0 comments ↓

#1 ralf on 02.28.09 at 10:12

Ich benutze zunächst mal einen begriff, den ich eigtl. nicht mag und doch muss ich ihn hier einsetzen: „Wessi“ um damit direkt leute auszugrenzen, die nicht DDR-bürger waren.
Wessi’s, die sich heute über die praktiken der Stasi aufregen, haben nicht begriffen, in welchem überwachungssystem wir heute in unserer sog. freien demokratie leben. Gegenüber den heutigen möglichkeiten und machenschaften der „überwachungsorgane“, war die überwachung durch die stasi ( und ich habe sie selbst erlebt…) nur noch lächerlich.
Was Schäuble fordert ist der Wille einiger „Möchte-gern-lenker“. Warum: Je besser ein Volk sich überwachen lässt, um so besser lässt es sich auch dirigieren – in welche richtung auch immer. Dies funktioniert ja schon bestens seit einigen jahren im bereich der bildung. Auch durch bildung lässt sich ein volk bekanntlicherweise gut dirigieren ( zu dem zweck schaue man sich die überdurchschnittliche bildungslücke der us-bürger an, oder wie sonst ist es erklärbar, das leute wie Busch solange regieren durften).
Dies nur nebenbei, es ist aber auch ein zeichen der zeit, das leute wie Schäuble überhaupt noch auf höchster ebene dummschwätzen können, sie haben ja auch das recht dazu und andere – ganz gleich wieweit links oder rechts – machen es auch und somit kommen wir wieder zurück auf die freiheitliche demokratie und auch zum unterschied: Hier und heute können wir uns über diese typen lustig machen, sie entblösen, sie zum stolbern bringen – in der ddr wäre man für diese sätze ins sog. „gelbe elend“ gegangen ( Gelbes Elend war der Knast in Bautzen) – es ist wie es ist: Demokratie heißt für mich eben auch: diese leute gehören halt mit dazu, verstummen werden sie wohl nie und die einzige chance dagegen besteht im zuhören und interpredieren dieser leute, sie entblösen sich immer selbst. Hier in diesem blog ist ein platz dafür gefunden und jeder kann es nachvollziehen, deshalb hier auch ein dank an Elise für ihre mühe und arbeit!

#2 Élise Hendrick on 03.12.09 at 08:16

Dein Kommentar erinnert mich an etwas, was ich 1999 in einer Gysi-Rede in einer PDS-Wahlkundgebung am Alex gehört habe: (sinngemäß) „Man vergißt ja gern, daß man auch im Osten unter der DDR gelitten hat.“

Ich habe langsam das Gefühl, daß man sich im Westen heutzutage mehr über die DDR aufregt als damals, als es die DDR auch tatsächlich gab. Irgendwie muß man den nach der Wende vor die Tür Gesetzten klarmachen, wieviel besser es ihnen jetzt geht, damit die ja nicht auf Gedanken kommen, die auch im Westen ansteckend sein könnten.

#3 phaty on 06.19.09 at 23:33

och nöööö, also nööö, vielleicht, aber dann doch eher nööö … ich weiß nich … oder doch? nöö …

#4 Élise Hendrick on 06.20.09 at 04:06

Genau!

#5 Dunehopper on 06.27.09 at 01:01

Schöner Artikel!
Bei all der Aufregung um das Internet-Zensur-Gesetz:
Was ist eigentlich mit den anderen Gesetzen? Die, von denen wir keine Ahnung haben? Werden die auch so laienhaft behandelt und wir merken’s nur nicht? War dies ein tragischer Einzelfall oder läuft das immer so?
Ich habe Angst vor der Antwort.
Gute Nacht Deutschland und Ihr versierten Internet-Nutzer

#6 Élise Hendrick on 06.27.09 at 01:30

Das erste Mal ist es nicht. Denk bloß an die Spekulationsförderungsgesetze von rot-grün. Da hat man den Konzernen wagenladungsweise Geld in den Rachen geschmissen und Riesenlöcher in den Haushalt gerissen. Oder die sog. „Sozialreform“, die eigentlich nur eine riesige Lohnsenkunsmaßnahme war. Und das nennt man Sozialdemokratie.

Ich weiß aber nicht, ob „laienhaft“ das richtige Wort ist. Es wäre meines Erachtens ein Fehler, davon auszugehen, daß Gesetze, die konsequent mächtige Interessen (Staat, Konzerne) fördern und die Bevölkerung der Armut überantworten, aus Ignoranz oder Dummheit entstanden sind. Gerade weil es sich um eine seit Jahren konsequent vorangetriebene Politik handelt, sollten wir langsam davon ausgehen, daß die vorhersehbaren Konsequenzen dieser Politik bekannt und gewollt sind.

#7 Flo on 06.27.09 at 16:53

Danke für diesen Artikel!

#8 WTF on 06.27.09 at 18:30

Ich hoffe das ist nicht ernst gemeint?!

Rechnen ist auch so eine Sache für sich:
2,6 Prozent! Die restlichen 87,4% sind vollkommen unangetastet.

Wir aben nur 90% Grundgesetz? hä?

Und zu den 2,6% du würdest also mit einem abgerissenem Ohr oder Finger nicht zum Arzt?

nice one…

#9 Élise Hendrick on 06.27.09 at 21:31

Erst mal danke für den rechnerischen Hinweis. Da habe ich mich wohl vertippt. Natürlich sollte das nicht 87,4 sondern 97,4 sein.

Der ganze Text ist Satire. Natürlich ist es nicht mein Ernst. Meine Absicht war es, die ganze Geschichte ad absurdum zu führen. Selbstverständlich läßt sich das bei einem solch absurden Ausgangszustand schwer so machen, daß allen die satirische Absicht klar ist.

#10 Dunehopper on 06.28.09 at 18:41

Stimmt, „laienhaft“ ist ungeeignet. Ich war aber kurz davor „leyenhaft“ und „wir merkelns nicht“ zu schreiben. Habe mir den Kalauer aber dann verkniffen, den das ist auch genau meine Befürchtung: Wirtschaftliche Interessen bestimmen gesetzesgeberisches Handeln.
Deutschland, wo die korrekten Deutschen wohnen, hat’s ja auch nicht so mit der Korruptionsbekämpfung und Transparenz.
Schönen Sunday.

#11 Élise Hendrick on 06.28.09 at 22:32

Es gibt eine Grundregel bei der Auslegung der Reden der Politiker. Hörst du „Arbeitsplätze“, sollst du „Profite“ verstehen. Alles wird ja bekanntlich mit Arbeitsplätzen begründet, selbst wenn dadurch nachweislich Arbeitsplätze verlorengehen werden. Das einzige, was durch diese Maßnahmen ohne Wenn und Aber geschaffen wird, sind Profite für die verantwortungsfernen Schichten.

#12 Erhard Arendt on 07.26.09 at 13:02

verehrte elisehendrick, vielen dank für ihren text. ich sammle all den müll aus dem schmuddelnetzwerk honestly concerned. es ist wohltuend so klare ehrliche worte zu lesen. eine beispiellos erschreckende jagd wurde gestartet. wie wenig hat man doch aus unserer unsäglichen vergangenheit gelernt. wie sehr das falsche.

davon ab. sie schreiben: “ Es geht ihnen nämlich nicht um Juden, nicht um Israelis und schon gar nicht um Palästinense“

ja, sie versuchen dies zu sugerieren betreiben aber ein völlig anderes handwerk. sie prägen damit den sprachgebrauch. nicht diese jäger sind die wahren, ehrlichen freunde israels. wer möchte schon einen freund haben der einem nicht auf fehlhandlungen hinweist?

vielen dank auch für die verlinkung.
es gibt nun übrigens eine kürze url und einen 2. speicherort für das palästina portal: http://www.palaestina-portal.eu/

es würde mich freuen, wenn sie mir – bei passender gelegenheit – einen link zu neuen artikeln senden würden.

alles gute
erhard arendt

#13 Élise Hendrick on 07.26.09 at 19:18

Hallo Herr Arendt,

ich wollte Ihnen sowieso schon mal danken für die Datenzusammenstellung zu diesem Thema und Sie darauf hinweisen, daß es ein kleines Problem mit der Formattierung der HC-/Broder-Seiten gibt, und zwar, irgendwie sind die Zeilenumbrüche weit rechts des rechten Bildschirmrandes, was das Lesen ein bißchen erschwert. Läßt sich bestimmt ohne größere Schwierigkeiten korrigieren. Ich wollte es nur mal gesagt haben.

Danke auch fürs Verlinken. Ich halte es für sehr wichtig, gerade Menschen, die ähnlich drauf sind wie das HC-Netzwerk, auf ihre wahre Gesinnung anzusprechen. Und keiner sagt öffentlichkeitswirksam, worum es diesen Schlechtmenschen (wenn wir schon mal „Gutmenschen“ sein sollen) bzw. Gutdeutschen (des Wortes überlieferter Sinn) eigentlich geht. Wir Juden sind ihnen keine Menschen. Unsere Existenz, unser Leid, unsere Verfolgung – all das ist für diese Leute nur eine einzige politische Wichsvorlage, ein Haufen Attrappen, mit denen sie sich zu den Initiatoren eines „Aufstands der Anständigen“ hochstilisieren können. Es geht ihnen weder um die Menschen noch um die Sache, sondern einzig und allein um ihr eigenes Selbstbild.

#14 Christoph Wagner on 09.06.09 at 10:02

Irgendwie kommt es mir vor als wenn du die den Text sparen könntest indem du sie einfach unter CC-by-nc stellst und erwähnst, dass bei gewerblicher Nutzung man es mit dir aushandeln kann^^

#15 Élise Hendrick on 09.06.09 at 21:34

Mit den verschiedenen CC-Varianten werde ich mich mal etwas näher beschäftigen müssen. Falls es eine passende gibt, werde ich einfach die nehmen.

#16 anon on 09.07.09 at 10:52

„Ich weiß nur: Wenn wir nach der Wahl immer noch Große Koalition haben, wird mich das sehr ankotzen.“

Keine Sorge, Schwarz-Gelb wirst Du kriegen :). Dann gehts wieder aufwärts in diesem Lande … 🙂 .. 🙂 … 🙂 ……

#17 Christoph Wagner on 12.05.09 at 10:24

<p>GroÃ

#18 Josh von Staudach on 12.05.09 at 21:39

Zustimmung rundum

Viel zu lesen – aber es lohnte sich und ich kann jeden Absatz unterschreiben! Traut man sich sowas nur ‚im Exil‘ zu schreiben? In deutschen Blogs fand ich bisher wenig so Eindeutiges. Vor allem die wichtige Erkenntnis, dass ‚die Macht‘ wesentlich respektloser mit ‚dem Volk‘ umgeht, als es umgekehrt je sein koennte.
[…]

#19 Josh von Staudach on 12.05.09 at 21:50

Eine Ergaenzung noch zum Satz des Bayerischen OLG ("Im uebrigen muessen in einer Demokratie mehrheitlich gewaehlte oder legitimierte Politiker berechtigt sein, …"): die letzten Wahlen haben gezeigt, dass die Regierenden eben NICHT die Mehrheit der Bevoelkerung hinter sich haben! Aufgrund sinkender Wahlbeteiligung und Minderheitskoalitionen werden wir ZWANGSLAEUFIG von solchen Gestalten regiert, die wir eigentlich gar nicht haben wollten. DAS zu beklagen halte ich fuer wichtig, denn es muss endlich eine Aenderung im Wahlrecht her, DAMIT Personen/Parteien auch ABgewaehlt werden koennen. Wir als Souveraen haben eben leider keine Moeglichkeit, darueber zu bestimmen, was wir NICHT wollen.

#20 Josh von Staudach on 12.05.09 at 21:53

Unsere jetzige deutsche Regierung ist ein Musterbeispiel dafuer, dass ein Kabinett zusammengewuerfelt wird, welches so nicht gewaehlt worden waere, haette es zur Wahl gestanden! Noch nie gab es so viel Feigheit vor der Wahl, konkrete Aussagen zu aeussern, wie man sich nach der Wahl verhalten wolle. Das allein schon macht eine Wahl zur Farce, weil man ausser Platitueden auf den Wahlplakaten abzunicken keine effektive Auswahl zur Verfuegung gestellt bekommt – sondern nachher mit vermeintlicher Mehrheit der Stimmen ein Regierungsprogramm und ein Kabinett formt, ueber das sich aber die Mehrheit der Buerger die Augen reibt und denkt: "also, wenn ich das vorher gewusst haette!"

#21 Josh von Staudach on 12.05.09 at 21:54

Das Volk regt sich zwar darueber auf, wie auch im Speziellen die Satiriker, aber bisher hat auch noch niemand eine Loesung dafuer, wie man diese Farce von Machterhalt durchbrechen koennte. Denn mit Waehlen geht es ja nicht! Ich sehe da den wichtigsten Hebel: Wir, das Volk, muessen auf eine AEnderung des Wahlrechts draengen (wobei: keine Ahnung, wie). Wenn das mal klappen sollte, dann waere auch gegen diese Machtarroganz (von Politik, Wirtschaft, Justiz) mal ein grosser Erfolg erzielt und solche Urteile wuerden anders ausfallen – oder besser noch kaeme es gar nicht mehr zu solch unnoetigen Prozessen!

#22 Natas on 12.16.09 at 11:50

Hey Elise,
du schaffst es doch immer wieder Kritik so zu verpacken das ich mich genuesslich drueber amuesieren kann. Weiter so bitte ich freu mich schon auf den naexten Artikel.

bis denne freie Gruesse
Natas

#23 Magda on 01.04.10 at 21:43

Wunderbarer Kommentar. Erst jetzt gesehen und köstlich gelacht. Jetzt darf Obama aber nicht Kissinger nacheifern. Wir werden’s sehen.

#24 Magda on 01.04.10 at 21:45

<p>Wunderbarer Beitrag. Erst jetzt gesehen und köstlich gelacht. Nun darf Obama aber nicht Kissinger nacheifern. Wir werden’s sehen.</p>

#25 Tugendsuende on 01.07.10 at 13:01

<p>Hach, das ist einfach herrlich zu lesen. So amüsant und doch so wahr. Vielen Dank!</p>

#26 LNS on 01.07.10 at 14:53

<p>Leider geht dieser Artikel in seiner Qualität nicht über das Niveau der einzig benannten Quelle, dem Bericht des Verfassungsschutzes, hinaus. Dass halbwegs prominente Antideutsche genau so wenig zitiert oder kritisiert werden, wie als antideutsch geltende Magazine, lässt darauf schlieÃ

#27 c. on 01.07.10 at 16:47

<p>Endlösungs-Outsourcing? gehts noch?dieser beitrag beinhaltet in meinen augen leider zu viele überdrehte (kurz)schlüsse. eventuell wurden da zu viele "gedankenfetzchen" zusammengewürfelt. wenn schon eine derartige kritik des "antideutschen" aufgefahren werden soll, dann doch gerne auch konkret. aber vergleiche von komplexem mit komplex-dummen sind natürlich handhabbarer; insbesondere um selbst immer wieder sicher zu gehen zum guten teil der gesellschaft, irgendwo in der mitte zu gehören, wo es "extreme" ja nicht geben kann und sich imperialismus, militarismus, nationalismus, rassismus und sexismus gut codiert und gemäÃ

#28 Élise Hendrick on 01.07.10 at 22:18

<p>Zu den beiden kritischen Kommentaren:</p>
<p>Erstens ist zu beachten, daÃ

#29 Élise Hendrick on 01.07.10 at 22:47

<p>Erstens: Ich merke, dass die beiden kritischen Kommentare in der Mitte abgeschnitten worden sind. Es handelt sich um ein Problem, das irgendwie mit Umlauten und Sonderzeichen zusammenhaengt. Ich dachte, durch die neue Vorlage waere das Problem aus der Welt zu schaffen, aber irgendwie hat es nicht geklappt. </p>
<p>Das war also keine Absicht, und wenn ihr eure Kommentare nochmal (ohne Umlaute und Sonderzeichen) eingeben wollt, werde ich sie in voller Laenge veroeffentlichen. </p>
<p>(Und wenn jemand weiss, woran das liegt und wie das zu beheben ist, wuerde ich jeden sachdienlichen Hinweis sehr begruessen).</p>
<p>Zur Sache: Erstens handelt es sich bei diesem Beitrag um SATIRE. Da gehoeren Zuspitzungen einfach dazu. Wer einen satirischen Text woertlich nimmt, hat ihn ueberhaupt nicht begriffen.</p>
<p>Zweitens: Ich gebe die VS-Darstellung durchaus nicht unkritisch wieder, sondern mache mich sogar darueber lustig, dass der VS so rechtslastig drauf ist, dass selbst Antideutsche als links(-extrem) gelten. Das ist natuerlich voelliger Schwachsinn.</p>
<p>Drittens: Meine Kritik beruht vor allem auf eigenen Erfahrungen, die ich mit ADs gemacht habe. Ihr eigentliches Judenbild wird sehr schnell klar, wenn sie sich (wohl zum allerersten Male!) mit einer richtigen Juedin leibhaftig konfrontiert sehen.</p>
<p>Juden sind fuer sie nichts als Objekte. Uns wird eine klare Rolle (die des passiven Opfers und Schuetzlings) zugewiesen, und wer aus der Rolle faellt, wird bestraft. Die antisemitischen Hasskanonaden, mit denen sie Juden angreifen, die nicht in ihr festgefuegtes Weltbild passen, sind da sehr bezeichnend. </p>
<p>Ebenfalls bezeichnend ist, dass bei denen das Judentum immer vorkommt, wenn ueber den Kasinokapitalismus geredet wird. Nach ihrer Darstellungen nehmen sie uns in Schutz, aber in Wirklichkeit werden durch diese immer wieder anzutreffende (und voellig verlogene) Assoziation nur ihre eigenen Vorurteile entbloesst. Eine reine, sachliche, linke Kritik am Spekulantentum kann nur dann als antisemitisch gelten, wenn man das Judentum mit den Nazis als "Spekulantenvolk" betrachtet. Das scheint bei vielen ADs der Fall zu sein.</p>
<p>In ihrem geschlossenen Weltbild gelten wir als Beweismittel. Wir existieren nur, um von anderen dargestellt zu werden, die sich zu unseren Schuetzern hochstilisieren. Solange wir das mit uns machen lassen, ist alles OK. Sobald man als Jude oder Juedin mit eigenen Ansichten auftritt, die denen der ADs widersprechen, sind wir genauso Freiwild wie bei den vermeintlichen Gegnern dieser Zeitgenossen. Richtige, lebendige Juden aus Fleisch und Blut beeintraechtigen nur ihre verlogene Selbstdarstellung. </p>
<p>Zu "Endloesungs-Outsourcing": Das ist natuerlich eine Zuspitzung. Es geht darum, die permanente Scharfmacherei und die pauschale Gleichsetzung des Judentums mit der extremsten militaristischen Politik Israels, die man bei den ADs immer wieder antrifft, zu Ende zu denken. Solche "Schuetzer" sind fuer das Judentum eine viel groessere Gefahr als Hundert schlecht konstruierte Qassam-Raketen.</p>
<p>Mit ihrem Schwachsinn steigern sie (in manchen Faellen vielleicht auch unbewusst) den Antisemitismus und heizen einen Konflikt an, der sie eigentlich gar nicht interessiert. Entweder sind sie dumm wie Konsumbrot, oder sie wissen, worauf das hinauslaeuft.</p>

#30 c. on 01.07.10 at 23:52

<p>schade, dass du den in meinen augen einzig haltbaren kritikpunkt erst in einem kommentar nennst: die von mir nun vollkommen plump herunter gebrochene gedankengleichung antikapitalismus = antisemitismus, die über das von dir genannte scharnier des "spekulantenvolk" (also der vollkommen irrsinnige trennung von schaffendem und raffendem kapital, in der ideologie also guten und schlechtem kapital) funktioniert und somit auch in meines erachtens eben die angesprochenen bzw. die über die jahrhunderte angewachsenen ressentiments warm haelt. leider…<br />
die anderen punkte greifst du allerdings nicht genauer auf. auch in keinersterweise in form von zitaten, wie linus neumann das auch berechtigt kritisiert.<br />
im uebrigen bin ich seit langer zeit begeisterte leserin der titanic (<a href="http://www.titanic-magazin.de/&quot; title="http://www.titanic-magazin.de/&quot; target="_blank">http://www.titanic-magazin.de/</a&gt;): das ist in meinen augen satire. dein beitrag ist leider nur von polemik ueberladen.</p>

#31 Élise Hendrick on 01.08.10 at 00:10

<p>Hier muss man zunaechst einmal zwei Sachen auseinanderhalten. Es ist eine Sache, zwischen Spekulieren und Anlegen zu unterscheiden (das tun auch alle serioesen Oekonomen), und eine voellig andere Sache, das eine als "schlechtes", das andere als "gutes" Kapital zu bezeichnen.</p>
<p>Die Unterscheidung hat die NSDAP – wie so viele andere Sachen – von den Kommunisten geklaut und verzerrt dargestellt, um sie ihren eigenen – mit dem Kapitalismus durchaus vereinbaren – Zielen zunutze zu machen. </p>
<p>Wenn man die Spekulation verbietet, wie es die Faschisten auch ziemlich konsequent getan haben, hat man immer noch Kapitalismus mit all seinen Widerspruechen und Ungerechtigkeiten. Es ist dann nur ein Kapitalismus mit staerkerer realwirtschaftlicher Bindung und etwas weniger kurzfristigen Schwankungen. </p>
<p>Die Spekulation sollte kritisiert und bekaempft werden, weil es sich dabei um ein Merkmal des realexistierenden Kapitalismus handelt, das die Lage der grossen Mehrheit noch prekaerer macht. Wenn man stattdessen behauptet, jede Kritik an der Spekulation sei antisemitisch, outet man sich nicht nur als Antisemit, sondern als Volltrottel, denn so wird ein wichtiges Thema den Nazis zum Verzerren und Verwerten ueberlassen. </p>
<p>Wie soll man jetzt Satire machen, ohne zugleich zu polemisieren? Satire ist schon definitionsgemaess polemisch. Es geht darum, Zustaende und Ideologien zugespitzt darzustellen, um sie dadurch zu entbloessen. Eine unpolemische Satire ist ungefaehr so unsinnig wie ein "Linker", der den israelischen Militarismus in Schutz nimmt.</p>

#32 machnow on 01.08.10 at 09:37

schoener text zu anti-ds und israel. das deutsche phänomen der anti-deutschen ist aber nicht nur auf seine israelsolidarischen spinner zu reduzieren.

die anti-d theorie geht nicht selten weiter und beschaeftigt sich nicht nur mit israel und den „juden“. gerade hinsichtlich der diskurse um nationalismus und kapitalismus kommen gemaeßigte antideutsche theoretiker_innen zu interessanten und bedenkenswerten ergebnissen. wenn anti-ds diese ein wenig selbstkritisch reflektieren wuerden und sich aus ihrem selbstgewaehlten, mit sich selbst solidarischen gedankenfilz befreien wuerden, dann wuerde sich einiges relativieren. (ganz schoen vuiel konjunktive…)

einige kritikpunkte an linkem internationalismus, nationenfetisch und parteifixierung in der antideutschen auseinandersetzung mit altlinken positionen sind durchaus richtig. nur fuehren sie unter umstaenden, wie bei der bahamas zu beobachten ist, auch weit nach rechts. naja…

#33 c. on 01.08.10 at 14:25

<p>polemik ist ein (bestand)teil der satire. letztere geht aber, wenn sie satire sein will, darueber hinaus; sie bedient sich an der polemik. im alltag muendet polemik aber auch oft in unfreiwilliger "realsatire"…<br />
deine kurzen ausfuehrungen zum "spekulieren" finde ich weitaus interessanter als der abriss an einseitigkeit(en) (vgl. polemik) im eigentlichen beitrag.</p>

#34 Élise Hendrick on 01.08.10 at 21:50

<p>@C: Die genauen Mischungsverhaeltnisse werden wohl immer von der Person abhaengen. Ich habe jedoch auch einen Text anderer Art zu einem Aspekt des Themas verfasst ("Der masturbatorische Philosemitismus"), in dem auch Zitate, die ihr beiden an diesem Text vermisst, zur Fuelle vorhanden sind.</p>

#35 Élise Hendrick on 01.09.10 at 00:41

Ja, eigentlich gäbe es viel mehr zu diesem Thema zu sagen, nicht zuletzt zu ihrer seltsamen, klassenstandpunktfreien, kapitalismusschonenden Kapitalismuskritik oder zu ihrem Querfrontpotential. Dazu werde ich eventuell irgendwann mal was schreiben.

Ich habe mich auf das Judenbild der Antideutschen konzentriert, weil ich als Jüdin eben größere Spielräume für eine Kritik am Mißbrauch des Antisemitismus habe. Die üblichen Totschlagargumente und Beschimpfungen ziehen bei mir nicht.

Ich halte es für wichtig, gerade diesen Aspekt des Antideutschtums hervorzuheben, weil er eigentlich nur eine ziemlich krasse Erscheinungsform eines vielerorts anzutreffenden Problems darstellt, das jede Diskussion zum Thema Rassismus und Nahost gerne entgleist.

#36 sianasta on 01.18.10 at 21:11

Hallo Élise, ich bin erst über die Nominierung bei der Mädchenmannschaft auf Dein Blog gestoßen – und was habe ich gelacht. Bis vorhin war ich noch Annalists Meinung, dass es keine guten Blogs von Frauen gäbe. Du hast mich eines besseren belehrt. Vielen Dank – meine Stimme kriegst Du!

#37 Natas on 02.24.10 at 11:04

Hey Elise,
na da sieht man ja mal wieder sehr deutschlich was so abgeht in diesem Lande. Nach ermordeten Migrant/innen schreit kein Hahn , aber ein in seiner „Ehre“ (welche auch immer) verletzter Staatsdiener , dem die Wahrheit vorgesetzt wird … ohh ohh. Dann könnte ja der bisher ruhig gestellte teil des Volkes erkennen was um sie rum wirklich abgeht. Nun ich denke wir könnten hier noch 100 Kriege anzetteln oder Aufstände oder ähnliches , der Rechtsdrift wird so schnell leider nicht zu beseitigen sein. (oder wills die Mehrheit nicht anders?)

hoffen wir das Beste für Dr. Schiffer
liebe Grüße N@t@s

#38 Moritz on 03.11.10 at 19:43

Nach dem awissenschaftlichen, ordinären und lustfeindlichen Titel überrascht es ja schon fast, dass du dir wirklich ernsthaft Gedanken über das Thema machst, auch wenn diese Gedanken für mich nicht gerade erhellend wirken.
Dein erstes – und zugleich größtes – Problem ist es, dass du unbedingt die Antideutschen als eine homogene Organisation inkl. „Zentralorgan“ wahrnehmen willst.
Hättest du ernsthaftes und nicht durch Vorverurteilungen bestimmtes Interesse an dem Thema gehabt, hättest du gewusst, dass die Leute, die du als Antideutsch bezeichnen würdest, eine sehr heterogene Gruppe sind und die Bahamas selbst in dieser Szene – vorsichtig gesagt – umstritten ist.
Das diese kleine Vierteljahreszeitung sich selbst auch gar nicht mehr als „antideutsch“ versteht, ist nur ein kleines perfides Sahnehäubchen.

Folglich kannst du gerne den Artikel in der Bahamas kritisieren, ein Rückschluss auf eine Gruppe, die mehr als Bahamas-Sympathisant*innen umfasst, ist dadurch aber lange noch nicht möglich.

Du bemängelst, dass Israel als Judenstaat aufgefasst wird, regst dich aber maßlos auf, nimmst dir aber als Jüdin a priori das Recht auf Israelkritik.
Der Bahamas-Artikel spricht nicht – wie du suggerierst – Juden das Recht auf Israelkritik ab, sondern allen Menschen. Nicht weil sie sich sexuell von Israel angezogen fühlen – sondern weil sie Israel erstens als einen demokratischen Staat sehen der von Antisemitismus verfolgten Menschen, Homosexuellen und Frauen einen gewissen Schutzraum im Nahen Osten bietet. Und zweitens weil die ihnen die Art wie Israel kritisiert wird, einfach nicht passt und sie in dieser Kritik eine Bedrohung für den Schutzraum Israel sehen.

Das du gar nicht auf ihre Argumentation, warum Israel angeblich nicht kritisierbar ist, eingehst, zeigt doch schon, dass dein Beitrag keine ernstzunehmende Kritik darstellt.
Stattdessen regst du dich anscheinend nur darüber auf, dass diese „Nicht-Juden“ es wagen sich ihre Gedanken zu Israel zu machen und dass diese Gedanken auch nichteinmal mit allen jüdischen Meinungen übereinstimmt.
Als Argumente dienen dir oskure Unterstellungen wie dass die Bahamas – immer größter Verfechter der militärischen Selbstverteidigung Israels – die Juden als „passive Opfer“ haben will.

Zum letzten Absatz sag ich jetz mal nichts, das ist er nicht wert.
Zusammenfassend nur so viel: Die Bahamas verbietet dir nicht als Jüdin deine eigene Meinung zu bestimmten Themen zu haben. Sie hat lediglich selber eine Meinung die sie – mithilfe gewöhnungsbedürftiger Polemik – versucht als die richtige darzulegen. Dabei bestreitet sie nicht nur alle abweichenden jüdischen Meinungen, sondern alle abweichenden überhaupt. Und das – dass man die eigene Meinung für richtig hält und alle anderen für falsch ist keine Sache „der Antideutschen“, sondern überhaupt aller Menschen, die eine eigene Meinung haben. Die Bahamas pflegt sich dabei lediglich einen anstrengenden polemischen Stil.

#39 Élise Hendrick on 03.11.10 at 20:15

Schon im ursprünglichen Artikel hatte ich die Hoffnung geäußert, ein Vertreter des Antideutschtums würde sich melden, wenn er sich nicht von den BAHAMAS verteten fühlt. Leider ist aus seinem Kommentar kaum ersichtlich, worin sich seine Meinung von der der BAHAMianer überhaupt unterscheiden soll. Repräsentativere Quellen – wie ich sie im Artikel erbeten hatte – nennt er auch nicht.

Aus meinem eigenen Umgang mit „Antideutschen“ ist mir auch nach wie vor ein Rätsel, was in diesen Kreisen an BAHAMAS überhaupt „umstritten“ sein soll. Meinungen, die von den von diesem Blatt vertretenen abweichen, sind mir in der Praxis ebensowenig wie in Moritz‘ Kommentar über den Weg gelaufen.

Der Moritz findet den Titel „awissenschaftlich, lustfeindlich und ordinär“. Seine durchaus interessante Vorstellung des Wissenschaftlichen ist seinem Beitrag ohne weiteres zu entnehmen. Natürlich sollte der Titel anstößig sein – das nennt man „jemandem einen Spiegel vorhalten“. Schließlich handelt es sich um eine ziemlich ordinäre Truppe, die sich zur moralischen Instanz aufblasen will.

Moritz‘ Vorstellung dessen, was unter „wissenschaftlich“ zu verstehen ist, ist auch daran zu erkennen, wie er meine Argumentation verdreht. Ich habe natürlich nicht geschrieben, daß die Antideutschen nur Juden das Recht nehmen, diesen (vorgeblich in ihrem Auftrag handelnden) Staat zu kritisieren, sondern daß sie sogar Juden dieses Recht nehmen.

Verdreht wird mein Beitrag ebenfalls, indem das Wort „masturbatorisch“ entgegen dem offensichtlichen Sinne wörtlich genommen wird. In meinem Text ist von sexueller Erregung i.e.S. natürlich keine Rede. „Masturbatorisch“ wird auch häufig im Sinne von „zur Selbstbefriedung“ verwendet, wie auch hier.

Mit einer etwaigen „Argumentation“, weshalb Israel als einziger Staat der Welt nicht kritisiert werden dürfe, habe ich mich aus zwei Gründen nicht auseinandergesetzt. Erstens war keine derartige Argumentation ersichtlich. Diese durchaus begründungsbedürftige Behauptung wurde immer einfach nur vorausgesetzt. Zweitens diskreditiert sie sich von selbt – wer behauptet, irgendein Staat dürfe nicht kritisiert werden, hat sich aus der rationalen Debatte verabschiedet und in das totalitäre Lager begeben, wo er von mir aus auch gerne bleiben darf.

Moritz begründet dieses Grußwörtchen aus der Zeit des Stalinismus jedoch mit der Behauptung, die Antideutschen seien einfach ignorant, was die israelische Politik betreffe („weil sie Israel erstens als einen demokratischen Staat sehen der von Antisemitismus verfolgten Menschen, Homosexuellen und Frauen einen gewissen Schutzraum im Nahen Osten bietet.“). Diese Ignoranz kann ich aufgrund meines eigenen zugegebenermaßen begrenzten Umgangs mit antideutschtümelnden Mitbürgern ohne weiteres bestätigen. In dieser Hinsicht ist Moritz also in vollem Maße beizupflichten.

#40 Moritz on 03.12.10 at 02:23

Entschuldige, dass ich deinen Blog schon wieder vollspamme, aber nachdem du gemeint hast, dass du hoffest „ein Vertreter des Antideutschtums würde sich melden“ kam ich nicht umhin mir den unter den Fingernägeln brennenden Kommentar zu schreiben.
Zugegeben – ich habe da noch so meine Zweifel ob sich das lohnt. Einerseits mag ich deinen Schreibstil und sehe dass du Interesse an Politik hast, andererseits reicht das Interesse anscheinend nicht so weit, mal einen Text oder ein Buch über Antisemitismus, Antizionismus, Israel und Israelkritik zu lesen.
Ach was – hier hätte es sogar gereicht einfach mal einen kurzen Blick auf Wikipedia zu werfen, bevor du schreibst „Sicherlich so, daß Israel nach dem Völkerrecht ein Existenzrecht zustehen soll. So ein Recht wird wohl kaum nur Israel zustehen.[…]So ein Recht ist im Völkerrecht nämlich überhaupt nicht zu finden. Dieses „Existenzrecht“ gibt es gar nicht.“

Der erste Satz des Wiki-Artikel „Existenzrecht Israels“ lautet nämlich: „Das Existenzrecht Israels bezeichnet den im Völkerrecht verankerten Anspruch dieses Staates auf Fortbestand innerhalb international anerkannter Grenzen und Schutz vor existenzbedrohenden Angriffen aller Art, den alle 193 von den Vereinten Nationen (UNO) als Völkerrechtssubjekte anerkannte Staaten haben.“

Wie du aber richtig am Beispiel der DDR und Nazideutschlands dargelegt hast, ist dieses Existenzrecht in der Realität die praktische Frage ob ein Staat in der Lage ist sich militärisch zu verteidigen und ökonomisch wirtschaftlich arbeitet.

Ich weiß ja nicht, auf wen du dich genau mit dem „Zitat“ beziehst, aber in links-israelsolidarischen Kreisen, ist die Argumentation für das Existenzrecht auch keine legalistische, sondern eher eine politisch-moralische.
Nach der Erfahrung der letzten Jahrhunderte, die schließlich in der singulären Shoa mündete, ist ein Schutzraum für alle vom Antisemitismus Verfolgten notwendig. Deshalb wurde Israel gegrüdet und angesichts des real existierenden, eliminatorischen Antisemitismuses ist dieser Schutzraum auch einfach zwingend nötig.

Ach ja, dass Staaten dem Wohl der Bevölkerung dienen sollen, ist meiner Meinung nach natürlich auch nicht haltbar. Ein Staat hat in erster Linie die Aufgabe den kapitalistischen Akkumulationsprozess zu ermöglichen. Dabei abstrahiert er die dem Staat zugehörigenden Individuuen als auf dem Markt und (damit auch) vor Gericht gleiche Subjekte und sorgt im Idealfall für ihre physische Weiterexistenz.

Vieleicht mal Interessant:
http://audioarchiv.blogsport.de/index.php?s=Israel

#41 Élise Hendrick on 03.12.10 at 02:42

Die herablassende Tour würde sich viel eher geziemen, wenn du mal etwas anderes als gequirlten Schwachsinn von dir geben würdest. So ist das nur peinlich.

Um das von dir zitierte Recht, in Frieden innerhalb anerkannter Grenzen zu existieren (was kein Existenzrecht ist – einer Beseitigung des Staates von innen steht es gar nicht im Wege), geht es Israel bekanntlich gar nicht. Das Gefasel vom „Existenzrecht“ kam erst auf, als nicht mehr zu überhören war, daß dieses Recht bereits allseits anerkannt war.

Und natürlich berufen sich deine rechts-israelmilitaristische Kreise nicht auf das Völkerrecht. Das Völkerrecht müssen sie sogar zwingend ignorieren, wenn sie nicht zugeben wollen, daß ihr Fetischstaat völkerrechtlich gesehen ein mehrfacher Kriegsverbrecher ist.

#42 Mondoprinte on 05.04.10 at 09:32

Dass Broder von der NPD Applaus erhält, wundert mich nicht wirklich, dass ein Norman Finkelstein sich von Broders Gesinnungsgenossen (Benjamin Krüger etc.) vorwerfen lassen muss, er werde von Antisemiten positiv gesehen, wundert mich auch nicht, aber es ist alles so verdammtverdammt heuchlerisch…

#43 Maschinist on 05.17.10 at 01:35

…und dann so treffend.

Das Warten hat sich gelohnt.

#44 sianasta on 05.22.10 at 23:28

Ach ja, der Herr Münkler. Zuletzt dadurch aufgefallen, hunderttausend Leute gegen Netzsperren als Kriminelle und/oder Freiheitskämpfer tituliert zu haben. Der Mann ist ein Phänomen; ein Ausstellungsstück der alten Weltordnung, ein Hardliner vor dem Herrn.

Als ich damals seine Bekanntschaft machte, überlegte ich für einen Augenblick, ob ich ihn torten sollte. Habe es leider nicht getan – hätte auch keine Torte gehabt.

#45 josh on 06.05.10 at 03:12

great post. can you ad a „share“ link so that I can circulate it on facebook?

#46 Élise Hendrick on 06.05.10 at 03:24

Thanks, Josh. Unfortunately, I don’t think that this blog platform allows for Facebook „share“ links (it’s a privacy-intensive platform), but if you add my Facebook page „Meldungen aus dem Exil“, you’ll find a shareable link there that you can add to your wall, etc.

#47 katrina n on 06.05.10 at 13:11

Amazing post… I shared the link on facebook if u dont mind… I’m sick of people defending Israel’s actions as self-defense. The way you analyze it, „arrogant war crime“ is beyond dispute.

#48 yrjo on 06.07.10 at 06:16

That was great, Élise. I read your article on Information Clearing House:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/…38.htm

#49 Phoenix Woman on 06.07.10 at 19:30

Wow. Pretty conclusive. About the only thing not addressed here is the alleged 1997 Turkish raid — though that brings up the question whether, if the group really was a supporter of Islamic-rooted terror, why Turkish authorities would not have immediately suppressed the group. People need to remember that Turkey, until fairly recently, enforced secularization and Westernization with a fairly heavy hand. If the Turkish authorities really thought that IHH was allied with Islamic terror groups — one of whose identifying characteristics is a hatred of Western-looking, officially secular Turkey — they would not have been allowed to operate. Even the US State Department admits it has no proof the IHH is assisting any terrorist groups (http://www.worldbulletin.net/…etail.php?id=59501):

„Regarding the accusations, U.S. Department of State’s spokesman Philip Crowley said, ‚we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us. That said, the IHH has not been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States.‘

The U.S. could not validate IHH’s connections with al-Qaida, he added.“

#50 Élise Hendrick on 06.07.10 at 21:08

That’s a very good point, Phoenix Woman. Of course, Turkey has become somewhat less secular over the past couple of years, but not so much that they’d tolerate an Al-Qaeda front operating within their borders (and the Turkish government is known for not being particularly delicate in dealing with those they consider a threat).

Thanks for the quote, too. In sum, the only thing US intelligence has on the IHH is that they have had contact with the elected Palestinian government.

#51 Tim Haughton on 06.08.10 at 14:37

Extremely lucid and complete article. Well done. If only our leaders/guardians would combine your understanding with some political will.

#52 Jessica Waldorff on 06.14.10 at 15:00

Well actually a lot of this article actually inadvertently points to legitimate reasons and concerns as to why the Flotilla was more of a ‚hate boat‘ than a love boat. No other country is given such wrath for defending national security interests. The pro-palestinian zealots live in a fabricated understanding of the times we live in, and of the reality of human nature. It doesn’t matter what is shown, they will always see Israel as the big, bad wolf in this.

#53 Élise Hendrick on 06.15.10 at 09:53

It is amazing the lengths to which people’s unconscious defence mechanisms will protect them from obvious conclusions. Unless Jessica is trying to suggest that there is a national security interest in preventing the import of coriander – which is, after all, a „dual-use seasoning“, since it can be used in both tikka masala and vindaloo – there is no even arguable national security interest that could be served by killing unarmed people in a civilian ship that was fleeing at full speed farther and farther into international waters (having never left them) and away from Israel and Gaza. The fact that Israel has now had to admit faking an audio recording, retract the asinine Al-Qaeda claims that did not withstand elementary scrutiny, and has had to admit that they were firing before they even boarded the boat ought to give even those who tend to support its policies pause. Not Jessica. The words „national security“ here serve their highest and oldest purpose – defending the indefensible by shutting off all avenues of independent thought.

#54 josh on 06.19.10 at 11:04

You know what would be really good? A history of Palestinian non-violent resistance. The people who’ve embraced non-violent tactics need their stories told. And the world needs to know the repressive response they’ve gotten, not only physical, but informational, from their oppressors.

There needs to be a one-stop volume that will put to rest this „why don’t they just resist non-violently?“ bullshit once and for all.

If such a book exists, I’d love to know about it. If it doesn’t, I nominate you to write it.

#55 David on 06.19.10 at 13:49

I am of the view that when commandos drop out of a Blackhawk helicopter and begin firing at you on a ship where there’s no place to run away to, you are justified in beating the living shit out of them and dumping them overboard.

Second-guessing people trying to save themselves is itself morally indefensible.

#56 Qûr Tharkasdóttir on 06.27.10 at 21:19

Thank you very much for pointing out the DIIS „report“ to us. You see, while DIIS is inextricably linked to the Danish establishment (and anyone slightly interested in keeping informed should know what that really means: Denmark’s official declaration of war against Iraq in 2003, for starters, is a example), it is generally considered as a relatively serious and committed institution, and as such is often quoted by Danish news media regardless of political allegiance.

Yet, this particular publication, masquerading as research, appears to consist almost exclusively of blatant propaganda, replete with anti-Muslim undertones and adorned with the lies, the distortions and the racial prejudice which we have all become all too familiar with – albeit usually from the pen of notorious neo-cons. Even after DIIS’s and the Danish Foreign Ministry’s customary disclaimers are taken into account, it is difficult to fathom how such gross errors and shoddy research as it contains – e.g. quotes from FBI witnesses, from „US officials“ as infamous as they are anonymous, from by now thoroughly discredited French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, or from the Washington Post (of all sources), all taken at face value – were overseen by any respectable reviewing editor worth their salt.

Unless the intent was to demonstrate the good Danes‘ allegiance to the Clash of Civilizations project, of course. Maybe not a useless effort: years later, this garbage gets presented as true evidence to the brainwashed in need of beliefs to justify their immorality.

#57 Sabine Schiffer on 07.04.10 at 17:11

a very touching and deeply humane analysis – thank you

#58 Schmok on 07.23.10 at 23:16

Hallo Frau Hendrick. Danke für die Erwähnung in Ihrem Blogroll. Nur leider ist die Adresse falsch. Mein Name schreibt sich ohne „c“. Also Schmok. http://schmok.blogsport.eu.

Liebe Grüße über den Teich und viel Glück bei dem Buch.

#59 Mende Axel on 08.03.10 at 09:40

Hallo
schöne Idee, sie hat nur einen Haken. Die Kosten
Ich werde Ihnen kein Geld via Pay Pal senden.
Dieses radikalkapitalistische Unternehmen werde ich nicht unterstützen.
Wenn Sie eine normale Bankverbindung besitzen oder nutzen können dann würde das sicher helfen.
Meine besten Wünsche und Grüße
Axel Mende

#60 Mende Axel on 08.03.10 at 09:51

Als im 19. Jh. die Alphabetisierung von den deutschen Fürsten auf Druck der aufstrebenden Unternehmer deutschlandweit mit Druck und Erfolg vonstatten ging, wurde das bis heute als eine positive Leistung dieser Zeit angesehen.

Die genaueren Umstände möchte ich hier nicht aufführen. Tatsache ist jedoch, dass die Industrie mit den Arbeitern und Arbeiterinnen nicht mehr mit dem gesprochenem Wort allein kommunizieren konnte. Die Schriftsprache war wichtig. Sehr wohl kannten die Herrschenden die Gefahr der durch diese Schriftsprache vermittelten kritischen Inhalte diverser Schriften. Es musste abgewogen werden zwischen einem gebildeten Arbeiterheer und der Gefahr der Aufklärung. Die Zensur nahm zu in dem Maße wie es des Lesens fähige Menschen gab.

Heute gibt es Tonträger mit deren Hilfe Befehle und auch analog gestaltete Anweisungen vergeben werden können. Der denkende Arbeiter ist nicht mehr gefragt. Es werden Ingenieure, Maschinen und Humankräfte in der Produktion verwendet. Wie zu Zeiten Bismarcks ist im heutigen Neofeudalismus oder Industriefeudalismus der devote Untertan der Wunsch einer kleinen herrschenden Oberschicht. Mit dem Ende der Erbringung ausreichender Leistung soll die verbrauchte Humankraft (Roboter) zur Entsorgung. Eine Alimentierung der freigewordenen Kräfte ist, wie damals im deutschen Reich, nicht erwünscht.

#61 Élise Hendrick on 08.03.10 at 12:39

Axel,

leider ist es so, daß es mit noch größeren Kosten verbunden ist, hier internationale Überweisungen zu empfangen. Überweisungen sind hier nämlich nicht halb so üblich wie in Europa – hier werden immer noch meistens Schecks ausgestellt. Bisher habe ich hier mit Überweisungen nur schlechte Erfahrungen gemacht – Gebühren, die den überwiesenen Betrag auffressen, Überweisungen, die irgendwo im Niemandsland verschwinden und noch dreimal durchgeführt werden müssen (und auf die man dann einen ganzen Monat warten muß).

Die Bedenken gegen PayPal kann ich aber gut verstehen (obwohl PayPal von mir weitaus weniger Geld abschöpft als meine Bank). Gibt es andere Möglichkeiten, wie man das machen könnte?

LG,

Élise Hendrick

#62 Ellen Cantarow on 08.07.10 at 20:19

Terrific deconstruction and badly needed. Thanks for writing it.

#63 Jeff Blankfort on 08.08.10 at 08:36

You write, „Opportunism makes strange bedfellows. How else can Jeff Blankfort’s prominence in what is supposedly a Palestinian solidarity movement be explained?“
While I do have many supporters in virtually every community involved in the struggle for justice for Palestine, you are first to describe me as „prominent.“ If you didn’t follow with an ad hominem attack on me [Ed. Note: Blankfort needs to look up „ad hominem“ – pointing out using evidence that a person is a liar isn’t ad hominem.] I might even thank you. The highest rank I have achieved publicly is that of a Limited Purpose Public Figure which the 9th District Court declared me to me in my suit against the Anti-Defamation League for spying me and others. As for some of what I have done on behalf of Palestine for close to 40 years you might consult the ADL or Google my name.
You then write, „Blankfort’s basic claim is that a Jewish Lobby has absolute control over US policy in the Middle East. This is hardly a novel claim – it’s been advanced by various congressional Republicans and mainstream hawks like Walt and Mearsheimer, who claim that The Lobby is the reason that the US deviate from their general foreign policy of support for “democracy” when it comes to the Middle East, and that the Lobby is harming “national interests”.
First, neither I nor Mearsheimer and Walt have claimed any such thing. Although we disagree on certain points, I think they would acknowledge that if the pro-Israel lobby, as they and I refer to it, had complete control over US Middle East policy the US would have long ago bombed Iran. Taking down Iran has been the number one item on the The Lobby’s agenda since its most right-wing elements pushed us into the war with Iraq.That it has not been able to get its way with Iran, as of this moment, is because of resistance within the Pentagon and the intelligence community which are well aware of the global catastrophe such an attack would engender.
I’ll skip most of the rest since it represents not a bit of original thinking on your part down to this:
You write, „Blankfort has made attacking Chomsky his life’s work. By this, I do not mean criticising Chomsky’s views, but actively, consistently, and knowingly misrepresenting them. In the torch-passing interview, for example, Blankfort claimed that Chomsky had never written about the role of US trade unions in calling for US support for Israeli militarism. This claim, as anyone who has read up to page 30 of The Fateful Triangle will know, is patently false. In that 1983 book, Chomsky discusses the role of trade unions at some length, and points out the flaws in the Lobby Hypothesis, which Blankfort also claimed Chomsky hasn’t written about. In other words, there are only two possibilities: Either Blankfort makes claims despite being ignorant of the facts, or he makes claims knowing full well that they contradict the facts.“
First, of all, I am 76 years old and have been a political activist since I was ten. In that time I have written exactly two articles on Chomsky, neither of which you have the decency to provide the links, so I will do it, so readers, if they wish, can see for themselves my arguments and my refutations of Chomsky’s. The first, in 2005: http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html and the second,last month: http://pulsemedia.org/…stine-asset-or-liability/
Now, as for Elise’s statement that by p.30 in Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, he discusses the role of US Labor unions at some length. I have the same edition and I am unable to find such a discussion of any length [Ed. Apparently, Blankfort didn’t make it to page 13 of Fateful Triangle, updated 1999 edition, where Chomsky discusses this. Reading what you’re criticising generally helps get it right.].
Now what is also curious is that Elise fails to mention the subject of the most recent article and that is Chomsky’s opposition to boycott,divestment and sanctions targeting Israel, on the basis that he believes that they are harmful to the Palestinians (who have called for such sanctions) and that those in the US and presumably elsewhere who call for them are „hypocritical“since they should be sanctioning the US instead [Ed. I didn’t address this lie because others, including Chomsky himself, have already debunked the false claim that he opposes boycott, divestment, and sanctions targeting Israel.]. Since mounting such a campaign within the US would not only hurt support for the Palestinians but would be totally unworkable–since no country can boycott itself–Chomsky is essentially telling to drop the subject or limit our campaign to wither goods produced in the West Bank or to US companies that invest in Israel. But what should Israel itself be considered off-limits and who is Chomsky, after all,to set the moral limits on what Palestinians and their supporters wish to do? (And, yes,he has suggested that sanctioning Israel is immoral).
Elise complains that I make „insinuations“ about my critics‘ ancestry and she’s right. I do. I do not think it a coincidence that all of those who have launched attacks on me for my most recent article happen to be Jewish (as I am myself, although that is not the part of my identity that it once was). I am not sure at the moment is whether their overheated attacks on me which, in Elise’s case,leads her to call me „asshole“ and „racist asshole“ several times [Ed. Something Blankfort just admitted is true.] is because I have had the temerity to challenge their icon, or because their connection to the tribe supersedes their intellectual honesty.
It is quite likely both. That Elise chose to launch an attack on me on this site and not the ones where the article appeared would seem to be an example of intellectual dishonesty [Ed. This is rich. A documented liar is saying that it’s „intellectually dishonest“ to publish an article on one’s own blog.]. That is the thread that connects Chomsky to his admirers. That will be the subject of my next article.

#64 Élise Hendrick on 08.08.10 at 12:34

It appears, Jeff, that most of the outlets that publish you you aren’t terribly keen on printing rebuttals (shocking, I know). I would, of course, be happy to have this reprinted on Counterpunch or Mondoweiss if you’d assist me in doing so. Anything to avoid the „intellectual dishonesty“ of publishing on one’s own blog.

#65 David Green on 08.08.10 at 17:35

My article that Elise links to on Max Ajl’s site was indeed submitted to both Weiss and Counterpunch. Counterpunch has published several of my articles, but has consistently refused to publish my critiques of Blankfort and the anti-Lobby. Weiss was quite honest with me. He told me that he disagrees with my point of view, and won’t post it. His colleague Adam Horowitz said that he simply missed me e-mail, and I believe him.

#66 Jeff Blankfort on 08.08.10 at 21:03

First of all, I have written nothing about Chomsky on CounterPunch. Secondly, your „rebuttal“ is largely bullshit, regurgitated Chomskyism and as repelling as any tends to me, it was not a response to the theme of my article and contained personal insults which have no place in what one presumes is an intellectual discourse [Ed. I wasn’t referring to any particular article, but to the general tendency of Blankfort to misrepresent what Chomsky has to say and to substitute Jew-sniffing for actual argument when called on it.]. Somehow you Chomskyites (a term I prefer to Chomskyists since it rhymes with Trotskyites) are so bankrupt and historically challenged that you are forced to end up name calling when your arguments are so weak. And BTW, please cite a page reference in Fateful Triangle where I can find Chomsky speaking at length about the AFL-CIO and Israel, besides an insignificant one on p. 107 [Ed. I already did. See Blankfort’s first bullshit comment.]. You are very lucky, BTW, that you did not post elsewhere because your errors would have reached a wider public and you would end up looking as big a fool as Jeremy Hammond.

#67 Peggy McCormack on 08.08.10 at 21:07

it is clear that none of the attackers of Jeffrey Blankfort have a clue about how the US Congress functions, or how people get elected. Having worked inside the beltway for more years than I care to admit, he is right on [Ed. Apart from the fact that Congress has no real power when it comes to foreign policy, and, obviously, from his tendency to lie in stupidly obvious ways about Chomsky. The Executive Branch does constant end runs around them, as when the US used Israel as a conduit to avoid congressional restrictions on aid to the genocidal junta in Guatemala or the apartheid regime in South Africa]. Get inside the pit, read Antonio Gramci, understand how space is created inside the Empire, and how it gets closed. Talk about sitting back and feeling good about one’s self is the epitome of ranting about US Empire. Trying to create space to fight it is indeed hard work [Ed. And it’s made no easier by associating with sources of discredit like Blankfort.]. Peggy McCormack

#68 Élise Hendrick on 08.08.10 at 22:08

In his first comment, Blankfort admitted that he is a racist, and provided a demonstration of how he prefers Jew-sniffing to actual arguments or evidence when dealing with those who have committed the cardinal sin of actually being familiar with the writings of the people he attacks.

In his second comment, he admits to having lied when he claimed that Chomsky had never written anything about the role of the trade unions, pointing out himself that it is referred to on page 107 (in addition to the discussion on page 13, which I already mentioned and he ignored).

#69 Élise Hendrick on 08.08.10 at 22:44

Interestingly, the place where Blankfort does admit to finding a reference to US trade unions, page 107 of the 1999 edition of Fateful Triangle, does not actually contain a reference to US trade unions. There is a reference on that page to the Israeli Labour party and a remark about „democratic socialists who were singing hymns of praise to Israel while denouncing anyone who dared raise questions about these policies as anti-Semites, bloody-minded radicals who support terrorism and hate democracy, etc.“, but no specific reference to trade unions, unlike chapter 2.1.

#70 Jeff Blankfort on 08.09.10 at 08:48

Elise, David, Emma, Max, Jeremy, my god, it’s worse than I thought. You folks are nothing but a pseudo left version of the Jewish Defense League and if nothing else, my article on Chomsky has exposed you to the sunlight [Ed. Blankfort is delusional. He seriously thinks that an article that is only credible to those completely unfamiliar with Chomsky’s work – as Blankfort himself, who didn’t make it to page 13 of Fateful Triangle, would seem to be – exposed anyone but himself to the sunlight.]. Maybe the reason your so-called „rebuttals“ have not been accepted on these important other sites is that they are not rebuttals but ad hominem attacks in which even Dershowitz, after a few drinks, might be happy to claim his own [Ed. For future reference, the preceding sentence is an example of ad hominem.]. Now, you have me angry, not for what you have said about me but for what your providing cover for the Israel Lobby AKA Jewish establishment has contributed to the utter failure of the Palestinian cause in this country and that will be the subject of an upcoming article [Ed. Unsupported accusation combined with delusional ad hominem. It keeps getting better.]. You all have provided fine quotes. Grazie tanto [Ed. It’s tante grazie, you illiterate coot.]. Danke!

#71 Peggy McCormack on 08.09.10 at 21:32

Someone posted something in my name that I did not write. Here is what I wrote:
As a person who has worked inside the beltway and in politics for 40 years, I find the arguments of those who oppose Blankfort, Walt and Mersheimer woefully apolitical. How do they think the American electoral system works? How do they find space within the American Empire to oppose its hegemonic control, destruction and oppression [Ed. If she really doesn’t know this, then perhaps she should spend more time looking at what is being done and less time posting inane comments]? It is one thing to sit comfortably in an academic tower tossing the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the cauldron of American Hegemonic Empire Building, portraying poor Israel as being used by American Elite’s interest [Ed. An empirical question. McCormack wants us to make an a priori assumption that contradicts the facts. Meanwhile, she misrepresents what myself and others have written on the issue with this nonsense about „poor Israel“.].
It is quite another to understand that space does exist within all the classes of the American electorate. It is the goal of activists to widen those spaces, and the BDS movement is certainly doing that [Ed. What this has to do with Blankfort’s dishonesty is anyone’s guess].
What the opponents of Blankfort seem to gloss over was the consistent opposition from a significant section of elected officials to intervene in the relentless human rights tragedies in Latin America, in Southeast Asia, and South Africa [Ed. Because it was never a „significant“ section. US crimes worldwide have had unflagging support from the political class.].
I suspect that Blankfort’s opponents have never engaged in a political campaign, not been inside the legislative halls in their states or in their Congress, nor attempted to find out how all that works [Ed. Her suspicions are convenient, but wrong.]. Why can’t we find the Tip O’Neil who took on El Salvador’s killers supporting Palestinians [Ed. Evidence would be nice. But evidence isn’t the speciality of these circles.]? Why are there no Senator Church’s introducing legislation similar to his legislation on Vietnam? Where is the Black Caucus speaking about BDS as they spoke on South African Apartheid? The answer is not so much the money that the Lobby has, it is the ability and technology to conduct elections nationally backed up by coordinated national financial support [Ed. Financial support that is minuscule compared to the oil and weapons industries, and is even smaller than that of organised labour. And, of course, there’s still the problem that Congress has very little real power over foreign policy.]. Oh, you don’t know what that is? Well, I have conducted and worked in campaigns, worked in the legislative halls of the State and the US Congress since 1968, and believe me, the lobby is there at every turn, every utterance, every nuance, campaign firm, and PR firm.
No one is denying that the US is a vast Capitalistic Empire, what I am saying that there are few ways to struggle against that empire, and to have any spokesperson glibly dismiss focused work to open space among the electorate, to open space within the elected, as „feeling good“ (as Noam Chomsky referred to the BDS movement) is destructive, plain and simple [Ed. Which is of course not what Chomsky did.].
If you want to know more about the expensive technology that elects members to congress, and how dozens of campaign firms have mastered the art and their clients, I’ll send you my book when it is finished [Ed. If the attention to facts is equivalent to these posts, I can hardly wait.].
Peg McCormack
Chico, California

#72 Élise Hendrick on 08.09.10 at 22:24

If I were as mean-spirited and fact agnostic as Blankfort, I’d suggest that he and his ignorance groupies were actually paid by the Reut Institute to discredit the Palestinian solidarity movement as delusional, ignorant, dishonest, and racist. However, I have no evidence to back up that claim, and, unlike Blankfort, that matters to me. So I will simply point out that Blankfort really ought to be sending them invoices – no one should debase themselves this much without anything to show for it.

#73 David Green on 08.10.10 at 03:15

A couple of more things. I was accused by Blankfort of not notifying him of the publication of my article on Max’s website; he always gives Chomsky notification, he claims. So it’s really hard to know the rules of etiquette, even with a liar like Blankfort.

On a more academic point, I’ve also been meaning to respond to JB’s insistence that his touting of Wawro has to do with Wawro’s being a „realist“ who questions Israel’s strategic value. Like with everything else that the critically-challenged JB says, this is just nonsense. It’s like a reverse ad hominem (look it up, JB): you don’t get to assume that a claim is correct just because of who says it. Even a realist. The point is, there is disagreement among „realists.“ Most of the disagreement is on specific issues. Almost none of it is on the overall value of Israel to USFP in the ME. Shouldn’t Wawro, with the credentials of a military historian, be able to get a few corporate executives together and explain to them how their interests are being damaged? They would, by and large, laugh themselves to death. The point is that the pro-Israel view is dominant for a reason. The people who run this country know their shit. They know what’s good and bad for their bottom line. The war in Iraq isn’t a failure for them, it’s a success. They don’t care about lost lives in either side, any more than Vietnam or the U.S.S. Liberty. And JB, the great leftist trade unionist, doesn’t have a clue to how USFP, and trade unions support for it in general, has been so destructive in the class struggle in this country. No, he wants the „realists“ to help us realize how to promote out true „interests.“

JB, I can’t wait for your upcoming article. I just can’t wait. You’re on life support.

#74 Élise Hendrick on 08.10.10 at 03:30

I’m beginning to think that Blankfort is a believer in the idea of using a new word or expression a certain number of times in order to „make it yours“. He does, however, seem to have skipped the bit about learning what it means.

A case in point is Blankfort’s use of the term „ad hominem“. To those who are „in the know“, „ad hominem“ refers to an argument or assertion that goes „to the person“, impugning a person’s character rather than addressing the actual subject matter.

Blankfort, however, seems to think it is a more general term of abuse. Thus, it is „ad hominem“ in Blankfortese to use evidence to prove that Blankfort is a liar in an article that advances the central thesis that Blankfort is a liar.

As amusing as it is to suppose that Blankfort just gets drunk and throws a dart at a wall covered by random insults from the „Big Book of Bad Things to Say About People“ or somesuch, it seems to me that this is actually a case of what psychologists call „projection“.

Projection refers to the process of attributing feelings and behaviours of ones own that one feels ashamed of to other people rather than oneself. For example, when responding to critics who point out the evidence that Blankfort is a liar and a racist, Blankfort does not attempt to rebut the evidence. Instead, he resorts to ad hominem, attempting to impugn the character of the source of the evidence by claiming that the source is a person who engages in ad hominem and that the source just might have a Jewish ancestor somewhere in the family tree.

Though I may be giving him too much credit. I see no evidence that Blankfort has the capacity to be ashamed of anything.

#75 David Green on 08.10.10 at 04:09

But there’s something else going on here. JB has chosen to project onto Noam Chomsky! It’s kind of like me projecting basketball criticism onto Michael Jordan. Michael! You left the Bulls for 2 years, just to show that they couldn’t win a championship without you! I assume that Attilla the Hun didn’t project onto Aristotle. But JB projects onto Chomsky all of his own tawdry, slimy, stupid, lazy tactics. And he accuses others of making Chomsky an icon. OK, JB. Now you’re my icon. Of what, I’ve already said.

#76 Jeff Blankfort on 08.10.10 at 05:36

Emma, Noam Chomsky’s picture may adorn the web page of the Palestine Chronicle but this article from the site will not sit well with him, nor I am sure with loyal Chomskyites:
At an anti-war conference in NY last month with 850 attending, a resolution was passed that included the following text:
– To endorse the call of Palestinian Civil Society, as expressed in its July, 2005 Call, signed by hundreds of Palestinian refugees, human rights and cultural organizations and unions, to support a world-wide campaign of “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights”.
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/….php?id=16174

[Ed. This isn’t Emma’s blog. You might want to try to reach her at her blog.]

#77 Jeff Blankfort on 08.13.10 at 09:26

[Do your advertising elsewhere, Blankfort.]

#78 Jeff Blankfort on 08.16.10 at 21:26

Do my advertising elsewhere? What does that mean? I don’t recall what message is that you censured from your insignificant site. Was it links to other article of mine that might enlighten the minds of your handful of readers? It is interesting that the ChomskyWatch site allows for a free wheeling discussion of Chomsky and his points of view and I even get a note, as I do from Emma, that there is a mention of me or a new post on the site. Perhaps, you don’t provide such a service and I am forced to rely on Google Alerts. So be it.

[Ed. It’s one thing to post comments, even as full of racism and intellectual dishonesty as Blankfort’s. But Blankfort’s last post was nothing but a plug for his radio show. It is interesting how someone like Blankfort will happily post false smears and racist innuendos about people, and then harps on about etiquette when he doesn’t get a personal note that someone’s calling him on it.]

#79 Die Messe der Hausmeister von Morgen « mein name ist mensch on 08.17.10 at 03:57

[…] Die Messe der Hausmeister von Morgen Zu den Kommentaren Die Messe der Hausmeister von Morgen […]

#80 Local Dem trio, GOP talk up ‘open government’ | tea house on 08.17.10 at 09:42

[…] Meldungen aus dem Exil » Blog Archive » Jeff Blankfort and the Tender Embrace of Opportu… […]

#81 Tweets that mention Meldungen aus dem Exil » Blog Archive » SATIRE: Staćanske Hibanje Pro Łužyca -- Topsy.com on 08.22.10 at 04:34

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, Élise Hendrick and noblogs, noblogs. noblogs said: [elisehendrick] SATIRE: Staćanske Hibanje Pro Å*užyca: [elisehendrick] SATIRE: Staćanske Hibanje Pro Ł..http://tinyurl.com/2vn7fyn […]

#82 Schleichende Germanisierung durch integrationsunwillige, bildungsferne Deutsche on 08.22.10 at 05:05

[…] http://meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org/post/2010/08/22/satire-stacanske-hibanje-pro-luzyca/ […]

#83 abdelkarim on 08.23.10 at 05:56

It’s really hard to judge the situation for people who were not there. Based on what I know about the martyrdom desires of populations of Muslim majority countries, I tend to question your narrative.

You can’t take the cultural hatred of the kouffar in general and the Jews in particular out of the picture.

[Ed. The facts are actually quite clear. A civilian aid vessel was attacked in international waters by one of the most deadly navies in the world, who came on board shooting.

As for the „martyrdom desires of populations of Muslim majority countries [sic]“, even if that were not a stereotype, and even if one of those participating in the defence of the Mavi Marmara were not a guy from the US called Ken O’Keefe, and even if martyrdom really were an exclusively Muslim cultural thing (which is why you never hear about Masada, the Warsaw Ghetto, or Jesus, to name a few), it still doesn’t change the readily verifiable facts. It just shows that for some people, racism overrides critical thought.]

#84 Mondoprinte on 08.29.10 at 04:06

Hallo, was fuer ein interessanter Artikel (NEIN, dies ist KEIN Spam!!! ;-)). Hat mich zum Nachdenken gebracht – die Israel Lobby, die genauso existiert wie die Kongo Lobby et al. Die Frage ist in der Tat, was man daraus macht. Deine Dekonstruktion der Blankfort-Thesen sind fuer mich, der ich das von Dir genannte Chomsky-Buch ebenfalls fuer ein massgebliches Werk halte, Labsal. Hast Du Deinen Artikel zufaellig auch auf deutsch vorraetig und waerst Du evtl. bereit, ihn mir zur Veroeffentlichung in meinem Blog zu ueberlassen? Das waere coool!

#85 Tweets that mention Meldungen aus dem Exil » Blog Archive » The Audacity of Cynicism – Barack Obama’s Iraq Speech -- Topsy.com on 09.01.10 at 18:05

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, noblogs. noblogs said: [elisehendrick] The Audacity of Cynicism – Barack Obama's Iraq Speech: [elisehendrick] The Audacity of Cynicism ..http://tinyurl.com/23tvjcm […]

#86 elisehendrick on 09.01.10 at 18:19

Eine Übersetzung könnte ich gerne anfertigen und zur Verfügung stellen. Es wird allerdings ein bißchen dauern, denn ich hab noch ein paar andere Sachen, die ich zum Abschluß bringen muß.

#87 Tweets that mention Meldungen aus dem Exil » Blog Archive » Jeff Blankfort and the Tender Embrace of Opportunism -- Topsy.com on 09.02.10 at 01:16

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by heywho and Sydney Homeless, uruknet. uruknet said: Jeff Blankfort and the Tender Embrace of Opportunism by @translator_eli http://bit.ly/8YP4d0 […]

#88 Bruce on 09.02.10 at 13:53

Wir haben schuld.

#89 elisehendrick on 09.02.10 at 14:53

Wer sind ‚wir‘, und schuld woran?

#90 Ben on 09.03.10 at 12:18

Thanks for summarizing the catastrophe that this war has been. Much of the damage is only beginning to come to light through studies like Busby’s.
Obama also managed to throw in his praise for the Vietnam war: „from Khe Sanh to Kandahar — Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own.“

Obama’s speeches reveal more and more about his unfaltering militarism and opportunism. Where do we go from here?

#91 elisehendrick on 09.03.10 at 16:46

Ben: Thanks for mentioning the „Khe Sanh to Kandahar“ bit. I had actually overlooked it when I was reading the transcript of the speech (I never watch them live if I can avoid it, because it just pisses me off too much to concentrate). It’s hard to know where even to start with a remark like that – you have the notion that the US attack on Indochina (3 million killed, not including the people still dying as a result of US chemical warfare and land mines there) was somehow a good thing, combined with the singularly bizarre notion that it was about ensuring „that the lives of our children are better than our own.“ That last bit is probably the sickest thing in a deeply sociopathic speech – the idea that it’s OK to go on a murderous rampage in other people’s countries if it somehow means that OUR kids (who gives a shit about THEIR kids, apparently?) will be better off as a result of it.

If one accepts that logic, the only thing one can criticise about Hitler’s imperial rampage in Europe is that it ultimately left the people in Germany economically worse off than they had been before Hitler started the war. If they had been better off, it would have justified every mass grave the Wehrmacht and SS filled. That kind of thinking is nothing short of supremely fucked up.

As for what to do, I think that one of the most important things is to make sure that people see Obama for what he is – another spokesperson for corporate-imperial power, in order to promote the realisation that we can’t expect him (or any other Great Leader the ruling class dish up for us) to lead us anywhere we want to go, that if we want an end to endless war, to the plunder of the working and middle classes for the benefit of the top 10%, to the massive social, economic, gender, and racial inequality that infects this society, the only people who can accomplish it is us.

If, through this mess, people finally realise that they can’t just organise around candidates and hope that things will improve as a result of corporate managed elections, and that they instead have to be organising and struggling every day of the year for a better society and using our numbers to impose heavy costs on business as usual, then it may, at least in a limited sense, be worth it.

It’s not enough that people realise that Obama is full of shit (that could as likely lead to complete apathy or a rightward shift as to anything else). They have to realise that this is the only thing our current system produces, and that we will have to rely on ourselves if we want anything better. And they have to be given the chance to learn from the suppressed history of struggle that something better is indeed possible.

#92 Rob on 09.03.10 at 16:51

Whoah.

„This is how abusers talk. ‘Of course we differ about what I did, baby. You call it “abuse”, and I insist that it was love, but I’ve said I’m not going to do it again, so can’t we just move past our differences and leave all that ancient history behind? It doesn’t matter now, anyway.’“
– exactly. The tendency of the abuser is to shun any responsibility for his acts through a kind of twisted logic.

[found via Seham @ Mondoweiss]

#93 elisehendrick on 09.03.10 at 17:00

And it’s not the first time that he’s used the „turn the page“ schtick. I was rereading Paul Street’s „Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics“ to research this piece, and I have continued rereading since I finished it. Whilst rereading, I found a remark he made during the campaign about how the corporate money game in political campaigns has gone on too long, and we need to „turn the page“ on it. Of course, on the next page, he started sucking up corporate money like an industrial-strength vacuum chamber.

#94 Jeff Blankfort on 09.05.10 at 15:16

I just received an email from someone who came across your article attacking and wondered why she „has it in for you, since both of you are on the same side.“ I will reply that, when push comes to shove, we are not.“ [Ed. He’s got that right. I’m on the side of facts and justice for the Palestinians. Blankfort is on the side of dishonest self-aggrandisement at the expense of the Palestinians.] You, Elise, appear to be a Jewish tribalist or a Chomskyite or both, and I am neither. There is no other way to explain your attack on me. [Ed. Of course, one might explain it based on the fact that Blankfort is an avowed racist and a liar – and he’s provided more proof of that here. Note that he still hasn’t even attempted to respond to the very clear evidence of dishonesty I have presented, and has repeatedly falsely claimed that I provided no evidence from his own writings – either he hasn’t read the article he’s responding to, or he hopes that those reading his comment haven’t done.]
BTW, out of the purest coincidence, the last guest that I had on my radio program before your attack was Ellen Cantarow, speaking about the oil leaks in the Niger Delta and Ecuador. When I saw that she was the first person to send a comment saying, „Terrific deconstruction and badly needed,“ I recalled that she had objected to my first Chomsky article. Well, nobody’s perfect. [Ed. Yes, some people have a weird quirk that makes them object to racism and dishonesty.]

#95 Mondoprinte on 09.07.10 at 11:25

Mach Dir bitte keinen Stress, ich bin nur sehr angetan von Deinem Artikel – er hat mir neue Perspektiven auf die Art und Weise, wie ich mit Material von Mondoweiss umgehen kann, eröffnet.

#96 elisehendrick on 09.07.10 at 17:52

Es gibt in der Tat einige sehr guten und wichtigen Sachen auf MondoWeiss, aber das wird eben gewissermaßen ausgeglichen durch diese Lobbybesessenheit von Phil Weiss, die ihn dazu bringt, immer wieder individuelle Bösewichte auszumachen und von den imaginären „Nationalen Interessen“ zu faseln, statt sich mit dem eigentlichen Charakter der US-Außenpolitik wirklich auseinanderzusetzen.

#97 Mark Richie on 09.09.10 at 17:19

I’m not allowed to post anything any longer on either CAfe Intifada nor Dissident Voice. My post that apparently got me silenced was the following:

No one on this thread or on PULSE or DV has engaged on Chomsky’s position that a boycott of Israel could harm Palestinians.

So far BDS victories, while psychologically and politically important, can fairly be described as symbolic in terms of financial impact.

Is there ANY doubt that, if BDS succeeds to the point of seriously impacting Israel..if, for example, Intel were to pull out of Israel!!….the FIRST response from the apartheid state would be to make the Palestinian population pay, by reducing still further their access to power, water, and state services of all kinds, crippling still more their agriculture and industry with any sort of tax or regulatory vindictiveness an apartheid mentality can conceive?

Isn’t that just common sense? I don’t understand why Blankfort and his ‚public‘ radio clique (DV) can get so upset over this statement.

#98 Rafael on 09.11.10 at 03:07

§ 6 I Nr. 4 betrifft solche Fälle gar nicht, da das Lumpenproletariat weder national, noch ethnisch, religiös oder rassisch als Gruppe definiert ist [Red. Dazu werden im Schrifttum unterschiedliche Meinungen vertreten.]. Außerdem dürfte es wohl auch an der Vernichtungsabsicht fehlen [Red. Die Vernichtungsabsicht wird von den Befürwortern dieser sozialen Säuberungspolitik offen bejaht].
Aber mir scheint es ein Markenzeichen Deines Blogs zu sein, dass Du nur die Hälfte kapierst und trotzdem Artikel drüber schreibst [Red. Abgesehen davon, daß der liebe Rafael bisher nur sich selber als unwissend und großkotzig vorgeführt hat, scheint ihm der Begriff der Satire ziemlich fremd zu sein].

Viel Spaß weiterhin beim Chomsky lesen [Red. Werd ich haben.]. Und Marx sollte man nur im Munde führen, wenn man ihn auch gelesen hat [Red. Dem kann ich nur beipflichten. Was das hier zur Sache tut, ist mir allerdings ein Rätsel.].

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Rafael.

#99 Tweets that mention Meldungen aus dem Exil » Blog Archive » Cueca del malcriao -- Topsy.com on 09.11.10 at 19:31

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, noblogs. noblogs said: [elisehendrick] Cueca del malcriao http://nbl.gs/5c […]

#100 hjv on 09.18.10 at 11:05

Schöner Artikel, witzig geschrieben, bissig … einerseits. Andererseits. Auch in den Arbeitsagenturen sitzen Menschen (so auf ihre unbeholfende Art).
Ich kenne den Fall nicht, vermutlich keiner hier, aber wir urteilen. Wir vermuten Ignoranz wenn jemand zu einer Ausbildung genoetigt wird, dabei zeigt sich letztlich nur, auch eine AA bekommt fuer ihre Jobs fuer wenig Geld keine „Persönlichkeiten“ – die Jungs und Mädels sind vielleicht auch einfach ueberfordert mit dem Handlungsspielraum den sie haben.

Oft neige ich bei eigenen Äusserungen zur Polemik. Bei anderen stört sie mich -g-
Schoenes Wochenende
HansJuergen

#101 Über Solidarität, dummes Gesprächsverhalten, Ehrenmorde und Diskurshoheit | MondoPrinte on 09.19.10 at 04:40

[…] Nun mag man einwenden(bei aller Wertschätzung für die Arbeit von Phil Weiss), dass wo die wirren Ideen eines Jeff Blankfort dankbare Abnehmer finden, man sich nichtallzu sehr wundern sollte, […]

#102 Mondoprinte on 09.19.10 at 04:44

„Sekt“? Nee, lass mal… habe schon Kopfschmerzen genug 🙂

#103 Tweets that mention Are Armed Paramilitary Settlers Civilians? A Response to David Samel « Meldungen aus dem Exil -- Topsy.com on 09.19.10 at 20:15

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick and Élise Hendrick, noblogs. noblogs said: [elisehendrick] Are Armed Paramilitary Settlers Civilians? A Response to David Samel http://nbl.gs/Dl […]

#104 Are armed Paramilitary settlers civilians? | Jewbonics on 09.19.10 at 22:13

[…] go read the whole thing on […]

#105 Mark Richie on 09.20.10 at 01:28

Jetzt wird die anti-Chomsky Besessenheit und dazu Falschung seiner Denken von Mary Rizzo (Palestine Think Tank) wiederholt–ein Artikel einer gewissen Jay Knott urde am 19 September veroffentlicht aud Palestine Think Tank.

#106 ARE ARMED PARAMILITARY SETTLERS CIVILIANS? | SHOAH on 09.20.10 at 03:28

[…] go read the whole thing on […]

#107 Tayna Moscaritolo on 09.20.10 at 15:30

Laurence J. Peter~ Slump and the world slumps with you. Push and you push alone.

#108 Pokerspiel on 09.20.10 at 16:17

I should digg your article therefore more people are able to see it, very useful, I had a hard time finding the results searching on the web, thanks.

– Norman

#109 David Samel on 09.21.10 at 20:36

I read with interest your critique of my essay, published on the Mondoweiss website, condemning the murder by Palestinian gunmen of four Israeli settlers in the Hebron area. I will agree with your complaint regading the title of my piece, something I already have conceded in my own comments on the site. Perhaps I should have chosen, “Are the Settlers Legitimate Targets for Death?” [Ed. Which still has the fundamental flaw of conflating the paramilitary settlers with the „lifestyle“ settlers.] Other than that, your complaints are frivolous at best and dishonest at worst.

As you note, my essay does not include any discussion of the implications of international law with respect to the killings, and you offer your own to fill the void. Assuming the validity of your legal analysis, you have constructed a defense for the perpetrators in the unlikely event they are ever hauled before some tribunal to face criminal or quasi-criminal charges. My essay was about something else entirely[Ed. Samel’s piece claimed to be about whether „the settlers“ were civilians. It did not even attempt to provide a serious answer to that question.]. I argued that it was wrong, both morally and strategically, to carry
out this operation[Ed. Cf. my comments on the fundamental hypocrisy of those complicit in aggression condemning the victims‘ efforts at self-defence.]. Even if I agreed 100% with your claim that under prevailing norms of international law, the killers should not be prosecuted, my opinion on their actions would not change.

Yes, I’m a lawyer, though not an international lawyer, and no, this was not a legal analysis, as was absolutely crystal clear[Ed. This is disingenuous. The title posed a legal question. The essay failed to even attempt to answer it in a serious fashion.]. What is your point – that Mondoweiss has presented such legal analyses in other articles, and I, as a lawyer, was dutybound to do so as well[Ed. My point was that, when evaluating legal questions like „Are the settlers civilians“, a modicum of seriousness is required.] ? I did not write the piece as a lawyer, and did not refer to my profession. I was expressing my opinions on non-legal matters[Ed. „Are the settlers civilians“ is not a non-legal matter. It is as legal a matter as they come.]. Sorry to disappoint[Ed. I’m not disappointed at all. So far, he has maintained the moral and intellectual level of the post I was critiquing. Consistency should count for something.].

The list of crimes committed by armed settlers is long and nauseating[Ed. And yet he claimed in the original article that the settlers‘ weapons were exclusively „for defensive purposes“.]. If a settler were shot while committing one of these crimes, I would not have engaged in the „handwringing“ you deplore. But this was an execution-style murder of four anonymous settlers. The question is
whether you think that the 500,000 settlers who populate the OPT illegally are committing a capital crime[Ed. This is dishonest. There is a clear distinction between the „lifestyle“ settlers and the settler-pogromshchiks, a distinction I made, stating that the former were clearly civilians, and the latter not so much.]. I think they are not.

Some of your other complaints are just plain silly. You ask how do we know what the gunmen knew about their victims[Ed. Actually, Samel asked this, claiming that all they likely knew was that they were settlers. I just pointed out that there are reasons to believe that they knew more than that.]. I suppose that’s true, and I’m assuming that they were not personally acquainted. Perhaps I’m wrong, though I have not seen, but you do not cite any evidence to the contrary. Certainly the public statements claiming responsibility for the murders do not indicate that there was anything specially known about these victims.

You concede that “lifestyle settlers” are non-killable civilians but claim that all “ideological settlers” are guilty of capital crimes[Ed. Did he even read the post he’s responding to?]. And how did the gunmen know these victims were in the latter category – their location near Hebron[Ed. Or one of the many other possible factors I mentioned in the original post, which he’s hoping his readers didn’t read. Note that I never said that they did know, merely that Samel was wrong in asserting, based on no evidence, that they couldn’t have known.]? It’s a reasonable guess, but what if they were wrong? What if children were in the car? Your analogy to Gacy and Stroop taking some down time is awful. We know these men to be serial murderers [Ed. More dishonesty. This was in response to Samel’s absurd claim that, if the settlers were armed, it was exclusively „for defensive purposes“ because they were not involved in any „offensive operation“ at the time. Obviously, Even the worst murderers in the world aren’t involved in „offensive operations“ all the time – does that make their weapons „defensive“?]. Did the Palestinian gunmen know that about these victims? You are suggesting it was all right to kill four random settlers because they may have committed terrible crimes warranting such punishment[Ed. Again, no. I was arguing, based on available facts and well-settled principles, that, to the extent that these settlers were involved in the paramilitary settler movement, they at least constitute combatants, and could very well be considered irregular forces of the Israeli government.]. I simply can’t believe you’re serious.

You accuse me of “creating an express functional equivalency between those resisting a brutal,
criminal occupation and those actively participating in one.” Later, you take issue with my statement that distinguishing among civilians as killable and non-killable bears “obvious similarities to Alan Dershowitz’s `continuum of civilianality, one of his most morally reprehensible concepts.” You claim I suggest a moral equivalence between Dershowitz’s view and the justification for killing settlers. I did not. The obvious similarities I was talking about involve expanding the pool of civilians whose deaths we can cheer[Ed. And how exactly does that differ from a moral equivalence? Plus, he’s bootstrapping here – whether they were civilians at all is what is at issue. Now he’s just asserting it, without any attempt at argument, as fact.]. Dersh does it, and so do you[Ed. Not that he’s trying to assert a moral equivalency between Dershowitz saying that people can be murdered who have never participated in hostilities, and me pointing out that the Geneva Conventions deny immunity from attack to members of paramilitaries who go around attacking civilians in close concert with the occupying army. Clearly, he’d never do that.]. I do not consider the killing of each side to be morally equivalent and have said so numerous times on the pages of Mondoweiss. But I think we should shrink the number of people who are killable[Ed. And he’d apparently start with some of the worst killers in the OPT. I guess you have to start someplace]. And condemning the crimes of each side does not create an “express functional equivalency” between the two. I condemn both impaired driving and forcible rape, but it’s not the same condemnation[Ed. Leaving aside that he apparently doesn’t condemn rape that isn’t „forcible“, this is a false analogy. The real analogy is between condemning the rapist and the victim who kills him to stop him doing it.]. The word “express” has a meaning, and should not be confused with “implied,” which would also be inaccurate but at least more justifiable.

As to the arguments that I did make, you ignore many of them. What about Israeli civilians who live within the green line[Ed. Irrelevant, obviously.]? Aren’t they electorally responsible for their countries’ racist, murderous policies, both in the OPT and within Israel itself[Ed. Yes, but that doesn’t stop them being civilians, obviously. If we follow Dershowitz‘ assertions, the result is different, but I’m sticking to black-letter international law.]? Are they all legitimate targets for summary execution[Ed. Red herring.]? After all, some of them may have done really bad things, like Gacy and Stroop and the worst of the settlers. And why shouldn’t US civilians be fair game, complicit in their government’s mass murder of more than a million people in the past decade alone[Ed. Another red herring.]? You think the international law makes distinctions between the settlers, Israel-proper civilians, and US civilians[Ed. I don’t think. It most clearly does. It distinguishes between those taking active part in hostilities and those taking no active part in the hostilities.]? Perhaps, but what about your own moral code? How do you distinguish between the culpability of these different categories? Isn’t it razor thin?

I have seen numerous comments by Israeli critics who speculate that these killings might have been false flag operations. While I don’t share this view, there is a widespread feeling that I do share that the incident was a gift to the Israeli government, regardless of what the Geneva Conventions have to say about the victims. If you think otherwise, you haven’t explained how these four corpses have contributed to the cause of Palestinian liberation[Ed. I never addressed the point because it wasn’t relevant to the question I was asking.]. Nor do you challenge my claim that Israel prefers violent resistance, and even stirs it up intentionally[Ed. No, I like to stick to what’s relevant. I wasn’t answering the moral question. Max Ajl already did that very well. I wasn’t answering the tactical or strategic question. I was asking and answering the legal question that Samel asked in his title and then refused to answer in an even minimally serious fashion.].

Finally, you cite with approval Max Ajl’s criticism of my right to articulate any criticism of Palestinians[Ed. Not any criticism. Moral condemnation.]. I do not see how my birth background as a white, Jewish American should restrict my tongue[Ed. Elementary moral sense would at least make him doubt that morally condemning (not tactically criticising) the actions of those in whose oppression he and I and Max Ajl and many others are directly complicit was the moral thing to do.]. If I were to support or even defend Israeli violence against Palestinians, or if I were to exercise my “right” under the Law of Return to emigrate to Israel and accept my “privilege” to rule over the indigenous population, it would be appropriate to accuse me of hypocrisy. But I don’t[Ed. No, he just creates a dangerous and dishonest moral equivalency that robs the Palestinians of their right to self-defence and armed resistance under international law, while financing the weapons used to murder them.]. I argue publicly that Israelis are guilty of mass murder based on racism, and that the only morally acceptable resolution requires equal rights for all, which means the end of the concept of the Jewish State. I have every right to explain what I refuse to condone. Your “hush up” argument is just as applicable to bombing a settlement school and killing 25 six-year-olds as it is to killing four adult settlers[Ed. Samel seems to have a fetish for bad analogies today.]. Violence works, sometimes, and miserably fails at other times[Ed. No shit. Any other insights?]. But some things we know for sure: Violence kills, and death is forever[Ed. Another brilliant revelation. Of course, violence does not always kill.]. You want to be a cheerleader for meaningless death, go ahead [Ed. More dishonesty. Wanting to approach a serious subject with serious consequences with an elementary level of moral seriousness and attention to facts and law is not the same as being a „cheerleader for meaningless death“.].

#110 Mark Richie on 09.23.10 at 18:06

Similar ignorant attacks on Chomsky by Blankfort’s media network co-maven, Mary Rizzo, alter ego of Palestine Think Tank, was published last week. Hardly worthy of comment or analysis, Part of some sort of propaganda war to discredit Chomsky, for motives that are murky.

#111 Mark Richie on 09.24.10 at 00:26

Mondoweiss, like other fringe zionist blogs, specializes exactly in trying to shed darkness[Ed. Actually, I think there’s a lot of good stuff on there. Just quite a bit of crap, as well.]. Mondoweiss is much like the settlers in that its assumptions and attitudes,as seen in Samel’s article, can be seen as extensions of Israeli attitudes and extensions.

While it is true that ideological ??? settlers can’t be seen as combatants under the Geneva Convention, the situation is Israel is sui generis…the Convention was not developed with the idea of a settler colonial regime in mind [Ed. A. I think that those settlers can be legitimately seen as combatants under the Conventions, at least those many of them who are directly involved in paramilitary operations, and I argued as much. B. The Conventions do contemplate settler-colonial regimes, which is why they make it a crime to settle occupied territory, impose the occupying power’s laws on occupied territory, and many other things designed to prohibit annexation].

These settlers also often go about armed, and to the extent they can dispense with them, it is because Israeli land grabbing and road transport exclusions ensure they won’t have to carry them routinely.

Does ’successful‘ ethnic cleansing mean that the perpetrators, no longer needing to routinely carry guns, are beyond retaliation?

ARe the intellectual managers and authors of ethnic cleansing exempt from the consequences of their actions, while front line colonists who carry guns, but are probably not involved in planning the colonial projects are ‚fair game?‘

It may be that way under existing international law..but again, that law never envisaged a settler colonial type of physical force, but a ‚conventional‘ military conflict involving uniforms and professional soldiers.

Personally, I don’t think so.

#112 Mark Richie on 09.25.10 at 21:17

I still think the situation in the occupied territories is sui generis, not contmeplated by the Convention, which was at least in part a response to direct border changes and immediate mass expulsions of the population, as has happened in Eastern Europe repeatedly int he last century. That’s why they prohibit settling occupied territory [Ed. There’s nothing sui generis about it. There are plenty of historical analogues. And it is directly contemplated in the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations, which deal specifically with military occupations, not to mention the Protocols Additional. I don’t know what you mean by „contemplated“ – obviously, the conventions don’t name specific historical events, since they’re designed to apply to a wide variety of situations; but there’s nothing about this occupation that is not contemplated in some way by international law.].

The zionists for strategic reasons aren’t in a position to simply expel all the Palestinians from their territory, so we have a situation of ‚gradual‘ and ‚indirect‘ pressure on the Palestinians to leave, with tolerance of settler provocations as part of that ‚indirect‘ presure, not involving the official IDF for the most part.

In the light of this drawn-out and piecemeal approach to expelling the Palestinians, the existing Conventions are not adequate to address zionist strategy [Ed. The existing conventions directly address piecemeal expulsions – Art. 49 of the Fourth Convention prohibits both individual AND collective forced transfer; as for the outsourcing of military crimes to settlers, who are themselves illegally present on the territory, that, too is prohibited on various levels. It would be hard to find an aspect of the occupation of the Palestinian territories that isn’t directly addressed by some provision of international law, which includes much more than just the Geneva Conventions, e.g., the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights, ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous peoples, the UN Charter, the UN Genocide Convention, the Convention against Torture, the Vienna Convention on the Status of Refugees, and many others.].

#113 Mark Richie on 09.29.10 at 00:34

The blog team (same people comment) of Palestine Think Tank-PULSE-Dissident Voice mostly won’t print any or very few rejoinders on this.

In fact, their posting of sincere articles seems just a smoke screen for their agenda of trying to discredit Noam Chomsky, who, regardless of his limitations, is best known and most incisive analyst of US imperialism..and also, the #1 enemy of US imperial policy on the US academic/intellectual scene without doubt!

Also Israel’s enemy #1 in the media..evidently they believe that too, won’t even let him into the West Bank.

These three blogs are pursuing a pro Israeli agenda under the cover of printing some good articles that are available on many other agenda-free blogs!

[I don’t think it’s accurate to say that these blogs are pursuing a „pro Israeli agenda“. I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that those are their intentions. I think it’s more to do with a fundamental unwillingness/inability to engage in a fundamental critique of US policy, which would go beyond individual bad actors and acknowledge the basic continuity of US policy throughout the world.

It’s easier to convince oneself that „We“ are the Good Guys, but that somehow we’ve fallen under the spell of some really bad dudes (The Lobby, etc.) who are diverting our energies from the great things we really ought to be doing.]

#114 Tweets that mention Ley Antiterrorista – Dos mentiras en un solo título « Meldungen aus dem Exil -- Topsy.com on 10.05.10 at 23:55

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, Élise Hendrick and noblogs, elizabeth. elizabeth said: RT @translator_eli: http://bit.ly/a57Cno Ley #Antiterrorista – dos mentiras en un solo título #derecho #hinzpeter #mapuche #dictadura […]

#115 Tweets that mention Für Reunion – A Travelogue (Wiedersehen – Ein Reisebericht) wird’s knapp… « Meldungen aus dem Exil -- Topsy.com on 10.14.10 at 16:39

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, LinguaSite. LinguaSite said: Buchprojekt von @translator_eli braucht Unterstützung http://j.mp/a56LBO Hier schon mal reinhören http://youtu.be/TlrrPcVhWVA […]

#116 From the pens of little men… : Mediabuzzard.com on 10.16.10 at 18:49

[…] Not so those who would dare criticize or resist the inhumane actions,in this case the collective punishment of an entire people by an occupying power. Not even the shooting down of  the unarmed & innocent. For them, not even violent death is too much. If there is one piece of ancient wisdom that has never lost even a bit of its validity over the centuries, it is Cornelius Tacitus’ axiom that, “Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity.”…@ […]

#117 Ariel Zúñiga Núñez on 10.21.10 at 01:52

Muy buen artículo, lo he recomendado para ser publicado en alterinfos, saludos fraternos.
ariel

#118 Tweets that mention Paralleluniversen-SPD gibt neue Wahlkampfparolen bekannt « Meldungen aus dem Exil -- Topsy.com on 10.24.10 at 08:12

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, Élise Hendrick, Élise Hendrick, Élise Hendrick, noblogs and others. noblogs said: [elisehendrick] Paralleluniversen-SPD gibt neue Wahlkampfparolen bekannt http://nbl.gs/vZ […]

#119 dagmar.schatz on 10.24.10 at 08:14

Genial, wie immer.
LG
Dagmar

#120 Chomsky über seine zionistischen Wurzeln und religiöse Herkunft | MondoPrinte on 11.18.10 at 10:37

[…] Blog bietet – Elise Hendricks hat eine so überfällige wie in vielerlei Hinsicht treffende Abrechnung mit Blankfort geliefert. Wundervoll! Ich habe immer das Gefühl, dass sich Weiss aus Gründen, die bei ihm bzw. […]

#121 Are we not human? not according to Israel and Amerikkka « KADAITCHA on 01.07.11 at 08:19

[…] Afghan War To Build Global NATO Afghans consign another superpower to the dustbin of history Getting things done Opium Production in Afghanistan: Strong and Corrupt as Ever Human Rights, Israel, Palestine, […]

#122 Tweets that mention “Who Owns Jerusalem” – A CAMERA Hoax Approved for MCLE Credit « Meldungen aus dem Exil -- Topsy.com on 01.21.11 at 19:30

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, Élise Hendrick and Élise Hendrick, noblogs. noblogs said: [elisehendrick] "Who Owns Jerusalem" – A CAMERA Hoax Approved for MCLE Credit http://nbl.gs/2dn […]

#123 Tweets that mention E-mail to the California State Bar on the “Who Owns Jerusalem” Hoax « Meldungen aus dem Exil -- Topsy.com on 01.22.11 at 20:09

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Élise Hendrick, Élise Hendrick. Élise Hendrick said: http://bit.ly/dXQ9ed E-mail to the California State Bar on the "Who Owns #Jerusalem " #Hoax #MCLE #Palestine #CAMERA […]

#124 Mondoprinte on 01.23.11 at 09:03

Nice one. Interested to know about reactions to your email.

#125 Tweets that mention Revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia – So what are we waiting for? « Meldungen aus dem Exil -- Topsy.com on 02.11.11 at 18:28

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mario Profaca, Élise Hendrick. Élise Hendrick said: http://bit.ly/ewpgqT Revolutions in #Tunisia and #Egypt – So what are we waiting for #Misr #FreeEgypt #Mubarak […]

#126 Challenging Israeli Impunity « KADAITCHA on 04.05.11 at 01:15

[…] Hendrick exposes Israel’s intentional crimes which Goldstone has attempted to make disappear, and notes that Israel itself admitted its […]

#127 Bettina Marx: Goldstones „plötzliche Kehrtwende ist nicht nur merkwürdig, sie ist eine Schande“. | MondoPrinte on 04.10.11 at 08:02

[…] hier noch zwei Leseempfehlungen: Sowohl in den Meldungen aus dem Exil als auch beim Doktor aus Galiläa finden sich zwei außerordentlich lesenswerte Reflexionen der […]

#128 Stephanos Mavros on 04.17.11 at 16:30

Ist das zufällig der Tunnel, der unter dem Neuen Tor entlang führt?

Und wie kann man nur so viele Sprachen sprechen?! Ach, das macht schon etwas neidisch…

#129 elisehendrick on 04.22.11 at 04:50

Keine Ahnung, das ist halt so ne Bilddatei, die mit der Blogvorlage geliefert kommt. Bis zur Umstellung auf WordPress hatte ich da oben ein eigenes Bloglogo.

#130 Mondschein: Farbe bekennen on 04.24.11 at 03:40

[…] Hendrickberichtet über problematische Zustände in unserer Gesellschaft. Dabei geht sie der Konfrontationnicht aus dem Wege, z.B. mit den Sturmabteilungen bei der Zeitschrift BeHämmert. Es wäre schön, […]

#131 PATRICE GREANVILLE on 05.20.11 at 20:26

A great piece. Glad you ran it! Good luck in your work.

Alles gute.

#132 Binh on 05.20.11 at 20:49

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/don%e2%80%99t-fall-for-ron-paul/

#133 Obamarama – The Emperor’s Orientalist Striptease « KADAITCHA on 05.20.11 at 23:10

[…] ALP takes on Gillard in state conference stoush Ron Paul and the Dysfunction of the American Left The Sucker Punch of Right/Left Coalitions The Queen as Revelation BDS, Israel, Obama, […]

#134 northernkentuckyprogressive on 05.28.11 at 07:40

[…] Libertarians– Who’s your Daddy? Here’s an interesting work up on Rand’s Dad. People I respect disagree– seeing him as an ally on anti-war, anti-wall street, anti-drug […]

#135 The Greanville Post » Ron Paul and the Dysfunction of the American Left on 05.30.11 at 21:46

[…] http://meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org/post/2011/05/19/189/ […]

#136 The Greanville Post » Ron Paul and the Dysfunction of the American Left on 05.30.11 at 21:46

[…] same thinking that has people in the Palestine solidarity movement approvingly quoting the likes of Jeff Blankfort, Paul Craig Roberts, and Gilad […]

#137 Schlesinger on 07.25.11 at 06:29

Ist somit zu meinem SPIEGEL-Titelblatt des Jahrzehnts erhoben!

#138 Troy Odatafan on 10.14.11 at 11:49

My church gives money to Jacques Gauthier. I googled „Jacques Gauthier dissertation name“ and found your page. Have you had any luck finding it?

#139 Leser on 11.15.11 at 22:10

Schade, nachdem mehrfach geballter Unsinn kam, wie das David Duke KKK-Führer sei, habe ich nicht mehr weitergelesen. Selbst wenn man offensichtlich ideologisiert ist und meint, gegen jemanden ankämpfen zu müssen, sollte man ein Mindestmaß an intellektueller Redlichkeit bewahren, keine Verleumdung begehen und sich grundlegend über Sachverhalte informieren. Ganz schwach.

[Anm. d. Red.: Mit anderen Worten ist dieser anonyme Kommentator entweder selber Rassist – denn Dukes Bindungen zum KKK sowie zu Neonazigruppierungen sind seit Langem bekannt – oder verdammt schlecht informiert. Ich tippe aber eher auf ersteres, denn sonst müßte er sich nicht hinter einem nicht mal sonderlich kreativen Pseudonym verstecken, um diesen Schwachsinn zu verbreiten. Kleiner Tipp: Zur Verleumdung gehört, daß die Tatsachenbehauptung UNWAHR sein muß. Wahre Tatsachenbehauptungen sind keine Verleumdung. Schönen Tach noch!]

#140 elektroşok on 12.03.11 at 07:20

elektroşok…

[…]Ron Paul and the Dysfunction of the American Left « Meldungen aus dem Exil[…]…

#141 CherylP on 12.29.11 at 14:53

Anyone who is not IGNORANT,or RACIST, will NOT vote for PAUL! To IGNORE his racism, and gay bashing, it like ignoring Hitler for his „little problem with the Jews!“ COME ON PEOPLE, HE IS A HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE MAN!“ HE IS BACKED BY THE NAZI KOCH BROTHERS! PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHOM THEY ARE GIVING THEIR VOTE! IT COULD BE AT THEIR OWN PERIL!

#142 CherylP on 12.29.11 at 15:03

Ron Paul is NOT anti-war, or a peaceful person if he backs HATE groups! THAT is a type of WAR in itself!

#143 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) – The most moral army in the world « Transatlantikblog on 03.29.12 at 07:13

[…] – Meldungen aus dem Exil […]

#144 Anthony Noel on 07.08.12 at 17:46

Thank you, Elise! We need more of your incisive commentary here in America – and about three more political parties.

#145 Jin on 07.21.12 at 07:19

„Those territories – the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem – are and remain “occupied territories”. “

And also the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms.

#146 Kristen on 09.09.12 at 06:40

Hey there, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.

When I look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, terrific blog!

#147 Asa Winstanley on 10.18.12 at 12:29

Good article, thanks for diving into this sewer, so we didn’t have to.

I want to know more about this Kamal Nawash and his connection to Yani.

#148 sara maimon on 10.19.12 at 01:31

Yani is webmaster for a project initiated by Kamal. http://www.bestplans.org

#149 elisehendrick on 10.19.12 at 02:22

Indeed he is. I mentioned it in the piece, and will be coming back to it in greater detail in the next part.

#150 FINALLY, A FINAL WORD ON GRETA BERLIN « Desertpeace on 10.19.12 at 05:14

[…] Hendrick who understood what was at stake from the start, and has helped illuminate some of the disturbing connections that have come out of […]

#151 David A Levy on 10.19.12 at 05:59

Nice article

however you are only scratching the surface opf the participant in these sites

for example Kyle is a recent convert to Islam, apparently his attraction to islam started when it affirmed his hatred of jews

send me a message on FB and we can chat, i’ll introduce you to some people and then we can chat about Greta, jaochim Martillo, Mary thompson Hugh, Yani and the rest of that vile bunch

#152 uh...clem on 10.19.12 at 10:54

@David A. Levy: Islam „affirmed his hatred to Jews“??!! wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that his „interpretation“ of Islam „affirmed his hatred to Jews“? Can I send you a free subscription to the Islamophobic Gazette? (tell me if I have misinterpreted you)

#153 uh...clem on 10.19.12 at 11:53

hatred „of“ jews, not hatred to jews. mea culpa.

#154 mark on 10.19.12 at 20:58

So Greta Berlin is a manger of a Facebook group that has some nut cases in it, Only the onwer of the group has any real power over what happens there.

All you’ve shown is that, like most of us who are active in political social networking sites, , we belong or have belonged to groups that have such people in them. Does that make us all somehow responsible for everything these other people have said or done?

Would Ali Abunimah not be found to have been ins uch associations?

Would you yourself not be found to have been in internet social networking groups with similar people? I doubt it.

#155 elisehendrick on 10.20.12 at 05:20

I did not focus on Greta Berlin’s role and the fact that she actually has posted a good deal of racist material herself (not to mention her glowing endorsement of Atzmon’s „The Wandering Who“, which she lied about in her interview with Derfner), because that has been dealt with extensively elsewhere. Bekah Wolf’s article on Mondoweiss, which I linked to in the update to the article, covers that aspect in detail.

The point here is that not only are several of the people who signed the „no bigotry here“ letter reproduced in Derfner’s +972mag article in fact major purveyors of racism in a „secret“ troll group dedicated to racist trolling (again, see Wolf’s piece), but that these groups (and Haigh himself) are also connected to organisations that should inspire no confidence whatever in anyone who cares about the Palestinians, organisations that have a track record of supporting the surveillance and repression of political dissidents (especially those working on issues related to the Middle East).

Also, bear in mind that, as the title itself notes, and as is noted repeatedly throughout the article itself, this is not the entire story. It is part I of a series – the research I have been doing, along with several others, has produced more material than can be properly dealt with in a single piece.

#156 The OtherSite – die andere Seite von was? | MondoPrinte on 10.20.12 at 15:32

[…] Atzmon, Booth – oder Greta Berlin bzw. “Our Land”: Wo Palästinasolidarität lediglich ein anderes Wort ist für Antisemitismus, bin ich raus. Teilen […]

#157 mark on 10.20.12 at 21:39

For example, is Ali Abunimah an apologist for zionism, just because he annually appears as the keynoter at a MECA event in Berkeley, and MECA is a zionist organization that includes many supporters of ethnically cleansing the Palestinian population?

I’m sure you agree that I wouldn’t be justified in saying that.

But this Stalinoid type of guilt by association and taking tweets out of context is all you and Abunimah are doing.

[I didn’t realise it counted as „guilt by association“ to associate a person with his or her own words and actions. Perhaps you should try actually reading the article you’re commenting on before writing nonsense like this. Ed.]

#158 mark on 10.21.12 at 00:57

If Abunimah was not engaged in a witch hunting operation, rather than legitimate commentary, why does he not print my comments, the same ones you have so democratically printed?

And with all due respect, your article above is all about Haigh, Nawash, Pipes, Bekah Wolf, who also writes about other people like Martillo…?

There is nothing in your article about what Greta Berlin said, aside from this tweet with this video…and her defenses against the obviously coordinated and prepared-in-advance attacks against her!

#159 elisehendrick on 10.21.12 at 01:31

I can’t speak to Electronic Intifada’s reasons for not printing your comments. You’d have to ask them about that. I would note, however, that plenty of critical comments have been published, so perhaps the problem isn’t so much the point of view of the comments, but their overall quality.

As I already said, what Greta Berlin has said, and her multiple contradictory explanations for the context in which she said it, as well as her racist slurs against Ali Abunimah („fatwa“, „Ali Ayatollah“) have been discussed in detail elsewhere. This series is not about that.

#160 elisehendrick on 10.21.12 at 01:58

Speaking of „witch hunts“, Mark, thank you for e-mailing me the smear piece you wrote, in which you defame Emma Rosenthal and myself as „liberal Zionists“. In fact, we are both anti-Zionists, unlike white supremacist Gilad Atzmon, who is a vocal defender of Zionism and smears anyone who criticises the racist and colonialist underpinnings of that ideology.

You preface several of your false statements in that piece with „to my knowledge“. This implies that you are in a position to know anything all about what relationship, if any, Emma or I has with Greta Berlin. You are not in a position to know anything of the sort, and it is highly dishonest of you to imply otherwise.

Thank you for making it clear, however, where your true loyalties lie. When forced to choose between committed Palestinian activists like the 22 drafters and signers of the „Grant No Quarter“ statement, and racists who have done nothing but detract from the Palestinian struggle, you choose the latter, and are happy to lie in order to defend them.

#161 Rob on 10.22.12 at 16:18

Good work connecting some dots. It’s clear there’s more than meets the eye here.

Can we infer from this that “Yani” Haigh’s purpose might be to help keep tabs on „radicals“ or „dissidents“ related in some way to I/P? If this is the case, then the anti-Jewish and generally vulgar rhetoric doesn’t really make sense – unless it’s to draw in racists, white supremacists and other assorted undesrirables into the movement in order to discredit it?

In any case, this is important work, thanks.

#162 elisehendrick on 10.22.12 at 23:43

There’s a lot of dot connecting that will go on in the next parts of the series. The fact is that, the research that I have been doing along with a number of others during this past week has yielded so much information that it would be unwieldy to try to put it into a single article, plus the amount of time involved in analysing all of it would have been excessive. I don’t want to comment in too much detail on things that are still being researched and analysed for later parts of this series, but it seems to me that there is definitely something snitchy going on (and there is certainly a long history of states and other powerful entities having infiltrators not only gather intelligence but misdirect and publicly discredit the organisations they’re assigned to).

At the very least, I think that it is very safe to say that we need to be giving a little bit more thought to issues of security culture and, above all, of principle. No matter what their purpose is, people and groups like the ones that have been profiled in these two parts (and there is more to come) are utterly toxic to any movement that seeks to fight against racism and for equality, human rights, and social justice. Bigots are, by definition, in irreconcilable opposition to those principles, and, from a practical standpoint, will tend to sabotage such movements if they happen to be allowed in.

I’ll be announcing the next part of the series on Twitter (@translator_eli) when it’s on its way, probably later this week.

#163 Mädchenmannschaft » Blog Archive » Bloggen als gäbs kein Morgen mehr on 12.04.12 at 19:15

[…] für Kinder von Hartz IV-Bezieherinnen… Élise Hendrick nimmt in den Meldungen aus dem Exil die neue deutsche Sozialpolitik aufs Korn und die 13 berichtet von ihren eigenen Erfahrungen mit der […]

#164 Yani on 12.20.12 at 07:03

Oh look… Elise Hendrick and Sylvia Posadas 😉

This is the pair that claim to support Palestine that have been working so fricken hard to destroy me. They were always suss but had a convincing act!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-rickard/running-list-of-pro-israel-hasbara-facebook-accounts-and-pages/433787330003078

Never were supporters of Palestine just Hasbara agents all the time. So under watch and not by me.

[It says everything that Haigh is resorting to the list with which noted fascist (and, disgracefully, occasional „analyist“ for PressTV) Scott Rickard seeks to blacklist anyone who is critical of his claims that the Rothschilds rule the world. For a time, Ben White was included on this list as well for the mortal sin of calling out the racism of hasbaroid muso Gilad Atzmon.

In the case of myself, Karen MacRae, and Sylvia Posadas, we were added to the list after debunking Rickard’s Nazi-inspired Rothschild propaganda in a thread on his Facebook page.

The discerning reader will note that, in the comments, a number of noted anti-Zionist activists with unassailable credentials, including Gabriel Ash and Max Ajl, found our inclusion on the list so ridiculous that they asked to be added to the list in solidarity with us.

For anyone interested in more information on Scott Rickard, I highly recommend the following note, which he published on his Facebook page: „The Trojan Horse of Communism (Judaism) Inside America !!! by Jeanette Unger„, in which the reader is treated to such blobules of wisdom as:

“Communism was Jewish proposed, Jewish financed, Jewish led and Jewish operated. The most muderous regime this planet has ever known, was Jewish through & through.” ~ („The Secret Force“ by Maurice Pinay) !!!

I am reliably informed that Haigh has developed rather a morbid obsession with me since the publication of this piece. According to one source with access to Haigh’s Facebook postings, who has asked me not to publish his name, Haigh now boasts that I have „deconstructed“ him on „140+ websites“. This was surprising indeed, given that I have only actually published this series on this blog and mirrored it on my main website, http://www.elisehendrick.com. Haigh, I am told, is using this nonsense to claim that I clearly could not be acting alone, and must be in someone’s employ. Impressive talk coming from someone who works with the „Democracy Council“ and once sought out funding from the US’s very own coup mill USAID.

Haigh has yet to offer a substantive rebuttal to the information documented in these pieces, though I am told that he recently made an attempt on Facebook, where he is reported to have made the very convincing argument that I am a „fat ugly bitch“ who needs to „have her womb out“. I guess it’s all in a day’s work for a fearless defender of human rights like Yani Haigh. – ÉRH]

#165 Yani on 12.20.12 at 15:54

Oh I can’t wait to see what useless crap you have uncovered to not support human rights with and to bitch on. It’s all bullshit to us as most of us have been in communication with at least 20 others within the groups for 4 years or more. Our collective knowledge of each other doesn’t require your pathetic approval. We have mutual love for each other warts and all.

[In the bizarre little world of Yani Haigh, pointing out his affiliations with organisations that are responsible for providing propaganda cover to human rights violations against the very people Haigh claims to support (see part II of the series) and raise money for counts as „not support(ing) human rights“.

One cannot help but be touched, however, by the „mutual love“ he and his merry band of movement hijackers have for each other, „warts and all“ – ÉRH]

#166 Tiencisse on 12.24.12 at 06:00

отзывчивый вебсайт http://psy-therapist.ru/ – разобраться в себе, психологическая помощь, [url=http://psy-therapist.ru/forum.php]психологические консультации[/url], помощь психоаналитика.

#167 springsgs on 12.24.12 at 13:02

[url=http://nikestoreonlineuk.com/specials.html ]black nike trainers
[/url]
[url=http://www.nikesalestorejp.com/specials.html ] ナイキ ハイカット
[/url]
[url=http://www.nikeboutiqueenligne.com/basket-nike-homme-sale-6.html ]gant nike
[/url]

#168 Bazlz on 01.01.13 at 09:10

Classic Indian bags are usually absolute because journal utilize. [url=http://www.promulberrybandbags.co.uk/uk/mulberry-alexa-bags.html/]Mulberry Alexa Bags[/url] Mildew among the your buckskin briefcase Uk bags that is brought just about forward magnificent moisture Mulberry Carriers In addition, internet connected computers courier United kingdom bags often come with [url=http://www.promulberrybandbags.co.uk/uk/mulberry-alexa-bags/alexa-alexa.html]Mulberry Mini Alexa Bag Waders Green Sparkle Tweed[/url] African and gray coloration, and these colours are appropriate for men to use.

Usually there are some wonderful points of interest to determine Why in no way start your own junket apt Suzhou by using a visit appropriate the Garden of the Master on the Nets. That is a [url=http://www.promulberrybandbags.co.uk]Mulberry Bayswater Bag[/url] pocket-sized garden, the tiniest among the urban center,but is the greatest preserved back garden surrounded Suzhou. How does a flat soluble fiber favor silk corner furred? Because the fibres among height have been crack to reduced lengths. Cotton namely [url=http://www.promulberrybandbags.co.uk/de]Mulberry Taschen[/url] any quite smooth slick dietary fiber, with none of your scales plus roughness associated with wools as well as bast plant material. When woven, these short ends function the misrepresent and create a halo [url=http://www.promulberrybandbags.co.uk/uk/mulberry-clutch-bags.html]Mulberry Clutch Bags[/url] accomplish among the story.

#169 Rima Najjar on 02.14.13 at 08:14

Please use this version of my comment rather than the previous one, as I have corrected some typos:

What an eye opener! Thank you for shedding light on what is increasingly becoming clear to Palestinians themselves. For far too long, joint Israeli-Palestinian projects like the ones you describe above funded by USAID or by EU organizations and purporting to advance the „peace process“ but on terms that did not acknowledge the nature of Israeli control and oppression, kept NGOs busy and benefited individuals in the form of salaries to co-ordinate such projects or a retreat here or there with a good free meal or free transportation, or sometimes trips abroad. No one was under the illusion that such projects did any good ideologically or practically. You are probably familiar with the problematic nature of foreign aid to Palestine – even the well-intentioned kind that is not driven by what we now call „normalisation“. The dynamic of the latter kind of aid has become crystal clear among Palestinian activist circles, especially in the BDS movement, which is the catalyst these days for getting the genie out of the bottle and is the litmus test separating liberals and progressives from zio-liberals.

The thing that shocked me most in the article – perhaps because of how specific it is – has to do with the spying gadgets included in the proposal – the „ZionEyez“ now nicknamed zeyes! And the colorful cast of characters are worthy of a tragicomic movie script – with the title of „ZionEyez“:

**Kamal Nawash, a politically connected Republican U.S.lawyer and founder of Free Muslims Coalition Against Terror, an astroturf operation that serves to root out “extremist Muslims” and generally provides an Arab/Muslim fig leaf for repressive US government policies.

**Josef Avisar, Nawash associate, head of “Israel-Palestine Confederation”. He held “Israeli-Palestinian Confederation” mock elections in Jerusalem, which was met with protests as „a process of normalization of the occupation promoted by the conference, amidst the collapse of the peace process, continuing settlement construction and the confiscation of Palestinian land.“

**Yani Jaigh, lives in Brisbane, Queensland; signed an open letter that claimed that there was nothing racist going on in the groups where Greta Berlin found the holocaust denial video that she posted on the Free Gaza Movement (FGM); Cowrote with with Kamal Nawash and one Rafi Gassel a US$1 million USAID grant application for a project called “The Path to a Shared Future”, which builds on “Best Plans“. Both of these projects seek to circumvent the Palestinian-led anti-normalisation campaign by claiming that Israeli Jews and Palestinians working on these normalisation projects are not really normalising because they aren’t working on the same project in the same place at the same time. Best Plans was held in held at University Centre of Samaria, an institution located in the illegal settlement of Ariel.

**Ray Hanania, fellow board member of „Free Muslims“ and the PR person for the normalisation projects.

#170 Interview with Elise Hendrick on Liberal Naivete and Entryism. « The (Dis)Loyal Opposition to Modernity: on 02.16.13 at 19:03

[…] racism of the sort promoted by Rizzo, Atzmon, the misleadingly named “Deir Yassin Remembered”, Jeff Blankfort, and others, we see another important factor at work: The accusation of antisemitism has been used […]

#171 Roger on 02.18.13 at 21:05

Some egotists here believe they ARE the SOLIDARITY Movement……

There Never has been SOLIDARITY & there never Will BE.

Let the belating hearts bleat there little hearts out.

#172 Yani on 03.07.13 at 22:29

How would you know what these projects were about and what outcomes they generated? You are inducting an argument with facts you claim to be in possession of, which you simply don’t have.

[I know what the project is about because the USAID application states in great detail what it’s about, unless you’re claiming that you and Nawash were submitting a fraudulent application for nearly US$ 1m to the United States federal government, in which case you and your mates have other worries.]

The grant proposal you are making a song and dance about was never expected to get anywhere and was done to get an understanding of the grant process and what feedback could be expected from USAID. It had no other realistic purpose and this was clearly explained to you and this was understood by Kamal and myself. It was very clear that this was a zero expectation outcome. Your publication of it is in breach of common understanding of confidentiality.

[USAID, as I noted in the article, is a rather odd place to be shopping a grant application that is ostensibly for Palestinian solidarity. USAID is an instrument of US foreign policy, and US foreign policy is to maintain the oppression of the Palestinians.

Note that nothing of the sort was ever „explained“ to me. Haigh’s responses to my reporting, such as they are, have been strings of defamatory accusations and misogynist slurs against myself and my comrades.

Note as well that, apparently, Yani is admitting here to having co-authored an application for US federal funding for a project he apparently had no intention of implementing.]

My position is and has always been that there can be only one workable outcome and that is a single democratic state that is in full compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Law and the all UN Conventions. There is a plan I do support within this framework and it is here…

[Then why not work for that, if you’re serious about it, instead of setting up Astroturf programmes that aren’t remotely democratic?]

http://www.peacepharm.org/plans/25a

You are welcome to log onto that site and be as critical as you can on any of those plans as is anyone else. My position in the project required that I deal with people in a friendly manner whose views I despised. In the main I keep my critique to ’spelling errors‘ and an internal email list where I read 7,000 and wrote 700 emails in a year. Anyone on that list will tell you that I never buckle to Zionists, sexists, homophobes, abuse or liars.

[Haigh doesn’t buckle to liars because he hates the competition. As for his policy on sexism, see the screenshots above.]

The reason the project fails was that even the critique of spelling didn’t get a revision because Zionists are bone bloody lazy. Those plans that are written by

Anselm Kiersch
Rachel Lever
Esther Riley
Nick (Klaus) Veltjens
Kamal Nawash Esq.

have value. In fact all the plans have value in that they uncover about 90% of the possibilities for a future state of Israel-Palestine.

It is a very good collective of opinion and structured in a way to allow detailed comment. The failure in this was the methodology of Doron T who was the lead Zionist. This failure was an evaluation process that was too complex and boring for any normal human. It has been removed.

In place of being a waste of my time, you could use your energy to critique these plans to the nth and prove for once that you actually do something useful to end the conflict. Prove to us you are not a stooge for the Zionists, masked as a supporter of Palestine, who runs around the web looking for weak points in the political correctness of people trying to make a difference, just so you can derail all hope for Palestinian people. That is all you have demonstrated in the 6 months I’ve been observing your activity.

[Of course, I HAVE actually critiqued the normalisation effort and the shonky figures associated with it. In that, I know that I am standing in solidarity with the Palestinian activists who shut down one of these normalisation conferences in Silwan.]

#173 Why should I give my name to you? on 03.07.13 at 23:46

Hey Lady,

[Hey genius from Sydney who wants to be anonymous and gives me an e-mail linked to his Twitter feed!]

I know quite a few people that you defame. I’ll let you know that we spent a lot of energy getting rid of McCarthyism and us older people are fed up watching Jews with nothing better to do like you. Bring in your rabbinical witch hunts. I give you now the thought that as you do unto others. They ‚could‘ do unto you the same.

[It’s worth noting at this point that the tort of defamation requires that the statements published be untrue. In this case, everything I have published about Yani and his infiltrator mob has been well documented, and no one has ever taken issue with the accuracy of the facts reported.]

So in the quiet of the day a tiny thought may enter your mind. After you set out to destroy the lives of good people, it might just dawn upon you that you may have to spend the rest of your life wondering if anyone will come for you.

[Ahh, a threat. Now I’m really impressed.]

You may call the return, ‚antisemitism‘. But it’s really you coming back to you. May you live a neurotic life my dear. That is the usual end of persercutors.

[And what’s the usual end of people who try to send an anonymous threat that is linked to their e-mail address and Twitter account?]

#174 Ray Hanania on 03.12.13 at 12:06

Elise is a Jew-hating anti-Semite who like a lot of Neo-Nazis twists facts to fit their perverted mentally disturbed view of life. She’s an active contributor to Ikhras, the venomous anti-Jewish and anti-Christian hate web site. But for the record, I am not a member of the Free Muslim Coalition, though my name was listed on it as a founding supporter. Still, this web site is hilarious in its hate.

[Assuming that this actually is Ray Hanania, which given the venom and dishonesty seems a safe bet, Hanania has raised a number of fact issues in this comment (for those who don’t deal well with subtlety, I mean that he’s lying, a lot):

1. We’ll leave aside the ridiculous (and poorly written) personal attack „Jew-hating anti-Semite“;

2. I have never contributed to Ikhras, and have never really had any real contact with the people who write for Ikhras, but their exposure of the dishonesty and collaboration of Ray Hanania is excellent. I also have not seen any reason to believe the claim that they are „anti-Jewish“ or „anti-Christian“, let alone „venomously“ so.

3. Hanania should not be complaining to me about being listed as a Bought Muslims board member. He’s listed on the website as a board member, and he has additionally shilled for some of their normalisation initiatives in the Jerusalem Post. That’s a strange way to be unaffiliated]

#175 emma rosenthal on 03.12.13 at 14:28

I would doubt that you are a member of Ikhras. Their ableist rants matching more closely to Hanania’s type of bile than of yours.

His personal and unsubstantiated attacks against you and his inaccurate portrayal of his own racist affiliations, which he dismisses as „hilarious“ say much more about him, than about you.

You have done an amazing job of researching the nefarious connections between zionists and white supremacist „anti-zionists“.

#176 Karen MacRae on 03.12.13 at 17:00

I see the question has become why Ray Hanania hate the filthy dealings of racists, anti semites and saboteurs being exposed, so much?

#177 Chip Berlet on 03.25.13 at 21:56

Thanks for making clear in clear language the dimensions of the problems we face on the critical left in the United States against the conspiracists and purveyors of the red-brown alliance.

#178 Diane Gordon on 05.03.13 at 07:49

LOL LOL LOL! Ever heard of the Great Society?
Get a grip!

[With such a detailed and well-argued refutation, how could I not be convinced? Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, Diane. I am forever in your debt. ÉRH]

#179 John Green on 07.13.13 at 13:21

Hi Elise

That’s really fascinating. Are you familiar with Jacques Ranciere’s book The Ignorant Schoolmaster?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ignorant-Schoolmaster-Intellectual-Emancipation/dp/0804719691

The method you describe is, IIRC, almost identical to that used by the protagonist, Joseph Jacotot. It was regarded as hugely subversive at the time, as Rancierre describes it.

#180 Laura on 11.01.13 at 01:07

Right on! I wanted to comment one thing here though, which is that the titles of these things are pretty much never written by the authors. I found the title of Webb’s „open letter“ extremely painful, but I would wager he had nothing to do with it. If only I could say the same of every word of the damn thing.

#181 The Translation Constituency | Cunning Hired Knaves on 11.22.13 at 17:17

[…] near-omniglot translator Élise Hendrick her opinion on ‘proceso constituyente’, whose series providing a historical and political background to the recent Chilean elections I highly recommend. […]

#182 Israel, War Criminal and Initiator of Attacks on Occupied Gaza | KADAITCHA on 07.28.14 at 06:11

[…] If the media reported everything the way they report on Palestine… […]

#183 Carol Lipton on 08.03.14 at 17:52

Absolutely brilliant! In Brooklyn just 3 days ago, we were posting and x-posting the clip of the original and saying how it’s still relevant. Could not have bee more timely!

#184 Cara Yoshizumi on 08.31.14 at 11:15

Brilliant; but I was confused with this passage:

“ We have turned over a new leaf, and will not associate ourselves with such unsavoury characters merely because they support racism against Palestinians, and promise from now on only to partner with people and groups whose racism is exclusively directed against Palestinians.“

Does this assume all Zionism is racism? I’m personally confused by this one. Thanks. I’m going to share this one a lot.

Cara

#185 elisehendrick on 08.31.14 at 14:10

‚Does this assume all Zionism is racism?‘

No, it doesn’t assume anything. Zionism is explicitly racist. Even before the first modern political Zionist started coming up with racist justifications for colonising the land of the first Palestinian, Zionism viewed all human relations as a product of supposed ‚racial characteristics‘. For Zionism, antisemitism is a natural, understandable, and justified reaction to the adverse effects the alien ‚racial characteristics‘ of Jewish ‚blood‘ have on ‚host‘ societies.

Racism is in Zionism’s DNA.

#186 Interview with Elise Hendrick on Liberal Naivete and Entryism. | Symptomatic Commentary on 09.21.14 at 14:24

[…] racism of the sort promoted by Rizzo, Atzmon, the misleadingly named “Deir Yassin Remembered”, Jeff Blankfort, and others, we see another important factor at work: The accusation of antisemitism has been used […]

#187 BDS Attacked by the Deir Yassin Remembered | KADAITCHA on 11.09.14 at 06:06

[…] thoroughly in 2012 and despite Eisen’s attack on her in his withdrawn blog post above, Greta Berlin […]

#188 Colin Piper on 05.26.15 at 07:16

Very good piece, just one minor correction. Tommy Sheridan had a big bust up with the SSP some time ago and was actually advocating a vote for the SNP. The SSP meanwhile has seen a mini surge in its membership as I understand it and voted at its recent conference to try and organise a united left challenge in next years elections for the Scottish Parliament.

But, to repeat, a very good article.

#189 Bessie on 05.26.15 at 16:16

The autumn of 2011 1000s of workers came out in support of pensions. After only one days action each of them, Unison, Unite, Teachers unions, (and probably more I forget all the names) threw the towel in and eventually caved completely despite the appetite to fight. Miliband condemned the action as did many labour big wigs including Harman on BBCQT. So where as I agree with you in your analysis, I think your time frame starts earlier.
You haven’t mentioned he role of the union bureaucracies play in their expectation that members (in affiliated unions) would just squelch down that vomity sick sensation in the back of their throats and just place their cross under Labour because the GS is screaming: „there is no other choice!“ For most members the run up to the election was the only time they’d had so much contact from their union.
There are going to be some interesting rules conference coming up soon where many members of my union UNITE will be loud in their articulation to UNTIE from this moribund, stone-hearted, bunch of Red Tory reprobates!
Snap! I like Jonny Void too!

#190 Connors on 07.20.15 at 14:21

This also helps to explain their perpetual defence of the reactionary white nationalist Russian state.

#191 Tony Greenstein` on 07.20.15 at 14:58

Good article. I share the basics of the analysis. You omitted a couple of things.

One my obituary or rather comment on an obituary of Cockburn
Alex Cockburn – Death of a Reactionary Radical
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/alex-cockburn-death-of-reactionary.html

and also his open admiration for Marine Le Pen which I cover in a new article:

COUNTERPUNCH – Time for Socialists & anti-imperialists to Boycott It
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/counterpunch-time-for-socialists-anti.html

#192 Liza on 07.21.15 at 09:56

This is a very good article; thank you for writing it. One might also add Cockburns defense of Rand Paul in his interview with Maddow when the former said he opposed the public accommodations segment of the Civil Rights Act (http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/05/21/the-rand-and-rachel-show/). Cockburn is certainly right that Maddow is a Democratic Party hack and liberals opportunistically take advantage of libertarian racism to shield their own. But he seems to believe that bc paleocons and libertarians are, currently, not terribly powerful, there is no danger in the left allying with them. For instance he claimed in the article that the Civil Rights Act is not likely to come up for review in the Senate, as though it is some irrelevant issue that a politician believes companies ought to have the right to refuse service to black people, or as if there is no connection between domestic racism and imperialism abroad and one can oppose the latter while coddling the former, or as if rallying around a sometimes-coherent libertarian is a better use of the lefts time than building a genuine alternative to the current electoral system. The argument seems to go 1) paleocons may have nasty racist views but they are marginalized so it doesn’t matter and therefore 2) we should help paleocons get more power.

#193 Jeffrey St. Clair on 07.21.15 at 17:06

You are, naturally, quite free to draw what ever conclusions you like about the political slant of CounterPunch, but your assertions should at least have some tenuous tether to reality, especially when you purport to do a deep „statistical“ analysis of stories and authors. We’ve published more than 55,000 articles since 1999. Ralph Nader, alone, has written more than 400 articles for us. Is Ralph left or right? Well, he’s of Lebanese descent, so we can surmise where you would slot Ralph. That’s another 400 articles for your right wingers, I guess. How about Edward Said. Dozens of articles for the pre-eminent intellectual critic of Imperialism. But, yes, Edward was Palestinian and thus by your crafty declinations he was a birth-right right-winger. Kaching! More bonus points for you!! What about Fidel Castro, left or right? We run all of Fidel’s columns, all of Ricardo Alarcon’s, too. Critics of Israel. Shame on them. What about Philip Agee, former CIA spook who spilled the beans? We ran lots of story by Phil before he died. How about Subcomandante Marcos. We’ve published almost all of his dispatches from the Lacondon. Left or right? Hard call. He is a smoker. Right hand column, I guess. Uri Avnery, Jew, former member of the Knesset, served with Begin in the Irgun. 500 articles by Uri. Hmm. Hard call. Put him in the excluded middle I guess. What about Kathy Kelly? Catholic Worker, nominated several times for Nobel Prize. We published more than 300 pieces by Kathy and a book. More bait to lure naives leftists into a ‚trap.‘ Could be. What about one of the greatest living black novelists, Ishmael Reed? He is he dupe? How about his daughter, Tennessee. We published her book on how the US education system throws one roadblock after another in front of young black women. That’s an entire book. How about Kevin Alexander Gray, one of the leading black civil rights organizers in the US, led the campaign to vanquish the Confederate Flag in South Carolina for two decades. Dozens of articles by Kevin and two books. But, whoops, he’s a critic of Israel. Does that make him a black white supremacist? I guess they do exist, consider the spectacle of Clarence Thomas. But I don’t think even you could squeeze Kevin into that box–not in his presence anyway. What about our book, Killing Trayvons? Just another con job? Frankly, I don’t care how you align our writers on your bifurcated little list, which has ominous overtones of other little lists kept by your compatriots in the not-so-distant past, but you should at least acknowledge their existence! And stop calling what you’re doing „statistical analysis“. As that infamous right-winger Mark Twain said, there’s lies, damned lies and statistics. But you don’t even HAVE statistics. Just your own hand-picked glob of silly putty. Good luck with your auto-de-fe.

#194 elisehendrick on 07.21.15 at 17:23

You’ll find I actually mention Nader, citing one of his various articles in support of a red-brown alliance. Given that Nader has a long history of being quite anti-labour, I’d be a bit hesitant to hang him up on the flagpole as an example of leftist thought. As for the rest of your comment, it seems that you prefer straw men to serious argument and would rather try to get me to defend claims I never actually made than actually attempt a serious rebuttal to my findings.

#195 elisehendrick on 07.21.15 at 17:30

The thing is that, even a million articles by Said or Chomsky couldn’t justify having even one by fascist sympathisers and white nationalists like Mary Rizzo, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Paul Craig Roberts, and Alison Weir. There’s simply no justification for giving them any platform at all.

For those keeping track, this is me giving more of a right of reply to CounterPunch than CounterPunch ever afforded Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance, who were smeared on CounterPunch by holocaust denier Mary Rizzo.

#196 Song Parody: ‘The Abstainers’ | on 07.21.15 at 18:11

[…] By Élise Hendrick […]

#197 N on 07.21.15 at 20:04

How about responding to Jeffery St. Clairs actual points? This is sloppy, ridiculous so called „analysis“. And you do indeed come off as an ADL type, calling all Israel critics „rightwing“. Lazy at best.

#198 levi9909 on 07.21.15 at 20:34

Elise, did you verify that that was actually Jeffrey St Clair? I mean could he really be so lacking in integrity and intellect to come out with such drivel.

Where in your post do you make an issue out of someones ethnicity or even their past? You mentioned Nader but I only saw a description of his politics. Nothing of his ethnicity. Is St Clair pretending that white supremacist is a racial slur? Is that why he brought ethnicity into his comment? And why didn’t he mention that Avnery’s a Jew? That’s not like CounterPunch.

Also, would the real Jeffrey St Clair really not know that statistics doesn’t actually mean counting every single one of something or other but rather, sampling and weighing up proportions?

But maybe it was the real Jeffrey St Clair and all those years at CounterPunch have made him unused to the discussion malarkey. Maybe he forgot the reason CounterPunch doesn’t allow comments is because so much that they publish is simply indefensible. Maybe that lack of comment at CP lulled him into a false sense of security and he thought he could come out with any bullshit without counter-comment.

Ah whatever.

Elise, I hope you won’t be embarrassed if I wish you mazel tov on what is a very informative piece long overdue. Thank you for reading CounterPunch so that others don’t have to.

#199 levi9909 on 07.21.15 at 21:00

And by the way, it was Benjamin Disraeli who said „there are lies, damn lies and statistics“. Mark Twain even said that he was quoting Disraeli.

#200 elisehendrick on 07.22.15 at 00:10

Where do I call all Israel critics ‚rightwing‘? Please provide a quote. Or are you actually saying that Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Jeff Blankfort, Alison Weir, and the rest of the Palestinian-dismissing white supremacist contingent are the only actual critics of Israel who exist?

As for St. Clair’s actual points, I did address them. He reckons that if I included Edward Said, who died in 2003, the leftist contingent would be larger. I personally don’t think that helps him much, since, assuming his figures are accurate, that simply means that the proportion of right-wing populism to left analysis drastically shifted with Said’s death and never recovered. In other words, the best we get out of that is that CounterPunch used to be less shit than it currently is, but that on St. Clair’s watch it’s drifted hard to the right.

He also brings up Nader, whose pro-Querfront views I actually addressed in the article.

What’s interesting is that St. Clair never actually attempts to address the figures on the individual issues which, even if I were to grant – quod non – that the left-right balance is less lopsided than my findings indicate that it is, remains quite damning.

Given that CounterPunch doesn’t have a comment function, and has actually ignored the correspondence of activists who have been smeared in its pages and seek the right of reply, St. Clair is lucky that I published his comment at all. Fortunately for him, my editorial standards are somewhat higher than his.

#201 Emma Rosenthal on 07.22.15 at 00:40

Elise, you are indeed gracious in allowing St Claire’s rant on your blog. It must be truly frustrating for the masters of the media (ha!) that us mere mortals have at our disposal blogs and the option of self publishing.

His crude and sarcastic dismissal of your article, within such a short period of time from publication for any actual reflection or consideration is quite telling and unfortunately adds little to the discussion.

At the very least, this esteemed editor should have provided some real material to challenge you.

I was most amused when he stated “ I don’t care how you align our writers on your bifurcated little list, which has ominous overtones of other little lists“ after all, it’s his publication that claims to „name names“. WOW!

CounterPunch, in its slogan claims to tell the truth and yet it published that horrible article by Paul Craig Roberts claiming that hate crime legislation that simply added LGBT and disabled people to protected classes was going to make any criticism of Israel illegal. (The bill never mentions Israel, religion, governments, etc.)

https://cafeintifada.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/654/

Since we have Jeff’s ear, maybe he can explain why such an incredibly faulty article was allowed to grace his „truth“ telling publication?

And if antisemitism doesn’t exist, as he and Alex have asserted, why then would Roberts have used it in an attempt to defeat a bill that had nothing to do with Jews or Israel and everything to do with LGBT and dis-abled people?

#202 evildoer on 07.22.15 at 03:39

Great work! and maybe St. Clair’s utter lack of integrity on display here deserves a book.

#203 levi9909 on 07.22.15 at 03:48

Yes Elise, you’re certainly fairer than CounterPunch but please don’t give obvious trolls like N too many bites of the cherry. Louis did that on his blog but then he wanted to annoy his critics and swamp his own evasions, lies and insults.

#204 Phil Greaves on 07.22.15 at 08:54

There’s a fine line between rightly criticising the deceptive conspiracism of „demonizing individuals/Israel lobby hypothesising“ and wrongly attaching a liberal „conspiracist“ concept to all anlayses of ruling class praxis, and then further turning this false dichotomy into a platform to purvey the liberal sophistry of „systems“ not people, or „institutional structures“ not conscious class actors.

The latter ends up being just as much of an apology for the ruling class as does „Israel lobby“ theorizing or „Jewish conspiracy“ white supremacism.

In opposition to a somewhat crude concept of a right-wing „populist conspiracist“ anaytical mode that is apparently common to fascists, we are offered the concept of a „Left analysis“ briefy surmised as „working-class people fighting against oppression by entrenched élites“ which ostensibly „looks to the structure of individual institutions, and to that of the political and economic system itself.“ Apparently, this is what constitutes concrete class analysis–minus the classes, minus human relations. It is to deem capital anonymous, turning capitalists into „capitalism“, the imperialist bourgeoisie into metaphysical „imperialism“, instead of „scapegoats“ we are left with phantoms, spirits of capital, religious thought.

The dichotomy built therefore is essentially one of: „conspiracism“ vs „liberal structuralism“, there is no room betweem the two, one is either a conspiracist, and therefore a fascist, or one holds to a supposed „Left analysis“ that places „systems“ and „structures“ before actual human relations; class interests and the individuals that carry them out.

What’s interesting though is that the author has spent a large amount of her time falling foul of the very same arbitrary concept of „conspiracism“ portrayed as an „analytical mode“ common to fascists, or more specifically „third position crypto-fascists“–in that the author has consistently and correctly shown the conscious actions of the Zionist ruling class for exactly what they are: planned, premeditated, definite actions from definite individuals that are part of a class with definite interests. And yet contrary to this very basic explanation of ruling class praxis, and in opposition to the „right-wing populists/conspiracists“ view with which it has been assimilated, we are also told that within a „Left analysis“ there is no ruling class, no conscious bourgeois praxis–instead we are given the notion of „institutional structures“ as the driving forces of history. Where white supremacist „Israel lobby“ theorists put ‚Evil Zionists‘ as the driving force of imperialism in the Middle East, the author puts metaphysical „Systems and Structures“ in their place.

It is to effectively apply white supremacist conspiracism to any and all that don’t abide by a metaphysical structuralism as determinate of human relations, but even by the authors own standards, this sophistry is applied selectively.

On the one hand Ariel Sharon is an Evil Butcher with definite class aims, on the other Obama is a Bumbling Imperialist vassal of the „system“.

This contradiction needs an explanation, and the question still yet to be answered is a very simple one: Why does the author apply conscious ruling class praxis as determinate for ‚Israeli‘ oppression, yet substitute this for „Systems“ and „Structures“ when it comes to the imperial hegemon?

#205 Tony Greenstein` on 07.22.15 at 10:44

Jeffrey St Clair is disingenuous. No one doubts that it is anti-imperialist but where it falls short is that it doesn’t see the connection between imperialism and racism or indeed capitalism. Hence why it gives acres of space to reactionary writers such as Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon.

Fascism too can proclaim its opposition to imperialism (& capitalism) whilst we all know (St. Clair and Cockburn excepted) that once it gets its hands on power fascism is the most repressive political system of all.

I didn’t understand much of Mr St Clair’s response. I have no idea whether Ralph Nader is on the left or right. Perhaps he has an idea? Not sure why his Lebanese origin is of any relevance or why Uri Avneri being a Jew is of any relevance either.

In fact a very good case could be made for saying that Avneri is on the right. He supports the existing constellation of repressive Arab regimes but only wishes that Israel could come to terms with them and allow the Palestinians to form a similar regime. That he has spoken out against the Occupation does not, in itself, make him a socialist.

But what I do know is that, Jeffrey St Clair’s sarcasm notwithstanding (the lowest form of wit incidentally) that when some of us were trying to eliminate anti-Semitism from the Palestine solidarity movement, St. Clair published an outrageous personal and political attack by a fully signed up anti-Semite Mary Rizzo, Who’s Afraid of Gilad Atzmon (before that is she fell out with Atzmon and called him an Israeli asset).

Having published Rizzo’s article St. Clair refused me something that even semi-house trained bourgeois publications allow – a right of reply!

I would be interested in Jeffrey St Clair’s defence of that decision or was it all down to his dead comrade, the Le Pen supporting Alex Cockburn?

I think we should be told.

http://www.azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/counterpunch-time-for-socialists-anti.html

#206 Andrew Coates on 07.22.15 at 12:23

Full marks for having gone through Counterpunch with such perseverance!

Their Querfront created another stir in the UK, apart from the Atzmon incidents which Tony rightly highlights.

There was also the Israel Shamir incident, when the British Communist Daily, the Morning Star took, without an article by the anti-semite Shamir on Pussy Riot from Counterpunch and published it.

A storm of protest resulted and the Morning Star apologised for publishing the material….from Counterpunch.

https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/shamir-jewish-lobby-ate-my-morning-star-article/

Shamir’s background is well know enough to merit his own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir

#207 Ron J on 07.22.15 at 13:05

I would argue that this argument is just plain flawed. I say this mostly because your selection of left writers whose articles you count is limited in such a way as to create the results you wish to prove. I am a leftist writer and have published at least 400 articles on Counterpunch since 2002, yet my name does not appear at all. As for the rigthist writers, I don’t agree with them and am not a believer in the left/right alliance, butI don’t think this proves any kind of reactionaryism on the part of the editors.

#208 elisehendrick on 07.22.15 at 15:39

It’s hard to verify your claim of being a leftist with 400 publications on CounterPunch without your full name (or the name you publish there under) and/or a few links to those articles. If you could provide that information, I’ll certainly check it out and report what I find. If a correction on the figures is in order, I’ll do so.

However, it’s worth reiterating, as I pointed out in the conclusion to the article itself, that I was basically going to make the same overall argument back when I assumed that there was a preponderance of leftist authors and a minority – albeit a sizable and regularly published one – of fascist sympathisers and white supremacists. That still looks a lot like mainstreaming the fash in support of a red-brown alliance that has been openly advocated by the editors of CounterPunch, including Cockburn himself.
Cockburn’s own reactionary sympathies are discussed with reference to his own writings in the article, as are those of other editors (Frank and Proyect). At the very least, it can be said that they are distinctly unconcerned with the white nationalism and fascist ties of some of the people they have praised and defended, to the point of not mentioning them at all, or dishonestly dismissing them.

Plus, it’s worth noting that this argument still doesn’t deal with the case studies on individual issues, where I did not screen for author name, but read the articles (using search terms that would result in articles on the relevant issues) for content in order to determine what sort of position was being advocated by them. Neither St. Clair nor Ron J has actually challenged those figures, which to my mind are much more telling than those on the publications of individual authors.

#209 elisehendrick on 07.22.15 at 15:43

What’s interesting about Greaves‘ attempt to demonise class analysis as ‚liberal structuralism‘ is that it is actually quite at variance with the sort of ‚analysis‘ actually provided by liberals. Take, for example, the writings of Matt Taibbi on the financial crisis. He does an excellent job of reporting the facts in great detail, but his analysis of why this happened comes down to a discussion of individual corruption and venality, rather than the importance of liberalised financial flows as a profit driver in the context of a decades-long attack on the organisation and bargaining power of the working class.

#210 elisehendrick on 07.22.15 at 15:47

Equally bizarre is the claim that there is something metaphysical about capitalist relations of production and class structures, and the class interests that arise from those structures. We are talking about entirely material considerations here: access to and control over markets and natural resources, capital flows, and profit maximisation. Of course, if Greaves had actually looked at my writings on Palestine and the ’special relationship‘, he would be aware that this is my analysis. This would be a much more interesting discussion if he bothered to do so.

Similarly, it’s just plain farcical to claim that I deny the existence of conscious political action in an article where the entire thesis is that (a) there is a conscious, organised political programme of infiltrating and subverting the left (Querfront) on the part of fascists and white supremacists and (b) that the editors of CounterPunch, whose sympathy for this sort of an ‚alliance‘ as a matter of record, are guided at least in part by that sympathy in their editorial decisions. To claim that I deny the existence of conscious political action is to claim that the article Greaves claims to be critiquing doesn’t exist.

#211 Rebecca on 07.22.15 at 16:05

Counterpunch has also published an article by the Holocaust denier Daniel A. McGowan (head of Deir Yassin Remembered): http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/25/elie-wiesel-for-president/

#212 elisehendrick on 07.22.15 at 16:21

In addition to my previous questions for ‚Ron J‘ (name and/or links to articles in order to verify his claim), I’m curious about something else:

Ron: You identify as a leftist who has published for CounterPunch. At the moment, you haven’t provided enough information to allow anyone to verify that, so I’ll just take it as read for now:

Were you previously aware that the likes of Israel Shamir, Paul Craig Roberts, Daniel McGowan, and Gilad Atzmon were being published and defended in the pages of CounterPunch? If so, did that cause you to hesitate about publishing someplace where your writings would serve to increase the page rank of a publication that so regularly publishes racists and fascist sympathiser? And, if so, why did you ultimately decide in favour of publishing there?

#213 Phil Greaves on 07.22.15 at 18:25

So instead of actually answering the question, the author chooses to mischaracterize it as „a demonisation of [what the author determines to be] class analysis…“ but what is actually structural liberalism.

Nowhere do i claim the author applies this structuralism to ALL class action, as is evident by my pointing out the author’s (correct) exposure of conscious Israeli ruling class policy–but only in the context of a specific classes‘ conscious action, that being the Western imperial hegemon.

Nowhere either is the claim of metaphysical „capitalist relations of production and class structures, and the class interests that arise from those structures“ made, because the original piece does not speak of any of this, but merely „political end economc structures“ in general. One must also ask what exactly „class interests arising from class structures“ is supposed to mean..

This mischaracterization and refusal to address the points made is then compounded by the author repeating the same liberal sophistry with a claim to „the importance of liberalised financial flows [„the invisibel hand of the market“] as a profit driver in the context of a decades-long attack on the organisation and bargaining power of the working class. ..“

What exactly are „liberalised financial flows“, by whom and how are they implemented?

#214 levi9909 on 07.22.15 at 20:53

Tony – I thought for a while why Jeffrey St Clair was invoking ethnicity as being relevant and it occurred to me that he was actually saying that denouncing white supremacy is racist against whites. The fact is that CounterPunch has been brown so long, it looks green or even red to Jeffrey St Clair. But seriously that is the only point he could have been making since Elise didn’t invoke anybody’s ethnicity to make any point in her post. He was singing the song of white entitlement. Opposition to white supremacy is opposition to whites per se. Of course such a mentality would explain why he publishes so many writers who conflate Zionism with Jews.

#215 elisehendrick on 07.22.15 at 22:01

Now, Greaves claims that he has never accused me of completely denying the existence of concerted political action. Those who are interested in assessing the veracity of this claim can see for yourselves on his Twitter feed (@PhilGreaves).
Note also the dishonesty with which Greaves, who is at this point well aware that this is no such thing, treats this one article out of many as a comprehensive, self-contained statement of my views on history, society, and political economy.
Strangely, he now deigns to praise my ‘(correct) exposure of conscious Israeli ruling class practice’, which is odd, given that I don’t discuss Israeli ruling class practice in any detail in this article. What I do mention, briefly because it’s not the point of the article and I’ve discussed it elsewhere, is the practice of the US ruling class, which is much more germane to assessing the motivations for the ‘special relationship’ on the US end.
I remain puzzled about the point of this exercise. What exactly does Greaves hope to gain from arguing against things I’ve never argued and critiquing an article that exists only in his imagination by an author whose views he has demonstrated complete and utter ignorance of (and a total lack of interest in)? This seems to me indicative either of a total lack of self-awareness (‘My head’s under the bed, so that makes me invisible’) or utter contempt for those he imagines are reading (who he assumes, apparently, will have read his comments and taken them as gospel rather than actually reading the article he claims to be critiquing first). Surely, it would be much more rewarding to have an actual discussion about what I wrote and what my views are, rather than this parade of straw men and the degradation of useful analytical terms (‘metaphysical’, ‘liberal’) to childish terms of abuse.

#216 elisehendrick on 07.22.15 at 23:05

Another thing that makes very little sense to me about Greaves‘ remarks here is that he now acknowledges (at long last) that my analysis includes a role for conscious political agency on the part of individuals and groups. In other words, he now acknowledges that my analysis of capitalism takes account both of the institutional structures of the capitalist system and the agency of actors within that system.

If this is the case, though, it’s hard to see what his objection is. Unless he actually denies that institutional structures play any role at all in the capitalist system, it would appear that we are in general agreement that capitalist social relations are characterised, inter alia, by the antagonistic interests of the classes within a socialist society that arise from the relationship of the respective classes (capitalist, working class) to the means of production and sustenance.

As such, his belated acknowledgement of something I had repeatedly stated over a day ago leaves me more puzzled than ever about the point of this most surreal interaction.

#217 Phil Greaves on 07.23.15 at 02:03

It seems strange the author is incapable of seeing my point after having me repeatedly express it in various ways, and stranger still the author has decided to once again mischaracterize and obfuscate.

No one denies that „institutional structures play any role at all in the capitalist system“, — the question is *what exact role* do such „structures“ play in the „capitalist system“ and whether they are determinate, whether they supersede human relations or whether they are the expression of them.

If the author cares to review my first comment it will become clear to her that from the outset i made clear that the author DOES IN FACT (correctly) focus on Israeli ruling class praxis, but DOES NOT extend this concrete analyses to the imperial hegemon, to whom the author liberally applies her metaphysical structuralist „systemic“ analyses as determinate.

This is the entire point of my contention, as is made very clear with the simple question that still remains unanswered..

„Why does the author apply conscious ruling class praxis as determinate for ‘Israeli’ oppression, yet substitute this for “Systems” and “Structures” when it comes to the imperial hegemon?“

#218 Phil Greaves on 07.23.15 at 02:12

To reiterate, from the first comment…

„…the author has consistently and correctly shown the conscious actions of the Zionist ruling class for exactly what they are: planned, premeditated, definite actions from definite individuals that are part of a class with definite interests. And yet contrary to this very basic explanation of ruling class praxis, and in opposition to the “right-wing populists/conspiracists” view with which it has been assimilated, we are also told that within a “Left analysis” there is no ruling class, no conscious bourgeois praxis–instead we are given the notion of “institutional structures” as the driving forces of history. Where white supremacist “Israel lobby” theorists put ‘Evil Zionists’ as the driving force of imperialism in the Middle East, the author puts metaphysical “Systems and Structures” in their place.“

#219 Matt Osborne on 07.23.15 at 14:45

Great post. I’m glad I’m not the only one wise to this game. You can see another example of Querfront in the ’sovereign citizens‘ movement, which began with the VERY racist, VERY right wing posse comitatus. But the sovereign citizen idea has also been adopted by the so-called ‚Moorish Temple,‘ which likes to pretend they belong to Africa instead of the United States. The white supremacist sovereigns love that a few black people are on the same insane page with them. The whole point of popularizing their tax avoidance schemes and nutty beliefs about admiralty courts this way is to normalize their bizarre ruleset so that it’s „not racist.“ See how that works?

#220 elisehendrick on 07.23.15 at 15:58

According to Greaves ‚It seems strange the author is incapable of seeing my point after having me repeatedly express it in various ways.‘

I am not so sure. What Greaves sees as his ‚point‘ is nothing more than a complete fabrication, as has already been pointed out repeatedly. And if it were not enough that he misrepresents what I have written, he actually has taken to lying about what he himself has written. Is it really strange that I am unwilling to join in this farce?

‚ and stranger still the author has decided to once again mischaracterize and obfuscate.‘

This is a strange statement in a comment in which Greaves refuses to engage with the point I most recently raised, namely: What on earth his his objection at this point, if he now acknowledges (despite outright denying it previously) that I do not deny that there is a role for conscious individual action, unless he denies that there is any role for structures? Instead of addressing this, he now claims:

‚No one denies that „institutional structures play any role at all in the capitalist system“, — the question is *what exact role* do such „structures“ play in the „capitalist system“ and whether they are determinate, whether they supersede human relations or whether they are the expression of them.‘

Again, we see Greaves‘ habit of changing position and hoping no one will look at his previous remarks. If ’no one‘ now denies this, it is because Greaves himself has now thought the better of his previous attacks on me for acknowledging this at all.

I am also not sure why ‚the question‘ is the one Greaves poses, except that he seems quite eager to change the subject after having once again been caught in a lie.

For some reason, having to do with an apparent complete lack of self-awareness, Greaves then sees fit to quote one of his more absurd fabrications:

‚“Why does the author apply conscious ruling class praxis as determinate for ‘Israeli’ oppression, yet substitute this for “Systems” and “Structures” when it comes to the imperial hegemon?“‚

As already noted, I do not. Greaves admits as much by not offering a single actual quote.

Indeed, in the piece that is supposedly under discussion, I do not discuss Israeli ruling class praxis at all. What I do discuss is US ruling class praxis, and the interests and strategic considerations resulting in the ’special relationship‘. However, it is not a comprehensive treatment, because it’s not the point of the article and I have discussed it in detail elsewhere.

Rather than acknowledge the obvious, that this piece is not a comprehensive, self-contained discussion of all of my views on political economy, society, and everything else – since that would require him to read even more before making such sweeping statements and he apparently hasn’t even finished the article under discussion yet – Greaves continues to make strange blanket pronouncements about my views. One might expect someone with so much time to dedicate to the project of trolling me to take the time to look for and provide supporting examples. In all of these lengthy comments, not one bit of supporting evidence has been offered.

And yet Greaves continues, demanding an author he’s never read defend positions she’s never espoused.

I am beginning to think that the whole reason for these long, repetitive, straw man comments (what’s the point of demanding I defend a position after I’ve made it clear it isn’t my position?) isn’t so much to engage in discussion on the issues as to dominate the discussion and get in the way of any serious discussion that might ensue between people who are actually interested in having one.

#221 Guilt by Dis-association: The Landscape of Amerikan* Exceptionalism in the Guise of Palestine Solidarity | Emma Rosenthal on 07.23.15 at 16:59

[…] assert that all and any critiques of Israel and zionism are antisemitic, then nothing is. It uses the Palestinian struggle and other popular concerns to normalize and advance a U.S. imperial…  It is not only anti Jewish,  it is anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Native American, anti-Asian, […]

#222 Guilt by Disassociation: The Landscape of Amerikan* Exceptionalism in the Guise of Palestine Solidarity | ¡Cafe Intifada! -Uniting Art With Critical Consciousness on 07.23.15 at 17:01

[…] assert that all and any critiques of Israel and zionism are antisemitic, then nothing is. It uses the Palestinian struggle and other popular concerns to normalize and advance a U.S. imperial…  It is not only anti Jewish,  it is anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Native American, anti-Asian, […]

#223 elisehendrick on 07.23.15 at 17:25

I just noticed that I incorrectly provided Greaves‘ Twitter handle. It is actually @PhilGreaves01, not @PhilGreaves as I had originally stated. Those who wish to see the interaction that preceded Greaves‘ comments on this blog, and assess the veracity of his claims, e.g., about never having accused me of denying that there is such a thing as conscious political agency, are invited to check that out.

#224 kfreed on 07.23.15 at 19:20

Chip Berlet writes the foreword to this neo-nazi/white supremacist study; 1980’s; publsihed by Toronto University Press: I suggest you read this book (it virtually predicts America’s ‚Tea Party‘ crossing borders): https://books.google.com/books/about/Is_God_a_Racist.html?id=Zy0kAQAAIAAJ

Ron Paul and Pegida neo-fascist movement in Europe, Canada, U.S.: Look into it:

Dialog International – German-American: „Ron Paul and the Neo-Fascists“
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/12/ron-paul-and-the-neo-fascists.html

Ron Paul meets with European fascists:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/8/23/144536/636

There’s more. I suggest you begin looking into it.

P.S. Chip Berlet has been on the correct side of these issues for decades. you’d do well to listen, rather than dismiss him.

He writes for Poltical Research Associates: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/02/23/the-right-hand-of-occupy-wall-street-from-libertarians-to-nazis-the-fact-and-fiction-of-right-wing-involvement/#sthash.mTIbok7C.dpbs

„John Foster „Chip“ Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist,[1] research analyst,[2][3] photojournalist, scholar, and activist specializing in the study of extreme right-wing movements in the United States.[3][4] He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories.[5] Since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Berlet has often appeared in the media to discuss extremist news stories.[3] He was a senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks,[6]

Berlet, a paralegal, was a vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild. He has served on the advisory board of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, and currently sits on the advisory board of the Defending Dissent Foundation.“

You’re welcome.

#225 kfreed on 07.23.15 at 19:52

You’re about to be swamped with Ron Paul’s fascist followers. Duck and cover.

#226 elisehendrick on 07.23.15 at 23:40

‚P.S. Chip Berlet has been on the correct side of these issues for decades. you’d do well to listen, rather than dismiss him.‘

First of all, Berlet has only partially been on the correct side of these issues. When it comes to the racism and antisemitism of Zionist ideology, he refuses to apply his analysis of right entryism. Indeed, he is a defender of an excellent example of right entryism/Querfront by the name of David Hirsh, a propagandist with openly acknowledged ties to the Israeli Foreign Ministry who claims to be making a ‚left‘ case for Zionism and against the Palestinian-led BDS campaign, despite not having any background on the left or current ties to left organisations.

Indeed, Berlet’s defence of Zionism goes to the extreme of arguing – in a published interview with Hirsh – that there is something fundamentally illegitimate about even talking about Zionist ideology. I am amongst those he has libelled for even raising these issues.

Interestingly, Berlet has seen fit to share this article, but not with the original subtitle. He replaces my actual subtitle – How ‚America’s Best Political Newsletter‘ Mainstreams the Far Right – with a line from the article itself ‚Are Leftists unwittingly helping to promote the agenda of the far right? ‚, which he has so utterly ripped out of context as to change the entire meaning.

As anyone who has read the article knows, the leftists I’m referring to as unwittingly promoting the far-right agenda are not the CounterPunch editors, as this modified subtitle may suggest, but the leftist authors who publish there, possibly quite unaware of the sheer volume of racist and fascist material CP publishes. Not only that, but it makes it seem as if I am suggesting that CP are doing this ‚unwittingly‘, when I make it quite clear that there is reason to believe that they’re doing it quite knowingly and out of a publicly expressed ideological conviction in favour of a latter-day Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact.

Nor, incidentally, is it really accurate to say that I ‚dismiss‘ Berlet. In fact, I quote him at great length, describing ‚Right Woos Left‘ as ‚ his work remains worth citing as one of the best analyses of the Querfront phenomenon and its consequences, particularly in the US‘ despite the dodginess of Berlet’s own politics and his refusal to apply his analysis consistently.

#227 elisehendrick on 07.24.15 at 01:47

An excellent piece by Emma Rosenthal on a related subject (white supremacism, Palestinian solidarity, and Alison weir)

https://emmarosenthal.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/guilt-by-disassociation-the-landscape-of-amerikan-exceptionalism-in-the-guise-of-palestine-solidarity/

#228 elisehendrick on 07.24.15 at 15:39

Phil Greaves has thus far flooded this thread with comments that either outright misrepresent the content of the article under discussion, dishonestly treat it as a comprehensive expression of my views on things the article mentions peripherally, and showcasing his own impressive sense of entitlement by either demanding that I defend views I’ve never actually espoused and actually disagree with, or demanding a full accounting of my views on a wide variety of other subjects (a curiosity that does not manifest itself in actually looking at my other writings to see what I’ve said about them).

This is a continuation of his behaviour on Twitter, where, a propos of nothing, he demanded that I recite the 9/11 Truther catechism, and when I refused to play that irrelevant game, immediately declared that I obviously must agree in all respects with the official U.S. government account of the 9/11 attacks.

I had hoped that, free of the constraints of the Twitter 140 character limit, Greaves would show some willingness to engage my actual views, allowing for a proper discussion. He has shown absolutely no interest in such a discussion. Instead, he has flooded this thread with repetitive and dishonest claims, for which he provides no actual evidence, and continues to reiterate his assertions about my views even in the face of my stating that I do not hold the views he has repeatedly attributed to me.

It seems that Greaves is not interested in discussing the subject at hand (i.e., CounterPunch), but rather in derailing this comment thread by incessant and repetitive hammering. This is abusive and dishonest behaviour, and, whilst I have wanted to give Greaves the benefit of the doubt, my patience is not infinite.

This discussion has a specific topic. I would hope that Greaves will, going forward, address himself to that topic. If he is genuinely interested in my views on other subjects, it just so happens that he has found my blog, and no one is stopping him reading the other articles here if his curiosity outweighs his laziness and entitlement.

#229 Justin Raimondo on 07.25.15 at 17:03

Why the scare quote around the word libertarian, Elise? Is this a Stalinists‘ way of deriding the very existence of such a creature?

I have to say the world has never such a laborious, tortured example of name-calling and political fantasy since the Moscow Trials. All those computer searches, all that compiling, in pursuit of a foregone conclusion! One has to give you credit for your Stakhanovite persistence.

The idea that Ron Paul is a „white supremacist“ – an assertion repeated endlessly without offering an iota of evidence – is absurd, as anyone who has heard him speak or read his many books and articles is aware. He „posed for a photograph“ with two neo-Nazis? _That_’s your „evidence“? In that year, when he was running for President, Paul probably posed for thousands of photos with thousands of people. Was he supposed to do a background check on them all? And where is the „evidence“ of his „links“ to the American 3rd Position, whatever that may be? You don’t even bother with evidence: you simply assert it.

This whole amalgam you create is typical of the Stalinist methodology, and represents the endpoint of a crazed sectarianism that concludes by labeling Counterpunch a „rightwing“ and even „white supremacist“ publication. Get help, Elise, because you sure need it.

#230 elisehendrick on 07.25.15 at 18:30

I put ‚libertarian‘ in inverted commas because the likes of Raimondo have appropriated a term that has traditionally referred to anti-authoritarian communism (and outside of English-speaking countries, still does) in order to refer to a highly authoritarian ideology that promotes the unchallenged rule of the capitalist class. Murray Rothbard boasted of this appropriation of the term, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who advocate libertarianism in its traditional sense have to go along with it.

In short, I put inverted commas around ‚libertarian(ism)‘ because I do not accept the authoritarian right’s appropriation of the term.

As for the white supremacism of Ron Paul, I’ve discussed this in detail elsewhere (http://meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org/post/2011/05/19/189/). The evidence is not seriously in dispute, and I find it telling that my pointing out the racism of Ron Paul is Raimondo’s main objection to this piece.

It is, however, ironic that Raimondo should accuse me of being a Stalinist for opposing a modern-day Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact. Stalin was, of course, so receptive of such overtures that the Soviet Union was caught completely unprepared when Germany ultimately reneged on their end of the deal.

#231 Pete Glosser on 07.26.15 at 08:12

[Note: Since this comment is just a collection of incoherent verbal abuse, displays no evidence of having read the piece under discussion, and misrepresents not only my article but Louis Proyect and CounterPunch, I really can’t be arsed debunking every bit of it separately, so my responses are in boldface here. – ÉRH]

This is a farrago of deliberate lies and stupid mistakes. Since there is no clear agenda, one can only attribute it to mental illness.

[Ableism aside, do be sure to count the number of actual, substantiated articles Glosser provides to back up this claim – ÉRH]

The writer–as evidenced by her sprinkling her English prose with bits of German (always a dead giveaway for anyone writing in English)–believes herself to be a genius when in fact she has not done her homework and does not know the material she is discussing [Or that she’s discussing a phenomenon that is heavily discussed in German and for which she’s accordingly more familiar with the German terminology. We’re incidentally talking about exactly one word here: Querfront. I didn’t sprinkle the collected works of Tucholsky all over the place – ÉRH].

She clearly has not read the work of the writers (no angels to be sure) upon whom she pisses so self-righteously.

[With that in mind, do be sure to check the number of misquotes and inaccurate citations Glosser demonstrates – ÉRH]

Both Paul Craig Roberts and Mike Whitney, to be sure, are weak and disingenuous writers. Whitney is a paid shill of the fascist Putin government of Russia, beloved of pseudoleftists everywhere, but is published because of his unflagging critique of Zionism. Roberts, no doubt because of his Republican background, which he has repudiated, is the sort of American „intellectual“ who doesn’t know the difference between the fall of the Roman Republic and the fall of the Roman Empire. But Roberts is published because he is a former Reagan economist who now influentially attacks neoliberal economics

[As evidenced by his repeated defences of Reagan’s neoliberal economic policies, in which he was complicit, on the pages of CounterPunch. This, and other aspects of his ‚repudiated‘ Republican background, are described in detail with links and quotes, in the article. This one. The one Glosser claims to have read. – ÉRH].

Louis Proyect, on the other hand, while he is certainly no teddy bear, is a brilliant man and a genuinely scholarly Marxist whose pieces on Counterpunch are generally among the best published there. [For what that’s worth – ÉRH] He is one of the few authentic leftists today who clearly sees the folly of heroizing the likes of Qaddafi, Assad, and Putin, and has little in common with e.g. Mike Whitney, who, as I have said, is a whore. One must make accurate distinctions [Indeed. One must distinguish, for example, between Alison Weir, Gilad Atzmon, and Israel Shamir, who actively spread racist lies on CounterPunch, and Proyect, who merely defends them in an impressively disingenuous and vitriolic fashion. – ÉRH].

Counterpunch has a variety of perspectives, all of them meaningful on the contemporary left, and some of them (like much of the left at any time in history) pseudoleftist and poisonous [And some of them from the far right, including fascists like Israel Shamir. No shit it’s got a variety of perspectives. The point of the article was to look at what those perspectives are – ÉRH]. Alison Weir may (or may not) have some sort of right-left scheme in mind–but nobody is more opposed to this kind of thinking than Proyect [who called anyone who criticises this kind of thinking sectarian and ideologically purist in his attempt at a defence of CounterPunch – ÉRH], even though he defends Weir against charges of antisemitism.

Counterpunch has a variety of perspectives, all of them meaningful on the contemporary left, and some of them (like much of the left at any time in history) pseudoleftist and poisonous.

This writer, steeped as she is in petty-bourgeois narcissistic exhibitionism [We’re nearing the end of this name-calling extravaganza. How many instances in which Glosser provides evidence to back up his accusations of ‚lies‘ and ’stupid mistakes‘ have you counted? – ÉRH], clearly lacks the intellectual equipment to contribute anything to the salvage of the left, which is in a desperate condition that she does nothing to resolve. Counterpunch, at least, is trying [This I must agree with. Having read hundreds of CounterPunch articles in my research for this piece, I can confirm that CounterPunch is very trying indeed – ÉRH].

#232 Roundtable on the Palestinian solidarity movement and Alison Weir – Mondoweiss on 08.12.15 at 12:28

[…] example, her 2009 article in CounterPunch (a questionable publication in its own right), “Israeli Organ Harvesting,” which was cited by the US Campaign, focuses on a […]

#233 Will US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation Respond? - The Arab Daily News on 09.03.15 at 08:49

[…] Elise Hendrick, “Counterpunch or Suckerpunch”, July 19, […]

#234 Chile 2015: Mass Struggle in a Media Bubble | on 09.27.15 at 21:28

[…] departure from office, was returned to power by just over 20 % of the electorate in an election boycotted by over 50 % of eligible voters, one even occasionally reads that Chile has a […]

#235 kfreed on 10.04.15 at 13:10

Elise, not everyone will see eye-to-eye with you on every single issue. I’m not your enemy. Berlet is not your enemy. He obviously values your work enough to further it, so take it as a compliment.

What I’m asking you to do is to look into Political Research Associates. If you want to make a case against a ‚Libertarian‘- progressive alliance (as do I for the same reasons as you), see PRA for source material.

Start here: „Behind the recent surge of nullification bills in state legislatures there is an ongoing battle for the soul of the GOP—and the future of the union itself. The nullification movement’s ideology is rooted in reverence for states’ rights and a theocratic and neo-Confederate interpretation of U.S. history. And Ron Paul, who is often portrayed as a libertarian, is the engine behind the movement.“

See more at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2013/11/22/nullification-neo-confederates-and-the-revenge-of-the-old-right/#sthash.8VcVuXhP.dpuf

The Ron Paul archives: http://www.politicalresearch.org/?s=ron+paul&submit.x=0&submit.y=0#sthash.dikXoR6I.dpbs

Why does it always have to be this difficult for leftists to engage in simple dialog without a constant battle????

Grüße aus München!

[I think you’re missing some crucial background here. First of all, you’ll note that, in my piece, I do rely on Berlet’s work in my analysis of the phenomenon of conspiracism and the ease with which fascist groups have infiltrated left circles. However, that does not change the fact that he has allied himself with no less dodgy a figure than David Hirsh of the UK-based Zionist propaganda organisation ‚Engage‘, which is entirely dedicated to smearing anti-racists as antisemitic, thus equating Jewish culture with racism. Hirsh himself has openly acknowledged that he works together with the Zionist regime in his smear campaigns. The fact that Berlet outright refuses to include Zionist groups – with their advocacy of racism, their antisemitism, their long list of alliances with fascist and (neo-)Nazi groups, and their support for a brutal hard-right regime – in his analysis is one of its greatest defects, and is why I am forced to qualify my reliance on his work.

As for the notion that this is an example of how everything has to be a ‚battle‘, what you’re missing here is that the only reason that there is hostility is that Berlet himself went out of his way to create it by repeatedly deleting threads, blocking me, and then smearing me for merely bringing up the racism inherent in Zionism and the work of David Hirsh in a thread (which he deleted, but not before I could get screenshots) in which those matters were of central importance.

Similarly, when he shared my CounterPunch piece, he made changes to the subtitle that utterly misrepresented the argument I was making in order to make it appear more serviceable to his own ends.

If Berlet were willing to take the same critical eye to Zionism that he rightly takes to the various neo-fascist groups his ‚Right Woos Left‘ examines, and if he were willing to take responsibility for his indefensible behaviour towards myself and other comrades whom he smeared for raising the same issues that I raised, the issues with his work and his behaviour would be resolved.]

#236 Paul o brian on 12.05.15 at 04:21

Finally a voice of reason I have been lopping bricks into these „playgrounds “ for many years now as I pass by but the little swine are quick and hard to hit so I’ve started taking pot shots with an air rifle when I drive past but I thought I was just a voice in the wilderness .thank you Hilary don’t listen to these people who say you have taken a dump on your fathers legacy and good luck in the democratic primaries

#237 The Labour Antisemitism Row: On the Unholy Symbiosis of Zionism and Antisemitism on 05.16.16 at 14:05

[…] Indeed, as I wrote in August 2014 in Helpful Hints for Zionists: How to Advocate for Israel without Being Antisemitic: […]

#238 On Keith Ellison | City of Joyful Dread on 12.07.16 at 08:12

[…] from anti-Zionists.  Élise Hendrick provides an excellent overview of who’s who in her 2015 takedown of Counterpunch.  Clearly, obsession with the Lobby (what Hendrick refers to as “Lobby fetishism”) is less […]

#239 Sanders’ Leftists Embrace Trump and white supremacists: A love-affair made in hell | crazy USA presidential elections on 12.11.16 at 18:15

[…] non-white working class and women whose interests they claim to advocate. When they join Trump and establish links with the white supremacists (publishing right-wingers’ opinions), they show it is easier for them to connect with the […]

#240 Anti-feminism: the place where Infowars and Counter Punch go to shake hands | crazy USA presidential elections: Trump is NOT the People's president on 02.05.17 at 23:26

[…] I define them as the white supremacists and ‘third-way’ conservatives, whether members of the GOP or not; people of the like of Bannon, Paul Craig Roberts, Glen Beck.  Third-way and paleoconservatives are mostly the same people. What follows is a useful description of this third-way ‘movement‘: […]

#241 Impeach The U.S. Constitution | PopularResistance.Org on 06.12.17 at 10:49

[…] We must not, however, think of a new constitution as a magic democratic bullet. As the Wales-based left-feminist commentator and critic Élise Hendrick recently wrote me: […]