Don't Rock the Boat – A Critique of a Pamphlet Defending Zionism in the American Left
By Guest Post • May 13th, 2010 at 20:28 • Category: Analysis, Grassroots Activism, Israel, Newswire, Religion, Zionism
detail from the pamphlet promoting focus on anti-semitism as the core to all activism movements
WRITTEN BY JAY KNOTT, May 2010
"It seemed like that word 'anti-semite' had so much power over all the people in the gathering" – a reporter on KBOO radio describing the way the allegation of anti-semitism was used to shut up a major campaigner against support for Israeli war crimes, in a supposedly 'anti-racist' meeting, in Portland, in April 2010. As if to confirm the power of Zionism in the left, the report was censored.
This is a review of the pamphlet "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere" – by April Rosenblum, April 2007, available from http://thepast.info, subtitled 'Making resistance to antisemitism part of all our movements'. It's part of my ongoing effort to expose the blind spot the American left has for Zionism.
So why do I bother deconstructing crypto-Zionism? First of all, I've noticed that there are few people in the world smart enough to do this, and I'm one of them. I care about peace with the Islamic world, a clear priority for the inhabitants of Westen Europe and North America since September 11th 2001.
In some ways, April's pamphlet is the antithesis of my "The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism", http://pacificaforum.org/mass, which I produced a year later. I was unaware of April's effort at the time, otherwise I would have incorporated an uncompromising attack on her pamphlet into mine.
A Zionist thinktank called "The Israel Project" produced a booklet on how to fool the American pc left. April's pamphlet implements their recommendations. It is basically a Zionist tract in the guise of modern leftism, with lots of references to 'oppression' and so on.
I found out about it via a Zionist supporter of the violent leftist group 'Anti-Racist Action', accusing anti-war activists in Portland, Oregon, of being anti-semitic. Someone linked to April's pamphlet via a posting on Indymedia.
Though I reject the politics of "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere", I am grateful to this individual for having pointed me in this direction. This sugary concoction of self-serving Jewish particularism summarizes better than anything else I have read the attitudes which prevent the anti-racist left from opposing Zionism, by far the most important form of racial violence and discrimination in the Western world. There is more racism among Jews than among all other Western people combined. I can't speak about Sudan or the Amazon rainforest, but I know Western Europe and North America, I understand Israel, and I am familiar with the Left. I can't help being part of this society – it's my duty to fight against the terrible errors which lead us to participate in the genocide of the Palestinian people.
I am not advocating anti-semitism. I am advocating much less concern about it than there is at the moment. This is especially true of the Palestine solidarity movement – our aim is to support the Palestinians against the Jews, and that's it. Worrying about anti-semitism has not helped this movement: it only enables Zionists and anti-fascists to attack pro-Palestinian advocates.
Being concerned about anti-semitism means supporters of Palestinian rights spend a lot of time and energy defending themselves against this smear. In a left-wing meeting in America, it is enough for a Zionist to call someone 'anti-semitic' to shut down debate, divert people from the real problem of Jewish racism, and divide people. This gives power to Zionists. Our aim is to reduce Zionist power. Defending ourselves against the canard hasn't worked. We need a different approach. We need to flaunt our contempt for the charge of anti-semitism, and laugh at it. We need to not care about it. One example is to make a point of defending the freedom of speech of Holocaust revisionists. This exposes the Zionists hiding in the left, who call us 'fascists' just for listening to such controversial speakers. We need to challenge the official story of World War Two, on which much of Israel's cultural hegemony depends.
On to April's pamphlet.
The first thing to note is the pamphlet's style. It is written and laid out like the famous 'For Dummies' series (Theoretical Physics for Dummies, etc.). It uses a deceptively casual, friendly tone to try to dictate ideas to the reader, rather than explain them. It pretends it is possible to present complex ideas in a simplistic style with lots of assertions, sidebars and pictures, no attempt to falsify hypotheses, and statements too vague to be testable.
"In the basic ways that it plays out, antisemitism is not so different from the ways that many diaspora communities get scapegoated throughout the world." (page 4)
So does that mean it is similar to the scapegoating of the Overseas Chinese in Malaya in 1969, or that of Indians in East Africa? No, that is not what April means. If it were, it would mean that anti-semitism is an example of an ethno-economic entity being on the receiving end of resentment from the oppressed. Malays attacked Chinese and Africans attacked Indians because they were privileged. Their wealth was built on oppressing the poor. Admittedly, the ruling elites were even more culpable, but one can understand the resentment toward the middlemen without in any way justifying the violence. But try saying there was a 'grain of truth' in equivalent resentment against the Jewish middle class in Russia, Spain and Germany. Of course, that is not what April is saying. She's saying anti-semitism is special.
This pamphlet is an example of what Gilad Atzmon calls 'crypto-Zionism' – a failed attempt to separate Jewish identity from Jewish racism. It is Jewish supremacy disguised as schmaltzy left-wing morality.
April really believes Jews are oppressed. Everything they do, they are victims. When they become rich and rip off other people, it's because the ruling classes are using them as scapegoats, to divert the poor from their real enemies to the Jews. She says that attacking 'the Jews' is a way of diverting people from their real enemy – capitalism. But this simply isn't true for the Palestinians. Noam Chomsky uses his fame and eloquence to divert people in the opposite direction – he tries to deny the existence of the Israel Lobby, blaming everything on US imperialism.
The idea that anti-semitism is a form of oppression in the Western world today is absurd. There is class oppression, obviously: people mostly go to work because they have no property. There are also irrational forms of hatred, like homophobia. There are hangovers from the past, like racism against black people. But for a Jew to promote the idea that anti-semitism in the West today has anything in common with these real forms of hate against innocent people is hypocritical whining.
The most important form of racial discrimination in the Western countries today is pro-semitism, or philosemitism, to give it its correct name – discriminating in favor of Jews. Whereas the West ditched white apartheid twenty-five years ago, it still supports Jewish apartheid to the hilt, sending the Jewish racist state more money than all other countries combined.
Jews are often involved in campaigns for civil rights for others, as April's pamphlet reminds us.
"An amazing ½ to ⅔ of the whole Civil Rights workers who went south for instance, are estimated to have been Jews – despite being just 2-3% of the US population… We fought not only because we longed for a better, more beautiful world, but out of deep faith that freedom for all peoples would also, finally, bring freedom and safety for Jews" (page 16).
Not only did Jews want a better, more beautiful world, but in addition, they wanted safety for Jews.
It wasn't the other way round. They didn't fight for a better, more beautiful world because it is in Jewish interests to undermine white dominance by advancing the interests of other minorities. Never mind the fact that American Jews are liberal on the US immigration question and not so liberal when it comes to immigration into Israel. Anyone who says that is anti-semitic, aren't they? So there's no need to even think about the double standard involved.
In the 1930's, American Jews were left-wing. So what changed? Why did they move to the right?
Why is the most important Jewish movement in the world today Zionism, and the most important in the USA, neo-conservatism? According to "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere", it's because Jews were persecuted during McCarthyism – two of them were even executed for "supposedly" passing nuclear secrets to the Russians.
April effectively says – if the left allows such vicious anti-semitic pogroms as the execution of the Rosenbergs for handing over nuclear weapon secrets to Russia, well, it can only expect Jews to move to the right, exert influence in the media, use everyone else's money to support Israel's war crimes, and send our sons and daughters to die. It's all because we allow the oppression of Jews.
I oppose the death penalty, but Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were traitors, and April is being dishonest in implying otherwise. In fact, they were Jewish commie traitors. Nothing wrong with that, but it's true.
She only notices when the Soviet Union was anti-semitic. Never mind when it was pro-semitic, supported the foundation of the state of Israel, and helped Jews oppress other inhabitants of Eastern Europe. If she admitted this, she would say the Jews were being 'used' by the Stalinist apparatus. She perpetuates the story we have all heard about the Eastern Front – everyone was guilty, except the Jews, who were always victims. Finally, after 1945, they'd had enough, and founded the state of Israel.
It gets worse.
"Any Jew who comes to understand the nature of their oppression – and who realizes that the liberation of their people touches them more deeply than any clinging attachment to the status quo – cannot help but become a radical. Plenty of Jews haven't yet had that 'click' of awareness" (page 17).
So the problem with Paul Wolfowitz, the bulldozer driver who killed Rachel Corrie, and supporters of the Anti-Defamation League, is that they don't realize that 'the liberation of their people' 'touches them more deeply' than the advantages they gain by supporting, or presiding over, ethnic cleansing, by Jews, of Palestinians, using the wealth of white Europeans.
They haven't yet had that 'click' of awareness.
But April and other radical Jews have had it. They 'realize' that the 'liberation of their people' is better served by combatting anti-semitism in the left.
At least white South Africans were honest. They were either honest racists, or honest anti-racists. They didn't join the anti-apartheid movement in order to cure it of any anti-white prejudice it might contain.
April asks us to 'bring an understanding of Jewish oppression into Israel/Palestine work'. Surely that would exclude an understanding of Jewish supremacy?
How does the "understanding of Jewish oppression" help the Palestinians get their rights? Not at all. The problem with the left is not that it tolerates anti-semitism, but that it cares about it.
The traditional anti-racism of the West – undermining white privilege – has failed completely to make a dent in Jewish privilege, Jewish apartheid, and the tremendous support for it in the Western world.
It's time to ditch that approach and try another. White ethnic interests do not always coincide with Jewish ones. This is certainly true on the Israel/Palestine question, so why should pro-Palestinian activists be afraid of pointing this out? Christianity, whether liberal or conservative, is no friend of Israel. So why not say so? If there are conservative interests opposed to Zionism, then they should be utilized. Never mind the pious humbug called 'principles'. You know what they say about making an omelette.
According to this pamphlet, part of the problem with anti-Jewish oppression is 'it allows Jews success': "Many oppressions rely on keeping the targeted group of people poor" (page 8). Conversely, oppressors tend to be successful. Success makes you an oppressor, whereas failure makes you oppressed. Except for Jews. Jews are victims, even when they are successful.
The 'middleman' in early capitalism and the 'court Jew' in late feudalism were victims too. When they exploited the poor, they were being used. Perhaps they were. So were the Chinese middle class in Malaya, the Indians in East Africa, the Koreans in Compton, and so on. But they were active agents of oppression too – they weren't just victims. This ambiguous position is easy to explain in relation to all these middle-class ethno-economic entities – except for the Jews. If you apply the same principles to the Jews you apply to Asian middle classes, you are threatened with loss of your job or even violence. I have clear examples of both of these forms of discrimination.
April claims reasonable liberal complaints about Zionist power are anti-semitic – for example, the argument that the deaths of Jewish children are reported many times more than the deaths of Palestinian children in the media. This is one of the most obvious indicators of Jewish power in the US media, publicized by such moderate organizations as "If Americans Knew". But for April, it's an age-old anti-Jewish smear. Never mind the Palestinian children – what's important is to protect Jews.
According to April, Jews in America after World War II "knew they'd better not rock the boat". Try telling that to the survivors of the USS Liberty, attacked by Israel in 1967, with the loss of thirty-four men. The Jews didn't just 'rock the boat', they nearly sunk it. American Jews are so powerful, the attack was covered up. What would happen to any other nation attacking an American spy ship?
"For Jews who struggle for social justice, that means we often stay quiet about anti-Jewish oppression" (page 9). You could have fooled me.
The Naqba, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948 by the Jews, was caused, naturally, according to April, by anti-semitism. The poor Jewish survivors of the Holocaust could hardly help themselves emigrating to Palestine and driving out the population of the area. April believes the oppression of the Palestinians is not caused by pro-semitism, but by anti-semitism.
April explicitly says you can criticise some Israeli policies, but not the nation itself. You should not say 'Zionism is a form of racism'.
She complains bitterly about 'anti-semitism' at the UN Conference on Racism, which was boycotted by the major powers because of their pro-Israel stance. because it would contain 'Israel-bashers'.
http://pacificaforum.org/the-un-conference-against-racism—a-white-zionist-alliance-
They were not concerned about 'South Africa-bashers' at conferences against apartheid. Britain, the USA, Australia etc. all condemned South African apartheid, and boycotted it until it fell down. The white countries got rid of the most egregious example of white racism. They find it much harder to get rid of the blatant Jewish racism of Israeli apartheid.
Still, April complains of being oppressed, and I think she believes it. Self-deception is the best form of deception, and it has been a very successful Jewish strategy.
"Zionism is not an insult… it's a nationalism, and, as so often happens with nationalisms, it has not fully liberated its people and has oppressed others in the process" (page 22). Poor Palestinians. Oppressed in the process of 'not fully liberating' Jews.
She tries to tie valid criticisms of Israeli barbarism, such as a cartoon of Ariel Sharon eating children, to 'blood libels' such as those used against Jews in Russia and Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries. A similar argument was used against those who accused Israel of stealing organs from Palestinians. All I can say is, if you want to stop anti-semitic stereotypes, stop conforming to them.
The weakest point in her pamphlet concerns the Lobby. There is a well-documented idea that politicians have to obey a small clique of powerful Jews, the Israel Lobby, when deciding Israel policy, even when it goes against the USA's interest. She says this idea is anti-semitic. I hope not, since it's true. Mearsheimer and Walt's 'The Israel Lobby', which defends this 'tail wagging the dog' hypothesis, is a well-referenced, moderate, academic work, not a piece of Nazi propaganda. If we follow April's advice, we will be unable to consider the Israel Lobby theory, and a host of other valid questions, because we will be afraid of what these ideas might 'lead to'. This would impede our attempts to understand, and undermine, the USA's unconditional support for Israeli aggression. Conversely, if we do want to understand, and undermine, this support, we must reject her call to 'make resistance to antisemitism part of all our movements'.
Perhaps realizing the danger of this conclusion, she tries to blackmail us into agreeing with her position; if we don't 'make resistance to antisemitism part of all our movements', Jews will feel bad and move to the right. And it will be our fault. We must therefore stop 'anti-Jewish rhetoric' among pro-Palestinian campaigners, by saying Jews will feel isolated, and support "building up a militarized Israel, with rights reserved for Jews". We wouldn't want them to do that, now, would we?
Ethnic cleansing, racial supremacy and mass murder by Jews are the fault of everyone else, April would have us believe. For how long have Jewish activists sung this refrain? How much longer are we going to put up with it? Do we have to wait 'til the last Palestinian is expelled from Palestine, it is illegal to criticize Israel in Europe, and American Muslims are rounded up and put in camps?
She doesn't attempt to argue against the explanation for the 2003 invasion of Iraq that the US government was maneuvered into it by the Jewish neo-conservative movement. She doesn't need to – since it's anti-semitic, it can't possibly be true.
Same with the 'myth' that Hollywood and the media are under Jewish control. She doesn't provide statistics to refute this idea – she doesn't need to – she informs us that it makes her feel oppressed, so it can't possibly be true.
Notice that I am not saying that all these stories about Jewish power are true. I'm saying that, in order to investigate whether they are true, we have to become less concerned about anti-semitism. And I am saying that we should investigate them, since they are a matter of life and death for Palestinians.
April and her friends, whether they know it or not, provide left cover for Israel. Their efforts are holding back the creation of a new anti-apartheid movement.
Like all crypto-Zionists, April refers to 'the Occupation' – the idea that Israel's rightful borders are the ones she had before the six-day war in 1967, when she annexed the West Bank, etc. – the idea that ethnic cleansing was OK up 'til 1967 but not thereafter. This is a fallback position, in case Israel has to give up the 'occupied territories', to make it look like a Jewish racist state with the 1967 borders is legitimate. It's like the position of some of the Afrikaaners who wanted a small white state after the fall of apartheid. Jewish progressives are the equivalent of white racists – except they want the lion's share of Palestine, not just a fair slice of the pie. Actually, they want the whole enchilada, but they might have to make do with the main course, leaving a few crumbs for the Palestinians.
In some ways, April's pamphlet is a parody of itself. If Israel is allowed to continually flout international law, she claims, "some activists start to mistake Jews for a vast powerful network" (page 20). Yes, I must admit to making that mistake myself! Thanks for the correction, April!
The way April uses universal humanism and socialism to cover up her Jewish chauvinism, you might think there was something in the age-old canard about Jews using universalism to cover for their particularism.
I don't draw that conclusion. I don't reduce radicalism from the Bolshevik Revolution thru the Vietnam War to 'Jewish leftism'. But, like anti-semitism, I can only say the best way to oppose this idea it is not to conform to it.
"There's no shame in thinking critically toward Zionism. But in a world of unresolved antisemitism, there's also no getting out of fighting this oppression head on" (page 22). I beg to differ. I've gotten out of fighting anti-semitism completely, not just 'head on'. So, according to April, I should feel shame in thinking critically toward Zionism. But somehow, I don't. I must have something wrong with me.
"There are real reasons why Jews around the world fear losing majority control of Israel. If you fight for the Right to Return, understand the implications it could have for Jews in a world where anti-Jewish oppression has not been solved" (page 23).
In other words, if you don't consider how Jews feel about it, you have no right to support the Right of Return for Palestinians! This means the 'Right of Return' isn't a right at all. The United Nations resolutions, unconditionally asserting Palestinians' right to return to the land they were kicked out of in 1948, are wrong, because they don't consider the implications for Jews.
She argues that "the idea that Jews control the government of the world began with traditional Church authorities passing down images of Jews as a group in league with the Devil" (page 25). Look more closely. First, it takes the most exrteme anti-Zionist position as being mainstream, then it asserts, without evidence, where it 'began'. This is irrelevant. Present-day analyses of Jewish power should be evaluated on the basis of evidence, not whether they remind us of age-old canards (a canard is a calumny against a cabal).
"It was like somebody flipped a switch", said a leading campaigner for a boycott of Israeli goods, when she was accused of 'anti-semitism' and the audience at a left-wing anti-racist gathering turned against her.
We need to reject this traditional anti-racism. It's time to rock the boat. And break some eggs.
Guest Post
is the author as indicated in the tagline. He/she (or the source that
is indicated within the post) reserves the rights to the material
published.
Email this author | All posts by Guest Post
Great stuff. Keep saying it.
Debunking the American Left's clinging to Zionism is easy.
Zionism is not an American value per our own Constitution. Parallel Zionism/Israel's own laws on the books to our own DECLARED values and LAW in our own Constitution (and case law) and your point is made.
Full stop.
You owe ARA an apology. ARA opposes all forms of racial nationalism and racial supremacy. This includes the Klan, The New Black Panther Party, and Zionism. Our group has no official membership process, so the fact that you were able to find one person in our group with some backwards views about Israel isn't really all that surprising. I challenge you to find a SINGLE word that ARA has put out as a group that does anything other than condemn the actions of Israel and the racism that permeates their policies in Gaza and the West Bank. ARA specifically warns anyone interested in getting involved in the anti-racist movement that many racist organizations pose as anti-racist and mentions the Anti Defamation League.
Jacob, I'm not saying Anti-Racist Action officially supports Israel. I produced a pamphlet which predicted that anti-fascism – the idea that the German side in World War II was much worse than the other, which implies that Jews are more important than other people, would lead logically to tolerance of Zionism. At the meeting in Portland referred to in the above article, the ARA confirmed this prediction exactly. The desperate hyping up of every shred of 'evidence' for 'racist activity', the concern with 'fascism', make the anti-racist left paranoid about anti-semitism. This makes it easy prey for crypto-Zionists. All a Zionist has to do is shout 'anti-semite' and your comrades jump to attention. Slandering middle-aged white men was easy, given the prejudices of the left. But attacking Alison Weir, moderate, liberal, popular campaigner against US support for Israeli war crimes, was a tactical disaster, a bridge too far, for the ARA.
Of course, anti-fascists condemn Zionism. But in practice, they hinder the consciousness-raising which is necessary to create a new anti-apartheid movement. If this is a white supremacist society, as your group claims, how come it helped defeat a white apartheid state twenty years ago, and still continues to back a Jewish one? We need to be able to work this out in an atmosphere free of paranoia and political correctness. When one of your members bitched us out on the radio, she said "the elephant in the room is white privilege". This is the nonsense which diverts people from seeing the real elephant in the room, and makes the left so weak on Israeli apartheid.
Yes, the ARA criticises the Jewish racist Anti-Defamation League. But it uncritically copies disinformation from an Israeli Zionist website!
There is occasional political or racial violence in this country. But it's hardly an epidemic, and anti-racists are just as guilty as racists.
If anyone owes anyone an apology, it would be your group, for
- allowing racists to slander Alison Weir at your meeting
- making out that listening to critics of the Frankfurt School is on a par with organising violence
- influencing Indymedia to allow people to post thinly-veiled threats of violence
- using community radio to falsely call respected local activists anti-semitic and homophobic
- offering to 'educate' your betters, rather than discussing with them
- using phrases like 'fascist collaborator' and 'anti-semite' like it's 1942
- revealing peoples' identities and details, exposing them to the danger of unemployment or worse
- writing graffiti claiming a leading left-wing activist is a Nazi
- encouraging young people naive enough to believe you to put themselves in danger
- sending death threats to people for merely listening to controversial ideas
But we don't want apologies, we want a change of attitude and an open discussion.
There are no L'eft' or 'Right' when it comes to Jewish intellectuals. They're either outright 'Israel-Firsters' or 'Progressive Except Palestine (PEP)'.
Kenneth Stern, an anti-Semitism expert with American Jewish Committee (AJC) in his 2006 book ‘Anti-Semitism Today’, which was endorsed by Morris Dee, the head of the Southern Povert Law Center (SPLC). The book’s cover shows the picture of some Palestinian protesting against Israeli attacks. I am at a loss to understand how a demonstration against Occupation becomes ‘anti-Semitism’? Isn’t that a clear case of Jewish racism against Arabs? This is what the Western progressive Jews represent – ‘Progressive Except Palestine (PEP) – watch a video below). I have personal experience with two of such PEP sites, Mondoweiss and Race for Iran……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/anti-immigration-law-holocaust-racism-and-israel-lobby/
Correction. It turns out that Anti-Racist Action did not uncritically copy disinformation from a Zionist website. It uncritically copied disinformation from somewhere else.
Sir I want to ask something."Noam Chomsky uses his fame and eloquence to divert people in the opposite direction – he tries to deny the existence of the Israel Lobby, blaming everything on US imperialism."
How Chomsky obtained his fame ?Supposing that the boos like Israel lobby and America foreign policy was published long time ago,but Chomsky book no.Do you think that the situation of Palestinian people would be better.In my view the lobby manipulate o imperialist structure which is US and the success of manipulation is granted by imperialist structure of US..The US imperialist structure has looking to dominate the Middle East.Mr.Ahmadinejad said recently that who get the ME get the world.Here intervenes also interests of Israel and her reason to be hegemonic power in the realm..Israel is prepared military,of course,with Aerican helt ,to play this role.The invasion of Iraq was an Israeli dream and they make all possible for it to be done.Much mor for an invasion of Iran..To you hink that US wqs forced to it by the Lobby or is also places where America wants to hold the zone even to oblige the sell of oil in dollars..What is Chomsky part of insincerity when he presen so the situation
I be very glad to receive an answer,Dino
Dino,
Can you re-post your comments with spelling and grammatical corrections. It is extremely muddled, just like your other post on Dissent Voice, and impossible to comprehend.
I can just about understand Dino. He's saying that Chomsky's analysis predates Mearsheimer and Walt's. It does, but when Jeff Blankfort pointed out to him the role of the Israel Lobby and much of America's Jewish community in manipulating public opinion and politicians in the interests of Israel, Chomsky ignored him, and just carried on repeating the mantra that the Lobby is merely an instrument of US Imperialism. Is he sincere? I don't know – they say self-deception is the best form of deception!
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-blankfort.html
Sir ,thank you and i beg pardon for my English..I try to remake my question.Today the nature of capitalism is better know.I'm sure that still is not enough know and represent the ideal for the majority of the people on the world.I think that this is the reason that the countries which belonged to socialist camp broke the camp and chose "the free world".In the tale of "free world"US detains the central place,it is still a dream for the humanity in such false words was depicted by servant intellectuals.Deconstructing this myth i see a huge merit for Chomsky.Regarding Blankfort observation that Chomsky didn't accord the due importance of the role of Israeli lobby i can agree with Blankfort until he said that Chomsky did so intentionally .How Blankfort know it,how he know that this is misleading and not a sincere interpretation of the facts.I asked you but i was not enough clear:supposing that before Chomsky wrote his politic books the books of the lobby would have appear ,do you think that it would made the situation of Palestinian better?I think that no,and in so far that people in the world know something about the Palestinian tragedy and the real history of "the conflict" Chomsky has a good part.Maybe the Chomsky books help many people like Chavez ,Nassrallah etc to understand the situation how Chavez speaking in a UN session held a Chomsky's book,Hegemony and survival,and asking the listeners to read it..Very late Putin said that "now we know who is the comrade bear"
after Russia asked the help of US to install a free market in Russia help which cause the plunder of Russia .Making a comparison between the lobby and Rasputin with his influence in Russia,what would have to do the revolutionist to execute him and be contented with that or to change the tsarist system?Now the lobby is a miserable,a hypocritical organization and perverse but it could prosper only in US because US and Israel are imperialists,racists and Messianic.
I hope that i made me clearer,and i thank you for patience
dino
Perhaps I am a bit harsh on Noam Chomsky. We who write on this site get a lot of hassle from Zionists and from much of the orthodox left. Perhaps that leads us to be a little self-righteous on occasion. Could Chomsky help the Palestinians by denouncing the Israel Lobby? Yes, it would be a huge step forward. He is so influential. I disagree with you about Chavez, but this is not the place to discuss it.
Dino writes …
"Regarding Blankfort observation that Chomsky didn't accord the due importance of the role of Israeli lobby i can agree with Blankfort until he said that Chomsky did so intentionally .How Blankfort know it,how he know that this is misleading and not a sincere interpretation of the facts"
Blankfort and Chomsky were once friends and was in closer position than most to judge and analyze Chomsky's views. Also IMO Chomsky views due to his enormous influence has retarded the Left. He has used his influence to divert attention from the rise of American Zionism.
Deadbeat,I never heard Chomsky speaking on antisemitism and making antisemitism o problem of today.I think ,possible i'm wrong,that what push Blankort against Chomsky is envy because Chomsky can't be the "problem "of the "left"The claim that without Chomsky the left would be more effective is naive,i think that without Chomsky the left would not exist at all..In the last time many and very important personalities spoke about the malign influence of the lobby ,and generally ,about the Israel true character,about her "Jewish vibrant democracy".And the result is that Clinton rejected the deal between Iran ,Brazil and Turkey in the same day that deal was formulated.Since the publication of Mearsheimer and Walt book:The Israeli lobby and US foreign policy or Petras books on Zionist POwer Configuration,Sniegoski "The transparent cabal" Jeff Gate :"Guilty by association" maybe the only change which happened was to improve more the image of America limiting the responsibility on Israel lobby.The old myth about the intentions of America is revived.Look to a Gallup poll and think if the direction of Chomsky critique is not less important than the lobby.
May 25, 2010
Sub-Saharan Africa Leads World in U.S. Approval
Across 110 countries, median approval was 51%
by Cynthia English and Julie Ray
Page: 12
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Across 110 countries Gallup surveyed in 2009, median approval of U.S. leadership was 51%, up from 34% in 2008. Approval during President Barack Obama's first year in office topped 75% in 20 sub-Saharan African countries, with Kosovo, Ireland, and Albania joining them as the countries or areas most approving.
These findings summarize all Gallup findings regarding world citizens' views of U.S. leadership collected in 2009. Prior stories have documented results by region and by country, including changes from 2008. With all surveying completed, U.S. leadership approval remained highest in sub-Saharan Africa, as it has been since Gallup began measuring world citizens' views of U.S. leadership in 2005.
Perceptions of U.S. Leadership Improve in Nearly Every Region
See the poll on Gallup site it is amazing.
Your response is exemplary of Chomskyism that clearly reveal the retarding effect that it has the Left for nearly 40 years. Your ad hominem of Jeffrey Blankfort, suggesting that this intellectual's perspectives who documented the Black Panthers is "envious" of Chomsky says more about your devotion to Chomsky rather than a adhering to the principle of JUSTICE. Also another aspect that enhances Blankfort's credibility is his long as association with African American Liberation movements. In other words Blankfort is a PRINCIPLED ANTI-RACIST.
On the other hand, Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist which leads one to question his level of commitment to anti-racism especially since he has argued against labeling Israel as an "apartheid" entity. In addition Chomsky has come out AGAINST the Palestinian inspired boycott against Israel as well as his dismissal of the Israel Lobby.
However the real damage caused by Noam Chomsky is that he has constructed a NARRATIVE his trademarked "U.S. Imperialism". Who can argue with "U.S. Imperialism" when so much harm is caused by "U.S. Imperialism". But Chomsky and Chomskyites like William Blum and the late Howard Zinn has used the awfulness of "U.S. Imperialism" as a diversion from the change in the INFLUENTIAL FORCES BEHIND U.S. POWER during the past 30 to 40 years. The rise of Zionism into the seats and halls of the U.S. political economy has totally been ignored by this most famous "intellectual" and "prolific" researcher. How do you explain that Dino? YOU CAN'T and that is why your arguments are reduced to ad hominems attacks on Jeffrey Blankfort.
But because mainstream politics in the U.S. is so far to the Right, Chomsky APPEARS radical when in fact he is not. The nifty aspect of his "U.S. Imperialism" narrative is that it gets people to think in terms of resources rather than racism. When most people hear "imperialism" they naturally think that the motivations are Capitalistic. However Capitalism is NOT the driving force for Zionists. RACISM is the driving force. Zionists USE Capitalism to acquire their power and they use that power to place themselves ABOVE all other groups. That is the goal of Zionism. Capitalists use RACISM to keep the working class weak and divided as their primary goal is capital accumulation. While the three pillars of injustice (racism, capitalism and militarism) are constant their use are inverted by the Zionists because they have a different goal from Capitalists. This is why a radical analysis is needed to CONFRONT Zionism. An analysis that will not and cannot never come Noam Chomsky since he has an affinity to a racist ideology and places his ETHNIC LOYALTY well above anti-racists principles.
What a surprise! Freedom of speech ends at my criticism of your views!
Do you not have the courage to allow my dissenting opinions?
“I found out about it via a Zionist supporter of the violent leftist group 'Anti-Racist Action', accusing anti-war activists in Portland, Oregon, of being anti-semitic. Someone linked to April's pamphlet via a posting on Indymedia.”
So to restate what you just said, a SUPPORTER of ARA (not a member) accused anti-war activists of being anti-Semitic because she herself is a Zionist. Since your beliefs regarding Israel have some overlap with neo-Nazis does that mean I can assert that you are a neo-Nazi? Because Sara Palin and environmentalist have both accused Obama of being soft on BP does that make Sara Palin an environmentalist? It’s just absurd. I myself have been removed from Zionist speaker’s events. Everything that I’ve read by Alison Weir I agree with completely. The ARA has taken a firm stance on Zionism and to claim otherwise is simply a lie.
That said, Zionism is not the most pressing issue amongst those of us fighting violent bigots in our communities. The Klan, minutemen, and racist Skinhead movements actually are committing hate crimes in our communities and therefore will continue to get more of our attention due to the pressing urgency of the problem.
“Slandering middle-aged white men was easy, given the prejudices of the left. But attacking Alison Weir, moderate, liberal, popular campaigner against US support for Israeli war crimes, was a tactical disaster, a bridge too far, for the ARA.”
I’ve read up on the event in Portland which was an ARA-hosted discussion regarding violent Neo-Nazis and what Portland can do to stop Volksfront and other similar groups. Alison was promoting an anti-AIPIC protest at great length that was off-topic.
According to Alison Weir in a comment at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/04/398993.shtml:
“On the other hand, some audience members told me they simply felt that I was speaking out of turn in trying to defend myself, since the organizers had ruled that I was not to speak again, and perhaps they have a valid point; many people feel it's important to follow the rules in order to keep things moving along (though I'm not sure they would find this so easy to do if one of the organizers of the event had announced falsehoods against them).”
There were several members of ARA were unwilling to attend the event because of the fact that in previous incarnations the protest was overwhelming filled with anti-Semites rather than anti-Zionists. There were apparently a couple people (not members) who took things too far and called Alison an “anti-Semite” while she in turn referred to those disagreeing with her as “Israeli Agents.”
The claims you make are not even made by the person you’re supposedly defending. It is unfortunate things weren’t more productive at that meeting but to claim that ARA is Zionist, crypto-Zionist, or even in opposition to Alison Weir’s viewpoints is once again, simply a lie.
“Yes, the ARA criticizes the Jewish racist Anti-Defamation League. But it uncritically copies disinformation from an Israeli Zionist website!”
I also criticize the media and read the newspaper. What’s your point? I assume you’re talking about us using some information that the ADL has gathered on neo-Nazi tattoos? Because even you admitted it was a “Zionist supporter of the violent leftist group,” rather than the ARA itself or even a “member of the group”. Oh and I see you corrected that in your comment 6 now anyhow….
“allowing racists to slander Alison Weir at your meeting”
First of all, it was an ARA hosted community discussion and not a meeting else no one other than ARA members would have any idea what took place as none other than members would have been there. More importantly, I think it’s utterly hilarious that you’re all about freedom of speech and allowing any and all dissident viewpoints to be expressed, unless it’s your viewpoints they disagree with. So according to you, anyone slandering an Anti-Zionist such as Alison needs to be silenced and it is our responsibility to do so? As well as your own personal policy on this page to censor “Comments containing Zionist propaganda”. Even more funny is your accusation that we are “hyping up of every shred of 'evidence' for 'racist activity'”. Take a look in the mirror. I will concede that there have been occasions in which I was not proud of actions of people who claimed to be part of our group. While I have no issue with pulling the metaphorical gun of direct action out, I do take great issue with the idea that you don’t need to aim before you pull the trigger. When I was researching your accusations I thought you might have actually found one of those instances, but you haven’t. The incident in Portland is nothing but your spin on an event that wasn’t as productive as it might have been. Your entire blog and the back and forth between you and your readers reveal pretty clearly the fact that you see the world in a false dichotomy. Everyone is either a rabid, militant Anti-Zionist or a Zionist. It takes a pretty bizarre worldview to come to the conclusion that Noam Chomsky is a Zionist. As for the rest of your baseless accusations, I have no interest in debating the merits of direct action and counter-violence in this forum, there’s more appropriate venues than your blog.
“On the other hand, some audience members told me they simply felt that I was speaking out of turn in trying to defend myself, since the organizers had ruled that I was not to speak again, and perhaps they have a valid point; many people feel it's important to follow the rules in order to keep things moving along (though I'm not sure they would find this so easy to do if one of the organizers of the event had announced falsehoods against them).”
There were several members of ARA were unwilling to attend the event because of the fact that in previous incarnations the protest was overwhelming filled with anti-Semites rather than anti-Zionists. There were apparently a couple people (not members) who took things too far and called Alison an “anti-Semite” while she in turn referred to those disagreeing with her as “Israeli Agents.”
The claims you make are not even made by the person you’re supposedly defending. It is unfortunate things weren’t more productive at that meeting but to claim that ARA is Zionist, crypto-Zionist, or even in opposition to Alison Weir’s viewpoints is once again, simply a lie.
I have posted multiple times a reasoned response to your views yet apparently if you post more than so many words it has to go thru an approval processs so i'll post it a sentence at a time.
“I found out about it via a Zionist supporter of the violent leftist group 'Anti-Racist Action', accusing anti-war activists in Portland, Oregon, of being anti-semitic. Someone linked to April's pamphlet via a posting on Indymedia.”
So to restate what you just said, a SUPPORTER of ARA (not a member) accused anti-war activists of being anti-Semitic because she herself is a Zionist. Since your beliefs regarding Israel have some overlap with neo-Nazis does that mean I can assert that you are a neo-Nazi? Because Sara Palin and environmentalist have both accused Obama of being soft on BP does that make Sara Palin an environmentalist? It’s just absurd. I myself have been removed from Zionist speaker’s events. Everything that I’ve read by Alison Weir I agree with completely. The ARA has taken a firm stance on Zionism and to claim otherwise is simply a lie.
That said, Zionism is not the most pressing issue amongst those of us fighting violent bigots in our communities. The Klan, minutemen, and racist Skinhead movements actually are committing hate crimes in our communities and therefore will continue to get more of our attention due to the pressing urgency of the problem.
“Slandering middle-aged white men was easy, given the prejudices of the left. But attacking Alison Weir, moderate, liberal, popular campaigner against US support for Israeli war crimes, was a tactical disaster, a bridge too far, for the ARA.”
I’ve read up on the event in Portland which was an ARA-hosted discussion regarding violent Neo-Nazis and what Portland can do to stop Volksfront and other similar groups. Alison was promoting an anti-AIPIC protest at great length that was off-topic.
According to Alison Weir in a comment at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/04/398993.shtml:
“On the other hand, some audience members told me they simply felt that I was speaking out of turn in trying to defend myself, since the organizers had ruled that I was not to speak again, and perhaps they have a valid point; many people feel it's important to follow the rules in order to keep things moving along (though I'm not sure they would find this so easy to do if one of the organizers of the event had announced falsehoods against them).”
There were several members of ARA were unwilling to attend the event because of the fact that in previous incarnations the protest was overwhelming filled with anti-Semites rather than anti-Zionists. There were apparently a couple people (not members) who took things too far and called Alison an “anti-Semite” while she in turn referred to those disagreeing with her as “Israeli Agents.”
The claims you make are not even made by the person you’re supposedly defending. It is unfortunate things weren’t more productive at that meeting but to claim that ARA is Zionist, crypto-Zionist, or even in opposition to Alison Weir’s viewpoints is once again, simply a lie.
I’ve read up on the event in Portland which was an ARA-hosted discussion regarding violent Neo-Nazis and what Portland can do to stop Volksfront and other similar groups. Alison was promoting an anti-AIPIC protest at great length that was off-topic.
According to Alison Weir in a comment at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/04/398993.shtml:
“On the other hand, some audience members told me they simply felt that I was speaking out of turn in trying to defend myself, since the organizers had ruled that I was not to speak again, and perhaps they have a valid point; many people feel it's important to follow the rules in order to keep things moving along (though I'm not sure they would find this so easy to do if one of the organizers of the event had announced falsehoods against them).”
There were several members of ARA were unwilling to attend the event because of the fact that in previous incarnations the protest was overwhelming filled with anti-Semites rather than anti-Zionists. There were apparently a couple people (not members) who took things too far and called Alison an “anti-Semite” while she in turn referred to those disagreeing with her as “Israeli Agents.”
The claims you make are not even made by the person you’re supposedly defending. It is unfortunate things weren’t more productive at that meeting but to claim that ARA is Zionist, crypto-Zionist, or even in opposition to Alison Weir’s viewpoints is once again, simply a lie.
“Yes, the ARA criticizes the Jewish racist Anti-Defamation League. But it uncritically copies disinformation from an Israeli Zionist website!”
I also criticize the media and read the newspaper. What’s your point? I assume you’re talking about us using some information that the ADL has gathered on neo-Nazi tattoos? Because even you admitted it was a “Zionist supporter of the violent leftist group,” rather than the ARA itself or even a “member of the group”. Oh and I see you corrected that in your comment 6 now anyhow….
“allowing racists to slander Alison Weir at your meeting”
First of all, it was an ARA hosted community discussion and not a meeting else no one other than ARA members would have any idea what took place as none other than members would have been there. More importantly, I think it’s utterly hilarious that you’re all about freedom of speech and allowing any and all dissident viewpoints to be expressed, unless it’s your viewpoints they disagree with. So according to you, anyone slandering an Anti-Zionist such as Alison needs to be silenced and it is our responsibility to do so? As well as your own personal policy on this page to censor “Comments containing Zionist propaganda”. Even more funny is your accusation that we are “hyping up of every shred of 'evidence' for 'racist activity'”. Take a look in the mirror. I will concede that there have been occasions in which I was not proud of actions of people who claimed to be part of our group. While I have no issue with pulling the metaphorical gun of direct action out, I do take great issue with the idea that you don’t need to aim before you pull the trigger. When I was researching your accusations I thought you might have actually found one of those instances, but you haven’t. The incident in Portland is nothing but your spin on an event that wasn’t as productive as it might have been. Your entire blog and the back and forth between you and your readers reveal pretty clearly the fact that you see the world in a false dichotomy. Everyone is either a rabid, militant Anti-Zionist or a Zionist. It takes a pretty bizarre worldview to come to the conclusion that Noam Chomsky is a Zionist. As for the rest of your baseless accusations, I have no interest in debating the merits of direct action and counter-violence in this forum, there’s more appropriate venues than your blog.
Jacob Holterman writes …
"It takes a pretty bizarre worldview to come to the conclusion that Noam Chomsky is a Zionist."
It is not bizarre as Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist. Please look up the meaning of PROFESSED if you don't know what it means. The fact that Chomsky would admit to being a Zionist calls into question his commitment to anti-racist principles.
Also in your response you state …
"That said, Zionism is not the most pressing issue amongst those of us fighting violent bigots in our communities. The Klan, minutemen, and racist Skinhead movements actually are committing hate crimes in our communities and therefore will continue to get more of our attention due to the pressing urgency of the problem."
Your remark reveals your desire to separate and obscure Zionism from its RACIST ideology. Zionism, or Jewish dominance is no different than White dominance. In other words, White racism and Jewish racism should be EQUALLY CONFRONTED by ALL communities. Your duplicity on racism is clearly illustrates the consequence of Chomskyism and the retarded legacy it has on the Left.
DB,i have not problem to say that zionism is racist and to say that Jews is racist (how De Gaulle spoke about them in 67 calling them "dominant people")and what is called free world is a racist group of nations,and i see "the clash of civilization"a racist theory and nevertheless i admire Comsky and his writing.BTW,say what of his work do you read?In my logic is Blankfort (and you)is who make ad hominem attacks on Chomsky (and me) If fBlankfort limited to critique Chomsky on that he bypassing the lobby importance i would give him the credit but saying that he did so because he want to hide his "zionism"sympathy and all his activit5y is to preserve zionism is meanness.Again ,i see nothing in Chomsky writings racist and if you are so sensible and nevertheless detected it give some quotations.I don't know if Chomsky and Blankfort are at odds but if yes that should not exclude one of them from what is the leftist camp.
Deadbeat writes: "It is not bizarre as Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist. Please look up the meaning of PROFESSED if you don't know what it means. The fact that Chomsky would admit to being a Zionist calls into question his commitment to anti-racist principles."
Why don't you back that up? Show me where Chomsky PROFESSES that he is a Zionist. You can't because it simply isn't true. Why is it that you think Israel just prevented his entry to the West Bank?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8685930.stm
I guess Israel wouldn't let him speak because he's just too pro-Israel? Utterly RIDICULOUS! Please look up the meaning of RIDICULOUS if you don't know what it means.
Deadbeat writes, "Your remark reveals your desire to separate and obscure Zionism from its RACIST ideology. Zionism, or Jewish dominance is no different than White dominance. In other words, White racism and Jewish racism should be EQUALLY CONFRONTED by ALL communities. Your duplicity on racism is clearly illustrates the consequence of Chomskyism and the retarded legacy it has on the Left."
I have no desire to separate Zionism from racism, because it is nationalist racism. On top of that it's a very important issue because like all racist ideologies it results in violence against minorities. However, this violence is occurring in Palestine and Israel and I live in the United States. If there were violent gangs of Zionists running around the streets of my town assaulting and terrorizing Palestinians it would be something that would be as pressing of an issue, but that isn't the case. Is there violence against Arab-Americans in the communities that ARA represents? Sure are. And who's committing them? The Klan, racist skinheads, and minutemen. Racism between the Hutus and Tutsis has resulted in more severe consequences than white supremacy and Zionism combined in recent times. However, there are no ARA groups in Rwanda that I'm aware of so unless you're capable of throwing a molotov a few thousand miles across the Atlantic it makes direct action pretty difficult. I would LOVE to see Jewish and Palestinian citizens form an ARA group! (although typically outside of North America we use the name Anti Fascist Action). Their focus I'm sure would be Zionism. ARA is a community organization and we FIGHT racism in action in our communities.
What are you DIRECTLY doing to stop Rwandan genocide? Not much? I guess by your reasoning that means black people's lives aren't as valuable as Palestinian lives.
I'm quite busy right now but will respond with rebutals later.
Thanks 'Deadbeat', for demolishing Noam Chomsky in four paragraphs. Thanks, Palestine Think Tank, for allowing these debates. Thanks, Jacob, for trying to have a discussion, however heated, rather than doing what your allies do – slander me, my comrades, and even moderate liberal critics of Israel, in meetings, on the radio, and around the internet, censoring our attempts to defend ourselves, threatening to 'kick our asses', writing grafitti calling us 'Nazis' and calling us 'homophobes' on the radio, trying to make us unemployed, sending death threats and exposing our identities, while hiding behind anonymity because of fear of violence from the non-existent Nazis we supposedly support.
This is not my blog.
The reason it took a while is the moderators are few, and the illegal and illiterate posts are many.
When I first published my pamphlet 'The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism', I would look at it and think "maybe I went too far – is it really true that anti-fascism necessarily leads you to support Zionism?". Today, some comrades joke that Anti-Racist Action is a front group set up by me to prove my theory!
It goes like this – anti-fascism is the idea that 'fascism', the ideology of one of the sides in World War II, is much worse than the ideologies of the other side, communism and democracy. The one crime of the fascist side of which we are reminded, every time we open a newspaper, look at the TV, see what's on at the local movie theater, or encounter a sticker produced by your ARA group, is the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. No matter that the Allies killed just as many innocent civilians, raped and ethnically cleansed parts of Poland and Germany, that they prolonged the war in spite of peace offers from Japan and Germany, and that they began the nuclear arms race. Anti-fascists believe Jews matter more than all of this – otherwise why would you be anti-fascist rather than anti-communist or anti-democratic? That is pro-Jewish racism. The implementation of that form of racism is Zionism. That is by far the most important form of racism in the Western world.
You don't often hear a white person using the n-word any more, let alone conspiring to ethnically cleanse another country, and maintain an apartheid state. But many Jews do engage in this activity.
Beyond the complacency of the old left – "Jews Against Zionism" – Gilad Atzmon, on this site, has blazed a new trail. He has dared to raise the Jewish question in relation to Israel.
Traditional anti-racism just doesn't cut it, in fact has clearly shown it's worse than useless at opposing the most important form of racism in the Western world. You say that white racism in the USA is more urgent, and it's hard to intervene in Palestine, but Zionism only exists because of its power in the West – this is where it has to be challenged. It is racist power, but not in the form you undersand.
It is not, as you claim, merely that the ARA allowed a SUPPORTER to slander Alison Weir – when this SUPPORTER launched a stream of lies and abuse, much of the audience and a few ARA joined in, and were reluctant to let her reply. Your group not only allowed racists to slander her at its meeting, it has continued to add to the slanders on the local radio station.
It accuses Alison of "anti-Semitic blood libel propaganda" and states that, not only will it refuse to debate with her, but will refuse to discuss with anyone ABOUT her – any more than they would argue with a Holocaust denier. "Holocaust denier" is itself a Zionist term – in no other part of history are you called a 'denier' for underestimating something. They say the case is closed – Alison is an anti-semite, along with me and the other comrades who don't accept the ARA's perspective. Her 'blood libel' consists of carefully researched information that the Israeli government took organs without permission, which they have admitted. Alison doesn't have a racist bone in her body. She didn't call anyone an Israeli agent.
Because of philosemitism, people are generally terrifed of being called 'anti-semitic'. This fear holds back the creation of a new anti-apartheid movement, and kills Palestinian children. All your group says about this is its tasteless to talk about it and its an 'obsession'.
Your group dishonestly says I 'support' David Irving. In fact, I have carefully attempted to find out the truth. I have never said Irving's estimate of the Holocaust is correct.
On the question of real white racist violence, yes, there is some. Recently, the KKK left cards in a Missouri town saying 'the next visit will not be social'. I argued that this would make a reasonable black person afraid, and therefore constitutes assault. My 'obsession' with Zionism hasn't blinded me to white racism, merely put it in perspective.
"The Klan, minutemen, and racist Skinhead movements actually are committing hate crimes in our communities and therefore will continue to get more of our attention due to the pressing urgency of the problem" sez you.
Anti-racists always say that, whatever the circumstances. White racism has in fact been declining since the end of the Civil War. A 'minority person' hung a noose and a white hood at UC San Diego, and mass hysteria broke out all over the media. It and numerous other 'hate crimes' was committed by an anti-racist activist to keep up the paranoia.
As you say, Zionists don't commit hate crimes in America. That would be tactically inappropriate. Jewish racism manifests itself through Hollywood, the media and Congress, filling us with philosemitism, taking our money, and using it to kill Palestinians. To what extent the Iraq war was a Jewish neo-conservative plot is debatable, but ARA politics make us afraid to debate it. Zionists naturally take advantage of this concern.
If you want to oppose the genocide of the Palestinians, you are entitled to listen to a right-wing speaker who claims that the Frankfurt School's attempt to use psychology to pathologise white American culture was in part an ethnic strategy, without being called a 'fascist collaborator' as if listening to ideas causes violence. The ARA's politics INEVITABLY leads to interfering in our attempts to understand the power of Zionism.
The ARA are always denouncing and demanding rather than discussing. It is they who have a binary view of the world, not me as you allege.
I always make corrections as soon as possible, as you note re. http://antisemitism.org.il. It was not a lie, it was an honest mistake. I also remove people's names from http://pacificaforum.org/posts immediately when requested – the ARA and their Indymedia mouthpieces don't. I counter lies about people like David Irving because of the evidence, not because I 'support' them.
Indymedia has removed our attempts to defend ourselves. Your group pressured the radio station to remove the MP3 of the meeting at which Alison was slandered, by throwing around phrases like 'blood libel'. Anti-Racist Action behaves just like Zionists, and with the same divisive effect. If it quacks like a duck…
Dino writes…
"DB, i have [no] problem [with the charge] that Zionism is racist and to say that Jews [are] racist [...] and what is called [in the] free world is a racist group of nations, and i see "the clash of civilization" [as] a racist theory and nevertheless i admire Chomsky and his writing. BTW, say what of his work [have] you read? In my logic[,] Blankfort (and you) [...] make ad hominem attacks on Chomsky (and me) … If [Blankfort] limited [his] critique [of] Chomsky [to] bypassing the [Lobby's] importance i would give him the credit but saying that [Chomsky] did so because he [wants] to hide his "Zionism" [...] and [...] his [activity] is to preserve Zionism is meanness. Again, i see nothing in Chomsky writings [that is] racist and if you are so sensible and nevertheless detected it give some quotations. I don't know if Chomsky and Blankfort are at odds but if yes that should not exclude one of them from what is the leftist camp."
Let's get to the core of your argument, Dino. You BELIEVE that Jeffrey Blankfort is making an ad hominem attack on Noam Chomsky primarily because you believe there is no way for Blankfort to prove that Chomsky intended to mislead his audience. Dino, to accuse an intellectual of Blankfort stature of making an ad hominem attack against such an iconic figure as Noam Chomsky is a serious charge. Obviously the burden of proof is on Blankfort to prove his case against Chomsky and Blankfort has. It is clear Dino, as a devotee of Chomsky, it may be more difficult for you to analyze Blankfort charges because as a devotee your initial reaction is defensiveness. In order words Dino while your defense of Chomsky is "admirable" your resistance to left-wing criticisms of Chomsky IS NOT ADMIRABLE at all. Your resistance to logical arguments and reasoning based on adherence to principles of justice is exemplary of the retardation of the Left cause by the cult of personality that has arisen around Chomsky — helped along by Democracy Now!, Z Magazine, and other so-called "alternative" media. This is not an ad hominem Dino. I am not attacking you as a person (which is the definition of an ad hominem attack) This is an observation based on your reactions to the arguments.
The clearest and most damning indictment is that Blankfort QUOTES Chomsky's own admission that he is a Zionist and that Zionism colors his views. If this was David Duke saying this about White Supremacy the "Left" would be all up in arms but Chomsky is allowed a pass. This the height of hypocrisy and duplicity. Once again this opens the door for further analysis and questions of why is the Left giving Chomsky a pass on racism. In other words analyze the action — not the rhetoric. What you've done Dino is absorb and the rhetorical image while setting aside adherence to principles. Again this is not an ad hominem this accurately describes your response. And your response is exemplary of the RETARDATION of the Left caused by Chomskyism.
Noam Chomsky MUST be EXPELLED from the Left as he IMO is the greatest provocateur in the history of the American Left. This is my "opinion" but it is based on evidence. What you are doing Dino is EXCUSING Chomsky's role, influence and behavior in retarding the Left. The charge Dino is simple, how can the WORLD'S GREATEST INTELLECTUAL of the past 40 YEARS TOTALLY MISS analyzing the rising influence of Zionism on the U.S. political economy? You haven't answered that question Dino. Because you can't answer THAT QUESTION your only retort is change the issue into a referendum on Blankfort and me rather than keep the focus on how Noam Chomsky rhetoric help to conceal and shift the attention away from this extremely dangerous development not only to the United States and the Palestinians but to the world at large.
Deadbeat writes: "It is not bizarre as Chomsky is a PROFESSED Zionist."
Jacob Holterman writes: "Why don't you back that up? Show me where Chomsky PROFESSES that he is a Zionist. You can't because it simply isn't true. Why is it that you think Israel just prevented his entry to the West Bank?"
I anticipated that would be your reaction Jacob which is why I didn't put a link in my initial response. We live in the Age of the Internet and you could have easily verified my argument via a simple Google Search rather than your empty retort. You can read Jeffrey Blankfort or this 1997 interview of Noam Chomsky.
***
Here's the direct quote …
QUESTION: Does Zionism have anything to do with the fate of the Palestinians?
CHOMSKY: This is a very complex problem. It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist. Q:
***
To this day David Duke is still identified as a former Klansman yet Chomsky is not identified as a practicing Zionist.
Jacob you also state the following …
"Is there violence against Arab-Americans in the communities that ARA represents? Sure are. And who's committing them? The Klan, racist skinheads, and minutemen."
Why do you ignore Zionist violence in the United States coming directly from the U.S. government. The Congress in the U.S. has thrown away an estimated 3 TRILLION committing violence against the Iraqis that COSTING America in lives and treasure. That money could be used to both build communities and cut the Defense Budget.
In 1967 Martin Luther King identified the three pillars of injustice as racism, militarism and materialism (read: Capitalism). As I noted in my earlier response Capitalist uses racism to weaken and divide the working class. Zionist uses Capitalism to further their racial dominance. Unfortunately the "Left" has used White racism to divert from Jewish racism. Which is exactly what you are doing. I can tell you for a fact that the "Left" don't care about the plight of African Americans who has long been on the receiving end of white racism and capitalism's deprivations. Latinos who are the largest minority group are quite capable of organizing and defending their community. Arab-American are engaging in quite an effective education and organizing effort around BDS — an initiative that is NOT supported (or fully supported) by Noam Chomsky.
The point is the "Chomskyite Left" that you believe you represent Jacob has been about obstruction rather than about justice and I would WARN any group about such "assistance" coming from the "Chomskyite Left". I witnessed this first hand from my own experience with the anti-war movement and the Green Party.
For groups that seek REAL justice, the goal of the "Chomskyite Left" is to see to it results in compromise and betrayal should those group offer analysis and critiques that venture NOT into Israeli Zionism but into AMERICAN ZIONISM. It is AMERICAN ZIONISM that has to be confronted and it is clear from your arguments you have NO intention of confronting AMERICAN ZIONISM but every intention to OBSCURE it.
Hey thanks for proving my point Deadbeat. Chomsky identified himself as a Zionist as a teenager, and quite frankly I wouldn’t have much of a problem with something called Zionism that “stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist.” This definition of Zionism isn’t even comparable to what that word means seventy years later. Now I’m not willing to say that Chomsky is not a Zionist simply because he disavows it now. I’ll judge the accuracy of the claim based on his actions since then. He’s written COUNTLESS books denouncing the actions of Israel. He has been hugely critical of the treatment of Palestinians. You didn’t answer my question, why did Israel just refuse him entry to the west bank? Is he just too pro-Israel? Your comparison to David Duke is utterly absurd. David Duke is still writing books advocating white separatism, so I don’t care whether or not he still claims to be part of the klan. I was a Christian as a child, now I’m a devout atheist. I made the horrible decision to vote Libertarian when I was eighteen. I’m now a socialist. Reasonable people’s views evolve over time. Not being a reasonable person, I can see where this would be a foreign concept to you.
Deadbeat writes, “Why do you ignore Zionist violence in the United States coming directly from the U.S. government. The Congress in the U.S. has thrown away an estimated 3 TRILLION committing violence against the Iraqis that COSTING America in lives and treasure. That money could be used to both build communities and cut the Defense Budget”
I don’t and neither do other members of ARA. I have been forcibly removed from Zionist speaker’s events. I have been pushed around and intimidated by police for protesting the Iraq and Afghan wars. Other of my associates have been beaten, stabbed, and even shot for their beliefs. What have you done except spew hate against people trying to rid the world of racism, while attempting to walk a line between anti-Zionism and holocaust-denying-Anti-Semitsm? I notice no one, including you who quoted it, on here had a problem when Dino says, "Jews is racist." Making blanket statements about people based on their race is the textbook definition of racism.
Jacob Holterman writes …
"Hey thanks for proving my point Deadbeat. Chomsky identified himself as a Zionist as a teenager, and quite frankly I wouldn’t have much of a problem with something called Zionism that “stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist.” This definition of Zionism isn’t even comparable to what that word means seventy years later."
On the contrary Jacob you continue to demonstrate how Chomskyism has RETARDED the Left. For the world's "most important" and most influential intellectual to OUTRIGHT MISREPRESENT Zionism is sheer dishonesty. I guess you want us to believe that you are so "gullible" that you would even accept if Chomsky had said outright that he never heard of Theodore Herzl either. For you to want us to accept such an obvious misrepresentation from a man as "brilliant" as Chomsky, Jacob, reveals your own (ethnic rather than ethical) desires to obscure this racist ideology. In addition, Chomsky has NEVER repudiate Zionism and he remained a Zionist well into adulthood. It's clear Jacob, that you haven't read the Jeffrey Blankfort link I supplied.
Like I said before, David Duke is still referred to as a "Klansman" yet Noam Chomsky is never referred to as a PRACTICING ZIONIST. You seem to have a huge desire to excuse Chomsky's affinity to this racist ideology.
Liberal Zionists (racists) never reveal their true colors unless backed up into a corner where their ethnic/racial loyalties are shown to be more important than ethical principles of justice and equality. In your response, Jacob, you make a mean-spirited attack on Dino in order to discredit my points to vainly shift the focus of the discussion. This putrid tactic is very similar to what was done to Ms. Weir.
First: Dino is arguing in DEFENSE of Noam Chomsky
Second: Dino has poor English skills.
Third: You need to ask Dino to clarify his own remarks.
You are not fooling anyone here Jacob. The intent of your organization to act as a gatekeeper for Zionism by ingratiating yourself with the grassroots. If these groups remain within acceptable parameters — White racism — OK — but if they are principled and anti-racist and cross the Rubicon to challenge Zionism — DESTROY.
Jacob Holterman writes …
"What have you done except spew hate against people trying to rid the world of racism, while attempting to walk a line between anti-Zionism and holocaust-denying-Anti-Semitsm?"
No Jacob. What I have done from this discussion is EXPOSE the mendacious agenda of you and your organization.
" Dino says, "Jews is racist." Making blanket statements about people based on their race is the textbook definition of racism. "
Only nazis call jews a race. Hope you don't mind a goy butting in, by the way. Most jews aren't at all religious, so what ARE they? What IS a secular jew? Well, there are Irish catholics who claim to be secular catholics; what does that mean, apart from supporting Celtic football team and Sinn Fein, if even that? What distinguishes them from the average Western unbeliever? Nothing but an attachment to some sort of separateness. This attachment may arise just from unthinking force of habit, sentiment, or possibly coincide with 'particularist' economic practices i.e. corrupt, illegal mafia-like business practices favouring, and therefore seeking favours FROM, an 'ethnic' (faux or otherwise) in-group. I have to agree that Chomsky admits to such an attachment, based ( definitely I would say) on sentiment; he recalls affectionately the jewish 'cultural tradition' he grew up in, and recalls with distaste the vicious anti-semitism (especially during the war) of the Irish Catholics who were a big presence in the area he grew up in – having known a lot of Irish catholics, I don't find this remarkable. There are plenty of indications throughout his work of a 'special attachment' to the people he considers 'his own'. James Petras has come out and said this plain of both Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, and he was correct. He was also greatly respectful. And I think that's called for. We can excuse them for being human, but we should still call them to account, politely and respectfully; and that's where I have a slight problem with Blankfort, and some of the posts here. To suggest that Chomsky is a conscious zionist agent, deliberately side-tracking the left is a last-ditch option, only if proven conclusively. I don't believe it. I think Blankfort's criticisms are substantial, but they should be put more diplomatically and respectfully.
Hey Deadbeat, great job on ignoring everything I said. Why is it that Israel wouldn't let him enter the West Bank? I explained that I didn't take Chomsky at his word, and instead judged him on the wealth of literature he's written in the last half a century. Your incoherent rambling ignores all my arguments. You can't argue with what I've said (or what Chomsky has said for that matter), so you babble on about the RETARDED CHOMSKYITE LEFT without really saying anything of a logical non-emotional nature whatsoever.
My ethnic loyalties? What does that even mean? Why don't YOU tell me what MY ethnic loyalties are? Do I share with ethnic loyalties with the Black and Latino members of my association? I hate to break it to you, but the only way you are my enemy is if you're an anti-Semite. Once again, I PROTEST AND PERFORM DIRECT ACTIONS AGAINST ZIONISTS. Maybe not your ABSURD definition of the word which essentially encompasses 99.9% of the world.
Did I call you an anti-Semite based on what Dino said? Nope. Sure didn't. But you're all over me, calling me a Zionist, but you quote him and don't even call into question the statement that you quote. It's pretty clear that YOU ARE THE ONE that cares only about one type of racism. I'm done listening to you babble Deadbeat. Hopefully we'll meet in person one day and we can work out are differences.
—————-
Lafayette you're essentially correct, I used the word racist instead of anti-Semitic to avoid using that word because it seems to carry way too much meaning here. I apologize for misspeaking. And while it's true that there is no such thing as a Jewish racem, it's also true that there is no such thing as any race actually. Racism exists only in it's consequences and there is no scientific criteria with which to define any race.
lafayette sennacherib writes …
"To suggest that Chomsky is a conscious zionist agent, deliberately side-tracking the left is a last-ditch option, only if proven conclusively. I don't believe it. I think Blankfort's criticisms are substantial, but they should be put more diplomatically and respectfully."
While I respect Mr. Sennacherib remarks I take issue with his inference that Blankfort or any left-wing critic of Noam Chomsky every stated or suggested that he is a Zionist "stooge".
The argument is that Chomsky as you are arguing has an affinity towards Zionism and that affinity biases his analysis and perspectives. This is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT piece of information in order to evaluate Chomsky's rhetoric especially with regards to the influence he has on the Left for over TWO generation.
In addition to Chomsky's personal bias and how that affects his perspectives, Chomsky biggest damage to the Left has been his use of the "U.S. Imperialism" axiom. There is no need for me to re-explain this. Just see my prior remarks.
Jacob Holterman writes …
Hey Deadbeat, great job on ignoring everything I said.
If you noticed I respond to your remarks. Clearly you don't respond to everyone of my remarks and points nor have I demanded you to do so. For example it is clear from your response that you haven't read the Blankfort critique and probably won't. However I have responded to the key issues.
Why is it that Israel wouldn't let him enter the West Bank? I explained that I didn't take Chomsky at his word, and instead judged him on the wealth of literature he's written in the last half a century.
And in all that "wealth of literature" Chomsky missed the greatest change in U.S. ruling class power during that same period — the rise of Zionism in the halls of U.S. Power. Some people quaintly label that "neo-conservatism" however there is nothing conservative about neo-conservatism. The founders of the neo-conservative movement are all Zionists. Yet this "world renowned intellectual" kept selling the "U.S. Imperialism" axiom. In other words his literature has retarded the Left and has not empowered the Left as we can see from this discussion. The Left is in no position to challenge Zionism.
Your incoherent rambling ignores all my arguments. You can't argue with what I've said (or what Chomsky has said for that matter), so you babble on about the RETARDED CHOMSKYITE LEFT without really saying anything of a logical non-emotional nature whatsoever.
Insults do not make an argument or a rebuttal. In fact your insults illustrates the retardation of the Left and the emotional vesting of Chomskyism.
My ethnic loyalties? What does that even mean? Why don't YOU tell me what MY ethnic loyalties are? Do I share with ethnic loyalties with the Black and Latino members of my association? I hate to break it to you, but the only way you are my enemy is if you're an anti-Semite.
It is hyperbolic rhetoric to claim that there is "anti-Semitism" in the United States. Jews do not face discrimination and racist attacks at the level that African American, Latino, Muslims, and other oppressed minorities do in the U.S. Jews have never been lynched or had their whole communities destroyed by the police or mobs. In fact when you look at the Congress, Jews are well OVER-represented. The same is true regarding wealth, jobs, and other quality of life measures. To cry "anti-Semetism" in the U.S. is to cry "wolf".
Once again, I PROTEST AND PERFORM DIRECT ACTIONS AGAINST ZIONISTS. Maybe not your ABSURD definition of the word which essentially encompasses 99.9% of the world.
It is not my definition. This is how Jewish Zionist define their own ideology. What I find interest is that you accept the "world renowned intellectual's" misrepresentation Zionism to downplay his affinity of this racist ideology.
Did I call you an anti-Semite based on what Dino said? Nope. Sure didn't. But you're all over me, calling me a Zionist, but you quote him and don't even call into question the statement that you quote. It's pretty clear that YOU ARE THE ONE that cares only about one type of racism.
You are running out of retorts Jacob and I can detect your agitation of being exposed of being less than what you think you are. And BTW — Did you ask Dino for clarification? NOPE. Did you apologize to him for your own mean-spiritedness as Dino possess weak English skills — NOPE.
What you are really concerned about Jacob are appearances and maintaining the facade that sucks the grassroots in and not JUSTICE. It comes down to this Jacob. What does it mean to be ON THE LEFT? To be a leftist it means you adhere to principles of JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, and DEMOCRACY. These are pretty basic humanitarian principles. If you do not then you are not a leftist. It is clear that Chomsky was never a radical and never a leftist. He APPEARED to be one because he used axiom that diverted attention away from the raising power of Zionism in the U.S. Whether or not Chomsky did this willfully is a question that cannot be answered but the consequence of Chomskyism can be examined and analyzed and it is clear that there is a retardation on the Left due the many activist that has followed his "wealth of literature".
I'm done listening to you babble Deadbeat. Hopefully we'll meet in person one day and we can work out are differences.
That day will come when you Jacob adhere to principles of ANTI-RACISM and JUSTICE and right now Jacob that day a LONG WAY OFF FOR YOU.
I said Jews is racist and Americans and others Occidental nations the same.They are very proud of their "civilization".they speaking all time on their economic performances and they think that others people would have to agree to existence of this "superiority"and to comply to the will of America "and her allies",much more to copy their way of life that this way will bring democracy and prosperity.All of these bullshit.But if America and "her allies" would be contented to laud their way of life that were somewhat understandable even they don't explain where is the native Indian from America,from Australia,from South America,where is Palestinians from Palestine,how much was the intake of slavery or how much help a paper called dollar in reaching this prosperity which is also apparently and sustained with huge debts impossible to return .About the West technology and Nobel prizes shared in political considerations and which make up their vanity i would remind the words of Th.Adorne :"if i 'm in a room in flames and there is a Rubens picture and a cat i will save the cat"
Now the West is making wars ,killing people,destroy countries with the "good: intentions to bring to them democracy and also to defend the Occident against a Caliphate in forming!!!!!Israel,an apartheid country is the avantpost of the Occident.In this world we live and Chomsky is guilty for it because he said once that he has some sympathy for zionism.I asked Deadbeat instead to claim as a parrot ,where in Chomsky's writings he could show me this sympathy hidden.Meanwhile he is going on with Chomsky is a zionist and i'm chomskyte.But exist a zionist ,the judge Goldstone,that made a very good job,an admirable one,analyzing the massacre in Gaza.So is not enough to say on someone he is a zionist,say what wrong things he is did.I have not skills in English but important is not to speak nonsenses in a correct English which is the case with Blankfort and Blanfortists
Dino writes …
I asked Deadbeat instead to claim as a parrot, where in Chomsky's writings he could show me this sympathy hidden.
You know Dino I supplied in my responses links to Jeffrey Blankfort where he QUOTES CHOMSKY directly from his speeches and books. Clearly YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO READ the link. Yet Dino, like Jacob, you resort to insults ('parrot") rather than provide evidence to support your arguments. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the most recent admission by Chomsky of being a ZIONIST AND A SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL.
You know Dino you should really study the history of African Americans, Native Americans, Latino Americans, and Asians Americans to understand what racism is like in the United States and their STRUGGLES against it. What Zionists have done in CO-OPT the struggles against racism and used it to conceal their own agenda of racial dominance while having reached the keys to the kingdom of the U.S. power structure.
What the Left has done is failed to scrutinize Noam Chomsky's AFFINITY to this racist ideology and have anointed him has their INTELLECTUAL leader. The consequence of Chomskyism is the RETARDATION of the LEFT. Perhaps Dino you don't understand the SERIOUSNESS of the consequences. Let me explain it to you (again!)
Chomsky is the most influential "intellectual" of the past 1/2 century meaning that he's provides the foundational outlook for many activists. Unfortunately these activists have been weaned on Chomsky's AXIOMS while Chomsky dismisses analysis of the raising influence of Zionism IN THE UNITED STATES.
Chomsky as you can read and listen in the links that I have provided (Blankfort and the ICH respectively) his AFFINITY TO THE RACIST IDEOLOGY OF ZIONISM. The results of this affinity is a careful ethnic BIAS of his perspectives and analysis. But the Left rather than scrutinize Chomsky arguments retarded itself by giving Chomsky a huge pass by accepting his axioms as sacrosanct.
Chomsky happened filled the void on the Left that was caused by the decline of the movement of the 1960's and especially the decimation by COINTELPRO of the Black Panthers (who Blankfort was associated with) who provided real radical anti-racist/anti-Capitalist analysis and had a strong affinity with ALL anti-colonial struggles INCLUDING the Palestinian struggle. Chomsky is not known to having ANY affinity with any radical anti-racist groups that I'm aware of and why would he especially since radical groups where AGAINST Zionism.
The consequence of Chomsky's influence on the Left with his affinity to ZIonism meant that THE LEFT CANNOT BE TRUSTED by the grassroots PEOPLE OF COLOR. The lack of trust on this question RETARDS the Left ability to fully organize and build a solid movement because of the obvious resulting betrayals. This is the exact problem with Jacob and his Zionist affinities.
This is the FALLOUT Dino of Chomskyism — a weak and corrupted "Left". The unfortunate aspect is that when you examine the three pillars of injustice: racism, capitalism and militarism, racism (Zionism) is the easiest of the three to challenge. Chomskyism prevents this challenge.
But you should be proud Dino of being a Chomskyite. There is no shame of getting sucked into the cult. I once was an admirer of Chomsky until I got involved in the anti-war movement and then began to think for myself. As I did that and analyzed the Left rather than accept their "war for oil" mantra in the midst of PNAC, AIPAC, and all the Zionists crawling throughout the Bush Administration, I realized that I was being DELIBERATELY misled. Investigating WHY permitted me to learn about and understand the deception.
I have not skills in English but important is not to speak nonsenses in a correct English which is the case with Blankfort and Blanfortists
Thank you Dino. I'm proud to be labeled a "Blankfortist" by you as Jeffrey Blankfort is a principled and committed ANTI-RACIST. However Dino can you be more specific with evidence to back your arguments that Chomsky ignoring the rise of Zionism in the U.S. is "nonsense". BTW Dino I supplied you links to support my arguments but yet you still have avoided the QUESTION that I asked you…
How can someone, anointed by the Left as the world's most renowned "dissident" and "intellectual", completely miss the rise of ZIonism into the internal power structures of the U.S?
I just noticed this comment by Jacob Holterman…
ARA opposes all forms of racial nationalism and racial supremacy. This includes the Klan, The New Black Panther Party, and Zionism.
Why in the world would ARA include The New Black Panthers alongside Zionists and the KKK? This is the CLEAREST and MOST OBVIOUS GIVEAWAY that ARA's is a provocateur outfit whose real agenda is the defense of Zionism dressed up as a leftist organization.
Blacks in the United States cannot ever be racist or anti-Semitic. Blacks DO NOT posses power and are not in any position whatsoever to harm whites or Jews. Blacks are the VICTIMS of White and Jewish RACISM. And U.S. President Barack Obama does not represent the Black community.
Obama represents his Zionist and corporate benefactors. This is evident by his policies: The bank bailouts, the U.S. government continued support for Israel, and ever increasing military budget and other neo-liberal policies.. What Blacks needs are what most Americans needs: jobs, redistribution of the wealth, debt repudiation, healthy communities, access to resources — housing, health care, food, child care, good transportation. African Americans have a long history of struggle for progressive change. To include the New Black Panther Party alongside the Klan and Zionist is blatantly RACIST.
The New Black Panther Party is a Black nationalist organization representing the aspiration of an OPPRESSED community. They are especially outspoken against Jewish racism and being based in New York City, the heart of Zionism in the U.S, takes real courage. The New Black Panther Party threatens to Jewish dominance by education Blacks and that is why Jacob includes them in his list of enemies.
Therefore ARA is clearly a THREAT to the African American community and similar struggles by communities of color. Their tactics are no different than the tactics being deployed by Zionists to cripple BDS. ARA comes into communities of color pretending to be allies when their real plan is to integrated into these "lead" these groups and then crush these groups internally.
Rabid racists are never the biggest threat. The much greater threat are Liberal Zionists like Mr. Holterman because stealth is their weapon of choice.
Deadbeat writes, "Blacks in the United States cannot ever be racist or anti-Semitic. Blacks DO NOT posses power and are not in any position whatsoever to harm whites or Jews. Blacks are the VICTIMS of White and Jewish RACISM. And U.S. President Barack Obama does not represent the Black community."
Racism –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
It all makes such sense now. You're using a different language that I've just mistaken for English. That explains how a fierce critic of Israeli policy becomes a Zionist. It explains everything. Your definition of racism (and I assume you use about the same definition for Antisemitism) states that only those who have the most power can be racist or Antisemitic. Therefore because Jews hold more power than Palestinians, Palestinians cannot be Antisemitic, even if it is true by definition. If a black person (or any person for that matter) kills a white person for being white, they aren't racist according to this language that you've made up.
You can quote as many people as you want, but by applying different definitions of the word racism to different races you've revealed yourself quite clearly to be a bigot, who judges people not on their actions but by their race.
Deadbeat continues, "Therefore ARA is clearly a THREAT to the African American community and similar struggles by communities of color."
Odd that about a third of the people in my organization aren't white and another third has non-white children or other family members isn't it? I would love to say that to one of the African Americans in my organization and see how they'd react.
Deadbeat writes, " ARA comes into communities of color pretending to be allies when their real plan is to integrated into these "lead" these groups and then crush these groups internally."
ROFLMAO. Wow, do you got us pegged. We're going to jail, getting our asses beat, getting shot, and having pipe bombs thrown in our homes because we're Zionist agents out to destroy minorities. That right there might be about the most ridiculous thing you've said so far.
Deadbeat writes, "The much greater threat are Liberal Zionists like Mr. Holterman because stealth is their weapon of choice."
We do like stealth, but you're forgetting baseball bats, combat boots, and mace. We like those quite a bit too.
I'm sure you're gonna continue calling me a LIBERAL ZIONIST CHOMSKYITE LEFTIST or whatever your small little hate-filled mind can come up. I tried to talk to you like an adult and I'm now done humoring you. Be careful out there…. We're always on the prowl.
Jacob Holterman writes …
It all makes such sense now. You're using a different language that I've just mistaken for English. That explains how a fierce critic of Israeli policy becomes a Zionist. It explains everything. Your definition of racism (and I assume you use about the same definition for Antisemitism) states that only those who have the most power can be racist or Antisemitic. Therefore because Jews hold more power than Palestinians, Palestinians cannot be Antisemitic, even if it is true by definition. If a black person (or any person for that matter) kills a white person for being white, they aren't racist according to this language that you've made up.
The dictionary definition of racism that you supplied is propagandist. You may not like a certain form of speech as that Zionists work their bought and paid for Congress to codify it as "hate speech" but such speech is not racism.
Racism requires POWER and is about OPPRESSION. Which means having POWER to oppress another group of people. What you define as "racism" is bigotry. There is a huge difference. Racism in the United States was CREATED after Blacks Slaves and White indentured servants rebelled TOGETHER against THE PROPERTY OWNERS. The property owners then had to SEPARATE Blacks and Whites in order to maintain their POWER. Thus racism is the TOOL of the POWERFUL. Your desire to throw out a distorted labels against your enemies is a telltale tactics of the powerful.
Who are the organizations labeling The New Black Panther Party as "racist"? The Anti-Defamation League and The Southern Poverty Law Center. Two organizations that lack credibility and serve the powerful. For the past 30 years there's been a desire among Zionists to especially to label African Americans that speaks out against Zioinism as "racists". I've seen this tactic over the years done by Zionists against African American leaders and that is what you've done here in your previous post. This is the same tactic that Zionists do the Palestinians as well as the same tactic that your organization did to Ms. Weir. That labeling is RACIST Jacob. And your desire to conceal your racism via the labeling your opponents as anti-Semitic and racist is despicable.
ROFLMAO. Wow, do you got us pegged. We're going to jail, getting our asses beat, getting shot, and having pipe bombs thrown in our homes because we're Zionist agents out to destroy minorities. That right there might be about the most ridiculous thing you've said so far.
I'm LAUGHING TOO AT YOU — since ridicule is your only form of rebuttal as you cannot defend how your organization operates when challenged as we've seen with the slandering of Ms, Weir. and the New Black Panther Party.
Deadbeat writes: "The much greater threat are Liberal Zionists like Mr. Holterman because stealth is their weapon of choice."
Holterman responds…
We do like stealth, but you're forgetting baseball bats, combat boots, and mace. We like those quite a bit too.
Baseball bats? combat boots? mace? is not your style Jacob. You are "Liberal" and Liberals do not get their hand dirty. Yours is the tactic of INGRATIATION.
I'm sure you're gonna continue calling me a LIBERAL ZIONIST CHOMSKYITE LEFTIST or whatever your small little hate-filled mind can come up. I tried to talk to you like an adult and I'm now done humoring you. Be careful out there…. We're always on the prowl.
I call it like it is Jacob — UNVARNISHED — and I appreciate your ADMISSION that Zionists like you are ALWAYS ON THE PROWL. I mean we all know that Zionists control the media — right Jacob! ;-D
Oh one more thing I forgot Jacob,
Please show me where The New Black Panther Party lynched white people and bombed Jews.
thx.
And another thing Jacob,
Let's not forget how Jews were intimately involved in the African Slave trade. They supplied the funding for the slaves ships. In fact Jacob did you know that according to the 1830 U.S. census that 70% of the Jews in the south own slaves? Also the Lehman Brothers — two German Jews — got their start by financing the slaves to the plantation owners in the South. Unfortunately for black women the plantation owner found another path to increase their slave holdings to avoid the Lehman's high interest rates using rape.
Ironic don't you think that Jews get reparation even from the United States via the IRS tax code. That right Jacob, victims of the Holocaust get tax breaks from Uncle Sam while Blacks can't even get their promised 40 acres and a mule.
Know your history Jacob it really helps when it comes to discussing racism, ZIonism, and Capitalism.
I write this as the Israeli Defence Forces attacks an unarmed aid flotilla 80 miles off the shore of Gaza, killing dozens, and abducting the remainder. The US government has called on Israel to show restraint. That should finally nail the myth of the 'Zionist Occupation Government'!
Thanks, Deadbeat, wherever you are, for helping expose Anti-Racist Action. They have been trying to undermine anti-Zionist activists for years. Thanks, Jacob, for confirming my allegations against your group to the last detail.
Obviously, Deadbeat and I see eye to eye on many things. However, I thought I had a critique of a kind of anti-racism – http://pacificaforum.org/critical-race-theory—a-critique – but I'm impressed with these New Black Panthers – taking on Jewish power in New York! But what would they think of my argument that white ethnic identity is not an issue for opponents of Zionism?
I don't ADVOCATE white identity – I just argue that it is not pathological – and this argument is itself seen as pathological by our Zionised left. Pathologising whiteness serves only one interest – and it's not African-American. Less controversially, I point out that Christianity, liberal or conservative, does not logically lead to worshipping Israel. Middle America can turn against Zionism.
Thanks Jay,
But let me set the record straight about the New Black Panthers. I don't necessarily agree with them but I support their right of self-defense militancy of the African American community and free speech. While the orientation of the original Black Panthers also promoted self-defense militancy their orientation were Marxist. The New Black Panther Party is a nationalist/separatist outfit which deviates from the orientation of the original. However The New Black Panther party militantly challenge both White and Jewish Racism (Zionism). And also teaches their members historical truth that are naturally suppressed by the Liberal Zionist media. Their position is what scares Liberal Zionists like Jacob and why these Liberals have redefined bigotry as racism. Bigotry by oppressed groups is clearly rational. It is only the mental sickness of oppressors that believe that the oppressed to "love" them. This is why it is up to the Left to REACH OUT to oppressed groups but Chomskyism has RETARDED such efforts. Chomskyism is about ACCEPTING Jewish racism (Zionism) by being a peddler of false honesty. That false honesty is used to ingratiate Chomskyites into the organization. By becoming intimate members of the organzation they can disrupt and destroy diverse organization from within.
This tactic is why the anti-war movement failed. Torn asunder the "War for Oil" advocates and Chomskyites like Phyllis Bennis and why the Green Party in 2004 got disrupted by Chomskyite — Medea Benjamin. Ingratiate and betray is the tactic. It's going to be difficult root out Chomskyites and the only way to do that is by having a firmly principled anti-racist and anti-Capitalist stance. That is the only way I can think of to root out Liberals.
What we are witnessing Jay is the failure of the fallacy of Liberalism: There is no way that you can manage Capitalism and you cannot compromise on Racism.
Below is a very helpful link that exposes Chomskyism for what is it.
Noam Chomsky – Green Snake Numero Uno!
Jay,
Where can I get a link to your pamphlet, 'The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism". I think you've hit onto something extremely important. I've been thinking that the focus on white nationalism is a diversion from Zionism by the Liberal and "alternative" media (like Democracy Now! and Grit TV). Especially the "alternative" outfits who get their money primarily from Jewish foundations.
thx
DB
One final comment for the record about what I should have said about Racism. Jacob re-entered the conversation believing he gained a rhetorical advantage because I had stated to be racist you must be in a position of power. I stand by that definition but what I failed to say is that Racism is the ideology of SUPREMACY and DOMINANCE.
Despite The New Black Panther Party separatist stance, there is no African American group or organization whose orientation is supremacist and therefore cannot be identified as racist. Thus the Klan and Zionists orientation is grounded in supremacy identification. Liberals — be they Liberal Zionist or just plain ol' Liberals whether they are malicious or gullible aided and abetted the ideology of supremacy. As we've seen with Chomskyism, the Left betrayed their own principles by allowing an adherent to a racist ideology to become their intellectual leader.
This is why the equivocation to Zionism (racism) as these Liberals have done has cause grave damage by allow this racist entity called "Israel" to become a blight upon humanity. Chomsky's aim IMO was always to achieve world the acceptance of the Zionism (supremacy) entity. His "criticism" of Israel was really a clarion call for the extremist to "cut the deal" whereby Jews would be allotted 72% of historical Palestine and the Palestinians unjustly get the scraps. In other words the "dissident" Chomsky has been an advocate of not only racism but INJUSTICE.
I guess after Israel gained world-wide acceptance he wouldn't be bothered by the the extremists finishing off Palestine.
But in the end the American Left retarded itself to essentially support a racist ideology. This is why the American Left is viewed with suspicion in communities of color and why organizing is in such a sad and pathetic state on the Left.
Lafayette tried to moderate this discussion, and I appreciate his efforts.
However, it turns out that Deadbeat's hard-hitting style was effective, provoking Holterman into coming close to violent threats. The threats aren't realistic – but they are revealing. As for Noam Chomsky, the guy's a genius. He has no excuses for his role in Zionising the American left. The same applies to Stephen Jay Gould and others.
It is too easy to show how one particular anti-fascist group is a left front for Zionism. But I want to go further. I want to show how anti-fascism, and pathologising the identity of just one ethnicity, is worse than useless for opposing the most important kind of racism in the Western world.
Deadbeat defends the idea that black people "cannot" be racist because it's about power rather than hate. I can see his point – black dislike of white people is different to the other way round. But, with respect, I think this approach is too simplistic to deal with today's main form of racism.
When Theodor Adorno and his Jewish Frankfurters escaped to America, and promoted a school of psychology which pathologised white identity while tolerating Jewish identity, were THEY being racist? I guess not, because they weren't in a position of power compared with the WASPs of Wall Street or midwesterners. Nevertheless, they helped create a left-wing counter-culture against middle America, which helped Jewish power. At least, there is a strong case for the above analysis. I have read Adorno & co's 'The Authoritarian Personality' – chutzpah and contempt for the culture of the country which saved them seeps out of every page.
Ethnic competition happens. Power relations change. Today's racist is tomorrow's victim, at Belsen or Dresden. Anti-racist theory, by saying victims "cannot" be racist, makes it impossible to imagine Jewish xenophobes in Europe before 1948.
The Israeli navy is heavily supplied by guilty Germans, and white guilt is undoubtedly one of the main reasons Americans find it so hard to defend their own interests on the Palestine question. Time to rock the boat.
Jay Knott – thanks for your thanks. I still think you overstate the case, but I take your point that Chomsky is too clever to be unaware of what he's doing. I give him the benefit of the doubt in that in the brief statements he has felt obliged to make on the Israel lobby I think he is wrong, but that sort of thing is not really 'what he does' – which is to work tirelessly to get across to as many people as possible that they can't trust the media. Providing an analysis of the makeup of the ruling class is not 'his thing. That's the way it seems to me – he tries to steer clear of the topic. I certainly don't think though that he can be accused of 'zionising the left'. Did 'the left' need any help? The self-styled 'revolutionary left' is like a cult of jew worship; as you say, serious inverted racism. But Chomsky is not really part of that. The liberal left? Maybe, but I doubt that it's even largely Chomsky's fault that one can't use the j-word in liberal society, no not even to note that the entire board of the Federal reserve is jewish ( and God knows who is ultimately behind the banks who own it) plus almost the entire Obama administration (and zionist jews to boot). You know the rest of it so I'm not going to harp on about it.
What pricked my ears up here was the mention of Stephen Jay Gould. Is he jewish then? I haven't heard anything about Stephen Jay Gould zionising the left – is he an outspoken opponent of the 'Israel lobby' model? I wondered what it was about him. He came to my attention a couple of years ago, not long after I first got broadband at home, when I discovered Lenin's Tomb ( I soon got barred). Seymour Lenin used to repeatedly assert Stephen Jay Gould's side of some argument between him and someone else – often Dawkins, and I think Richard Dennett too. This bemused me, because Lenin obviously knew no more about evolutionary biology than I do. I went to the trouble of reading up on this a bit, and as far as I can recall [and I may have got this wrong] Dennett is a highly respected mainstream scientist with a reputation in his field, and Gould is not, though he seems to be widely read. Maybe I'm wrong, and that wouldn't make Gould necessarily wrong. But it WOULD beg some explanation [ bear with me, there's a point to this] as to why someone who obviously hasn't the wherewithal to assess the merits of any dispute between Gould and Dennett should be so attached to one side. But further, I noticed that this line runs throughout the British Socialist Workers' Party publications – Socialist Worker, Socialist Review, and International Socialism – being pushed by several writers. Why is a Trotskyist organisation so invested in a dispute about evolution, when really as far as I can see the difference between the sides was quite a fine point? But MORE
[SORRY I POSTED THAT BEFORE I WAS FINISHED] The MORE: Gould's name now stuck in my mind, and I noticed that the US Trotskyist publication (a very good one, usually) the Modern Review was also pushing exactly the same line, as if this was a line that had been handed down by 'the central committee'. Thing is there's no central committee because there is no organisational link between the British SWP and whoever is behind Modern Review – I haven't got all the American sects off pat, but I know that the SWP recently expelled the US section of their international organisation, and it certainly wasn't the Modern Review lot. Richard Seymour Lenin HAS however been showing up increasingly in Modern Review and their internet offshoot MRzine. So, while the uniformity of line between Modern Review and the British SWP on this is still a mystery to me, the reason for it is explained by your remark here. They DON'T have a position on the dispute about evolution ( how could they?) – they root for Gould because he is 'their guy'. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Pardon me. I meant, of course, Daniel C. Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
Jay Knott writes …
Deadbeat defends the idea that black people "cannot" be racist because it's about power rather than hate. I can see his point – black dislike of white people is different to the other way round. But, with respect, I think this approach is too simplistic to deal with today's main form of racism.
What I attempted to do in my previous post was to clarify the definition of racism. Power is very important yet racism is the ideology of SUPREMACY. Blacks in the U.S. historically never preached, practiced, advocated or promoted an ideology of supremacy. Unfortunately, the freed slaves who founded Liberia bringing back the racism they learned in the U.S. became racists.
What has been done especially by some "progressives" and especially by the Zionist-influenced media in the U.S. has been to confuse xenophobia, separatism and bigotry for racism in order to circumvent challenges and criticisms from oppressed groups. The notion that oppressed groups, like Jacob believes, can be racists is absurd. But you are asking a very good question.
When Theodor Adorno and his Jewish Frankfurters escaped to America, and promoted a school of psychology which pathologised white identity while tolerating Jewish identity, were THEY being racist?
Based on how you FRAMED the question the direct answer is NO. There is absolutely nothing wrong with affinity and pride in yourself and your group especially if you belong to an oppressed group. Thus It is rational that they would seek camaraderie, companionship and protection within the group.
What is RACIST (and I'm not familiar with Adorno's ideas) is IF the idea of Jewish identity is based on SUPREMACY. As a SUPREMACIST group acquire greater power it will cause the pathologies you see today. All these adjectives (like Finkelstein calling Israel 'lunatic') use to describe Israel (and Zionism) just obscure the pathology of racists.
However Jay, I don't know that much about Judaism to say whether or not Judaism is racist but Zionism IS! So I try not to confuse the two and clearly identify Zionism as racist. If Judaism is not inherently racist then somewhere along the way Jews allowed this racist ideology to take over their identity. Analyzing that is beyond the scope of this response and beyond my knowledge.
So Jay to be more concise … the recipe for racism is a heap of supremacist ideology with a pinch of power.
DB
CORRECTION – and of course I meant above ' the Monthly Review' not 'the Modern Review' .
I just found this thread and first wish to thank the very alive Deadbeat for coming to my defense and becoming the first known Blankfortist and to thnak Dino, whose skills in English far surpass his political awareness, for coining the term, although it doesn't role off the tongue quite as smoothly as does, for example, Chomskyite or Chomskyist.
I should say that while retaining respect for Chomsky until the early 90s, I was quite aware that he was a Zionist back in the early 70s when Ramparts magazine, for which I had previously worked, asked to use some photos that I had taken of Palestinians in Lebanon and Jordan in 1970 to illustrate an article of his on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Since I had the experience of having photographs of the Palestinian misused before by a British photo agency, I asked to read Chomsky's article before agreeing to illustrate it with my photos. Much to my disappointment, the article was clearly from a Zionist perspective, although a critical one. That it legitimized the Zionist state, however, was something I could not accept or allowed to be associated with my name. It is a decision that I have never regretted.
As for not being sufficiently respectful to the Great Man, I must admit that that stems as much from the positively vicious and insulting emails that I received from him before I wrote my article about him as from his suspect political positions. Since I made a commitment to him that I would not circulate our correspondence on the web, I have never done so, and will not unless he launches an attack on me. He insists to this day that he will not read my article which does not seem to be the appropriate response for someone who has been mistakenly classified as the world's greatest intellectual but so it goes.
As for the subject of this article, I find the notion that anti-semitism is a problem within the Left, such as it is, a classic diversion from dealing with anti-Arab racism on the part of Jews which may be attributed as much to the distrust/hatred of non-Jews, the goyim, that distorts traditional Jewish upbringing as to the obvious efforts of crypto-Zionists and Jewish establishment spies and plants within the movement.
of which there is unfortunately no shortage. In The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions, I wrote about it the problem a half dozen or so years ago: http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html
Of course, what should be obvious today, is that the most prominent sources of anti-semitism today are the government of Israel and its numerous noxious spokespersons and the organized Jewish community and its equally noxious spokespersons. They create new "anti-semites" every time Israel commits some atrocity and the Jewish establishment not only supports it such as with the attack on the Gaza flotilla, but twists the arms of politicians from the president on down to do the same. The folks watching this are not exactly stupid and they can detect who the bad guys are.
Thus, when politically active non-Jews see self-styled "anti-zionist" Jews puling and whining about what they perceive as anti-semitism within the ranks of the pro-Palestinian movement, they have every reason to hold their nose while quietly showing them the door.
Re my remarks about Stephen Jay Gould above, in case anyone is interested but ignorant of the dispute I referred to ( I'd forgotten what it was about myself), here's a link to a page, with Dennett's response to Gould's criticism of his book ( Darwin's Dangerous Idea) in the NYRB, plus a response from ? Wright, and from Gould himself. This will give you as much as you need to know unless you're deeply interested.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/dennett_exchange.html
Having said that, Gould being an outspoken 'leftist' alone might be sufficient to get the Trots to root for him, plus he takes – it seems – a 'softer' approach to religion than Dawkins who seems to have become a bete noire in the Trotosphere. I'm a bit equivocal about the latter (- in the balance I can see the point in not alienating the religious, rather 'letting them down' gently, especially when there is a definite need to express solidarity with Muslims. On the other hand there is the ' give them an inch and they'll take a mile' syndrome. The British SWP have long been making overtures to the Muslim community (e.g. in 'Respect'), but I can't see that there is an obvious correlation with the American Modern Review left here.
posted the last one by mistake before it was finished again ( note the mystery unclosed bracket). But whatever, even if it's overstating the case to speculate that Gould's support from the Trots is down to his opposition to the Israel lobby thesis ( I take it that's the case from what you said), we can be reasonably sure that he wouldn't attract such support if he went against the orthodoxy on this. Bit of a mystery all in all.
Oh, thanks for your input Jeff Blankfort.
I think you're right in the balance, and very brave. But I'll always have a soft spot for Chomsky for 'lifting the scales from my eyes'. I studied Sociology in the early 70s, sold newspapers for the International Socialists ( now the SWP, UK), read some Marx etc so I thought I was reasonably clued up. Like a lot of people I stopped reading 'left' papers because they increasingly seemed infantile, but was very skeptical – I thought – about the mainstream media. By chance, just after 9/11 I happened to be living close to a socialist bookshop, and took a chance on Chomsky's 'Fateful Triangle' – I had difficulty understanding a lot of it because it referred to mostly US media figures, and because I was so frankly ignorant about the Palestine situation that I had to start from scratch ( and it's quite hard to find a book that tells you all you need to know). But something impressed me enough about Chomksy's style that I shortly after read 'Deterring Democracy' and ' World Orders, Old and New' – as it says on the cover of 'Deterring Democracy', it was like standing in a wind-tunnel having my mis-conceptions blasted away. I had no idea of how many unknown unknowns I had – how completely ignorant I was of the extent to which the mainstream media mislead us. And, as I said, I was better educated and probably more skeptical than most. It's easy to forget, if you're deeply involved in 'left' politics, how abjectly ignorant most, even highly educated, people are. Chomsky presents a coherent picture of the world in a non-hysterical way that, most importantly, helped me to see the function of the ' liberal left' e.g. the UK Guardian, Independent, the Nation in the US – " let's be sensible…" He has a great gift to get people to listen and understand, something that the 'revolutionary left' lacks. To quote Israel Shamir ( who I have some reservations about)
" Petras also wants Chomsky to fight his war, that is the war against Jewish establishment (he calls it ‘Zionist Power Configuration’ ). Yes, it would be nice, but then, Petras won’t be needed. Instead of seeing Noam Chomsky as an enemy (“part of the problem”), it is better to view him as an important ally covering an important part of the battle line. He does not cover all, he does not go to places Petras or I go, but he does not stop us from going. That is why it is ridiculous to call him “left gatekeeper”, as he keeps no gate locked.
…. Despite many, many attacks on him, Chomsky never responded in kind [I note that Jeff Blankfort may be an exception, from what he says]. He always remained polite, even courteous. He had never ever blocked a publication. He is going his way and let us respect it. Light infantry and heavy artillery have different modes of operation. Chomsky is our heavy cannon, while Petras or Gilad Atzmon or Israel Shamir, we are light scouts, the reconnaissance unit. We should go further than he does, but he is our fallback. Let us cherish this man and his activity.
The bottom line was editorialized by Ian Buckley in his In Defence of Shamir .. and Chomsky
“I would content that Noam is basically an honest and very knowledgeable man, despite his occasional personal blind spots. It should be freely admitted that Chomsky doesn't go far enough on the Middle East . Whatever the slight defects and blind spots in this particular area, he still deserves kudos for his excellent, indeed pioneering, investigations into the distortions of the mass media and the profoundly undemocratic nature of 'democratic' societies. After a reading of Chomsky, you are inoculated for good against the foetid netherworld of the mainstream media. There is nothing wrong at all with a little criticism, but we shouldn't lose sight of who the 'good guys' really are. After all, there are so few of them around."
Thanks Jeff Blankfort for your intervention.Regarding my understanding of politics that you claim that is less than my skills in English which is really bad,i have to contradict you.I feel that my opinions in the issue s connected with Palestine,Israel,US are corrects.I think that a Palestinian child who throws stones on Israeli soldiers understand well the "conflict".Regarding the dispute between the role of Chomsky and his influence i can't add more that Mr.Lafayette Sennacherib wrote in the post before.At least in a generally view Chomsky is animportant critique of the US-Israel doing.Or how you wrote:" Chomsky, in particular, has been heavily criticized by the Jewish establishment for decades for his criticism of Israeli policies, even to the point of being "excommunicated,"a distinction he shares with the late Hannah Arendt. It may be fair to assume that at some level this history influences Chomsky's analysis. But the problems of the movement go beyond the fear of invoking anti-Semitism, as Chomsky is aware and correctly noted in The Fateful Triangle.:
[T]he American left and pacificist groups, apart from fringe elements, have quite generally been extremely supportive of Israel (contrary to many baseless allegations), some passionately so, and have turned a blind eye to practices that they would be quick to denounce elsewhere.[22]"
My question about the accusations made against Chomsky is why to believe that he ,intentionally,deflect the attention on Israeli lobby.I read the examples given and i can't see that Chomsky opinion in every case is not enough valid to be credited as sincere.Take for instance the Iraqi criminal invasion.Chomsky opinion is that US has interest in the oil of Iraq.Mearsheimer and Walt,you,Petras,Sniegoski and some others claim that is not the oil ,is Israel lobby .But many commentators,no Jewish persons,and no "leftist" under Chomsky influence consider the oil as the factor which caused the invasion.Ahmadinejad,a couple days ago,said that who master the ME,master the world.Chomsky indicated Carter doctrine which marks the importance of the zone for American interests (as a world hegemon).What bother me on attacks on Chomsky is the supposed bad intentions.Like mr.Lafayette i believe that the attacks on Chomsky are futile .
I,personally,don't agree with Chomsky in everything,for instance in how spoke about Tehran regime as loathsome one such justifying the demonization which is doing to that.
Deadbeat and others "vigilant"at Dissenting Voice explained that the entry interdiction for Chomsky recently in Israel is a trick .
In conclusion i ma not a chomskyte ,not a Blankfortist but i admire very much both of you and many others like Mearsheimerand Walt,Petras,Raimondo,Israel Shamir,Azmi Bishara,Ahmet Tibi,Mohamad Barake,Finkelstein,Ran Ha Cohen etc.Thanks again for your participation.
Dino writes …
Deadbeat and others "vigilant"at Dissenting Voice explained that the entry interdiction for Chomsky recently in Israel is a trick .
I don't think I ever claimed the incident with Chomsky in Israel as being a "trick". I am suspect of the PR campaign around it to inflate Chomsky's image especially by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Chomsky's image due to his defense of Zionism, support of Israel, his stance against BDS, and his "U.S Imperialism" axioms are to be out of touch with what going on today.
Liberalism (both Zionist and Capitalist varieties) is in crisis because of its own contradiction and lack of adherence to principles of justice and equality.
Deadbeat,for me US imperialism is an enough good explanation for what happen now in world..If i try to understand what caused ,for instance,Iraq invasion and i read that was the WMD of Iraq,or the fact that wrong information from intelligence agencies ,or that bush is a such lover of democracy and America is a such lover of democracy and her history is all on her sacrifices to spend democracy,all these explanations i think that are lies,more and more lies ,namely myths.In stead if i read that the invasion was made for America imperialist interests,or for Israel imperialists interests i think that it could explain enough well the invasion.In my opinion the merge of both is very possible.Concretely if we take any US house member i can't believe that he is a normal man (woman) with moral opinions and he (she) wants to blame Israel for the massacre in Gaza and day then he received a phone from AIPAC and a hint of substantial help for him or his party and then he,together with other 400 or more colleagues voted against Goldstone report (for instance).I believe that he is sincere immoral being or a racist American who think that what is good for America should be good for everyone one or an messianic Christian fundamentalist,or a racist Jew who believe that his people was chosen and only because this others hate them and threaten them all along history.
On the other hand, you can argue about the following, but to dismiss it without a discussion is suspicious. From James Petras's ' Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power'(starting on p. 31):
" A systematic review of the major propaganda organ of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations's newsletter, 'Daily Alert', from 2002 to September 2007 – 1,760 issues – provides us with a scientific sample of ZPC [Zionist Power Configuration] opinion. On average, each issue contained 5 articles in favor of the war or moves toward war with Iraq and/or Iran. The Daily Alert featured op-ed articles by the major liberal, conservative and Zion-fascist writers and academics which regularly appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, the New York Sun, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Daily Telegraph and Times of London, YNet and others. In other word, in the crucial pre-war to post-invasion period, the leading pro-Israel Jewish organizations produced approximately 8,800 pieces of pro-Iraq-war propaganda and circulated it to all its member organizations, every Congress-person, and every leading member of the executive branch, with follow-ups by local activists and an army of Washington lobbyists (150 from AIPAC alone) plus several hundred full-time activists from local and regional offices.
In a comparable survey of the leading Anglo-American business and financial newspaper, the Financial Times, between 2002 and September 2007, regarding Big Oil's policy toward war with Iraq and now Iran, is just as revealing. I reviewed the opinion, editorial and letter pages of 1,872 issues of the Financial Times and there is not a single article or letter by any spokesperson of a major (or a minor) oil company calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq or the bombing of Iran. There was no oil lobby or grass roots organization demanding that Congress or the Bush Administration go to war in defense of US oil interests. But the fact that the ZPC had been active was visible in the wealth of the FT pages promoting the lie that disarmed and embargoed Iraq represented an 'existential threat' to nuclear-armed Israel, whose army ranks fourth in the world.
A similar comparison of Zionist and Big Oil regarding propaganda for a US military confrontation with Iran reinforces the argument of the centrality of the major Jewish organizations in promoting United States involvement in Middle East wars for Israel. Between 2004 and September 2007 ( 3 years and 9 months) the Zionist propaganda sheet, the Daily Alert, published 960 issues in which an average of 6 articles argued for and immediate or near-future US or Israeli preemptive military attack on Iran, tougher economic sanctions than the Security Council was willing to support, and organized disinvestment and boycotts of Iran. A survey of 1053issues of the Financial Times during the same period (the FT prints 6 times a week, the Daily Alert 5 times) fails to produce a single letter or op-ed article by any representative or spokesperson of Big Oil supporting war against Iran. On the contrary, as was the case with Iraq, major oil leaders expressed anxiety and fear that an Israeli-instigated war would destabilize the entire area and lead to the destruction of vital oil installations, undermine transport routes and shipping lanes, and cancel lucrative service contracts. "
jeff, I'm in the Blankfortist camp! 100%
In writing my critique of Chomsky which has had the positive effect of opening the eyes of many former Chomskyites, I went through every book that NC has written on the I-P subject and what I found was unsubstantiated, that is non or poorly sourced, statements about US-Israel relations that were easy to contradict by available and accessible sources that were and remain available to Chomsky as they were to me.I quote some but, for reasons of space,not all of them, in my article on him. Neither Chomsky or any of his acolytes has endeavored to refute any of my evidence proving the degree to which Chomsky has distorted US-Israel relations in order to prove that it is the US and not Israel who is the main culprit while ignoring or dismissing Israel's control over Congress, as Israel Shahak pointed out in a letter to me which I cite in my article. He has, as well, ignored not only the fact but the importance of Jewish funding for both parties. Whether he is simply being intellectually dishonest or worse, I can only say that he has done a marvelous job for Israel in shielding the Israel Lobby and the Jewish institutions that make it up from attack by the Palestinian solidarity movement in the US which to this point in time has been an utter failure.
As for his being blocked from entering Israel, nothing could have been better for reestablishing his credentials on the left. That Barghouti, knowing Chomsky's positions on BDS, right of return, etc., invited him was inexcusable. And if Barghouti wasn't aware of Chomsky's positions, he should get out of politics.
But then again, he has accepted Abbas's "leadership" of the PA after Abbas tried to suppress the Goldstone Rept so I don't expect much better from him or any of the current Palestinian leadership which has been on a steady decline since the 70s, due on one hand to Israeli assassinations of the best and the brightest and collaboration by the ambitious and corrupt with Yasser Arafat having set the standard for the latter.
Put me down as Blankfortist the Second:) Hi Mary, DB, guess what, we are now a Trend!
I can understand how newbies to the struggle who came in because of 911 could be very impressed by Chomsky's writings, if that's the first place they encountered detailed info on Isrealy & US imperialist crimes. What such folks need to realize is that Chomsky himself is a relative johnny come lately to the ME/antiImperialist struggle, compared to Abd El Wahad al Messeri & his Encyclopedia of Jews, Judaism & the History of Zionism, and other writings; to the late Israel Shahak; to the late Rabbi Elmer Berger; to Louise Cainkar, Lenni Brenner, Irwin Silber, Hilton Obenzinger and many others.
Much more I could say but have to go to the store, better post this before it gets erased…
I was right on Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! Here's the scoop on her and the show ….
Democracy Now! (DN)'s
* Radical radio and television weekday news show and tax-exempt entity
* Created in 1996 at Pacifica Radio in New York City
* Main anchor is co-founder and radical Amy Goodman
Democracy Now! is a morning weekday newscast that (as of June 2009) could be heard on at least 800 radio stations in the U.S. and Canada, and on a number of additional stations in Europe, Australia, Mexico, and South America. It also produces a television version of each newscast, which its website (as of April 2006) says can be seen and heard on more than 250 cable TV systems, mostly on public access channels, and on subscriber satellite TV systems Direct TV and DISH network. Democracy Now! is also a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization.
Democracy Now! was created in 1996 by WBAI radio news director Amy Goodman, Pacifica anchor Larry Bensky, Juan Gonzalez, Salim Muwakkie and Julie Drizin. Its aim was to provide "perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media," i.e., the views of radical and foreign journalists, left and labor activists, and ideological foes of capitalism. The popular hard-left show soon began airing not only in New York City but also on the other Pacifica-owned stations in Berkeley, Los Angeles, Houston and Washington, D.C.
Key figures at Democracy Now!, such as radio producer Mike Burke and television producers Ana Nogueira, Elizabeth Press and John Hamilton, all have backgrounds in Indymedia. Nogueira also has written for Z Magazine.
In 2000 Democracy Now! departed from WBAI's facilities amid internal battles over control of Pacifica Radio. It has broadcast ever since from studios in a converted firehouse renamed the Downtown Community Television Center (DCTV) in New York City's Chinatown. It continues to air on Pacifica-owned and affiliated stations. It is satellite-uplinked via the Pacifica Satellite System, but also via the taxpayer-subsidized Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS). Stations can also receive the program over the Internet as broadcast-quality MP3 computer files.
Serious questions have arisen about how Democracy Now!, begun and developed with the resources of Pacifica Radio and grants from the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund and others, suddenly became independent and the effective property of Amy Goodman without recompense to Pacifica. This transfer apparently included valuable assets such as trademarks, ownership of years of archived programs, affiliate station access, and more.
In a contract that remains secret, Amy Goodman is also receiving $1 million per year for a five-year period that began in 2002, according to Pacifica Treasurer Jabari Zakiya, to continue doing what has become Pacifica's flagship morning news program. This is more than double Goodman's officially stated stipend of $440,000 per year from Pacifica Radio.
Democracy Now! receives indirect funding from George Soros, and direct funding from Soros' Open Society Institute, the Glaser Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, and other left-leaning foundations.