This is a good week to notice them, since one of the worst just got elected to the Russian Duma.

In the last election in 1999 General Albert Makashov, a Russian Communist party central committee member, was spun off into its moderate front The "Movement in Support of the Army"(DPA), which promptly became radical nationalist. The DPA was led by two Communist Party parliamentarians: General Albert Makashov, who has publicly called for the murder of Jews, and Viktor Ilyukhin, who has accused Jews in the government of committing "genocide" against the Russian people. The DPA ran on an explicitly antisemitic platform, as is shown by the contents of one of its campaign pamphlets which stated, "Yid is not a nationality— Yid is a profession. Those who read Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Gogol and Shevchenko know of no other word to designate a destroyer, a bloodsucker who fattens himself on the misfortunes of other people."

Luckily Makashov was disqualified for a very Canadian offence: violating election spending regulations by making payments in cash for advertising services.

Last week he was elected as a Communist Party candidate in the Promyshlenny seat in Samara region with 80,402 votes, defeating the incumbent right-wing member Vera Lekareva who got 44,936 votes, while Putin's "United Russia" candidate got 40,949. Viktor Ilyukhin, now Movement in Support of the Army leader, is back too as a Communist deputy.

I see a renewed debate over the piece in the Globe and Mail Dec. 6, 2002 by Phil Berger, Jeff Rose and Clayton Ruby stating that "an increasingly vocal part of the Canadian left has, over the issue of Israel and Palestine, made our position untenable. We are being asked to choose between our support for Israel and our credentials as leftists. . . . the singularity of focus on Israel, which is increasingly common within the Canadian left (for example, equating Israel with apartheid South Africa), raises our fears that anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force in the polemic. . . . A balanced analysis of the Middle East should be based on universally accepted, measurable standards of conduct. Israel should be held accountable, but no more accountable than other nations, including Palestine. Such balance has not always been apparent. . . . While criticism of Israeli policies obviously does not, in itself, constitute anti-Semitism, we reject any allegation that our historical and moral responsibility to speak out against the demonization of Israel represents an attempt to censor critics of Israel. It is the refusal to consider the anti-Semitism present in the Middle East debate that represents the most dangerous form of political prohibition. Not just Jewish leftists, but all leftists, have a right and obligation to denounce anti-Semitism wherever and whenever they see it. That includes the debate about Israel and Palestine. We reject as anti-Semitic the shameful double standard applied to the only Jewish state."

Note that they don't accuse any Canadian leftists of being anti-semitic, but fear that anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force in the debate around the world, not excluding Canada.

Fair enough. And I don't think Canada has its own General Makashov yet. But Berger, Rose and Ruby say that "when anti-semitism is not identified and rejected, it becomes respectable." True. So wouldn't it be helpful if someone could identify a left-wing anti-semite in Canada?

[ 16 December 2003: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]

A difficult issue. In a certain sense, being an anti-semite is directly counter to the anti-racist principles of "leftism", so it seems like a blatant contracdiction. But there have been prominent leftist thinkers in the past who held anti-semitic (and other racialist) views, such as Proudhon.

And of course everyone has met militant trade unionists who make sexist jokes and assume wifey is there to cook and clean, or think of Jack London who wrote so eloquently about capitalist oppression but whose works are marred by racialist undercurrents.

Soviet communist anti-semitism has its roots in the Stalinist regression to Great Russian chauvinism against Jews (and Muslim peoples) after the revolution emancipated in the Jews. It was not only because Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and many other prominent opponents of Stalin were of Jewish descent; it was a regression to a highly nationalist ideology in which Mother Russia was often a secular, party-controlled ersatz of the Church-dominated Slavophile ideology.

Considering that "the Left" is largely moderate, and not at all extreme, it seems ridiculous to call their opposition to Isreal's occupation "anti-semitic". I still think that in the current context of concerns around anti-semitism on the Left, these concerns are being raised, accusations being made, by people who disagree with opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

[ 16 December 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

About Ruby/Rose/Berger, often discussed before on babble: I see that they have reappeared in the Globe letters column today, in more purely rhetorical form than in the full column you link to above. So here we go again.

That first column was already too vague for most of us, but one of the lines you quote above is probably the nub of the problem:

quote:

---

We reject as anti-Semitic the shameful double standard applied to the only Jewish state.

---

Does that mean that anyone who questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state is an anti-Semite? Certainly, there are posters on babble who have so questioned, and I would not call them anti-Semites. Some of them are Jewish, although to my mind that is irrelevant. Their challenge to Israel as "the only Jewish state" seems to me to arise from a fairly conventional left analysis of the C19 nation-state, and I cannot see how it is intrinsically anti-Semitic.

That happens not to be my position, actually (which? you ask? none of the above). But I remember real Canadian anti-Semitism, and I have very very seldom met it on babble. When I've seen it, I've also seen it vanish in hours, banned by audra.

What I have seen, of course, is a lot of mulberry threads generating much more heat than light because many conventional lefties feel they are being tagged with a label they don't deserve. Obviously, they have my sympathy.

If Ruby/Rose/Berger can ever do more than emote, blow rhetorical smoke, or demand that everyone cease ever again to question the status of nation-states, then maybe they'll be worth listening to. For me, whenever I've read them on this topic, I've been disappointed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
. . . where, in anything that [Ruby/Rose/Berger] write, is there anything solid to sink one's teeth or brains into?

---

I do not doubt for a second that if someone within the normal parameters of what we call the left, some labour, feminist or NDP activist of note or leadership figure had actually said or written anything anti-semetic, it would have been brought to our attention without hesitation.

What Messers. Ruby/Rose/Berger did was to make vague assertions that, in the final analysis amount to nothing more than a meely mouthed slander against those of us who consider ourselves on the left.

I would wonder how loudly Ruby would protest if a vague charge was leveled at a client of his, without evidence being offered up for examination.

The "evidence" the well educated and experienced in law Ruby offered up was a double standard Israel is held to by the left. Perhaps this is so; but it does not follow that anti-semitism is the motivating factor.

I pity the poor Crown Attourney that offered up such a non-sequitor before Ruby in court.

If that is happening, it is a problem, partly because it seems to be anonymous. Maybe as well as challenging the next person we hear shouting questionable slogans, we could interview him/her to find out not just who he/she is but where that sentiment is coming from.

At the only rally I've been to recently (anti-Iraqi-occupation), one woman speaker did toss in a few lines about Zionism, which bothered me. I can't remember what she said; I didn't think it was straightforward anti-Semitism; but it seemed to me out of context, knee-jerk -- shrill? (Of course, the problem with a lot of outdoor speeches is that they sound shrill of necessity, shouted as they are into bullhorns.)

You raise an interesting point, Wilfred. It would make a difference to put, if not names and faces, then at least specific positions or convictions to the charges of anti-Semitism against the Canadian/Western left.

The other source - not so much of slogans as of whispered comments at demos - is a kind of person who drifts into demos, not usually seen before, with a single-minded obsessive "nut" agenda.

But such events are rare. There have not been the problems here experienced in some European countries - once again emanating from Arab and/or Muslim youth whose sympathies with the Palestinians - or the Iraqis - are communitarian in nature, not in any sense "left-wing".

All the most serious anti-semitic attacks in recent years have had their origins in the violent far right or in Islamic fundamentalist circles. The most lethal attack, the bombing of the AMIA in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed almost 100 people and injured scores more, seems to have involved both fascistic elements of the Argentine police or army and perhaps also Iranian intelligence services. Neither bears any resemblance to the left wing, and are associated with horrific dictatorships past and present.

What struck me, the first time that I read about it, was that nobody in their right mind would ever tell, say, a Nigerian applicant that they were unwelcome on the basis of being black. They might feel that way, but they'd certainly hide it under some claptrap, like "concerns with your performance", or "our quota is full", or "we come from different theoretical backgrounds". Nobody would be dumb enough to say, flatly, "No, it's because you're Nigerian".

From this, it seems to me that the only reason the Oxford professor was so completely bold about denying an Israeli Jew a position is because he must have felt that he would be supported in this decision. In other words, that his colleagues would see being an Israeli Jew as good reason enough to slam the door on a student's career. For what it's worth, I think "the Left" (and I'm not fond of so general a term) has, in fact, contributed to creating the environment in this professor could hold that belief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
. . . the only reason the Oxford professor was so completely bold about denying an Israeli Jew a position is because he must have felt . . . that his colleagues would see being an Israeli Jew as good reason enough to slam the door on a student's career . . . I think the vilification of Israel has gone beyond mere political criticism, and that that fosters an environment in which some people no longer expect themselves to regard Israeli Jews as full humans.

---

I'm grateful for this shocking information, which I had never heard about.

quote:

---

The boycott originated as an April 2002 letter published in The Guardian from several prominent scientists calling for European agencies to cease funding Israeli scientists. The agencies rejected the boycott, but several universities in France subsequently passed resolutions calling for a severing of ties to Israeli institutions.

---

But somehow this shifted to a sporadic unofficial boycott of individual Israeli scientists.

A useful lesson. Politicians who know little about science often make bad science policy decisions. Perhaps the same is true of scientists who know little about politics.

Abbie Bakan's critique of some anti-Semites on the hard left

I no longer go to anti-occupation events - I did ten years ago but back then, I never heard the kind of anti-Jewish comments from people in the crowd I have heard in the past 2-3 years.

Thank God for Ruby and Berger speaking up. About time. Denying anti-Semitism does not make it go away. The fact lagatta writes organizers now have to take care to prevent anti-Semitism at events is a strong indication people know it exists.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I am talking about people calling Jews "Hebes", talking about how "the Jews' control the media or the White House or foreign policy, about "the Jews" being "worse than the Nazis" etc... All things said at supposedly "leftwing" events.

I think this is what Ruby and his fellows are alluding to.

Petras and Herman are people with left credentials who have been guilty of a lot of nonsense in the past. Petras wrote an article ridiculously critical of NGO's in the Third World, apparently without knowing much about what they do. As I recall that article, there was a strong conspiratorial caste to it, also.

And I have never forgiven Herman for co-authoring an idiotic article in Dimension a few years back, in which the argument was made that Louise Arbour, then the Chief Prosecutor of the Hague War Crimes Tribunal, was a "war criminal". That was because she was the unwitting agent of NATO, who bombed Milosevic for no good reason, etc. etc.

[ 17 December 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]

quote:

---

I am talking about people calling Jews "Hebes", talking about how "the Jews' control the media or the White House or foreign policy, about "the Jews" being "worse than the Nazis" etc... All things said at supposedly "leftwing" events.

I think this is what Ruby and his fellows are alluding to.

Let's not pretend it never happens. Let's stop the excuses.

---

WHO said these things? WHEN did they say them? WHERE did they say them?

Where are the facts? And since when is asking for facts excuse making or denial?

Fer fuck sakes, I hope for the sake of justice Mimichekele2, that you find a way to not serve on any juries until such a time as you understand the significance of facts and evidence.

Petras is an extremely authoritarian leftist - he was even harder on leftists critical of human rights violations and the application of the death penalty in Cuba, pretty much accusing them (us) of being pawns of US imperialism. Yes, I think Jewish conspiracy theories can be seen as anti-semitic, though as Mycroft said Jewish lobbies are no more unthinkable than any other "ethnic" or national lobby. It is silly to see the US imperialist agenda as set by such groups. Wouldn't it be more accurate in this case to speak of a "Zionist" lobby? Not using Zionist as a pc code word for Jewish, but because a growing number of Jews, including Abie Bakan, oppose this agenda, and because nowadays it includes many fundamentalist Christians some of whom are indeed anti-semites (remember the "buy-Christian" movement in the Bible Belt)?

Or more accurately still, a lobby that uncritically supports current Israeli policy, as there are many people who are Zionists, seeing a Jewish state or homeland as a desirable goal, who do not like what the current Israeli state has become.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
WHO said these things? WHEN did they say them? WHERE did they say them?

Where are the facts? And since when is asking for facts excuse making or denial?

Fer fuck sakes, I hope for the sake of justice Mimichekele2, that you find a way to not serve on any juries until such a time as you understand the significance of facts and evidence.

When grave accusations are made without facts to back them up, that's not just being an asshole, that also slander.

---

To be fair, Tommy, Mimichekele has said that he himself has heard the kind of comments he's talking about, at anti-occupation demonstrations:

quote:

---

I no longer go to anti-occupation events - I did ten years ago but back then, I never heard the kind of anti-Jewish comments from people in the crowd I have heard in the past 2-3 years.

---

Unless you expect Mimichekele to go up to each person he has heard in a crowd who has said something anti-Semitic and say, "Hi, I just heard you say something anti-Semitic. Could you please give me your name and phone number for future reference?" then I think you're being a bit unreasonable here.

Both lagatta and Mimichekele have said on babble that they have heard the occasional anti-Semitic rhetoric at demonstrations. Is all "the Left" responsible for that? No, of course not. But Mimichekele is right - if people are seeing this kind of thing, then it shouldn't be denied, and people shouldn't be asked to provide unreasonable degrees of "proof" in order to speak up about it. It's not reasonable to expect people to come up with names of people who say these things when they hear it in a crowd of demonstrators.

Edited to add:

quote:

---

(remember the "buy-Christian" movement in the Bible Belt)?

---

The Bible Belt, nothing. That's a widespread movement all over. When I worked as a church administrator in Kingston, I remember there being a Christian business directory put out, and a copy of it was sent to our church with the option of ordering more. Our pastor at the time (to his credit) did not order any and we didn't publicize it in our church calendar either. But I'm willing to bet a lot of the more fundy churches in town did.

[ 18 December 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Dominique Vidal, editor of le Monde diplomatique, a major critic of Israel and a major writer on anti-racism isses in France and Europe, addressed the issue in the oct 24, 2003 issue of Rouge, the newspaper of the Ligue communite révolutionnaire if I am not mistaken (they are a Trostskist party that got 5 or 6% in the last French elections).

"First lesson: it would be absurd to underestimate incidents of anti-Jewish violence... If it is the job of the police forces to repress the authors of the one (anti-Jewish violence) or the other (anti-Muslim violence), it is up to us to denounce (such authors) and to isolate them politically.

Second lesson: it is a duty to combat without complacency, within the movement itself, any form of anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia. To no longer allow, for instance, that Jews wearing skullcaps be assaulted along the march routes of demonstrations. To no longer tolerate the publication of anti-Semitic texts, even if their author is Israeli and is radically criticizing hs own state. To no longer accept that the name Israel be juxtaposed to the swastika, as if the repression of Palestinians could be compared to the extermination of millions of Jews, of Gypsies, of mentally ill and of 'useless Slavic mouths'..."

What you have above is called clarity.

I think this debate is related to the larger issue we in North America call "diversity of tactics. A moral and intellectual flabbiness seems to have become prominent in so-called alternative movements to the point where 'anything goes'.

Vidal and others disagree.There are certain things which simply 'do not go'.

Denying reality does not make it go away.

What Vidal and the movements he is associated with are doing is to stake out a clear moral and political position: anti-Semites will be confronted, their slogans banned, their placards ripped away, their members kicked out of demos, their publications denounced...

Here in Canada, on the other hand, we are supposed to tolerate in our midst racist groups like the Concordia University branch of the Scoiety for Palestinian Human Rights. At their activities: Jews with skull caps have been assaulted, swastikas have been painted next to Jewish symbols like the Star of David, they write about "Zionist" control of the media (code word for we know who)...

That is called anti-Semitism. People like that should be confronted and removed from any movements that call themselves "progressive".

I think we in North America are often too wishy-washy and are afraid of openly criticizing, all in the name of some misguided "diversity of tactics". Just because we are against A and group B is also against A does not mean B is on the same side.

[ 18 December 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]

[ 18 December 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]

There has been plenty of anti-semitic discrimination and at times violence in North America, but nothing comparable to pogroms, the Holocaust or even to such virulent outbreaks of violent hate as the Semana Tragica in Argentina. Comparable incidents in North America have targeted Blacks and Aboriginals, not Jews and Roma.

There is a lot of controversy as to what actually happened at Concordia and whether SPHR was involved in any shoving incidents with "Jews wearing skullcaps".

This of course leads to another issue, as a "Jew wearing a skullcap", just like a Muslim wearing Muslim garb or a Catholic with a big cross and a Roman collar can be an utter pig. We've seen plenty of the latter at "pro-lifer" demos that intimidated women at abortion clinics and worse. Religion can be a shield for vicious hatred.

quote:

---

they write about "Zionist" control of the media (code word for we know who)...

---

Or maybe it isn't a code word, and they mean "Zionist."

While your examples have relevance in France, where antisemitism does seem to be rising, I don't know if Canadian leftists ought to be tarred with the same brush, simply because our situation is different.

When we criticize the treament of Palestinians by Israelis we are talking about acts that the State of Israel supports. This has nothing to do with Europeans' historic antisemitism, pogroms or the Holocaust. Speaking for myself, Israelis could be Shintoists for all the difference their religion makes.

Things might be different in the urban East, but in the West, (David Ahenakew excepted) we don't hear much about antisemitism. It seems to be more a potential problem, and something to be vigilant against, than something that is currently happening.

There is racism here, and one group is targetted; members of its community are frequently killed, beaten and generally discriminated against, but there seems to be no hand-wringing about it. The problem is widespread, open and nobody talks about it.

[ 18 December 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

While Mimi claims to have heard nasty things at demonstrations, that tars demonstrators, not leftists. (And I do recall the last "I heard it at
a demonstration" argument on Babble; the poster later claimed that he it was spoken in Arabic and that was why no one else knew it had occurred.)

I have absolutely no doubt that there is antisemitism among Arabs....I have heard it myself, and have read Ku Klux Klan ravings in the Arab English press. But among Canadian leftists, I cannot point to an article, cannot show the proven use of a sign at a demonstration, and have not heard an overtly antisemitic comment.

The most I can say is that I have heard some leftists apply a stricter standard to Israel than to Arab regimes.

On the other hand, right wing antisemitism is rife, and far more virulent than anything one can read in left-wing publications in Canada.

It has to do with how we should react to those incidents or sentiments, rare though they may be for now here in Canada as compared to France and Europe, when political commentary crosses the line into the territory of racism, in this case anti-Semitism. It can apply to anything derogatory or discriminatory too, like when statica wrote about the silence and complicity of her activist colleagues when confronted with instances of rape in their midst.

Perhaps until now, we have been mostly silent because we are embarassed. Along the lines of "I can't believe so and so really said that... I must have misunderstood. They can't really have meant to say negative things about the Jews in general as a people..."

I have seen a lot of that in the Middle East debate, especially from the ultra left and from the more extreme Arab nationlist and anti-imperialist factions. On the same Web site, you wll find links to Uri Avinery and to your kook Shamir, to Chomsky and David Duke, to Fisk and Tariq Ramadan. People using any argument critical of Israel, whether it is rational and principled human rights and anti-oppression thinking or part of rightwing conspiracy theory roted in anti-semitism.

I find this to be a form of political immaturity and moral foolishness. And many of us are too afraid to raise our voices to confront nonsense when we see it. This is what Dominique Vidal is talking about: There is a rational case to be made against the occupation policy of the Israeli authorities, that can be grounded on a politics that simultaneously tackles anti-semitism and Islamophobia (for lack of a better term). Let's be sure to always make this clear and to oppose arguments based on racial and ethnic stereotypes about Jews that have no place in the debate.

[ 18 December 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]

quote:

---

Or perhaps, we have a little politically correct censor in our brains that prevents us from saying "stop, I don't care who you are, that is just wrong". Maybe, the unconscious pattern is: "they are Palestinian, Eritrean, Sri Lankan, Quechua, Muslim, Acadian, etc. Therefore, I can't criticise any individuals from those groups if they happen to say something stupid or racist."

---

Do you mean the way we excused David Ahenakew's comments?

This Canadian leftist antisemitism that you're talking about seems to me to be more rumours of racism rather than anything that is actually happening.

quote:

---

The most I can say is that I have heard some leftists apply a stricter standard to Israel than to Arab regimes.

---

Y'see, even this charge bothers me, at least as I have seen it levelled on babble.

Let's try an experiment:

Step up, anyone, everyone, all you babblers who have a nice word to say about the House of Saud.

C'mon, c'mon. Don't be shy. One word? One? Nice? Word?

Gee, but the silence is deafening, ain't it?

jeff house, the point is this -- well, the serious political point is this:

For most people on the left, the first and deepest problem we face, from which all further analysis flows, is USian imperialism and the ways it is manifest and exercised at present all over the face of the earth.

From that perspective, while it would be a little reductive to say that there are no distinctions to be made among USian client states, the fact remains that the left must focus critically on any and all USian client states. Israel is one of them. Saudi Arabia is another.

Now, if there were anyone coming to babble to defend the policies of the state/government of Saudi Arabia, I would expect those threads to become fairly heated. I mean: wouldn't you?

But no such person has ever showed up. Apologist for the House of Saud? I can't think of a one, actually. Well, not on babble. There have been times when I've wondered about Thomas Friedman in the NYT, but that's another story, and hey, we all like a good dinner sometimes, don't we?

Fleche: Faire flèche de tout bois. To turn every event into a cause of censure. To make whatever wood falls in your path an arrow to discharge at your adversary.

I've heard it more in the second sense. Not only "by any means necessary", but somewhat akin to the old (and untrue) Maoist saying: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I haven't read anything by Dr Shahak. I know many Israelis who share fears of how their State is being hijacked by (Jewish) religious fundamentalists.

quote:

---

The most I can say is that I have heard some leftists apply a stricter standard to Israel than to Arab regimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Y'see, even this charge bothers me, at least as I have seen it levelled on babble.

Let's try an experiment:

Step up, anyone, everyone, all you babblers who have a nice word to say about the House of Saud.

C'mon, c'mon. Don't be shy. One word? One? Nice? Word?

---

Quite.

Another issue raised by Mimi's invocation of "The Arab" is that Israelis and Arabs are supposedly two inherently hostile camps, and n'er the twain shall meet. The whole Middle East discourse on babble is fraught with this two-value orientation, which seeps into nearly every situation.

Regarding Israel, babble's leftists are doing what leftists have always done - opposing colonial rule. Rightists, on the other hand, such as Berlusconi and, well, Stockwell Day, favour Israel's colonial project.

Hence, rightists good - leftists bad, in the Zionist view.

Rather than admitting the real reason why leftists oppose Israeli policies, which would open the possibility to some uncomfortable self-analysis, Zionists haul out the "antisemite" club, and attempt to beat the criticism into silence.

Perhaps those who accuse us of being either latent or overt antisemites could explain what there is about leftists that causes us to be antisemitic.

I don't think that anyone is denying that there are antisemites among leftists. There are wife-beaters, gamblers and alcoholics as well. Is the left being smeared as a pack of drunkards?

[ 18 December 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

The right may state: "the Left is anti-Semitic".

No one here has stated that. The statement is quite different: "what is the right or the most fruitful or most rational way to deal with elements - rare though they may be - of anti-Semitism that may arise among the Leftwing movements we come across?"

The first statement uses a broad brush for polemical reason, as means to discredit criticism of Israeli politics.

The other statement seeks to establish a solid moral centre from which to debate issues. The same would apply to sexism on the Left (I refer to statica's writing about silence on the issue of rape in her activist circles), drug taking on the Left, or drunkenness on the Left, or Islamopobia on the Left, or deception on the Left

quote:

---

No one here has stated that. The statement is quite different: "what is the right or the most fruitful or most rational way to deal with elements - rare though they may be - of anti-Semitism that may arise among the Leftwing movements we come across?"

---

So this little excercise has been nothing more than making mountains out of molehills?

Another thing; where do you get off by saying "The statement is quite different..."? Wilfred Day's original post makes no such statement, so take your condescending attempt at telling me what the boundaries of discussion are and file it where the Dewey Decimal System don't shine.

I don't know your reasons for getting into this, mimichekele2, perhaps a slow day at the office, but this accusation has been thrown around here quite freely, so I see no reason not to take issue with it.

I notice you haven't provided much in the way of solutions to anything, but your backhanded criticisms are appreciated.

[ 18 December 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Let's try an experiment:

Step up, anyone, everyone, all you babblers who have a nice word to say about the House of Saud.

---

In fairness, try another experiment: go to the Middle East forum and count the number of threads devoted to Saudi Arabia, and the number devoted to Israel. For further fun, add in some others with bad track records, like Syria or Lebanon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

In fairness, try another experiment: go to the Middle East forum and count the number of threads devoted to Saudi Arabia, and the number devoted to Israel. For further fun, add in some others with bad track records, like Syria or Lebanon.

Who comes out on top? Sure, nobody is going to defend the House of Saud, but is anyone going out of their way to criticize it, like they do Israel? Has anyone ever tried to compare Saud to the Third Reich? What about other progressive boards... do they seem to be fixed on IsraelIsraelIsrael? If so, do you suppose that's significant of anything?

---

What has happened to those threads? Well, mainly nothing. A few people show up to recount how deeply corrupt they are, and then ... they die. They go where so many uncontentious babble threads go ... to the babble graveyard.

quote:

---

If so, do you suppose that's significant of anything?

---

quote:

---

And why? Because there is nothing to contend! Everyone knows that the Saudis are corrupt and decadent, and besides that's where the main support for al-Qaeda comes from, so ... I mean, Magoo: have you ever had anything much to add to that PATENTLY OBVIOUS FACT OF CURRENT LIFE???

---

But surely skdadl, you've already reached that point with Israel haven't you? Israel oppresses the Palestinians, so what else is new? Why do you and Arch-Q'bong continue to harp on the PATENTLY OBVIOUS FACT OF CURRENT LIFE that Israel is an oppressive, racist state? Surely it can't be because there's one or two babblers lurking around defending Israeli policies can it? Are you trying to say that once you've purged opinions on the Israeli/Arab conflict that you don't like, then the constant criticism of Israel on these boards is going to dry up?

quote:

---

But it doesn't get debated because people don't really think there's anything to debate. Any thread about Saudi Arabia would basically be, "Hey, did you hear? They stoned another woman there." "Yeah, that sucks." "Sure does." End of thread.

---

Why 'end of thread'? Why not "Let's organize a march!"?

Why not "Let's make a big 'Down With Syria' banner and bring it to the next event"?

quote:

---

Yes, it signifies that a self-proclaimed liberal democracy is held to a higher standard, as it should be.

---

Crap. Every country or state should be held to the same high standards. If you feel they don't meet the terms of a liberal democracy then by all means treat them like a tinpot dictatorship. But you have no grounds to treat them worse than the neighbouring tinpot dictatorships.

quote:

---

And why? Because there is nothing to contend!

---

Hehe. So the only reason we have a Middle East forum is because we have a Mishei? I mean it's not like there's acres and acres of deep debate going on over Israel; it's mostly Mishei versus about 7 regulars who take tag-team turns countering him. And while it's true that no babbler I know of has ever said "Saudi Arabia is Good", I don't think even Mishei says "Israel is Good". At best, I think he says "Israel isn't as bad as everyone seems to want to think". And by the time Israel is compared to Nazi Germany for the dozenth time, I think he may have a point.

quote:

---

Just a wild guess but most people think resolving the Isreali/Palistinian issue is the lynchpin of any long term peace and prosperity in the entire region, and therefore garners the lionshare of attention?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by worker_drone:
But surely skdadl, you've already reached that point with Israel haven't you? Israel oppresses the Palestinians, so what else is new? Why do you and Arch-Q'bong continue to harp on the PATENTLY OBVIOUS FACT OF CURRENT LIFE that Israel is an oppressive, racist state?

---

Magoo, you wanna talk about Saudi Arabia, you just start talking and I'll try to keep up. I promise. Deal? My real specialty is Afghanistan, which almost nobody has wanted to talk about lately, but I try to be versatile.

About Mishei's position on Israel, Magoo: I can well understand why you and others might not have wanted to follow all the threads in which that position has been developed -- or, more precisely, not developed at all, but held firmly -- but it seems to me that Mishei has been unmoved over the last two years on the same position that R/R/B take above: anyone who questions the status of Israel as "the only Jewish state" is an anti-Semite. Period dot. That is the position.

That is also the source of most of the heat of those threads. There are people who don't agree with Mishei or R/R/B, who find themselves therefore labelled anti-Semites, and who are therefore incensed.

Yes, it's stupid. We all know it's stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Thought you were pretty much a non-imbiber, Doc.

---

quote:

---

Because there are people like you around who will defend Israel's racist and oppressive policies

---

Well then, surely you should be able to point to a post of mine where I defend Israel's racist and oppressive policies. If you can't (and you can't) then doesn't that make you just as guilty as those who smear "the left" with unfounded accusations of anti-semitism?

Seems to me that those complaining the loudest against unjustified smears are also those quickest to throw a smear or two themselves.

quote:

---

surely you should be able to point to a post of mine where I defend Israel's racist and oppressive policies. If you can't (and you can't)

---

Sadly, Michelle, I am gonna be forced to agree here with wd.

Over herre, you say this:

quote:

---

We're all very comfortable describing what happened during the war of 1948 as Isreali ethnically cleansing their territory of Arabs. But when we talk of dismantling the illegal Isreali settlements in the occupied territories why do we resort to these phoney euphamisms? The end result is that Palestinian territory has to be ethnically cleansed of Jewish settlers.

But no no no no! Our "side" doesn't believe in ethnic cleansing! It's "justice" or "correcting historical wrongs" or "we're offended because the settlements are illegal"! Not ethnic cleansing. That's something only those awful Israelis would support. Not good moral decent people like us!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by worker_drone:
Well then, surely you should be able to point to a post of mine where I defend Israel's racist and oppressive policies. If you can't (and you can't) then doesn't that make you just as guilty as those who smear "the left" with unfounded accusations of anti-semitism?

Seems to me that those complaining the loudest against unjustified smears are also those quickest to throw a smear or two themselves.

Geeze I'm beginning to love the word, "smear".

---

quote:

---

I submit that your attempt to turn around the logic of "ethnic cleansing" and claim that requiring Israeli...blah blah blah

---

You're grasping here Doc. The settlements are illegal under international law are they not? By the same logic, does recognizing the fact that there are thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants in the US naturally mean that one must support their forcible removal from American soil?

quote:

---

Why 'end of thread'? Why not "Let's organize a march!"?

Why not "Let's make a big 'Down With Syria' banner and bring it to the next event"?

---

Were you the captain of your school's dodgeball team?

Shifting from babble discussions to organizing marches...

By all means, organize the next event with the same enthusiasm with which you have started threads on countries that aren't Israel.

Not only that, the times I have tried to defend mishei and Philip Berger (who I believe is a great humanitariian)I too have been quickly accused of being a "friend" of his and therefore my critique is worthless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zisel:

I think many here should look a bit more closely at their words.

---

quote:

---

Back to the thread topic; nobody has yet explained what there is about leftists that makes us antisemites

---

quote:

---

Shifting from babble discussions to organizing marches...

---

Er, ya. The topic is "the left" (not that I like the term). You don't think it's odd that while anti-Israel banners and signs can be seen at all kinds of actions, no other country (well, OK, the USA maybe) seems to warrant its own banners? Everyone's just resigned to the problems elsewhere, and that's it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
You don't think it's odd that while anti-Israel banners and signs can be seen at all kinds of actions, no other country (well, OK, the USA maybe) seems to warrant its own banners?

---

First, let's define what you mean by "anti-Israel banners and signs". Maybe I'm ignorant, but I've never seen a protest sign that says "I hate Israel and Israelis". I've seen banners that say "Stop the Occupation" or "Free Palestine". But I've also seen banners like these used for other countries. What about "Free Tibet" banners? Before September 11th, a bunch of my friends held a fundraising event for the campaign to help women in Afghanistan. What about OCAP's protests of the Korean government's treatment of workers?

quote:

---

...but I don't think it's for nothing either.

---

OK, out with it already.

What's it for?

This innuendo and sleight of keyboard is getting old.

The issue isn't whether Israel is the worst country in the world or the region or around the block, The isssue is and always has been apartheid and oppression based on race. There is no other counr=try in the region, I am aware of, that is building a fence around large parts of an indigenous population, militarily occupies that population, denies basic requiremnets of life from food and medicines to water, and engages in daily rituals of humiliation, torture and other barbarisms strictly on the basis of race.

I you don't get that it, it is either because a) you don't want to b) maybe you are really okay with it or c) you are an idiot.

quote:

---

OK, out with it already.

---

If I knew, I'd have said by now. All I know is that it's like listening to pit bull owners who say the only reason they chose that particular breed is because they like the looks of them. It just has a smell. Feel free and ignore me if you disagree of course... that's all I can offer.

quote:

---

You tell me which it is.

---

quote:

---

...an abbreviation of George W. ideas could be pronounced "Geo Wish"?

---

I'm off my form. I usually see those "hidden puns" right away.