Forum Post: israeli, palestinian and syrian violence
Posted 12 years ago on March 13, 2012, 2:54 p.m. EST by flip
(7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
ALI ABUNIMAH: Good morning, Amy. Yes.
I think it’s very important to stress that this escalation of violence began on Friday with an extrajudicial execution by Israel of Zuhair al-Qaisi and several other people in Gaza. And that’s important because, you know, Israel presents this as they’re attacking terrorists who are en route to commit some kind of attack, and that’s the claim they always make, but in fact, in almost every case, they’re attacking people in their homes, riding in cars, just walking in the street. And there have been hundreds of such extrajudicial executions in recent years, where, essentially, Palestinians that Israel doesn’t like are sentenced to death in secret and in absentia and then executed on the streets of the Gaza Strip or sometimes the West Bank. And so, that’s what happened on Friday.
As was predicted by many Israeli military analysts, resistance factions in Gaza retaliated by firing rockets at Israel. No one was killed in any of the rockets. And interestingly, Hamas did not participate in the retaliatory strikes because, much to Israel’s displeasure, Hamas has been consistently moving away from armed struggle. So what happened, as typically, is that the retaliatory strikes, the rocket strikes from Gaza, then become the self-justifying motive for Israel to escalate its bombing of Gaza, and that’s exactly what happened this weekend with a terrible, terrible toll. And unfortunately, this pattern has repeated many times. Whenever there is a substantial reduction of violence or a ceasefire to which Palestinian groups are largely adhering, Israel comes up with some pretext or some attack in order to violate it. It’s just happened so many times, the pattern is clear.
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the cross-border violence between Israel and factions in Gaza in a speech at the U.N. Security Council. She condemned the Palestinian rocket fire but said nothing about Israel’s deadly attacks on Palestinians.
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: Let me also condemn in the strongest terms the rocket fire from Gaza into southern Israel, which continued over the weekend. We call on those responsible to take immediate action to stop these attacks. We call on both sides, all sides, to make every effort to restore calm.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah, your response?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, the U.S. government policy is completely in line with and driven by the Israeli propaganda message that Palestinians are always the ones responsible and always the ones who start this, when in fact the Palestinian factions were largely adhering to a ceasefire, and Hamas was, if anything, enforcing the ceasefire and disciplining any small Palestinian groups that violated it. But the message from U.S. and Israeli propaganda is always about barrages of rockets from Gaza over Israel. Well, what are the facts? In 2011, 108 Palestinians—15 children and large numbers of civilians—were killed, and many hundreds more injured, by constant barrages of Israeli missiles and firing over the Gaza Strip. Those are the facts that nobody talks about.
But there was another interesting thing Hillary Clinton said in her statement yesterday, when she was talking about Syria. She said that there’s no—
AMY GOODMAN: Let me—Ali, Ali, let me go to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—
ALI ABUNIMAH: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: —at the U.N. Security Council, another comment she made, talking about the right of self-defense versus unlawful state violence. She was invoking the crisis in Syria and said the U.S. rejects any equivalence between state violence and besieged populations defending themselves. This is a segment of her speech.
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: Now the United States believes firmly in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member states, but we do not believe that sovereignty demands that this council stand silent when governments massacre their own people, threatening regional peace and security in the process. And we reject any equivalence between premeditated murders by a government’s military machine and the actions of civilians under siege driven to self-defense.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah, your response to Hillary Clinton?
ALI ABUNIMAH: I mean, it’s incredible to hear those words and then look at the—of course, she was referring to Syria—and then look at the situation in Palestine, where Israel is carrying out premeditated murders, extrajudicial executions—these are war crimes under international law—and then using that as a pretext, using the response as a pretext to carry out widespread bombing over civilian areas in the Gaza Strip.
And so, I mean, the question to Hillary Clinton, I wish there were some real journalists who attend these daily State Department briefings, to ask: "Look, do Palestinians ever have a right to self-defense? After 63 years of dispossession, of occupation, of siege, can Palestinians ever be considered 'civilians under siege driven to self-defense'? And if so, what do they have a right to do? Please let us know, because it seems that when Palestinians observe ceasefires, as is demanded of them by the world, they’re attacked. When they engage in Gandhi-like protest, they’re attacked." Hana al-Shalabi, a woman prisoner, is now on her 27th day of hunger strike in Hasharon Prison, being detained without charge or trial by Israel, along with hundreds of other so-called administrative detainees. Almost every other day, Hillary Clinton is making speeches about women and women’s rights. What about the rights of Hana al-Shalabi and her family?
"Hana al-Shalabi, a woman prisoner, is now on her 27th day of hunger strike in Hasharon Prison, being detained without charge or trial by Israel, along with hundreds of other so-called administrative detainees. Almost every other day, Hillary Clinton is making speeches about women and women’s rights. What about the rights of Hana al-Shalabi and her family?"
Good question.
Uncomfortable truths that no one really wants to face. Well... they (the MSM) do a good job of keeping us distracted with our economic woes, gas prices and the latest national news story such as Trayvon Martin, or whatever else serves to keep the public from looking for real information about things going on beyond our borders.
For all of us who are interested in the truth of the Zionist killing
since 1947 - check out:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29665
……40,000 Arabs / Moslems were killed by Jews
.…..22,000 Jews were killed by Arabs / Muslims
10,000,000 Arabs / Muslims were killed by Arabs / Muslims
so – lets see – lets calculate who is
…the most dangerous, the most murderous adversary of Arabs / Muslims
of course this does not include
……..the hundreds of Arab / Muslim battles since Moslems
……..started killing each other from 624 - 1946
not at all sure your figures - i will check out the early wars later - i am pretty sure you are way off. as to 624 onward you must not know the history very well - so how about using a start date of the first intifada - let me know you numbers - i am interested in the occupation not the wars that were fought
A dead Arab is a dead Arab.
A dead Jew is a dead Jew.
I cited my source - what are your numbers and your source?
do you want me to list the battles 624 -1946 ?
I doubt it.
Can you cite a source for how many Jews were killed by Jews in the last 100 years?
I doubt it.
the christians were the ones slaughtering the jews for a thousand years and more - right up until 1945 - don't you think. haven't the europeans slaughtered each other again right up until 1945 strange. where did the jews flee to in 1492? they had it good in spain until then - don't you think? what is your point? and by the way your numbers are way off for the wars starting in 1948
Of course Christians were a major cause of (military) deaths
I am trying to lay out these three numbers from my source If you have other numbers that are different from these three
please post them and the source
Jewis & Muslim/Aram deaths since 1947
this is my source and what I found:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29665
……40,000 Arabs / Moslems were killed by Jews
.…..22,000 Jews were killed by Arabs / Muslims
10,000,000 Arabs / Muslims were killed by Arabs / Muslims
Please note - I have a source, I don't guarantee its accuracy Again- do you have a better source you can cite that has these three numbers?
ok - here are the israeli dead according to the jewish virtual library - 1948 - 6373, 1956 - 231, 1967 - 776, 1973 - 2688, 1982 - 368, 2006 - 121. you do the math - where are the rest of the 22k and why do you make me waste my time? now what is your point! what difference does it make how many arabs are killed by arabs - do you have a point - can you articulate it? are you trying to justify a disgusting occupation - yes disgusting and that is the nicest thing i can say about it - your turn fool
are you nuts? military deaths - have you heard of the spanish inquisition or those good chrisitians who ran hitler's death camps. do you know the history of jews in europe during the middle ages. come on man - are you someone's father? your website is nuts - get away from it - pure propaganda. just go to wiki to look for casualties in the arab israeli conflicts - i don't need to do your research
so - you are afraid to find a source that contradicts mine
and the three numbers I found there for those who forgot:
deaths since 1947:
……40,000 Arabs / Moslems were killed by Jews
.…..22,000 Jews were killed by Arabs / Muslims
10,000,000 Arabs / Muslims were killed by Arabs / Muslims
anyone else have the guts to cite an alternate source with different numbers? anyone?
and, since 1947, how many Jews were killed by Jews ?
no that was not what was said - go back and read - slow down - i imagine it is hard for you. if you respond to the point about who has been killing jews for the last thousand years i will get a source for you but it seems pointless. you are not interested in the truth since the truth is very easy to discover - just go to wiki or any other unbiased source - if you are someones dad you should be ashamed of your self - parents need to be more responsible with the facts
I am asking YOU a question - deaths since 1947: ……40,000 Arabs / Moslems were killed by Jews .…..22,000 Jews were killed by Arabs / Muslims 10,000,000 Arabs / Muslims were killed by Arabs / Muslims which of my FACTS is wrong? and can you cite any source? Or just your own rants?
ok, who gets their question answered first - do you have a point anyway - why are you here - too much stupidity on this site
Obama!!!!
We can take Unemployment from 6 % to 9%...Yes we can
We can take gasoline from $1.80 to $3.50/gal…..Yes we can
We can increase the national debt by $ 5 Trillion in 3 years…...Yes we can
We can get more people on welfare & food stamps…Yes we can
We can double the number of homes in foreclosure…Yes we can
We can eliminate 2 Million jobs from this country…Yes we can
We can give away $ 500 Million to Solyndra…..Yes we can
We can fly all over the country Campaigning on Air Force One…Yes we can
We can visit all 57states….Yes we can
We can down grade the US credit rating for the first time in history…Yes we can
We can increase the cost of heating oil to over $ 3.00 a gallon…Yes we can
We can decrease the sales of homes to its lowest level in 20 years.....yes we can
We can play the race card any time we want…Yes we can
We can run this economy without a budget...Yes we can
We can pass laws without Congress…Yes we can
We can create a health care bill that nobody wants…..Yes we can
We can cut our Military leaving the country weak…Yes we can
We can sit idly by while Iran builds nuclear weapons…Yes we can
We can discourage any drilling for oil in the US….Yes we can
We can go to Hawaii anytime we want For Free…..Yes we can
We can run semi-automatic weapons to Mexican Cartels in an attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment...Yes we can
We can quit smoking cigarettes…ooops….No we can’t
Any of you ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Muslim and quite prone to slaughter people. Flip? Ever hear of it?
good you bring this here. Ali Abunimah btw has a question for Noam Chomsky.
Audio: Challenging Noam Chomsky's ... - Ali Abunimah - Posterous
aliabunimah.posterous.com/audio-challenging-noam-chomskys-oppo...Jan 14, 2010 – Why does Noam Chomsky oppose boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, and why does he think Palestinians should not talk about ...
easy enough to find out - chomsky makes no secret of his opinions - use google and let me know what you think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGzNl4tgWg
i have heard chomsky's opinion before - why would i need to hear what someone else thinks of his opinion - what is your point?
My point is that Chomsky is a fake and a misleader. other people also read these posts and comments. The more who see him as full of it, the better it is for Occupy and for the movement. If I move one or two people to actually think about it, the next time they are subjected to his bs at a progressive function they might ask themselves "Is this guy full of crap, or what?" and even question why he sits on a podium.
you clearly know nothing about him - he does not look to be anyone's leader. have you read his work? if you did you haven't understood it - if you want to convince intelligent people that he is full of crap you might try to point out where he is wrong - go ahead i'll wait - you have a lot of work to do so get to it - oh, you choose not to talk about what he is saying but rather just say stupid shit like he is full of crap - that is what most of his critics do since they cannot argue on the facts. and by the way - did you answer my question? why would i want to hear some fools opinion instead of reading the author directly
People respect the Noamster and follow his lead. Of course that's why he speaks publicly, publishes articles and books, etc. He believes he has something to say that people should listen to. Obviously he wants people to boycott the boycott of Israel. Obviously he wants people to pay no attention to AIPAC etc. While he says he has spent no time looking at the events of 911, he says that there is no evidence to imply that the official tale is not true. He wants people to not investigate, even for themselves, what happened on that day. Otherwise why would he even speak to it?
you know very little - do you think he supports the government of israel - you question his tactics - fine - do you have a point otherwise
Chomsky said he disagrees on Mearsheimer book, The Israel Lobby. Chomsky said the Israel lobby does not influences US government Middle East policies. Wtf ?
that is not what he said - do a bit more reading then get back to me
Noam doesn't "support" the Likud government of Israel. He thinks they're an embarrassment. What he supports and defends is the "right" of Jews to have a Jewish supremacist state in Palestine. That's clear as day and it's been shown and demonstrated. What some of his defenders here who refuse to see this are demonstrating is cultism at its scariest.
you have never read his work - admit it - well no need you just demonstrated it for anyone who can read. you are stupid or a liar - those are the only two possibilities - which is it?
It's very clear just from the small interview we are arguing about and the fact that he so viciously attacks BDS movement. It wouldn't matter to me what else he may have said at other times, unless it was a retraction and apology, which is not probably forthcoming.
[-] 1 points by JPB950 (1321) 21 hours ago We probably all have that "my way..." attitude to some degree. I was surprised by his comment about the right of return though. I couldn't tell from the video if he believes it's totally unreasonable or just that Israel would never agree to it. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink [-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (378) from Bronx, NY 1 minute ago Well, the point of struggle is to get the other side to agree to what they never would agree to. Listen, Noam grew up in a left Zionist milieu, a group that advocated a bi national state (in words anyhow). He spent time on a kibbutz they had on stolen Arab land and fell in love with their rhetoric, and probably they talked some good shit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapam#Early_policy_towards_Arabs But.... "At a Mapai Centre meeting, 24 July 1948, Ben Gurion accused Mapam of hypocrisy, citing events at Mishmar HaEmek, he said: "They faced a cruel reality ... [and] saw that there was [only] one way and that was to expel the Arab villagers and burn the villages. And they did this, And they were the first to do this."[6] Mapam was also opposed to the establishment of settlements on Arab land. But this created a dilemma since Mapam was in the vanguard of the settlement movement. Of 12 new settlements created during May and June 1948 six were Mapam groups.[7] In August 1948 proposals were put forward for the creation of 32 new settlements, all but five of which were beyond the proposed UN partition frontier. As a compromise Mapam agreed on condition that there was sufficient "surplus land" at each location to allow for the return of the original inhabitants.[8] In the following months Mapam further diluted its position on the right of refugees to return by adding that there should be no return while a state of war existed and then it should only apply to the "peace-minded".[9] With the explosion of opposition to the Government's proposal to the UN, 28 July 1949, that 100,000 might be allowed to return, the issue of return quietly dropped off the agenda.[10]" Mapam youth was called Hashomer Hatzair, Noam's alma mater. Could it be that Noam is nostalgic for a time when he worked on the kibbutz, talked all sort of socialist rhetoric with his comrades. A time when there was a vibrant left wing in the Jewish community and a sizable Jewish working class that is now almost totally gone? I wouldn't prosecute a man in his 80's who in his 20's and 30's was a Zionist just for that alone. But he seems to never really have left Mapam, though it left him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapam This group ended up allied with the mainstream Labor Party which governed Israel . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Labor_Party#History
as i said you never read his work so talk to me when you have
This is not one of Professor Chomsky's classes so I don't have to pass any exam regarding his writings. What he said and has done regarding BDS is clear, it's here on this forum and I'm done chattering with you, cultbrain.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/noam-chomsky-blasts-tutu-the-presbyterians-and-elv/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/chomsky-on-boycott-divest-and-sanctions-bds-agains/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/some-musings-of-the-great-noam-chomsky/
another well thought out response - nothing except bds - not why you think he is wrong in his opinion just bds,bds, bds - nothing about all of the work he has doen over the years just bds,bds, bds and i am a cult brain???
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=18734
Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
<<< Earlier issue of this journal ^ This issue of this journal Later issue of this journal >>>
Article/book #: 18734 Title: Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict By: Jeffrey Blankfort
Published in: Dissident Voice Date of issue: 24 May 2005 Topic(s) addressed: US policy on the Middle East US: Zionism/Israel as a determinant of US foreign policy -- tail wags the dog scenario America: politics/society American policy on Israel/Palestine Critique of theories regarding US support for Israel: Chomsky's explanation for US policy Language bias in discussing the Middle East People/entities mentioned in this item: Omar Barghouti Noam Chomsky Noah Cohen Juan Cole Ian Lustick Cheryl Rubenberg Edward Said Israel Shahak
Cross-reference(s): See another critique by Mark Green in Marwen Media This Erik Schechter article in the Jerusalem Post refers to this article. Commentary (by a person who is not a member of the UCC Palestine Solidarity Campaign ):
Important article.
Perhaps there is a simple explanation for Chomsky's reticence to acknowledge the centrality of Zionist groups in explaining US policy (esp. in relation to Israel/Middle East). In 1989 Norman Finkelstein, someone with mostly coincident views with Chomsky, visited the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, for a lecture and a discussion with Jewish students. During his discussion with the Jewish students at the Hillel building, one of the Jewish students stated that Jews shouldn't bother about other Americans' reaction to their support for Israel because "we own the joint". NF's reply to the student was of interest: NF suggested that the Jewish student was pushing the arguments made by generations of anti-semites. Now, here comes Blankfort, himself Jewish, and provides ample documentation to support the thesis that American Zionists have a strangle hold on the US's political process, the media, the top corporations, unions, mafia, and so on. So, NF, and thus Chomsky, will find it uncomfortable to acknowledge Blankfort's thesis. That is, if they accept Blankfort's thesis, then they will have to acknowledge that some of the statements made by anti-semites contain an element of truth. This may explain why both Chomsky and NF have refused to enter a discussion about this issue. The way out of this quandary is to analyze the nature of Zionist political pressure and control, and to separate it from the racist and demagogic propaganda. Abstract:
»Despite his low-key demeanor and monotone delivery, Chomsky has been anything but reluctant. On closer examination, however, it appears that he has gained his elevated position less from scholarship than from the sheer body of his work that includes books by the dozens–30 in the last 30 years – and speeches and interviews in the hundreds.
In the field of US-Israel-Palestine relations he has been a virtual human tsunami, washing like a huge wave over genuine scholarly works in the field that contradict his critical positions on the Middle East, namely that Israel serves a strategic asset for the US and that the Israeli lobby, primarily AIPAC, is little more than a pressure group like any other trying to affect US policy in the Middle East. For both of these positions, as I will show, he offers only the sketchiest of evidence and what undercuts his theory he eliminates altogether.
Nevertheless, he has ignited the thinking and gained himself the passionate, almost cult-like attachment of thousands of followers across the globe. At the same time it has made him the favorite hate object of those who support and justify the US global agenda and the domination of its junior partner, Israel, over the Palestinians. Who else has whole internet blogs dedicated to nothing else but attacking him?
What is less generally known is that he admits to having been a Zionist from childhood, by one of the earlier definitions of the term–in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and a bi-national, not a Jewish state–and, as he wrote 30 years ago, "perhaps this personal history distorts my perspective.? Measuring the degree to which it has done so is critical to understanding puzzling positions he has taken in response to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Given the viciousness and the consistency with which Chomsky has been attacked by his critics on the "right," one ventures cautiously when challenging him from the "left." To expose serious errors in Chomsky’s analysis and recording of history is to court almost certain opprobrium from those who might even agree with the nature of the criticism but who have become so protective of his reputation over the years, often through personal friendships, that have they not only failed to publicly challenge substantial errors of both fact and interpretation on his part, they have dismissed attempts by others to do so as "personal" vendettas.«
»Although I had previously criticized Chomsky for downplaying the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on Washington’s Middle East policies, I had hesitated to write a critique of his overall approach for the reasons noted. Nevertheless, I was convinced that while, ironically, having provided perhaps the most extensive documentation of Israeli crimes, he had, at the same time immobilized, if not sabotaged, the development of any serious effort to halt those crimes and to build an effective movement in behalf of the Palestinian cause.
An exaggeration? Hardly. A number of statements made by Chomsky have demonstrated his determination to keep Israel and Israelis from being punished or inconvenienced for the very monumental transgressions of decent human behavior that he himself has passionately documented over the years. This is one of the glaring contradictions in Chomsky’s work. He would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine.«
»A more disturbing exchange occurred later in the interview when Chomsky was asked if sanctions should be applied against Israel as they were against South Africa. He responded:
In fact, I've been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it. Sanctions hurt the population. You don't impose them unless the population is asking for them. That's the moral issue. So, the first point in the case of Israel is that: Is the population asking for it? Well, obviously not.
Obviously not. But is it acceptable to make such a decision on the basis of what the majority of Israelis want? Israel, after all, is not a dictatorship in which the people are held in check by fear and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for their government’s actions. Israel has a largely unregulated, lively press and a "people’s army" in which all Israeli Jews, other than the ultra-orthodox, are expected to serve and that is viewed by the Israeli public with almost religious reverence. Over the years, in their own democratic fashion, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have consistently supported and participated in actions of their government against the Palestinians and Lebanese that are not only racist, but in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Nope and definitely not a one track mind either.
paid by the pentagon - by that do you mean he worked for mit and that they were funded in large part by the pentagon - have youy read his work - oh, i forgot we are done - you are either very stupid or a liar which do you choose
wow you have lost your mind - if you ever had one to lose - thats ok - this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard --Chomsky is a counter-insurgent. I've known that since the Vietnam days when he was being paid by the Pentagon. Why would I waste my time studying his many many many books? Anyone who understands what he was doing during the McCarthy days and Vietnam days, and how he tried to scotch key student uprisings at Berkeley and Columbia just wouldn't have much respect for him. -- and i know exactly why you say what you do but you have put things together is the most bizarre manner
"I've known that since the Vietnam days when he was being paid by the Pentagon."
That alone disqualifies him from being any kind of guiding light to anyone. Okay flip. We're done.
you need to tell me something i don't know - all of this info i understand i just put it together differently from you and david icke or what ever his name is - i was referring to the u s gov't paying israel (6 billino plus)- i am aware of chomky's reason for not giving full weight to the israeli lobby - are you - post his reasons - a full honest accounting (since you clearly like to do that) and we can go through them
Ah, David Icke...
You just keep throwing all sorts of bullshit around.
Chomsky is a counter-insurgent. I've known that since the Vietnam days when he was being paid by the Pentagon. Why would I waste my time studying his many many many books? Anyone who understands what he was doing during the McCarthy days and Vietnam days, and how he tried to scotch key student uprisings at Berkeley and Columbia just wouldn't have much respect for him.
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Thread-Noam-Chomsky-and-MIT
MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's Ties to the Military (continued)
by BOB FELDMAN S. military.
"...He was...interviewed by laboratory director Jerome Wiesner for the position...Chomsky was hired as a full-time faculty member, which meant that he was required to spend half his time working in the research lab...Here, his ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX was hatched...The funding for the research published in ASPECTS was provided by `the Joint Services Electronics Program (U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force), the Electronics Systems Division of the U.S. Air Force, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and NASA..." (from NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent by Robert Barsky).
Jerome Weisner later became the head of JFK's Science Advisory Committee during the early 1960s; and according to the 1965 annual report of the Ford Foundation-subsidized Institute for Defense Analyses Pentagon weapons-research think-tank, Jerome Weisner was an Adviser to IDA's Jason Division group of university professors who performed counter-insurgency, Vietnam War-related weapons research every summer during the 1960s Viet Nam War Era.
When students shut down Columbia University in 1968 in support of the demand that Columbia resign its institutional membership in IDA, MIT Professor Chomsky constructed a left anti-war rationalization for opposing the Columbia student revolt - but he did not disclose at the time that an IDA Jason Division consultant, Jerome Weisner, was the person who hired him as an MIT professor and military lab researcher during the McCarthy Era.
As Barsky also notes in his NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent book: "While he admired
the challenge to the universities' that the students were so vehemently presenting, Chomsky thought their rebellions werelargely misguided,' and he `criticized [them] as they were in progress at Berkeley (1966) and Columbia (1968) particularly."you are not too bright - have you read anything by him on the subject - the answer must be no or you are sadly lacking in reading comprehension - you and brightbart (or whatever his name is) can make up anything you like - if you want to blame the israelis and not the american gov't fine - we are the big dog and call the shots - he who pays the piper calls the tune - no??? if you think otherwise then wow - keep posting your stupid shit - go ahead - someone might buy it - not me - i know too much about noam - and keep making up quotes - what is your agenda?? do you know?
"he who pays the piper calls the tune - no???"
Oh yes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Means_of_influence
Campaign donations "Political campaign contributions", writes Mitchell Bard, "are also considered an important means of influence; typically, Jews have been major benefactors."
According to Bard, objective quantification that the impact of campaign contributions have on "legislative outcomes, particularly with regard to Israel-related issues" is difficult. This is because raw analysis of contributions statistics do not take into account "non-monetary factors" and whether or not "a candidate is pro-Israel because of receiving a contribution, or receives a donation as a result of taking a position in support of Israel."[20]
Targeting
AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political action committees. AIPAC president Howard Friedman says “AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel’s predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a ‘position paper’ on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it’s clear where they stand on the subject.”[42]
This process has become more targeted over time according to Bard, "In the past, Jewish contributions were less structured and targeted than other interest groups, but this has changed dramatically as Israel-related political action committees (PACs) have proliferated."[20] Among politicians considered unfriendly to Israel who AIPAC has helped defeat include Cynthia McKinney, Paul Findley, Earl Hillard, Pete McCloskey, Senators William Fulbright and Roger Jepson, and Adlai Stevenson in his campaign for governor of Illinois in 1982.[43] The defeat of Charles H. Percy, Senator for Illinois until 1985, has been attributed to AIPAC-co-ordinated donations to his opponent after he supported the sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. Donations included $1.1 million on anti-Percy advertising by Michael Goland, who was also a major contributor to AIPAC.[43] Former executive director of AIPAC, Tom Dine, was quoted as saying, "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire - got the message".[44]
Financial figures
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by Center for Responsive Politics indicates current totals and a general increase in proportional donations to the US Republican party since 1996.[45] The Washington Post summarized the Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data and concluded that "Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[46] In contrast, Arab-Americans and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the same (1990–2006) period.[47]
J.J. Goldberg wrote in his 1994 book Jewish Power that 45% of the Democratic Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees.[48] Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, updated those figures in 2006 citing figures of 60% and 35% respectively for the Democratic and Republican Parties. According to the Washington Post, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for 60% of money from private sources.[49] [edit]Education of politicians
According to Mitchell Bard, Israel lobbyists also educate politicians by
"taking them to Israel on study missions. Once officials have direct exposure to the country, its leaders, geography, and security dilemmas, they typically return more sympathetic to Israel. Politicians also sometimes travel to Israel specifically to demonstrate to the lobby their interest in Israel. Thus, for example, George W. Bush made his one and only trip to Israel before deciding to run for President in what was widely viewed as an effort to win pro-Israel voters' support."[20]
Of course the American government has blame here. The US political system is constructed in such a way that people who are primarily interested in Israel dominate US middle east policy. The "cop on the beat" is a sad joke. The Israel Lobby has humiliated successive US presidents (by way of it's rule over Congress) who wanted to curb Israel's excesses in order to reduce the harm it does to US state interests.
The Israel Lobby: A Chomsky Blind Spot
If there are any constants in Washington, they are the power of AIPAC over Congress and the combined power of both over the White House when it comes to issues in the Middle East. While the lobby and its legislative lackeys may not win every battle, they ultimately win every war as the three living ex-presidents, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush the First, who ended up losers at the polls can attest.
Founded in 1959, with each passing year, the organization gets bigger and stronger. With a base in Washington, offices across the country, 85,000 energized members, a staff of 165, and a $33.4 million annual budget, 58AIPAC is at the pinnacle of a massive complex of Jewish organizations and Political Action Committees (PACS) across the country, from the national to the local, that are devoted to maintaining Israel’s privileged status in the nation’s capitol.
It no longer has serious concerns about the White House, but in the past, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr. publicly challenged Israel’s territorial aspirations and crossed the lobby on numerous occasions. There is little evidence of this in Chomsky’s writings. Instead, he would like us to believe that they, as well as their predecessors, supported Israel’s settlement building and its efforts to integrate the territories into Israel proper. The historical record proves otherwise. And yet he writes:
Through the most significant facts are missing from mainstream, commentary, and often ignored or misrepresented even in scholarly work, they are not controversial. They provide the indispensable background for any serious understanding of what is happening now. [59] Much of what Chomsky tells us is "not controversial," invariably proves to be very much so and particularly when it comes to the relations between Israel and the White House. The late revered Israeli scholar and human rights activist, Professor Israel Shahak pointed out that Chomsky’s analysis suffers from his
undoubted tendency of demonizing the American presidency and the Executive in general, while ignoring the Legislature, but also from his very mistaken, in my opinion, tendency of assuming that not only the principles but literally everything concerning the American imperialism was laid in detail long ago, in 1944 or about that time, and from then on the policy is, so to say, a follow-up of instructions from a computer.
This ignores not only the human factor in the US itself but also the completely different nature of the foes and the victims of the US during the last decades. There can be no doubt, in my own opinion, that the actual policies of the US are complex even when they are evil, influenced, as in the case of all other states, by many factors of which AIPAC is one and human stupidity (for which he never allows) is another. And finally, this very insightful paragraph:
But such simplistic theories, backed by his memory and ability to pick isolated examples (sometimes from a long time ago like his stock example of Eisenhower in the case of Israel while ignoring everything else from 1967 on) can appeal to [the] young who look for certainty and also for those who don't want to [be] engaged in actual work and so find substitute for it in crude and useless display of emotion. " [60]
you charlie are a fool or worse - what is the deal - i would asy once again that you should read him but seems you cannot read or at least understand what is written since you don't seem to understand what i am writting - if you conitnue i will respond in kind with some long pasted shit from some weird source - do you have a voice?? here is noam on the adl -As eloquently described by Noam Chomsky in his book Necessary Illusions (1989):
The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities…. The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them). … The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming “one of the main pillars” of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel’s refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement". - this is obvious nonsense as i know from hearing that lecture - read him you moron! - It was 1991 and Noam Chomsky had just finished a lecture in Berkeley on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and was taking questions from the audience. An Arab-American asked him to explain his position regarding the influence of America’s Israel lobby.
Chomsky replied that its reputation was generally exaggerated and, like other lobbies, it only appears to be powerful when its position lines up with that of the “elites” who determine policy in Washington. Earlier in the evening, he had asserted that Israel received support from the United States as a reward for the services it provides as the US’s “cop-on-the-beat” in the Middle East.
Chomsky’s response drew a warm round of applause from members of the audience who were no doubt pleased to have American Jews absolved from any blame for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, then in the fourth year of their first Intifada.
What is noteworthy is that Chomsky’s explanation for the financial and political support that the U.S. has provided Israel over the years is shared by what is generically known as the Israel lobby, and almost no one else.
"Elite" opinion is much less friendly to Israel than is general public opinion and certainly less so than the inmates of our "Israeli occupied" bought, paid for and intimidated US Congress.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-the-us-elite-really-thinks-about-israel/
You and Noam left out that the ADL spy operation was carried out also against enemies of the South Africa Apartheid regime of that time. One target who eventually sued and won is Jeff Blanfort, a Jewish American leftist and activist for Palestinian rights. Blankfort dogs Chomsky on the internet as a false friend of Palestine, one who restrains the actions of Palestine's erstwhile friends and deflects attention from the Lobby, which is far more than just another pressure group.
When is the last time (in the past thirty years) this "cop on the beat" Israel, bashed in anyone's head on behalf of its "puppet masters"? (who are I guess the WASPS of Washington?).
It seems as though the US went through quite a mess in Iraq knocking down one of Israel's main opponents.
What is noteworthy is that Chomsky's explanation for the financial and political support that the U.S. has provided Israel over the years is shared by what is generically known as the Israel lobby, and almost no one else.
Well, not quite "almost no one."Among the exceptions are the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress and the mainstream media and, what is equally noteworthy, virtually the entire American Left, both ideological and idealistic, including the organizations ostensibly in the forefront of the fight for Palestinian rights.
That there is a meeting of the minds on this issue between supporters of Israel and the Left may help explain why the Palestine support movement within the United States has been an utter failure. (YOU SAID IT JEFF BLANKFORT!!!)
Chomsky's position on the lobby had been established well before that Berkeley evening. In The Fateful Triangle, published in 1983, he assigned it little weight:
The "special relationship"is often attributed to domestic political pressures, in particular the effectiveness of the American Jewish community in political life and in influencing opinion. While there is some truth to thisŠ it underestimates the scope of the "support for Israel,"andŠ it overestimates the role of political pressure groups in decision making. (p.13) [1]
A year earlier, Congress had applauded Israel's devastating invasion of Lebanon, and then appropriated millions in additional aid to pay for the shells the Israeli military had expended. How much of this support was due to the legislators' "support for Israel"and how much was due to pressures from the Israel lobby? It was a question that should have been examined by the left at the time, but wasn't. Twenty years later, Chomsky's view is still the "conventional wisdom."
In 2001, in the midst of the second intifada, he went further, arguing that "it is improper - particularly in the United States - to condemn ŒIsraeli atrocities,'"and that the "US/Israel-Palestine conflict"is the more correct term, comparable with placing the proper responsibility for "Russian-backed crimes in Eastern Europe [and] US-backed crimes in Central America."And, to emphasize the point, he wrote, "IDF helicopters are US helicopters with Israeli pilots."[2]
Prof. Stephen Zunes, who might be described as a Chomsky acolyte, would not only relieve Israeli Jews from any responsibility for their actions, he would have us believe they are the victims.
In Tinderbox, his widely praised (by Chomsky and others) new book on the Middle East, Zunes faults the Arabs for "blaming Israel, Zionism, or the Jews for their problems."According to Zunes, the Israelis have been forced to assume a role similar to that assigned to members of the Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe who performed services, mainly tax collection, as middlemen between the feudal lords and the serfs in earlier times. In fact, writes Zunes, "US policy today corresponds with this historic anti-Semitism."[3] Anyone comparing the relative power of the Jewish community in centuries past with what we find in the US today will find that statement absurd.
Jewish power has, in fact, been trumpeted by a number of Jewish writers, including one, J. J. Goldberg, editor of the Jewish weekly Forward, who wrote a book by that name in 1996.[4] Any attempt, however, to explore the issue from a critical standpoint, inevitably leads to accusations of anti-Semitism, as Bill and Kathy Christison pointed out in their article on the role of right-wing Jewish neo-cons in orchestrating US Middle East policy, in Counterpunch (1/25/03):
Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word "domination"anywhere in the vicinity of the word "Israel,"as in "U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East"or "the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,"and some leftist, who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq, will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.[5]
Presumably, this is what Zunes would call an example of the "latent anti-Semitism which has come to the fore with wildly exaggerated claims of Jewish economic and political power."[6] And that it "is a naïve asumption to believe that foreign policy decision-making in the US is pluralistic enough so that any one lobbying groupŠ can have so much influence."[7]
This is hardly the first time that Jews have been in the upper echelons of power, as Benjamin Ginsberg points out in The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State; but there has never been a situation anything like the present. This was how Ginzberg began his book:
Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times.[8]
That was written in 1993. Today, ten years later, ardently pro-Israel American Jews are in positions of unprecedented influence within the United States and have assumed or been given decision-making positions over virtually every segment of our culture and body politic. This is no secret conspiracy. Regular readers of the New York Times business section, which reports the comings and goings of the media tycoons, are certainly aware of it. Does this mean that each and every one is a pro-Israel zealot? Not necessarily, but when one compares the US media with its European counterparts in their respective coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the extreme bias in favor of Israel on the part of the US media is immediately apparent.
This might explain Eric Alterman's discovery that "Europeans and Americans differ profoundly in their views of the Israel/Palestine issue at both the elite and popular levelsŠ, with Americans being far more sympathetic to Israel and the Europeans to the Palestinian cause"[9]
An additonal component of Chomsky's analysis is his insistence that it is the US, more than Israel, that is the "rejectionist state,"implying that were it not for the US, Israel might long ago have abandoned the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians for a mini-state.
Essential to his analysis is the notion that every US administration since that of Eisenhower has attempted to advance Israel's interests in line with America's global and regional agenda. This is a far more complex issue than Chomsky leads us to believe. Knowledgeable insiders, both critical and supportive of Israel, have described in detail major conflicts that have taken place between US and Israeli administrations over the years in which Israel, thanks to the diligence of its domestic lobby, has usually prevailed.
In particular, Chomsky ignores or misinterprets the efforts made by every US president, beginning with Richard Nixon, to curb Israel's expansionism, to halt its settlement building and to obtain its withdrawal from the Occupied Territories.[10]
"What happened to all those nice plans?"asked Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery. "Israel's governmentsŠ mobilized the collective power of US Jewry - which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents; great and small, football players and movie stars - folded, one after another."[11]
why do you make me waste my time - i have very little as it is - here is noam - tell me what you disagree with in this statement - Chomsky replied:
sorry charlie, i have read too many of noam's books to believe this nonsense - read "the fateful triangle" and then tell me that noam is soft on israel - you can disagree with him on bds or cambodia or whatever you like but you should give evidence - this statement is incorrect -"He would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine" - read his work not what this idiot says about his work. seems to me that these critics are upset because he places much of the blame for the palestine problem where it belongs on the united states - your boys are doing the work of the american gov't. now if you want to demonstrate that the u s is not the major player in the area go ahead but you got a big hill to climb and i don't think you are up to it! once again this statement - "On closer examination, however, it appears that he has gained his elevated position less from scholarship than from the sheer body of his work that includes books by the dozens–30 in the last 30 years – and speeches and interviews in the hundreds." - also nonsense as anyone who has read him (and understood him which is not so easy) can tell you - read his work and get back to me - do not read what someone says about him - i have read most of his books and heard hundreds of hours of talks - this stuff is foolish - try to read the fateful triangle and then tell me that you honestly think he absolves israel - won't happen - i have no problem with challenging certain positions but tell me what was said and where you disagree - as the two statement is put up showed this is not what you man does
""it is improper - particularly in the United States - to condemn Israeli atrocities,"
WTF! That's your Noam. Wake up.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-blankfort.html
The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions
By Jeffrey Blankfort Photojournalist and Middle East Analyst Left Curve Issue 27, May 2003
‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ Booklet
Cost: $1 Size: 8.5x5.5 Booklet Status: In Stock; Usually Ships in 1-2 Weeks Download PDF
The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions Who Makes up the Lobby? Endnotes
It was 1991 and Noam Chomsky had just finished a lecture in Berkeley on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and was taking questions from the audience. An Arab-American asked him to explain his position regarding the influence of America’s Israel lobby.
Chomsky replied that its reputation was generally exaggerated and, like other lobbies, it only appears to be powerful when its position lines up with that of the “elites” who determine policy in Washington. Earlier in the evening, he had asserted that Israel received support from the United States as a reward for the services it provides as the US’s “cop-on-the-beat” in the Middle East.
Chomsky’s response drew a warm round of applause from members of the audience who were no doubt pleased to have American Jews absolved from any blame for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, then in the fourth year of their first Intifada.
What is noteworthy is that Chomsky’s explanation for the financial and political support that the U.S. has provided Israel over the years is shared by what is generically known as the Israel lobby, and almost no one else.
Well, not quite “almost no one.” Among the exceptions are the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress and the mainstream media and, what is equally noteworthy, virtually the entire American Left, both ideological and idealistic, including the organizations ostensibly in the forefront of the fight for Palestinian rights.
That there is a meeting of the minds on this issue between supporters of Israel and the Left may help explain why the Palestine support movement within the United States has been an utter failure.
Chomsky’s position on the lobby had been established well before that Berkeley evening. In The Fateful Triangle, published in 1983, he assigned it little weight:
The “special relationship” is often attributed to domestic political pressures, in particular the effectiveness of the American Jewish community in political life and in influencing opinion. While there is some truth to this it underestimates the scope of the “support for Israel,” and it overestimates the role of political pressure groups in decision making. (p.13) 1
A year earlier, Congress had applauded Israel’s devastating invasion of Lebanon, and then appropriated millions in additional aid to pay for the shells the Israeli military had expended. How much of this support was due to the legislators’ “support for Israel” and how much was due to pressures from the Israel lobby? It was a question that should have been examined by the left at the time, but wasn’t. Twenty years later, Chomsky’s view is still the “conventional wisdom.”
In 2001, in the midst of the second intifada, he went further, arguing that “it is improper — particularly in the United States — to condemn Israeli atrocities,” and that the “US/Israel-Palestine conflict” is the more correct term, comparable with placing the proper responsibility for “Russian-backed crimes in Eastern Europe [and] US-backed crimes in Central America.” And, to emphasize the point, he wrote, “IDF helicopters are US helicopters with Israeli pilots.”2
Prof. Stephen Zunes, who might be described as a Chomsky acolyte, would not only relieve Israeli Jews from any responsibility for their actions, he would have us believe they are the victims.
In Tinderbox, his widely praised (by Chomsky and others) new book on the Middle East, Zunes faults the Arabs for “blaming Israel, Zionism, or the Jews for their problems.” According to Zunes, the Israelis have been forced to assume a role similar to that assigned to members of the Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe who performed services, mainly tax collection, as middlemen between the feudal lords and the serfs in earlier times. In fact, writes Zunes, “US policy today corresponds with this historic anti-Semitism.” 3 Anyone comparing the relative power of the Jewish community in centuries past with what we find in the US today will find that statement absurd.
Jewish power has, in fact, been trumpeted by a number of Jewish writers, including one, J. J. Goldberg, editor of the Jewish weekly Forward, who wrote a book by that name in 1996.4 Any attempt, however, to explore the issue from a critical standpoint, inevitably leads to accusations of anti-Semitism, as Bill and Kathleen Christison pointed out in their article on the role of right-wing Jewish neo-cons in orchestrating US Middle East policy, in Counterpunch (1/25/03):
Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word “domination” anywhere in the vicinity of the word “Israel,” as in “U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East” or “the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,” and some leftist, who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq, will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.5
Jeffrey Blankfort was raised in a Jewish non-Zionist family. He produces radio programs on three stations and has written extensively on the Middle East. He was formerly the editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. His photographs of the Anti-Vietnam War and Black Panthers Movements have appeared in numerous books and magazines.
In February 2002, he won a lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was found to have had a vast spying operation directed against American citizens opposed to Israel’s policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.
right - that is what all fools do - make pronouncements on things they have not read
This is not one of Professor Chomsky's classes so I don't have to pass any exam regarding his writings. What he said and has done regarding BDS is clear, it's here on this forum and I'm done chattering with you, cultbrain.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/noam-chomsky-blasts-tutu-the-presbyterians-and-elv/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/chomsky-on-boycott-divest-and-sanctions-bds-agains/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/some-musings-of-the-great-noam-chomsky/
It is a sad state of affairs when a country that once had a free vibrant press now has a corporate owned corrupt, colluding one for the most part. The last jouralist that I can remember that asked the tough questions, especially ones concerning Israel was Helen Thomas, and George W ostracized her for it. That was necessary of course if the neoliberal agenda was going to continue.
""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""
no doubt that nato is evil and sneaky but this - the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world - what exactly is it - certainly not chinese capitalism
Rising socialist and communist spirit, including the one in China;"reviving revolutionary spirit in China"
not sure china is a gov't you want to put in the same sentence as spiritual or revolutionary - maybe you can explain
like the rest of the world, Chinese people are discussing to replace their ruling elites by using the concept of "reviving Mao's revolutionary spirit. Mao defeated capitalist west and Japan, and saved Chinese culture and people. But it is becoming America in mandarin, so some people thinking to replace their ruling elite by reviving the spirit, concept of Mao=revolution.
yes the early mao did some amazing things - do you really want to hold him up as the example - i don't know much about it but seems to me that you might be on shaky ground here
you are missing the whole point, it is about revolution, not about a person, or Mao
sure i missed the point - and this revolution is happening again in china?? one more try - the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world - what exactly is it ??
[Removed]
I am absolutely ashamed of the corrupt relationship that our government has with Israel. It is astounding to me that so many people in our government can be so corrupted by AIPAC and the right-wing Likud party. For a people that have suffered so much at the hands of the Nazis...I just can't see how they can bring so much misery to the Palestinians now.
The last White House press corp journalist that I know of that asked the tough questions concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was Helen Thomas. For having the gall to ask those hard questions, George W. then snubbed her. Sadly....most people know now that if you want good accurate reporting that you have to go outside the mainstream media...and preferrably outside the US. This one subject alone is a microcosm of how journalism has devolved in this country...and that is very, very sad considering how a free press is so important to our democracy.....as our Founding Fathers said.
[Removed]