Dear Israel Lobby, We Give Up

[seemslikeadream]

slad, do you think David Icke's use of the holocaust for political purposes is even remotely decent?

would you please enumerate Icke's political purposes, you know the ones on the scale of Israel's

[compared2what?]

I didn't like what I'd written. So I deleted it.

Well, shoot, c2w! I wrote a long response. What do I do now? Should I post it or what?

You may, if you wish!

But I really, really didn't like what I wrote. It wasn't at all what I meant to say, and wasn't said at all in the way I'd meant to say what I did mean. It may have been remotely related to a point that's much more worth making, and which originated out of my love for you and your cause. But that's about all that could be said in its favor, imo.

So if your response is a rebuttal....I don't know, madame. I might not agree with it. But I can certainly understand why you would feel one was merited. And in a sense, I agree that one was.

Honestly, it's up to you. As you like.

[American Dream]

slad, do you think David Icke's use of the holocaust for political purposes is even remotely decent?

would you please enumerate Icke's political purposes, you know the ones on the scale of Israel's

Whatever Icke's purposes may be- do you think his use of the Nazi holocaust within his narrative is even remotely decent?

[seemslikeadream]

slad, do you think David Icke's use of the holocaust for political purposes is even remotely decent?

would you please enumerate Icke's political purposes, you know the ones on the scale of Israel's

Whatever Icke's purposes may be- do you think his use of the Nazi holocaust within his narrative is even remotely decent?

I want to know what you believe Icke's politcal purpose is (how that will affect the future of our planet) and then I will compare that to Israel's and get back at cha

I want all holocaust deniers on the table before I discuss one of your choosing

[seemslikeadream]

Good, good questions. Especially when it was recently revealed that the Israeli intelligence agencies were mounting false flag operations, convincing Balochistan militants that their attacks against Iranian targets were being orchestrated by the CIA, not Mossad.

I would also not hesitate to draw the conclusion that US and Israeli security services have a sizable roster of extremist dingdongs on tap, available to incite and detain as the needs of public safety and anti-Muslim/anti-Iran diplomacy require.

FEBRUARY 29, 2012

Here in Connect-the-Dots-Istan...
Middle East: Stupid is the Order of the Day
by PETER LEE
The stupid Attack Iran obsession seems to have infected virtually all discussion of the Middle East.

Marc Lynch of G.W. University said something stupid…then Amnesty International said something stupid…and how about those stupid Islamic terrorist plots?

I have already written about Marc Lynch’s rather terminal and embarrassing misunderstanding of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the matter of Syria, a major problem since he presents threatening Assad and his cohorts with prosecution by the ICC as the cornerstone for his vision of coercive diplomacy.

Largely because of the insistence of the United States, the ICC does not enjoy universal jurisdiction. It cannot pursue crimes against humanity regardless of where they occur; it can only act 1) in the case of “state parties” – nations that have both signed and ratified the Rome Statute, thereby binding themselves to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC or 2) when the UN Security Council decides that the superseding demands of world peace and security dictate that a malefactor, whether or not he or she belongs to a “state party” should be turned over to the court.

As long as Syria—a signatory but not ratifier of the Rome Statute—is shielded in the Security Council by Russia and China, Lynch’s riposte to Syrian recalcitrance, the threat of ICC prosecution, appears ludicrous.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the West will refuse to accept defeat and simply try to change the rules under which non-state-party despots are exposed to ICC jeopardy.

Andrea Bianchi and Stephanie Barbour try to do their best to expand the ICC’s reach, despite a rather sobersided piece of reporting by AP that highlights the limits to ICC jurisdiction in the matter of Syria:

“Experts said the list is likely to be more of a deterrent against further abuses than a direct threat to the Assad regime. Syria isn’t a member of the ICC so its jurisdiction doesn’t apply there, and Russia would likely block any moves in the U.N. Security Council to refer the country to the Hague-based tribunal.

“But Andrea Bianchi, a professor of international law at Geneva’s Graduate Institute, said anyone on the U.N. list might still be arrested and prosecuted if they traveled from Syria to a country that has signed up to the international court.

“‘Personally, if I were on that list I would worry,’ he said.

“Human rights group Amnesty International urged that the list be kept secret to prevent suspects from being tipped off.

“‘If in the future there is to be any potential to issue sealed arrest warrants the list has to remain confidential,’ said Stephanie Barbour, coordinator of the group’s campaign for international justice.”

Personally, if I was of the opinion that the ICC was basically an arbitrary tool against dictators that the United States and its allies doesn’t like, I guess I’d worry, too.

And if I was a professor at some Geneva institute of higher education, or a coordinator at AI, I’d be rather ashamed that I wasn’t spending some time highlighting the fact that the United States has gone even further than Syria in removing itself from the ICC’s jurisdiction.

But that’s just me.

Here in Connect-the-Dots-Istan, we were also struck by the parallels between the stupid Muslim assassin in Washington story and the stupid Iranian terrorists in Thailand, Georgia, and India story.

Foreign Policy tells us about the long and winding path to arrest of the Moroccan who tried to assassinate President Obama with a bogus suicide vest thoughtfully provided by the FBI:

A would-be suicide bomber was arrested on Capitol Hill today after accepting what he thought was an explosive vest from undercover agents. Roll Call’s Emma Dumain has the details:

“The arrest was the culmination of a lengthy and extensive operation,” the statement continued. “At no time was the public or Congressional community in any danger.”[...]

Local reports by Fox News describe the individual in custody as “a man, in his 30s and of Moroccan descent” who has been a target of a lengthy FBI investigation. Fox News reported that the suspect believed the undercover FBI agents assisting him were al-Qaida operatives.

Roll Call notes that the story is similar to that of Rezwan Ferdaus, who was arrested last September in the midst of a plot to attack the Capitol with a remote-controlled aircraft. Ferdaus was also in communication with FBI agents posing as al Qaeda members.

The case is also similar to that of Farooque Ahmed, who thought he was going to blow up the DC Metro system in 2010, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who thought he was going to blow up a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland Oregon in 2010, David Williams, who thought he was going to blow up a Bronx synagogue in 2009, and the “Fort Dix Five,” who thought they were going to attack a New Jersey military base in 2006.

In each case, undercover FBI agents spent months communicating and providing fake resources to the suspects before springing the trap. …

The increasing frequency of these operations is bound to raise some questions about whether law enforcement agencies are pushing along the development of plots that the individuals involved might never have acted on without the longterm encouragement of their “al Qaeda contacts.”

Now, I don’t have any special insights into the concurrent anti-Israeli bomb plots with Iranian principals that were simultaneously busted in Georgia, India, and Thailand, but Arshin Adib-Moghaddam wrote in Counterpunch to offer a perspective on the conspiracies:

Let’s assume that sections of the military and security apparatus in Iran are responsible for the string of bombings in Georgia, Thailand and India. What would be the motive? The argument that Iran is retaliating for the murder of five civilian nuclear scientists in Iran is not plausible. If Iran wanted to target Israeli interests, it has other means at its disposal. It is hard to imagine that the Iranian government would send Iranian operatives to friendly countries, completely equipped with Iranian money and passports – making the case against them as obvious as possible.

If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are as professional, highly trained and politically savvy as we have been told repeatedly by Israeli politicians themselves, if they have successfully trained and equipped the cadres of Hezbollah and other movements with paramilitary wings in the region, then why would they launch such a clumsy and self-defeating operation?

And why India, Georgia and Thailand, three countries that Iran has had cordial relations with during a period when Iran is facing increasing sanctions spearheaded by the United States? A few days ago, India agreed a rupee-based oil and gas deal with Iran and resisted US pressures to join the western boycott of the Iranian energy sector. As a net importer of 12% of Iranian oil, India’s total trade with Iran amounted to $13.67bn in 2010-2011. What would be the motive for damaging relations with one of Iran’s major trading partners and regional heavyweights?

For Iran it doesn’t make sense to risk alienating India by launching an assassination attempt in the capital of the country. Similarly, Iran has good economic and political relations with Georgia and Thailand. Why would the leadership in Tehran risk a major crisis with these countries during this sensitive period when IAEA inspectors are moving in and out of Iran to investigate the country’s nuclear program?

Good, good questions. Especially when it was recently revealed that the Israeli intelligence agencies were mounting false flag operations, convincing Balochistan militants that their attacks against Iranian targets were being orchestrated by the CIA, not Mossad.

I would also not hesitate to draw the conclusion that US and Israeli security services have a sizable roster of extremist dingdongs on tap, available to incite and detain as the needs of public safety and anti-Muslim/anti-Iran diplomacy require.

again I find Israel at this moment in time more of a threat to the entire planet than ANYTHING ANYONE ANYWHERE

[American Dream]

slad, do you think David Icke's use of the holocaust for political purposes is even remotely decent?

would you please enumerate Icke's political purposes, you know the ones on the scale of Israel's

Whatever Icke's purposes may be- do you think his use of the Nazi holocaust within his narrative is even remotely decent?

I want to know what you believe Icke's politcal purpose is (how that will affect the future of our planet) and then I will compare that to Israel's and get back at cha

I want all holocaust deniers on the table before I discuss one of your choosing

So, sounds like you acknowledge that David Icke does veer into holocaust revisionism with regards to the Nazi treatment of the Jews.

If so, don't you think that's truly effed-up?

Two wrongs still don't make a right, and neither do three, four or five.

Don't you agree?

[LolaB]

Sorry AD, but "remotely decent" and "truly effed-up" are in the eye of the beholder. Difficult to get agreement on that.

[Simulist]

What's with this obsession about David Icke, for God's sake?!

Can one of his adherents open up a "David Icke Superthread," for people who are actually interested in what he has to say?

Because not all of us are. Even remotely.

[American Dream]

Sorry AD, but "remotely decent" and "truly effed-up" are in the eye of the beholder. Difficult to get agreement on that.

Well, I'll just say that- to me- the historical scholarship of Norman Finkelstein in "The Holocaust Industry" is solid stuff but the Holocaust narrative of Ernst Zundel is a smarmy, nasty mess...

[seemslikeadream]

What's with this obsession about David Icke, for God's sake?!

Can one of his adherents open up a "David Icke Superthread," for people who are actually interested in what he has to say?

Because not all of us are. Even remotely.

for the record I am not an adherent to Icke.....but I am adherent to not being a hypocrite....not that I am calling anyone here a hypocrite

and please take note I have posted way more about other stuff on this thread than I have about Icke


and if anyone here has the impression I have some obsession with Icke....I implore you to find more than maybe two instances in 7 years where I have posted anything Icke related

[seemslikeadream]

Sorry AD, but "remotely decent" and "truly effed-up" are in the eye of the beholder. Difficult to get agreement on that.

Well, I'll just say that- to me- the historical scholarship of Norman Finkelstein in "The Holocaust Industry" is solid stuff but the Holocaust narrative of Ernst Zundel is a smarmy, nasty mess...

just for the record it's you who first posted those names

[slimmouse]

Mods, kindly note that much if not all this Icke stuff is completely and utterly irrelevant in this discussion. I implore you to take the time to look at where it originated and who the originator was.


And speaking of the originator, Id like to ask AD, yet another question that he will doubtless ignore. Rather than going on about your interpretation of whos behind what everyone else thinks, and taking this thread into a thousand different places it neednt go, Im fascinated as to what you think a Non offensive term would for those who have actively promoted mass murder in the middle east based on pseudo religous claptrap, and conditioning forced into the brains of virtually every western supporter since the day they were born, and subsequently facilitated by what I believe can only be a litany of bought and paid for, yet morally bankrupt brainwashed dupes ?

Did you get that AD. What I believe

We all of course actually know the answer. I actually screwed up giving the answer I did, but to your credit at least you have made that blindly obvious to me in your capacity as someone who does what you do. Did you figure it out yet , or are you too busy doing what you do - namely deflecting and dissecting some other irrelevance to this discussion , as it seems is your wont on an all too regular basis throughout this forum ?

The real answer is of course simple - THERE ISNT ONE.

Why might that be ? My argument make no sense to you AD. If not, what does ?

On edit the above should be another thread, though I doubt if I'll waste my time indulging the time wasters in that particular barrel of worms. As usual its something better not discussed.

PPS. Norman Finklestein is a "self hater". Im sure you dont need any back up proof of that. I'll bet hes probably a Ron Paul fan in some peoples eyes too, and an Icke supporter, and some kind of Neo Nazi by proxy. You need to do better than that AD.

[American Dream]

Mods, kindly note that much if not all this Icke stuff is completely and utterly irrelevant in this discussion. I implore you to take the time to look at where it originated and who the originator was.


And speaking of the originator, Id like to ask AD, yet another question that he will doubtless ignore. Rather than going on about your interpretation of whos behind what everyone else thinks, and taking this thread into a thousand different places it neednt go, Im fascinated as to what you think a Non offensive term would for those who have actively promoted mass murder in the middle east based on pseudo religous claptrap, and conditioning forced into the brains of virtually every western supporter since the day they were born, and subsequently facilitated by what I believe can only be a litany of bought and paid for, yet morally bankrupt brainwashed dupes ?

Did you get that AD. What I believe

We all of course actually know the answer. I actually screwed up giving the answer I did, but to your credit at least you have made that blindly obvious to me in your capacity as someone who does what you do. Did you figure it out yet , or are you too busy doing what you do - namely deflecting and dissecting some other irrelevance to this discussion , as it seems is your wont on an all too regular basis throughout this forum ?

The real answer is of course simple - THERE ISNT ONE.

Why might that be ? My argument make no sense to you AD. If not, what does ?

On edit the above should be another thread, though I doubt if I'll waste my time indulging the time wasters in that particular barrel of worms. As usual its something better not discussed.

PPS. Norman Finklestein is a "self hater". Im sure you dont need any back up proof of that. I'll bet hes probably a Ron Paul fan in some peoples eyes too, and an Icke supporter, and some kind of Neo Nazi by proxy. You need to do better than that AD.

I don't actually agree with you at all that there is not a "Non offensive term would for those who have actively promoted mass murder in the middle east based on pseudo religous claptrap, and conditioning forced into the brains of virtually every western supporter since the day they were born, and subsequently facilitated by what I believe can only be a litany of bought and paid for, yet morally bankrupt brainwashed dupes".


If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, I would say "member of the Israeli Right" for citizens of that State, and "supporter of the Israeli Right" for non-citizens.

[AlicetheKurious]

Well, I'll just say that- to me- the historical scholarship of Norman Finkelstein in "The Holocaust Industry" is solid stuff but the Holocaust narrative of Ernst Zundel is a smarmy, nasty mess...

Could you be more informative? You say "to me" -- does that mean that you've examined both books? (You name the Norman Finkelstein book in question, but which specific Zundel book were you comparing it with?) When you describe Zundel's work as "smarmy" and "nasty", can you cite any passages that illustrate what you mean?

I'd like to point out that "the historical scholarship of Norman Finkelstein" which you characterized as "solid stuff", was described thus by the book's reviewer for the New York Times, Professor Omer Bartov, John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History and Professor of History and Professor of German Studies at Brown University:

Here [Finkelstein] combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Now, however, the Jewish conspiracy is intended to "shake down" (his favorite phrase) such innocent entities as Swiss banks, German corporations and East European owners of looted Jewish property, all in order to consolidate Jewish power and influence without giving the real survivors of the genocide anything but empty rhetoric.

...There is something sad in this warping of intelligence, and in this perversion of moral indignation. There is also something indecent about it, something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid.

...it is brimming with ... indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations... Link

Here's another one:

He is an American-born son of two Holocaust survivors who began his career as an anti-Israel political agitator — circumstances which on their own make his claims to objective historical scholarship on the Holocaust highly suspect. Finkelstein can neither read nor write German. Being unable to access many of the sources that are the foundation of sound research in this highly complex and sensitive field has not prevented Finkelstein from passing sweeping, tendentious and twisted judgments on one of the saddest, and most important, episodes in human history.

In essence, Finkelstein’s argument is as follows: The Jews, in a fiendish conspiracy, have fabricated a “Holocaust Industry” in order to portray themselves as victims, cynically exploit their suffering and consolidate Israel as a power set on regional domination. If the Holocaust had never happened, the Jews would have invented it themselves, since the Holocaust served their diabolical quest for money and global imperialism.

This thesis is a hodge-podge of pathological paranoia, ignorance, malice and brutal disrespect to the memory of the millions of human beings systematically murdered by the Nazis (Christians, Jews and Muslims). If we applied Finkelstein’s warped logic, we would conclude that Blacks “exploit” the history of slavery to obtain civil rights gains or that in the 20th-century, women have created a “Feminism Industry” in a cruel attempt to gain power and subjugate men. How many Einsteins, how many Kafkas, how many Menuhins, how many lives (born and yet to be born) were lost forever in the furnaces of Auschwitz? The world will never know. But to suggest that the Jewish People, or anyone else on this planet, has “profited” from the extinguishing of so many souls — each of infinite value in its own right — is monstrous beyond belief.

Finkelstein’s brand of Holocaust denial is all the more pernicious for its relative subtlety. Unlike David Irving — who claims the gas chambers never existed and that Hitler was the Jews’ greatest friend — Finkelstein (who calls Irving “a good historian”) admits that it did happen, and then proceeds to turn the Holocaust into a tool with which to attack its primary victim. In the Finkelstenian mind, the Jews, and the Jews alone, are prohibited from collective mourning. Jewish insistence that the Holocaust be remembered becomes an act of unforgivable Jewish aggression, for which Israel must be “censured,” to use one of his favorite expressions of attack. This Holocaust erosion is at once more subversive and more dangerous than the outright factual denial practiced by the likes of Irving or Iran’s President, Ahmedinejad. It insidiously assaults our moral imperative to remember the Holocaust and eats away at its chief lesson to humanity: Never again!

Not surprisingly, Finkelstein has become the house favorite of neo-fascists in America, Europe and the Middle East; the dream-Jew of the post-Holocaust anti-Semites. David Duke — the white supremacist and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klax Klan — endorses him warmly on his Web site (http://www.davidduke.com). German neo-Nazi queen, Ingrid Rimland, has intimated that Finkelstein’s writing makes her feel “like a kid in a candy store.” And Finkelstein’s own enthusiasm for Osama bin Laden and Hezbollah have made him a welcome guest on the radical Shiite militia’s official satellite TV station, Al-Manar.

Finkelstein is an American citizen and thus at liberty to express his odious views. But free speech is not at issue here. The real question is should this academic fraudster be entertained at Stanford University? Does Finkelstein’s message of hate enhance or diminish our academic standards and community? And is it legitimate for CJME, a Stanford funded student organization, to offer its uncritical, enthusiastic endorsement to a man who defames an entire people and its six million murdered innocents purely for the purpose of making Israel look bad?

Amichai Magen is a Stanford Law School Fellow and Lecturer in Law and JSD candidate. He can be reached at merav@stanford.edu. Link

Since many distinguished scholars have trashed Finkelstein's book as barely one step removed from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and have described its author as a "Holocaust denier", on what basis did you decide that its scholarship is "solid stuff"?

Do you allow yourself to read books authored by accused "Holocaust deniers" and to recommend works which have been praised by neo-Nazis?

If you do, then would you expect others to read Ernst Zundel's book, which you did not name, before agreeing with you that it is "a smarmy, nasty mess?" Or do you expect them to agree with you and let you decide what they should or shouldn't read, without even knowing whether you've even read the (unnamed) book yourself, let alone whether you're as qualified as those distinguished scholars who have trashed Finkelstein's book as antisemitic and a "fraud"?

Will you flabbergast me by answering any of these questions in a rational, straightforward manner? Or will your head explode from the cognitive dissonance? Or will mine from trying to engage someone afflicted with your smug, self-righteous, irritatingly oblivious stupidity?

[American Dream]

I know full well how the smarmy and misleading trope of the "New anti-Semitism" can be used as a weapon to silence criticism of the State of Israel.

As I have said over the years here, I am an activist and have been associated with many, many Palestine solidarity campaigns and have seen spurious charges of this type used again and again to try to shut down those campaigns in North America.

It is for that reason exactly that I am extremely concerned about questionable talk regarding "zionazis", "Rothschild Zionism", "ZOG", that sort of thing.

When did you last work on a campaign like this in North America, Alice?

Didn't you say you used to do stuff in North America in the '80's?