Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Toronto Globe and Mail Kills Review of 'The Politics of Anti-Semitism'
...
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 high 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 state 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 massacre). Finkelstein is trotted out by Arab media as 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, shermlit [at] rogers.com wrote:
Dear Alexander, I think the Globe scuttled those boats. So please publish away.
Yours, Jason.
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 high 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 state 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 massacre). Finkelstein is trotted out by Arab media as 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, shermlit [at] rogers.com wrote:
Dear Alexander, I think the Globe scuttled those boats. So please publish away.
Yours, Jason.
For more information:
http://www.counterpunch.org/review12062003...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
a "bug-eyed screed" is anything that doesn't parrot at least some of the Zionist line. It is OK, according to people like this, to criticize Israel's policies, but not the lies, distortions and bogus logic that is used to justify its existence.
I just looked at one of those sunday morning political talk shows, and they had the two authors of the new Geneva proposal/agreement regarding a two state palestinian solution, and George Will was there. He was interrogating the palestinian guy and wouldn't let him talk more than 3 seconds without interruption, usually interrupting with "you're not answering my question" and then cutting him off more when he tried to talk, and it made him get this exasperated look on his face. He cornered him into appearing to say that there would be no difference between the present state and the proposal state except that palestinian land claims would be ended.
Have you ever taken a moment to realize just how racist the smear 'anti-semite' is?
Gehrig has already on numerous occaisions 'proven' himself to be a racist.
As a liar? I don't think you could call someone a liar if they 'really' believe in what they spout.
A xenophobic bigot maybe - but not necessarily a liar.
As a liar? I don't think you could call someone a liar if they 'really' believe in what they spout.
A xenophobic bigot maybe - but not necessarily a liar.
Nessie's comments above brought to mind Israel Shamir's article, "The Wall", which concluded with the lines::
"Sharon's Wall, this unmitigated disaster, provides a rare opportunity to observe the true nature of the Jewish state and call for its dismantling. Not the wall, silly! The Jewish state".
For the entire article see:
http://www.israelshamir.net/english/wall.html
"Sharon's Wall, this unmitigated disaster, provides a rare opportunity to observe the true nature of the Jewish state and call for its dismantling. Not the wall, silly! The Jewish state".
For the entire article see:
http://www.israelshamir.net/english/wall.html
Logic 101:
Humans do evil deed
Evil deeds should be condemned
All Jews are human
Therefore, Jews do evil deeds and I must condemn them.
Humans do evil deed
Evil deeds should be condemned
All Jews are human
Therefore, Jews do evil deeds and I must condemn them.
nessie says "Don’t let this racist propaganda artist divert your attention. The issue is Zionism. It’s racist. It’s evil. it’s a threat to world peace. It differs from Nazism only in ethnicity of its chosen people."
RESPONSE: Nessie, you are a fucking lying, evil, sick, mentally-diseased piece of shit.
RESPONSE: Nessie, you are a fucking lying, evil, sick, mentally-diseased piece of shit.
"Jews" as a group do not do evil deeds. NOt every single Jew does an evil dead.
Jews are INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING, you fucking piece of shit scumbag. IF a few people who are jewish do something, "THE JEWS" DID NOT do it, THOSE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS did.
As for nessie, it's REPUSIVE of nessie to claim that zionism, THE DESIRE FOR JEWS TO HAVE A SAFE HOME BECAUSE YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHITS REFUSED TO STOP KILLING US FOR 2000 YEARS, is somehow wrong or "Evil" or "racist."
Jews are INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING, you fucking piece of shit scumbag. IF a few people who are jewish do something, "THE JEWS" DID NOT do it, THOSE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS did.
As for nessie, it's REPUSIVE of nessie to claim that zionism, THE DESIRE FOR JEWS TO HAVE A SAFE HOME BECAUSE YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHITS REFUSED TO STOP KILLING US FOR 2000 YEARS, is somehow wrong or "Evil" or "racist."
Thank you for making nessie's point
gehrig: "you should be saying is "_All_ anti-Zionism is not antisemitism." "
nessie: "Wrong. You are confusing anti-Zionism and anti-Zionists. One is belief system. The other is a group of people. They are as related as apples and oranges. "
-- gehrig is not wrong, because he was speaking about anti-Zionism, not about anti-Zionists.
nessie: "Gehrig would much rather have us thinking and talking about anti-Semitism that about Zionism. That’s why he so often brings up this pathetic canard."
-- gehrig wasn't saying anti-Zionism is identical to anti-Semitism. You put words into his mouth once more.
nessie: "Some anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic... a tiny minority at most, are anti-Semites"
-- wrong, big time. Many of them are anti-Semites to varying degrees, not necessarily overtly and vocally as Wendy Campbell is.
nessie: "Don’t let this racist propaganda artist divert your attention. The issue is Zionism. It’s racist. It’s evil. it’s a threat to world peace. It differs from Nazism only in ethnicity of its chosen people. Everything else is the same, the mystical reverence for blood and soil, the glorification or the military, the ethnic cleansing of people who stand in their way, the “Drive to the East,” everything. If you are Nazi, you believe that Aryans have special rights, simply because of their lineage. If you are Zionist, you believe that Jews have special rights, simply because of their lineage. It’s racism."
-- This is a pack of pernicious lies and slanders (except the sentence before the last). So far I've noticed nessie is a propaganda artist, whereas gehrig seems to me neither a racist nor a propaganda wizard.
nessie: "Wrong. You are confusing anti-Zionism and anti-Zionists. One is belief system. The other is a group of people. They are as related as apples and oranges. "
-- gehrig is not wrong, because he was speaking about anti-Zionism, not about anti-Zionists.
nessie: "Gehrig would much rather have us thinking and talking about anti-Semitism that about Zionism. That’s why he so often brings up this pathetic canard."
-- gehrig wasn't saying anti-Zionism is identical to anti-Semitism. You put words into his mouth once more.
nessie: "Some anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic... a tiny minority at most, are anti-Semites"
-- wrong, big time. Many of them are anti-Semites to varying degrees, not necessarily overtly and vocally as Wendy Campbell is.
nessie: "Don’t let this racist propaganda artist divert your attention. The issue is Zionism. It’s racist. It’s evil. it’s a threat to world peace. It differs from Nazism only in ethnicity of its chosen people. Everything else is the same, the mystical reverence for blood and soil, the glorification or the military, the ethnic cleansing of people who stand in their way, the “Drive to the East,” everything. If you are Nazi, you believe that Aryans have special rights, simply because of their lineage. If you are Zionist, you believe that Jews have special rights, simply because of their lineage. It’s racism."
-- This is a pack of pernicious lies and slanders (except the sentence before the last). So far I've noticed nessie is a propaganda artist, whereas gehrig seems to me neither a racist nor a propaganda wizard.
Which of nessie's points did "no" make??
As Gehrig has already had his attention called to his racism multiple times in the past, I hardly feel inclined at this point to waste my time citing every instance.
Anyone who exhibits a preference of, or deference to any 'racial group' is a racist.
Anyone who displays an undue sensitivity to comments and criticism and then attempts to counter with a 'racial' slur - is a racist.
The use of the technically incorrect term "anti-semite" is, in it's very use inherently racist.
A while back J B Campbell asked Alan Dershowitz on a show entitled "Anti-Semitism" if he had one drop of Semitic blood in his body?
AD: "I must say that I am uncomfortable with the term..."
JBC.: "Then why do you use it?"
AD: "I just think there should be a better word..." That is, a word which could cow and silence critics but not be a lie.
JBC: "But you didn't say anything about that on this show called 'Anti-Semitism' before I said that just now."
While 'ethnic' descriptions themselves may be useful in defining particulars such as group-cohesion, genetic characteristics, language or other social and gene-pool catagories it is an easy and dangerous trap, as attempting to 'break-down' or divide the human race into 'racial groups' rather than 'ethnic' for any purpose is in and of itself racist.
Anyone who exhibits a preference of, or deference to any 'racial group' is a racist.
Anyone who displays an undue sensitivity to comments and criticism and then attempts to counter with a 'racial' slur - is a racist.
The use of the technically incorrect term "anti-semite" is, in it's very use inherently racist.
A while back J B Campbell asked Alan Dershowitz on a show entitled "Anti-Semitism" if he had one drop of Semitic blood in his body?
AD: "I must say that I am uncomfortable with the term..."
JBC.: "Then why do you use it?"
AD: "I just think there should be a better word..." That is, a word which could cow and silence critics but not be a lie.
JBC: "But you didn't say anything about that on this show called 'Anti-Semitism' before I said that just now."
While 'ethnic' descriptions themselves may be useful in defining particulars such as group-cohesion, genetic characteristics, language or other social and gene-pool catagories it is an easy and dangerous trap, as attempting to 'break-down' or divide the human race into 'racial groups' rather than 'ethnic' for any purpose is in and of itself racist.
>"The use of the technically incorrect term "anti-semite" is, in it's very use inherently racist."
Tell the Christian anti-Jewish dumbbell called Wilhelm Marr who coined the term "anti-Semitism", and the millions of other Christians and other non-Jews who have helped make it virtually the only term to denote Jew-hatred.
Tell the Christian anti-Jewish dumbbell called Wilhelm Marr who coined the term "anti-Semitism", and the millions of other Christians and other non-Jews who have helped make it virtually the only term to denote Jew-hatred.
Damn Nessie, you made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair!
Look at how gehrig rants about nessie:
"Because, however, you are preconditioned to whine "Zionist censorship" whenever things don't go your way, it's not surprising that this is what you're whining now. It's what you do. It's in your reflexes. And those reflexes are causing you, again and again, to say the most ridiculously paranoid things, even when the evidence against you is right before your eyes, as it is above."
It's obvious to most readers I'm sure that gehrig is the one who is "preconditioned" since the day he could hear and talk to speak the Zionist doublespeak forever and a day, which gehrig learned quite well, and simply doesn't know when to stop. I can just see him now when the doctors come to take him away and put him in a straight jacket, going on and on about the Nazis and anti-semites, how they're everywhere and how they just hate Jews, how it's in all non-Jews blood, etc. Poor guy! But it's in his blood to think and say the most paranoid things and then project his illness onto others.
That's the Zionist mentality for you. I'm sure there is a medical term for it... something like "Psychosis Zionistitus".
Unfortunately, many seem to be inflicted with it. The only cure is for everyone who's onto the truth to confront the Zionists by exposing their lies and applying tough love to their pet project, the Jewish state of Israel. No more US money, no more aid in any way to Israel until it becomes a true democracy with equal rights for all regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or gender.
"Because, however, you are preconditioned to whine "Zionist censorship" whenever things don't go your way, it's not surprising that this is what you're whining now. It's what you do. It's in your reflexes. And those reflexes are causing you, again and again, to say the most ridiculously paranoid things, even when the evidence against you is right before your eyes, as it is above."
It's obvious to most readers I'm sure that gehrig is the one who is "preconditioned" since the day he could hear and talk to speak the Zionist doublespeak forever and a day, which gehrig learned quite well, and simply doesn't know when to stop. I can just see him now when the doctors come to take him away and put him in a straight jacket, going on and on about the Nazis and anti-semites, how they're everywhere and how they just hate Jews, how it's in all non-Jews blood, etc. Poor guy! But it's in his blood to think and say the most paranoid things and then project his illness onto others.
That's the Zionist mentality for you. I'm sure there is a medical term for it... something like "Psychosis Zionistitus".
Unfortunately, many seem to be inflicted with it. The only cure is for everyone who's onto the truth to confront the Zionists by exposing their lies and applying tough love to their pet project, the Jewish state of Israel. No more US money, no more aid in any way to Israel until it becomes a true democracy with equal rights for all regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or gender.
It isn't enough to replace overtly racist views with obliquely racist views as Gehrig has done since his May~June of this year disparagement of Palestinian family values and his point-of-view 'that Palestinian parents purposely place their children's lives in harms way' (though not the original comment - I believe the 'original' meaning is conveyed, this comment was also later removed by IndyMedia Censors - so much for the 'anti-zionist forces' at work).
It is also 'racist' to vigorously defend your own group while you blindly overlook the attacks on others.
Just as is it is inacceptable to use the word "Jew" as a description of an individual it is equally intollerant to use 'Christian', 'Muslim' or 'Christian anti-Jewish' as in the description of Wilhelm Marr, who, as many other misguided individuals of his day viewed Jews as well as many other ethnic groups as separate races.
Here: even Alan Dershowitz finds the term "anti-semite" "uncomfortable" - yet he continues to abuse it. Just because someone invented an incorrect term for the wrong reasons doesn't make it any more applicable. In fact use of the term smacks of "double-speak" as it brings to mind more exactly the correct definition of what the state of Israel has been doing since before it's formation.
It also bears mentioning here that beginning in the mid-eighteenth century, the Courts of many Central European countries were under the pressure (early lobbying?) of various Rabbinate to institute laws 'designed' to prevent a 'mixing of race', a vigorous enforcment of the sabbath and many others. Unfortunately these laws had often unforseen drastic consequences.
Apparently Gehrig seems to feel fairly secure in the fact that many of his posts have been deleted...
It is also 'racist' to vigorously defend your own group while you blindly overlook the attacks on others.
Just as is it is inacceptable to use the word "Jew" as a description of an individual it is equally intollerant to use 'Christian', 'Muslim' or 'Christian anti-Jewish' as in the description of Wilhelm Marr, who, as many other misguided individuals of his day viewed Jews as well as many other ethnic groups as separate races.
Here: even Alan Dershowitz finds the term "anti-semite" "uncomfortable" - yet he continues to abuse it. Just because someone invented an incorrect term for the wrong reasons doesn't make it any more applicable. In fact use of the term smacks of "double-speak" as it brings to mind more exactly the correct definition of what the state of Israel has been doing since before it's formation.
It also bears mentioning here that beginning in the mid-eighteenth century, the Courts of many Central European countries were under the pressure (early lobbying?) of various Rabbinate to institute laws 'designed' to prevent a 'mixing of race', a vigorous enforcment of the sabbath and many others. Unfortunately these laws had often unforseen drastic consequences.
Apparently Gehrig seems to feel fairly secure in the fact that many of his posts have been deleted...
I whole heartly agree with your view. Great skewering of the dreaded Gehrig !
. . . what about Jason Sherman and the Globe and Mail axing his review?
Actually, one could have hoped for a more circumspect resolution, and I do expect more from the Globe and Mail, but I think they were just trying avoid 'trouble'.
Notice here the proliferation of 'flame-posts' whenever a particular group feels slighted...
For one, I like Cockburn's style of writing, and the review is reflective of what I'd expect from him. I have never read anything from Phyllis Chesler. And in this case I havn't read either book.
Notice here the proliferation of 'flame-posts' whenever a particular group feels slighted...
For one, I like Cockburn's style of writing, and the review is reflective of what I'd expect from him. I have never read anything from Phyllis Chesler. And in this case I havn't read either book.
Azerty, you might learn that to attack Gehrig is something akin to poking a medusa. He will get you even if it takes his last bit of venom. Don't dare question any of his tradtional beliefs, it just doesn't work. If he can't disprove you, he will label you and smear you and then lie about you. But Gehrig is like his master, I should say that he follows his heart. That which comes forth from the mouth of Gehrig is what is in his dark heart. Do not qusetion the Zionist movement, it is a tradtion like washing cups. Never question any of his deep seated beliefs. He probably knows Dershowitz as a friend.
You're a racist, gehrig. You labeled yourself a racist the day you declared yourself a Zionist.
OK Gehrig, tell us what you feel to be the difference between zionism and racism, and why you feel zionism isn't racism.
By the way the Dershowitz quote is listed above. The time period was shortly after the Barr/Dershowitz exchange cited here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2841
I've done my homework... why don't you do yours?
By the way the Dershowitz quote is listed above. The time period was shortly after the Barr/Dershowitz exchange cited here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2841
I've done my homework... why don't you do yours?
What difference?
If I am not mistaken, I believe the United Nations said that Zionism is racism.
Gehrig, though you are an avowed Zionist, don't you find it ironic that what the jews want today, is exactly what the Germans wanted in the not so distant past?. I guess nazism was just a flawed version of nationalism. Just as Zionism is a flawed version of nazism. It is quite ironic.
1. "Common Man":
The UN had been manipulated by the Soviet bloc and the Arab league into passing a politically motivated, morally repugnant resolution, which the UN repealed in 1991, once the Soviet bloc was no longer around to help sustain that lie anymore.
2. "amused":
You're either totally brainwashed against Jews and don't know what the heck you're babbling about, or are a lowlife anti-Semitic bigot.
You don't have any facts on your side and just spew the vilest racist rhetoric. Get a f**king life.
The UN had been manipulated by the Soviet bloc and the Arab league into passing a politically motivated, morally repugnant resolution, which the UN repealed in 1991, once the Soviet bloc was no longer around to help sustain that lie anymore.
2. "amused":
You're either totally brainwashed against Jews and don't know what the heck you're babbling about, or are a lowlife anti-Semitic bigot.
You don't have any facts on your side and just spew the vilest racist rhetoric. Get a f**king life.
The UN had been manipulated by the US and Israel into passing a politically motivated, morally repugnant resolution, the repeal of the "Zionism equals racism> declaration.
So what? Zionism is racism. Period. What the UN says, one way or the other, doesn't matter. It is what it is.
So what? Zionism is racism. Period. What the UN says, one way or the other, doesn't matter. It is what it is.
Gehrig "poisoning-the-well" again.
Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
Are you trying to tell us that neither the Barr / Dershowitz nor the Campbell / Dershowitz exchanges ever took place, or, are you trying to tell us that the sources reporting these exchanges 'invalidates' the exchanges...
Just what are you tring to tell us Gehrig?
Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
Are you trying to tell us that neither the Barr / Dershowitz nor the Campbell / Dershowitz exchanges ever took place, or, are you trying to tell us that the sources reporting these exchanges 'invalidates' the exchanges...
Just what are you tring to tell us Gehrig?
Not all of us are poor students of history. What is acceptable for history today is mere rubbish compared to all of the facts hidden in history.
You want some real history, read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
You want some real history, read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
Zinn and Loewen.
Gehrig: "And here is my often-repeated definition of Zionism, which also, incidentally, matches what you'll find in most dictionaries. Zionism is the political movement for Jewish self-determination including a Jewish national homeland. If you're going to call that racist, then you're going to have to call most nations on earth racist."
Jewish self-determination - No problem here as long as it doesn't interfere with the 'self-determination' of others.
Jewish national homeland - No problem here as long as it doesn't 'dislodge' others from 'their' homeland.
If either of the above aspirations infringes on the basic human rights of any other 'entity' then zionism is flawed.
The basic problem with the concept of zionism when applied to an area previously occupied by another entity, is that a 'sacrifice' must be made in the 'rights' of others. Don't you see this?
To create a country that is to be known as a 'democracy' but be in favor of one and only one single ethnic group can only mean that ALL those not of the 'favored' ethnic group must be expelled. This is known as 'Ethnic Cleansing' and since Nuremberg 'A Crime Against Humanity'. And telling someone that their 'new' homeland is now a 100 miles further south does nothing to minimize, justify or legalize this dislocation.
Due to the fact that a 'people' will not normally vacate 'of their own free will' their homes and lands where they have lived for generations. One must use force.
Throughout history to 'make it easier' for those performing the task of 'Ethnic Cleansing' a 'pre-process' of a 'de-humanization' of the target people has almost always taken place.
In the more than one hundred years since the beginning of the 'taking possession of the land' there have been what can best be described as a litany of zionist quotes de-humanizing the Palestinians each raising the bar of what 'the people' can tolerate as 'acceptable'. If you want an example: start with Rabbi Schneersohn - what! Not him? Then try Begin...
On the comparison with the founding of 'other' nations.
While the majority of those national entities known as nations have been established for periods, exceeding, in most cases, more than one hundred years. A 'justification' of past crimes based on the differences between 'what was considered acceptable' of then and now hardly has any credibility as a justification of Israel's behavior today.
While the granting of citizenship and the bestowing of citizen's rights varies greatly from nation to nation, no-where within the 'enlightened world' is the bestowing of rights based on either religion or ethnic group. In the case of immigrants: immigration approval is typically based on the 'industrial level' of the nation the immigrant is from - while not really 'fair' it is 'designed' to prevent 'human floods'.
Jewish self-determination - No problem here as long as it doesn't interfere with the 'self-determination' of others.
Jewish national homeland - No problem here as long as it doesn't 'dislodge' others from 'their' homeland.
If either of the above aspirations infringes on the basic human rights of any other 'entity' then zionism is flawed.
The basic problem with the concept of zionism when applied to an area previously occupied by another entity, is that a 'sacrifice' must be made in the 'rights' of others. Don't you see this?
To create a country that is to be known as a 'democracy' but be in favor of one and only one single ethnic group can only mean that ALL those not of the 'favored' ethnic group must be expelled. This is known as 'Ethnic Cleansing' and since Nuremberg 'A Crime Against Humanity'. And telling someone that their 'new' homeland is now a 100 miles further south does nothing to minimize, justify or legalize this dislocation.
Due to the fact that a 'people' will not normally vacate 'of their own free will' their homes and lands where they have lived for generations. One must use force.
Throughout history to 'make it easier' for those performing the task of 'Ethnic Cleansing' a 'pre-process' of a 'de-humanization' of the target people has almost always taken place.
In the more than one hundred years since the beginning of the 'taking possession of the land' there have been what can best be described as a litany of zionist quotes de-humanizing the Palestinians each raising the bar of what 'the people' can tolerate as 'acceptable'. If you want an example: start with Rabbi Schneersohn - what! Not him? Then try Begin...
On the comparison with the founding of 'other' nations.
While the majority of those national entities known as nations have been established for periods, exceeding, in most cases, more than one hundred years. A 'justification' of past crimes based on the differences between 'what was considered acceptable' of then and now hardly has any credibility as a justification of Israel's behavior today.
While the granting of citizenship and the bestowing of citizen's rights varies greatly from nation to nation, no-where within the 'enlightened world' is the bestowing of rights based on either religion or ethnic group. In the case of immigrants: immigration approval is typically based on the 'industrial level' of the nation the immigrant is from - while not really 'fair' it is 'designed' to prevent 'human floods'.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network