-Caveat Lector- These "Semites" have a point. You are either for the quintessential good-doers of the world, ie G-d's Chosen People, or you are against them. But who speaks G-d's language? Does G-d pronounce Israel as Israel or as Palestine? Which Nation of Semites is more G-dly than the other? Let's have a non-violent G-dliness contest between the two. What would its rules be?
The winner gets a trophy inscribed with "I am more G-dly than you" at a big G-dfest. Maybe it can replace the annual Missions Fest in Vancouver. Zandu Goldbar $$$$$$$$$$$$$ Learned Elder of Zion On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Sean McBride wrote: > -Caveat Lector- > > Analyze carefully the remarks by Martin Levin below, and then realize that those who > dominate the American and Canadian media are substantially more extreme in their > loyalties to Israel than even Levin. > > Levin's remarks about Robert Fisk and Norman Finkelstein are despicable, however, > and nicely demonstrate the use of the anti-Semitism smear to censor substantive and > meaningful discussion on some of the most important political issues facing the > human race. > > Those who have overused the anti-Semitism smear -- including several Israeli prime > ministers -- have committed a grave political error. They have essentially defined > the enttire world, including the American government and many Jews, as anti-Semites. > At this point 99% of the world may well decide that if to oppose Ariel Sharon, > Likud, and the settlers is anti-Semitic, then being an anti-Semite is a very good > and necessary thing indeed. - SM > > http://www.counterpunch.org/review12062003.html > > December 6 / 7, 2003 > > CounterPunch Special > Toronto Globe and Mail Kills Review of "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" > Hello, CounterPunch, > > I was asked to write a review of two recent books on anti-Semitism for Toronto's > Globe and Mail newspaper. The two books are "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" and > Phyllis Chesler's "The New Anti-Semitism." I filed the review a week ago, and was > sent an email earlier this week from the editor, who expressed "real problems" with > the review. The "real problems" seem to stem from the fact that I didn't slam "The > Politics" (and its "out of the same litter contributors") but instead praised it > while ridiculing (justifiably, I believe) the Chesler book. I have written many > reviews for the Globe, as well as for the Toronto Star and other publications. (My > day job is writing plays.) They have never spiked a review of mine before. I should > add that I approached the Globe with the idea of reviewing "The Politics" (before > I'd read it), and that they agreed, but only if I would also consider the Chesler > book. > > I wonder if you'd be interested in looking at the review, as well as the > correspondence relating to it. > > Yours, Jason Sherman, > Toronto. > > [The review, filed Thursday, Nov 13.] > > You're Either Against Us, or You're Not For Us > > By Jason Sherman. > > The Politics of Anti-Semitism > Edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair > AK Press, 178 pgs. (US$12.95) > > The New Anti-Semitism The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It > By Phyllis Chesler Wiley, 305 pgs, $38.95 > > It doesn't take much to get yourself called an anti-Semite these days. A few years > ago I wrote a play that questioned some cherished notions about Israel. My > "self-hating Jew" badge arrived in the next edition of the Canadian Jewish News. Not > that I was surprised. After all, Noam Chomsky once wrote that "Left-liberal > criticism of Israeli government policy since 1967 has evoked hysterical accusations > and outright lies." Oppose the Israeli occupation and its treatment of the > Palestinian people, he noted, and you risked being labeled "a supporter of terrorism > and reactionary Arab states, an opponent of democracy, an anti-Semite, or if Jewish, > a traitor afflicted with self-hatred." > > As two new books make clear, little has changed in the last 35 years, except perhaps > that the mud is thicker, the slinging fiercer, the cry of "anti-Semite!" louder (and > less credible) than ever. Muckraking journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. > Clair co-edit a newsletter and website called CounterPunch (I visit the latter > daily, and twice on Sunday), from the pages of which they have gathered eighteen > brilliant essays on the Middle East. It's a sort of greatest hits package, called > The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Among its short, sharp blasts are those by Robert > Fisk, foreign correspondent for The Independent, a fierce critic of authoritarian > rule wherever he finds it, who expresses genuine disgust over the hate mail he > regularly receives ("Your mother was Eichmann's daughter" is among the most > pleasant); American writer Norman Finklestein, whose trip to Germany to promote his > controversial book The Holocaust Industry leaves him not a little soiled; and > American economics professors M Shahid Alam, whose call for a "moral stand against > the oppressive and unjust behaviour of Israel" leads the Boston Herald to claim: > "Prof Shocks Northeastern with Defense of Suicide Bombers." > > The editors contribute a couple of memorable pieces. Cockburn, easily the sharpest > and funniest political commentator around (among other things, he regularly makes > mincemeat out of the pompous Christopher Hitchens), recounts the morality tale of > Cynthia McKinney, a black congresswoman who made the mistake of calling "for a > proper debate on the Middle East," after which "American Jewish money [was] showered > upon her opponent." St. Clair's brilliantly retells the tale of the 1967 Israeli > attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 Americans and wounded 174 others, and > which more and more evidence suggests was not an accident but a deliberately planned > operation ordered by war hero Moshe Dayan, and covered up by American Defense > Secretary Robert McNamara. > > St Clair's is one of many pieces that look at Israel's influence on American > politics. This is not an issue over which every contributor agrees. Jeffrey > Blankfort, a radio show host at KPOO in California (would I make that up?) does > something, for example, that not every leftist does: he takes on Chomsky. 95% of > Chomsky's critics seem to think he goes too far in his arguments. Blankfort argues > that Chomsky doesn't go far enough, at least when it comes to assessing the power of > the famed Jewish lobby. (Chomsky prefers to go after the corporate elite, no matter > their faith.) > > Blankfort seems obsessed with proving that the Jews, and ultimately Israel, control > America's wealth, media, and policy decisions. He is joined by Kathleen and Bill > Christison, former CIA officers, who point fingers at a Bush administration > "peppered with people who have promot[ed] an agenda for Israel often at odds with > existing US policy." There's no question that the American administration is full of > "Israelists" (the Jerusalem Post recently named deputy secretary of defense Paul > Wolfowitz its "Man of the Year"), and it's important to discuss the underpinnings of > the US-Israeli relationship, but it's quite a leap to suggest that the man behind > the curtain wears a felt hat and yarmulke and wants all the world to dance the hora. > > Just when the collection is beginning to sag under the weight of some arcane > arguments, two pieces bring it to a powerful close. Israeli peace activist Yigal > Bronner's memoir of helping to bring food and medicine to a Palestinian village does > more than a hundred essays in evoking the tragedy of the Middle East war. And no > other essay quite rises to the level of Edward Said's angry and hopeful j'accuse > about what has happened to his people, and what may yet become of them: "The > official Israeli policy, no matter whether Ariel Sharon uses the word 'occupation' > or not or whether or not he dismantles a rusty, unused tower or two, has always been > not to accept the reality of the Palestinian people as equals or even to admit that > their rights were scandalously violated all along by Israel. Whereas a few > courageous Israelis over the years have tried to deal with this otherwise concealed > history, most Israelis and what seems like the majority of American Jews have made > every effort to deny, avoid, or negate the Palestinian reality. This is why there is > no peace." > > Phyllis Chesler begs to differ. In The New Anti-Semitism (a phrase she claims to > have coined, though it's been around for decades), the American psychotherapist and > author of Women and Madness sets out to warn the world about "a virulent epidemic of > violence, hatred and lies that are being touted as politically correct." Touted by > who, she doesn't exactly say, except to point to an amorphous group of "Islamic > reactionaries and western intellectuals and progressives." (Everyone in the The > Politics of Anti-Semitism would make her list.) > > Perhaps this "epidemic" explains the "fever [that] burned" in Chesler as she wrote: > "Everything had to happen at once: reading, supervising the research, writing." > There's little evidence of any of that in these overwrought pages: it's poorly > researched and horribly written, sounding for the most part like an earnest book > report by an over-achieving fourth grader. "The world--including many people in the > Jewish world--still seems to have one standard for Jews and for the Jewish state > (and it's a hiigh standard) and another, much lower standard for everyone else," she > laments, without resorting to facts to support her argument, and failing to > recognize that she herself holds Israel and the Jews to that very high standard. But > don't take my word for it, take hers (please, take hers). Certain "Arab-Muslims," > she writes, are "barbaric and primitive; they do not hide their joy when they kill > but I do not think that most American or many Jews delight in the death of their > enemies in quite the same way." That's us, still chosen after all these years. > > Instead of argument, Chesler prefers to intuit her way through a debate. After > citing a Chomsky essay which quotes Moshe Dayan saying that Palestinian refugees > should be told they will "continue to live like dogs," Chesler decides that the > attribution "does not sound right or in context to me." > > She proves equally adept at trying to take down the rest of her targets, which > include Said, the American and European Left, refuseniks, the media, feminists--all > of them out to get little Israel, that David among Goliaths. > > Not wanting to leave any doubt in the minds of her readers, the feckless Chesler > resorts to an argument as old as the Jerusalem Hills to prove, once and for all, > that the Jews have the ultimate claim to Israel, for "God promised the land to the > patriarch Abraham and to all the other Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs." > > At this point, I began to understand just how high a fever Chesler must have had > when she scribbled this nonsense; automatic writing, from God's mouth to her hand. A > book like this always ends up biting the hand that writes it. Everyone is an > anti-Semite--including, it would appear, Phyllis Chesler herself. Pg 245: "Anyone > who does not distinguish between Jews and the Jewish sttate is an anti-Semite." Pg > 209: "Each Jew must think of himself or herself as the most precious resource that > Israel has at this moment." > > I tell you, this new anti-Semitism, no one is immune from it. > > Jason Sherman's plays include Reading Hebron, The League of Nathans and, most > recently, Remnants. > > [E-mailed response from the book review editor:] > > From:"Levin, Martin" > > Sent:2003/11/18 Tue PM 05:17:25 EST > > To:'Jason Sherman' > > Subject: Re: review > > Hi Jason: I have some real problems with your piece, largely because it seems more > like a lecture from someone who is parti pris than it does any sort of moderately > objective review. And it's not because I suspect that I disagree with you about some > aspects of the Middle East. for the record, I think Sharon is almost every bit the > disaster for Jews (and not just in Israel) that Arafat has been for the > Palestinians, that the palestinians deserve a viable state, that the settlement > policy is egregious and that one has the right to be as critical of israel (but not > more so) as of any other state, person or institution.. But I do not feel these two > books, especially the Cockburn book, have really been reviewed, For one thing, the > title is very misleading; it's not about anti-Semitism, but what seem like a series > of exculpatory screeds about anti-Israel criticism being labelled as anti-Semitism. > It also seems, partly because of your set-up, that you are predisposed to like the > first book, indeed came at it with a some predetermined position, and to dislike the > Chesler. (As far as I can tell, you're probably right that it's hysterical, but > sarcasm is not evidence, and I doubt whether her entire focus is, as you seem to > suggest, on Israel and its critics/enemies). I have no sense that the first book > really engages the issue of anti-Semitism at all, other than to brush it off as a > cynical political tool. Yet there's no mention at all of the anti-Jewishness worthy > of the volkische beobachter now being taught as gospel in Arab schools, or of > fundamentalists making no distinction between Jews and Israelis (witness the > synagogue bombings in Turkey) or of the preoccupation of people such as Fisk with > Israel to the virtual exclusion of other issues. And then there are Fisk and > Finkelstein. From your throwaway mentions of their travails, a reader would have no > sense that Fisk is, to put it mildly, a very contentious figure (and I think at > least arguably anti-Semitic; why else the Jenin obsession when it's clear there was > no m s a "good" Jew, son of a Holocaust survivor. But you'd get no sense in the review that he serves that role or that he is opposed to the existence of Israel. There is a real "usual suspects" element to them. Finally, I have no sense that you have really broached the topic of anti-Semitism, no sense of whether it's a worrisome trend outside the jaunndiced (in some ways, perhaps rightly jaundiced) purview of the out of the same litter contributors to The Politics of Anti-Semitism. best wishes martin. > > [Quick back-and-forth:] > > From:Jason Sherman > > Sent:Tuesday, November 18, 2003 5:33 PM > > To:Levin, Martin > > Subject:Re: review > > Hi martin. You forgot to mention that I'm a self-hating Jew. Yours, > > Jason. > > From:"Levin, Martin" > > Sent:2003/11/18 Tue PM 05:35:34 EST > > To:'Jason Sherman' > > Subject:Re: review > > Jason: Did I say that? I don't even think it. > > [My response, sent Thursday, Nov 20:] > > Martin, > > You're right, it wouldn't make sense to call me a self-hating Jew, but it would be > in keeping with your other ad hominem attacks-against not only Fisk and Finkelstein, > but against me as well (ie, that I was "predisposed to like the first book, indeed > came at it with a some [sic] predetermined position, and to dislike the Chesler," a > ludicrous charge. My review is based on what I read, not on what I wanted to read. > But your response is very illuminating, and tells me that what you were really > hoping for was an ideologically correct review that would have unequivocally > condemned those "out of the same litter contributors to The Politics of > Anti-Semitism." (Surely not a sign of a predetermined position on your part?) You > say you "do not feel these two books, especially the Cockburn book, have really been > reviewed." You then demonstrate what a proper review would have looked like. It > would have included a denunciation of Fisk as "arguably anti-Semitic," without a > shred of evidence, and a personal attack on Finkelstein as a favourite "son" of the > "Arab media." In fact, Martin, I did review the two books. I did "broach" the topic > of anti-Semitism-as defined and explored by the works under consideration. So why, > then, did you decide to kill the review? I won't question your motives, as you have > mine, but I find it telling that you haven't read either book yourself, yet feel > free to write about them as though you have-which, curiously, is an approach to > criticism you share with Chesler. You might want to ask yourself which of us > delivered the real "lecture." Yours, Jason Sherman > > Alexander Cockburn writes, > > Dear Jason, Thanks so much for this. Amazing how the venom suddenly seeps from his > letter. Your responses are excellent. Of course we'd love to publish this on the > website, but probably you don't want to burn all boats with Globe and Mail, right? > If you are in boat-burning mood, all the better for us. > > On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 07:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dear Alexander, I think the Globe scuttled those boats. So please publish away. > > Yours, Jason. > > www.ctrl.org > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > ========== > CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic > screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are > sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- > directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with > major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. > That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and > always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no > credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > ======================================================================== > Archives Available at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> > ======================================================================== > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om > www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
