Fear Of Standing Up To Israel
by Tangerine
lifted from a comment
Malooga had a long top post about the Zionist control of US policy here.
I wanted to add something.
Outside, or rather around, the actions and methods described in the
post, there is a potent fear of standing up to Israel, of offending
Jews, or even daring to imagine that one could treat ‘them’ like
everyone else, or argue against their demands, or tell them get over it already etc. Israeli / Jewish exceptionalism is accepted, it is part of the culture.
That is the reason why it is so important for Israel to maintain the
very particular status of the Holocaust, to render it holy and
other-worldly; to enforce a view of Jews as victims of continuing,
grave, overt or subterranean anti-semitism (this acts on Jews
themselves, particularly the expats who then may adhere to the ‘safe
haven’ idea, even if they don’t consider that relevant to themselves
personally.) Israel and its lobbies, clout, have accomplished this by
forcing others to adopt anti-racist, anti-anti-semitic,
anti-revisionist, anti-negationist, etc. laws, stances, opinions,
views, etc., and generally obliging others to treat Jews as special,
thus separate.
Israel fears attacks on this dimension perhaps more than anything else.
It also is apprehensive of any movement, any shift, in any direction because it finds itself in the paradoxical position of having to defend, uphold, exaggerate the existence of anti-semitism, while ostensibly objecting to it and acting to eliminate it. Jews are at the same time exceptional people with a unique past, but must be treated like everyone else. A similar double image exists for Israel itself: an extraordinary country with status or privileges like no other, yet, the only normal ‘capitalist democracy’ in the Middle East.
Example. One occasion, public and typical: Saturday is traditionally (and still by law) a working day in Switzerland. Schools and all educational institutions ran activities on Saturday morning. In 1993 (iirc, my son was 7 I think) Saturday morning school, to 16 years, was dropped, but all higher education, apprenticeship to doctoral level, continued, on occasion, to run ‘obligatory’ activities on Saturday, for practical reasons.
In 1995, the anti-racist laws were voted in. A few years later, the Jewish lobby woke up and ...oh yes... tried to get Saturday school banned. The Swiss law contains a provision that states refusing public service to someone because of their ethnicity, religion, provenance (etc.) is punishable by... - the idea was that Jewish students were being refused the opportunity to take exams (typically often scheduled on a Saturday) because they were not allowed to accept the service offered.. that Saturday school was racist, anti-semitic, that Jewish students required special treatment (in fact forbidden by the same laws)...and on and on it went.
I was amazed to see high officials, figures of authority, politicians, on the ground teachers, students, secretaries, my neighbor, take this crackpot proposal seriously and argue clumsily for a Jewish exception. Passions ran high ... finally the demand died mysteriously and was never mentioned again. Everyone breathed a exhausted sigh of relief. All through this nothing was heard from the Jewish students themselves. (The very few orthodox ones were accommodated anyway.)
By the way, the Swiss Commission that votes on suspending military sales to foreign countries voted during the Gaza invasion NOT to suspend delivery to Israel, to my astonishment - they have done it often in the past.
Posted by b on January 25, 2009 at 12:33 UTC | Permalink
Well and coherently said Tangerine. You have just significantly enhanced my intellectual ammunition cache.
Just before reading this I had read a promotional letter written by Lewis H. Lapham, of Harpers renown, soliciting my subscription to Lapham’s Quarterly (Lapham is always a good read for me). I quote:
Somewhere in the abyss of the Internet (63 million pages in English of the War on Terror, 8 million pages linked to Anna Nicole Smith) you might find something useful, beautiful, or true, but the odds are very long. Browse the immense librtary of lifeless prose, search the abundant shelves of disinformation, scroll down the lilst of aggrieved sarcasms, and at the end of the day what is it that you actually have learned?
This blog beats the odds by a long shot and comments/headlines like this, which are the rule and not the exception, are the reason why. Thanks Tangerine, b, and many others here.
Posted by: Juannie | Jan 25 2009 14:43 utc | 2
WRT to 1, I should have added that the story as it appeared yesterday on television made perfectly clear that the plight of Gazans - the traumatized children, physical devastation, and homeless people - was a humanitarian catastrophe and aid was greatly needed. The report stated the BBC's refusal to run a relief ad for aid based on a rationale of "impartiality" could easily be seen as political (i.e. fear-driven) and was laughable on its face, if it weren't so tragic in the larger context of human suffering.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 25 2009 14:59 utc | 3
As a Jew, I have a choice. That choice is to be equal or to not be equal. If I want equality I have no choice but to attack a Jewish theocracy.
At its minimum, a theocracy must decide who is, and who is not part of the group. This alone is enough to deny me my freedom. When whom I marry is vetted by religious figures, when my own religious wants and needs are vetted by a state who is deciding, very much like someone else not that long ago, who is and who is not a Jew – the choice I have is between freedom and conformity.
That conformity must be maintained against the outside and against the inside. Palestinians as a stand in for Nazi Germany (and if they aren’t we will brutalize them to such an extent that they learn to despise us so it is easier to pretend), anti-Semitism as just beneath the surface in the west (and if it isn’t there it needs to be created and nurtured), and for the inside - self-haters and kapo’s for those who fail to adhere to the tenants of the true faith, and a unified “free” Jewish utopia without meaningful descent - for the faithful of god’s chosen. Hell on earth for the Palestinians, and soul destroying for the Jews.
Posted by: edwin | Jan 25 2009 15:12 utc | 4
Also from the Guardian link in 1:
"Most of us feel that the BBC's defence of its position is pathetic, and there's a feeling of real anger - made worse by the fact that contractually we are unable to speak out."
Dam breaking?
The satellite broadcaster Sky said it was "considering" broadcasting the appeal.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 25 2009 15:15 utc | 5
edwin,
thanks for your thoughts. I remarked some time ago that the only way this travesty of special alliance and special treatment could ever be changed would be from the inside. Just as US blacks are allowed to call each other nigger when such a word coming from a white would result in either bodily harm or a lawsuit the same phenomenon applies to jews being critical of other jews. Glenn Greenwald can say basically the same things Pat Buchanan did and no one will call him a nazi and Malooga can write things that you might find on David Duke's homepage referring to the alleged control by jews of US media and politics without being attacked as an anti-semite.
the fact that this happens gives me encouragement. I wish more people could have the scales lifted from their eyes. but before anything can be done, US jews have got to be able to accept criticism and therein lies the rub. US jews are US citizens and as such do not accept criticism from anyone. the sense of being exceptional is there twice, in whichever order you choose.
so I guess in order to change the way of thinking one would have to be a self hating american AND a self hating jew. that may be tough to pull off.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 25 2009 16:27 utc | 6
dos
given the current state of our poor globe - i would have thought it not tough - but a necessary one, to pull of because our essential humanity needs to be guarded, at all costs
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 25 2009 16:43 utc | 7
It is almost a commonplace that the 'slant' of American news (call it a 'gag' of news if one assumes there is an original objective force that is stifled) in the main stream media that has been under the sway of the notion of Israeli exceptionalism for decades.
Periodically, hope seems to bubble up that the situation is changing. But we all remember the 2004 democratic convention when Hoard Dean self-destructed by simply uttering the word “even-handed” as a goal for American ME diplomacy. The influence of AIPAC on the US political and media scene is of course legion.
On the journalistic front, a commenter on The Washington Note asked its host (Steve Clemons)"Hey Steve next time you are on Rachel’s wonder if you could let her know many of us see how she sold out to MSM on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. When will she talk about what has really gone on in the Gaza?" The commenter also noted "Olberman will not touch this either". I don't keep up with these shows except as I see excerpts posted, but I it is clear that Rachel Maddow is the darling of the left media watchers.
Is there a danger that the Israeli exceptionalist types, and their knowing or unknowing collaborators, can ever possibly overplay their hand to where there is a backlash (which in itself will be used as proof of exceptionalism)? You know, I really doubt it. Israeli exceptionalism seems to have burrowed into the psyche, at least in the US, almost as deeply as has American exceptionalism, exemplified by the fallacious but accepted assumption that American and Israeli interests coincide.
Maybe the Brits can lead the way on this, but I'm not very hopeful.
Posted by: DonS | Jan 25 2009 17:01 utc | 8
It is almost a commonplace that the 'slant' of American news (call it a 'gag' of news if one assumes there is an original objective force that is stifled) in the Main stream media that has been under the sway of the notion of Israeli exceptionalism for decades.
Periodically, hope seems to bubble up that the situation is changing. But we all remember the 2004 democratic convention when Hoard Dean self-destructed by simply uttering the word “even-handed” as a goal for American ME diplomacy. The influence of AIPAC on the US political and media scene is of course legion.
On the journalistic front, a commenter on The Washington Note asked its host (Steve Clemons)"Hey Steve next time you are on Rachel’s wonder if you could let her know many of us see how she sold out to MSM on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. When will she talk about what has really gone on in the Gaza?" The commenter also noted "Olberman will not touch this either". I don't keep up with these shows except as I see excerpts posted, but I it is clear that Rachel Maddow is the darling of the left media watchers.
Is there a danger that the Israeli exceptionalist types, and their knowing or unknowing collaborators, can ever possibly overplay their hand to where there is a backlash (which in itself will be used as proof of exceptionalism)? You know, I really doubt it. Israeli exceptionalism seems to have burrowed into the psyche, at least in the US, almost as deeply as has American exceptionalism, exemplified by the fallacious but accepted assumption that American and Israeli interests coincide.
Maybe the Brits can lead the way on this, but I'm not very hopeful.
Posted by: DonS | Jan 25 2009 17:10 utc | 9
as debs noted in the open thread -the so called 'left' in the u s coverage was without question, a cause for shame for those who are really internationalists. hufffington post neing the most extreme example of celebrating the crimes that only a week ago we were all condemning bush
i am just waitinf for the further demonisation of people like chomsky & zinn by this so called left
there is at dkos, firedoglake - an infantilism about legislative or judical process - as if they actuallly meant anything - wholly inappropriate under the circumstance
the world has changed & obama is to be credited for comprehending that - but it is not the elites any longer who are making the decisions. they are falling apart at the seams. yes, they are capable of bringing great horror even catastrophe but as a force - they now have to rely almost completely on either coercion or complicity
what is evident in this world is clear on the streets of iceland, of greece, of the arab & south asian world. on the streets & parliaments of latin america. it is also true of our american friends - the only real possibility is that on each question - they do not go to sleep at the wheel but make everything a question of survival - which it is - if not for them today - it certainly will be tommorrow
& it is not only possible but necessary to delineate all the time between jewish people & their history, the state of israel & of the sect of zionism
gaza, for example - showed how deeply flawed the israel peace movement was (to be fair their demonstations of between 10 &20,000 were never written or accorded their proper context) but there were commentors like gideon levy & others who were equally as harsh as israels severest critics - but what is important to me that in demonstrations all over the world against the crimes of israel - jewish participation was at an all time high. there has always been a significant jewish critique of israel from the diaspora but today it possesses more weight & it has gone past any ambivalence - i think this rupture - is a very very important one
as i have sd here often enough in the last week israel has delegitimised itself - not least from the jewish diaspora who will feature in the leadership of movements against israel & its crimes, as they were in the liberation of south africa
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 25 2009 17:34 utc | 10
One need not be a "self hating jew" unless one feels that label is appropriate.
The challenge for people of conscience is to correctly place the blame for state sponsored tragedies like Gaza, upon the state instigating the violence.
We don't blame the Iraq war on christian kooks, but america's political body, the same should be done for any conflict.
The MSM has everyone thinking every war can be defined as Muslim vs Jew vs Christian (or by a political belief, which doesn't sell as well these days), when the real cause of these conflicts are for control of resources. It is much easier to get people to die for a god than it is for a barrel of oil.
Unfortunately, there are people of jewish faith who feel supporting israel's political boundaries is the same as supporting their religious/cultural heritage, and these are the folks who fan the flames of hate against their people.
It's as if we're on a playground and a developmentally challenged youth is beating up another kid. The adults that can see this are standing too far away to help, the closer-by teacher has her back turned, and doesn't see or is ignoring the conflict. The adults watching can't remember the violent kid's name, and they are too sensitive to yell-out that the retarded kid is beating the hell out of a kid, and could the nearby teacher do something about it?
Well, maybe that isn't the best way to frame what I'm trying to say, so rather than dig myself deeper in the doo, I'll just end saying that the world needs to stop thinking that israel = Judaism = ethnic Jews. These are three different things, just like peanut butter, jelly and bread are three different foods. They may be combined in various different ways; like in a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (Mmm food good!) that then become its own unique food, but...Damn I'm hungry... I'll better just shut up and eat a sandwich. :)
Posted by: David | Jan 25 2009 17:52 utc | 11
thank you Tangerine, b, and Hamburger. i read that article about the bbc last night, and bookmarked it post it today.
the amount of anger towards israel keeps growing and growing, it will remain impossible to stifle the criticism. like a balloon ready to burst. as the atrocities continue it will become impossible for decent people everywhere to remain silent.
israel uses the protections of its citizens as a crutch, an excuse to carry out these atrocities but it does much more than that. it pretends it is defending all jews, that it speaks for all jews. it wears a mantel of protector that thrives and sustains itself on the image of the perpetual victim of all jews. an image that is impossible to maintain, especially for jews who feel victimized by israel. this is not a split i seek to extploit, it is a natural split, a split that will be israels undoing. not the palestinians, not muslims, and not israels. the world jewry cannot sustain itself as united without the next generation which is turning against it, first by the self identification as being part of a larger whole (ie: global citizen european or american), to be identified as unified w/decency and human rights, desire to distance itself from crimes against humanity. this split has been there for a long time, but as it expands so goes israel. it will come down to the elite, and the masses.
Posted by: annie | Jan 25 2009 17:59 utc | 12
This is one of the best threads I can remember on this excellent site. Especially liked Edwin's self-confession, and Giap's confident belief that deep changes are coming and are on our side.
I believe that Israel is self-destructing, driving away its younger generation, and ramping up Arab hatred to the point that the corrupt Arab regimes won't be able to contain it. I hope that the same US elite who finally recognized that Bush policies were a disaster to their self-interests, will finally see that support of Israel is a disaster too.
Posted by: seneca | Jan 25 2009 18:02 utc | 13
i see while i was typing others made my point better than i could have. thanks!
Posted by: annie | Jan 25 2009 18:02 utc | 14
dons, i have watch maddow blast the gaza situation w/a segment on the press being not allowed in, her reporter being on the wall outside gaza night after night reporting live telling of all the reporters frustrations at not being allowed any access except idf spokespeople giving talking pts of how to address the attack. she also said (paraphrasing) criticizing israel in a PC fashion can be very challenging (with one of her not quite winks, eyes shift downward, eyebrows raised). she may have 'sold out' to some degree, but better her than one who would be pulled of the air w/out a seconds notice like what happened to maher when he challenged the concept the 'terrorists' were cowards. bam, in one night, lost his show.
she actually covered gaza almost every night during the invasion, at least the ones i was watching.
Posted by: annie | Jan 25 2009 18:15 utc | 15
On a more positive side, it's worth citing Uri Avnery's latest piece. I liked it a lot, and it goes to confirm partly seneca's I believe that Israel is self-destructing. Though I myself am not certain Israel can remake itself, as Avnery suggests. But the idea of Israeli politicians as dinosaurs faced with 21st century Obama seemed to me good.
Posted by: Alex | Jan 25 2009 18:24 utc | 16
Thanks Annie, like I said, I don't keep up with these shows, and I don't want to tar anyone wholesale or unfairly.
But I would like to see a concerted pro 'even-handed' media push even 1/10th force of the Israel backing.
Posted by: DonS | Jan 25 2009 18:31 utc | 17
uri avnery mentions this
And not only for him. The real victor of the war is a man who had no part in it at all: Avigdor Liberman. His party, which in any normal country would be called fascist, is steadily rising in the polls. Why? Liberman looks and sounds like an Israeli Mussolini, he is an unbridled Arab-hater, a man of the most brutal force. Compared to him, even Netanyahu looks like a softie. A large part of the young generation, nurtured on years of occupation, killing and destruction, after two atrocious wars, considers him a worthy leader.
& it is not unimportant to note that like a great many politicians liberman & his family are under investigation for corruption
it seems that corruption & violence go hand in hand in israel
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 25 2009 18:42 utc | 18
Slightly ot - an authoritative piece on Israel's involvement in building Hamas. May come in handy for the next hasbara asault: How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank."When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake," says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early '90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. "But at the time nobody thought about the possible results."
...
Mr. Segev says he had regular contact with Sheikh Yassin, in part to keep an eye on him. He visited his mosque and met the cleric around a dozen times. It was illegal at the time for Israelis to meet anyone from the PLO. Mr. Segev later arranged for the cleric to be taken to Israel for hospital treatment. "We had no problems with him," he says.In fact, the cleric and Israel had a shared enemy: secular Palestinian activists.
was that the WSJ op ed b?
excellent link alex, i recommend
Where are the American Jews? The overwhelming majority of them voted for Obama. They will be between the hammer and the anvil – between their government and their natural adherence to Israel. It is reasonable to assume that this will exert pressure from below on the “leaders” of American Jewry, who have incidentally never been elected by anyone, and on organizations like AIPAC. The sturdy stick, on which Israeli leaders are used to lean in times of trouble, may prove to be a broken reed.
exactly
Posted by: annie | Jan 25 2009 19:48 utc | 20
I'm not sure that I penned a self-confession, but that's ok. I really like the idea of a double exceptionalism. It fits in nicely with the "worlds most moral army".
As for one not having to be a self-hating jew - I have been having some interesting conversations on what being a jew means. There has been a rather lot of interest in telling people, as opposed to asking people, whether or not they are a jew. The pope must be jealous. He has long lost that type of power over Christianity.
Self-hating is a slightly different kettle of fish. My understanding is that it was used in Nazi Germany in reference to those Germans who were not sufficiently supportive of the fatherland. In that sense, I am afraid, that being self-hating may not be optional. Jews sans frontiers ran a post that talked about the use of self-hate in Nazi Germany at one point, but I can't find it.
Posted by: edwin | Jan 25 2009 19:50 utc | 21
I'm not sure that I penned a self-confession, but that's ok. I really like the idea of a double exceptionalism. It fits in nicely with the "worlds most moral army".
As for one not having to be a self-hating jew - I have been having some interesting conversations on what being a jew means. There has been a rather lot of interest in telling people, as opposed to asking people, whether or not they are a jew. The pope must be jealous. He has long lost that type of power over Christianity.
Self-hating is a slightly different kettle of fish. My understanding is that it was used in Nazi Germany in reference to those Germans who were not sufficiently supportive of the fatherland. In that sense, I am afraid, that being self-hating may not be optional. Jews sans frontiers ran a post that talked about the use of self-hate in Nazi Germany at one point, but I can't find it.
Posted by: edwin | Jan 25 2009 19:51 utc | 22
edwin
the term 'self-hating' was an insult directed at diaspora jews by right wing israelis after the 1967 war; it has been systematically been used since then by apologists for the crimes of israel or the oppression of palestinians
it is used by goggle headed golem like dershowitz against all & any foe including the courageous magisterial scholar norman finklestein - it is also a term used by the right wing goyim of the little green football type while hiding their antisemitism under their reversed baseball caps
i have never ever heard of it apllied either to the jewry of europe under the nazis - indeed it is more than an insult - it is a historical revisionism. the role raul hilberg speaks of with the judenrats & the jewish counsels created under the nazis is a question of history that while it is complicated is deeply chilling & has nothing to do with self-hate but the conditions of living under occupation
a question whose resonance has important ramifications for the beleagured people palestinian people
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 25 2009 20:27 utc | 23
My understanding was that self-hatred in Germany referred not to Jews, but to those deemed to be "Aryans" who were not supportive of Hitler.
In any case - a search of the internet seems to find a rather large amount of stuff on self-hating Jew, but not so much on where the term originally came from.
Posted by: edwin | Jan 25 2009 21:07 utc | 24
Please see "A Time Comes When Silence is Betrayal" post at gazasiege.org.
Posted by: bea | Jan 25 2009 21:37 utc | 25
Edwin: Excuse me, I should have said "self-examination." I meant it purely as a compliment.
Posted by: seneca | Jan 25 2009 22:43 utc | 27
RE: "self-hating Jew". I've been called it in English and in Yiddish. Several few years ago it used to be fairly unique to call out the RW Zionists on the net, and it usually, rapidly, attracted attention of the truth squad aiming to imtimidate and silence. It's a mark of something, though I'm not prepared to guess what, that attacks on those, Jews and non-Jews, willing to condemn Israeli policies don't go unchallenged these days.
For all too long, the RW Zionist/Israeli apologists have had it both ways: if you were a non-Jewish critic you were anti-Semitic; if you identified as Jewish, you were a self-hater.
My standard response, really a lament, that the blood of my murdered ancestors have been hijacked by right wingers, neocons and the lot; a bunch of thugs.
Posted by: DonS | Jan 25 2009 23:15 utc | 28
newsweek Israel Has Fewer Friends Than Ever, Even In America
this article has one glaring inaccuracy.
Posted by: annie | Jan 25 2009 23:48 utc | 29
speaking of 'self hating jews', check out the meme in this haaretz op ed Israelis who blame Israel are not helping the Palestinians
aside from the 'burning self-hatred', the term 'Israel-hating Israelis' was used almost as much as the term 'the fact' (when there is no fact behind any of it).
Israel-hating Israelis call Operation Cast Lead a war crime. They record the names of each and every Palestinian killed, denounce each and every Israeli action and portray their state as a bully. While the Egyptians are saying that Hamas is largely responsible for the tragedy of Gaza, Israel-hating Israelis place the whole responsibility on their government and military. While the international community silently understands that a sovereign state is duty-bound to protect its citizens' lives, Israel-hating Israelis believe that Israeli lives can be forfeited.
that is just one paragraph.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 0:57 utc | 30
annie, wow, both articles are something - speechless in both cases.
Posted by: sabine | Jan 26 2009 1:18 utc | 31
re-post from the old OT
Levin Says He Now Supports Lynn for Pentagon No. 2
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin today said he is satisfied with steps promised to avoid conflicts of interest if Raytheon Co. executive William J. Lynn is confirmed as deputy secretary of defense.
Levin, a Michigan Democrat whose committee has jurisdiction over the nomination, said in a statement that he supports Lynn and seeks “prompt” action on his nomination by the U.S. Senate.
Lynn is senior vice president in Washington for Raytheon, responsible for overseeing government lobbying for the nation’s fourth-largest defense contractor. He was a registered lobbyist until March 2008. The Pentagon role would include reviewing major weapons programs and setting defense-spending priorities.
Levin yesterday asked the White House to explain why Lynn was granted a waiver from new ethics rules issued by President Barack Obama that ban lobbyists who join his administration for two years from working on issues they were previously involved with.
Isn't Raytheon a company involved in "Crowd Control Technic"/Tasers etc?
Posted by: sabine | Jan 26 2009 1:25 utc | 32
Re. Israel hating Israelis. Why don't they come right out and say 'traitors'?
I know, I know. Special words for special...circumstances.
Lol!
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jan 26 2009 1:37 utc | 33
Why don't they come right out and say 'traitors'?
not creative enough. besides, it doesn't include the word 'hate'. hate is the guilt d'jour.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 1:54 utc | 34
sabine, re my newsweek link, this info is out there w/caveat they never seem to mention there are more dems than rethugs hence 55% of dems is a much larger figure than 55% of republicans. the interesting thing about this article is that it's in newsweek, unless it is in an international edition. and the headline.
i've known for awhile loyalty to israel was over amped by the politicians and the msm, mainly because so many of the jews i know are pissed at israel, and i would imagine they are the canary in the cage. but i REALLY knew when i visited the gov.change site, or whatever its called, and spent an hr there during the 1st or 2nd week of the invasion. it was an 'ask the transition team' survey where poster were allowed to rate the questions. (i posted this before, sorry) i spent an hr plus reviewing and voting on questions and added my own.
'please explain how the obama administration will differentiate between the security of the US, and that of israel?'
'the US just prevented the UN from calling for a ceasefire, how does that serve our national security'?
'why are our tax dollars supporting the official policy of a 2 state solution for I/P'
'why is the US not calling for a ceasefire in gaza?'
it just went on and on and on and on. i hang out on quite a few lefty blogs and didn't see any grand calling for anyone to lobby that site. neither from my palestine listserve or my local anti war listserve. i cannot imagine the WH transition team didn't notice the thousand plus non stop questions about gaza. and its getting worse. the only people not pissed at israel seem to be the people who just don't follow politics, at least in my neck of the woods.
can the politicians keep going on giving israel a blank check forever? even if americans could give a fuck, which many don't? aside from the anti war left, and the people who just don't like slaughter, there are the palin lovers, not big fans of israel those anti semites in the hills of south dakota. you get away from the urban centers and those racists buried in tractorville plus the skin head crowd and their breathen, they are not all big fans of israel.
the neocons are none too popular now and there is a blame factor wrt why the gop has failed, i would imagine at least (i don't really talk to these guys much). is backing israel helping us in iraq? in afghanistan? pakistan? how about turkey? europe? what's the upside? africa? we know. we know why we're supporting them. but for the normal clueless person..the ol 'poor victim that needs protection' myth ain't gonna cut it. most americans aren't that hip on the global domination theory and how israeli coordination is 'essential' in this regard. many americans think pnac is a myth dreamed up by conspiracy theorists. as more and more people wake up and realize this alliance is killing us and killing hope and killing progress and killing morals..is a no win situation except for those at the top.
i give it a decade, max.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 2:33 utc | 35
'why are our tax dollars supporting the official policy of a 2 state solution for I/P'
this should read 'how', not why. these were just off the top of my head as examples. of course many questions were more thought out. hundreds of them. maybe thousands for all i know, i couldn't stay there all day to find out. it was non stop.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 2:38 utc | 36
Olmert promises troops immunity from war-crimes prosecution. In other words, "International law? We don't need no international law! Have a blast out there killing and maiming!".
Given that Olmert has stated that Israel will shield its soldiers from any sort of war crimes prosecution, regardless of their complicity, does this not make him and his cabinet indictable by the ICC? Should the international community be preparing a Nuremberg trial for Israeli leaders?
At least Bush didn't pardon Pollard.
Posted by: Obelix | Jan 26 2009 3:44 utc | 38
annie, why the need now, to get it all out in the open, and with such brutality.
both articles don't mince words, usually the writers of such dirt try at least to use acceptable language.
but the second one you linked to...omg. every second word is self'hating this and self'hating that. If i would not know better, this article could be used to incite trouble, no?
Israel has never given a dime about public opinion, why should they start now. obama authorizing bomb drops in pakistan, and an iraq people killed in their sleep and in their beds - without any Iraqi soldiers present - aren't the US to be just idle bystanders in oh so sovereign iraq by no - sofa anyone?
The pace in which these killingsn seem to get faster and faster, a rollercoaster without end.
what is so different this time, for all of this to happen so blatantly.
Posted by: sabine | Jan 26 2009 4:38 utc | 39
this image is from a link at huffpo, and my first reaction was: crickey! the masses from the "crowning" inauguration of Obama.
It fits the times.
President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address by David Bergman
when these people wake up and demand change it is going to be ugly.
for a better idea of how it should be
La">http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=C5CmMm_SRpM&feature=related/">La belle verte 1
Posted by: sabine | Jan 26 2009 6:19 utc | 41
la">http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=dsh4IXjTeQU&feature=related/">la belle verte 2
Posted by: sabine | Jan 26 2009 6:28 utc | 42
watch around 3:45 - 3:57, the whole movie is good, but i especially like this part.
this movie should be required watching.
Posted by: sabine | Jan 26 2009 7:06 utc | 44
Interesting to see this broadcast on CBS, end of the two state solution
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 26 2009 7:57 utc | 45
How could anyone deny Holocausts happen.
I watched one of them over the last three weeks in Gaza. People guilty of Holocausts should be hanged, as Nurnenburg.
Those guilty of the Gaza holocaust are next --I suppose !
Posted by: boindub | Jan 26 2009 10:55 utc | 46
Find out more about British Red Cross work in Gaza at
http://www.redcross.org.uk/TLC.asp?id=90152
or to donate to our appeal go to www.redcross.org.uk/gazacrisis
Posted by: Stela Yordanova | Jan 26 2009 13:25 utc | 48
The BBC is facing a growing revolt from its own journalists over its decision not to broadcast the Gaza humanitarian aid appeal, with sources reporting "widespread disgust" within its newsrooms.
BBC staff have said they have been told they face the sack if they speak out on the issue and MediaGuardian.co.uk understands that corporation journalists will tomorrow vote on a resolution put forward by the National Union of Journalists condemning the move.
Sources have said there was "fury" at the BBC News morning meeting today about the decision, with news editors saying they had not been consulted on the move not to show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, which is to be broadcast tonight on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five.
The NUJ and fellow broadcasting union Bectu both passed motions over the weekend condemning the BBC's decision. NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear and his counterpart at Bectu, Gerry Morrissey, will also today send a letter to BBC director general Mark Thompson asking him to review it.
Tomorrow the main NUJ chapel at BBC Television Centre will also meet, with staff expected to condemn the decision.
"Feelings are running extremely high and there is widespread disgust at the BBC's top management," one BBC News source said. "There is widespread anger and frustration at the BBC's refusal to allow people to speak out about it."
Posted by: bea | Jan 26 2009 13:29 utc | 49
I may have already posted this link regarding background to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, but it fits in with this thread, so I repeat the posting. I believe I also posted a Caveat lector with regard to the contents, and repeat that too. I would be interested in further confirmation or rebuttal.
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Jan 26 2009 14:04 utc | 50
cloned poster 45, i was amazed to watch 60 minutes last night covering the occupation in the west bank. this is one of the longest running most watched 'news' shows on TV w/the popular 7 pm time slot. i called my mom during commercial break knowing it is her favorite show. she had just viewed it. i was absolutely stunned. what a turnaround.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 15:36 utc | 51
Annie, I was pretty gobsmacked at that segment too.
As for Mark Thompson and BBC impartiality:
The BBC is often accused of an anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Middle East, and recently censured reporter Barbara Plett for saying she "started to cry" when Yasser Arafat left Palestine shortly before his death.Fascinating, then, to learn that its director general, Mark Thompson, has recently returned from Jerusalem, where he held a face-to-face meeting with the hardine Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Although the diplomatic visit was not publicised on these shores, it has been seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country's political class.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 26 2009 15:56 utc | 52
annie @ 51 -
And your mother's reaction? What effect did this segment have on her - change her thinking ...?
I too thought the 60 min report was an amazing piece to see on MSM in USA. Ben Wedeman on CNNI has had good reports from inside Gaza, but don't know if his reporting is aired in US.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 26 2009 19:33 utc | 53
If Israeli was America's 51st state with its native people consisting of African Christians, instead of Arab Muslims, the US would cut off all ties to the Israelis in a heartbeat and throw them all in a dungeon for committing a whole slew of war crimes against the native people of Palestine. But because Bush and now Obama look the other way as Israel commits genocide against Palestinians, this clearly means that both of these presidents have a deep-rooted prejudice against Arab Muslims. This also means that it's no longer true that African Americans are an oppressed minority in the US. Instead, Arab Americans are a minority in the US that are truly oppressed. If this weren't so, then Obama wouldn't think twice about not condemning Israel for its acts of genocide against Palestinians. He'd let the world know, loud and clear, that he regards Jewish Zionists of Israel as nothing more that a bloodthirsty gang of genocidal maniacs!
So anyone who believes that having a president who's a member of a so-called "oppressed minority" automatically means minority oppression is fast becoming a thing of the past in America couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, having a president make such a damn big deal about his particular race, religion, or ethnicity only fans the flame of all forms of bigotry across America. As long as Americans keep electing presidents who view Judo-Christianity as superior to Islam, minority oppression will remain alive and well in America.
Now if the American electorate becomes progressive enough in its thinking to elect an Arab Muslim as POTUS, then America is well on the road to shedding itself of all kinds of bigotry. But to me, I won't be entirely convinced of this until I see a president in the White House who'd rather classify himself as a human secularist than someone of a particular race, religion, or ethnicity!
Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 26 2009 19:59 utc | 54
But because Bush and now Obama look the other way as Israel commits genocide against Palestinians, this clearly means that both of these presidents have a deep-rooted prejudice against Arab Muslims.
cynthia, frankly i think it is too soon to make this assumption. obama appointment of former Senator George Mitchell (arab america, grew up in lebanon) as Middle East Envoy, is a very good sign. here is what uri avnery thinks of this appointment
BETWEEN Israel and the United States a gap has opened this week, a narrow gap, almost invisible – but it may widen into an abyss.The first signs are small. In his inaugural speech, Obama proclaimed that “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers.” Since when? Since when do the Muslims precede the Jews? What has happened to the “Judeo-Christian Heritage”? (A completely false term to start with, since Judaism is much closer to Islam than to Christianity. For example: neither Judaism nor Islam supports the separation of religion and state.)
The very next morning, Obama phoned a number of Middle East leaders. He decided to make a quite unique gesture: placing the first call to Mahmoud Abbas, and only the next to Olmert. The Israeli media could not stomach that. Haaretz, for example, consciously falsified the record by writing - not once but twice in the same issue - that Obama had called “Olmert, Abbas, Mubarak and King Abdallah” (in that order).
Instead of the group of American Jews who had been in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Obama, on his very first day in office, appointed an Arab-American, George Mitchell, whose mother had come to America from Lebanon at age 18, and who himself, orphaned from his Irish father, was brought up in a Maronite Christian Lebanese family.
These are not good tidings for the Israeli leaders. For the last 42 years, they have pursued a policy of expansion, occupation and settlements in close cooperation with Washington. They have relied on unlimited American support, from the massive supply of money and arms to the use of the veto in the Security Council. This support was essential to their policy. This support may now be reaching its limits.
It will happen, of course, gradually. The pro-Israel lobby in Washington will continue to put the fear of God into Congress. A huge ship like the United States can change course only very slowly, in a gentle curve. But the turn-around started already on the first day of the Obama administration.
i think it is too early to tell. more
Mitchell is no stranger to Middle East affairs, as he headed the 2001 US Administration committee tasked with probing the events leading up to the 2000 al-Aqsa Intifada.According to the Washington Post, Mitchell's nomination suggests Obama intends to push for fast progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track. The official announcement about the nomination is expected to be published later Tuesday, once the Senate confirms Hillary Clinton as the new secretary of state.
Mitchell, 75, is considered one of Washington's prominent figures. A former House majority leader, he also served as former US President Bill Clinton's Special Envoy to Northern Ireland.
In late 2000, Clinton tasked him with compiling a report about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the Mitchell Report was turned in after George W. Bush took office.
The report called for an immediate halt to all violence, rebuilding confidence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as a prerequisite to any other move; a full-scale effort by the PA to prevent terrorism; the freezing of Israeli settlement activity and lifting the financial constraints placed on the territories by Israel.
The report also urged Israel to limit its use of deadly force.
The report further stated that while then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to Temple Mount was not the immediate catalyst for the violence, it did serve as a provocative agent.
hamburger, my mom was a little dumbfounded. she doesn't like politics and doesn't like to talk much about it or do much listening cuz i can really get wound up. she especially doesn't like it during family holidays. she has moved alot over the last few years partly because my sister has been taking some college courses and she confirms much of what i say. plus, the economic meltdown i have been warning about (possibly as big as the depression!) took on a whole new life after the fall. before that i think she probably thought i was a little too conspiracy minded. so when i recently brought up gaza (she knows i have serious issues w/israel but we have lots of jewish friends so doesn't think it extends past politics)_she said something about 'all those tunnels/rockets' bla bla bla and i said 'mom' please, and then gave her an earful to which she sort of demurred but probably thought gaza had lots of terrorists bombing israel all the time bla bla bla...so.. she said, yes, i saw it, horrible. and i said i just didn't want you to think i had gone off the deep end or anything and she said no, i never think that anymore anne (because i'm always right!). so i imagine her and her friends will be chatting about this around the dominoes soon, which is one place she gets infected w/'moderate' info. which i always debunk. but i'm usually right about 6 months before her dominoes group hears the news and comes around.
she's 82 but we take 2 mile walks every week and she is very smart and agile, hasn't lost any brain cells yet, knock on wood.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 22:09 utc | 56
anni
i must say my dear, you & mr avnery are putting the most optimistic possible gloss on the mitchell appointment. his report was vacillating if not worse
& the fact are annie - that he did not, has not mentioned the trials of the people of gaza particularly or of the palestinians generally
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 26 2009 22:13 utc | 57
no, he has not. still, i do not think under the circumstances it is early enough to determine it clearly means he has a deep-rooted prejudice against Arab Muslims, which is what i addressed.
furthermore, you may not think it is relevant israel has an election coming up in 2 weeks. you may not think it will impact an election to have the US prez make clear signals how he is going to proceed wrt I/P. i do not see the bemefit at this stage in obama putting his cards/intentions all on the table as i think those plans will be partly determined by who wins the election in israel. obviously the further away from an 'all israel all the time' message from the US, the further to the right the election may go in israel.
that is my opinion, and i'm sticking with it. i am not so sure obama is as in the bag of israel as others here. anyway it goes i am certain it won't be good enough for my taste, but i'm not convinced he's a neocon.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 22:55 utc | 58
annie
read the gideon levy which came out this week - which in a peculiar but truthful way that bibi is in fact less dangerous - gideon levy says he talks a lot but it is the others who have actually started wars
i think gideon levy's analysis is globally pessimistic - that in essence there's not a lot of difference & it is its people who have become so blinded to their own & other's reality
annie, we are friends - but i hope we will not wait for this or that moment or this or that condition, become this or that excuse for obama not saying anything substantial
as far as i see & read - the decaying nature of the u s empire is entangled eternally with the self destructive acts of the state of israel
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 26 2009 23:17 utc | 59
annie-good point about israeli elections@58
I can't believe I'm gonna try defending the new administration, I doubt it will be a habit, but it's good to examine many different viewpoints, even ones contrary to how I normally think.
As obvious as the horrors of Gaza are, aren't there as many equal horrors taking place in other places? Even in america, the glorious god-ordained country where the streets are gold and buildings diamonds, every weekend hundreds of citizens are murdered in cities all over the country-HUNDREDS. In 2007 16,929 people were murdered in the united states (source), doesn't this worry us?
This is just an example of some of the many facets the new president must be dealing with. Imagine how many people are trying to get their agendas noticed, how many countries are calling and demanding this and that.
Gaza is horrible and obvious, but it isn't the only problem facing the new power structure, and as easy as it might be for us to call a genocide what it is and to blame the guilty, there is much more going on in the world we don't know about.
I glanced at a piece linked at "What really happened" which said Obama's rating have dropped 15% since taking office. I'm sure much of this is due to the Gaza situation, though I just glanced at the article Link to story
Maybe Obama is keeping his mouth shut and letting the world open their mouths, telling the israelis, "NO!"
Could Obama be hoping there is enough public outcry against israel that it will give him the political clout to also say something? We won't know for awhile still.
What we do know is that the times they are a changing, and our politicians are going to have to change with us, or we'll change them.
Posted by: David | Jan 26 2009 23:46 utc | 60
but i hope we will not wait for this or that moment or this or that condition, become this or that excuse for obama not saying anything substantial
r'giap, i am not waiting for anything. as i type my pot luck meal for the palestine meeting i am attending to night is cooking in the oven. i just don't see the upside in assuming obama has deep-rooted prejudice. it also doesn't really do me any good to assume what he will do. i can still be totally disgusted about what is happening all over the place.
david As obvious as the horrors of Gaza are, aren't there as many equal horrors taking place in other places?
sure david, so why are you on this thread, go pay attention to what calls out to you.
Posted by: annie | Jan 26 2009 23:51 utc | 61
annie-this interest me; dead americans interest me; Chaos Theory interest me; bunch of kooks spending their time writing this, that and whathaveya interest me. Your bossiness, however, doesn't. :(
Posted by: David | Jan 27 2009 0:07 utc | 62
david, sorry again, i should have addressed some of the points you made a agreed w/and yes, obama has lots on his plate.
there is something about gaza that epitomizes the essense of this madness, the pure design of it (and yes it is by design) and that is why it galvanizes me in particular and also the bloggers for israel often say things like that and it grated on me. like..why aren't i focused on darfur and REAL genocide, although you didn't say that and i'm not saying you did i'm saying my visceral reaction was to have that line jump out at me. (also i am sort of multi tasking on and off my computer the last couple hrs and not fully 'here'. but really, for all the palestinians have gone thru and this seeming futility that permeates the situation..what difference does it make if there are or are not many equal horrors taking place in other places? does that understanding or acknowledgment serve us in terms of solutions? do the murders taking place in american cities really counter the slaughter of palestinians, the slow year after year ethnic cleansing?
yes the prez has to deal with all of americas problems but i don't care. for me what is happening in the middle east is THE MOST important issue. it bothers me more that people are dying on my dime in palestine. what our bombs do i feel more responsible for than americans loosing their jobs. that is just me.
something feels different lately, it feels like a last straw of sorts for peoples patience for israel. other peoples, mine went long ago. and if the climate is right, the awareness we impart now when people are listening , it could be worth more than anytime in the last 10 years, 15 years, i don't know. there could be a tipping pt. my shortness was for brevities sake, not a desire to boss you or anyone around.
Posted by: annie | Jan 27 2009 0:36 utc | 64
annie
in a simple way the crisis of capitalism & its tumultous bushian nightmare -have coalesced into a desire for justice. it is true here in france - where because of france's shameful history in relation to european jewry especially its own under the occupation - that the hoods in israel have just had to drop 'anti-semitism' anywhere & you have an almost complete silence. what has happened in gaza just proves to most people most of the time that there is no justice. & there ought to be. so i see the sympathy with the palestinians here expressing a coherent call for justice at all levels
i am at once dark & & optimistic - i cannot believe that the red wave keeps on going in latin america - it is an example for us all - about simple things & complex questions
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 27 2009 1:12 utc | 66
badger has an interesting take r'giap
And now, as Israeli society contemplates its options in the run-up to national elections on February 10--including the possibility of a Nazi-style citizenship-certificate law--and Hamas leaders are reportedly under continued threat of asassination, the American foreign-policy establishment has fallen silent. Everyone from Brookings to CAP to NSN and including the courtiers and court-watchers at Foreign Policy are finding other things to talk about. And the reason is perhaps not surprising: They have not yet been told what to think, so they are waiting.....
At the time the original Rice axis-of-moderates plan was rolled out, it was widely dismissed as a figment of the crazed mind of the Bush administration. This time, the former critics are now courtiers, and they are silent.
big clip , check it out Listen to the silence
Posted by: annie | Jan 27 2009 1:31 utc | 67
something feels different lately, it feels like a last straw of sorts for peoples patience for israel. other peoples, mine went long ago. and if the climate is right, the awareness we impart now when people are listening , it could be worth more than anytime in the last 10 years, 15 years, i don't know. there could be a tipping pt.
annie, this is what I think too.
I've recognized the hold israel appears to have on american politics, but I could never figure-out a way to express what I thought was happening without sounding bigoted. When I first started delving into the world of alternative news and views, I came across several websites that seemed more racist and hateful than informative. It took me a long time and much searching to find places to read news and find commentary which was asking, and trying to answer, the same questions as me. I'll admit I'm not the brightest lightbulb, and it was hard for me to make the distinction between israel's politics and jewish people, because most of my jewish friends supported what ever israel did, at least on some level, which seemed weird to me. Then I dated a girl whose jewish dad was the most vocal and outspoken opponent of israel, and it was then it jelled for me that not all jewish folks supported israel, that I might not be as bigoted an asshole as I thought.
This is what I see as the biggest change to come out of Gaza – it has forced the world to look at the jewish state and recognize it for the monster it is.
I hope that Gaza might be a tipping point too. With so many Internet sites showing the atrocities committed against the Palestinians alongside a more accurate history of the region, it shows just how insane israel's history is.
When jewish people speak-out against israel, it makes it easier for everyone to speak-out. Hopefully, there will come a tipping point where the average joes and janes of the planet call themselves human, and recognize how much everyone has in common, rather than any of the silly labels (which are just words) we've spent thousands of years killing each other over.
Posted by: David | Jan 27 2009 2:04 utc | 68
Tony Benn to BBC "If you wont broadcast the Gaza appeal then I will myself"
Tony Benn accuses the BBC ON AIR of capitualating to the Israeli Government by refusing to air an appeal for the Gazan people by the Disaster Emergency Commitee (DEC) he then broadcasts the Address himself much to the consternation of the interviewer!
Disaster Emergency Commitee (DEC)
Gaza Crisis
PO BOX 999
LONDON
EC3A 3AA
Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza humanitarian appeal:
Launched by UK charities on 22 January to raise money for Gaza aid relief and reconstruction
Participants: Action Aid, British Red Cross, Cafod, Care International, Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Help the Aged, Islamic Relief, Merlin, Oxfam, Save the Children, Tearfund, World Vision
Information on 0370 60 60 900 or at DEC website
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 27 2009 8:18 utc | 69
re 69. I don't think the interviewer was that astounded. That he let Tony Benn continue meant that he, like most BBC journalists, was personally in favour of the appeal.
Posted by: Alex | Jan 27 2009 10:10 utc | 70
annie @ 56 - thanks for the links and info and for revealing something of your political discussions with your 82-year old mother, which reflect somewhat my similar interactions with my father up to his death at near 93, and which continue rather one-sidedly as I wonder how it is if/whether we actually can persuade or change others' thinking, something I don't regard myself as good at, esp. within the (repub.) family unit.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 27 2009 12:22 utc | 71
The 60 minutes report clearly shows that there's a clear-cut case of apartheid taking place in Israel...
So if Obama continues to follow in the footsteps of Bush by continuing to allow our federal funds to be funneled into the hands of Israeli Zionists so that they can continue to slaughter Palestinians into submission -- and possibly even extinction, then this president of ours who fancies himself a devout Christian has proven to the world that he's no longer a great follower of Jesus Christ and is now the handmaiden of the Devil Himself. And if Obama turns out to be someone who condemns a white apartheid regime for treating its black subjects as subhumans, but, at the same time, condones a Jewish regime for treating its Muslim subjects as lesser children of God, then this so-called "first African American POTUS" of ours is making it perfectly clear to all of us that he's the Black equivalent of David Duke.
Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 27 2009 15:52 utc | 72
here's a helpful site for boycotting israel here in the US, it breaks down by product/region.
the o just gave his first formal interview since taking office to the arabic cable station al arabyia. i wasn't impressed.
Posted by: annie | Jan 27 2009 16:55 utc | 73
re 70. I don't think you watched the interview, because if you had, you would have known that the interviewer was female. And tried several times to talk over Benn. Further, it was obvious that SHE was NOT in personal favor of Benn saying his piece.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 27 2009 19:38 utc | 74
re 74. Must be a different interview from the one I heard on the radio, which was as far as I know the first. In that case, Edward Sturton really didn't try to stop him. The lady must have been prepared.
Posted by: Alex | Jan 27 2009 21:37 utc | 75
Here is a classic from www.telegraph.co.uk, linked at WRH
By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 1:02AM GMT 27 Jan 2009
Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
"L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad."
A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off."
Posted by: David | Jan 28 2009 16:00 utc | 76
The comments to this entry are closed.
I'm glad to see this post as a news item appeared yesterday on both Aljazeera and BBC I wanted to post here. It exemplifies perfectly what Tangerine writes above:
there is a potent fear of standing up to Israel, of offending Jews, or even daring to imagine that one could treat ‘them’ like everyone else, or argue against their demands, or tell them get over it already etc.
Here is the news item:
Here is today's Guardian story
2000 Londoners protesting in the streets confronting Israel's exceptional status. Other TV stations are covering this story now too. Lots of damage to the Beeb here, and surely they will have to back down, further diminishing any cred remaining. Maybe it's a start ...I hear change is in the air.
Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 25 2009 14:39 utc | 1