Re: [Marxism] Alison Weir

[Ken Hiebert via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

It's a good thing I asked a second time.  We now have a more accurate statement 
of the facts.
According to SJP,  "...it is important to note that Ms. Weir did nothing to 
challenge these assertions by Mr. Douglas and has in fact repeatedly stated her 
belief that Mr. Douglas is not racist, violent, or anti-Semitic."
Do you think SJP is right in saying this?
ken h

On 2016-04-29, at 8:54 PM, A.R. G wrote:

> I didn't forget, I assumed you could find it yourself given you found their 
> last one. It's the third one down: https://www.facebook.com/StanfordSJP/
> 
> --
> "...
> Regarding claims that we told Ms. Ashkar that she should not say that Israel 
> had no right to exist in her presentation - this was in fact told to Ms. 
> Ashkar by two members of our SJP. This is not, however, because we actually 
> believe that saying Israel has no right to exist is anti-Semitic. The members 
> of our group who told this to Ms. Ashkar felt intimidated by the current 
> standing bill in the student senate and felt as though it would be unwise 
> given the campus climate for a presenter at one of our events to speak openly 
> about wanting Israel to cease to exist. Though some of our members disagree 
> with those members’ decision to tell Ms. Ashkar that she could not speak 
> about Israel not having a right to exist, that decision was based on those 
> members’ feelings of not being able to speak openly about opposition to 
> Zionism because of the current student government bill. We believe that this 
> situation is an effective demonstration of how bills such as the one 
> currently in our student government work to silence criticism of Israel on 
> college campuses: by making Palestinian solidarity organizers feel 
> intimidated, by making them doubt themselves, and by making them feel like 
> they cannot speak out."
> 
> Let us be clear: we harbor no animus toward Ms. Ashkar. Our desire as 
> Stanford SJP to cancel the event was based solely on the presence of Ms. Weir 
> and the behavior of Ms. Weir and Mr. Larudee. We would have loved to hear the 
> stories of Ms. Fathallah and Ms. Ashkar, and we find it repulsive that Mr. 
> Larudee, Ms. Weir, and their associates are attempting to discredit of a 
> group of students who are simply trying to do their best to work for justice 
> for Palestinians and for all people.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine
> 
> ** We do regret that the previous statement issued on April 8 had factual 
> inaccuracies; the statement that “In addition, Ms. Weir has also made 
> derogatory remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, 
> denied the impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a 
> Jewish conspiracy” is not true. These remarks were in fact made by notorious 
> white supremacist Clay Douglas to Ms. Weir during the times she appeared on 
> his radio show, “The Free American Hour”. However, it is important to note 
> that Ms. Weir did nothing to challenge these assertions by Mr. Douglas and 
> has in fact repeatedly stated her belief that Mr. Douglas is not racist, 
> violent, or anti-Semitic."
> --
> 
> They admit to asking the refugee speaker not to say things about Israel's 
> "right to exist" and add an addendum admitting that their accusation was 
> false. 
> 
> The first part is important because it means they have essentially validated 
> what Amena, the Palestinian refugee, has said about why she felt it necessary 
> to call off the event. It would provide a much more reasonable explanation 
> for why the speaker called it off than their own explanation that they had to 
> shut down an entire event because a "problem person" allegedly wouldn't 
> leave. Weir said nobody asked her to leave, and their original statement (the 
> one you linked) says only that they asked her to remove some of her personal 
> writings, and concedes that Weir complied. It wouldn't make sense for them to 
> ask only that she remove materials if they also want her out. Lastly if it 
> was really an issue they could have called security to remove her rather than 
> cancelling the entire event. And all that is proceeding on the preposterous 
> notion that Alison Weir's radio interviews 10 years ago are a legitimate 
> reason to behave this way anyway. 
> 
> In Stanford SJP's defense, they didn't behave this way at all, because the 
> entire story is a bullshit post hoc explanation that is less embarrassing 
> than admitting that a Palestinian refugee felt compelled to call of an event 
> because the organizers tried to censor anti-Israel sentiment. 
> 
> - 

[Marxism] The IMF and World Bank as champions of the carbon tax

[Joseph Green via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Earth Day 2016 revisited:
The IMF, the World Bank, and the neo-liberal carbon tax
(from the DWV list for April 29, 2016) 

by Joseph Green

Workers around the world are being devastated by the market fundamentalism of 
the so-called "Washington Consensus", which is identified with such 
institutions as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. 
These institutions are helping submerge the world in wave after wave of 
privatization, wage-cutting, elimination of entitlements, and "structural 
readjustment". They promised that market measures would bring economic 
development and prosperity, but the result has been misery on a mass scale, 
with entire countries devastated one after another.

So it should cause people to think twice that the IMF and the World Bank are 
now pushing hard for "carbon pricing" as the solution to the threat of global 
warming. Can such harmful institutions be correct about the path forward for 
environmental reform? The IMF is especially dead set on the carbon tax, while 
the World Bank would also accept cap and trade programs.

I have discussed elsewhere what's wrong with carbon taxes and carbon pricing; 
some references are listed at the end of this article. Here let's examine how 
the IMF and World Bank see the issue. How they envision the carbon tax will 
be far more influential than the beautiful pictures drawn by some other 
advocates of the carbon tax.

The UN's global climate summit in Paris of November 2015 ended in a lot of 
promises, but not much in the way of binding commitments. Serious 
environmentalists like James Hansen denounced the results of the Paris 
summit, but 175 leaders of bourgeois governments made a great display of 
signing the resulting accords on Earth Day, April 22, 2016. The "New York 
Times" carried a number of articles on the occasion of these events; one of 
the most significant ones, by Coral Davenport, noted the increasing role 
played by the IMF and the World Bank: "Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the 
World Bank and the I.M.F." (1). She reported that these institutions "are 
pressing governments to impose a price tag on planet-warming carbon dioxide 
emissions, using economic leverage and technical assistance that institutions 
like the United Nations cannot muster."

Perhaps this will sound good to some people, as if these institutions were 
now on our side. But let's see. Christine Lagarde is the Managing Director of 
the IMF. In an article entitled "Ten myths about climate change policy", she 
talks about how the carbon tax is a replacement for direct government action 
on the environment, which she regards as impractical. She supports the carbon 
tax as part of seeking to slow down other actions. (2) She writes:

"Myth number two is that a plethora of complex and cumbersome government 
policy interventions is the best way to reduce emissions, carbon dioxide 
being the most important--subsidies for wind farms, solar panels, biofuels, 
public transport, electric vehicles; regulations on the energy efficiency of 
buildings, lighting, cars, planes, water heaters, refrigerators, industrial 
machinery, etc. I would push back somewhat on this approach as it is 
inefficient for climate policy and administratively complex."

It's notable that in Lagarde can barely conceive of government action beyond 
subsidies and minor regulations, but she doesn't even want to see those 
actions.

The World Bank, for its part, joined with its partners in "formally launching 
the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition." (3) It, too, wants carbon pricing 
to replace direct governmental measures to prevent greenhouse emissions. It 
says that "Instead of dictating who should reduce emissions where and how, a 
carbon price gives an economic signal and polluters decide for themselves 
whether to discontinue their polluting activity, reduce emissions, or 
continue polluting and pay for it." (4) So the governments aren't supposed to 
ban harmful fossil fuels, or dictate a path to their elimination. And 
environmental organizations aren't supposed to push companies to do things 
they don't want to do. Instead, the World Bank wants us to follow another 
path: Leave it to the market. Leave it to the polluters themselves to have a 
change of heart when they look at their pocketbook. Don't restrict and 
eliminate coal mining, fracking, etc. Just change the carbon pricing, and let 
the polluters take care of everything else.

The IMF and World Bank assure us that the carbon tax is supposed to fall on 
the polluters, and imagines that the pain it causes these polluters is 
supposed to cause them to abandon fossil fuels. The World Bank says "A 

Re: [Marxism] Alison Weir

[A.R. G via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I didn't forget, I assumed you could find it yourself given you found their
last one. It's the third one down: https://www.facebook.com/StanfordSJP/

--
"...
*Regarding claims that we told Ms. Ashkar that she should not say that
Israel had no right to exist in her presentation - this was in fact told to
Ms. Ashkar by two members of our SJP*. This is not, however, because we
actually believe that saying Israel has no right to exist is anti-Semitic.
The members of our group who told this to Ms. Ashkar felt intimidated by
the current standing bill in the student senate and felt as though it would
be unwise given the campus climate for a presenter at one of our events to
speak openly about wanting Israel to cease to exist. Though some of our
members disagree with those members’ decision to tell Ms. Ashkar that she
could not speak about Israel not having a right to exist, that decision was
based on those members’ feelings of not being able to speak openly about
opposition to Zionism because of the current student government bill. We
believe that this situation is an effective demonstration of how bills such
as the one currently in our student government work to silence criticism of
Israel on college campuses: by making Palestinian solidarity organizers
feel intimidated, by making them doubt themselves, and by making them feel
like they cannot speak out."

Let us be clear: we harbor no animus toward Ms. Ashkar. Our desire as
Stanford SJP to cancel the event was based solely on the presence of Ms.
Weir and the behavior of Ms. Weir and Mr. Larudee. We would have loved to
hear the stories of Ms. Fathallah and Ms. Ashkar, and we find it repulsive
that Mr. Larudee, Ms. Weir, and their associates are attempting to
discredit of a group of students who are simply trying to do their best to
work for justice for Palestinians and for all people.

Sincerely,
Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine

** We do regret that the previous statement issued on April 8 had factual
inaccuracies; *the statement that “In addition, Ms. Weir has also made
derogatory remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the
KKK, denied the impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to
communism as a Jewish conspiracy” is not true*. These remarks were in fact
made by notorious white supremacist Clay Douglas to Ms. Weir during the
times she appeared on his radio show, “The Free American Hour”. However, it
is important to note that Ms. Weir did nothing to challenge these
assertions by Mr. Douglas and has in fact repeatedly stated her belief that
Mr. Douglas is not racist, violent, or anti-Semitic."
--

They admit to asking the refugee speaker not to say things about Israel's
"right to exist" and add an addendum admitting that their accusation was
false.

The first part is important because it means they have essentially
validated what Amena, the Palestinian refugee, has said about why she felt
it necessary to call off the event. It would provide a much more reasonable
explanation for why the speaker called it off than their own explanation
that they had to shut down an entire event because a "problem person"
allegedly wouldn't leave. Weir said nobody asked her to leave, and their
original statement (the one you linked) says only that they asked her to
remove some of her personal writings, and concedes that Weir complied. It
wouldn't make sense for them to ask only that she remove materials if they
also want her out. Lastly if it was really an issue they could have called
security to remove her rather than cancelling the entire event. And all
that is proceeding on the preposterous notion that Alison Weir's radio
interviews 10 years ago are a legitimate reason to behave this way anyway.

In Stanford SJP's defense, they didn't behave this way at all, because the
entire story is a bullshit post hoc explanation that is less embarrassing
than admitting that a Palestinian refugee felt compelled to call of an
event because the organizers tried to censor anti-Israel sentiment.

- Amith

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Ken Hiebert  wrote:

> You forgot to include a link to the second statement.
> ken h
>
> On 2016-04-29, at 8:31 PM, A.R. G wrote:
>
> Stanford SJP does. They released a second statement clarifying that that
> accusation was incorrect and that they had confused her with that creepy
> Clay Douglas person that interviewed her.
>
> Not that it matters, they lied about why the event was called off:
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKqkm5j7qd4
>
> On Friday, April 29, 2016, Ken Hiebert via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>   

Re: [Marxism] Alison Weir

[Ken Hiebert via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

You forgot to include a link to the second statement.
ken h

On 2016-04-29, at 8:31 PM, A.R. G wrote:

> Stanford SJP does. They released a second statement clarifying that that 
> accusation was incorrect and that they had confused her with that creepy Clay 
> Douglas person that interviewed her.
> 
> Not that it matters, they lied about why the event was called off: 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKqkm5j7qd4
> 
> On Friday, April 29, 2016, Ken Hiebert via Marxism 
>  wrote:
>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
> 
> From the Stanford SJP  Facebook posting of April 8.
> https://www.facebook.com/StanfordSJP/posts/1015517068540461
> "Ms. Weir, however, has made a number of remarks that blatantly attack the 
> Jewish people as whole. In addition, Ms. Weir has also made derogatory 
> remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, denied the 
> impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a Jewish 
> conspiracy."
> 
> I have asked previously and I will ask again, Does anyone deny that Weir has 
> said these things?
> 
> ken h
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Amith
> 

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Alison Weir

[A.R. G via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Stanford SJP does. They released a second statement clarifying that that
accusation was incorrect and that they had confused her with that creepy
Clay Douglas person that interviewed her.

Not that it matters, they lied about why the event was called off:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKqkm5j7qd4

On Friday, April 29, 2016, Ken Hiebert via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> From the Stanford SJP  Facebook posting of April 8.
> https://www.facebook.com/StanfordSJP/posts/1015517068540461
> "Ms. Weir, however, has made a number of remarks that blatantly attack the
> Jewish people as whole. In addition, Ms. Weir has also made derogatory
> remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, denied
> the impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a
> Jewish conspiracy."
>
> I have asked previously and I will ask again, Does anyone deny that Weir
> has said these things?
>
> ken h
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com
>


-- 
- Amith
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Alison Weir

[Ken Hiebert via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

>From the Stanford SJP  Facebook posting of April 8.
https://www.facebook.com/StanfordSJP/posts/1015517068540461
"Ms. Weir, however, has made a number of remarks that blatantly attack the 
Jewish people as whole. In addition, Ms. Weir has also made derogatory remarks 
about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, denied the impact of 
South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a Jewish conspiracy."

I have asked previously and I will ask again, Does anyone deny that Weir has 
said these things?

ken h
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Alison Weir

[Andrew Stewart via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Not to beat a dead horse, but Jeff seems to be utterly naive about being a
single-issue policy advocate. I recently wrote about this topic the
following:

Several months ago, when we were beginning to discuss having Ms. Weir come
to Rhode Island, the efforts of people affiliated with the New England
branch of If Americans Knew and myself were hindered by figures affiliated
with local Providence campuses and Jewish Voice for Peace who repeated a
variation of these lies, saying that Weir had refused to dis-affiliate with
known white supremacists. Leaving aside how problematic it is for academic
types who participate in the gentrification of Providence to talk about
white supremacy, it also is indicative of a total lack of maturity
regarding politics. When you are a single-issue policy advocate, that role
requires, in order for one to be effective, that one speaks with parties on
both sides of the aisle to make any real headway in their efforts. Is Ralph
Nader now to be considered a stool pigeon because he once made a speech at
the Chamber of Commerce? That is the level of silliness at play here.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/15/alison-weir-as-the-first-casualty-of-hasbara-2-0/

-- 
Best regards,

Andrew Stewart
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: How did Syria become a burning country? | SocialistWorker.org

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



https://socialistworker.org/2016/03/31/how-did-syria-become-a-burning-country
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Assadist website Zero Hedge implodes

[Steven L. Robinson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

It is called "after acquired" evidence - in litigation this excuse is 
typically, when all other defenses fail, the last refuge of a scumbag employer.

- Original Message -

On 4/29/16 6:08 PM, Oliver Benda wrote:> "More importantly, and unfortunately, 
Colin also was revealed to be an> emotionally unstable, psychologically 
troubled alcoholic with a drug> dealer past, as per his own disclosures.>> All 
of these revelations were made clear to us /long after we hired> Colin/, 
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Assadist website Zero Hedge implodes

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 4/29/16 6:08 PM, Oliver Benda wrote:

"More importantly, and unfortunately, Colin also was revealed to be an
emotionally unstable, psychologically troubled alcoholic with a drug
dealer past, as per his own disclosures.

All of these revelations were made clear to us /long after we hired
Colin/, and unfortunately they were the catalyst that precipitated his
full emotional collapse and ultimately led to his abrupt departure. All
of these facts /were also made clear to Bloomberg as part of its source
"fact-checking."


So funny to see these dirtbags trying to score points on "fact-checking".
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Assadist website Zero Hedge implodes

[Oliver Benda via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

"More importantly, and unfortunately, Colin also was revealed to be an
emotionally unstable, psychologically troubled alcoholic with a drug dealer
past, as per his own disclosures.

All of these revelations were made clear to us *long after we hired Colin*,
and unfortunately they were the catalyst that precipitated his full
emotional collapse and ultimately led to his abrupt departure. All of these
facts *were also made clear to Bloomberg as part of its source
"fact-checking." S*urprisingly to us, Bloomberg had no problems running a
sole-sourced piece by a disgruntled former employee who not only admitted
he had major psychological problems, a checkered past, was unstable, but
had also made clear his motive to "out" this website with hopes of crushing
it and even issued death threats to Zero Hedge workers."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story-behind-bloombergs-attempt-unmask-zero-hedge

2016-04-29 19:35 GMT+02:00 Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> Lokey, who said he wrote much of the site’s political content, claimed
> there was pressure to frame issues in a way he felt was disingenuous. “I
> tried to inject as much truth as I could into my posts, but there’s no room
> for it. “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John
> Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft,”
> Lokey wrote, describing his take on the website's politics. Ivandjiiski
> countered that Lokey could write “anything and everything he wanted
> directly without anyone writing over it.”
>
> full:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/oliver.benda%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[A.R. G via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

*I'd note, however, Sheldon, that you made this argument for ANY ETHNIC
GROUP, not just your own, and you did not even appear to limit it to race
related issues.

Take the flip side for American Muslims. Not only are they seen as less
sincere and credible when they criticize Islamic extremist groups, the
insinuation that President Obama is a Muslim is used precisely to discredit
his (so-called) counter-terrorism policies. It is almost the exact
opposite: being Muslim does not give you greater credibility when
criticizing other people who are namesake Muslims (i.e. ISIS), it
undermines it.

You appear at this point to be insisting that your own opinion is simply a
matter of fact, so I guess we're at an impasse.

- Amith

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Sheldon Ranz  wrote:

> "Already one poster has suggested that it is simply
> common sense that members of the same ethnic group are taken more seriously
> by outsiders. That is, factually speaking, not true, "
>
> Actually, quite true.  The most recent example of this is Bernie Sanders
> publicly criticizing Netanyahu and not going to the AIPAC conference.  Even
> the mainstream media made note as to how his dissent, as the Jewish
> presidential contender, made Jewish voices opposed to Israel's government
> more respectable.
>
> In addition, in my own liefetime experience as an American Jew, the same
> has applied.
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:58 PM, A.R. G via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
>> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
>> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
>> *
>>
>> @DW
>>
>> Listen, I agree with you that this is a "minefield". That is why I think
>> we
>> should be careful. Already one poster has suggested that it is simply
>> common sense that members of the same ethnic group are taken more
>> seriously
>> by outsiders. That is, factually speaking, not true, and it is also loaded
>> in that we often define race/ethnic group depending on what the subject
>> matter is. I.e. a black Jewish guy and a white Jewish guy would not be
>> understood to be members of the same ethnic group if they are talking
>> about
>> race relations in America, or race relations *domestically* within the
>> Israeli Jewish community, but they would be seen as the same race in
>> discussing, say, Israel's "return" laws.
>>
>> "I'm not sure what Nada Elia complaining about. Quite honestly she put a
>> lot
>> of good brain power into this essay and proposes absolutely zip with
>> regards to addressing "Jewish privilege". Nothing. And, she's wrong, at
>> least as far as I can interpret it. She praises anti-Zionist Jews for
>> their solidarity and then condemn's them for doing it. She's all over the
>> map on this and leaves me totally bewildered as to what she is afraid of."
>>
>> Is that really what you got? She didn't say Jews should stop being
>> anti-Zionist. She is talking about whether or not their being
>> anti-Zionist *as
>> Jews* is a helpful form of advocacy. One can be Jewish but identify their
>>
>> allegiance with the Palestinian cause for a number of reasons (out of
>> political conviction; out of anti-colonial solidarity; out of some other
>> thing). It does not have to be a framework in which one's "Jewishness" is
>> the (or even a) defining feature of what legitimates a person's voice. Her
>> argument about Chabon was on that point: Why were other activists
>> identifying him as a Jewish-American when it had no apparent relevance to
>> the arguments he was making? And in so far as it is relevant, what makes
>> it
>> relevant other than Israel's stranglehold over both Jewish identity and
>> Palestine itself?
>>
>> "Given the huge political influence of groups of Jewish-Americans in US
>> politics, it's necessary to emphasis whenever it comes up, that not all
>> members of this community follow the Zionist party line. How is that
>> "privileging" anything whatsoever?"
>>
>> Again, where does she argue this? I think you're reading other arguments
>> into her piece. But in either case, to answer, you are self-admitting that
>> there is a "huge political influence of groups of Jewish-Americans in US
>> politics". If you are openly stating that that is the reason why Jewish
>> dissenting voices need to be promoted, I'm at a loss. That is, by
>> definition, privilege. It is the same as saying white people had greater
>> political influence (and still do) so we 

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[Sheldon Ranz via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

"Already one poster has suggested that it is simply
common sense that members of the same ethnic group are taken more seriously
by outsiders. That is, factually speaking, not true, "

Actually, quite true.  The most recent example of this is Bernie Sanders
publicly criticizing Netanyahu and not going to the AIPAC conference.  Even
the mainstream media made note as to how his dissent, as the Jewish
presidential contender, made Jewish voices opposed to Israel's government
more respectable.

In addition, in my own liefetime experience as an American Jew, the same
has applied.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:58 PM, A.R. G via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> @DW
>
> Listen, I agree with you that this is a "minefield". That is why I think we
> should be careful. Already one poster has suggested that it is simply
> common sense that members of the same ethnic group are taken more seriously
> by outsiders. That is, factually speaking, not true, and it is also loaded
> in that we often define race/ethnic group depending on what the subject
> matter is. I.e. a black Jewish guy and a white Jewish guy would not be
> understood to be members of the same ethnic group if they are talking about
> race relations in America, or race relations *domestically* within the
> Israeli Jewish community, but they would be seen as the same race in
> discussing, say, Israel's "return" laws.
>
> "I'm not sure what Nada Elia complaining about. Quite honestly she put a
> lot
> of good brain power into this essay and proposes absolutely zip with
> regards to addressing "Jewish privilege". Nothing. And, she's wrong, at
> least as far as I can interpret it. She praises anti-Zionist Jews for
> their solidarity and then condemn's them for doing it. She's all over the
> map on this and leaves me totally bewildered as to what she is afraid of."
>
> Is that really what you got? She didn't say Jews should stop being
> anti-Zionist. She is talking about whether or not their being anti-Zionist
> *as
> Jews* is a helpful form of advocacy. One can be Jewish but identify their
> allegiance with the Palestinian cause for a number of reasons (out of
> political conviction; out of anti-colonial solidarity; out of some other
> thing). It does not have to be a framework in which one's "Jewishness" is
> the (or even a) defining feature of what legitimates a person's voice. Her
> argument about Chabon was on that point: Why were other activists
> identifying him as a Jewish-American when it had no apparent relevance to
> the arguments he was making? And in so far as it is relevant, what makes it
> relevant other than Israel's stranglehold over both Jewish identity and
> Palestine itself?
>
> "Given the huge political influence of groups of Jewish-Americans in US
> politics, it's necessary to emphasis whenever it comes up, that not all
> members of this community follow the Zionist party line. How is that
> "privileging" anything whatsoever?"
>
> Again, where does she argue this? I think you're reading other arguments
> into her piece. But in either case, to answer, you are self-admitting that
> there is a "huge political influence of groups of Jewish-Americans in US
> politics". If you are openly stating that that is the reason why Jewish
> dissenting voices need to be promoted, I'm at a loss. That is, by
> definition, privilege. It is the same as saying white people had greater
> political influence (and still do) so we need more of them in anti-racist
> causes. If they get upset or exhibit intolerance toward blacks in the
> group, we should nonetheless tolerate it because of how politically
> significant they are. "Privilege" in a nut-shell.
>
> Re: Weir, I think she has made some decisions I disagree with, but I feel
> that way about virtually everyone I've met in left circles. I think the
> characterization you have of both her website and her talks is completely
> off. Even a brief perusal of her website makes it clear that her advocacy
> is not based on American exceptionalism. It is simply geared toward an
> American audience ("If only you people knew!!!"), much in the same way left
> anti-war organizers have always emphasized "the war is at home," etc. To
> the extent that Walt/Mearsheimer-style realism appears on her website or in
> her advocacy (and mind you, it appears everywhere else including 

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[A.R. G via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

@DW

Listen, I agree with you that this is a "minefield". That is why I think we
should be careful. Already one poster has suggested that it is simply
common sense that members of the same ethnic group are taken more seriously
by outsiders. That is, factually speaking, not true, and it is also loaded
in that we often define race/ethnic group depending on what the subject
matter is. I.e. a black Jewish guy and a white Jewish guy would not be
understood to be members of the same ethnic group if they are talking about
race relations in America, or race relations *domestically* within the
Israeli Jewish community, but they would be seen as the same race in
discussing, say, Israel's "return" laws.

"I'm not sure what Nada Elia complaining about. Quite honestly she put a lot
of good brain power into this essay and proposes absolutely zip with
regards to addressing "Jewish privilege". Nothing. And, she's wrong, at
least as far as I can interpret it. She praises anti-Zionist Jews for
their solidarity and then condemn's them for doing it. She's all over the
map on this and leaves me totally bewildered as to what she is afraid of."

Is that really what you got? She didn't say Jews should stop being
anti-Zionist. She is talking about whether or not their being anti-Zionist *as
Jews* is a helpful form of advocacy. One can be Jewish but identify their
allegiance with the Palestinian cause for a number of reasons (out of
political conviction; out of anti-colonial solidarity; out of some other
thing). It does not have to be a framework in which one's "Jewishness" is
the (or even a) defining feature of what legitimates a person's voice. Her
argument about Chabon was on that point: Why were other activists
identifying him as a Jewish-American when it had no apparent relevance to
the arguments he was making? And in so far as it is relevant, what makes it
relevant other than Israel's stranglehold over both Jewish identity and
Palestine itself?

"Given the huge political influence of groups of Jewish-Americans in US
politics, it's necessary to emphasis whenever it comes up, that not all
members of this community follow the Zionist party line. How is that
"privileging" anything whatsoever?"

Again, where does she argue this? I think you're reading other arguments
into her piece. But in either case, to answer, you are self-admitting that
there is a "huge political influence of groups of Jewish-Americans in US
politics". If you are openly stating that that is the reason why Jewish
dissenting voices need to be promoted, I'm at a loss. That is, by
definition, privilege. It is the same as saying white people had greater
political influence (and still do) so we need more of them in anti-racist
causes. If they get upset or exhibit intolerance toward blacks in the
group, we should nonetheless tolerate it because of how politically
significant they are. "Privilege" in a nut-shell.

Re: Weir, I think she has made some decisions I disagree with, but I feel
that way about virtually everyone I've met in left circles. I think the
characterization you have of both her website and her talks is completely
off. Even a brief perusal of her website makes it clear that her advocacy
is not based on American exceptionalism. It is simply geared toward an
American audience ("If only you people knew!!!"), much in the same way left
anti-war organizers have always emphasized "the war is at home," etc. To
the extent that Walt/Mearsheimer-style realism appears on her website or in
her advocacy (and mind you, it appears everywhere else including on the
Left) it is one of about 10 different perspectives, wherein the only common
theme is opposition to Israeli policy. I also do not agree with your
reading of her talks. From what I've seen, she has tried to speak out when
loonies start attacking "the Jews"; perhaps she could do better, but that
sounds like an attempt at witch-hunting to me. There would be very few left
on the left, including at least one board member of JVP, if these standards
were applied across the board, and certainly if they were applied to
commentary about other ethnic groups. I think it is obvious that the
Movement has changed in its political character particularly over the last
few years and there is a lack of serious understanding of racism within the
movement. I think the comments above, while certainly not "racist," exhibit
a certain level of tone-deafness about the issue.



- Amith

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> 

Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note

[A.R. G via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Jeff can have "the last word," I am not engaging in this nonsense any
further. I'm more than happy to discuss the actua substance of Nada Elia's
article.

On Friday, April 29, 2016, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> On 4/29/16 12:58 PM, Jeff via Marxism wrote:
>
>> What's more, the day's almost over here and I have plans
>> for the evening, so I guess you're saying that Amith gets the last word on
>> the subject.
>>
>
> Where are you? In Holland? Just give yourself another 24 hours starting
> now and then that's that.
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com
>


-- 
- Amith
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Assadist website Zero Hedge implodes

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Lokey, who said he wrote much of the site’s political content, claimed 
there was pressure to frame issues in a way he felt was disingenuous. “I 
tried to inject as much truth as I could into my posts, but there’s no 
room for it. “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent 
leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history 
of statecraft,” Lokey wrote, describing his take on the website's 
politics. Ivandjiiski countered that Lokey could write “anything and 
everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it.”


full: 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: An open letter to the editors of N+1 on Syria | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

N+1 is a journal that is often cited alongside Jacobin in those effusive 
articles about the young lions of Marxism. I subscribe to both magazines 
even though I can best be described as a toothless geezer on the edge of 
the pride.


My preference is for N+1 because its Marxism operates more behind the 
scenes. Too much of Jacobin reads like a plenary talk at a Historical 
Materialism conference while N+1 is where I learned about the Russian 
socialist, poet and rock musician Kirill Medvedev who translated 
Bukowski’s work into Russian—a man after my own heart.


With my expectations for N+1 set so high, I was rather disappointed with 
the editorial statement in the most recent issue titled “Bernie’s World: 
What does a left foreign policy look like?” that repeated many of the 
talking points of the “anti-imperialist” left about Syria. One can 
certainly understand why the editors would fall short on Syria. With so 
many other smart magazines like the London Review of Books and Harpers 
publishing articles that could have been lifted from RT.com, it is 
difficult to swim against the stream. After all, who would want to be 
associated with a struggle against Bashar al-Assad who in his genial 
clean-shaven and well-groomed manner seems to be much more like us than 
the unfathomable, bearded “Alluah Akhbar” yelling men in fatigues who 
would surely launch an attack on the American homeland if given half a 
chance.


full: 
https://louisproyect.org/2016/04/29/an-open-letter-to-the-editors-of-n1-on-syria/

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note

[Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Jeff wrote:

> You can't just start a discussion
> and then shut it down when it's starting 
> to get to the point.

Jeff, I agree with everything you've said about Alison Weir and If Americans 
Knew (and I agreed with DW's post and Louis' comment that "Allison Weir is a 
person whose views are shaped by the general milieu, one that is not favorable 
to a class analysis"), but your comment above is wrong: It's Louis' list, and 
he can do whatever he wants.

> Now if I'm wrong, I have the right to view
> replies to my mistakes so that I can correct 
> my mistakes. I, like all, am
> here to learn 

The discussion can be continued off of the list, but I doubt there's much that 
can be added. I think Louis was wrong to call you a "tiresome troll" (your 
posts have been thoughtful and substantive), but the discussion has become 
repetitive. Can't we agree on that and drop the subject for now? (I suspect 
Alison Weir and If Americans Knew will come up again in a different context, 
and perhaps then there will be something new to say.) 

--Kevin
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note

[Jeff via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

At 12:47 29-04-16 -0400, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
>
>On 4/29/16 11:52 AM, Jeff via Marxism wrote:
>> You can't just start a discussion
>> and then shut it down when it's starting to get to the point
>
>Of course I can. Feel free to write whatever you want but tomorrow we 
>move on.

That's not ok, for all the reasons I listed before which you clipped (but I
restored below). What's more, the day's almost over here and I have plans
for the evening, so I guess you're saying that Amith gets the last word on
the subject. You yourself made some brief but sharp remarks on the subject
(essentially denying what I thought I proved in my post) so you should
either be willing to defend that, retract your erroneous position, or admit
that you're unsure. If you are unsure, then you should be soliciting
additional information and discussion, not preventing it. Pretending the
issue doesn't exist on this list does nothing to resolve the issue among
the other 99% of the left who face the same issues.

- Jeff


At 17:52 29-04-16 +0200, Jeff via Marxism wrote:
>
>At 11:29 29-04-16 -0400, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
>>
>>I made a mistake by getting into the Allison Weir question. We spent far 
>>too much time on that originally
>
>Wait a minute! I spent considerable time compiling the information that,
>yes, I should have posted earlier when YOU permitted a "guest post" on your
>blog unjustly attacking the very organizations that brought the problem
>with her and her organizations to light. You can't just start a discussion
>and then shut it down when it's starting to get to the point. According to
>a leading and prolific poster on this list, all that I have written about
>her is wrong or misleading. Now if I'm wrong, I have the right to view
>replies to my mistakes so that I can correct my mistakes. I, like all, am
>here to learn (FYI I am not involved in any party that has a stake in the
>questions).
>
>So let us now "learn" why all the facts I compiled shouldn't justify the
>positions reached by Jewish Voice for Peace, the US Campaign to End the
>Israeli Occupation, and Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine.
>Obviously this isn't an unimportant discussion nor is it going away. If we
>have a fundamental disagreement about whether the far-right should be
>involved in Palestine solidarity, then we need to know that. But the post I
>was directly addressing asked for evidence of any such thing, I provided
>that evidence, and I expect a reply from any and all concerned quarters.
>Including the moderator whose (tentative?) position on right-wing
>involvement in support of Palestine is so contrary to his admirable
>positions regarding the right in Russia, the Ukraine, Syria, etc. that I
>can barely believe I'm talking to the same person.
>
>- Jeff

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 4/29/16 11:52 AM, Jeff via Marxism wrote:

You can't just start a discussion
and then shut it down when it's starting to get to the point


Of course I can. Feel free to write whatever you want but tomorrow we 
move on.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note

[Jeff via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

At 11:29 29-04-16 -0400, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
>
>I made a mistake by getting into the Allison Weir question. We spent far 
>too much time on that originally

Wait a minute! I spent considerable time compiling the information that,
yes, I should have posted earlier when YOU permitted a "guest post" on your
blog unjustly attacking the very organizations that brought the problem
with her and her organizations to light. You can't just start a discussion
and then shut it down when it's starting to get to the point. According to
a leading and prolific poster on this list, all that I have written about
her is wrong or misleading. Now if I'm wrong, I have the right to view
replies to my mistakes so that I can correct my mistakes. I, like all, am
here to learn (FYI I am not involved in any party that has a stake in the
questions).

So let us now "learn" why all the facts I compiled shouldn't justify the
positions reached by Jewish Voice for Peace, the US Campaign to End the
Israeli Occupation, and Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine.
Obviously this isn't an unimportant discussion nor is it going away. If we
have a fundamental disagreement about whether the far-right should be
involved in Palestine solidarity, then we need to know that. But the post I
was directly addressing asked for evidence of any such thing, I provided
that evidence, and I expect a reply from any and all concerned quarters.
Including the moderator whose (tentative?) position on right-wing
involvement in support of Palestine is so contrary to his admirable
positions regarding the right in Russia, the Ukraine, Syria, etc. that I
can barely believe I'm talking to the same person.

- Jeff


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Push Bernie to run as a Green!

[Dennis Brasky via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

The "point" is to put a party to the left of the Democrats on the political
map by running someone with slightly more name recognition than Jill Stein!!

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, DW via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> Ugh! What would be the point?? Their current choice, Jill Stein, is far to
> the left of Sanders on almost every issue. Just so Sander's could get more
> votes than she would? Is that the point of running a Presidential campaign?
> Yuck.
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/dmozart1756%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Moderator's note

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I made a mistake by getting into the Allison Weir question. We spent far 
too much time on that originally and I have no interest in a repeat. So 
the discussion is closed after today.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Push Bernie to run as a Green!

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Ugh! What would be the point?? Their current choice, Jill Stein, is far to
the left of Sanders on almost every issue. Just so Sander's could get more
votes than she would? Is that the point of running a Presidential campaign?
Yuck.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] About Alison Weir & the "Pro-Palestine" right (& far right)

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Thanks to Jeff for doing the research on this. I think Weir is not
*personally* "right-wing" but more a classic liberal and "progressive" who
can't stand what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. But her own
organization and who she 'unites with' is clearly, as Jeff shows, quite
right wing. She's perceived as leftist because she is also sponsored by a
variety of ostensibly leftist lead Palestinian solidarity groups. And in
fact, I think she approaches them quite honestly and forthright as they do
her. But in truth she is part of a right-wing anti-Semtic milieu that is
undeniable as well. I would say and perhaps it appears odd to some, that
most of her interactions with Jewish-Americans are in fact via the
Palestinian Solidarity/BDS movements.

In more important vein, I find it odd that some in the BDS movement oppose
raising the issue of Israel's so-called "Right to exist". What nonsense is
this? I understand the impetus of the recent BDS movement stems from
Israel's murderous assault on Gaze and isn't around the issue of Zionism
specifically, but take a political stand against an anti-Zionist position
is simply whacked out IMHO.

David
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Push Bernie to run as a Green!

[Dennis Brasky via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/29/the-push-to-make-sanders-the-green-partys-candidate/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] About Alison Weir & the "Pro-Palestine" right (& far right)

[Jeff via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

At 19:50 28-04-16 -0400, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
>
>What do you mean by openly rightwing? 

That Alison Weir is a leader of right-wing (but yes, anti-Israel) groups can be 
read directly from their own literature. So I will post links to their own 
statements which you can read on your own. Of course I would be the first to 
admit that very much of what these rightwingers write about Israel is 
absolutely true and even valuable information (but usually after having been 
published elsewhere); in fact that is surely the main reason that they were 
often undetected in the past as being right-wing.

Fortunately that record has been set straight by some legitimate (thus 
left-compatible) activist or research organizations which I'll call your 
attention to:

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=4510

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/jewish-voice-for-peace-statement-on-our-relationship-with-alison-weir/

http://www.politicalresearch.org/campus-profile-alison-weir-if-americans-knew/#sthash.h2mDuqLq.dpbs

But again, you can skip reading those analyses; the proof itself is published 
by the groups themselves. We are talking about two organizations which she 
leads:

1) The Council for the National Interest (CNI), which Alison Weir became 
president of some years ago. It seems their website is 404 (temporarily?) so we 
need to view saved versions of their webpages such as the one listing her 
position there:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120407102506/http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/about-us/staff

2) If Americans Knew, which she founded herself:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/whoweare.html

What these organizations have in common (besides being tax-exempt!) is that 
they decry American support for Israel as being contrary to the actual 
(imperialist!) interests of the U.S. The CNI states this very clearly:

Our Mission
CNI works for U.S. Middle East policies 
that represent the highest values of our founders 
and our citizens and that work to sustain a nation 
of honor, decency, security, and prosperity.

(Whoops! They forgot to mention their "love" for the Palestinians)

The current and former leaders of CNI are listed here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140305051510/http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/whoweare/

Not all of those listed are equally despicable. But they all clearly fall 
outside of what we would call the "left" -- and I don't just mean the 
revolutionary or socialist left. Which is why they can be part of a group which 
explicitly argues for policies which will strengthen the US (the current, 
capitalist US) and believe (perhaps correctly?) that supporting Israel is 
actually contrary to those imperialist interests.

If Americans Knew is more careful to describe itself as an information source 
supplying an alternative to the mainstream media. 

If Americans Knew is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt, independent 
research and information-dissemination institute, 
with particular focus on the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, U.S. foreign policy regarding the Middle 
East, and media coverage of this issue. Specifically, 
the organization’s objective is to provide information 
that is to a large degree missing from American 
press coverage of this critical region.

We believe all people are endowed with inalienable 
human rights regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, 
sexuality, or nationality. We believe in justice, 
fairness, and compassion and in treating all human 
beings with respect, empathy, and in the manner 
in which we would wish to be treated. 

Unfortunately the last paragraph appears to be window dressing. You'd be hard 
pressed to find material on their website defending those oppressed by "race, 
religion, ethnicity, sexuality, or nationality" -- with the exceptions of 
Americans, and yes of course Arabs and Palestinians when (and only when) they 
are victims of Israel!

You don't need to dig too deep to observe the selective nature of their 
righteous concerns. Although not emphasized by any Palestinian solidarity 
organizations (being rather ancient history, though well a crime), both of 
their websites have voluminous sections devoted to the Israeli bombing (covered 
up by the "liberal" American president Johnson) against the USS Liberty during 
the 1967 war:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ussliberty.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20140305140918/http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/liberty/

It isn't hard to detect the right-wing character of the movement (yes, after 50 
years) to "remember the Liberty", which has the dual 

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 4/29/16 10:07 AM, DW via Marxism wrote:

Weir, besides have zero understanding of Imperialism as a class, is notable
because she refuses to take up blatant anti-Jewish bigotry when it's thrown
in her face on the many right-wing, tea-party like radio stations she
appears on. Some of these broadcasts are on YouTube or on those networks
steaming audio. She simply sits there and avoids confronting such bigotry.
Among many Palestinian solidarity activists, this is unforgivable.


A lot of these problems are rooted in the crisis of Marxism. When I 
joined the SWP in 1967, the axis of Palestinian solidarity was in the 
overlapping spheres of radical nationalism and Marxism. Palestinian 
guerrillas identified with Che Guevara and the Trotskyist movement 
worldwide was capable of rallying people around class-based slogans and 
analysis. People like Peter Buch and Jon Rothschild used to speak to 
thousands of people on campuses around the country. In 1973 I organized 
a Militant Forum on the Yom Kippur war in Houston that drew 125 people, 
including just about every radical Arab student in the area as well as 
the local TV station.


So what happened? The left imploded. The USSR went kaput. The 
Palestinian solidarity movement on campus emerged around BDS but with 
little involvement from Marxists. You also had a development of 
"realists" opposed to Zionism like Mearsheimer and Walt, as well as 
liberals fed up with the settlers. You also had Hamas that screwed 
things up with suicide bombing. A complete mess for the most part.


In my opinion Allison Weir is a person whose views are shaped by the 
general milieu, one that is not favorable to a class analysis. In the 
1970s she would have barely gotten attention. We need to change the 
objective circumstances in order to promote a POV that can serve the 
Palestinian cause more effectively. That unfortunately can not be done 
overnight.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

This discussion is a mine field. I'm only going to comment on the original
post and not the cross discussion/flame war that appears to be brewing. I
will make a short comment on Allison Weir.

I'm not sure what Nada Elia complaining about. Quite honestly she put a lot
of good brain power into this essay and proposes absolutely zip with
regards to addressing "Jewish privilege". Nothing. And, she's wrong, at
least as far as I can interpret it. She praises anti-Zionist Jews for
their solidarity and then condemn's them for doing it. She's all over the
map on this and leaves me totally bewildered as to what she is afraid of.

I find it odd her comments as she's lived in the US (though clearly
ensconced in the Academy) and should know that with 5 1/2 million
Jewish-Americans the politics surrounding Israel, Zionism and the
Palestinians is more or less a regular discussion piece around the dinner
table when issues of their own ethnic background arise. How can it be any
different? How is this a from a "Jewish privileged" POV?? We have been
*pounded* into viewing the Holocaust and Israel as interlinked. We were
dragged to "Israel Day Parades" and "Free Soviet Jews" marches in NYC by the*
hundreds of thousands*!

Elia writes:

"Jewish voices are welcome, of course, in the global denunciation of Zionism
as a racist ideology. Identifying oneself as Jewish when one speaks out
against Israel’s policies also helps dismantle the accusation that seeking
justice for Palestinians is anti-Semitic. Yet there is an inevitable risk
associated with the ongoing privileging of Jewish voices denouncing Israel.
This is because by privileging their voices, we are implicitly accepting
the Zionist narrative of Israel representing all Jews, with very few
exceptions. It is these “exceptions,” then, that Palestinian rights
activists place on a pedestal."

Whaa? So she's denouncing Palestinians and other solidarity
activists who "place on a pedestal" Jewish-Americans who denounce Israel.
Again, WTF?? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. WTF is she asking for
and who, who pray tell is she appealing to? If you want Jewish-Americans or
Palestinians to point to these Jewish-Americans as proving Israel
specifically and Zionism more generally then don't condemn people who are
pointing this out!!! This "privilege checking" here is utter
crap...especially in the utter almost metaphysical way she is trying to
prove her point.

The other point, not brought out by her, is that it's not about "Jews" but
"Jewish-Americans". Jewish-Americas are, *exactly* like Italian-Americans,
Greek-Americans, etc a hyphenated white American sub-ethnic group. The
operative term being white and *American* (By which I mean citizens of the
US). The 'group' as amorphous and heterogeneous as it is, has it's own
dynamics that are an ongoing discussion about it's relationship to Israel.
Given the huge political influence of groups of Jewish-Americans in US
politics, it's necessary to emphasis whenever it comes up, that not all
members of this community follow the Zionist party line. How is that
"privileging" anything whatsoever?

Lastly on Alison Weir. Most people on this list know that Jewish Voices for
Peace broke relations with her. (in turn, few notable pro-Palestinian
activists like Paul Larudee have broken ties with JVP). Her argument boils
down to that "If only Americans knew" about the power and influence the
Israeli's have via their Jewish agents in the US (AIPAC, etc), then US
policy would somehow be pro-Palestinian or at least not pro-Israel. She as
part of a wing of very non-Marxist academics and speakers who are,
objectively, ideological decedents of the old 1950s era "Arab Lobby" who
argued that US Imperialism's interests (especially with regard to building
an anti-Soviet block in the Arab world) lie with anti-Israeli Arab states
and not with Israel. Her politics are very much like the more staid
academics John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt who try to prove the same
thesis in their book "The Israel Lobby". (they do a far better job of this
than Weir but they are equally wrong in their thesis).

Weir, besides have zero understanding of Imperialism as a class, is notable
because she refuses to take up blatant anti-Jewish bigotry when it's thrown
in her face on the many right-wing, tea-party like radio stations she
appears on. Some of these broadcasts are on YouTube or on those networks
steaming audio. She simply sits there and avoids confronting such bigotry.
Among many Palestinian solidarity activists, this is unforgivable.

David W.
_
Full posting guidelines at: 

[Marxism] Fwd: Syrian Hospital hit in air strike | MSNBC

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Molly Crabapple analyzes recent events.

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/syrian-hospital-hit-in-air-strike-675765827551
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: 'Neo-Maoist' higher ed is gaining ground in China

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

“Over the past decade or so, there’s been a push on the part of the 
Chinese Communist Party to retell its origin story, its founding myths,” 
Blanchette says.


One plank of this plan has been an effort to revive the study of 
Marxism, partly to counter the spread of liberal and religious thought. 
Last year, Peking University began the construction of a new building to 
house its Marxism department -- ironically funded by a bank.


full: 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/29/neo-maoist-higher-ed-gaining-ground-china

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Fred Moseley and Marx’s macro-monetary theory | Michael Roberts Blog

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

In a previous post I reckoned that Anwar Shaikh’s magnum opus was 
probably the best book on capitalism this year.  Well, Fred Moseley’s 
20-year work on his new book, Money and Totality, is probably the best 
on Marxist economic theory this year and for this century so far.


Fred Moseley is Professor of Economics at Mount Holyoake women’s college 
in Massachusetts and has been for decades. He is one of the foremost 
scholars in the world today on Marxian economic theory (as a theory of 
capitalism). He has written or edited seven books, including The Falling 
Rate of Profit in the Post-war United States Economy (1991), Marx’s 
Logical Method: A Re-examination (1993), Heterodox Economic Theories: 
True or False?(1995), New Investigations of Marx’s Method (1997), and 
Marx’s Theory of Money: Modern Appraisals (2004).


In Money and Totality, Moseley has made a major contribution to a 
clearer understanding of Marx’s method of analysis.  He shows that a 
Marxist analysis delivers money, prices and values integrated into a 
single realistic system of capitalism. Moseley shows that Marx had two 
main stages of analysis or theoretical abstraction. First, he analyses 
the production of surplus value in capital as a whole (Volumes 1 and 2 
in Capital) and then he analyses its distribution through the competing 
sectors of many capitals (Volume 3). Marx starts with money so there is 
no need to ‘transform’ an underlying system based on value into a system 
based on prices.


full: 
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/fred-moseley-and-marxs-macro-monetary-theory/

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Air Strikes on Alleppo Hospital Indiscriminate or Targeted?

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


Patrick Cockburn and Joseph Daher discuss the escalation of bombing in 
Syria that has killed 200 people in six days and undermined the peace 
talks in Geneva


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content=view=31=74=16228
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[Sheldon Ranz via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Actually, I would find it suspicious to have white people condemn Bill
Cosby, especially in a public setting, given the history of
institutionalized racism and lynching in the USA..

The point I have been making here about the insider perspective having more
credibility has nothing to do with Zionism or an anti-Palestinian
narrative. Many anti-Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews would agree.  It
seems that you conflate anything you don't like about what's going on in
the Jewish community into an attack on Zionism.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:04 PM, A.R. G  wrote:

> "Do you really not get the concept that when members of an ethnic group -
> ANY ethnic group = are criticized in public by other members of the same
> group, those comments are taken more seriously that those of outsiders?"
>
> No, I do not agree with this. It depends highly on the subject matter and
> the nature of the criticism. Moreover, when we are talking about issues
> that are fundamentally related to race and rights, I think saying that
> members of the "same" ethnic group have greater credibility is essentially
> a validation of the racism in question. I do not think that is necessarily
> unique to Zionism, but it applies.
>
> I am also not blind to the fact that, from a pragmatic standpoint, what
> you are saying is simply a bitter fact of the world we live in. But I do
> not think it is ethical or strategic to leave this unquestioned. It is
> fundamentally what the issue of Zionism is -- that Jewish people from any
> part of the world are entitled to a say in the fate of Palestine, whereas
> the Palestinians and those who identify woth them are secondary and
> presumably nefarious.
>
> To make the point, I do not think most reasonable people would find it
> suspicious to hear a non-Muslim condemn ISIS, a white person condemn Bill
> Cosby, etc. Maybe in some contexts, but that certainly isn't the norm.
>
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016, Sheldon Ranz  wrote:
>
>> What is "simple" about that?  Do you really not get the concept that when
>> members of an ethnic group - ANY ethnic group = are criticized in public by
>> other members of the same group, those comments are taken more seriously
>> that those of outsiders?  It's all about being on the inside giving one a
>> better vantage point.  This has nothing to do with "Zionist racism" or any
>> other bogeyman you choose to summon because you're frustrated.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:58 PM, A.R. G  wrote:
>>
>>> "Identifying Chabon's ethnicity simply means his criticisms of Israel
>>> are to be taken more seriously than that of a Gentile (who might be
>>> anti-Semitic) in the eyes of the general public. "
>>>
>>> What is "simple" about that? That is the central part of Zionist racism:
>>> That political decision-making in Palestine is the exclusive provenance of
>>> Jews from anywhere in the world and that opposition generally should be
>>> seen as "anti-Semitic". Her entire point is that that isn't so "simple".
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean to compare Jews in America or elsewhere to
>>> black people in America. The analogy (if one is necessary) would be to
>>> white people in America. Following your logic (admittedly this is a cheap
>>> analogy) it would mean that we should promote white people's voices because
>>> they have greater legitimacy and are less likely to be written off as black
>>> hatred of the white, or due to "fears of a black planet," or because Glenn
>>> Beck and Alex Jones' moronic followers believe that blacks are out to get
>>> them.
>>>
>>> In the short run, it might be a simpler way to convince racists, but in
>>> the long term it reaffirms that blacks (and Palestinians) are secondary and
>>> that solidarity with them is limited to those who are racially approved by
>>> the states in question. It's like a form-vs-content contradiction.
>>>
>>> - Amith
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Sheldon Ranz  wrote:
>>>
 "Yet there is an inevitable risk associated with the ongoing
 privileging of Jewish voices denouncing Israel.
 This is because by privileging their voices, we are implicitly
 accepting the Zionist narrative of Israel representing all Jews, with very
 few
 exceptions. "

 Here, the writer stumbles.  Identifying Chabon's ethnicity simply means
 his criticisms of Israel are to be taken more seriously than that of a
 Gentile (who might be anti-Semitic) in the eyes of the general public.
 It's the same as 'privileging' the criticisms by Black Agenda Report of the
 US Black Establishment over those made by 

Re: [Marxism] Rescuing Gramsci the revolutionary - four articles

[Jim Farmelant via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



Doug Greene on this subject:


Gramsci for Communists
http://links.org.au/node/4474

with lecture video here
http://links.org.au/node/4505


Jim Farmelant
http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant
http://www.foxymath.com 
Learn or Review Basic Math


-- Original Message --
From: Philip Ferguson via Marxism 
Subject: [Marxism] Rescuing Gramsci the revolutionary - four articles
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:19:11 +1200

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/rescuing-gramsci-the-revolutionary-four-articles/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/farmelantj%40juno.com

Places You'll See
30 Stunning Pictures from the Newest, Biggest, Baddest Cruise Ship in the ...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/57230e34bd285e341a26st03vuc

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[A.R. G via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Note also who's commenting on the Facebook post re: Stanford. Most of
the people are criticizing Stanford SJP after they admitted what they did,
or praising them for admitting to a "mistake" (even though they did no such
thing). Tony Greenstein and the braindead degenerate blogger who slandered
Counter-Punch are still defending the Stanford students *even after they
admitted to asking the refugee speaker not to challenge Israel's right to
exist*. Even after the students have essentially validated the speaker's
claim that she felt it necessary to call off the event due to this request,
these parasites insist that the issue was Alison Weir's alleged
anti-Semitism.

That alone should validate the concerns in listed in NE's article (the
original topic) about these openly racist tendencies on the left.
Completely specious claims about anti-Semitism (in this case, a false
explanation of an event cancellation over a person accused very
tangentially of anti-Semitism giving speaking tips to a speaker / being in
the audience) are being invoked to justify shutting down anti-Zionism (in
this case, a speaker wanting to challenge the legitimacy of the regime that
dispossessed her). This is the effect of ensuring that the conversation
about Zionism largely remains an internal Jewish community issue, or where
narratives of Jewish victimhood are given knee-jerk validation by leftists
in the context of Palestine solidarity.

Nada Elia writes, "when it comes to the Question of Palestine, we have been
plagued for decades with a narrative of Jewish victimhood that completely
erased any mention of Palestinian loss, the ongoing Nakba. "

That is almost a literal description of what happened at Stanford.

- Amith

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:57 AM, A.R. G  wrote:

> Kevin, pls see this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKqkm5j7qd4
>
> Again, the only issue with Alison was that one of those "excellent written
> materials" questioned Israel's right to exist. That excellent material was
> not written by her. That was the issue that Alison turned out to be: the
> flyer she brought sparked a disagreement that made the speaker -- not the
> students -- call off the event. Alison Weir's presence was tangential, and
> technically the students didnt cancel the event at all -- the speaker did.
>
> I'm going off what both Paul and Amena (the speaker) said combined with
> the fact that the students have since conceded that they did, in fact, ask
> the speaker not to challenge Israel's right to exist:
> https://www.facebook.com/notes/stanford-students-for-justice-in-palestine/on-the-events-of-april-6th-2016/1019432714815563
>
> I posted links to a video interview and longer discussion about it earlier.
>
> As for whether Paul was naive or disingenuous about Weir's presence in
> the audience, her speaking tips, or bringing flyers, does it matter? That
> is a truly bizzarre reason to cancel an event even if it were the actual
> reason given that it was not, in fact, Weir's event.
>
> And if it was the reason, then why did they concede that they asked the
> speaker not to challenge Israel's right to exist? Answer: they lied
>
> On Friday, April 29, 2016, Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
>> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
>> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
>> *
>>
>> "A.R. G" wrote:
>>
>> > She [Alison Weir] wasn't the issue;
>> > he was correct.
>>
>> In the quote I cited, Larudee didn't say "she wasn't the issue." He said,
>> "We had no idea that Alison would turn out to be an issue." There's a
>> difference. He admits she turned out to be an issue, but he claims the tour
>> organizers didn't anticipate that. Given the controversy surrounding Weir,
>> Larudee and the other tour organizers were either incredibly naive, or
>> Larudee is being disingenuous. I will leave it to others to decide which
>> seems more likely.
>>
>> > She was in the audience
>>
>> She didn't just happen to be in the audience. The coordinator of the
>> tour, Paul Larudee, invited her to participate in the event. Not only did
>> he ask her to bring her "excellent written materials," he also asked her to
>> "meet with Amena [Elashkar] and give her advice on reaching American
>> audiences." Yet he claims Weir was not "intended...to have any role in the
>> presentation at Stanford"! No, of course not. She was just invited to 

Re: [Marxism] Nada Elia: Time to Stop Celebrating Jewish Dissent in Palestine Solidarity Mvmt

[Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

"A.R. G" wrote: 

> She [Alison Weir] wasn't the issue; 
> he was correct.

In the quote I cited, Larudee didn't say "she wasn't the issue." He said, "We 
had no idea that Alison would turn out to be an issue." There's a difference. 
He admits she turned out to be an issue, but he claims the tour organizers 
didn't anticipate that. Given the controversy surrounding Weir, Larudee and the 
other tour organizers were either incredibly naive, or Larudee is being 
disingenuous. I will leave it to others to decide which seems more likely. 

> She was in the audience

She didn't just happen to be in the audience. The coordinator of the tour, Paul 
Larudee, invited her to participate in the event. Not only did he ask her to 
bring her "excellent written materials," he also asked her to "meet with Amena 
[Elashkar] and give her advice on reaching American audiences." Yet he claims 
Weir was not "intended...to have any role in the presentation at Stanford"! No, 
of course not. She was just invited to bring her "excellent written materials" 
and coach a speaker on "reaching American audiences"! 

> a flyer she brought (written by a PLO advisor) 
> said something about Israel not having the right 
> to exist. The organizers made an issue about that 
> flyer, so the speaker (who agreed with the "
> flyer's content) freaked out and called off 
> the event.

That isn't what Larudee says. He says, "some members of the SJP immediately 
objected to Alison’s presence, perhaps assuming she was going to speak, and 
also to the presence of her book and the If Americans Knew materials."

--Kevin  



_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com