I already explained it earlier in the thread. I don’t know why you’re so hung up on this. I also don’t know why this rather arcane affair should invalidate the whole site, or indicate any anti-Jewish agenda on their part.
Yes, and I can’t help it if you’re dubious, or if you simply have poor reading comprehension.
No, I never did. I met someone who works for them, and I, having never read their work before, became both curious and suspicious. I looked at their own site, and saw their common cause with Holocaust deniers/revisionists. I never made use of it, nor did anyone call me on it.
No, AIPAC is a specific organization, or group of organizations, and I wasn’t sure if all the Christian Zionists are technically members. Also, it’s the Israel lobby, not the Israeli lobby. That’s not your only error.
So then, to be clear you’re specifically denying you endorsed Allison Weir even though she claims that Israeli Jews are deliberately murdering Palestinians to steal their organs and that medieval Italian Jews kidnapped and murdered Christians.
Would you agree then she should be classified as an anti-Semitic kook.
Er… That was a typo. They happen when typing posts.
And no, in Washington when people referred to “the Israel lobby” or sometimes “the pro-Israel lobby” or “the Israeli lobby” they meant the umbrella organization called AIPAC.
I don’t know of any “Christian Zionists” who are major members of AIPAC.
Now since you’re insisting that “the Israel lobby” isn’t AIPAC perhaps you can tell us what is the official name of “the Israel lobby” and tell us who it’s Chairman or President is?
If the peace protesting left simply announced that the conflict in Ukraine was none of their concern, that would be one thing. But it isn’t what is happening. Rather, at least some of them are actively making statements - which read like textbook appeasement.
An example, from the UK and not US:
It’s a masterpiece of the ‘just asking questions’ variety. The message is loud and clear: while on its face this appears superficially to be an invasion by Russia of one of it’s neighbours, if you JAQ enough, you can see it’s really all the fault of the West and the “fascist and far right” Ukrainians … which by a curious coincidence is exactly the line taken by Putin!
That is subtlety itself compared with some US sites.
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/how-and-why-us-supported-neo-nazis-Ukraine.html
But you just proved my point, they are still condemning actions of their own governments. Like always. The fact that they’ll use any excuse to do so proves what? That those particular groups named lack objectivity? OK, granted.
They are also protesting the acts of Ukrainians - all that ‘they are a bunch of fascists’ talk. The only actor in this drama whose actions they are not protesting against - of Western nations, Ukrainians, and Russians - is Russians. Who are, in fact, the ones doing the invading.
It undermines any notion that they are credible, or indeed, really against war. Apparently, sometimes invasions are in fact okay - if the target is (say) a pack of “fascists” supported by the West.
I took your point to be that peace protestors protest against the un-peaceful acts of their own country, but have no interest in the un-peaceful acts of other countries, as they cant influence the public there - in that case, it is no hypocrisy for them to protest acts their own country commits, and fail to protest acts another country commits, even if they are the same acts.
That’s not what is happening here. They are alleging to analyze the acts in question, and coming to conclusions - that the Russians are not morally at fault here. The fault belongs to “fascist” Ukrainians and the West.
Sure, because people so opposed to their own government, to the point of lacking objectivity, they rely on non Western media. They read it and say “OMG, typical military-industrial complex media is ignoring the fascists!”. I like to think they wouldn’t speak the same way if there were some dead bodies and burning rubble in the Crimean streets, but who knows. It is an unusual invasion that is so bloodless.
And I’ll add, peace organizations don’t “owe it” to us to protest every war nor invalidate everything done in the past or future if they don’t. The fascination with finding “hypocrisy” is pretty useless and tiring most of the time.
I endorse the work of Allison Weir and her organization. Even if the organ scandal had no basis in reality, and even if there was no kernel of truth to the blood libel, that would not invalidate the rest of her work, nor would it characterize her as an “anti-Semitic kook.” She works with non-Zionist Jews, and referred to the blood libel as “widely refuted.” When news about the organ scandal broke, it was Israel’s apologists who compared it to the blood libel, thus prompting the discussion about the arcane findings of those who plunged into the back story and thought they found something. It’s trivial, in any case.
AIPAC is the most prominent force within the Israel lobby, but it is not the only one. Christians United For Israel (CUFI) is another, and there are more. There is no single organization uniting the elements of the lobby, thus there is no Chair or President.
I’m mostly on your side here, but I think this is fallacious. When we speak of The Gun Lobby, yes, we mostly mean the NRA…but there are lots of other gun advocate groups. Marijuana, NORML—and others. Abortion, you’ve got NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
The “X” Lobby is not reducible to its single largest component. A lot of people are supporters of Israel, without being members of AIPAC.
When I was in Washington I never heard anyone use the phrase “the Israel lobby” to refer to anything but AIPAC.
Also the idea that CUFI is remotely as influential as AIPAC is ludicrous.
Perhaps, OurLordPeace could explain what he means by the phrase and what one has to do be a part of this “lobby”.
What do you mean “even if”?
You don’t actually believe that the discredited anti-Semitic claptrap might be correct do you? :dubious:
What’s next? Quoting Walt, Mearscheimer, and Finklestein?
I also do love the assertion that Weir can’t be an anti-Semite because she works with “non-Zionist Jews”.
I assume you also believe people who support Herman Cain can’t be racist.
No, CUFI is not remotely as influential as AIPAC, but they are part of the lobby, and they seemed to have Bush II’s ear. What I mean by the phrase is what everyone means by the phrase: The Israel Lobby is composed of those activists and organizations that advocate for Zionist goals (often articulated by the Israeli government) in the US, largely by attempting to influence the actions of the US government. AIPAC is the largest and most powerful component of said lobby.
Why is such an accusation anti-Semitic? The Kosovo Liberation Army is accused of similar actions, and they are/were not Jewish.
What’s wrong with quoting Professors Walt, Mearsheimer, and Finkelstein? Why do you dismiss them out of hand?
No, working with some Jews would not necessarily negate accusations of anti-Semitism, but it’s a mark in her favor. In fact, there’s a pattern in her work of seeking to demonstrate, because one must do so when dealing with this issue, that opposition to Zionism need not stem from anti-Jewish feeling. In fact, she wrote as much, in a column called “Choosing to Act: Anti-Semitism is Wrong”, in which she states that “equating the wrongdoing of Israel with Jewishness is the deepest and most insidious form of anti-Semitism of all.”
The fact is that Zionists, Jewish and Gentile, are among the groups in the US that try to get the US to do their dirty work, in one way or another. They’re a good example. Presently, elements with ties to Ukraine, who seem to be willing to make common cause with the far-right (and sometimes neo-Nazi!) groups involved in the Ukrainian situation, are attempting to emulate the Zionists, which is why I mentioned them in the first place.
It’s not American business, it’s not an American fight, and I resent those who try to get the US involved in their own conflicts.
Oh, I forgot to ask.
You insist that you weren’t trying to use “Zionists” as a code word for Jews even though the overwhelming number of American Jews identify themselves as Zionists and even thought you included “Zionists” in with a number of other “diaspora groups” whom you identified by ethnicity “Cubans” “Albanians” etc.
Well, if you were referring to “Zionists” of all ethnicities and religions why did you label Zionists a “diaspora group”?
Thanks
BTW since you made a point of saying you refused to have anything to do with people who associate with Holocaust Deniers do you also refuse to have anything to do with the Palestinian Authority which is headed by a Holocaust Denier?
I’m trying to follow the discussion here, and I assume “such an accusation” is the blood libel or related organ theft.
It is anti-Semitic because the origin of the legend is among anti-Semites. The legend originated not with reality, but out of the collective fears and hatred medieval Christians held for Jews. The legend does not circulate as a belief text among people who are not anti-Semitic. People who are anti-Semitic are inclined toward belief, at least holding out the possibility that it might be inspired by reality (which incidentally is strongly colouring my opinion of you). People who are not anti-Semitic tend to be able to see it with a clearer head.
I don’t know (or care) who Alison Weir is. She may be an anti-Semite who also does good things. Still, there are so many people who do good things who are NOT anti-Semites, that I do not support anti-Semites, even those with redeeming features. You might consider the same policy.
I wrote that some are diaspora groups, but others are, well, “other.” I use the term Zionists because it is necessary to specify that one has a problem with Zionism and not Jews in general. This shouldn’t be necessary, but it is, because very often, the slightest criticism of Zionists, Zionism, or anything related to Israel is greeted with hysterical, reflexive accusations of anti-Semitism. If somebody refers to the nefarious activities of the Miami Cubans (shifting demographics are changing that situation, by the way), nobody says that it stems from general anti-Cuban feeling. Those who didn’t appreciate the role played by Albanian-American lobbyists to get the US involved in the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1999 were not (as far as I know) accused of anti-Albanian bigotry, and if they were, they could point to the KLA’s crimes against non-compliant Albanians, as well as the airstrikes’ casualties among ethnic Albanian civilians.
When dealing with Israel, for some reason, the path is much more treacherous, hence the careful attention paid to language.
No, I don’t have many positive things to say about the leadership of the Palestinian Authority.
No, the allegations of organ theft are modern. When they were raised, those who took offense attempted to silence the discussion by comparing it to the blood libel, which Weir clearly states is largely mythical, and I certainly don’t challenge that. When all this happened, she drew attention to the work of some researchers (Israeli, I think) who thought they had found one or more incidents that might have given rise to the myth. It is, indeed, a pernicious myth, but it is not related directly to the modern controversy, and the trainspotting investigation and the ensuing rancor is beside the point.
Umm… Weir stated the Blood Libel was “based on fact” and cited the claimed of a thoroughly discredited academic who claimed groups of Italian Jews used to kidnap and murder Christians.
Only a complete moron or an anti-Semite would have swallowed either claim.
Beyond that, if you don’t understand why people would find the story which Weir credulously believed of evil Israelis gunning down Palestinians and then dragging off their bodies to harvest their organs comparable to “the blood libel” then you are grossly ignorant of both Jewish history and the history of Anti-Semitism.
What leftists are you speaking about?
Here is her article, loaded with footnotes, about all of the above, where she says the blood libel is “widely refuted,” and then goes into the minutia from the academic you mention. For the sake of completion, here is the link to its appearance in Counterpunch.
No, I understand why people would find it comparable. That doesn’t mean they’re one and the same, nor does it invalidate the other work of anyone who touted the accusations when they arose, nor does it tar me with any guilt-by-association because I endorsed some of Weir’s material.
Here she is in 2009, responding to allegations of anti-Semitism and all the rest. Evidently these allegations were spread on this particular campus by a professor who is audible at the end of the video, as he showed up trying to defend his backfiring slander. “It’s not good to cry ‘wolf’ too often; there are wolves around…”
She never blasts Jews for selling Jesus out to the Romans, or manipulating banks, or manipulating the media, or shortchanging everybody, or anything like that. She neither denies nor justifies the Holocaust. I already showed you her writing that decries anti-Semitism, and here’s the site’s primer on the origins of the conflict, written by a Jewish group, and delineating the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Do you know where there seems to be a lot of anti-Semites, among other bad things?
Blast! There was a subject/verb discrepancy in the last sentence. Anyway, the answer is: Ukraine!