Thursday, April 23, 2015


Israel now wants to make anti-Semitism an international crime.
“We need to set down clear rules on what constitutes antisemitism and to set up international codes to prevent it..."
It's obvious that the Israelis will do what they always do -- pretend that anti-Israel activity is the same thing as anti-Jewish prejudice. This conflation is, of course, pure scam. Lots of people feel as I do: We don't give a damn about either race or religion, but we do care very deeply when a state engages in land theft, mass murder, wanton destruction and ethnic cleansing.

Clearly, this new initiative is meant to criminalize the BDS movement -- which is, incidentally, supported by a growing number of Jews.

I happen to think that Israel's crimes justify military intervention by a coalition of outside nations. Is that stance racist? If so, then did FDR harbor racist feelings against the Italian people when he planned the military conquest of Italy (a country which had never attacked the United States)? Did George W. Bush have a racial animus against the people of Iraq? (Before you say "yes," recall his friendship with Prince Bandar.)

Let's switch gears. Let's pretend, for the moment, that this new initiative really is meant to fight actual bigotry (as opposed to fighting the BDS movement). Why should Jews be the only ones protected? What about black people, American Indians and other peoples who have, historically, suffered persecution?

Obviously, it is abhorrent for one person to call another "nigger." But should that kind of speech be considered a criminal act? And if so, then shouldn't it become a criminal act for a member of the Nation of Islam to declare that the white man is the devil? How about "guido" to describe Italian-Americans? How about "cracker"? And what about those Brits who use "seppo" to describe Americans?

(Cockney rhyming slang is always clever. Seppo is short for "septic tank," which rhymes with "yank.")

Speaking as a seppo cracker of guido heritage who believes that you should always have the legal right to call me a seppo cracker of guido heritiage, I think that this new proposal is ridiculous. By the way: What about those protestors (applauded by Netanyahu) who proclaimed "Je suis Charlie?" Would Charlie Hebdo still have the right to insult Muslims, who constitute a persecuted minority in France?
Well, me old China, we already have laws against incitement to racial or religious hatred.
Since it's the 5th of Iyar, Chag Atzma'ut Sameach to both you and young Mr. Daoud (author of the Algemeiner piece)!

I would recommend, however, that both you and young Mr. Daoud familiarize yourselves with the fallacy of composition: the fact that one Israeli (or even several Israelis) may advocate something does not constitute an effort on the part of "Israel" to bring it about, anymore than "America" is responsible for the opinions and efforts of Pam Geller or Louis Farrakhan. One might just as well blame "Arabs" (including both young Mr. Daoud and Dr. Mrs. Propertius) for the evils perpetrated by ISIS.

One further little nit:

did FDR harbor racist feelings against the Italian people when he planned the military conquest of Italy (a country which had never attacked the United States)

Whether Mr. Roosevelt harbored personal bias against Italians is both unknown and immaterial, since Italy declared war on the US on 11 December 1941. Please note that the US did not declare war on Italy until after Italy declared - so Italy did, in fact initiate hostilities. Perhaps you need to make a better choice of analogies.
Prop, you make some good points. Not all Israelis think alike, and it is certainly the case that not all Jews support Netanyahu. It is even true that Mossad sometimes acts against Likud policy. So there are many paths and byways at work here, as is usually the case.

That said, I think it is fair to say that Israel opinion has congealed into a hard-right position of the sort that would have dismayed Rabin. Moreover, the very concept of the Sayan means that we need some leeway before bringing in the fallacy of composition.

Let's put it this way. Ostrovsky says that when Jews around the world are recruited as sayan, they often say "no," but they never snitch about being approached. Let's have some more honesty here. If anyone approached ME, I would not just say "no" -- I would tell you, the readers, precisely what occurred.

So until we get more prospective sayanim who are willing to say "no" IN PUBLIC, then I would suggest that the fallacy of composition may not be entirely fallacious.

I often drag in the example of Mussolini to prove the point that race has nothing to do with my argument. I am largely of Italian extraction, yet I would have supported regime change in Italy had I been alive then. I would further argue that Israel's crimes today are worse than Italy's crimes then.
I think this proposal is intended to prepare political opinion for the state of Israel to unilaterally declare criticism of it's genocidal policies as antisemitic and a crime against humanity, so that it can then demand extradition of critics to Israel for trial. The threat of such charges would have tremendous propaganda value in smearing critics. Some may even be kidnapped and taken to Israel for trial, following the extraordinary rendition precedent established by the US.
Oh, Israel's done that before. Does the name "Adolf Eichmann" ring a bell?
Half of my family background is in the Smoke, but that's the first time I've heard Cockney rhyming slang called clever. You're right, though. As a characterisation, I thought that was well equitable.

But let's not get ourselves into a 2 and 8 over accusations of racism. The pro-Zionazi London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism is worth a butcher's. It was published shortly after the 2008-09 Gaza massacre, and as part of the Zionazi psywar effort. Note the way that the Zionazis have suborned 'parliamentarians' to act on an international level, otherwise than through actual resolutions in the national assemblies. What's the status of this document? Is it a treaty? No. Is it law? No. Is it a mission statement? Who cares? What counts is control. What counts is who does what to whom, who achieves their aims, what institution, weakness, strength, idea, etc. etc. can be used. Control over what's allowed to be said, and what must be said, in the school system, in academia, in the media - that all helps. Welcome to the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.

Very interesting, I thought. Never let it be said that the Zionazis are hung up on ideology, or that they aren't practical.

The British House of Commons Speaker's office was restructured at the same time, giving scope and access to 'voluntary organisations'. Sound familiar to anyone with experience on the Hill?
Mussolini's definition of fascism is ever more apt:

"Fascism is when you can't slide a cigarette paper between government and business."

You fuckin' said it, Benito.

I learnt that quote from David Cornwell, aka John Le Carré, who is very on the ball when it comes to criticising the corrupt regimes in the US and Britain, the banks, the pharmaceutical companies, the Rothschilds, money-laundering, the nature of today's politicians, etc. He knows damn well the legislatures and the executives are in the pockets of criminal big business, and he says so. The guy is in his 80s and he's getting better and better. Long may he thrive!

I've just read his novel A Delicate Truth and his message is crystal clear. It's to the small minority of people who know something from the inside and feel dirty, and who reach the point where they don't want to play along. And the message is: blow the fucking whistle.

His 2010 interview with Democracy Now is well worth watching. Here's the first 10 minutes. Here's the whole thing. Here's a transcript.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?