
I’ll be blunt, since time is short and the topic of Hunter is sleep-inducing:
Hunter’s style is plodding. He’s a long-winded hack.
What’s worse, Hunter hasn’t one original insight to his credit.
Jerome a Paris has a recommended diary on Daily Kos right now that isn’t Jerome’s best, and it’s still far superior to anything Hunter has EVER done.
has not been able to read one of his diaries to the end.
Tedious and pretentious.
Is that really even relevant to this diary?
It is relevant, given the assertion that a right wing cabal now controls dkos.
Hate to disagree. After twenty, there just aren’t many more left to ban. For that matter, you cannot tell when someone has been banned. I missed Londonbear’s and Carl Nieberg’s banning, for example.
I have been reminded of a few other proPalestinian bloggers, which I add:
Londonbear
Carl Nieburg
mattes
npbeachfun
howardx
JuniperLea
StupidAssHole
TeresaInPa
Petronella
not one of those users appeared in that thread. I just checked. So, why did you suggest that all those people were banned as a result of that thread?
about the last episode of mass banning.
Here’s a post related to this post here from Mondoweiss.
Thanks for the link: how true it is. And Daily Kos has decided to make an exception to Left Wing civil and human rights foundations, and go DLC/AIPAC on this one. Principles be damned. Blogs can be big business. Your link went to this:
August 05, 2007
Even at YearlyKos Panel Bashing Lobbyists, Israel Support Is ‘Third Rail’
Yesterday’s presidential forum at the YearlyKos convention was all about bashing lobbyists, but there was one lobby they didn’t touch. According to the official chatroom at YearlyKos, Israel was off the table:
[11:52] Quirinal Raymaker: [Apropos of fighting Al Qaeda] this gets to the question of us support for israel, which NONE of them will touch..
[11:52] Jillan McMillan: / yeah!!
[11:52] MeiLin Miranda: / q, that’s the third rail of politics
[11:52] Kiala Ireton: /exactly meilin
Another chatter states that support for Israel is simply “ingrained” in American politics. This is a tautological statement. It is ingrained because a bunch of people want it to be ingrained. It doesn’t have to be. The netroots can’t open the issue up–in a forum bashing lobbyists, no less–because more than half of Democratic presidential giving is Jewish, and a high percentage of that Jewish money is concerned with Israel (out of a devotion similar in character to rightwing Christians’ opposition to gay marriage and abortion). There’s a word for the failure of a political conference to discuss an important issue because of money: corruption.
I don’t know about the accuracy of the citation of political financing, but certainly it is the main reason AIPAC is such a force. Too bad it is a Likud supporter, because it could easily be a force for peace in the Middle East. Not so, with its present focus on getting the US to attack Iran.
What the Fuck? How does that count as taking over?
Why can’t people voice their own opinions about things. Honestly I am not particularly Zionist and am also offended by AIPAC, but I am Jewish and I find the implications of your diary somewhat offensive.
Sounds too much like the people who say that the Zionists are taking over the US Senate. Oh, and the use of the phrase Zionist Cabal is definitely offensive even if the specific intent is not racist this time.
I am not mildly offended, I am very offended.
Italian-American Michael Lazzaro is obviously a member of a Zionist cabal, Luam.
This is the stupidest argument I’ve seen in a long-time. Hunter lost his temper and overreacted. To turn that into an Elders of Zion conspiracy is a disgrace.
Anyone who has witnessed shergald’s behavior since he arrived here can attest that he provides regular grounds for admonishment. I have a lenient policy on content, but his half-witted accusations and attacks provide reasonable grounds for banishment w/o any regard to his position on the I/P issue.
I’m not pro anyone in the I/P dispute. If I had define myself, I’d be anti-everyone. I have no problem with people making arguments on either side of the issue. I can guarantee you shergald was not banned for being pro-palestinian. And if he gets banned here it will not be for that reason. I also guarantee you that, if he does get banned here, he will go elsewhere and accuse me of censoring pro-palestinian views. That’s because he is a dishonest person.
As you well know I am very anti-censorship and not easily offend, but this really struck me as over the “line”. It may be that they are a Cabal and that most of its members are Zionist, but because of past usage of the phrase have given it a lot of negative connotation. Someone can be a woman, be lazy, and be on welfare, but caller he a Lazy Welfare Queen is really not cool and beyond the pale.
But it isn’t the case that any of them are Zionists.
They might be described as a cabal or, more accurately, the management of the blog. But none of them are Zionists.
You obviously have not read this diary which gives just a few examples of what happens time and again at Daily Kos when a diary is present advocating for the rights of the Palestinian people. The diary is hijacked by the same groups of people, whose sole point is to undermine its intent, which is usually a fair and just peace. Their posts typically render justifications of the 40 year military occupation, if not the confiscation of Palestinian land, starvation, and death. A right wing Zionist is a person who would support the platforms of the major political parties, like Likud, Kadima, and Labor, which stipulate either no state or a bantustan Palestinian state. A cabal is a group of people working together in this situation to undermine proPalestinian rights.
It is one thing to support Daily Kos in its need, as you say, not to appear antiIsrael; it is quite another to stifle criticism of Daily Kos purging of Palestinian rights supporters. Do I have to display the list of the purged again, to which is added two more, Londonbear and Carl Nieberg. In spite of the trollish and disruptive behavior on the part of antiPalestinian bloggers on Daily Kos, only one, jhritz, “may have been” banned.
PS: I also take pride in those who recommended this diary here, and over at MLW.
I know that discourse on Daily Kos can be a bit rough and tumble, and I agree that you have the right to say whatever you want (although the host has the right to ask you to leave).
You should be aware that this diary itself crosses that often thin line between positive discourse and hate speech. The phrase Zionist Cabal is by itself offensive and brings to mind clearly anti-semeitc conspiracy theories. I am not accusing you of anti-semitism but the language you chose is anti-semetic and does not promote useful discussion.
You will find yourself in trouble by trying to conflate criticism of proIsrael blogging with antiSemitism, because maybe half of banned are in fact Jewish in the most liberal and highly principled way. One of the last bannees, in fact, npbeachfun, is an Israeli Jew and proud of her stance against right wing Zionism, as I suppose are the Israeli peace activists such as Uri Avnery (a Left Wing Zionist) and Jeff Halper, and Rabbis Asherman and Lerner, who were often featured in proPalestinian rights diaries.
So you are way off base attempting to equate criticism of people on the other side of the spectrum, right wing Zionists, with antiSemitism. It is also unclear how that criticism might have anything to do with Jewish stereotypes of any type. What the criticism does invoke is conflict within the Jewish community in Israel and internationally over principles. And what are those? Look up Jewish Voice for Peace sometime and you will find out. Contrary to the right wing, they are against the incessant military occupation of the Palestinian people, the colonization of their lands, and the prospect of further conflicts that stem from the Greater Israel dream, the incorporation of the West Bank into Israel depriving the Palestinians of their own independent and sovereign state (read Jeff Halper’s The Problem With Israel, for a start).
I don’t believe that any of the peace activists support right wing Zionism, nor that they are being antiSemitic or self-hating in their views. They are being principled, perhaps Judaic rather than Zionist.
I did not confuse critique of Israel with anti-semitism. I critique Israel myself and feel that any citizen of Earth has the right to criticize any nation on earth. I agree that Israel could do significantly better in its treatment of occupied Palestine and sincerely wish that they would.
What I did not find comfortable is your choice in terminology. What you say about Cabals, and the way you say it brings to mind violent racism for me. I find it offensive that you cannot see that you are repeating frames used by a lineage of anti-semetic politicians and writers.
Critique Israel all you want but referring to vague Zionist (or Jewish) conspiracies will not make it easy for people to listen to you.
There is no conspiracy theory here, just the experience of a long list of bloggers who were eventually banned. I will not repeat that list which includes Jews and Israeli Jews at that.
To even suggest that the term “right wing Zionist cabal” is somehow an antiSemitic term really suggests a lack of understanding of who it is that is most vociferously against the actions of the right wing Israeli government against the Palestinian people: yes, Jews. Not only Israeli Jews but American and international Jews. While they are not necessarily antiZionist, they are most certainly antiright wing Zionist.
PS: This comment, “I agree that Israel could do significantly better in its treatment of occupied Palestine and sincerely wish that they would.” frankly suggests that you are not aware what is actually happening in the Palestinian territories. Over 600 Palestinians killed, most civilians, in Gaza in 2006. Every month in the West Bank, at least thirty Palestinians are killed, more lands confiscated, and more homes bulldozed. “Better” indeed.
in America, ever since Colin Powell’s assistant Lawrence Wilkerson said, “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.”
To say that the phrase “Zionist Cabal” amounts to “hate speech” is absurd and hysterical. The term “cabal” is entirely appropriate, given that the usual suspects at dKos to which shergald refers have a clear “us against them”, exclusionary mentality.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend Booman for his liberal policy tolerating views and subjects which would not be allowed in mainstream American news outlets.
To turn that into an Elders of Zion conspiracy is a disgrace.
I’d say that borders on being a strawman. The Elders of Zion reference carries with it the implication that Jews secretly control world affairs. The assertion that right-wing Israelis and their supporters abroad seek to influence local politics and media in their favor is a substantially narrower assertion for which much evidence exists. Arguably, it is the lack of Israeli control over much of anything else that makes it so critical to encourage Israeli sympathizers within the US government.
The problem that anyone concerned about Israel’s influence on our government faces is that even to make the assertion, regardless of the evidence, is to invite the accusation that one is reviving the anti-Semitic fantasies of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
If, for the sake of argument, it were demonstrably true that right-wing Zionists were exercising undue influence over the US government, exactly how would you talk about it?
I can guarantee you shergald was not banned for being pro-palestinian.
Shergald was banned for persistently pursuing a politically sensitive topic in an environment where, when told to shut the fuck up for the sake of the nebulous Kossian cause, you either shut up or someone will do it for you. The content is really a side issue; people get banned at dKos with depressing regularity for their potential to be perceived as a liability by outside observers in the old media.
That’s because he is a dishonest person.
That’s the kind of assertion you really should follow up with specific examples.
That’s the bottom line.
But, in shergald’s case, from what I’ve seen, it goes way beyond being a potential liability and goes directly to being obnoxious and hostile, and intellectually sloppy and dishonest.
Have you read his diaries on dk before he was banned?
You will of course provide sufficient examples for all of those pejoratives with which I do not agree. You can’t. As a diarist on DKos in the IP area, I have had quite a bit of support from like minded liberal-progressives, who I have in turn supported.
Could it be that you just lack experience, by choice, in this area to be able to evaluate it competently. Not that it isn’t obviously a preferably avoided topic here, even though Booman Tribune is not likely to be mentioned in “the old media.”
that’s exactly what I’m talking about. You just said that I would prefer to avoid discussion of the I/P issue…if I understand you correctly.
Based on what?
Why don’t you ask any of the front-pagers if I have ever so much as discussed allowable content. Why don’t you peruse the multiple times I have opined on the issue, always on the side of an equitable settlement that includes an abandonment of the settlements. Why have I never criticized you for discussing the issue? Find anyone who will say that I’ve discouraged diaries on the subject.
I’ve allowed you to use this format despite your tendency to throw insults at me, question my intelligence, my objectivity, and my writing skills.
You’re obnoxious because of your tone and style, not because you advocate for the Palestinians. You’re hostile because you make hostile remarks. You’re sloppy because you accuse people of being part of an AIPAC led cabal on no evidence. And you’re dishonest because you know you intentionally piss people off and then you call them right-wing Zionists if they tell you off for it or ban you.
Elsewhere, you stated you had no opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
And now you state:
As for “obnoxious”–since when are people required to be “pleasant” to participate in a political discussion site? This ain’t a ladies tea party.
I didn’t say I had no opinion, I said I am not pro-anyone. If you push me, I am anti-everyone.
I have always advocated against the settlements and for an equitable compromise. I find little in either sides tactics or rhetoric to support.
Israel to the determent of Palestine.
In short, shergald isn’t much of a politician, or even an advocate. Neither am I. What he & I have in common is that we were both banned from DKos for the simple act of expressing our opinion in a way that angered the admin.
In my case, I expressed the opinion that there might have been fraud in the 2004 Ohio elections, despite Hunter’s assertion that he *personally* had investigated it & found no fraud. Bingo – banned the next day.
Was I obnoxious? No I wasn’t. But I did challenge Hunter’s authority.
So, although he may be obnoxious, that wasn’t why shergald was banned. And that is an important thing to keep in mind.
Shergald’s other points – that any pro-Palestinian positions are quickly turned into flame-wars by a predictable group of people, & that other topics that might develop links to Israeli misconduct are quickly commandeered by the same group who then charge anti-Semiticism – those points are right on target in my experience.
Would I prefer that he make tight, cogent arguments when discussing Palestinian issue & not descend into incoherent flights of what might be fantasy? Yes, it’s too easy to pick apart some overstepping on his part & throw out the baby with the bathwater – but at Kos he was banned because they didn’t like the baby, not because the bathwater was dirty.
Thats my 2 cents.
This apparently inveterate banning business on DKos is interesting. I wonder: Who has not been banned from there?
In truth, you wish I were not here. You have insulted me before out of ignorance and continue on with it wishing that I would get lost. If you were Daily Kos or even close, I could understand it. You might just want to climb aboard the censorship/propaganda effort to keep IP out of the press. But you are not Daily Kos. The same goes for the Democratic Underground and MyDD who restrict IP diaries on their blogs.
Does it help the left wing of the party to censor this important foreign policy issue?
Again, I have no problem with you writing about I/P issues.
I have a problem with you acting like a prick. Fortunately, you reserve your most obnoxious comments for me personally. But, if you haven’t noticed, a number of members here have admonished you for your behavior…totally unrelated to your positions on the issues.
I wish you’d stop being a prick. If you won’t then, yes, I pretty much wish you will get lost. But if you want to be civil and respectful, I welcome the debate.
I do admit, however, that I am really tired about Daily Kos meta diaries. I just don’t care all that much what they do over there anymore. But being tired of it doesn’t mean that I have a policy that people can’t talk about it.
FWIW, Booman, I sympathize with your being “tired about Daily Kos meta diaries”. Unfortunately, there are forces at work that are way beyond what you or I may think or wish for. Of course, you can still go ballistic and pull the plug on all I/P diaries. It’s still your blog. Yet somehow I can’t really see you doing that, but one never knows.
I believe, Booman, that we are presently living not with a “clash of civilizations” as we are being told ad nauseam, but a clash of two narratives on the World Order: one saying that Zionism (Jewish as well as non-Jewish) has been active in shaping that order for some time now to the detriment, many scholars say, of both the World and Israel; the other vehemently opposing such an idea.
For better or for worse, Daily Kos is at the center of the struggle between those two narratives, which until the advent of blogs was known to a very close circle of people only. Whereas the Kos community appears to be divided on this issue, the “management” appears to have sided with one narrative, namely the one that denies Zionist activism. Given the fact that DK currently captures the greater part of the progressive political debate, it stands to reason that those from the other side would want to “crash the gates” so to speak in a desperate attempt to get their voices heard.
The I/P conflict is very very tough. It is hardly ever easy to discuss it with poise and calm, due mainly to the asymmetry of the aligned forces. When someone as poised and knowledgeable (and to some extent as powerful) as Daniel Levy gets shouted down by a neo-con who labels him “an idiot” for daring to call for some measure of justice in that conflict, something is very wrong and sitting on the fence is not an option any more. Indeed, in this struggle, there is no fence.
This fundamental political debate between the two narratives is controlled by forces way beyond what one individual or one group can face alone. That is why having blogs that allow for the debate to go on is so important for here’s a group of people saying we cannot deal with or interpret US politics without taking into account the I/P conflict, that is being shut out and shunned by those who control the debate as well as by most other regular people, in the latter case often due to naked fear, pure and simple.
Could not agree more.
Well, let’s see now: obnoxious and hostile?
On this turn, you called me a prick. In a few other of your posts, you used the terms “stupidity” and “asinine” to express a point you disagreed with.
I have never used terms such as these hostile ones, and frankly, I find you obnoxious for using them.
Someone asked for specific references regarding my objectionable manner. I have not seen you or anyone else link to what are apparently abundant examples. Can anyone find them or one?
It this working for you? Maybe getting banned from the Orange Frat House is not a badge of honor, at least not in your case. Maybe it is a clue that your approach needs adjustment.
Is this about having a discussion about an issue, or just pushing your luck until you alienate another group of people?
You throw accusations around based on zero evidence. You openly disrespect other points of view.
Why don’t you read that book by Jimmy Carter? Why don’t you read Carter’s other books? You might learn something.
Here’s a list Alice of the proPalestinian advocates who have been banned from Daily Kos in the past 8 months. You think you have explained my banning, but in truth you have your head up your ass and don’t know what you are talking about. And this is the first time I have talked that way to anyone. Want to explain why the others were banned? Count them.
shergald (twice)
Curmudgiana
Fairleft
Desert Peace
Ben Heine
Sabbah
Umkahlil
Eileen Fleming (twice)
Anna Baltzer (later reinstated, now inactive)
Londonbear
Carl Neiberg
Servant Savant
Opakapaka
Diaries
mattes
npbeachfun
howardx
JuniperLea
StupidAssHole
TeresaInPa
Petronella
Just for reference sake, only one proIsraeli government blogger, jhritz, “may have been” banned in return. You just don’t have a clue about the source and nature of the difficulties posting IP diaries on DKos.
If I am correct, 21. Now you go count how many others have been banned for simply expressing their views (nonI/P )with which DK did not agree.
Hint: Hundreds.
And we are not crying and whining every single day. We got over it and moved on…
Attempts to stiffle voices advocating against a continuing human rights injustice by banning them should not be forgotten. When blog owners as opposed to blog communities seek to dictate the (Left Wing) political agenda then it is time to speak out.
We do it all the time with the MSM, don’t we? Why should the political netroots be treated differently?
Apologize for the “head” remark, Alice, but I have not seen you post on IP diaries here or at Daily Kos, which makes me believe that you are not experienced in my modus operandi.
He exaggerates, but you do to. How can you possibly guarantee Hunter isn’t banning for being pro-Palestinian, when Hunter himself said so. Hunter didn’t just over-react. He used it as an excuse for stalinism, and in fact banned a bunch of other posters just for sharing Shergald’s view.
Hunter said that in a moment of frustration, and he acted on it, too.
But to characterize his motivation as pro-Zionist is totally inaccurate. His job is/was to keep the site from becoming dysfunctional. He made a decision that the site was under attack by pro-palestinian agitators and went ballistic. We went overboard. I don’t defend that comment or that administrative decision. But to characterize it as a Zionist cabal is dishonest. And that is why there is pushback.
This site has been burned on a somewhat related issue (the Muslim cartoons). Where emotions run hot it is sometimes quite challenging to administer these forums.
The main point is that Daily Kos has a tendency to go after people that are out of the mainstream and present opportunities for potential embarrassment. They’ve gone too far in that regard in a host of areas.
He has advocated for banning one side consistently. The other side has provoked for months yet they seem to be all there. Except for one that talked about guns.
Booman wrote:
Then Hunter ought to be fired. That site IS dysfunctional, and Hunter is a big part of the problem. The man has a bad temper, which he displays often, and makes “administrative decisions” in fits of pique. And never apologizes and never remediates, I might add.
“Under attack by pro-palestinian agitators” is quite the loaded phrase, and rather revealing.
It’s only loaded in your mind.
It was Hunter’s assessment that there was ‘cabal’, if you will, of pro-palestinian people working to disrupt the site. In the opinion of others, it was the reverse. I’ve been there on pro-military, anti-military. I said I disagreed with resolution. I also disagree that he is a Zionist…and no…I do not agree that anyone that thinks the State of Israel is a fait accompli at this point in history is a Zionist.
True: Anyone who thinks the State of Israel, in its current form, as an apartheid state, is a fait accompli at this point, is not necessarily a Zionist — but that is only for lack of thinking clearly. This really isn’t a matter of polemics: Either one believes all humans are created equal, or one doesn’t. If one does believe that then the Palestinian right of return follows, and with that the end of an explicitly “Jewish State”.
Otherwise you end up with two sets of rules: one that stipulated that German Jews who lost their property and citizenship when they fled Nazism had to have their property returned to them and their citizenship reinstated (if they so wished). But not the Palestinians.
Avoiding to think this issue through in all its unpleasant simplicity makes one what exactly?
I don’t know if this is what you are saying, but: the Holocaust, no matter how horrific it was, does not justify a similar fate for the Palestinians, in principle if not in severity.
In short, the taking of Jewish property in Germany does not mean that that Jews in Israel now have the right to take land belonging to Palestinians, a kind of quid pro quo. The justification for such a theory cannot be found in any moral-ethical stance within any political-democratic or religious philosophy including Judaism.
The main point is that Daily Kos has a tendency to go after people that are out of the mainstream and present opportunities for potential embarrassment.
Only Kos is allowed to write embarrassing posts.
If he really wanted to work to keep the site from becoming dysfunctional, he would have banned the people that were personally attacking the pro-palestinian human rights posters. He consistently did the opposite.
First, it’s patently absurd that an Italian-American can’t be a Zionist. You think only Jews can be Zionists? Then you don’t understand the phrase: A Zionist is someone who supports a homeland for Israel in the Middle East. Period. You can be a Gentile and be a Zionist.
Second, if Hunter “lost his temper and overreacted”, please tell us what steps he has taken to remediate his overreaction and level the playing field for the Israeli-Palestinian debates on Daily Kos. He has done nothing to my knowledge to correct his earlier “mistake”. That’s because it wasn’t a mistake; it was quite deliberate.
I notice that Hunter’s bad behavior gets a pass from you (hey, he’s one of your drinking buddies, after all) and Shergald’s bad behavior (by your lights) is an object of your scorn and condemnation.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
I have never spoken to Hunter in my life, nor even exchanged email.
I assumed you had lots of drinking buddies and Hunter was one of them.
Quite honestly, he has the look of a drinking man.
So if he’s not your buddy, then I take it that you honestly think he’s the best writer on Daily Kos or Booman Tribune?
With all due modesty, I’m not the best writer in the blogosphere and I’m far better than Hunter on my worst day.
I don’t want to get into an argument over tastes in blogging styles, or whatever.
Some people obviously don’t like Hunter’s writing. Personally, they are a few bloggers that have a grasp of the language that I envy. Hunter is one of them. I wish I could write that well, but I never will and I just have to live with that.
I am very happy that there are people out there that enjoy my writing more than his. And I am even more happy that there people that like reading the other front-pagers here more than they like reading Hunter.
But he’s one of the very best in my book. And I am talking usage and style and not substance. On substance he isn’t particularly exceptional.
present because of the wrapping paper?
.
By the lack of an open discussion on the I/P issue throughout America and in Congress amongst Democrats and Republicans alike. Since 2001 Bush has sidestepped the Palestinian issue and the illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. The War on Terror was shaped to Likud policy in the White House and the Pentagon, who lend their ears to Ariel Sharon in 2002. A major influence for the Bush decision to go to war against the Iraqi people was Ariel Sharon and his political wing of extremists like Benjamin Netanyahu. The propaganda to deal with Iran comes foremost from Israel (its security!) and the neocon cabal in Washington.
That’s why I will closely read Shergald’s diaries, but am willing to grant some leeway to counteract the AIPAC cabal.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Sen. Fulbright, however, paid a heavy price for challenging the opaque operations of the alleged unregistered foreign lobby.
There were many reasons for Fulbright’s defeat in the Democratic primary, not the least of them was the black vote. Fulbright was anti-civil rights, the blacks voted for Dale Bumpers.
The problem with the likes of Hunter is that they act as though politics in America happen in a vacuum. That may be a genuine albeit very naive contention on their part … or a more sinister attempt on their part to muzzle dissent, that is all the while knowing quite well what Murray Friedman presented in The Neoconservative Revolution – Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy:
That is an interesting quote, but Jews vote overwhelmingly for democratic candidates. If anything the real unexamined factor is Jewish Liberalism.
A lot of right wing rhetoric is vaguely disguised anti-semitism. Both New York Liberal and Hollywood Liberal are code for the evil Jewish Conspiracy as is Zionist Cabal.
“New York liberal” maybe, but most Hollywood actors are not Jewish as far as I know, so “Hollywood liberal” can be better characterized as code for “flake”, as far as people like Rush Limbaugh are concerned.
Yes, Jews vote overwhelmingly Democratic. And yet Jewish pressure groups like AIPAC are overwhelmingly right-wing. This corresponds to the situation in America as a whole. The people are progressive, but the money is reactionary.
So did Southerners, once upon a time. As long as helping the common man meant helping the common *white* man (and turning a blind eye to the plight of the black man) they were content.
Can a similar analogy be made with regard to the Jewish Democratic vote? Is it the case that, so long as helping the common man means giving aid to the European Jewish enterprise that is Israel (and turning a blind eye to the plight of Palestinian “black man”), you will be content?
Or will you join the Krauthammers, Kritsols, Feiths & Perles? They are the smart ones, you know – it is much easier to manipulate a Party that demands unquestioning loyalty than it is one that examines & questions everything, even its own.
Are you willing to accept that the “fait accompli” that is Israel may meet the same end as the “faits accompli” that were Yugoslavia, the USSR, and (probably) Iraq?
It’s not as bad as you think – the Jewish people will live on even if “the Jewish State” dissolves.
Can a similar analogy be made with regard to the Jewish Democratic vote?
No
and if you were active on the grassroots level you would know better.
I don’t have a count, but I think most of the Jewish senators voted against the 2002 Iraqi War Authorization vote. Wellstone, Kohl, Fiengold, and Boxer all voted against it.
Thanks for that firm assertion – I am not active at the grassroots level (I assume you mean “the grassroots level of the Jewish community”) so I don’t know. Are you? Perhaps, if you are knowledgeable, you would elaborate on the attitudes of Jewish people in America. I hope that you’ll tell me that most Jewish people are no more inclined to put their Jewishness ahead of their American-ness (is that a word?) than is the average Unitarian, but give me the plain, unvarnished truth.
As for the votes of a handful of Jewish Senators – based on what I know of them, I admire people like Wellstone, Feingold & Boxer immensely (Kohl I simply know nothing about). However, its like saying that all Irish-Americans vote like Ted Kennedy & for similar reasons. (More on that in a minute.)
I know that there are people in Israel who oppose what their government does in their name & I’ve seen video clips of some of these people being shot (in the legs) by the Israeli Army. So it appears that, in Israel, fascism is no respecter of persons.
I also know that there are good people everywhere who oppose fascism, regardless of whether it wears a peaked black cap or a yarmulke, without regard to their personal safety.
And I know there are others who embrace fascism like a frightened child embraces its mother. And those people may as easily be Jewish as any other religion or ethnicity. (But one of the things that most repulses me about the attitudes & actions of settlers & the government of Israel is how they use “Never again” as cover for their atrocities.)
Now back to Irishness & Jewishness – I recall Bono saying once at a concert “So here we are, the Irish in America …” and it made me wonder:
How many people consider themselves “the Irish in America” rather than “Irish-Americans” or “Americans of Irish descent” and so hold themselves apart from their countrymen & tie themselves by fable to a place they may have never been to & certainly, for the vast majority, have not lived in as more than tourists?
This is also the case for the American Southerner – they consider themselves a people apart. (I recently saw a photo of a bumper sticker that said “CO-EXIST” using symbols for the various world religions; a crescent, a star-of-david, a cross, etc to form the letters of the word “CO-EXIST”. Next to it, in what I hope was intentional irony, was another bumper sticker that said “Yankees still suck”. License plate was from Virginia.)
So, similarly, can we wonder how many Jews consider themselves “Jews in America” and where their loyalty lies? And can we also wonder if that loyalty might change if a primary interest is challenged? Of course this assumes that the existence of Israel is a primary interest to most Jewish-Americans, which it may or may not be.
So I made an analogy, which I consider a fair point for discussion and I thank you for your civil reply. The other reply I received speaks for itself.
I meant grassroots Democratic politics. If you were active, you would know that Jewish Americans put their national loyalty above their ethnic loyalty.
As a Virginian, I resent your characterization of Southern Democrats. LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, show what Southern Democrats are like. Also Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. You generalization is not reality based.
When I ran the Voter Registration Committee most of my volunteers were Jews and Palestinians. It is amazing what you can accomplish when you are reality based.
I was never a big fan of LBJ when I was young – he was too crazy & controlling, tho’ I don’t doubt that, with his Great Society program, he had good intentions.
Carter I liked; I thought he was an honest man who tried to do a good job for the country. Unfortunately that meant every unscrupulous politician in the country was on his ankle like some annoying terrier.
Clinton falls somewhere between Carter & LBJ – certain of his policies (NAFTA & DMCA for example) I loathe, but on the whole I like and admire the man & think he did a good job in office despite the vicious pack animals that were on him from day 1.
But don’t make me bring up other Southern Democrats from the pre-Nixon era like George Wallace, Strom Thurmond or Lester Maddox to name a few. Or todays Blue Dogs.
And spare me the “reality-based” sloganeering. Kos would try to paint a pig Blue, if he thought it could get elected with a ‘D’ next to its name.
Now you have explicitly called me and a race of people racists.
I feel safer here in the US than I would in a Jewish state and do not advocate for any someshit that you are saying.
well … that was pretty incoherent.
<shrugs> Some people you just can’t talk to.
I don’t think it was incoherent at all.
ok – then explain to me what “any someshit” means, ‘cuz when I read that, following “Fuck you you racist fuck”, I get a mental image of red-faced, incoherent, spittle-flecked, foaming-at-the-mouth apoplexy.
You may see calm, composed debate of the issues. If you do, I want some of what you are smoking.
what he means is that you just called him a racist and he didn’t appreciate it.
Well I didn’t – if I did, the sentence would have read “Luam, you are a racist”.
Perhaps Luam *is* a racist & that is why he reacted that way, I don’t know – I don’t know Luam.
Or is the assumption that Luam *can’t be* racist because he is Jewish & Jews are *genetically incapable* of being racist.
No, he made a lame generalization about “the Jewish vote” & I pointed out 1) how lame the argument was & 2) that things can change.
Furthermore, I pointed out that “faits accompli” (deeds done, done deals, however you want to translate it) can be undone – witness Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.
That would be something more interesting to discuss, don’t you think?
Yeah, it would be a lot more interesting than your discussion of whether Democratic voting Jews are basically no different than boll weavil Democrats.
Do you think there is no comparison? Or do you just find the comparison offensive?
If so, take it up with AliceDem who is busy telling me in another thread that she resents my characterization of Southern Democrats, the very ‘boll weevils’ you mention, and as though George Wallace & Lester Maddox were not the very emblems of Southern Democrats of the 1960s.
Why can’t Jews be like Southerners? Why can’t the Christian Right be like Conservative Muslims for that matter? Would I be wrong to characterize a long-sleeve Laura Ashley dress, white stockings & flat shoes as a “Baptist Bhurka”?
Well – parallels are where you find ’em & I am asking the question “Is there a parallel here?”
If someone thinks the answer is ‘No’, they should support it with more than just name calling.
Uh…yeah…I think there is no comparison. I’m beginning to believe you’ve never met a Democratic-voting Jew in your life. They tend to be about as far away from a Boll Weevil Democrat as can be imagined.
Yes they tend to be as far away from a Boll Weevil Democrat as can be imagined — except on this one issue.
Uh, no. That’s actually really extremely offensive to almost every Jewish person I know. Totally unfair and inaccurate.
This reminds me of Pauline Kael’s famous exclamation when she learned of Nixon’s 1972 landslide victory: “But that’s impossible! All the people I know voted for McGovern!”
Or it would also correspond to someone that went to exclusive prep school and said there is no black poverty because all the black kids they know are quite well off.
You don’t generalize about people because a small segment of them have a feature that you find repugnant. It’s called stereotyping, prejudging, and racism.
The vast majority of Democratic voting Jewish-Americans that I know have views about the I/P issue that are indistinguishable from the gentile people that I know. Nuanced, pained, conflicted, and critical.
Saying that Jewish Democrats are no different that Boll Weevils is saying that Jewish Democrats are all racist. It’s wrong. And it’s very offensive.
Yawn.
Booman’s generalization: Jewish Democratic voters are generally very different from Boll Weevil Democrats.
Booman’s generalization: good.
Guthman’s generalization: Jewish Democratic voters are generally very insensitive to Palestinian rights.
Guthman’s generalization: bad.
Yawn.
You are more intelligent than that, but on this issue you clearly choose not to be.
Addendum:
Booman said: “The vast majority of Democratic voting Jewish-Americans that I know have views about the I/P issue that are indistinguishable from the gentile people that I know. Nuanced, pained, conflicted, and critical.”
What about pulling your head out of a proverbial body part of yours: The average Democratic voter, whether Jewish or not, is neither informed about nor sensitive to the issue of Palestinian rights. Look at any opinion poll.
Besides it is a well established fact that the “liberal” way of being cynical about an issue is precisely that of being “nunanced, pained, conflicted and critical.”
Don’t worry o children of privilege: others will continue to do the dirty work for you.
In your world, all one has to do is become informed about I/P issues and one automatically becomes a whole-hearted advocate for the Palestinian side.
On this much I would agree…
If one is relying only on the superficial and Israeli-centric coverage that is generally available in the American corporate press, one is unlikely to have a balanced view of the conflict. The more one learns, the less one is likely to uncritically support Israel’s side.
But, having said that, if you have educated yourself on the issues, you can still find yourself unsympathetic to either side, critical of both sides, and unwilling to advocate for either side.
As I’ve written before, my view is that Israel has made one self-defeating decision after another since the Camp David accords. The United States successfully eliminated any realistic prospect of a recurrence of the 1973 war, but in return the Israeli’s did not make concessions, but invaded Lebanon and expanded the settlements.
Those were the wrong decisions. I basically feel taken advantage of. I resent that our good will was taken for granted and I consider a lot of the blowback we have in our own security to be a direct result of Israel taking theses decisions.
I was furious when Israel launched a second attack on Israel.
But I am equally appalled at the Palestinian side. Whether we are discussing the tactic of suicide bombing or the gross corruption and incompetence of Arafat’s PA, they have done very little to garner my sympathy or to warrant my faith or support.
I simply do not accept the targeting of civilians as legitimate. It’s not legitimate when the Israeli’s do it, when the Palestinians do it, when the Iraqis do it, when America does it, or when al-Qaeda does it.
I do not view it as a legitimate asymmetric tactic. It will encourage a right-wing reactionary response every…single…time. It is the enemy of all progressive and democratic governance. It is a tactic for religious fanatics, fascists, and authoritarians…not freedom-fighters.
The model for freedom fighting is not Islamic Jihad, the IRA, the ETA, the Tamil Tigers, or al-Qaeda. It is Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The French and American Revolutions simply do not supply precedents for the modern world, or for a situation where one side has a virtual monopoly on force.
When it comes to I/P I condemn the whole cycle of violence and am not interested in comparing notes on who started it, or who has a more legitimate case for illegitimate violence.
If I had my way we would rewind history and find a more defensible homeland for the traumatized post-Holocaust Jewish refugee community. But we can’t do that. If I were President of the United States I would aggressively push Israel to take unilateral steps to pull back from the settlements or suffer a cut-off of aide. I would completely willing to serve only one term or even be impeached and removed from office in an effort to break the status quo relationship between America and Israel, which continues to erode the possibility of a fair and sustainable settlement.
But, if you call that pro-Palestinian, you’re wrong. It’s just as much pro-Israel.
Not bad, Booman.
Now we have to decide whether it is the PS’s incompetence of the Greater Israel dream that is keeping peace from breaking out. Jeff Halper suggests that it is the latter, Israel’s preference for managed conflict over reliquishing of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank.
For that reason, some of us cannot find the equivalence you do in the matter of culpability. It always sounds nice to say, they are both at fault and they both ought to wise up. It doesn’t always pan out that way. Israel has all the cards and is capable of playing them any time it wants.
Error: PS = PA.
You see, I have long stopped caring who is more responsible. It doesn’t really matter.
The biggest casualty of 9/11 was the character of the American people and the quality of our public discourse. No one reacts well to being attacked and having their civilians killed. Ever. It always, always, always, turns the victim country into a more angry, vicious, and uncompromising opponent.
This is the lesson both Israel and the Palestinians need to learn. Every single time civilians are killed the other side becomes worse people, more willing to throw normal standards or morality to the wind.
That is the real justification for going after terrorist organizations very aggressively, because once they strike they are only effective at eroding civil liberties, justifying a police state, a bloated defense/security budget, and further diminishing the moral capacity of their opponents.
If people didn’t want America to launch a war of aggression against Iraq they should not have flown airplances into civilian targets. Doing so allowed the authoritarians that were in charge of our government to seize unprecedented powers, loot our treasury, and pander to our worst instincts.
It didn’t educate us, it made us stupid and violent.
This has happened in the I/P conflict so many times that the people are now seriously damaged and morally diminished. They are no longer capable of making rational and moral decisions without true leadership. And that leadership has never been more severely lacking in the region than it is now, with a bunch of weak and illegitimate rulers.
I don’t take sides in such a conflict. I seek solutions.
Solutions is what I talk about every time I post a diary. Keeping myths at bay concerning the past is only important in so far as others attempt to use them to structure solutions or nonsolutions.
It is interesting that diary about OneVoice, a peace acivist group, gets no attention, while on about a “cabal of right wing Zionists” on DKos gets a lot of attention. Yet both were about solutions or impediments to them.
So are you contending that a)there are *no* Jewish voters that might feel this way, or b) simply that you don’t know any, or c) that, if they do, you don’t know about it?
Weak arguments all of them.
I know a dozen or so jewish people, but I don’t discuss politics with them. I get most of my knowledge about rank & file Jewish Democrats by reading blogs – here, Kos, elsewhere. I see a mix of people; some that I would characterize as genuinely good, caring & compassionate people and some whose jingoistic support of Israel rivals any “America – Love it or Leave it” redneck. I hear a lot of propaganda & buzzwords when it comes to supporters of Israel, maybe more than I hear from those who are not.
And while I am just cynical enough to reserve judgement on the nice people, as having on their “company manners”, I figure no one behaves like a jingoistic asshole unless they are sincere.
In closing, I’d like to point out that people often play-act being offended by something as a means of control. “Don’t talk about that – it offends me.”
But I’ll tell you what offends me – Rachel Corrie’s body, cut in half by a bulldozer, offends me.
Palestinian school girls shot by Israeli snipers offends me.
The Irgun & the Stern Gang offend me.
Nearly fifty years of using “Never Again” as an excuse for land grabs, assassination, and the creation of the Gaza Ghetto offend me.
And if *that* offends your Jewish friends, I don’t give a fuck.
I suggest you try talking politics with them.
not if I want to keep them all as clients.
What it means is that you certainly offended me and an I was a bit redfaced and sputtering because I am pretty sure you just accused a whole racial/ religious group of being racist. Actually its funny in a hypocritical way.
I am not pretending to be offended to get my way I am offended and I think you should seriously consider that if you are actually a liberal/ progressive.
As an aside, I really don’t like the bad shit that the Israeli government has done to the Palestinian people it pisses me off and makes me feel ashamed.
But that is no excuse for your rhetoric, so think about what you are saying and try to understand. BTW why do you generalize about Jewish politics and lump me in with asswipe Neocons who happen to be Jewish. I don’t think that all Christians are evil because of the actions of G.W. Bush.
Thanks for this diary.
Personally, I find shergald obnoxious, condescending, wrong, confrontational, insulting, and generally a dick…but I would defend his right to speak with my own life. That’s why, I am an American.
With all shergald’s perception of America and it’s politics, the First amendment is First for a reason.
In our Modern Blog World, Discussion is key. Unfortunately, discussion has been sidelined for confrontation. I miss rational debate of the issues.
How far back do we have to go to solve the problems of the Middle East…Fifty, or so years, for the I/P conflict, hundreds of years for the Muslim/Christian feuds, thousands of years for Civilization itself…come on…get a grip. Stop the Hate.
From village, to City-State, to Kingships, to Democracy, that’s the progress of civilization. Nothing has ever been perfect. Humans are faulty. There are billions of us now, it just makes things worse, not better. Kucinich looks better and better to me everyday. Hell, Wavy Gravy would probably be the best thing, evah….
I am so frustrated. Neighbor against neighbor, State against State, Nation against Nation, and no end in sight.
Solve this problem at your leisure…..
Gee thanks.
Can you provide me with any examples of diaries or posts which show me to be the “generallly the dick” you claim.
If anyone’s interest in the book “Foreign Agents” was piqued, apparently Powell’s doesn’t carry it either. They have other books by Grant F. Smith.
We all click through the Booman site to buy our books now, don’t we.
.
Let the accusations begin (4.00 / 1)
This post is sure to have the usual wackos screaming “Anti-Semitism” in MLN’s direction. But with so much American blood and capital being shed for a cause that the very issuing of those defense grants acknowledges benefits Israel, it’s perfectly logical to start asking some perhaps uncomfortable questions.
I find it interesting that you can find no hint of Smith’s book on Amazon. Searching by title or author’s name yields nada. Even searching by ISBN (0976443775), usually the sure fire way to find a book, yields nothing.
I’m sure AIPAC had nothing to do with this. Probably just Amazon’s usual incompetence.
You CAN get the book at Barnes & Noble (not an affiliate link).
The Amazon blackout made me angry enough to order a copy.
by: BranfordBoy @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 13:11:32 PM CDT
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."