Woolsey Watch: Oil and Anti-Semitism

-

woolsey dinner.jpg
Former CIA Director James Woolsey is speaking at Yale University next Thursday afternoon. If you are nearby, you should go.
Woolsey will be speaking for he Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism on Thursday, 29 March, at 4:15 pm in Linsly-Chittenden Hall, Room 101, 63 High Street in New Haven.
His topic: “Energy, Security and the Long War of the 21st Century.”
I think Jim Woolsey’s work to support greater energy independence in the U.S. is laudable — while I have strong disagreements with him on how he has positioned himself as a financial winner in this war on terror while so many American men and women are paying with their lives, family emotional and financial security, and careers for a war he has helped flame as a pundit. I also strongly disagree with the former CIA Director’s advocacy of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard’s release.
That said, it would be interesting to hear Woolsey talk about the “long war.”
Ask him where the best opportunities are for profiteers in this long war we face. Where is putting his money? He’ll probably say “Toyota stock” — but press him.
Seriously though, I think anti-semitism as a trend is important and worthy of study. Years ago, I helped the Pacific Rim Institute of the American Jewish Committee get access to high-level Japanese political and cultural leaders for discussions to help stem what was a rising tide of anti-semitic literature in Japan. The material that some Japanese cults were producing was really disgusting and needed a response.
I just don’t know what Jim Woolsey’s energy concerns have to do with anti-semitism studies — unless in his remarks (that I hope someone reports on) he is going to paint a broad brush stroke alleging anti-semitism against all the Middle East regimes that sit on oil — even those regimes that are trying to propose a final peace solution with Israel. That would be a sad outcome of Woolsey’s appearance at Yale. Let’s hope he proves my suspicions unfounded.
Charles Small, the Yale program director, is an accomplished academic and may just be bringing in someone like Woolsey because of the cachet of having a former CIA Director. It wouldn’t matter to Small perhaps what Woolsey was speaking about — even if it was something like Eastern shore birdwatching.
But I suspect that Woolsey has been invited in part because of his overdrive activities advocating Jonathan Pollard’s release or as a tireless advocate of another war in the Middle East.
Perhaps I’m just being cynical, but it would be useful to hear from any Yale attendees on how much hyperbole Woolsey engages in next Thursday.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

82 comments on “Woolsey Watch: Oil and Anti-Semitism

  1. Winnipeger says:

    yeah, pauline, you fricken’ nutcase, israeli agents bombed bali, huh?
    your stupidity and anti-semitism speaks for itself.
    and hey, with passover right around the corner, i also heard that jews bake their matzah with the blood of gentile children!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews

    Reply

  2. pauline says:

    from Wayne Madsen —
    March 27, 2007 — Our Indonesian and American sources report that there was a significant U.S. and Israeli military-intelligence connection to the October 12, 2002, bombings of the Sari Club in Bali, Indonesia. A DeHavilland Dash-7 aircraft registered in Queensland, Australia, landed at Denpasar Airport in Bali only hours before a massive explosion ripped through the Sari Club, killing over 200 people, many of them vaporized.
    Our sources claim that an Israeli military team arrived at Denpasar Hospital a after the explosion and claimed four bodies of white men in uniform and flew them out of Bali on the Dash 7. The plane took off an hour after the explosion. Our sources have revealed the plane was permitted to pass through Singapore for an unknown destination.
    After the bombing and the plane’s departure, the tower logs were altered at Denpasar Airport to indicate the Dash 7 had not landed there. However, in a major oversight, the apron logs were not tampered with. Our sources have revealed the Dash 8 was Israeli-owned.
    Several victims of the Sari Club bombing at Kuta Beach had flash burns on their bodies — something common with people exposed to a nuclear blast. Our sources also have revealed that a CIA contract agent — an Indonesian national — was at Kuta Beach the day before the terrorist bombing. He is also known to have been involved in other terrorist attacks on behalf of the CIA since 1998.
    Our sources also indicate that the then-U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, Ralph Boyce, who is now posted as ambassador to Thailand, was fully aware of U.S. intelligence pre-knowledge of the terrorist bombing in Bali. Boyce told the American managing editor of the Jakarta Post that it would be unhelpful if the paper pursued the U.S. angle in the Bali bombing.

    Reply

  3. Winnipeger says:

    ahlawi:
    this is what i said in regards to carrol’s post,
    “her comments at the beginning of this thread were hateful, and yes, anti-jewish. she actually had the nerve to imply that my family and 6 million other european jews may have been partly responsible for their own murder at the hands of the nazis,” and, i would add by extension, for anti-semitism itself.
    and, per your request, here is the post where she implies that anti-semitism and the holocaust may have been instigated by jews themselves, even going so far as to quote an article by churchill titled, “Jews Partly Responsible For Their Troubles.”
    i don’t see any ambiguity in the expression of her feelings:
    “You know the anti-semitism discussions aren’t worth anything except as scare propaganda unless there is a real debate about where anti-semitism comes from and how some Jews contribute to it themselves.
    I just quoted uber zionist Elliot Abrams in another thread and I will give this example once more. Here is what he said in a Commentary interview:
    “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart-except in Israel-from the rest of the population.”
    Which is what Winston Churchill said about Jews….so as Abrams promotes this seperateness, Churchill said it creates anti-semitism. So I guess Churchill now joins the ranks of all the US presidents, Nixon, Esienhower, Carter, Johnson, etc…who have all been called anti-semites.
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070311/world/britain_judaism_history
    “Jews ‘partly responsible’ for their troubles: Churchill
    Sat Mar 10, 7:08 PM
    LONDON (AFP) – The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were “partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer” in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.
    Churchill made the claim in an article entitled “How The Jews Can Combat Persecution” written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.
    He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.
    “It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts,” the article read.
    “It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.
    “These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.
    “For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer.”
    The article adds: “The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is ‘different’.
    “He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed.”
    Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as “sober, industrious, law-abiding” and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.
    “There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man,” he wrote.
    The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university’s archive of Churchill’s papers.
    At the time, Churchill’s secretary advised him it would be “inadvisable” to publish it and it never saw the light of day.
    Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002. ”
    >>>>>>>>>
    I agree with Churchill and have said things to that effect before…because I have seen that attitude in Jews in this type of discussions, a small percentage, but enough to know that this is an attitude among some jewish communities and is re-enforced by some hard core Jewish orgs. When everyone starts getting honest and assuming their own responsibility it might be worth discussing. But continuing this meme that Jews are totally innocent victims of everything and the world are all anti-semites who just hate Jews and let them get gassed in WWII on purpose and are waiting to launch another holocaust because they killed Christ or whatever is frankly idiotic propaganda and does nothing except serve the dangerous agendas of people like Woolsey..
    Posted by Carroll at March 23, 2007 08:40 PM

    Reply

  4. ahlawi says:

    winni…could you please post the exact part where carrol says the holocaust was justified?
    thanks

    Reply

  5. Winnipeger says:

    yahadda:
    i’m gratified to hear that you once had a “jewish” friend.
    i certainly don’t expect you or anyone else to understand what, in my own estimation, it means to be a jew. this isn’t your place and i never asked for your input.
    at least you admit that you have very little understanding of judaism, either in a religious or cultural context.
    and good luck to you as well, yahaddasayit.

    Reply

  6. yahaddasayit says:

    Winnipeger,
    I have to admit that, even though the “sidelong glance” comment was intended to warn you of other’s reactions, my own was a furrowing of the brow, AND a sidelong glance, AND shaking my head as I slipped away. And here’s why.
    All religions I’ve ever heard off require you to attempt to follow some “practice”. Generally, that set of behavioral characteristics establishes its social validity and those “rules” tend to distinguish, even if slightly, one organization from the other. But you don’t seem to grant them much personal importance, if any. But you still consider yourself involved somehow.
    Then, I briefly-very briefly- glance at some rabbi’s explanation of that matrilineal concept which reminded me of my Catholic indoctrinators trying to get me to accept the “Virgin birth”. Now, with each succeeding year the word “virgin” gained in stature to me as it did to a lot of young-to-middle-aged males. But I still wasn’t about to agree to that religious “birth” nonsense. I’m glad no one asked me to believe in both that virgin AND matrilineal reasoning or I’d have been giving sidelong glances at both of my parents and demanding more privileges or I’d expose them.
    I would guess you have done what you wanted up to this point and I have no interest interceding in your freedom. I once had an acquaintance who was “jewish”, early thirties, and a nice guy and when I asked him: “Hey, you being of “Jewish” background and all, why aren’t you religious and have those hang-ups that religious people tend to purvey?” He said: “After awhile you have to think for yourself.”
    And good luck to you, Winnipeger.

    Reply

  7. Carroll says:

    “her comments at the beginning of this thread were hateful, and yes, anti-jewish.
    she actually had the nerve to imply that my family and 6 million other european jews may have been partly responsible for their own murder at the hands of the nazis.”
    Posted by Winnipeger at March 26, 2007 08:44 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Well, this is pitiful but typical of you winnie.
    You really are a fool in the extreme…it would have been people who think like me and reject all ideas of seperateness and exceptionism that would have been the ones among the Germans trying to prevent you being exterminated…not the one’s who indulge your narrow way of thinking.

    Reply

  8. Pissed Off American says:

    “she actually had the nerve to imply that my family and 6 million other european jews may have been partly responsible for their own murder at the hands of the nazis.”
    Still perverting what she said so you can continue with your horseshit, eh Winnipeger?

    Reply

  9. Winnipeger says:

    nope. carrol’s comments have NOTHING to do with spirituality.
    her comments at the beginning of this thread were hateful, and yes, anti-jewish.
    she actually had the nerve to imply that my family and 6 million other european jews may have been partly responsible for their own murder at the hands of the nazis.
    this type of ugly BS warrants MUCH more than “sidelong glances.” it warrants forceful condemnation for what it is: bigotry, anti-semitism, and the condoning of a holocaust perpetrated against innocent men, women and children.
    …and the fact that you keep defending her says something about you as well.

    Reply

  10. Pissed Off American says:

    “if you’re confused or don’t agree, that’s ok, but, imo, there is no justification for “sidelong glances” or worse in this dialogue.”
    Posted by Winnipeger
    Good, then we can expect you to desist with the crap you keep casting at Carroll.

    Reply

  11. Winnipeger says:

    thanks, yahadda, although i don’t understand your need for “sidelong glances,” or disparaging inuendos.
    this converstaion has veered into the realm of spirituality and religious identity, i.e. understanding and affiliation. i’ve chosen to share my understanding and a bit about my philosophy and self-identity with you. these aren’t issues of right and wrong. if you’re confused or don’t agree, that’s ok, but, imo, there is no justification for “sidelong glances” or worse in this dialogue.

    Reply

  12. yahaddasayit says:

    Winnipeger,
    You caught me. I’ll leave you to whatever you believe. But you do leave yourself open to at the least a bunch of sidelong glances-to put it diplomatically.

    Reply

  13. Winnipeger says:

    i think we’re both winging it, yahadda. it’s mighty hard to discuss religious philosophy in the comments section of a political blog 🙂
    my point about buddhism (although it is not homogeneous — there are many different denominations) is that it is not a religion, per se, but rather an understanding of existence, more similar to quantum theory than christianity. of course i’m paraphrasing, but that is similar to the explanation of H.H. Dalai Llama; i spent 3 months studying with him and other senior monks at the norbulingka institute in dharamsal, india in 2000/2001.

    Reply

  14. Winnipeger says:

    well, yahadda, i’m certainly not a scientist and, more importantly, i’m not a rabbi either. i believe that the issue of judaism and matrilineal descent is largely a religious issue rather than scientific one. there is a wealth of information out there online which further explains the concepts and definitions of judaism. but keep in mind, as matthew already pointed out, judaism is not only defined as a religion, but also (and maybe more importantly)as a cultural identity, as opposed to a religion in the sense of catholicism, where my understanding is one’s identity is based almost entirely upon one’s practice. for example, i’m very much a jew regardless of my religious practice. hard to understand i know, but, nonetheless, a very important distinction.
    who knows, maybe there is a rabbi or jewish scholar out there who can share some more information.

    Reply

  15. yahaddasayit says:

    Winnipeger,
    I didn’t see your latest post before I posted last.
    You are so far off concerning Buddhism that you should study it closer-a lot closer-or guess again.
    And you don’t make much sense, religiously anyway, in how you view your own(I’ll take your word for it) chosen belief(I guess). Judaism an identity rather than practice? You have any backup on that or are you just winging it?

    Reply

  16. yahaddasayit says:

    Matthew and Winnipeger,
    At first, I did use the term ethnic group when I should have said race. But then I did switch to race when that “matrilineal” phrase was presented.
    I don’t know anyone who could prove religion can be obtained thru DNA. Do you know what gene is supposed to carry the religious belief?
    Maybe, Winnipeger, the Jewish female passes that Judaical essence in some other manner. Since you seem to believe in this “matri” thing, would you please provide any independent research? You know, like a scientist would do.

    Reply

  17. Winnipeger says:

    matthew,
    i agree with everything you say. the definition of a “jew” is a very interesting and lengthy philosophical conversation that’s been taking place for millenia. in the end, there is no complete consensus. rabbis, scholars and others have different answers, although “race” is not one of them.
    in my opinion, judaism is different from most other religions in that it is about idenitity rather than practice, perhaps with the exception of hindusim, which is also very much about identity and buddhism, which , imo, is more akin to a scientific understanding of reality.
    some of my christian friends have a hard time understanding how i can be a jew if i don’t observe all of the 613 commandments laid out in the Torah.
    i would only add that i think that “cultural identity” is a more accurate second definition than “ethnic identity.”
    but thanks for the response, matthew. i really appreciate the tone of your comment. it’s nice to engage you and others in a respectful way, rather than the shrill, hateful manner of others.

    Reply

  18. Matthew says:

    Winnipeger: According to Professor Gafni at Hebrew University who lectured on Judaism for the Teaching Company, Judaism is a religion and an ethnic identity.
    As you are probably aware, many Jews identify themselves as such even though they are atheists (Nobel-Prize Physicist Steven Weinberg). Many Jews identify themselves as Jews even if they are not Zionists (Financier George Soros). Some Jews who were raised Christian and who subsequently reject religion still consider themselves at least part Jewish (Bill Maher, for example, says he is part Jewish and was “raised Catholic.” He’s not religious at all.) I have never met a Jewish person who–despite their religious beliefs, or agnosticism–considered themselves “formerly Jewish.”

    Reply

  19. Winnipeger says:

    Something is not kosher. You explain to Don the matrilineal descent thing and you tell me Jews aren’t a race. Now, recalling my incarceration and indoctrination as a long time ago Catholic youth, let me tell you about the Virgin birth. I mean, we’ve completely rejected scientific inquiry it seems.
    Posted by: yahaddasayit at March 25, 2007 02:36 PM
    not sure what you’re getting at. yes, judaism is passed down through matrilineal descent, and no, judaism is not a race, but a religion. the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. what’s the confusion?

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    http://www.cnionline.org/speakout/petitions/FLORA/act.htm#5
    This definition seems quite clear to me.
    Posted by downtown at March 25, 2007 04:46 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I this a “proposed” FLORA?
    It needs to be enacted into law…where do I sign a petition?
    I think there are some politicans who would back this, my congressman among them, and some like Paul, Byrd, etc.

    Reply

  21. downtown says:

    “The term “foreign lobbyist” is any individual who works for a domestic organization or association or an AMERICAN CITIZEN whose primary goal is supporting the policies of a foreign nation or government; or who seeks to influence the foreign policy of the United States toward that foreign nation or government”
    http://www.cnionline.org/speakout/petitions/FLORA/act.htm#5
    This definition seems quite clear to me.

    Reply

  22. rich says:

    Posted by Gadfly at March 25, 2007 09:46 AM
    Gadfly! Got a link for John Bolton “howling” for war on Iran? PLEASE post it!!
    He did the same thing immediately prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Bolton went on network television and literally screamed that “the Germans and the French should just shut up and follow orders!!”
    Which is relevant to this discussion. No one passingly familiar w/20th Century history could believe that crude message could EVER be lost on Germany. Bolton clearly referred to the Nuremberg defense, in which leaders of the Third Reich asserted “I was only following orders” and “I’m a good German.” As though that could ever excuse the obscenity of German war-making methods (torture, preemptive war) or the Holocaust.
    John Bolton was hitting them right in the collective guilt–and forcing them to UN-LEARN the lessons of coming to terms with perpetrating the Holocaust. Bolton is telling them to “just follow orders” AGAIN–this time with America giving those orders. It’s an ugly lesson, and one few Americans care to recognize.
    To follow Bolton, the neocons, or their right-wing Israeli equivalent–is to become a fourth reich. It is to stand with those who give orders–Bush, Bolton–by just following orders, whether Germany, France, Republicans, the DLC, AIPAC, or the US military. Bush and Bolton are prone to say exactly what they mean in plain terms. Good Americans, neocons or AIPAC member or otherwise would do well to remember that crying “but I’m a good American” does not absolve anyone from having a hand in Bush’s crimes.
    America could fight a “Good War” in WWII because Germany resorted to policies of unprovoked, pre-emptive wars, bombed civilian populations, ‘disappeared’ people, persecuted Jews, and tortured in general.
    Germany mistook raw military might for real, sustainable power. As the American Revolution established, countries whose BEHAVIOR is defined by torture, dictated politics, genocide, and/or tyranny will inevitably lose any sustained conflict.
    It’s not WHO you are that defines character and right and just causes–it’s HOW you behave. Whether America can apply a foreign policy that adheres to its Constitution and core political values–THAT will determine whether America rises or falls.

    Reply

  23. Carroll says:

    Imagine what this country and the world would look like…and what the US would be doing around the world if we had a Protestant White/Gentile organization with the congressional influence of AIPAC dedicated only to the interest of Protestant whites and Protestant white countries.
    I rest my case.

    Reply

  24. Carroll says:

    Posted by Pissed Off American at March 25, 2007 01:32 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Very good POA.
    And let me agree with others who have said that most people like me have always regarded Jewishness as a “religion”. Or at least they did till the whole Jewish influence thru AIPAC scandal started flapping. Since then every one and their brother has put forth a hundred descriptions and catagories of Jews; Zionst and non-zionist and secular zionst and religious zionist and ethnic Jews and non ethnic Jews, etc,etc. I tend to be totally turned off to the arguements than Jews are a seperate
    “race”..it smacks of stone age tribalism.
    And every arguement on earth has been advanced for AIPAC; freedom of speech, they are Americans, etc,etc. by the Jews who want to defend AIPAC, AIPAC’ers and their actions and loyalties.
    I found Gilad Atzmon’s essay interesting because what he calls an “ideology” among some Jews, I have been calling a “cult” because ideology is a bit overused these days and “cult” packs more of a wake up. A cult not a bit different than the evangelical cult or any other type cult. All cults share the basic traits of seperateness, only they are right or know the truth, they have some great cause, they are victims of a sinful or bad world full of enemies, they are allowed to committ any kind of violence to further their beliefs, but their enemies are condemned for the same thing.
    So the bottom line when you get to the AIPAC cult is they are mostly Jewish with some Evangelicals thrown in…but the nutcase defenders like winnie can’t admit that you can have the same cult mentality among Jews that you have among gentile groups because to him Jews are allowed any abberation…and if you point out some crazy jews you are an anti-semite. Supposedly we can only point out crazy Aryan’s and other racist dirtbags.
    In the end it doesn’t matter if a cult or ideology is based on religion or ethnic identity or mixtures of both, that really isn’t even the point or arguement..they are all deluded, they are outside the norm of what most people consider the common good…and some of them get to be very dangerous. And AIPAC and this Israeli fetish in our congress isn’t going to be allowed a pass just because they are Jews any more than we give the KKK’ers a pass because they are Protestant whites.

    Reply

  25. Pissed Off American says:

    “Something is not kosher. You explain to Don the matrilineal descent thing and you tell me Jews aren’t a race.”
    Posted by yahaddasayit
    ROFLMAO!!!
    yahaddaask?

    Reply

  26. yahaddasayit says:

    Winnipeger,
    Something is not kosher. You explain to Don the matrilineal descent thing and you tell me Jews aren’t a race. Now, recalling my incarceration and indoctrination as a long time ago Catholic youth, let me tell you about the Virgin birth. I mean, we’ve completely rejected scientific inquiry it seems.

    Reply

  27. Pissed Off American says:

    “You are a fucking ignoramus, and people like you are poisoning political discourse in the country.”
    Does anyone else appreciate the hypocritical irony of Emet’s rant? Gee, from whom have we repeatedly seen such hypocricy in the past?

    Reply

  28. Pissed Off American says:

    Emet…….
    Lemme guess, you were one of the people cheering Cheney and Hagee at the AIPAC conference, and booing Pelosi when she dared express pessimism about events in Iraq?
    I watched a sermon from Hagee this morning on one of the religious channels. The man is a fucking fanatic, an embarrassment to anyone that actually believes in and attempts to practice Christian values. That AIPAC would entertain and cheer such an abomination isn’t exactly a glowing endorsement of the organization.

    Reply

  29. Pissed Off American says:

    “That the majority of American Jews are registered Democrats, not Republicans– apparently, in AIPAC-world, then they must, by definition be Hitlers and/or “anti-semitic”.”
    “Most American Jews do not support Bush– do not support Bush’s miserable failure in Iraq– and, do not support Bush & Cheney’s lust to attack Iran.”
    Really, this is the crux of the irony behind this whole AIPAC/American Jew debate. On the one hand, it is argued here by the likes of MP and Wimpie that AIPAC does not represent the views of the majority of American Jews. Yet, on the other hand, both individiuals refuse to admit that AIPAC takes its marching orders from the far right wing factions within the Israeli government. MP even went so far as to attempt to misrepresent the “tone” of the AIPAC conference, by stating, misleadingly, that Cheney recieved a “tepid” reception by the AIPAC crowd, when in fact the opposite was true. He has also misrepresented Hillary’s stance on Iran, as well as misrepresented the Washington Post’s reporting as being unbiased and sympathetic to the “plight of the Palestinians”, when he has been woefully unsuccessful at providing us with examples of such reporting by the WP. Meanwhile, the only way Wimpie has been able to justify his charges of “anti-semitism” against Carroll has been by exagerating and mistating Carroll’s comments.
    Their whole argument about “American Jews” and AIPAC completely misses the point, in that the AIPAC agenda is advanced by propaganda and lies, (a claim which can be verified by simply paying regular visits to the AIPAC website), and much of the AIPAC agenda is swallowed whole by not only American Jews, but the American public in general. On the one hand, MP and Wimpie expect us to believe that AIPAC is not influencing the opinions of American Jews, yet on the other hand they offer no explanation for AIPAC’s continued enjoyment of seemingly bottomless financial support and donations, and its continued success in its lobbying efforts. If this support is not coming from American Jews, then just who the hell IS funding this organization? And where is the dissention against AIPAC that would logically ensue as the result of AIPAC allegedly failing to represent the views of “American Jews”?
    It is not puzzling at all to me that the likes of winnipeger and MP only appear, for the most part, on the threads that address the AIPAC or Israel issue, ALWAYS in opposition to those of us who decry Israeli and AIPAC influence on American politics, foreign policies, (and popular public opinion), yet both of them now claim to be opposed to AIPAC, and critical of Israel’s actions. And both of them are usually able to shift the debate to “anti-semitism”, usually by perverting the comments of someone critical of Israel or AIPAC, such as the tactic we have seen Wimpie engage in on this thread by misrepresenting Carroll’s comments.
    Upon rereading the thread, one can easily detect the intellectual emptiness that the likes of winnipeger bring to the table in a debate such as this. Well intentioned and insightful posts are cherry picked for commentary that can be taken out of context and attacked as “anti-semitic”, and the posts offered that don’t lend themselves to such diversionary and divisive tactics are simply ignored, even when they dive right to the heart of the debate, (such as the Atzmon commentary I offered).
    One cannot ignore the success that AIPAC had in pressuring Pelosi and her cronies into removing the Iran wording from the Iraq Resolution. What I would like to ask wimpie and his ilk, if it is not the “American Jews” that are enabling such successes by their continued financial, media, and ideological support of AIPAC, then exactly WHO is contributing to such successes? And if AIPAC is not an agent for Israel, and American Jews are not supportive of AIPAC, why is it such a huge factor in CONTROLLING our foreign policies in regards to the Middle East?
    This “anti-semitism” horseshit is getting old. Particularly when the accusation is used to deflect from answering crucial questions about the role Israel and AIPAC have in CONTROLLING American foreign policy decisions, such as we just saw occur with the IRAQ resolution.
    The question has been raised by Steve about the FARA law as it should or should not apply to AIPAC. It is my contention that the FARA law IS NOT how we should handle AIPAC, considering the DIRECT ROLE that AIPAC officers have had in crimes of espionage committed against the United States. It is my contention that AIPAC should be treated EXACTLY as we would treat a Muslim organization that we caught perpetrating the same kinds of crimes of espionage against the United States. Their assets should be frozen, their bank accounts seized, and they should be prohibited from operating in the United States penbding a FULL federal investigation of their funding and activities within the United States. Does anyone reading this believe that a Muslim organization that had committed the crimes of espionage that AIPAC’s top officers have committed would be allowed to continue to operate within the United States?
    Turn OFF the funding for AIPAC, and treat them as you would any other organization that is blatantly acting against the best interests and security of the United States.

    Reply

  30. Question says:

    How many American politicos bow, genuflect & worship at the altar of CAIR or the Polish American Congress like they do before AIPAC?
    No, I don’t buy the AIPAC-supporters’ snake-oil.
    AIPAC is clearly a foreign agent and should be registered as such.
    American politicians who show more deference to Israel or any other foreign government than they do to the American people, should be ousted.
    And, AIPAC’s lies that Israeli and American interest are the same do indeed demonstrate that AIPAC members are traitors to the U.S. Our two nation’s interest are not and never have been the same. That’s more neo-con spin.

    Reply

  31. DonS says:

    Emet, glad I struck a nerve, though I actually think you attribute far more influence than I have or intended.
    Any politicians who genuflect at the alter of AIPAC as frequently and unquestionly as do the majority of American politicians, indicates a problem. To me the problem is that AIPAC advocates for another county who’s status as a “valuable ally” is, at best, in the eye of the beholder, and at worst, a construct unsupported by reasonable analysis.
    Please understand, I am with those Israelis who want peace and a reasonable existence. If that puts me at odds with those such as you, and the neocons, so be it. If “poisoning the political discourse” means redressing the AIPAC-dictated view of American-Israeli relations that our politics can no longer afford to swallow and regurgitate, bring it on.

    Reply

  32. Winnipeger says:

    yahaddasayit:
    the first thing i learned in hebrew school is the fact that judaism is a religion NOT a race. this is probably the most common misconception about judaism. very intelligent colleagues of mine sometimes make this mistake.
    there are african jews, asian jews, south asian (indian) jews, spanish jews, caucasian jews, etc. this is a result of living in diaspora for thousands of years.
    i, for instance, am a caucasian who also happens to be jewish.

    Reply

  33. Emet says:

    The hundred thousand Americans, Don S, who belong to AIPAC are no more traitors than the Americans who belong to CAIR which opposes AIPAC’s positions, or the Americans who belong to the Polish American Congress who support the positions of the Government of Poland which have not been in complete agreement with those of the Government of Israel on Holocaust survivor issues.
    You are a fucking ignoramus, and people like you are poisoning political discourse in the country.
    You have every right to vote, organize, lobby and contribute to candidates’ campaigns that agree with you as to the Israeli Government. And thanks to the First Amendment– which I cherish– you have the legal right to call me a traitor, though doing so just makes AIPC members like me more accepted by people who count and who recognizer tyou for the idiot you are. One more thing: you will go to your grave hoping that Nancy Pelosi and her successors show some “spine” as you put it and ignore people like me –they won’t because Israel is too valuable an ally to the United States.

    Reply

  34. yahaddasayit says:

    Don,
    Thanks for the reference. I went to his site and didn’t know where to begin. What I did superficially glean was his awareness of the dichotomy of religion/race. I guess he says religion as Jewish is valid but race as Jewish is not. He is rather forceful in his view and a lot of it seemed intra-Israel.
    Seems to me, religious views are treated hereabouts(modern Western culture-not Eastern Europe) by a live and let live outlook and most all religions have their measure of IT or “the Chosen”. We have adjusted to that. But if you think of yourselves as a race(no matter which one) and you start with that “chosen” b.s., then, if you have any awareness of human history, you better watch out for who is doing the choosing.
    At least it was/is that way yesterday and today. My bet on tomorrow? The same.

    Reply

  35. Pissed Off American says:

    “but, when someone (carrol) comments that the jews in part “deserved” the holocaust because of an implication that they are inherently bad people, this IS anti-semitism!”
    “carrol may have “meant” something different, but her comments DO betray an explicit distrust of jews in general that borders on a hatred, which is explicitly demonstrated by her comment that millions of jews “deserved,” in part, to be murdered by the nazis.”
    “my objection, and the single charge of anti-semitism that i have leveled against “carrol,” is in response to her implication that the 6 million innocent jews butchered by hitler were somehow “responsible” for their deaths.”
    Winnipeger, can you provide us with the direct quotes where Carroll says these things, or something close to them?
    If not, I suggest you put a cork in it, for you are making an ass of yourself.

    Reply

  36. yahaddasayit says:

    Anyone what?

    Reply

  37. The Obvious Truth says:

    The Pissed Off American desperately needs to get laid. Anyone?

    Reply

  38. Pissed Off American says:

    “my objection, and the single charge of anti-semitism that i have leveled against “carrol,” is in response to her implication that the 6 million innocent jews butchered by hitler were somehow “responsible” for their deaths.”
    Posted by Winnipeger
    Considering that you have completely misrepresented Carroll’s comment, (lied about it), who is guilty of “conflating the issues”?
    Again, I am curious, winnipeger, do you ever intend to desist with this useless empty pure unadulterated SHIT you bring to the debate, or are you truly offering the best you’ve got?

    Reply

  39. Winnipeger says:

    sorry, gadfly. your criticism is disingenuous to say the least.
    i have absolutely zero issue with anyone who criticizes israel and/or AIPAC. let that debate continue.
    my objection, and the single charge of anti-semitism that i have leveled against “carrol,” is in response to her implication that the 6 million innocent jews butchered by hitler were somehow “responsible” for their deaths.
    go ahead and keep conflating issues if you must, but your obfuscation won’t fly.

    Reply

  40. Gadfly says:

    Correction:– The above should read:– “the corrupt GOPper-cum-Neocon “Tommy-boy” DeLay has written a book that claims Democrats are HITLERS”.

    Reply

  41. Gadfly says:

    Since the ludicrous “Winnipeger” has lowered the level of discourse down to the most banal, by using the tired-old tactic of calling anybody who criticizes Israel and/or AIPAC “anti-semitic”, he/she should be aware that the corrupt GOPper-cum-Neocon “Tommy-boy” DeLay has written a book that claims Democrats are Hiters.
    That the majority of American Jews are registered Democrats, not Republicans– apparently, in AIPAC-world, then they must, by definition be Hitlers and/or “anti-semitic”.
    Most American Jews do not support Bush– do not support Bush’s miserable failure in Iraq– and, do not support Bush & Cheney’s lust to attack Iran.
    Last night, “Johnny-boy Kiss-Up Kick-Down” Bolton, the loser who no respectable congressman would confirm as US ambassador, was howling for a military attack upon Iran. One could be forgiven for predicting that the Islamophobic Woolsey will also do the same.
    Let us cease to be intimidated by the intimidation tactics used by the neo-con AIPAC crowd, which implies that if we do not bow-down & genuflect before their insane neo-fascist demands and that of the extreme right-wing Likud Party which has driven Israel towards becoming a fascist state which is persecuting the Palestinians, that somehow we must be “anti-semitic”, “Holocaust deniers”, etc. … Such sophistry is false, tiresome, and nothing more than inert, ineffectual snake-oil!
    AIPAC should cease to be our masters– and, Pelosi should re-grow a spine and shop pandering to these traitors.

    Reply

  42. DonS says:

    I understand that I AM Jewish by some definitions. I mentioned heritege only to indicate one salient fact that has informed my curiosity. More to the point, I am constantly disappointed that non-Jews and, too often, non-conforming Jews are denied a place “at the table” or in the discussion. It is this pernicious exclusion, or claim of exclusivity, which is based on the implications and accusations of anti-semitisn, which we are discussing here.
    Yahadda, you allude to only one of many aspects of the conflation issues. BTW, inverted as this may seem, I value my Jewish heritege for the leverage it gives to raise certain questions — again along the lines of the discussion here — that confounds the CW, sad though that is. By the way, my wife considers herself, without much worry, a “lapsed Catholic”. I was never a practicing Jew, and am therefore not even entitled to be lapsed in that sense. And yet the question persists.
    As far as the “What is a Jew?” question, Atzmon addresses this and the implications in great depth. Try that for starters. I’m slightly cautious about sharing more because rhetorical quagmires aren’t my cup of tea, depending on the intent of the discussion, if you know what I mean.

    Reply

  43. yahaddasayit says:

    Geez winnie I wouldn’t be doling out demerits if I CAPPED a whole phrase with the wrong word used FOUR a second THYME! Go to onelook.com and research their, there, and they’re and report back. I find the going rough when you do use proper English and belaboring me with deciphering simple physical third grade has me questioning my purpose within this universe. But, then again, there was a pretty physical dark haired lovely who I fell simply in LOVE with in third grade, and after decades I haven’t made any inroads at understanding that whole attraction thing. Maybe simple is at fault.
    Let me get on to asking you and Don a question: How can you be Jewish if you are not religious? I have asked this question before here. You hear? My understanding through my shabby Catholic upbringing and what Dennis Prager elucidates is that Jewishness is a religion and not an ethnic group. I was raised Catholic and haven’t attended any service in years. No way do I claim to be Catholic! Tell me why, according to Dennis Prager and me, that should be any different for you. So their. I mean there. They’re… Did you go to onelook yet? At least provide one answer, please.

    Reply

  44. Pissed Off American says:

    “i really appreciate both the tone and substance of your post. both are sorely lacking around here”
    What a hypocritical schmuck. When are you going to stop spewing this crap, winnipeger? This blog has suffered enough of your shallow droolings. Perhaps you should reread the thread, and look inward for a lack of substance in comment.

    Reply

  45. Winnipeger says:

    i am heartened to see that nobody aside from carrol herself has seen fit to defend her anti-semitic charge that somehow the jews were at least “partly responsible” for their near decimation at the hands of the nazis, or in other words, partly responsible for their holocaust.
    i repeat again, my characterization of carrol’s views as anti-semitic is not an attempt to silence any debate concerning israel, america’s policies towards israel, zionism or AIPAC.
    i’m merely responding to her asinine and hateful insinuation. but as i already mentioned another contributor already made the observation that “carrol’s comments betray a distinct lack of sophistication.” to say the least.
    uppity gal: thanks for the clartification. i thought that was the case, but i wanted to respond nonetheless. i really appreciate both the tone and substance of your post. both are sorely lacking around here.
    btw, dons, from a jewish/halachic perspective you ARE jewish. there is no such thing as half jewish; you are either are or aren’t. judaism is determined by matrilineal descent. if your mom is jewish, so are you.

    Reply

  46. Uppity Gal says:

    Good stuff here, as usual. My only other thing to add: winnipeg- you misread my comment and are taking exception to something not directed at you. I said, “I find many of the opinions expressed there truthful, but always colored by a sort of knee jerk reaction to the very topic of “jewish-ness” (for lack of a better way to express myself).
    It is a shame…there is a dialogue that desperately needs to happen”
    The word “there” was in reference to the link to comments at Larry’s place, directly above that sentence. I was addressing the “discussion” that took place there not here.
    Just sayin’…
    GREAT contributions to the dialogue. That’s what i value. One does not need to declare their heritage to have a seat at this table. We are all heavily steeped in this- as I said at the get-go- given global history, especially 20th century politics. And the NeoCons coming into full power within our government at the dawn of the 21st century.
    Steve- no Yalies came forward to you? hmm…we shall see. thanks

    Reply

  47. ... says:

    i see i have heard this guys music before as well.. he is very good at what he does musically.. kudos to him for stating his views clearly with a sense of freedom and desire for change.

    Reply

  48. ... says:

    i wish Gilad Atzmon every success with the winnipeggers of the world…

    Reply

  49. DonS says:

    POA, thanks for the exerpt. Atzmon says some important things. And its nice to know that others, with “Jewish affiliation” or not, struggle to understand the hold which Israel-centered issues have, particularly in the US, and the complex of factors involved.
    I, as a non-religious half Jew (maternal), have found myself engaged in trying to understand. It has seemed to me that a critical factor is the conflation of religion with politcs as a critical factor. Atzmon, in the excerpt, clearly sees the conflation matter in an even broader sense:
    ” . . .to keep the differentiation between Judaism, Jewishness and the Jews as blurred as possible. May I suggest that they know what they are doing. It is this tactic that allows them to dismiss any possible criticism of Israel and its lobbies as being a racist assault. As long as the demarcation between Judaism, Jews and Jewishness is obscure, Israel is safe from criticism. ”
    Underlying this innoculation from criticism, much less honest analysis, I have long thought, is the projection of guilt, primarily related to WWII but, by implication, incorporating the whole history of discrimination against Jews in Europe down through the ages.
    Interestingly, I think my speculation may be accurate here, such guilt operates to prick the conscience of the well intended, but perhaps even more the genuinely prejudiced, lest they be detected for what they are in an era when prejudice against Jews (in the U.S.) is out of fashion.

    Reply

  50. Pissed Off American says:

    An enlightening essay by Gilad Atzmon….
    An excerpt……
    But this is exactly where the real problem starts. Although I firmly refrain from referring to racial or ethnic categories, enormous energy is invested in stopping me and others from saying that which we feel entitled to say. Jewish political pressure groups both in the left and in the right, both Zionists and anti-Zionists, both sectarian Marxists and Fascist settlers fight to keep the differentiation between Judaism, Jewishness and the Jews as blurred as possible. May I suggest that they know what they are doing. It is this tactic that allows them to dismiss any possible criticism of Israel and its lobbies as being a racist assault. As long as the demarcation between Judaism, Jews and Jewishness is obscure, Israel is safe from criticism.
    By maintaining such a tactic, Jewish groups in the left and in the right have managed to block any meaningful debate having to do with Israel, the Jewish State, Palestine, world Jewry, the Israeli Lobby in America, etc.. Every essential discussion is dismissed immediately as a form of racism or as plain anti-Semitism. My responsibility therefore is to stand up and resist. My duty is to insist that Jewishness is an Ideology, or at least a mindset. It is an idea that made the Nakba possible, it is an ideology that has maintained ethnic cleansing policies for six decades, it is an a unique intuition that lives in peace with 80% starvation in Gaza.
    It is not the Jews and it is not Judaism that are to be blamed here, but it is not Zionism either. Jewishness is actually a deeper concept than mere Zionism. How do I know that it is deeper than Zionism? I know because I look into myself and into my past. I know because I grew up in Israel and I can tell that as a young lad, the word Zionism was foreign to my ears. My peers and myself were Israelis, we were the Jewish people, we were not Zionists. Zionism was a foreign abstract expression, it smelled of Galut (Diaspora). We were Jews and our enemies were the ‘others’ whoever they were at the time: the Germans, The Goyim, the anti-Semites, the Arabs in general the Palestinians in particular and so forth.
    My responsibility thus is to expose the real meaning of the Jewish idea in its full extent. My mission is to get to the essence of this almighty fear that settles comfortably at the core of the Jewish collective psyche. My responsibility is to expose the carriers and protagonists of this ideology. As an artist, my duty is to look into myself and to trace its origin in my own soul.
    If I am indeed correct and Jewishness is an ideology, then it cannot just position itself beyond criticism. If I am indeed on the right track, it is my duty as an intellectual and as an artist who believes in free spirit, to point out that the Palestinian discourse is viciously shaped by an absurd form of political correctness that blocks any meaningful and fruitful discourse.
    I will use this unique opportunity and mention as well that I am tired of hearing people telling me “Gilad, you can say it all, you are a Jew.” I just do not accept it. There is nothing in my ethnic belonging or biological origin that should grant me with any special entitlement. I must admit as well that I have never found myself telling a Muslim or an Arab friend “you can say it, you are an Arab.” I do not remember myself ever hearing anyone suggesting to anyone else: “you can say it, you are Protestant, Irish, Black, etc.” Noticeably, the Jewish State and its supporters have managed to position their beloved country in a very privileged precious position, far beyond criticism. My responsibility is to expose this tactic as a complete fallacy.
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar07/Atzmon18.htm
    Heres Atzmon’s website…
    http://www.gilad.co.uk

    Reply

  51. Carroll says:

    does anyone really want to defend that sentiment??!!
    Posted by Winnipeger at March 24, 2007 11:00 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Yea, I do…and you are my example. Your unending, hysterical, whining, paranoia is what I am talking about.
    There are some really bad nutcase racist Jews like Abrams that do a lot of damage because ntiwitty followers of the cult like you swallow his “seperatism” babble.
    Yep that’s right, not all Jews are upstanding pargons of virtue, yep that’s right some jews like you chose not to join the humanity with the capital H….therefore your being a Jew is not a shield or a license for your sicko attitude toward everyone else.
    You need a new cause, so why not take up the cause for the victims of the Armenian genocide or the Palestine occupation…oh wait, they aren’t Jewish are they..well stratch that.
    I have to go now, I have to find some Vietnamese immigrants to run over since they killed my cousin in Vietnam and then I think I will vilify some Yankees for killing my great grandfather 200 years ago, I would go after some British since they killed my great great grandfather in the Revolution but then since I am also ethnic Euro British I can’t attack a member of my own tribe can I? What a nitwit.

    Reply

  52. opit says:

    You guys have been “had” – Steve too – so badly it hurts. Go see what Needlenose wrote about “Moving the Overton Window”

    Reply

  53. Pissed Off American says:

    “please notice that hers is not a critique against likudniks or even jewish neo-cons (as if the majority of neo-cons are jewish — they’re not); they were directed at jews in general. it wasn’t a criticism of political policy or party, it was a vile, criticism of a large group of heterogeneous people who she says in part deserved the holocaust that was perpetrated against them.”
    Posted by Winnipeger
    Actually, wimpie, you are giving her comment a context that doesn’t exist. If you reread her comment, she states that it is YOU, (and your ilk), that deserves to be “holocausted”. Your “ilk” meaning anyone drooling the kind of hypocritical, dishonest, and irritating crap that you have subjected this blog, and American society, to for far too long now in your defense of AIPAC and Israel’s actions. I am sure she offered the “holocausted” part tongue in cheek, but your willingness to latch onto that part of her comment only underscores the intent of your own shrill and irritating drivel.
    Do you and MP collaborate on this horseshit? The rhetoric and the cheerleading that oozed out of the AIPAC conference speaks for itself. And if it is your contention that AIPAC is not speaking for American Jews, who exactly is it speaking for? And if American Jews disagree with AIPAC, then who the hell is supporting its gargantuan budget? And why aren’t these figurehead “American Jews” like Dershowitz taking a stand against AIPAC and its actions?
    Just like neo-con rats deserting the failing Bush machine, we now see the pro-Israeli internet prevaricators and trolls such as you and MP, that have been staunch defenders of AIPAC, deserting the AIPAC wagon. Thank God. Now that AIPAC actions, rhetoric, and power has become indefensible with any application of common sense or logic, perhaps the straw accusation of “anti-semitism” is dying as the primary defense of the indefensible. Hopefully, your dishonest, hypocritical, and devisive kind of horseshit will dissappear from the debate as well, and we can finally get down to debating Israel’s corrosive effect on America’s security and foreign policies without being branded as bigots.

    Reply

  54. Winnipeger says:

    …and no, i do NOT believe this is a reckless charge.
    and if you disagree, i challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate how my charge is reckless or unwarranted.
    carrol may have “meant” something different, but her comments DO betray an explicit distrust of jews in general that borders on a hatred, which is explicitly demonstrated by her comment that millions of jews “deserved,” in part, to be murdered by the nazis.
    does anyone really want to defend that sentiment??!!

    Reply

  55. Pissed Off American says:

    “….but i take some exception with your characterization of my reaction to carrol’s comments as “knee jerk.””
    Posted by Winnipeger
    I agree, wimpie. She should have omitted the “knee” part.
    “steve posted an interesting article a few days ago in which the author makes the case that AIPAC is not representative of american-jewish opinion when it comes to the iraq war. their is a recent and growing disconnect. i believe he’s right and i’m not sure what to do about it”
    Posted by Winnipeger
    Well, if you agree with that premise, than we can only assume the warmongering cheerleading done at the AIPAC conference was at the behest of the Israeli government, if not the American Jews, eh, wimpie?? In which case AIPAC should be registered under FARA. Is that your position?

    Reply

  56. Winnipeger says:

    johnh: not sure if you are making your comment in reaction to my criticism of carrol’s ignorant and yes, anti-semitic remarks, but i want to boldly reiterate (please forgive the caps):
    THEIR IS NO CONSTANT “HOWL ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM” ON THIS WEBSITE, BY ME OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR
    but, when someone (carrol) comments that the jews in part “deserved” the holocaust because of an implication that they are inherently bad people, this IS anti-semitism!
    i have no problem with rabid critique of israeli policies, zionism, etc, (and please keep in mind that this dialogue often takes place here unabated and with no charges of anti-semitism)but when the conversation turns towards the justification of genocide — the methodical murder of 6 million innocent men, women and children merely because of their religious identity — this hateful rhetoric can be called nothing less than ignorant, and yes, anti-semitic.

    Reply

  57. DonS says:

    For Jews to come out full bore against AIPAC would be a good thing. Within the rather small Jewish community you have divisions between those who get it and are disgusted at the hijacking of thier religion — even if they’re not religious — for political purposes.
    Aside from the “anti-semitic” of “self-hating Jew” libels that fly about in public, think about the strictures and resistance to criticism of AIPAC and their ilk that exist within particular families.
    I’m trying to think of a parallel — maybe the difficulty of opposing the IRA within the community and some families. Not a good parallel, but you get the point.
    The conflation of support for Israel, “right or wrong”, with support for Judaism and “the Jewish people” (which I will argue is a religious, not political, notion) creates a lot of inter-community, and inter family, tension. It’s not an inconsequential factor, IMO.

    Reply

  58. JohnH says:

    Those who constantly howl about anti-Semitism are like the boy who cried ‘wolf.’ Yes, there is anti-Semitism. And it is ugly. However, those who constantly hurl the charge to deflect every criticism of Israel’s brutish behavior have succeeded in making me suspicious of anyone alleges it, even though the complaint might turn out to be legitimate.
    Reckless charges of anti-Semitism do not make the world safer for Jews.

    Reply

  59. Winnipeger says:

    uppity gal: thanks for the response. i appreciate what you have to say. don’t have time to check out your link now, but i will later. in the meantime i agree with what you have to say, but i take some exception with your characterization of my reaction to carrol’s comments as “knee jerk.” in my mind, her antipathy for jews in general and yes, her anti-semitic feelings are quite obvious.
    daveg: thanks for your response. however i ask you to read carrol’s comments again. please notice that hers is not a critique against likudniks or even jewish neo-cons (as if the majority of neo-cons are jewish — they’re not); they were directed at jews in general. it wasn’t a criticism of political policy or party, it was a vile, criticism of a large group of heterogeneous people who she says in part deserved the holocaust that was perpetrated against them.
    and as far as your claim that jews — through aipac– have supported and are continuing to support the war in iraq, please be aware of the fact that jewish americans have NEVER given the republicans more than 19% of their vote in any u.s. presidential election. obviously, in the last election, this demonstrated that an enormous number of american jews DO NOT support bushco or their was in iraq, let alone a preemptive attack against iran.
    steve posted an interesting article a few days ago in which the author makes the case that AIPAC is not representative of american-jewish opinion when it comes to the iraq war. their is a recent and growing disconnect. i believe he’s right and i’m not sure what to do about it
    carroll: i’m not sure why i’m even bothering to debate or refute someone who thinks that “holocausted” is a word. as someone said many threads ago, i think your rhetoric betrays ” a certain lack of sophistication.”
    good day all.

    Reply

  60. Steve Clemons says:

    Pacific Coast Ron — You got me chuckling this morning. I think that the Robitussin was on overdrive. Thanks for the catch-e.
    Steve

    Reply

  61. Carroll says:

    Posted by Uppity Gal at March 24, 2007 01:44 AM
    >>>>>>>>
    That was an interesting thread you linked and I liked your comment but I am also with Larry’s, “it is what it is”…and I think most people who are paying attention are out of patience with the touchy feely approach considering that the deck chairs are sliding further toward the stern every day.

    Reply

  62. eCAHNomics says:

    Yep, R crooks & thugs have a lot of cache. Like Feith at Georgetown (or is it GW?). We really need to keep them in high places for the benefit of the country.

    Reply

  63. Carroll says:

    Posted by Daveg at March 24, 2007 03:39 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    DITTO Daveg, you expressed my feelings exaclty and so much better than me.

    Reply

  64. Dan Tompkins says:

    Woolsey shilled for the war while concealing his financial interest in it. He even starred in a magazine article claiming his legal work for Chalabi had been “pro bono,” which was true only under the most self-serving of interpretations. As Gideon Rachman notes in Financial Times, Woolsey has progressed only in the sense that he now compares Iran, not Iraq, to Hitler’s Germany.
    One of the great virtues of Steve Clemons’ work is his ability to bring together a wider group of people than one often finds. But having endured too much Woolsey-talk in ’02-’03, I worry about giving the guy any slack at all now.

    Reply

  65. Alex says:

    The current hurdle for the NeoCons is to set the stage for acceptance of The Long War. Perpetual war for perpetual peace.
    What does the end of The Long War looks like, besides bankruptcy for us, that is.
    Which will end first: oil or the war? Or will the end of oil end the war?
    Will the war end when we run out of money or oil and which will we run out of first?
    Will Americans continue to sacrifice their country to defend Israel?
    Will Americans continue to fund Arab anti-semitism and anti-American terrorism with the purchase of gasoline for their SUVs?
    What will post-oil America look like?
    One has to look beyond Woolsey for answers.

    Reply

  66. Pacific Coast Ron says:

    Did we catch Steve in a rare error of vocabulary/grammar ? Or at least an instance of a spelling checker not finding near misses that happen to be words-in-the-dictionary ?
    That’s the “cachet” of having something unusual or valuable, such as a former CIA director, which my dictionary shows as coming from the same French root, ‘cacher’ to hide, as the “cache” Steve referred to, which of course means a hiding place, such as a Former CIA Director might have quite a few large ones of, to hide all his guilty knowledge of how many human right abuses and propaganda lies might have been committed in the course of expanding the American Empire on his watch.
    I don’t doubt that many people who were already sympathizers of Nazi-ism, or Arabs who feel aggreived by Israel & America’s treatment of Palestinians, or Muslims who feel aggreived by Israel and America’s treatment of Arabs, may now be showing a rise in anti-Semitism. From their perspective, the evidence is obvious: (right-wing Likudist policies which are attributed to) Jews in general are destroying peace and prosperity for all our children.
    However, the current effort by some to attribute anti-Semitism to any critic of right-wing Likudism, is just another piece of lying propaganda in service of a (failed) empire.
    Is it just my perspective, as one who has tried since the ’70’s to explore the psychological and sociological roots of imperialism in the deepest cores of the human personality, or is the evidence overwhelming that the so-called “Long War” or “Global War on Terror” has so far resulted in a massive loss of American security — did you see that recent LA Times article “military readiness is in a death spiral” ? — and looks poised to add a massive loss in American prosperity next?

    Reply

  67. Daveg says:

    All I can say is that I never really thought about “Jews” very much or Israel for that matter … until the Iraq war.
    I know see a well organized and very well financed group advocating policies that hurt my country in serious ways. Lives are being lost and ruined.
    Yeah, lots of Jews are against the war and do a lot to try and stop it, but they, for the most part, won’t go the step of pointing out AIPAC and the ethnic interests behind it, as well as the more loosely connected set of pro0Israel groups.
    For the few that have I thank them deeply.
    When substantial part of an ethnic group acts so decisively and vigorously acts in their own ethnic interests and (IMHO) against the interest of me and my fellow countrymen, THAT is very disturbing.
    Any ill will I have, therefore, is against these ACTIONS, not looks, religion, etc. It is a serious problem. But when the actions are so clearly based on ethnic/religious motivations, it is difficult not to notice this.
    And should one really be required not to notice it? It is like trying to solve a crime while ignoring the potential motives of various perpetrators.

    Reply

  68. Carroll says:

    Posted by Winnipeger at March 24, 2007 12:53 AM
    >>>>>>>
    Now how did you know winnie, that I was thinking of exactly you and your very hysterical “jews vrs the world” attitude when I wrote that.
    But yep, you deserve to be holocausted for being different and seperate…after all look at how the Amish have been holocausted and you can’t get much more seperate than the Amish…opps, that doesn’t hold up your theory for being perscuted for just being different does it? You will have to try again. Nope, I think you know what Churchill was saying, even though he said it badly.

    Reply

  69. BerkeleyHills says:

    I will never forget Woolsey on the very night of 9/11 spinning his tale that Saddam Hussein, not Osama bin Laden, caused the horrible attacks that day.
    Over and over he repeated that on the three networks, as the networks replayed footage of the collapsing towers.
    Finally on 9/12 Peter Jennings interrupts him, asks the control room to put Woolsey’s face on the screen, and says “I want to see that man’s eyes”.
    Woolsey has a secret agenda that is not necessarily in the best interest of this country.

    Reply

  70. Uppity Gal says:

    Winnipeger- you make some good points, but just reading carroll’s comment – some parts aside- I have to say the comments section and the whole conversation starts to teeter-totter.
    Steve is sage in posting this, if only because we have to “start at the beginning” and ENGAGE in this discussion. Stand apart for a moment and recognize this verbal and cultural clash was historically bound to happen and we are literally living in the midst of it.
    I find it very troubling in American society what trouble we have authentically and honestly discussing and facing the issue of anti-semitism. What frightens me the most is the “either/or” – “you’re with us or out to get us” tone that immediately rises. How does one speak of the forbidden? I am very serious. I engaged in a discussion on this weeks ago over at NoQuarter. A lot of intelligent and I might add, compassionate and passionate, views were expressed (some were simply reactionary). The reason? Because someone took exception with the very formation of Larry’s post about a story concerning Andrea Mitchell and husband Greenspan’s social circle.
    the comment thread in this example is here: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/andrea_mitchell.html#comments
    I find many of the opinions expressed there truthful, but always colored by a sort of knee jerk reaction to the very topic of “jewish-ness” (for lack of a better way to express myself).
    It is a shame…there is a dialogue that desperately needs to happen. The political is so infused, and it is present in average Americans conversations, attitudes and discussion of how they perceive the phrase “anti-semitism.”
    I fear all the parsing, posturing and often personalized talk about the subject prevents us from addressing the larger issues which Emily speaks to…when socially we can’t handle the topic, is it no wonder we become befuddled how to sort through it when it seeps into large decisions about a national foreign policy?

    Reply

  71. Winnipeger says:

    but here the part that really get’s me:
    accoding to churchill, jews “may have unwittingly invited persecution.” how?
    “The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is ‘different’.
    “He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed.”
    hmm… the jew is different. wow. and that’s a crime which deserves a holocaust?! to be different? to refuse to completely assimilate?!
    yeah, you’re right, carroll, on these grounds my grandparents, great-uncles and cousins sure derserved to be gassed alive and burned in ovens.
    i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, taken at face value and based on some of what she writes here, carroll sure comes across as an anti-semite.

    Reply

  72. Winnipeger says:

    “You know the anti-semitism discussions aren’t worth anything except as scare propaganda unless there is a real debate about where anti-semitism comes from and how some Jews contribute to it themselves.”
    what a pile ‘o anti-semitic shit, carrol.
    and blacks contribute to racism as well, huh? with their aberrant behavior and inferior intellect?
    and what about gays? they contribute to homophobia too, with their perverted, drug fueled, sex orgies and blatant promiscuity, right?
    if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    Reply

  73. Carroll says:

    You know the anti-semitism discussions aren’t worth anything except as scare propaganda unless there is a real debate about where anti-semitism comes from and how some Jews contribute to it themselves.
    I just quoted uber zionist Elliot Abrams in another thread and I will give this example once more. Here is what he said in a Commentary interview:
    “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart-except in Israel-from the rest of the population.”
    Which is what Winston Churchill said about Jews….so as Abrams promotes this seperateness, Churchill said it creates anti-semitism. So I guess Churchill now joins the ranks of all the US presidents, Nixon, Esienhower, Carter, Johnson, etc…who have all been called anti-semites.
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070311/world/britain_judaism_history
    “Jews ‘partly responsible’ for their troubles: Churchill
    Sat Mar 10, 7:08 PM
    LONDON (AFP) – The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were “partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer” in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.
    Churchill made the claim in an article entitled “How The Jews Can Combat Persecution” written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.
    He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.
    “It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts,” the article read.
    “It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.
    “These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.
    “For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer.”
    The article adds: “The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is ‘different’.
    “He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed.”
    Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as “sober, industrious, law-abiding” and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.
    “There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man,” he wrote.
    The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university’s archive of Churchill’s papers.
    At the time, Churchill’s secretary advised him it would be “inadvisable” to publish it and it never saw the light of day.
    Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002. ”
    >>>>>>>>>
    I agree with Churchill and have said things to that effect before…because I have seen that attitude in Jews in this type of discussions, a small percentage, but enough to know that this is an attitude among some jewish communities and is re-enforced by some hard core Jewish orgs. When everyone starts getting honest and assuming their own responsibility it might be worth discussing. But continuing this meme that Jews are totally innocent victims of everything and the world are all anti-semites who just hate Jews and let them get gassed in WWII on purpose and are waiting to launch another holocaust because they killed Christ or whatever is frankly idiotic propaganda and does nothing except serve the dangerous agendas of people like Woolsey..

    Reply

  74. Dan Kervick says:

    I suspect the argument Woolsey makes will go something like as follows:
    “Many Arab and Muslim regimes in the Middle East are deeply anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic. If the US and the rest of the world continues in its current oil-guzzling ways, and continues to tolerate the existence of these regimes, the political and economic leverage of these anti-semitic regimes will continue to rise, and other countries will be compelled to adopt foreign policies that harmonize with the foreign policy preferences of these regimes. Ultimately, the increasingly dependent oil-consuming states will become just as thoroughly anti-Israel as the Middle east oil-producing states, at which point Israel is doomed.
    “Thus, the only way out of a second holocaust is a program of radical regime change that (i) replaces the current regimes in the Middle East with liberal and pro-American vassal governments, (i)polices and subjugates the region with a permanent western military presence, and (iii) privatizes the regional oil industries to destroy the power of OPEC, and keep control of the oilfields safely in the hands of western investors – backed up by said military presence.”
    I’m guessing this is Woolsey’s message only because this has been the neoconservative prescription for many years now. It was always behind their railing against CIA and State Department “Arabists” with their more traditional pro-stability orientation. It was also part of their pre-war planning, but those plans were frustrated once Iraq went sour and the US government decided not to push oil privatization.

    Reply

  75. Carroll says:

    The “Frame Shop” for “Agendaphobes”
    Come on …we have seen this a thousand times.
    “They” all attach all their agendas to all their other agendas de jour. It’s like cross dressing. Or agenda stew.
    The only thing Woolsey could do to be considered credible is if he hung himself as a war profiteer and traitor.

    Reply

  76. Marcia says:

    The problem is that these neocons are like onions. You have to peel through layers and layers of skins to finally get to the real thing. The same for motivations. The whys are as varied as the occasions and often stale.
    We have had six years of talk and siw years of acts. Compare the two.

    Reply

  77. Emily says:

    Woolsey is a racist, an Islamophobe…
    Steve makes a key & very valid point:–
    “I just don’t know what Jim Woolsey’s energy concerns have to do with anti-semitism studies…”…
    Exactly– they don’t, unless he has a hidden agenda to gin-up the neo-con’s position to wage war against Israel’s neighbors. One wonders what AIPAC has ordered him to say.
    Anti-semitism is a valid study… Islamophobic racism is also a valid study.
    Woolsey would be more credible if he was condemning racism & hatreds towards ANY & ALL GROUPS, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Arab, Israeli, American, Black, White, etc. etc. etc.
    Tragically, Islamophobia is today’s racism-du-jour which is politically correct. It’s becoming a much more chronic problem than anti-semitism which is recognized as wrong. But, the same people who often shout the loudest about anti-semitism vomit the most hatefilled bile about Muslims and/or Arabs.

    Reply

  78. Matthew says:

    How to totally discredit Woolsey in one sentence from Steve: “I also strongly disagree with the former CIA Director’s advocacy of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard’s release.”
    Question: Does the Jerusalem Prize come with automatic Israeli citizenship?
    No wonder Clinton never wanted to meet with this guy alone.

    Reply

  79. Scott Paul says:

    My turn to weigh in on your post, Steve.
    I’ve heard Woolsey speak before. He makes a compelling case for pursuing alternative energy. But for the reasons I noted in my post yesterday, I’m very troubled by his conception and pursuit of “energy independence.” I think some of the policy solutions he is helping to advance are important, but he leaves the impression that
    – all oil-producing states are out to get us; and
    – all we have to do is cut off oil imports and our problems will be solved.
    Both of these points are misleading. And since many non-expert Americans already hold these as assumptions, his message is very problematic.
    So Woolsey is advancing good policies in a bad frame. What to think? I’m not sure. I don’t know if his influence on this issue balances out to be good or bad, but worth a mention either way.

    Reply

  80. JohnH says:

    At least Woolsey nailed the title: “The Long War” [AKA “Global War on Terror”] is all about energy security. It’s no coincidence that the terrorists we are concernced about live mostly near oil fields or pipelines. Tamil Tigers, who live near tea plantations and are credited with perfecting the tactic of suicide bombing and inspiring its use elsewhere, are of little concern.
    Woolsey’s program is certainly thoughtful,
    http://www.energybulletin.net/11013.html
    though I am suspicious about the filthy coal industry’s being behind his “clean coal” electricity initiative, which I think involves a lot of smoke and more mirrors. My guess on his stock ownership would be Peabody Coal.
    Let’s hope the host organization’s motivation is something as simple as wanting to hear about an important topice from a recognized fellow traveller: Woolsey is generally recognized as a neocon and was awarded the Jerusalem Prize of the American Jewish Congress. Maybe he can convince the audience that there is more at stake here than just the future of Israel.

    Reply

  81. gq says:

    Oh, Steve, you just need to let Barack Obama into your heart to get rid of that cynicism.

    Reply

  82. Matthew says:

    Fighting anti-Semistism is worthwhile, Steve. I just think it is given excessive priority. Have you listened to Hate Radio or Glen Beck? The only respectable forms of bigotry in America today are anti-gay and anti-Muslim diatribes. Notice how the terror profitateers have no interest in condemning this form of hate.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *