Sisyphus Shrugged

Well, yeah, dawg, but there's a huge difference between "Our foreign policy in the middle east is heavily influenced by political factions who are pro-Israel" (which is inarguable, although it ignores the fact that our foreign policy is at least as influenced by the interests of OPEC, who are many of them virulently anti-Israel) and Israeli "puppet-masters" are running the United States government.

The biggest bloc of pro-Israel voices in politics today are millennialists, who don't love jews any more than Ralph does.

From: (Anonymous)

I agree about the questionable policies of Israel (and the US's continued support, regardless of the ire of the world community ... or World Court)

I do not consider myself an anti-Semite in any way, but the policies of Israel and its subsequent influences on the US should interest more people than it seemingly does. The most recent thing was Senator Kerry campaigning in Israel a couple weeks ago. Why is an American Presidential candidate campaigning in a foreign country? When do the candidates plan to campaign in Canada or Mexico? What claim does Israel have that other countries do not deserve?

If anyone believes the book "By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer" by Victor Ostrovsky, then the following are also disturbing:

The idea that the Mossad uses the cry of anti-Semitism as a matter of policy is rather disgraceful. As is the fact that we are now giving billions of dollars to aid a country that could have warned us of the bombing in Beirut, but chose not to mainly because there was a chance that a retaliatory strike by the US could take out Arafat. Or that a man so brutal he was almost kicked out of the Mossad is now the Israeli Prime Minister(Sharon).

Does it not strike enough people as ironic that the Israelis are "fencing" (and nothing that large or that concrete is a "fence" by any stretch of the imagination) off the Palestinians in much the same way as Nazis once walled off the Jewish ghettos?

None of this is anti-Semitism, it's just plain criticism, the kind anyone else would be subjected to had they undertaken identical courses of action. Do I have to apologize simply because the country in question is Jewish?

From: (Anonymous)

There is a thing going around that when someone introduces Hitler or the Nazis into any discussion, the discussion has in effect ended. Perhaps something more original might be more appropriate.

From:

The "thing going around" is Godwin's Law, and I think quoting Der Sturmer qualifies.

From: (Anonymous)

Perhaps, but doing so precludes any discussion of whether there is any truth behind what is being said (which may be the point).

From:

well then he shouldn't have done so, should he.

From: (Anonymous)

Your response is totally unresponsive to whether there is a factual basis for his position. If there is, it would seem to me that by equating what he said with Nazi propaganda you have precluded discussion of the point. There is certainly room for irritation at a client state being able to blow off its commitments because it can cause too many political problems for anyone opposing its interests.

From:

I thought you were discussing Godwin's law.

Those who wish to discuss any merit in Nader's position aside from his antisemitic rhetoric have been doing so for about five hours, myself among them.

From:

Plus, in my opinion Godwin's Law doesn't apply to discussions about Israel or anti-Semitic content. Maybe not talks about racism, period.

Nazism is strictly relevant in these cases. It's the filthy pit at the bottom of the slippery slope when humans treat each other badly for being different. I mean, how can we debate anti-Semitism and never bring up the awful legacy of Hitler? That's crazy.

From: (Anonymous)

A very facile answer, but it ignores the fact that all too often any criticism of anything about Israel is equated with the Nazi position on the

From:

So now you're arguing about what often takes place?

You know, I'm really not in this because I want to parse with anonymous strangers. Either you want to slap down my mode of discourse, which you have, and been answered, or you want to make a substantial argument, which you were welcome to do at any point but haven't chosen to.

In either case, I'd say you've accomplished whatever you're going to.

From:

snuh.livejournal.com

That *thing* was from Mike Godwin - Godwin's Rule, which is often misunderstood.

From the horse's mouth:

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

From:

Exactly. You can't cry "Godwin" when the discussion is *about* the Nazis....or a comparison to them. The term, in usenet, is used to know when a "discussion" has reached the end of it's rope because people start comparing *each other* to Hilter, et.al.

From:

Here's a revolutionary thought: being opposed to the Israeli state and being anti-Semitic are not one and the same.

I am opposed to the actions of Ariel Sharon's government, and to the brutality and oppression dealt to the people of Palestine, to the Wall... but I don't hate Jewish people! It's wacky but true.

From:

Hey, guess what? You can not appreciate Ralph Nader using centuries old anti-semitic rhetoric and still not support Likud.

Isn't that wacky too?

From:

I think you may be reading more into it than is really there. Calling someone a puppet is a cliche, hackneyed device in politics-- I don't read it as inherently anti-Semitic. When we set up a puppet gov't in Iraq, I suppose someone could have found old "Kill All the Saracens and their Puppets" hate writings and insisted that it was racist to call a muslim gov't 'puppet'. Ralph's delusional, irrelevant, and unethical; that's enough.

The only way Ralph's statement could be read as anti-Semitic, in my opinion, is if you conflate antisemitism with criticism of how Israel's gov't has power over our dystopian prez... but Ralph's even wrong there, obviously it's not a simple puppet/master relationship.

In another user's journal this would have gone ignored by me, but I want to respond because I have so much respect for you and your grasp of current events & social issues.

From:

Well, that's one of the more endearing ways to frame an argument... thank you.

I have to disagree, though, about the import of his using that phrase - a quick google shows it mainly in two places - anti-defamation sites and anti-semitic sites.

I think it's a little too much of a coincidence that a candidate who is going after the arab-american vote as hard as Nader is accidentally used some very common code for "jewish conspiracy"

Again, I am no fan of Likud, but this is over the line.

From:

I'm afraid that I must disagree as well. A google search using the phrase political puppetmaster doesn't have a single anti-Semite site on the first 4 pages. (I got tired of looking after that.)

How 'bout these apples:

According the Israeli Hebrew radio Kol Yisrael,Peres warned Sharon that "refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us."

At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public, because "it would cause us a public relations disaster." Sharon repeated the quote in the Knesset.

Or...how bout this:

Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under Ronald Reagan said this:

"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Or:
An Israeli journalist named Ari Shavit, lamenting the harsh treatments that his government dishes out to the Palestinians, made the following observation in Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli journal:

" We believe with absolute certitude that now, with the White House and Senate in our hands along with the Pentagon and the New York Times, the lives [of Arabs] do not count as much as our own. Their blood does not count as much as our blood. We believe with absolute certitude that now, when we have AIPAC [the Israel lobby] and [Edgar] Bronfman and the Anti-Defamation League, , we truly have the right to tell 400,000 people that in eight hours they must flee from their homes. And that we have the right to rain bombs on their villages and towns and populated areas. That we have the right to kill without any guilt."

I'm just saying...Ralph isn't out there alone on this "We'll give Israel anything they want" thing. Because...as it turns out...it's true. Or it surely has every appearance of being true. No other country in the world gets the vast amount of money and military support that we give Israel to commit genocide. No other country blatenly disregards UN sanctions and builds a vast array of nukes...many of which can be targeted on the US. No other country has gotten away with blowing up a Navy ship, killing hundreds of Americans and never having to even apologize.

I think your comparing Nadar to the Nazis is off the mark. I think it's a kneejerk reaction that occurs when people think that antiSemitism may be rearing it's ugly head. And were that the case, I'd be right there stomping on the serpent's head. But, criticizing the Likud isn't being an Anti-Semite. And neither is recognizing that the Likud lobby holds an extraordinarily large amount of power when it comes to American politics, especially in regards to Israel.

From:

try jewish puppetmaster, which is what we're talking about here.

From:

Well, that's obvious.

spiderfarmer makes an excellent point. You're technically right here-- but so what? Search for "jewish puppetmaster" and you'll find instances of Jewish people being called puppet-masters. Yeah? I maintain that you are sharp as a bucket of tacks, jmhm, but I think you can't see why you're inaccurate about this.

Attack Nader for any of the reasons that make sense-- there's plenty of stupidity and wrongheadedness bubbling out of his seat belt-boosting mouth. According to some reports: he doesn't want to have cats around since he thinks they cause leukemia. Heck, find an instance in which he makes an irrefutably antisemitic comment and you'll have my apologies... but there's so much that's really wrong with his candidacy (this year especially) and the methods he's using, it seems a pity to sling artificial mud at him when we've got an entire swamp of the real stuff. He's obviously blinded by his ego and firmly ingrained sense of self-righteousness...

It all comes down to context for me. If the rest of this speech is rife with racist codes, then this can plausibly be seen as a reference to puppet-masters that is racist. However, I think he's just another dusty old man churning out cliches while running a harmful campaign for the presidency.

From:

I think we may have to agree to disagree here - I see what you both are saying, and you have a number of good points, but I also see someone who is increasingly saying bizarre things and I very much wonder if we can read reason into this one.

I'm honestly starting to wonder about that famous can of tuna he eats every day for lunch. According to the latest numbers, that means he's been ingesting an awful lot of mercury...

From:

Oh...I'll grant you that the man is mad....mad I tell you. My point was primarily that what he said wasn't Nazi level.

From:

fyi, I'm taking the screening off if you guys want to keep talking. I'm going to bed.

From:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=jewish+puppeteers

Ummm, the first few sites are from Jewish organizations. There's only one anti-semite site on the first page and it's a speech from 1995.

Here's what Nader said to the ADL: (and the Rabbis who agree with him)
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119

Also from that page:

Finally, treat yourself to a recent column on February 5, 2004 in The New York Times, by Thomas Friedman, an author on Middle East affairs, who has been critical of both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. (And a double Pulitzer Prize winner for his Middle East reporting) Mr. Friedman writes:

“Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he’s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who’s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year—all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing.”

From:

Like a district attorney who can indict a ham sandwich, the New York Times has gotten Pulitzer prizes for ham sandwiches before (I mean, really, Maureen Dowd?) and Friedman is one of them, as far as I'm concerned.

From:

heheheheh. Sorry, the ham sandwich line made me laugh out loud. :)

From:

as for the rest - Sharon? Hey, if you want to make the case that the party we support in Israel is run by a corrupt thug, I'm right there with you. Couldn't agree more.

If Sharon didn't have Pat "we need 'em all in one place so we can smite 'em easier" Robertson and that ilk on his side, I don't think he'd be so cocky. Remember, this is an adminstration personally foisted on us by James "fuck the jews" Baker.

(deleted comment)

From: (Anonymous)

It could follow the example of South Africa and abolish all ethnic legal differences. South Africa and the people in it didn't go anywhere, and neither need the people and state of Israel.

From:

I write:
"I am opposed to the actions of Ariel Sharon's government, and to the brutality and oppression dealt to the people of Palestine, to the Wall... but I don't hate Jewish people! It's wacky but true."

You read:
"I think Israel should go away! The Israelis too!"

Are brutality and oppression, and the wall, and bulldozing people's homes, and firing on children's parades inherent in the existence of Israel? I hope not.

I'm opposed to Russia's actions in Chechnya. I'm opposed to American actions all over the world.

These statements cannot be rationally evaluated as "I want Russia and America to 'go away'!"

(deleted comment)

From:

That is exactly what I said. I just copied and pasted.

See above for confirmation.

Next?

From:

It could be construed to mean that, if I hadn't specified exactly what I meant in the next paragraph. The one I pasted. "I oppose the policies and actions of the present gov't"

But let's both pretend I just posted one sentence...

Wow! You're right. I was unclear. I should have written more after that, with examples & stuff. I think the Israeli people have the right to a state-- I wouldn't want one that was right there if I were them, but that's just my cowardly self-preservation. Since it's too late to change that, I must say that their gov't and military treat the Palestinians very badly, and this is bitterly ironic. I oppose these actions, not the idea of a state that has existed for a few generations already. It would be the definition of hypocrisy for me to support a Palestinian state and not an Israeli one, since my support for the one is based only on the fact that people live and work and attempt to grow food in "Palestine." Even if it were possible to make Israel "go away" without brutality and oppression of the Israeli people (which I explicitly must oppose, to have any kind of argument against the brutal treatment and oppression of Palestinians) it would be equal to making Palestine "go away." One of these scenarios is hypothetical.

The state and the people are two distinct entities.

But, really, I did clearly refer to this specific (shorter-winded) reply you're talking about. Unless you only read the first parts of things and then click Reply...

From:

I realize that HAMAS, et al really are trying to destroy the state of Israel, this is not hypothetical. Only my support for this destruction of Israel is. Sorry for sloppy writing.

Someone wrote a book called The Third Side. I never read it, just watched an interview with him-- so this will be the worst kind of uninformed internet babble-- but the idea still seems amazing in our world: that there can be a 3rd side in a war. A viewpoint that says "I abhor and condemn suicide bombing AND helicopter strikes." All killing disgusts and saddens me. The more you think about the reality of war, and not th' abstract ideals involved.... take Najaf for example. My gut reaction is that the Iraqis have a right to defend themselves against our troops, and we're out of our bleeding minds to be sending this much force into the Shia holy city.

But if I saw a video, or read a report about a Marine being shot or stabbed, captured, tortured etc during this struggle my heart would still go out to him. That's what the 3rd side is about.

You oppose Likud and Ralph Nader. Thus, it's an issue that (duh, Brodie) has as many sides to it as people debating it. I'm anti gov't when power is used to oppress. Pro- when the military is sent where we might be able to help. It kills me that we're not doing what we do best (being "tough") in places like Sudan.

This concludes my low-blood sugar ranting. Thanks for playing.

From:

wouldprefernot2.livejournal.com

The idea that Jewish power is the main influence on American policy in the Middle East is a staple of mainstream political discourse (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/mar95zunes.htm) (albeit one that is mainly expressed sotto voce). To argue against it, while at the same time being aware of the extent of America's support for Israel, means getting serious about American imperialism. This is of course impossible for a Democratic or Republican candidate for president. Nader could do it, but doesn't, whether out of ignorance, laziness, or something worse.

And, of course, Nader's remarks are the mirror image of the montage of Republican officials shaking hands with various unidentified Saudis to the strains of "Shiny Happy People" in Fahrenheit 911. But I don't see anyone calling Moore an anti-Arab racist.

From: