“Armed and dangerous: weapons transfers to Israel during Bush administration.
Criminalizing criticism of Israel.

Posted by: andrew | May 8 2009 10:30 utc | 4

b, I strongly recommend you devote a separate thread to this. As you know, I have been a vocal critic of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, signed by Bush in 2004, and failed to encourage a global petititon to get the Act repealed. Now Rahm Emanuel is pushing through an even more radical version that is brilliantly and eloquently exposed by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
“To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.
Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House.
As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.
It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.
It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.
It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.
It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.
In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.

Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Posted by: Parviz | May 8 2009 11:41 utc | 6

Parviz-
I agree. I can’t believe that any group can get away with such Draconian legislation… Imagine the outcry if member of the black community promoted such a bill, they’d be labeled radicals like the Black Panther Party.
The world has been letting Israel get away with murder for too long – Why can’t we call assholes assholes? Fuck’um if it hurts their precious feelings, tough!
The Israeli’s hurt feelings are nothing compared to the hate and hurt that is caused by the criminals running that country ( and it would appear they’re running our country too). Calling someone a fascist zionist fuck doesn’t do near the doodoo, as raining white phosphorus down upon civilians; delighting in the murder of babies; laughing at the destruction of Palestinian property; scoffing at international law and being a community full of hateful criminals.
The assholes can try and force us to think different, but all it will do is cause us to use different words to call the bastards what they are: criminals, crooks, thieves, murderers, drug pushers, pornographers and generally a bunch of poopoo heads!

Posted by: DavidS | May 8 2009 12:46 utc | 8

DavidS, you’re supremely eloquent whenever you get supremely angry:
Calling someone a fascist zionist fuck doesn’t do near the doodoo, as raining white phosphorus down upon civilians; delighting in the murder of babies; laughing at the destruction of Palestinian property; scoffing at international law and being a community full of hateful criminals.
Please stay angry, as we all benefit, but make sure it doesn’t ruin your health 😉
And b, how about it? Doesn’t AIPAC’s and Rahm Emanuel’s attempt to re-write the U.S. Constitution warrant a separate, permanent thread, with regular updates?

Posted by: Parviz | May 8 2009 13:36 utc | 10

wallerstein: Where Is the World Headed?

…
In the world battle between the Left and the Right, the former had a vertiginous rise in the nineteenth and especially the twentieth century. The Left mobilized support on a vast scale and very effectively. There came a moment in the post 1945 period when it seemed to be succeeding everywhere in every way.
Then came the grand disillusionments. The states where the antisystemic movements came to power in one way or another were in practice far from what the popular forces had expected and hoped to institute. And the presumption of irreversibility of these regimes turned out to be another illusion. By the early 1990s, triumphalism had disappeared amongst the world Left, to be replaced by a widespread lethargy, often a sense of defeat.
And yet, as we know, the subsequent triumphalism of the world Right fell apart as well, most spectacularly in the utter fiasco of the neo con assertion of a permanent US imperial domination of the world. From the 1994 Zapatista uprising to the successful shutdown of the 1999 Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization to the 2001 founding of the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre, a reignited world Left reemerged on the world scene.
We live in a chaotic world environment and it’s difficult to see clearly. It’s a bit like trying to make one’s way forward in a major snowstorm. Those who survive both use a compass to know which direction to walk and also examine the ground inches ahead to make sure they do not tumble into some hole. The compass guides our middle run objectives the kind of new world system we wish to build. The ground inches in front of us is the politics of the lesser evil. If we don’t do both, we’re lost. Let us debate about the direction of the compass, ignoring the states and ignoring nationalism. Let us nonetheless engage with the states and nationalism in the short run, so that we avoid the crevices. Then we have a chance of survival, a chance we will achieve that other world that is possible.

Posted by: b real | May 8 2009 14:40 utc | 12

@Parviz @6
@DavidS @8 – I can’t believe that any group can get away with such Draconian legislation… Imagine the outcry if member of the black community promoted such a bill, they’d be labeled radicals like the Black Panther Party.
Yes, imagine … and then there is the Google.
H.R. 256, The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, was introduced by Sheila Jackson Lee, a liberal, democrat, black women from Texas.
As I read it the law is putting under penalty violent crimes done out of racial reasons.
Now I do not know why Paul Craig Roberts thinks that Emmanuel has something do with this. But I do know that Paul Craig Roberts is a libertarian paleo-conservative Reagan nuts from Atlanta, Georgia. Maybe he doesn’t like hate-crime laws?

Posted by: b | May 8 2009 18:26 utc | 14

parviz – you may want to brush up on your research into paul craig roberts -> paleoconservative -> rockford institute (thomas fleming) -> john randolph club -> chronicles: a magazine of american culture -> white supremacy <- vdare (wikipedia) <- brimelow <- paleoconservative <- paul craig roberts

Posted by: b real | May 9 2009 4:55 utc | 16

Some nice bedtime reading of Dr. Roberts’s works and interviews:
1. “Rogue State”: Covering the US government’s economic depredations, police state enactments, and wars of aggression.
2. “The Shame of Being An American”: (No comment)
3. “How Bush Brewed the Iran Crisis”: (Ditto)
4. “Impeach Now Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy”
5. “Gullible Americans” (Brilliant).
Need I continue?
Roberts = “Paleoconservative”? If so, then everyone on this Blog is a Fascist.

Posted by: Parviz | May 9 2009 12:35 utc | 18

parviz –
some help from FAQ – What are Paleoconservatives?

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) refers to a branch of American conservative thought that is often called Old Right. Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives. The term was coined in the late 20th century and derives from the Greek root palaeo- meaning “ancient” or “old.” Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as “the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.” Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.
…
Paleoconservatives are most easily distinguishable from other conservatives in their emphatic opposition to open immigration, their strong opposition to affirmative action, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas.
…
Paleoconservatives consist of a disparate pool from all walks of life, including Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholic traditionalists, libertarian individualists, Midwestern agrarians, Reagan Democrats, and southern conservatives. The most prominent paleoconservative is Pat Buchanan. The two leading paleoconservative publications are Chronicles and The American Conservative, which Buchanan helped to create. Other contemporary luminaries include Donald Livingston, a Professor of Philosophy at Emory; Paul Craig Roberts, an attorney and former Reagan administration Treasury official; …

Posted by: b real | May 10 2009 4:31 utc | 20

Parviz, re P.C. Roberts. not always is the enemy of your enemy your friend.
also, in my opinion you should not take up the battle of anti-zionism. the mere fact that you are Iranian automatically discredits anything you might have to say. Just as any defense of Zionism from Israelis is greeted with a big helping of scepticism, so is your attack on it. there is simply too much emotional involvement with the issue.
you are of course entitled to say anything you want, anywhere you want to, and it is not my desire to stifle conversation. I am simply offering unsolicited advice.

Posted by: dan of steele | May 10 2009 9:18 utc | 22

DoS-?
Why does being Iranian discredit Parviz on the issue of Zionism? I’d think he’d be the most justified in stating his beliefs ’cause it’s his fucking country the fucking Zionist are fucking threatening to bomb…
I guess you believe he’d better just keep his damn mouth shut like a good victim?
And often times, the enemy of my enemy is my friend… at least until they prove otherwise.

Posted by: DavidS | May 10 2009 9:48 utc | 24

DavidS,
my apologies for not being clear. Nearly everyone in the so called west, after years of very effective consent creation, believe earnestly that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. don’t believe me, ask 100 people at random and see what you come up with.
since what I stated above is a universal “truth” those same people will discount anything an Iranian says wrt Israel.
Parviz has contributed greatly to discussions here, I simply believe that his campaign against Israel will always have a taint of impartiality.
I don’t know why having the same fears/hatreds would cause people to become friends. temporary working relationships yes but long term friendship requires a bit more.

Posted by: dan of steele | May 10 2009 12:36 utc | 26

davids @23 I think parviz gets a score on this
really? that PCR is a “Paleoconservative” only in the same way “everyone on this Blog is a Fascist”?
I should admit, I haven’t read Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and so I can’t argue about the merits of his writing
so are you then disagreeing w/ the general set of interest/beliefs/values affiliated w/ & attributed to PCR in the materials that i both linked to & outlined primarily based on anything other than a point-of-view centered on the aversion to labels any more complicated than “good and evil” (see #13 above)?
Trying to force people to conform to a label is crap
and if those people choose the label(s) for themselves?
here’s where i’m coming from in my comments earlier – parviz obviously is not aware of some of PCR’s other ideological positions, some of which we have collectively cringed at here at MoA over the years, and proceeds to selectively create an image of what the man represents while at the same time presuming that anyone who says this is not familiar w/ the man’s articles or positions on a range of issues. i’m assuming that this stems primarily from parviz’s concurrence w/ PCR’s published writings wrt the topic of israel.) b points out that PCR is a paleoconservative, which is not a controversial stmt – or shouldn’t be, and probably has an unfavorable opinion on hate-crime legislation, to say the least. to be clear, my input here so far is stating that [1] PCR has a history of opinions re immigration & race relations & is affiliated w/ publishers that espouse the same (vdare was even labeled a “hate group” by the southern poverty law ctr for its content) and [2] is widely recognized as a paleoconservative, even by those choosing to call themselves such.
there is no score being tallied here. no competition is underway. just an effort to correct, or offer up the opportunity to do so if it is seen as providing an advantage when typing opinions in a public realm where you risk running into others who have better information than you do.

Posted by: b real | May 11 2009 0:34 utc | 28

@ 28 that’s a good summary. I had been initially confused by PCRs writings since he as been coming out pretty straight and narrow on the financial hiest underway not too mention the Israeli’s recent crazy antics and yet going right-wing conservative on some of the domestic issues.
@26 Also the idea that an Iranian’s criticism is some how less capable of being taken as “objective” on issues pertaining to Israel and implicitly an American and European is – is typical BS. Arguments and facts stand for themselves. Only bull shit needs sugar coating that’s why we have to watch “news” about Obama dish’n out jokes and clowns like Kharzai wearing ‘traditional’ garb doing their mandatory photo op and circuit of talking heads.

Posted by: BenIAM | May 11 2009 3:31 utc | 30