We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

A strange kind of freedom

by Robert Fisk Wednesday, Aug. 07, 2002 at 7:50 AM

We all know about the perils of Islamic fanaticism. But, says Robert Fisk, the biggest threat to liberty in the US may come from other kinds of fundamentalism: Jewish and Christian

Inside the First Congregational Church of Berkeley, the Californian audience had been struck silent. Dennis Bernstein, the Jewish host of KPFA Radio's Flashpoint current affairs programme, was reading some recent e-mails that he had received from Israel's supporters in America. Each one left the people in the church Muslims, Jews, Christians in a state of shock. "You mother-fucking-asshole-self-hating Jewish piece of shit. Hitler killed the wrong Jews. He should have killed your parents, so a piece of Jewish shit like you would not have been born. God willing, Arab terrorists will cut you to pieces Daniel Pearl-style, AMEN!!!"

Bernstein's sin was to have covered the story of Israel's invasion of Jenin in April and to have interviewed journalists who investigated the killings that took place there including Phil Reeves and Justin Huggler of The Independent for his Flashpoint programme. Bernstein's grandfather was a revered Orthodox Rabbi of international prominence but neither his family history nor his origins spared him. "Read this and weep, you mother-fucker self-hating Jew boy!!!" another e-mail told Bernstein. "God willing a Palestinian will murder you, rape your wife and slash your kids' throats." Yet another: "I hope that you, Barbara Lubin and all other Jewish Marxist Communist traitors anti-American cop haters will die a violent and cruel death just like the victims of suicide bombers in Israel." Lubin is also Jewish, the executive director of the Middle East Children's Alliance, a one-time committed Zionist but now one of Israel's fiercest critics. Her e-mails are even worse.

Indeed, you have to come to America to realise just how brave this small but vocal Jewish community is. Bernstein is the first to acknowledge that a combination of Israeli lobbyists and conservative Christian fundamentalists have in effect censored all free discussion of Israel and the Middle East out of the public domain in the US. "Everyone else is terrified," Bernstein says. "The only ones who begin to open their mouths are the Jews in this country. You know, as a kid, I sent money to plant trees in Israel. But now we are horrified by a government representing a country that we grew up loving and cherishing. Israel's defenders have a special vengeance for Jews who don't fall in line behind Sharon's scorched-earth policy because they give the lie to the charge that Israel's critics are simply anti-Semite."

Adam Shapiro is among those who have paid a price for their beliefs. He is a Jew engaged to an American-born Palestinian, a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement who was trapped in Yasser Arafat's headquarters in the spring while administering medical aid. After telling CNN that the Sharon government was acting like "terrorists" while receiving $3bn a year in US military aid, Shapiro and his family were savaged in the New York Post. The paper slandered Shapiro as the "Jewish Taliban" and demeaned his family as "traitors". Israeli supporters publicised his family's address and his parents were forced to flee their Brooklyn home and seek police protection. Shapiro's father, a New York public high-school teacher and a part-time Yeshiva (Jewish day school) teacher, was fired from his job. His brother receives regular death threats.

Israel's supporters have no qualms about their alliance with the Christian right. Indeed, the fundamentalists can campaign on their own in Israel's favour, as I discovered for myself at Stanford recently when I was about to give a lecture on the media and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, part of a series of talks arranged largely by Jewish Americans. A right-wing Christian "Free Republic" outfit posted my name on its website, and described me as a "PLO butt-kisser" and asked its supporters to "freep" my lecture. A few demonstrators turned up outside the First United Methodist Church in Sacramento where I was to speak, waving American and Israeli flags. "Jew haters!" they screamed at the organisers, a dark irony since these were non-Jews shrieking their abuse at Jews.

They were also handing out crudely printed flyers. "Nothing to worry about, Bob," one of my Jewish hosts remarked. "They can't even spell your name right." True. But also false. "Stop the Lies!" the leaflet read. "There was no massacre in Jenin. Fiske [sic] is paid big bucks to spin [lie] for the Arabs..." But the real lie was in that last sentence. I never take any payment for lectures so that no one can ever claim that I'm paid to give the views of others. But the truth didn't matter to these people. Nor did the content of my talk which began, by chance, with the words "There was no massacre" in which I described Arafat as a "corrupt, vain little despot" and suicide bombings as "a fearful, evil weapon". None of this was relevant. The aim was to shut me up.

Dennis Bernstein sums it up quite simply: "Any US journalist, columnist, editor, college professor, student-activist, public official or clergy member who dares to speak critically of Israel or accurately report the brutalities of its illegal occupation will be vilified as an anti-Semite." In fact, no sooner had Bernstein made these remarks than pro-Israeli groups initiated an extraordinary campaign against some of the most pro-Israeli newspapers in America, all claiming that The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle were biased in their coverage of the Middle-East conflict. Just how The New York Times which boasts William Safire and Charles Krauthammer, those giants of pro-Israeli bias, among its writers could be anti-Israeli is difficult to see, although it is just possible that, amid its reports on Israel's destruction in the West Bank and Gaza, some mildly critical comments found their way into print. The New York Times, for example, did report that Israeli soldiers used civilians as human shields though only in the very last paragraph of a dispatch from Jenin.

None the less, the campaign of boycotts and e-mails got under way. More than 1,000 readers suspended their subscriptions to the Los Angeles Times, while a blizzard of e-mails told pro-Israeli readers to cancel their subscription to The New York Times for a day. On the East Coast, at least one local radio station has lost $1m from a Jewish philanthropist while other stations attempting to cover the Middle East with some degree of fairness are said to have lost even more. When the San Francisco Chronicle published a four-page guide to the conflict, its editors had to meet a 14-member delegation of local Jewish groups to discuss their grievances.

According to Michael Futterman, who chairs the Middle East strategy committee of 80 Bay Area synagogues, Jewish anger hit "boiling point" when the Chronicle failed to cover a pro-Israeli rally in San Francisco. Needless to say, the Chronicle's "Readers' Representative", Dick Rogers, published a grovelling, self-flagellating apology. "The paper didn't have a word on the pro-Israel rally," he wrote. "This wasn't fair and balanced coverage." Another objection came from a Jewish reader who objected to the word "terror" being placed within inverted commas in a Chronicle headline that read "Sharon says 'terror' justifies assault". The reader's point? The Chronicle's reporting "harmonises well with Palestinian propaganda, which tries to divert attention from the terrorist campaign against Israel (which enjoys almost unanimous support among Palestinians, all the way from Yasser Arafat to the 10-year-old who dreams of blowing himself up one day) and instead describes Israel's military moves as groundless, evil bullying tactics."

And so it goes on. On a radio show with me in Berkeley, the Chronicle's foreign editor, Andrew Ross, tried to laugh off the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby "the famous lobby", he called it with that deference that is half way between acknowledgement and fear but the Israeli Consul General Yossi Amrani had no hesitation in campaigning against the Chronicle, describing a paper largely docile in its reporting of the Middle East as "a professionally and politically biased, pro-Palestinian newspaper".

The Chronicle's four-page pull-out on the Middle East was, in fact, a soft sell. Its headline "The Current Strife Between The Israelis And The Palestinians Is A Battle For Control Of Land" missed the obvious point: that one of the two groups that were "battling for control of the land" the Palestinians had been occupied by Israel for 35 years.

The most astonishing and least covered story is in fact the alliance of Israeli lobbyists and Christian Zionist fundamentalists, a coalition that began in 1978 with the publication of a Likud plan to encourage fundamentalist churches to give their support to Israel. By 1980, there was an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem; and in 1985, a Christian Zionist lobby emerged at a "National Prayer Breakfast for Israel" whose principal speaker was Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to become Israeli prime minister. "A sense of history, poetry and morality imbued the Christian Zionists who, more than a century ago, began to write, plan and organise for Israel's restoration," Netanyahu told his audience. The so-called National Unity Coalition for Israel became a lobbying arm of Christian Zionism with contacts in Congress and neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington.

In May this year, the Israeli embassy in Washington, no less, arranged a prayer breakfast for Christian Zionists. Present were Alonzo Short, a member of the board of "Promise Keepers", and Michael Little who is president of the "Christian Broadcasting Network". Event hosts were listed as including those dour old Christian conservatives Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who once financed a rogue television station in southern Lebanon which threatened Muslim villagers and broadcast tirades by Major Saad Haddad, Israel's stooge militia leader in Lebanon. In Tennessee, Jewish officials invited hundreds of Christians to join Jewish crowds at a pro-Israel solidarity rally in Memphis.

On the face of it, this coalition seems natural. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League felt able to run an ad that included an article by a former Christian coalition executive director Ralph Reed, headlined "We People of Faith Stand Firmly With Israel". Christians, Reed claimed, supported Israel because of "their humanitarian impulse to help and protect Jews, a shared strategic interest in democracy in the Middle East and a spiritual connection to Israel".

But, of course, a fundamental problem fundamental in every sense of the word lies behind this strange partnership. As Uri Avnery, the leader of Gush Shalom, the most courageous Israeli peace group, pointed out in a typically ferocious essay last month, there is a darker side to the alliance. "According to its [Christian Zionist] theological beliefs, the Jews must congregate in Palestine and establish a Jewish state on all its territory" an idea that would obviously appeal to Ariel Sharon "so as to make the Second Coming of Jesus Christ possible." But here comes the bad bit. As Avnery says, "the evangelists don't like to dwell openly on what comes next: before the coming [of the Messiah], the Jews must convert to Christianity. Those who don't will perish in a gigantic holocaust in the battle of Armageddon. This is basically an anti-Semitic teaching, but who cares, so long as they support Israel?"

The power of the Israeli lobby in the United States is debated far more freely in the Israeli press than in American newspapers or on US tele- vision. There is, of course, a fine and dangerous line between justified investigation and condemnation of the lobby's power, and the racist Arab claim that a small cabal of Zionists run the world. Those in America who share the latter view include a deeply unpleasant organisation just along the coast from San Francisco at Newport Beach known as the "Institute for Historical Research". These are the Holocaust deniers whose annual conference last month included a lecture on "death sentences imposed by German authorities against German soldiers... for killing or even mistreating Jews". Too much of this and you'd have to join the American Israel Public Affairs Committee AIPAC to restore your sanity. But the Israeli lobby is powerful. In fact, its influence over the US Congress and Senate calls into question the degree to which the American legislature has been corrupted by lobby groups. It is to an Israeli voice Avnery again that Americans have to turn to hear just how mighty the lobby has become. "Its electoral and financial power casts a long shadow over both houses of the Congress," Avnery writes. "Hundreds of Senators and Congressmen were elected with the help of Jewish contributions. Resistance to the directives of the Jewish lobby is political suicide. If the AIPAC were to table a resolution abolishing the Ten Commandments, 80 Senators and 300 Congressmen would sign it at once. This lobby frightens the media, too, and assures their adherence to Israel."

Avnery could have looked no further than the Democratic primary in Alabama last month for proof of his assertion. Earl Hilliard, the five-term incumbent, had committed the one mortal sin of any American politician: he had expressed sympathy for the cause of the Palestinians. He had also visited Libya several years ago. Hilliard's opponent, Artur Davis, turned into an outspoken supporter of Israel and raised large amounts of money from the Jewish community, both in Alabama and nationwide. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz noted that among the names of the first list of contributors to Davis's campaign funds were "10 Cohens from New York and New Jersey, but before one gets to the Cohens, there were Abrams, Ackerman, Adler, Amir, Asher, Baruch, Basok, Berger, Berman, Bergman, Bernstein and Blumenthal. All from the East Coast, Chicago and Los Angeles. It's highly unlikely any of them have ever visited Alabama..." The Jewish newspaper Forward essential reading for any serious understanding of the American Jewish community quoted a Jewish political activist following the race: "Hilliard has been a problem in his votes and with guys like that, when there's any conceivable primary challenge, you take your shot." Hilliard, of course, lost to Davis, whose campaign funds reached $781,000.

The AIPAC concentrates on Congress while the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations (CPMAJO), made up of the heads of 51 Jewish organisations, concentrates on the executive branch of the US government. Every congressman knows the names of those critics of Israel who have been undone by the lobby. Take Senator J William Fulbright, whose 1963 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee detailed how five million tax-deductable dollars from philanthropic Americans had been sent to Israel and then recycled back to the US for distribution to organisations seeking to influence public opinion in favour of Israel; this cost him the chance of being Secretary of State. He was defeated in the 1974 Democratic primary after pro-Israeli money poured into the campaign funds of his rival, Governor Dale Bumpers, following a statement by the AIPAC that Fulbright was "consistently unkind to Israel and our supporters in this country". Paul Findley, who spent 22 years as a Republican congressman from Illinois, found his political career destroyed after he had campaigned against the Israeli lobby although, ironically, his book on the subject, They Dare to Speak Out was nine weeks on The Washington Post bestseller list, suggesting that quite a number of Americans want to know why their congressmen are so pro-Israeli.

Just two months ago, the US House of Representatives voted 352 to 21 to express its unqualified support for Israel. The Senate voted 94 to two for the same motion. Even as they voted, Ariel Sharon's army was continuing its destructive invasion of the West Bank. "I do not recall any member of Congress asking me if I was in favour of patting Israel on the back..." James Abu Rizk, an Arab-American of Lebanese origin, told the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee afterwards. "No one else, no average American, has been asked either. But that is the state of American politics today... The votes and bows have nothing to do with the legislators' love for Israel. They have everything to do with the money that is fed into their campaigns by members of the Israeli lobby. My estimate is that $6bn flows from the American Treasury to Israel each year." Within days, 42 US governors turned up in Sacramento to sign declarations supporting Israel. California governor Gray Davis and New York governor George Pataki California has the largest Jewish population of any state except New York arranged the meeting.

Sometimes the support of Israel's loyalists in Congress turns into farce. Tom Delay reacting to CNN founder Ted Turner's criticism of Israel went so far out of his way to justify Israeli occupation of the West Bank that he blurted out on MSNBC television that the Palestinians "should become citizens" of Israel, an idea unlikely to commend itself to his friend Ariel Sharon. Texas Republican Richard Armey went the other way. "I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank. I happen to believe the Palestinians should leave... to have those people who have been aggressors against Israel retired to some other area." Do the people of Texas know that their representative is supporting "ethnic cleansing" in the Middle East? Or are they silent because they prefer not to speak out?

Censorship takes many forms. When Ishai Sagi and Ram Rahat-Goodman, two Israeli reserve soldiers who refused to serve in the West Bank or Gaza, were scheduled to debate their decision at Sacramento's Congregation B'nai Israel in May, their appearance was cancelled. Steve Meinrath, who is chairman of the Israel Affairs Committee at B'nai Israel, remarked bleakly that "intimidation on the part of certain sectors of the community has deprived the entire community of hearing a point of view that is being widely debated in Israel. Some people feel it's too dangerous..."

Does President Bush? His long-awaited Middle-East speech was Israeli policy from start to finish. A group of Jewish leaders, including Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz who said recently that the idea of executing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was a legitimate if flawed attempt at finding a balance between preventing terrorism and preserving democracy and the AIPAC and CPMAJO heads all sent clear word to the President that no pressure should be put on Israel. Wiesel whose courage permeates his books on the Holocaust but who lamentably failed to condemn the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut in 1982 at the hands of Israel's Lebanese allies, said he felt "sadness", but his sadness was "with Israel, not against Israel" because "after all the Israeli soldiers did not kill" took out a full page in The New York Times. In this, he urged Bush to "please remember that Ariel Sharon, a military man who knows the ugly face of war better than anyone, is ready to make 'painful sacrifices' to end the conflict." Sharon was held "personally responsible" for the massacre by Israel's own commission of inquiry but there was no mention of that from Wiesel, who told reporters in May that he would like to revoke Arafat's Nobel prize.

President Bush was not going to oppose these pressures. His father may well have lost his re-election because he dared to tell Israel that it must make peace with the Arabs. Bush is not going to make the same mistake nor does brother Jeb want to lose his forthcoming governorship election. Thus Sharon's delight at the Bush speech, and it was left to a lonely and brave voice Mitchell Plitnick of the Jewish Voice for Peace to state that "few speeches could be considered to be as destructive as that of the American President... Few things are as blinding as unbridled arrogance."

Or as vicious as the messages that still pour in to Dennis Bernstein and Barbara Lubin, whose Middle East Children's Alliance, co-ordinating with Israeli peace groups, is trying to raise money to rebuild the Jenin refugee camp. "I got a call the other day at 5am," Bernstein told me. "This guy says to me: 'You got a lot of nerve going and eating at that Jewish deli.' What comes after that?" Before I left San Francisco, Lubin showed me her latest e-mails. "Dear Cunt," one of them begins, "When we want your opinion you fucking Nazi cunt, we will have one of your Palestinian buddies fuck it [sic] of you. I hope that in your next trip to the occupied territories you are blown to bits by one of your Palestinian buddies [sic] bombs." Another, equally obscene, adds that "you should be ashamed of yourself, a so-called Jewish woman advocating the destruction of Israel".

Less crude language, of course, greeted President Bush's speech. Pat Robertson thought the Bush address "brilliant". Senator Charles Schumer, a totally loyal pro-Israeli Democrat from New York, said that "clearly, on the politics, this is going to please supporters of Israel as well as the Christian coalition types". He could say that again. For who could be more Christian than President George W Bush?

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Commentary

by comment Wednesday, Aug. 07, 2002 at 11:28 AM



I like Fisk and think he's a good writer but very one-sided in this piece. Why didn't he talk to any pro-Israel Jews and get their opinions? Some Jews feel that people like Bernstein and Shapiro are traitors and these Jews are behaving horribly (the people who forced the Shapiro's from their home, for example). People are dying, they are angry and they are doing stupid things. If they are breaking the law, they should be punished.

But what about the Palestinians? How do they deal with people they view as traitors ("collaborators")? As we've seen here on indymedia, they string'em up. Fisk never mentions this. Why? Why the need to present pro-Israel Jews as rabid hot-headed fanatics and not address the hot-headed fanatics on the other side of the equation?

When the bomb (missile?) was dropped on that apartment complex recently, you didn't see Jews rushing into the streets of NYC to celebrate. But when the WTCs came down, the Palestinians did. They also celebrated the recent bombing at Hebrew University in which Arabs were wounded!

And what if the people leaving these horrible messages are not even Jewish? People constantly make accusations on this site that racist remarks are posted by Zionists to discredit the newswire. What if people are doing the same thing to discredit pro-Israel Jews? I know it sounds far-fetched but hey, this is indymedia...

Regarding the "Freepers", this all sounds very familiar. Doesn't the left use the same tactics against those it disagrees with? They shout slogans to drown out speakers, throw around the terms "racist," "fascist," etc., and generally make a nuisance of themselves. Well this is America, both of you have a right to protest. Just as the majority of us exercise the right to ignore both of you.

As far as Hiliard's election, doesn't Fisk think a visit to Libya may have tarnished the guys reputation? After all we are talking about Alabama (a very Christian-conservative state) for crying out loud. No, according to Fisk "Jewish money" is the reason he lost the election.

A final comment, I think Fisk was a bit off when he wrote:

"There is, of course, a fine and dangerous line between justified investigation and condemnation of the lobby's power, and the racist Arab claim that a small cabal of Zionists run the world."

I agree with the sentiment. However, racist Arabs believe that a cabal of Jews run the world. Not Zionists. As many on this board have pointed out, there is a difference. To racist Arabs, the enemy is the Jewish people not Zionism.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Then There's Timothy McVeigh...

by Anti Fascist Wednesday, Aug. 07, 2002 at 12:33 PM

The U.S. is once again living up to its sorry reputation for hipocricy when we have Christian fundamentalists backing Israel and decrying "terrorist suicide bombers" when most acts of domestic terrorism are committed by members of their own "faith"(Timothy McVeigh-Christian Identity; 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing and numerous abortion clinic bombings-the Army of God and other acts by fundamentalist Christian individuals and groups that essentially represent the American Taliban/Al Qaeda).

And let's not forget their Jewish equivilants, the Jewish Defense League whose leaders were arrested and should now be standing trial for plotting to bomb Islamic mosques here in L.A.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Comment on Commentary

by apache Wednesday, Aug. 07, 2002 at 3:17 PM

"Comment" presents the usual responses to critiques of Israel and the U.S.'s pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian policies:
-- leftists are "dogmatic" and "shout down opposition" (even dingbats like Marc Cooper believe this), but
yet leftists in this country have no medium or forum to voice their position like conservative pundits on CNN, CSPAN, etc. so thus, they are the ones who are actually silenced while the right and pro-Israeli lobby gets free reign--hence the false pretense that leftists censor "alternative" views when it is the current post-911 reactionary atmosphere of the US that silences the left (along with sellout dingbats like Cooper and David Cone).
--- the perception that Palestinians and Arabs are "savages" who celebrate the death of Jews--but aside from the fact that the infamous post 911 gaza strip celebration may be a fraud (regardless of CNN and other's claims that it isn't, but you cant' trust a news agency that has military ops in its staff), "comment" ignores the
celebrations of Ariel Sharon's election (giving props to a butcher who has committed atrocities against Palestinians and Arabs in the past), and the pro-Israeli celebrations in the US after the current invasions and massacres in the Gaza and Jenin
--- the usual "anti-semtic" claim against those who identify the Jewish-American lobby's financial links to Israel and US policy (so I guess we have to call them American Anglo-Saxon's instead, which many of them are as well-- does that make one anti-saxonic?)
--- All Jews who "dare" critique Israel are "traitors"---"but look at what Arabs do to their traitors," thus, more evidence of "arab savagery"---give me a ferking break--Jews who critique Israel show that they put their heart over money and Western Imperialism--Arabs who are traitors are victims of CIA machinations in the region...
--- and finally, trying to critique Arabs by invoking the "jewish conspiracy" argument against arabs--the "cabal"
thinking is problematic and should be done away with, but is the result of white supremacy and imperialism in
the region...

in short,
"comment" needs to get a sense of context and learn more about imperialism

thank you...
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Sorry Apache

by comment Wednesday, Aug. 07, 2002 at 6:10 PM

My point was not that leftists are unique in being dogmatic in shouting down their opposition with inane rhetoric and demonstrations. The right is great at this as well! You see, I think the extreme left and the extreme right share a lot in common. Their intolerance of views they disagree with, for example.

I don't think I'm unique in this respect. Most folks in the US shun the extreme left and extreme right because we feel you are nuts, cranks, and crackpots. The majority of posts on indymedia reinforce this perception.

You reinforce it when you equate an election with terrorism. An election is not the same as an act of terror whether comitted by the Israeli state or the organizations involved in the intifada. To equate the two is ludicrous. I never mentioned anything about people in the streets celebrating the election of Arafat did I? No. So please, let's not compare apples and oranges here. What we are dealing with here is people celebrating death. It's pretty straight forward.

Your attempt to make this connection is understandable as you can't refute the fact that the Palestinians are caught on film celebrating death on more than one occasion. They were just out in the streets a few days ago celebrating the attack on Hebrew University.

The Israelis do not celebrate Arab death, nor do Jews in NYC. They are not out there waving their flags and praising God when the army kills a kid or even a terrorist.

You wrote:

<>

I never said that all Jews who voiced oppostion to Israel were traitors. If you would have taken the time to read what I wrote,

"Some Jews feel that people like Bernstein and Shapiro are traitors and these Jews are behaving horribly (the people who forced the Shapiro's from their home, for example). People are dying, they are angry and they are doing stupid things. If they are breaking the law, they should be punished."

I was carefull to qualify myself and not make generalizations. All Jews do not feel this way. Also, I never included myself in this group because we all have a right to protest our government policies and those of other governments. It's your right as an American. I even said they were "behaving horribly," "doing stupid things" and "should be punished." Why the need to lump me in with this group? Because you disagree with me and it's easer to disagree with something I didn't write than refute my actual statements. A familiar (if sad and played out) strategy.

Also, I never used the word savage, so why put it in quotes. If you disagree with what I wrote at least quote something I actually wrote. I never even said all Palestinians supported terrorism but used Fisk's qualifier, "racist Arabs." I don't think all Arabs hate Jews, but the racist ones most definitely do.

< thinking is problematic and should be done away with, but is the result of white supremacy and imperialism in the region...>>

"White supremacy"...if only things were so simple Apache. Feel free to live with your head in the sand. But most Americans thankfully know the truth. And I know quite a bit about imperialism and colonialism and context. Clearly more than yourself. Thank you for being so concerned.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy