Wikileaks, the United States, Sweden, and Devil’s Island

December 16 … I’m standing in the snow in front of the White House … Standing with Veterans for Peace … I’m only a veteran of standing in front of the White House; the first time was February 1965, handing out flyers against the war in Vietnam. I was working for the State Department at the time and my biggest fear was that someone from that noble institution would pass by and recognize me.

Five years later I was still protesting Vietnam, although long gone from the State Department. Then came Cambodia. And Laos. Soon, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Then Panama was the new great threat to America, to freedom and democracy and all things holy and decent, so it had to be bombed without mercy. Followed by the first war against the people of Iraq, and the 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia. Then the land of Afghanistan had rained down upon it depleted uranium, napalm, phosphorous bombs, and other witches’ brews and weapons of the chemical dust; then Iraq again. And I’ve skipped a few. I think I hold the record for most times picketing the White House by a right-handed batter.

And through it all, the good, hard-working, righteous people of America have believed mightily that their country always means well; some even believe to this day that we never started a war, certainly nothing deserving of the appellation “war of aggression”.

On that same snowy day last month Julian Assange of Wikileaks was freed from prison in London and told reporters that he was more concerned that the United States might try to extradite him than he was about being extradited to Sweden, where he presumably faces “sexual” charges.1

That’s a fear many political and drug prisoners in various countries have expressed in recent years. The United States is the new Devil’s Island of the Western world. From the mid-19th century to the mid-20th, political prisoners were shipped to that god-forsaken strip of French land off the eastern coast of South America. One of the current residents of the new Devil’s Island is Bradley Manning, the former US intelligence analyst suspected of leaking diplomatic cables to Wikileaks. Manning has been imprisoned for seven months, first in Kuwait, then at a military base in Virginia, and faces virtual life in prison if found guilty, of something. Without being tried or convicted of anything, he is allowed only very minimal contact with the outside world; or with people, daylight, or news; among the things he is denied are a pillow, sheets, and exercise; his sleep is restricted and frequently interrupted. See Glenn Greenwald’s discussion of how Manning’s treatment constitutes torture. 2

A friend of the young soldier says that many people are reluctant to talk about Manning’s deteriorating physical and mental condition because of government harassment, including surveillance, seizure of their computer without a warrant, and even attempted bribes. “This has had such an intimidating effect that many are afraid to speak out on his behalf.” 3 A developer of the transparency software used by Wikileaks was detained for several hours last summer by federal agents at a Newark, New Jersey airport, where he was questioned about his connection to Wikileaks and Assange as well as his opinions about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 4

This is but a tiny incident from the near-century buildup of the American police state, from the Red Scare of the 1920s to the McCarthyism of the 1950s to the crackdown against Central American protesters in the 1980s … elevated by the War on Drugs … now multiplied by the War on Terror. It’s not the worst police state in history; not even the worst police state in the world today; but nonetheless a police state, and certainly the most pervasive police state ever — a Washington Post study has just revealed that there are 4,058 separate federal, state and local “counterterrorism” organizations spread across the United States, each with its own responsibilities and jurisdictions. 5 The police of America, of many types, generally get what and who they want. If the United States gets its hands on Julian Assange, under any legal pretext, fear for him; it might be the end of his life as a free person; the actual facts of what he’s done or the actual wording of US laws will not matter; hell hath no fury like an empire scorned.

John Burns, chief foreign correspondent for the New York Times, after interviewing Assange, stated: “He is profoundly of the conviction that the United States is a force for evil in the world, that it’s destructive of democracy.” 6 Can anyone who believes that be entitled to a full measure of human rights on Devil’s Island?

The Wikileaks documents may not produce any world-changing revelations, but every day they are adding to the steady, gradual erosion of people’s belief in the US government’s good intentions, which is necessary to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination. Many more individuals over the years would have been standing in front of the White House if they had had access to the plethora of information that floods people today; which is not to say that we would have succeeded in stopping any of the wars; that’s a question of to what extent the United States is a democracy.

One further consequence of the release of the documents may be to put an end to the widespread belief that Sweden, or the Swedish government, is peaceful, progressive, neutral and independent. Stockholm’s behavior in this matter and others has been as American-poodle-like as London’s, as it lined itself up with an Assange-accuser who has been associated with right-wing anti-Castro Cubans, who are, of course, US-government-supported. This is the same Sweden that for some time in recent years was working with the CIA on its torture-rendition flights and has about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Sweden is the world’s largest per capita arms exporter, and for years has taken part in US/NATO military exercises, some within its own territory. The left should get themselves a new hero-nation. Try Cuba.

There’s also the old stereotype held by Americans of Scandinavians practicing a sophisticated and tolerant attitude toward sex, an image that was initiated, or enhanced, by the celebrated 1967 Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow), which had been banned for awhile in the United States. And now what do we have? Sweden sending Interpol on an international hunt for a man who apparently upset two women, perhaps for no more than sleeping with them both in the same week.

And while they’re at it, American progressives should also lose their quaint belief that the BBC is somehow a liberal broadcaster. Americans are such suckers for British accents. The BBC’s Today presenter, John Humphrys, asked Assange: “Are you a sexual predator?” Assange said the suggestion was “ridiculous”, adding: “Of course not”. Humphrys then asked Assange how many woman he had slept with. 7 Would even Fox News have descended to that level? I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He would then have known precisely how to reply to such a question: “You mean including your mother?”

Another group of people who should learn a lesson from all this are the knee-reflex conspiracists. Several of them have already written me snide letters informing me of my naiveté in not realizing that Israel is actually behind the release of the Wikileaks documents; which is why, they inform me, that nothing about Israel is mentioned. I had to inform them that I had already seen a few documents putting Israel in a bad light. I’ve since seen others, and Assange, in an interview with Al Jazeera on December 23, stated that only a meager number of files related to Israel had been published so far because the publications in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish much sensitive information about Israel. (Imagine the flak Germany’s Der Spiegel would get hit with.) “There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel,” said Assange. “In the next six months we intend to publish more files.” 8

Naturally, several other individuals have informed me that it’s the CIA that is actually behind the document release.

The right to secrecy

Many of us are pretty tired of supporters of Israel labeling as “anti-Semitic” most any criticism of Israeli policies, which is virtually never an appropriate accusation. Consider the Webster Dictionary definition: “Anti-Semite. One who discriminates against or is hostile to or prejudiced against Jews.” Notice that the state of Israel is not mentioned, or in any way implied.

Here’s what real anti-Semitism looks like. Listen to former president Richard Nixon: “The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality. … most of our Jewish friends … they are all basically people who have a sense of inferiority and have got to compensate.” This is from a tape of a conversation at the White House, February 13, 1973, recently released. 9 These tapes, and there are a large number of them, are the Wikileaks of an earlier age.

Yet, as the prominent conservative Michael Medved pointed out after the release of Nixon’s remarks: “Ironically, though, no American did more to rescue the Jewish people when it counted most: after the 1973 Egyptian-Syrian surprise attack destroyed a third of Israel’s air force and killed the American equivalent of 200,000 Israelis, Nixon overruled his own Pentagon and ordered immediate re-supply. To this day, Israelis feel gratitude for this decisiveness that enabled the Jewish state to turn the tide of war.” 10 So was Richard Nixon anti-Semitic? And should his remarks be kept secret?

In another of his recent interviews, Julian Assange was asked whether he thought that “a state has a right to have any secrets at all.” He conceded that there are circumstances when institutions have such a need, “but that is not to say that all others must obey that need. The media has an obligation to the public to get out information that the public needs to know.” 11

I would add that the American people — more than any other people — have a need to know what their government is up to around the world because their government engages in aggressive actions more than any other government, continuously bombing and sending young men and women to kill and die. Americans need to know what their psychopathic leaders are really saying to each other and to foreign leaders about all this shedding of blood. Any piece of such information might be used as a weapon to prevent yet another Washington War. Michael Moore has recently written:

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a Wikileaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

And, dear comrades, let us not forget: Our glorious leaders spy on us all the time; no communication of ours, from phone call to email, is secret from them; nothing in our bank accounts or our bedrooms is guaranteed any kind of privacy if they wish to know about it. Recently, the FBI raided the midwest homes of a number of persons active in solidarity work with Palestinians, Colombians, and others. The agents spent many hours going through each shelf and drawer, carting away dozens of boxes of personal belongings. So what kind of privacy and secrecy should the State Department be entitled to?

Preparing for the propaganda onslaught

February 6 will mark the centenary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, president of the United States from 1981 to 1989. The conservatives have wasted no time in starting the show. On New Years Day a 55-foot long, 26-foot high float honoring Reagan was part of the annual Rose Parade in Pasadena, California. To help you cope with, hopefully even counter, the misinformation and the omissions that are going to swamp the media for the next few months, here is some basic information about the great man’s splendid achievements, first in foreign policy:

Nicaragua

For eight terribly long years the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Ronald Reagan’s proxy army, the Contras. It was all-out war from Washington, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the Sandinista government — burning down schools and medical clinics, mining harbors, bombing and strafing, raping and torturing. These Contras were the charming gentlemen Reagan called “freedom fighters” and the “moral equivalent of our founding fathers”.

El Salvador

Salvador’s dissidents tried to work within the system. But with US support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protestors and strikers. When the dissidents took to the gun and civil war, the Carter administration and then even more so, the Reagan administration, responded with unlimited money, military aid, and training in support of the government and its death squads and torture, the latter with the help of CIA torture manuals.

US military and CIA personnel played an active role on a continuous basis. The result was 75,000 civilian deaths; meaningful social change thwarted; a handful of the wealthy still owned the country; the poor remained as ever; dissidents still had to fear right-wing death squads; there was to be no profound social change in El Salvador while Ronnie sat in the White House with Nancy.

Guatemala

In 1954, a CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims — indisputably one of the most inhumane chapters of the 20th century. For eight of those years the Reagan administration played a major role.

Perhaps the worst of the military dictators was General Efraín Ríos Montt, who carried out a near-holocaust against the indians and peasants, for which he was widely condemned in the world. In December 1982, Reagan went to visit the Guatemalan dictator. At a press conference of the two men, Ríos Montt was asked about the Guatemalan policy of scorched earth. He replied “We do not have a policy of scorched earth. We have a policy of scorched communists.” After the meeting, referring to the allegations of extensive human-rights abuses, Reagan declared that Ríos Montt was getting “a bad deal” from the media.

Grenada

Reagan invaded this tiny country in October 1983, an invasion totally illegal and immoral, and surrounded by lies (such as “endangered” American medical students). The invasion put into power individuals more beholden to US foreign policy objectives.

Afghanistan

After the Carter administration provoked a Soviet invasion, Reagan came to power to support the Islamic fundamentalists in their war to eject the Soviets and the secular government, which honored women’s rights. In the end, the United States and the fundamentalists “won”, women’s rights and the rest of Afghanistan lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees; in total about half the population. And many thousands of anti-American Islamic fundamentalists, trained and armed by the US, on the loose to terrorize the world, to this day.”To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom,” declared Reagan. “Their courage teaches us a great lesson — that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.” 12

The Cold War

As to Reagan’s alleged role in ending the Cold War … pure fiction. He prolonged it. Read the story in one of my books. 13

Some other examples of the remarkable amorality of Ronald Wilson Reagan and the feel-good heartlessness of his administration:

Reagan, in his famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing”, which lifted him to national political status: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”

“Undermining health, safety and environmental regulation. Reagan decreed such rules must be subjected to regulatory impact analysis — corporate-biased cost-benefit analyses, carried out by the Office of Management and Budget. The result: countless positive regulations discarded or revised based on pseudo-scientific conclusions that the cost to corporations would be greater than the public benefit.”

“Kick-starting the era of structural adjustment. It was under Reagan administration influence that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank began widely imposing the policy package known as structural adjustment — featuring deregulation, privatization, emphasis on exports, cuts in social spending — that has plunged country after country in the developing world into economic destitution. The IMF chief at the time was honest about what was to come, saying in 1981 that, for low-income countries, ‘adjustment is particularly costly in human terms’.”

“Silence on the AIDS epidemic. Reagan didn’t mention AIDS publicly until 1987, by which point AIDS had killed 19,000 in the United States.”

– Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman14

“Reagan’s election changed the political reality. His agenda was rolling back the welfare state, and his budgets included a wide range of cuts for social programs. He was also very strategic about the process. One of his first targets was Legal Aid. This program, which provides legal services for low-income people, was staffed largely by progressive lawyers, many of whom used it as a base to win precedent-setting legal disputes against the government. Reagan drastically cut back the program’s funding. He also explicitly prohibited the agency from taking on class-action suits against the government — law suits that had been used with considerable success to expand the rights of low- and moderate-income families.”

“The Reagan administration also made weakening the power of unions a top priority. The people he appointed to the National Labor Relations Board were qualitatively more pro-management than appointees by prior Democratic or Republican presidents. This allowed companies to ignore workers’ rights with impunity. Reagan also made the firing of strikers an acceptable business practice when he fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Many large corporations quickly embraced the practice. … The net effect of these policies was that union membership plummeted, going from nearly 20 percent of the private sector workforce in 1980 to just over 7 percent in 2006. ”

– Dean Baker15

Reaganomics: a tax policy based on a notion of incentives which says that “the rich aren’t working because they have too little money, while the poor aren’t working because they have too much.”

– John Kenneth Galbraith

“According to the nostrums of Reagan Age America, the current Chinese system — in equal measure capitalist and authoritarian — cannot actually exist. Capitalism spread democracy, we were told ad nauseam by a steady stream of conservative hacks, free-trade apologists, government officials and American companies doing business in China. Given enough Starbuckses and McDonald’s, provided with sufficient consumer choice, China would surely become a democracy.”

– Harold Meyerson 16

Throughout the early and mid-1980s, the Reagan administration declared that the Russians were spraying toxic chemicals over Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan — the so-called “yellow rain” — and had caused more than ten thousand deaths by 1982 alone, (including, in Afghanistan, 3,042 deaths attributed to 47 separate incidents between the summer of 1979 and the summer of 1981, so precise was the information). President Reagan himself denounced the Soviet Union thusly more than 15 times in documents and speeches. The “yellow rain”, it turned out, was pollen-laden feces dropped by huge swarms of honeybees flying far overhead.17

Reagan’s long-drawn-out statements re:  Contragate (the scandal involving the covert sale of weapons to Iran to enable Reaganites to continue financing the Contras in the war against the Nicaraguan government after the US Congress cut off funding for the Contras) can be summarized as follows:

  • I didn’t know what was happening.
  • If I did know, I didn’t know enough.
  • If I knew enough, I didn’t know it in time.
  • If I knew it in time, it wasn’t illegal.
  • If it was illegal, the law didn’t apply to me.
  • If the law applied to me, I didn’t know what was happening.
  1. Sunday Telegraph (Australia), December 19, 2010 []
  2. December 15, 2010, “The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention“. See also his attorney’s account of Manning’s typical day; and Washington Post, December 16, 2010 []
  3. The Guardian (London), December 17, 2010 []
  4. New York Times, December 19, 2010 []
  5. Washington Post, December 20, 2010 []
  6. Diane Rehm show, National Public Radio, Dec. 9, 2010 []
  7. The Guardian (London), December 21, 2010 []
  8. Information Clearing House, December 23 2010, WikiLeaks to Release Israel Documents in Six Months []
  9. Washington Post, December 12, 2010 []
  10. From Medved’s radio show, December 14, 2010; Nixon: The Anti-Semitic Savior of Israel []
  11. Al Jazeera, December 22 2010, Frost Over the World: Julian Assange interview []
  12. March 21, 1983, in the White House []
  13. Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, p.17-18. Also for the five countries listed above, see the respective chapters in this book []
  14. June, 2004; Mokhiber is editor of Corporate Crime Reporter; Weissman, editor of the Multinational Monitor, both in Washington, D.C. []
  15. April, 2007; Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC []
  16. Washington Post columnist, June 3, 2009 []
  17. Killing Hope, p.349 []

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. He can be reached at: bblum6@aol.com. Read other articles by William, or visit William's website.

150 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. MichaelKenny said on January 3rd, 2011 at 8:34am #

    Mr Blum’s comments about Sweden and the BBC are both sad and amusing. Sad because they reflect the 1950s mentality that is his stock in trade. Amusing because he says nothing new. What he is doing is “cashing in” on what others have written. Naturally, the Swedish government is part of some sinister plot and naturally, the BBC has no right to ask questions the British way but must conform to American standards. As he says, read his books! According to him, everything is controlled by the US government. I suppose with the aid of some sort of zombie laser that prevents us from seeing what is happening in our own countries! As regards Europe, at least, that is utter nonsense.

  2. bozh said on January 3rd, 2011 at 10:40am #

    78 days of bombing of serbia and not yugoslavia! tnx

  3. bozh said on January 3rd, 2011 at 10:53am #

    recall, please, that u.s. cld be deemed a region ruled by some families
    it cannot be deemed a nation either; looking at it as a region with 1k ethnicities, offers us a better picture of ‘america’.

    and from top dwn, value of ethnicities go dwn all the way to the bottom of the pit.
    who’s on top and who is on the bottom?
    however, all of them seem represented by rich uncles! so, everything is right after all! tnx

  4. bozh said on January 3rd, 2011 at 11:12am #

    blum:
    “Many more individuals over the years would have been standing in front of the White House if they had had access to the plethora of information that floods people today; which is not to say that we would have succeeded in stopping any of the wars; that’s a question of to what extent the United States is a democracy.”

    yes, my point also; i.e., protest cannot prevent or stop a war; unless 100mn people marched?
    and the region we call u.s. is not governed by timocrats or pantisocrats; this, then, for me, occludes the question : to what degree u.s. is a democracy!
    how near is it to a perfect fascist governance, appears more pertinent question to ask? tnx

  5. lichen said on January 3rd, 2011 at 3:51pm #

    Great article. Blum is spot on about wikileaks and the stupidity of conspiracy. Sweden is indeed revealed in a much less flattering way than I once thought of them. The Michael Moore quote is inaccurate, though; more than 1 million people died as a result of the Iraq war.

  6. catguy00 said on January 3rd, 2011 at 5:10pm #

    “The Wikileaks documents may not produce any world-changing revelations, but every day they are adding to the steady, gradual erosion of people’s belief in the US government’s good intentions”

    Great article by Blum.

  7. hayate said on January 3rd, 2011 at 11:39pm #

    “Another group of people who should learn a lesson from all this are the knee-reflex conspiracists. Several of them have already written me snide letters informing me of my naiveté in not realizing that Israel is actually behind the release of the Wikileaks documents; which is why, they inform me, that nothing about Israel is mentioned. I had to inform them that I had already seen a few documents putting Israel in a bad light. I’ve since seen others, and Assange, in an interview with Al Jazeera on December 23, stated that only a meager number of files related to Israel had been published so far because the publications in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish much sensitive information about Israel. (Imagine the flak Germany’s Der Spiegel would get hit with.)”

    Just couldn’t quite bring yourself to mention the media orgs in question are devoutly zionist and it was their zionist loyalties that prevented them publishing israeli damning material, could you, Blum. But then, that would undermine your position about zionist influence in the west, wouldn’t it. it’s great to see america’s crimes exposed in your columns, but your protection of the ziofascists undermines the utility of your work. Even if america’s criminality were to be contained, the zionists would simply use Europe to their ends and we we all still be in the same place. Knocking out american fascism without addressing the now more powerful ziofascists is like removing one cancerous tumor from a patient who has several.

    And irregardless, if one does not take down the zionists first, the zionists will never let you get any where near eradicating fascism in the usa. Look how successful the left has been at destroying american fascism. One can thank zionism, inc. for that.

  8. hayate said on January 4th, 2011 at 1:14am #

    Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan
    by Amanda Kloer December 08, 2010

    (excerpts)

    “DynCorp is a government contractor which has been providing training for Afghan security and police forces for several years. Though the company is about as transparent as a lead-coated rock, most reports claim over 95% of their budget comes from U.S. taxpayers. That’s the same budget that DynCorp used to pay for a party in Kunduz Province for some Afghan police trainees. The entertainment for the evening was bacha bazi boys, whose pimps were paid so the boys would sing and dance for the recruits and then be raped by them afterward. That’s your tax dollars at work — fighting terrorism and extremism in Afghnistan by trafficking little boys for sex with cops-in-training….”

    [http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan]

    The Young Turks (yes, that’s right, shabnam, your dreaded enemy – they also criticised the ziosacred homeland about the Gaza convoy war crimes) did an excellent commentary about these crimes, and the u.s. media cover-up of them, which is where I found the link to the article above.

    US Tax $ Funds Pedophilia – WikiLeaks

    [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6VjmRgywU4]

    As Cenk Uygur says towards the end of the commentary, this is an important story, WTF wasn’t the u.s. media all over it?

  9. Mulga Mumblebrain said on January 4th, 2011 at 4:19am #

    Sweden has been steadily devolving into fascism since Palme was murdered by Rightwing Swedish police, probably working with or being manipulated by the US or one of its cronies. The Reagan vermin detested Palme. Sweden’s descent has been well recorded for posterity by its writers, particularly Henning Mankell and Steig Larsson. Funny how a country can be brought low by its worst, acting with encouragement from the Real Evil Empire. We know all about the process in Australia, where the political caste elbow each other enthusiastically, to gain the distinction of being the first to kiss any passing Yankee or Zionazi arse.

  10. Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 4th, 2011 at 6:44am #

    Appreciating this other Anti-Empire report of William Blum very much I don’t aggree with imputing “pro-Zionism” to him.
    We all should not forget that zionism could grow in interference with facism, in reaction of a crime to Jewish people amounting to genocide.
    I am one of those German persons being ashamed of their parents for having tolerated this crime.
    Nowadays, however, “anti-semitism” is useful by camouflaging neo-facism and it will be used by those profiting from an original genocide, which means from one of the worst crimes in history, as long as we keep focusing just on this.
    Although, it is necessary being aware of zionism it seems more important to me to focus on the fruits or effects of the entire neglecting of human rights and livelihood.
    What about Bradley Manning? What about the Cuban Five?
    What about all people suffering from arbitrary confinement because of having risked their lives by whistleblowing the evidences of some of the worst crimes done by our politicians?

  11. Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 4th, 2011 at 7:10am #

    And what is about the positive example of resistance William Blum is mentioning: Cuba!!!

  12. 3bancan said on January 4th, 2011 at 10:18am #

    Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 4th, 2011 at 6:44am #
    “We all should not forget that zionism could grow in interference with facism, in reaction of a crime to Jewish people amounting to genocide”
    Zionazism became into existence quite a few decades before the German nazism and grew quite well without it. The Germans only gave the zionazis a helping hand.
    “I am one of those German persons being ashamed of their parents for having tolerated this crime”
    I don’t see the Germans being ashamed of their crimes against humanity they’ve been helping the Jews to perpetrate against the Palestinians and other peoples as “democrats” after WW2. The German zionazified “democrats” of today actively support the genocides perpetrated by the zionazis in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and other places…

  13. shabnam said on January 4th, 2011 at 10:38am #

    Josie Michel-Bruening said:

    {We all should not forget that zionism could grow in interference with facism, in reaction of a crime to Jewish people amounting to genocide.}

    Stop exonerating the crime of Zionism against humanity. Zionism did not form due to rise of fascism. Zionism existed before the rise of fascism. Zionism existed before Hitler came to power. The first Zionist congress in Basel held in 1897. Theodor Herzl, the Zionist leader, first tried to intimidate and bribe Abdulhamid, the ottoman ruler, to allow Jews to go to Palestine to buy property where HE REFUSED. This was one of the reasons behind his demise. After his refusal, the Zionists in control of the British Empire actively participated in disintegration of the Ottoman territories with the help of their agents, Jews in Salonika active in the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP).

    The Jews in Salonika took part in destruction of Ottoman Empire on behalf of the British Empire, like today who are behind the American Empire.
    The Zionists not only were active in destabilization project of Ottoman empire, like today their role in Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and other Arab countries, they also milked over 160 billion dollars for ‘holocaust’, mainly from Germany and other European countries, where none of the other fascist victims could match., a crime that has nothing to do with Palestinians or people of the Middle East. In WWII more than 56 million were perished but only one group has been identified as ‘chosen’. According to Dr. Mohammad Majd, the worse genocide of 20th century was Persian (Iranian) genocide due to British Empire’s war policy that diverted the crops to feed British occupying army in Persia (Iran). More than 8 million Iranians were perished. Do you know about this genocide?

    Why don’t you give all of Germany to them if you think fascism is responsible for the crimes of Zionism? We have nothing to do with YOUR CRIMES and Germany supports racist government of Israel. Your GREEN PARTY also supports the expansionist policy of an apartheid state. Green party in power has always supported the racist policy of ‘Jewish state’ against Iran and Iranian people.

    Why don’t you show the same sympathy for the victims of Zionism, Iran, Palestine, Iraq, and more? Why don’t you condemn your government that is engaged in war crime by supporting an apartheid states? Why don’t you EXPOSE YOUR PHONY LEFT, GREEN PARTY which is directed by closet Zionist in support of Israel. We are not fools to believe your phony ‘HUMAN RIGHTS’. Your human rights are piece of western foreign policy to bring down government around the world to establish ‘WORLD GOVERNMENT’ that we intend to destroy. The ‘world government’ is nothing but an IRON CAGE. Why don’t raise your voice in support of victims of Zionism, like Palestinian, 75 million Iranians, Iraqi, Sudanese, Afghanis, rather express your regret over and over and over and over and over for the ‘chosen people’, knowing what the Zionists are doing in Palestine and against the population of the region. It was more than 95% of the Jews in occupied land who SUPPORTED GAZA GENOCIDE in 2009.

    We the people of the region are fed up with the western ‘democratic’ countries who are trying to overthrow our governments with your PHONY HUMAN RIGHTS. If you believe in your phony human rights, please stop slamophobia in your back door in the western ‘democratic’ countries, stop preaching about your ‘human rights’. We are tired of it. We are fed up with it. Stop the judeofasist war against Iran.
    One can look at the list of the countries who along with Israel voted against Durban III resolution, a conference against racism, to find out how the world is divided: western ‘democratic’ countries sided with an apartheid state, GERMANY IS INCLUDED, and the rest of the world. Stop preaching.

    Against: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, United States.

    {http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2010/12/26/who-voted-for-and-against-durban-3-resolution/}

  14. shabnam said on January 4th, 2011 at 10:41am #

    {of the other fascist victims could match.,}

    should read: other victims of fascism could match. Sorry

  15. Deadbeat said on January 4th, 2011 at 4:08pm #

    Excellent response Shabnam and likewise to William Blum’s diversionary rhetoric.

  16. hayate said on January 4th, 2011 at 6:37pm #

    Iran and Honduras in the Propaganda System:

    How the Left Climbed Aboard the Establishment’s Bandwagon

    By Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

    [http://www.zcommunications.org/iran-and-honduras-in-the-propaganda-system-how-the-left-climbed-aboard-the-establishments-bandwagon-by-edward-herman#]

    Decent piece of how the phony left (IE: the zionist “left”) supported these israeloamerican destabilisation operations. It includes a disingenuous response from ziofascist stephen shalom of the ziofascist front org, campaign for peace and democracy (cpd), and Herman/Peterson then dusting that zionist hasbarat.

    Note that at z-net, shalom has front page status among z-net’s writers, you’ll have to search for Herman. That should tell one where z-net’s sympathies lie – with the ziofascist hasbara.

  17. catguy00 said on January 4th, 2011 at 7:50pm #

    I see William Blum has been inducted into the “pseudo-left” category by the DV faithful.

  18. Deadbeat said on January 4th, 2011 at 9:25pm #

    I’m glad you can see catguy00. I thought you were just as blind as many on the pseudo-Left.

  19. Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 5th, 2011 at 7:50am #

    Oh, these reactions to my poor comment in trying to defend William Blum’s article are giving an exact example why, we are not able to join each other or to even to unite.
    Well, I do agree that zinonism was before Hitler. But I don’t agree that all Germans agree to the policy of their government, inclusively that of the Green party in Germany.
    The original Green Party was quite different from those who participated at the government.
    Many German people are afraid that also the Left party would turn to the right when managing to participate at the government.
    Therefore, many Germans are so disappointed that they would not participate at elections any more, instead they are participating at demonstration for several reasons at the streets.
    However, nobody seems to tell you about our struggles.

  20. Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 5th, 2011 at 8:02am #

    If anybody of you would be interested at all, if not prejudiced or indoctrinated by your news coverage about Germany, I could tell you more, although it is quite difficult for me when writing comments in a foreign language.

  21. Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 5th, 2011 at 8:04am #

    Please, read “junge Welt” a very qualified German newspaper, if you can to inform yourselves:
    http://www.jungewelt.de/index.php

  22. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2011 at 9:11am #

    Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 5th, 2011 at 7:50am #

    Oh, these reactions to my poor comment in trying to defend William Blum’s article are giving an exact example why, we are not able to join each other or to even to unite.

    NO! It is not our reaction to your defense of Blum why we cannot unite. It is YOUR blindness and desire to brush away direct confrontation of the power that Zionism has on influencing western political economies. The failure of the Left to confront Zionism is why it has risen to such powerful levels. And especially the Zionist Left whose job it is to convince activists that Zionism is benign and has no influence whatsoever. Well Helen Thomas doesn’t agree with you and exposes that reality of Zionism power. Rather than directly confront and expose this vile and racist ideology William Blum would rather conceal it under the rubric of “U.S. Imperialism ™”.

    Take a look at what the pseudo-Left did to quash the anti-war movement and sabotage the 2004 Nader campaign before you talk about “uniting”. The pseudo-Left and its Zionism has to be confronted and purged before the can be real solidarity otherwise it will repeat the success of its breakdown of fledgling movements. The pseudo-Left is well organized and well funded. Most people and concerned citizens are unaware of how EMBEDDED it is on the Left.

  23. Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 5th, 2011 at 11:16am #

    Oh, I would not object, that Zionism is embedded every where, also in the Left, of course. They are conjointly with our “elites” following the slogan of the ancient Romans: “Divide et impera!”.
    They seem to be very successful in separating us from each other, when the only question is: “Who is to blame?”
    Therefore, your arguments in suspicion of hidden zionism sound often like: “What is it about? – I am against it”.
    What I am trying to plead for is: let us fight PRO our urgent goals, but not against each other!
    It is quite easy for any honest researching person to recognize the oppression of the people in Gaza and quite easy to recognize that each war is wrong, so as the arbitrary confinement of whistleblowers is (for instance that of Bradley Mannings, which Blum rightly complains), torture etc.
    Some very honest and deserving personalities in history were jews.
    I still admire Erich Fromm, Martin Buber, to name only few of them from which I learned very much. Well, and some of the first settlers in Israel were no that zionists you are talking about, there had been idealists among them, and some of them are either oppressed by their right-wing government now or had fled long ago, some even preferred to return to Germany, as soon as they should fight against Palestinian people.
    But if I understand you right, you mean each German person is corrupted by zionists too.

  24. 3bancan said on January 5th, 2011 at 1:31pm #

    Josie Michel-Bruening
    I read/listened to/watched German sources for a couple of decades. I stopped doing that a couple of years ago after having watched a TV debate in which the zionazi criminal Michel Friedman was praising the Americans for “the war on terror” and their massmurder of muslims – “terrorists” in his speak – in Asia – especially in Afghanistan – and demanded from the Germans to be thankful to the US for that — and there was not a single voice of dissent to his murderous barbarity.

    “Please, read “junge Welt” a very qualified German newspaper”
    I’ve had a look at it: just another zionazified rag, not much better than Deutsche Welle. No wonder, as Germany is a zionazified American stooge. Btw, on the websites I regularly read there are no articles by German authors nor links to German site.

    “Some very honest and deserving personalities in history were jews”
    Typical zionazi diversion.

    “I still admire Erich Fromm, Martin Buber, to name only few of them from which I learned very much”
    This tells quite a lot about Josie Michel-Bruening.

    “some of the first settlers in Israel were no that zionists you are talking about”
    Again the typical zionazi diversion technique.

    “But if I understand you right, you mean each German person is corrupted by zionists too”
    Typical zionazi speak…

  25. Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 5th, 2011 at 2:08pm #

    If you will believe me or not, many Germans condemn people like Michel Friedman and neither do we agree to the coverage of “Deutsche Welle”, both are perfect examples for the corruption within our medias, which many of us oppose.
    And I don’t believe you “3bancan” that you ever read “Junge Welt”.
    I cannot help, but thinking you have been hurted personally so much by “zionazis” that cannot make any difference yet.
    It’s a pity, but we are both wasting precious time!

  26. 3bancan said on January 5th, 2011 at 2:25pm #

    Josie Michel-Bruening said on January 5th, 2011 at 2:08pm #
    “I cannot help, but thinking you have been hurted personally so much by “zionazis” that cannot make any difference yet”
    Typical zionazi blather…

  27. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2011 at 2:35pm #

    Josie Michel-Bruening writes …

    What I am trying to plead for is: let us fight PRO our urgent goals, but not against each other!

    This “kumbaya” rhetoric of Josie will suck many naive, innocent, and unsuspecting activists in as it did me in 2003. It is clearly designed to direct and control movements by recruiting activists and people who have a real desire for change. It is also design so that the pseudo-Left controls the discourse and to limit the extent of dissent.

    Josie clearly offers no plan to purge the Left of Zionist. In fact between Zionism and Capitalism, Zionism is the weakest and easiest IMO to defeat. People are gradually coming to realize fallacies of Capitalism which is good but pseudo-Left needs to get ahead of the ground swell and to at least confine it if not to contain it. Since the pseudo-Left has shown itself to be anti-Marxist and since Zionism uses Capitalism to maintain its power can control, whatever movement that the pseudo-Left can control will limit any real solution to Capitalism and will especially limit or even quash any real confrontation of Zionism.

    It is much easier for Josie to sell his “touch-feely” rhetoric for Zionist to embed themselves than it is to break through the Zionist indoctrination. But clearly there is a change. You could not have an anti-Zionist conversation like this 15 years ago. Times have change and people and awareness of the Zionist Left is growing.

  28. hayate said on January 5th, 2011 at 2:56pm #

    My objection to Blum’s pov is not that I disagree with it so much as that he actively attacks (ad hominim) those who do disagree with him and attempts to denigrate their views without providing any evidence to back himself up. The “who is boss, israel or america” debate has merit on both sides and it’s possible to be undecided. That Blum makes so much effort at attacking those who document zionist influence goes beyond rational debate and into the realm of idealistic (or cynical) propaganda dispensing. If he is going to voice his disagreements, he should back them up with reasonable data and analysis, but he doesn’t, he uses ad hominim and sarcasm instead.

  29. Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 4:12pm #

    Josie Michel-Bruening you must simply stop with the rationality! It disturbs the cozy little world contrived by those who read nonsense into everything.

    I agree with you sensibility. But then…we’re just happy go-lucky Pseudo-Leftists…didn’t ya know!?

    Blum is clear…and it makes Deadbeat’s denial and anarchistic need to get messy just…so…so….so upset.

  30. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2011 at 4:17pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    I agree with you sensibility. But then…we’re just happy go-lucky Pseudo-Leftists…didn’t ya know!?

    That’s right Max you ought to know that it takes one to know one.

  31. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2011 at 4:25pm #

    hayate writes …

    The “who is boss, israel or america” debate has merit on both sides and it’s possible to be undecided.

    The “Israel or America” debate is really no debate but a strawman fallacy. If we take Petras main argument he describes a power configuration and how that power configuration operates. That power configuration is Zionist, militaristic, and capitalistic. What Petras describes is much more complex that the strawman “Israel vs America” that Blum puts out for argument. This is design to argue the Max Shield strawman that “tiny” Israel cannot possibly dominate the U.S. behemoth and steers the conversation away from the more complex premise of Dr. Petras.

  32. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2011 at 4:27pm #

    hayate writes …

    If [Blum] is going to voice his disagreements, he should back them up with reasonable data and analysis, but he doesn’t, he uses ad hominim and sarcasm instead.

    Absolutely Agree!

  33. hayate said on January 5th, 2011 at 4:43pm #

    Deadbeat

    “The “Israel or America” debate is really no debate but a strawman fallacy. If we take Petras main argument he describes a power configuration and how that power configuration operates.”

    I agree. I was being lazy before (well, that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it ;D ).

  34. Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm #

    Dr. Petras? Where would you be with out the good doctor, Deadbeat? He’s given you the whole story and now you can rest with his story as the holly grail of what the deep complex configuration…to hell with reason, Dr. Petras has references and footnotes that don’t lie.

    Did you know the GoM is dying? Soon there the methane mixing with the saltwater will destroy not only the complexity of ecosystems (yes a configuration of life) but will find its way into all of the seven seas on the planet. What does the good doc have to say about those cookies?

  35. 3bancan said on January 5th, 2011 at 6:35pm #

    Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm #
    “Did you know the GoM is dying? Soon there the methane mixing with the saltwater will destroy not only the complexity of ecosystems (yes a configuration of life) but will find its way into all of the seven seas on the planet. What does the good doc have to say about those cookies?”
    This is an argument that should be awarded “The best-zionazi-diversion-on-DV Nobel Prize”…

  36. hayate said on January 5th, 2011 at 6:40pm #

    Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm #

    “Dr. Petras? Where would you be with out the good doctor, Deadbeat? He’s given you the whole story and now you can rest with his story as the holly grail of what the deep complex configuration…to hell with reason, Dr. Petras has references and footnotes that don’t lie.”

    I’ve yet to see you write a rational, adult comment on this site. All you do is insult the other posters and behave like a spoiled child.

  37. Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 8:45pm #

    hayate,

    Here is what youre bud, 3bancan wrote. Wonder if you think this is an adult response:
    “Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 5:36pm #
    “Did you know the GoM is dying? Soon there the methane mixing with the saltwater will destroy not only the complexity of ecosystems (yes a configuration of life) but will find its way into all of the seven seas on the planet. What does the good doc have to say about those cookies?”
    This is an argument that should be awarded “The best-zionazi-diversion-on-DV Nobel Prize”… ”

    Here’s what your other bud, Deadbeat said in response to a post (and I never mentioned deadbeat in the original post):

    “I agree with you sensibility. But then…we’re just happy go-lucky Pseudo-Leftists…didn’t ya know!?

    That’s right Max you ought to know that it takes one to know one.”

    And another one by 3bancan said on January 4th, 2011 at 10:18am #
    In response to a modest post by Josie Michel-Bruening:
    “I cannot help, but thinking you have been hurted personally so much by “zionazis” that cannot make any difference yet”
    Typical zionazi blather…
    =================================================
    hayate, I could go on and on with you hayate and the insults you’ve spewed over the months you’ve visited DV using your current id. Your hypocracy is really beyond hyperbole. So my advise is get off your high horses, it’s even more offensive than your usual nastiness.

    Much of what I read by you, 3bancan and deadbeat I can get on Fox when Glenn Beck is on. You may not realize it because you may think you’re saying something different, but the deep seated twistedness of your comments (the 3 of you) are nearly identical in their mindless, and pathological quest to shut off any discourse beyond the most narrow of ideological views.

  38. 3bancan said on January 5th, 2011 at 9:16pm #

    Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 8:45pm #
    Wow, the zionazi perverse pervert Max Shields has started to use his kosher farming technique to prevent the GoM’s death and ultimately the death of the planet…

  39. catguy00 said on January 5th, 2011 at 9:41pm #

    “Take a look at what the pseudo-Left did to quash the anti-war movement and sabotage the 2004 Nader campaign before you talk about “uniting”. ”

    Oh Please. You’ve already failed to make your case about Nader being sabotaged because he criticized Israel. Nader does not believe in the Jewish conspiracy theory like you and the others on the fringe do.
    Don’t tarnish his good name.

  40. hayate said on January 5th, 2011 at 9:48pm #

    Ever notice how when one criticises a zionist, they point the finger at someone else? Ever notice how when israel gets critised, a zionist quickly pops up to point the finger at “the Arabs” or another convenient target, or calls one an anti-semite?

    IE: Max Shields said on January 5th, 2011 at 8:45pm

  41. hayate said on January 6th, 2011 at 2:04am #

    This is an interesting take on Wikileaks and how the guardian has turned on them and is now writing typical, zionist style hit pieces (at least 3 of them so far). A few weeks ago I speculated that whatever use israel was making of Wikileaks, they have now decided it was time to kill the goose. This was after reading a hit piece in the guardian. When the guardian begins attacking people, repeatedly, it means ziofascism, inc. is trying to take them down. At that time I also said that if Wikileaks had any info on israel, and was holding it back, if they started releasing this material soon, it would also be a sign of a split with the ziofascists. Assange recently announced they had 1000’s of israeli related documents, which they would be releasing within the next 6 months. Apparently, all this material has already been in the hands of the zionist media outlets Wikileaks chose, but they refuse to publicise the material (big surprise, eh?). The timing of the guardian’s turn on Assange and the announcement of release of israeli related material from Wikileaks can not be coincidental. The guardian gets its marching orders from tel aviv. Whatever is going at Wikileaks behind the scenes with whatever speculated spookery and zionastery, it does seem there has been some major change and that Assange has been cut loose (if he was ever tied beyond a desire for fame and fortune). Shamir covers a lot of ground, here, it’s an interesting piece.

    January 5, 2011
    The Secrets of Wikileaks
    Julian Assange’s Deal With the Devil

    By ISRAEL SHAMIR

    [http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir01052011.html]

  42. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 8:10am #

    hayate said on January 5th, 2011 at 9:48pm #

    Ever notice how ridiculous and irrelevant your comments are when you go on about zionism regardless the topic?

  43. 3bancan said on January 6th, 2011 at 8:39am #

    Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 8:10am #
    Ridiculous and irrelevant are the comments by the zionazi perverse pervert Max Shields. Regardless of the topic…

  44. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:11am #

    hayate does calling a poster a “pervert” figure into your idea of adult discourse? Your bud, 3bancan seems to be raising the bar.

  45. 3bancan said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:36am #

    Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:11am #
    Max Shields knows very well when and why he earned that epithet.
    For those who don’t know let me paste his comment which brought him the epithet (The Case Against Wikileaks by Lila Rajiva / December 18th, 2010):

    //Max Shields said on December 18th, 2010 at 12:30pm #
    What makes this all a rather inconsequential joke is: 1) most people have either made up their minds on the Israel state or never will (simply don’t care) 2) the only people complaining about the leak (other than the likes of the author who is a minority so small there’s no microscope powerful enough to locate it on the right testicle of a grasshopper) are the US government agents and their stooges.//

  46. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 12:12pm #

    Ohhhhh so you think a metaphor like the use of “testicle of a grasshopper” to make a point makes one a “pervert”? I was not calling “anyone” a name. But than…

    that explains the logic (or illogic) of much of your arguments here 3bancan.

  47. 3bancan said on January 6th, 2011 at 12:15pm #

    Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 12:12pm #
    “that explains the logic (or illogic) of much of your arguments here 3bancan”
    That explains the zionazi hubristic primitivism of Max Shields…

  48. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 1:02pm #

    hayate, again I ask is “That explains the zionazi hubristic primitivism of Max Shields…” what you mean by “behave[ing] like a spoiled child”?

    Sure sounds reads like a prime example. I’m not sure what a “zionasi hubristic primativism” is… Does this fit with the “pseudo-left” name calling from Mr. Deadbeat? Perhaps you can toss a few good nasty comments to show just how “adult” you are.

  49. bozh said on January 6th, 2011 at 2:04pm #

    let’s consider possibility that nader wants to start developing an egalitarian society and at the end of development to be like hayda, kiowa, or hopi ones?

    in that case, he’d never disclose that he’s a Leftist, socialist, communist.
    for me it is easy to say, that i am an egalitarian, socialist, or communist; i don’t run for anything.

    we can’t be sure that he does not condemn [in his heart] excessive– or if one wld insists–decisive influence of ‘jews’ in u.s affairs.

    at this time, such a revelation, wld lead to certain political demise!

    even, tho, nader had been, as far as i know, silent about ‘jewish’ problem in u.s or for, say, 95% of u.s pop, he nevertheless, cld garner only under 1mn votes.
    and if he blamed ‘jews’, how many votes wld he have gotten? probably even fewer?!

    he had polled pre-vote some 3-5 mn votes. he thinks, that when it came to balloting for him, some cld not vote for him; others feared repubs wld come to power; thus better dems than eerie “thems”.

    he’s now calling his flock to abandon fears and vote for him in next election! let’s hope he gets next time 7mn votes! tnx

  50. bozh said on January 6th, 2011 at 2:08pm #

    ok,
    i recall saying that nader is not a Leftist. after some thinking i realized that i do not now that; that had been just a guess.
    nothing wrong with guessing if one is aware that one is merely musing! Tnx

  51. Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2011 at 2:23pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Does this fit with the “pseudo-left” name calling from Mr. Deadbeat?

    The pseudo-Left is a well defined description of Zionists who pose as Leftists. As I have often described what it means to “be on the Left” is to adhere to principles of justice, fairness and equality. Zionism in no way adheres to such principles. Thus for Zionists to embed themselves on the Left is a serious issues of discussion, education and awareness.

    As I have already written many times here on DV, the pseudo-Left was instrumental in the diffusion of the anti-War movement. This was confirmed by Edward S. Herman’s recent critique of Steven Zunes charges against International Answer back in 2003. Pseudo-Left in the form of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky both supported the pro-war John Kerry over anti-war Ralph Nader. Zinn disguised his support under the “Anybody But Bush” canard. Chomsky deliberately sent mixed signals in support of John Kerry only to later change to Nader well past the time when Nader needed support to obtain ballot access and the Green Party nomination. Medea Benjamin and Ted Glick both worked the “inside” to prevent Nader from obtaining the Green Party nomination.

    It appears that Max Shields would rather ignore these facts in order to keep up the facade of blaming the Democrats rather than examining, teaching, and warning folks how the pseudo-Left is an EXTENSION of the facade.

  52. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 5:44pm #

    Deadbeat what appears is that you think YOU can be judge and juror regarding who fits your definition of a “pseudo-leftist”.

    There is no credibility when these self-defined “terms” are thrown around at posters. No more than the inane name calling like “pervert” and zionasi hubristic primativism”. And all of this from the 3 accusers/abusers – you, hayate, and 2bancan. None of this is intelligent discourse. It is meant to shut down any discussion with many DV posters, who are not zionists or “pseudo-leftist” according to your definition. These are posters who just cannot figure out why the anger is thrown at them when, just to take Blum’s post, really there is no honest disagreement.

    What in Blum’s post are really disagreeable, unless you suspect the man of some kind of hidden agenda. Yours, and particularly those of hayate and 3bancan’s, paranoia would make Joe McCarthy envious.

    We’re arguing about who hates zionists the most, and if you don’t think they are the root of all evil in the world then, you are a pseudo-leftist….

  53. Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2011 at 6:48pm #

    Max get REAL. You are free to create your own descriptors and designations. These are just words typed out on a computer terminal. What I do is BACK UP my rhetoric with facts, principles and rational argumentation so that it doesn’t contradict.

    You are FREE to rebut my perspectives with similar rational arguments backed by principles and facts. The problem Max is that you HAVEN’T. Your arguments are typically full of holes and contradictions to the extent you come off as an apologist of the status quo of Zionism and Capitalism.

    And it comes off really comical seeing you run for cover under the typical “victimization” rhetoric. Give it a break Max and put forth a rational rebuttal.

  54. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2011 at 8:04pm #

    Deadbeat, you don’t concede regardless the facts or principles or rational arguments you are confronted with. In fact you don’t even acknowledge that I’ve provided arguments. You use phrases like “Max get REAL” as your rejoinder.

    There is ABSOLUTELY NO FACT regarding calling me a “pseudo-leftist”. And yet you call me and others this all the time. Since I know me, I can only assume that much of what you think is built on the same weak premises from which you try to build this case about me.

    The one point you make, which I agree with, is that your posts are your “perspectives” not facts.

    I will give you this much Deadbeat, you are a tad more rational than your buds – hayate and 2bancan…but that doesn’t mean your arguments are not loaded with holes.

  55. Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:01pm #

    Max I didn’t call you a “pseudo-Leftist” Max. Maybe your defensive reaction is because you think you are one. I don’t know I can’t read your mind. What I wrote was this …

    You are FREE to rebut my perspectives with similar rational arguments backed by principles and facts. The problem Max is that you HAVEN’T. Your arguments are typically full of holes and contradictions to the extent you come off as an apologist of the status quo of Zionism and Capitalism.

  56. Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:06pm #

    hayate writes …

    Whether disguised as a michaelkenny, maxshields, catguyoo, bohz, etc., it’s all the same hasbara. And not worth wasting one’s time reading.

    I’m beginning to agree. It is a phenomenal waste of my time.

  57. catguy00 said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:07pm #

    The entire basis for accusing Chomsky and Zinn of being secret pro-war Zionists ,or “pseudo-leftists”, is the 2004 presidential race in which Zinn (but not Chomsky) decided to vote for Kerry because he was the lesser evil. You then make the ridiculous leap that he did so because he must be a secret war mongering Zionist whose whole life’s work was a lie just to distract other leftists from the true enemy. The Jews.

    Nader doesn’t even believe in such nonesense. I guess that makes him a “pseudo-leftist” too eh?

  58. catguy00 said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:08pm #

    hayate writes
    “Whether disguised as a michaelkenny, maxshields, catguyoo, bohz, etc., it’s all the same hasbara. And not worth wasting one’s time reading”

    Get the moderator to check our IP addresses.

  59. Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2011 at 10:16pm #

    catguy00 writes …

    The entire basis for accusing Chomsky and Zinn of being secret pro-war Zionists ,or “pseudo-leftists”, is the 2004 presidential race in which Zinn (but not Chomsky) decided to vote for Kerry because he was the lesser evil. You then make the ridiculous leap that he did so because he must be a secret war mongering Zionist whose whole life’s work was a lie just to distract other leftists from the true enemy. The Jews.

    This is the kind of argument that I’ve been looking for from Max Shields in order to refute the basis of my argument that Zinn, Chomsky, Z-Mag, etc are pseudo-Leftists. Unfortunately catguyoo make an emotional appeal via his used of “ridiculous leap” rather than explain in detail how Zinn, Chomsky, etc ACTIONS in 2004 was consistent with their decades of Leftist rhetoric.

    [1] In the case of Chomsky, catguy00 is COMPLETELY incorrect. Chomsky is a professed Zionist and a supporter of Israel. Therefore by definition he is a pseudo-Leftist. There is no need to further examine his actions.

    [2] In the case of Zinn, His support of pro-War John Kerry contradicts his rhetoric as a dissident. Zinn wasn’t under any kind of physical or monetary pressure or extortion that would induce him into such an endorsement. Once again Ralph Nader needed only 3 million new voters to achieve the 5% threshold that would have provided the Green Party with viability and give the Left a vital institutional framework necessary to organize workers and give the Left a political presence. An institutional framework that the Left still lacks to this day. Zinn support of pro-War Kerry as “lesser-evil” harm rather than help build the Left and was an obvious departure from his “dissident” facade. Such betrayal is in keeping with the action of the pseudo-Left.

    [3] Michael Albert of Z-Magazine failed to endorse the Nader Candidacy and also weaken the Left by calling for a stand-down of the anti-war movement until AFTER the 2004 elections. This betrayal is consistent of the pseudo-Left.

    [4] Medea Benjamin & Ted Glick worked to defeat Nader bid as the Green Party standard bearer.

    [5] Norman Solomon debated Peter Camejo appealing that he and Nader to disband their campaign bid.

    categuy00 is either into hero-worship and is unable to detach himself from this “left-wing” posers to provide objective analysis or would rather continue to promote the pseudo-facade with emotional appeals.

  60. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 1:14am #

    I was in a hurry to conclude my rebuttal to catguy00 but I found some other area where catguy00 remarks are incorrect …

    The entire basis for accusing Chomsky and Zinn of being secret pro-war Zionists ,or “pseudo-leftists”, is the 2004 presidential race in which Zinn (but not Chomsky) decided to vote for Kerry because he was the lesser evil

    I never said that Zinn VOTED for Kerry. I specifically said that Zinn SUPPORTED and ENDORSED John Kerry campaign via the cowardly safe-state strategy. For all of Zinn’s rhetoric when it came time to put up his ACTIONS was in the exact opposite of his facade. That’s what defines a pseudo-Leftist and Zinn was NO exception.

    You then make the ridiculous leap that he did so because he must be a secret war mongering Zionist whose whole life’s work was a lie just to distract other leftists from the true enemy. The Jews.

    I guess the Jewish Leftist Edward S. Herman according to your rhetoric is equally as guilty as yours truly …

    A Reply to Stephen Zune’s on the Jews and Cynthia McKinney’s Defeat by Edward S. Herman

    It’s rather unfortunate catguy00 that you choose to place yourself on the side of defending Zionism.

  61. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 1:15am #

    Here’s the correct link …

    A Reply to Stephen Zune’s on the Jews and Cynthia McKinney’s Defeat by Edward S. Herman

  62. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 1:16am #

    Sorry here’s the correct link …

    A Reply to Stephen Zune’s on the Jews and Cynthia McKinney’s Defeat by Edward S. Herman

  63. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 5:14am #

    Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2011 at 9:01pm #

    Deadbeat this is an on-going “conversation” whereby “pseudo-lefist” is what you refer to when comment on my posts….not just what you posted here.

    If you can’t be honest, than what’s the point.

  64. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 5:27am #

    Deadbeat, where can you demonstrate, unequivocally, that Chomsky is a pro-war Zionists? Please answer directly without reference to some long winded pontificator you believe knows best.

    You never argue in context. You take out of context phrases to create a strawman argument for your own ideological purposes.

    Let’s take the hayate remark you agree with:
    “Whether disguised as a michaelkenny, maxshields, catguyoo, bohz, etc., it’s all the same hasbara. And not worth wasting one’s time reading.”

    You think, apparently, that Max Shields is an agent (whether paid for or through affiliation of some sort) of the Israeli propaganda machine to disseminate favorable information about Israel and it’s policies.

    Where is the evidence that Max Shields (or for that fact any of the others listed) are such “agents”?

    Almost everything you post Deadbeat can be readily refuted. Must of it is so wildly out there, that it is a waste of time to pick it apart. Any rational person can see it for what it is. You are not the worst offender. 3bancan and hayate have the edge on that, only because their insults are so child-like and without a semblence of making a cogent argument. You on the other hand make “cogency” a bad word. You cogently state the most absurd comments and think you’ve made a cogent argument.

  65. Rehmat said on January 7th, 2011 at 5:45am #

    Wikileaks is the wrong place to search for a proof that Dr. Chomsky or Bibi or Sharon or olmart or Hezl or Ben-Gurion or any other Zionist leader happen to be war-monger or mass-murderer – because Wikileaks, like 9/11 – is in fact a ‘Zionist Projecr’ – to divert public attention from the current Palestinian Holocaust to the old conspiracy theories.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/wikileaks-zionist-plot-to-invade-more-muslim-lands/

  66. bozh said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:34am #

    it has been reported that chomsky supports israel. i affirm–and regardless what that proclamation may mean– that he approbates illegal and ‘legal’ ‘jewish’ immigration into palestine, deir yassin and other massacres, expulsion of the indigenous pop, etc.

    what he IS does not concern me– only what he does and/or says concern me! he had spoken: pal’ns shld not be allowed ROR!

    i don’t care what anyone calls him. he had often criticized egalitarian builders in SU.
    in add’n he had declared he favors anarchism.
    what does anarchism? well, nutting! people do! stronger people in such a system
    get bigger share? no? then what wld ensue? some kind of order, obviously. so, still not anarchy– if anarchy is to be understood as an unique order!

    an aside,
    u.s had alway been governed by an ethnos. prejewish control of u.s., waspish protestants ruled u.s.
    they still may rule u.s., while ‘jews’ have a role as a cash cow; i.e., they are best at robbing people, but have to share the loot with dear uncles and/or wasps mostly!
    tnx

  67. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:54am #

    Can you respond, Deadbeat? (Rehmat said on January 7th, 2011 at 5:45am #, you’re a joke. You don’t further the discussion you are a mindless Fox newser. using your blog to make your case is not only circular, it’s downright display of a school system that has failed to produce an ounce of thoughtfulness. Where are your facts that Assange is an agent of Israel or that Israel was responsible in some way for Wikileaks?)

    Now again, Deadbeat. How do you come by my affiliation with Israel as a
    “hasbara”? Where are your substantiated facts that Chomsky is a pro-war Zionist. I don’t care whether you like or dislike Chomsky and/or his statements. What you need to do is stop making false accusations just because you can post them over and over and over.

  68. Luis Cayetano said on January 7th, 2011 at 7:08am #

    Chomsky is admittedly an odd pro-war Zionist, lecturing as he does AGAINST Israeli atrocities and war (if his lectures about Operation Cast Lead can be construed as pro-war Zionist, let me know), giving talks to and promoting charities and humanitarian organisations raising money and awareness about the Palestinian plight and the effect on women and children in Gaza, denouncing the criminality of Israel’s flotilla attack, debating and debunking the lies of Alan Dershowitz (and calling his work a ”tissue of lies and propaganda”), lecturing at Palestinian universities and liaising with Palestinian activists and writers, seeing first hand and writing extensively about the daily grind and oppression in Palestine, writing entire books about the Arab-Israel conflict (including one dedicated to the Palestinian issue, called ”Fateful Triangle”, which chronicles a litany of facts and events that are key to understanding the conflict and that go counter to the official narrative of Israel as existentially-threatened nation), making regular reference to international opinion polls showing that Arabs overwhelmingly disagree with their dictator leaders over Iran (kind of odd for a ”pro-war Zionist” to draw attention to these facts, isn’t it?), refuting the myth that Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be ”wiped off the map” and drawing attention to Israel’s ACTUAL threats and ACTUAL nuclear arsenal, and speaking favourably of Ahmadinejad’s proposals to rid the region of nuclear arms. I can go on, but that should suffice for rational folk.

    So it could be that Chomsky is a pro-war Zionist (anything’s possible). A simpler explanation is that you’re just deluded and hopelessly infatuated with Zionist conspiracies, because it absolves you from the burden of actually having to think about how the world works while also allowing you to feign the moral high ground without having to even aspire to do a fraction of what Chomsky has done for Palestinians. Your slanders are getting increasingly boring and irrelevant.

    Deadbeat said: ”Chomsky is a professed Zionist and a supporter of Israel.”

    Some documentation to back that up would be nice. At most, Chomsky has said ”I’m pro-Israel in the sense that I think that the people who live in Israel should lead dignified, honourable lives. And I don’t know what other sense of pro-Israel one should be talking about.”

    If that’s ”pro-Israel”, then allow me to step up and say that I’m 100 PERCENT pro-Israel, in the EXACT same sense that I’m 100 percent pro-Palestine. Just as I’m pro-Chinese and pro-American. If you can show us anything demonstrating that he’s pro-Israel in the sense you’re alluding to, we’d love to here it.

  69. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 7:40am #

    Luis Cayetano said on January 7th, 2011 at 7:08am #

    Point taken!

  70. 3bancan said on January 7th, 2011 at 11:45am #

    Luis Cayetano said on January 7th, 2011 at 7:08am #
    In the video
    [http://vimeo.com/14835834]
    one can clearly see that Chomsky is a self-professed “zionist” and a supporter of the illegal, unlawful, immoral, fascist, nazi state of thieves, robbers, vandalizers, torturers, murderers, genociders and consummate liars. Just watch his zionazi views on the “destruction of Israel” and on the return of the Palestinians, the real owners of 93% of historic Palestine, expelled by the Jewish nazis to their land. He really makes a normal human being vomit. He even has the chutzpah to compare the situation in – historic – Palestine with the situation in the US – as if there were some half a billion of Indian refugees waiting to return to their homes!

    “If that’s ”pro-Israel”, then allow me to step up and say that I’m 100 PERCENT pro-Israel, in the EXACT same sense that I’m 100 percent pro-Palestine”
    This is typical zionazi blather. 93% of historic Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, not to the Jewish genocidal colonists. It’s human rights that count, not illegal states…

  71. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 4:01pm #

    Still no response from Deadbeat…per usual mo.

  72. hayate said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:05pm #

    Since the hasbarats continually try and deny chomsky’s zionism, I’ll post a couple of discussions that go into this in detail. As chomsky has already said he is a zionist, and has been for decades – I remember him talking about this in the 80’s even. This is a non-issue the zionist hasbarats continually use on this site to misdirect conversations and wreck the exchange of ideas. Something hasbarats are tasked to do on sites like this one.

    Chomsky/Abunimah (the left and Zionism)

    by Philip Weiss on January 16, 2010

    [http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/chomskyabunimah-the-left-and-zionism.html]

    Chomsky and Zionism

    by Philip Weiss on May 17, 2010

    [http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/chomsky-and-zionism.html]

    It’s quite clear to weiss and most of the people involved in those discussions that chomsky is a zionist, just not a flaming pink one like our local hasbarat crew.

  73. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:22pm #

    Based on hayate’s link, below seems hardly worthy of continuous repetition of Chomsky as a zionist or a pro-war zionist (and it was the latter that I was requesting proof, not that he had been associated with a form of zionism which is well known…but again, hardly requiring repeated ridicule ad nauseum by the likes of those rather obsessed posters…like Deadbeat, hayate and 3bancan…And by the way, still no response the specific questions to Deadbeat I’ve requested above…please no changing the subject or using the surrogate sockpuppets to do your bidding there, DB…

    Now to the quote (the shocking “evidence”):

    “Robert Barsky’s superb bio of Chomsky fills the picture in somewhat. Barsky says that as a young man Chomsky was associated with Avukah and Hashomer Hatzair, leftwing Zionist movements that promoted Jewish emigration to Israel because of their concerns with anti-Semitism in the west. But Chomsky did not believe in a Jewish state. “The creation of such a state would necessitate carving up the territory and marginalizing, on the basis of religion, a significant portion of its poor and oppressed population, rather than uniting them on the basis of socialist principles,” Barsky writes. By the 1970s, Chomsky endorsed “a gradual move towards binationalism.”

  74. hayate said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:29pm #

    It took hasbarat max all of 17 minutes to read through those 2 discussions and the material linked in them (including the one source he referenced). The first one had around 150 comments. And then type up his response. That’s quite a feat.

    It’s obvious hasbarat max skimmed the links till he got to something he could misrepresent and then started typing. Typical hasbarat spam behaviour.

  75. hayate said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:35pm #

    “Based on hayate’s link, below seems hardly worthy of continuous repetition of Chomsky as a zionist or a pro-war zionist (and it was the latter that I was requesting proof, not that he had been associated with a form of zionism which is well known…but again, hardly requiring repeated ridicule ad nauseum by the likes of those rather obsessed posters…like Deadbeat, hayate and 3bancan…And by the way, still no response the specific questions to Deadbeat I’ve requested above…please no changing the subject or using the surrogate sockpuppets to do your bidding there, DB…”

    As I have posted before, these hasbarats, like max, never write anything substantiative. All they do is insult those who criticise israel/zionism and try and reduce every conversation to an adolescent level. They’re just zionist wind-up trolls.

  76. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:47pm #

    As I have posted before, these hasbarats, like max, never write anything substantiative. All they do is insult those who criticise israel/zionism and try and reduce every conversation to an adolescent level. They’re just zionist wind-up trolls.

    I totally agree. They are a complete waste of time but on the other hand illustrative of the utter debasement of the Left.

  77. hayate said on January 7th, 2011 at 6:56pm #

    Deadbeat

    “They are a complete waste of time but on the other hand illustrative of the utter debasement of the Left.”

    They also show the extreme levels zionists will go to dominate all discourse.

  78. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 7:24pm #

    hayate I took a random paragraph, a direct quote and you can’t bear the fact that your “evidence” backfired.

    You guys ever leave the house. Go out. Meet some real people. Rejoin the human species.

  79. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 7:33pm #

    Here’s a link for those who question and demand evidence of Chomsky’s Zionism

    Noam Chomsky’s Zionism

  80. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 8:38pm #

    This is your proof Deadbeat? Of what? What we all know?

    Again answer my questions. Look back where I asked. You are jumping around. This is your usual dodge, run away from simple questions. I’m not letting you off the hook buddy. You and your little tribe have been sprewing names with some kind of impunity.

  81. 3bancan said on January 7th, 2011 at 9:23pm #

    Max Shields said on January 7th, 2011 at 8:38pm #
    “This is your proof Deadbeat? Of what? What we all know?”
    Wow, Max Shields knows everything! But: he has all the answers and still keeps incessantly asking the same idiotic questions…

  82. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 11:13pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Deadbeat, where can you demonstrate, unequivocally, that Chomsky is a pro-war Zionists? Please answer directly without reference to some long winded pontificator you believe knows best.

    Max Shields as usual distorts and twist the premise to create strawmans and so that he can come off with false outrage and paint false realities in the typical hasbara fashion.

    [1] The distortion: Chomsky is a pro-war Zionists
    Chomsky is a ZIONIST. That part is correct. Whether he is pro-war or not is tangential and irrelevant but is designed for Max to inflate his false outrage.

    The fact that the “Left” elevated an adherent of a RACIST ideology as its intellectual leader is a reflection of the utter DEBASEMENT and control of the LEFT by Zionism. There needn’t be any more evidence of this than Chomsky himself.

    That fact that SO many of the “Left” regards that RACIST a “hero” or a “dissent” say either the level of IGNORANCE and disconnect of what being a Leftist means among the so-called “activists” or these activist are pseudos themselves. Yet the obvious duplicity of the Left is that they could right justify rejection of racist David Duke but embrace, defend, and even APOLOGIZE for Chomsky’s racism.

    The problem with a ‘Left” that is ignorant of Left-wing PRINCIPLES means is that any movement based under these sorry conditions won’t hold. This was last evident by the 2003 anti-war movement recently confirmed by the Edward S. Herman critique of Steven Zunes who SLAMED International Answer for raising the issue of Israel/Palestine being a major factor behind 9-11. Because ANSWER raised this issue, the 2003 anti-war movement and 2004 Nader Campaign was subject to sabotage by the pseudo-Left.

    Folks like Max Shields EMBED themselves into such left-wing movements as gatekeepers to GUARANTEE movements are constructed with such a shaky foundation that they won’t have the level of trust to build solidarity and are thus doomed only to fail in blaze of betrayal.

  83. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 11:16pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    This is your proof Deadbeat? Of what? What we all know?

    I guess I’m no better than Julian Assange. :-)

  84. Luis Cayetano said on January 8th, 2011 at 6:27am #

    Hmmmm, looks like you should count yourself amongst the consummate liars there, 3bancan (whoever you are. We all know that’s not your name). If you actually LISTEN to what Chomsky said (try it sometime, it helps), he said that when he was 25 – kind of not what he is now – he was part of the Zionist movement that OPPOSED a Jewish state. As in, was against the establishment of it (”what would today be described as anti-Zionist” – i.e. against what you’re accusing him of ”supporting”; ”a substantial part of the workers movement in Israel at the time was anti-state”; ”in favour of Arab-Jewish working class cooperation”). All that in the first 2 minutes of the interview. So the video actually demonstrates the exact OPPOSITE of what you’re saying.

    FAIL.

    I suppose that you should also accuse him of being in favour of rapacious corporations because he’s described himself as a conservative (ie. ”those who work in the mills should own them”). Why don’t you stop trolling for a minute and check IN WHAT SENSE he’s using these terms?

    Seriously, are you just pathologically dishonest or something? I could have easily shown this video TO YOU to prove my points about Chomsky.

    Here’s some more: ”Once the state of Israel was established, which was actually a day of mourning among me and my friends, I remember very well, the only rational position is that it should have the same rights as any state in the international system, no more no less. They’re all founded on violence and destruction…”

    ”If you’re a real supporter of Israel, which means that you want its people to be able to live a decent life, then you would be in favour of Israel meeting its international obligations…and in that sense I’m a supporter of Israel”. (me too)

    ”and a supporter of the illegal, unlawful, immoral, fascist, nazi state of thieves, robbers, vandalizers, torturers, murderers, genociders and consummate liars”

    Retarded comment. He doesn’t ‘support’ any state, as he made clear before 4 minutes was up. He merely said that states (including Israel) are a reality that everyone who actually works in the world has to recognise and be aware of, however much we may dislike them (as he does). If that’s not true, let me know.

    ”Just watch his zionazi views on the “destruction of Israel””

    Didn’t catch any zionazi views, only the view that the people of Israel (and the people of Palestine) should lead decent, honourable lives (and that this involves ”an end to internal repression”, amongst other things. Yeah, we’d all like for all the land to be given back to its historical owners. Is that going to happen? No (that’s got nothing to do with Chomsky, by the way). Even Hamas recognises this, and has clearly implied that if Israel meets its international obligations (withdrawing to its 1967 borders, an end to illegal settlements, an end to assassinations and blockades, and so forth), it will recognise Israel. Of course, it won’t (and should n0t have to) recognise the LEGITIMACY of Israel, which is something else entirely. Everyone recognises the United States, ‘even though’ the United States was founded through conquest and mass murder. Nearly EVERY state is in some sense illegitimate, but they’re there. Oh, and do you know why there aren’t half a billion Indians waiting to retake their land in the United States? Because they were exterminated. So by your rationale, once all the original inhabitants of Palestine die from old age and there are only expats and second and third and fourth generation Palestinians pushed further and further from the margins of Israeli society and have had more and more of their land stolen, the right of return won’t matter. Right? Of course, you’re too much of a hypocrite to recognise your own hypocrisy, preferring to think that Israel is somehow a special case that sets it apart from everything else in human history. Zionazis and people like you agree on one thing: that there is something special about Israel which sets it apart and that should afford it a mythical status. You both work tirelessly to keep this myth alive, thereby prolonging and deepening the agony of the Palestinians (which you then claim to care about. Forgive me, but I’m not so sure). Well done. Not bad for someone who constantly mouths insults at others accusing them of being pro-war Zionist collaborators. You and the real Zionazis just reinforce each other’s rhetoric, and pretend that you’re engaged in a ”debate”. You need each other, in other words. Your symbiosis is sacrosanct, and if anyone politely taps you on the shoulder to get you to snap out of it, you react with an avalanche of verbal vomit.

    The sooner that the banality of Israel is recognised, the sooner and more easily we can actually help Palestinians, first to get back some of their land and have their own state (the first step towards helping them achieve a decent existence), and eventually, linking up with the progressive forces in Israel (who are working towards ending discriminatory land and labour laws, and other abominations) perhaps also a one state solution (which won’t happen without a two-state settlement first). You can blab all you like about what you WANT (in an imaginary world where power and injustice doesn’t exist, that is), but do you know what the moral significance of that is? Precisely nothing. You’re not offering any solutions that can help the Palestinians. One could be forgiven for thinking that Palestinians aren’t real people to you, because apparently you’re more interested in thumping your moralistic chest to gain credibility points on their backs. Thus your worst bile is reserved for those who have actually DONE SOMETHING to help, because they steal the fire from beneath you. They show you up for what you really are, and you can’t have that. You don’t really seem to give a crap about what your words actually mean for the people called Palestinians. And that’s why you won’t do even a fraction of what Chomsky has done for them, because that would mean actually engaging with them and understanding what strategies may actually help them best. Too much to ask for, clearly.

    ”This is a non-issue the zionist hasbarats continually use on this site to misdirect conversations and wreck the exchange of ideas.”

    So getting you to check on what sense of ”Zionist” Chomsky is talking about is ”misdirecting conversations” that ”wrecks the exchange of ideas” (because it’s a ”non-issue” for some reason, presumably because you say so), but continually using filthy slurs and taunts isn’t? You people are pathetic. But even more so: you’re useless. Utterly and completely. If I were a Palestinian working for the rights of my people, it would be a source of SHAME for me to have ”allies” like you.

    ”That fact that SO many of the “Left” regards that RACIST a “hero” or a “dissent” say either the level of IGNORANCE and disconnect of what being a Leftist means among the so-called “activists” or these activist are pseudos themselves. ”

    Okay, then you can count the Palestinian and Arab activists that Chomsky has worked with among the fake Left. Thanks (let them know as well. Telling me isn’t that impressive, because they know a million times better than you and I do what it means to live in Palestine). Which would make you…what? Oh yes, here it is: someone who can’t fathom the simple idea that being strongly in favour of Arab-Jewish working class solidarity doesn’t constitute racism.

    ”Folks like Max Shields EMBED themselves into such left-wing movements as gatekeepers to GUARANTEE movements are constructed with such a shaky foundation that they won’t have the level of trust to build solidarity and are thus doomed only to fail in blaze of betrayal. ”

    What a perfect description of you, Deadbeat. A useless troll who frequents the alleys of the Internet, mistaking it for something substantive in the world. At least Max goes so far as to embed himself into Left movements. Sniping from the sidelines isn’t a respectable enterprise. Sounds like someone’s jealous.

    The Deadbeat/3bancan/hayate mode of ”debate”:

    1) call everyone who voices honestly held doubts ”zionazis” and ”hasbarats”, thereby alienating them from the get-go even while talking about the need for solidarity (obviously a vacuous term to you lot, to be wielded for whatever purpose suites your fancy)
    2) that’s about it, really. Exposure of your distortions is countered with increasingly heavier and more odious doses of ”Hasbarat!!!”

    What a joke. But more significantly, what an insult to the Palestinian people. Basically, wipe the drool from your chins and chew with your mouths closed. That would be enough for everyone.

  85. Hue Longer said on January 8th, 2011 at 7:45am #

    And great article by Blum

  86. hayate said on January 8th, 2011 at 8:21am #

    Luis Cayetano said on January 8th, 2011 at 6:27am

    “Retarded comment.”

    Teenagers use that comment frequently. Among older people, you see it used by redneck and rightwinger types who are in a sense, teenage minds in older bodies. I don’t the use of that word much among adult progressives and leftwingers, though. Good to see the age group and mindset you’re coming from, luis. The rest of your hyperventilation there was little different. A childish assortment of ad hominim, misrepresentation and strawmen.

    Chomsky is clever about framing his zionism so that it sounds reasonable and popular, but zionism is zionism, no matter how one sugarcoats it. Pretending their are “good zionisms” and “bad zionisms”, “mild zionisms” and “harsh zionisms”, which essentially what chomsky and his like-thinking supporters are doing, is little different than those claims the democrats are a marked difference to republicans. It’s the lesser evil horseshit of those eager to prevent meaningful positive change and desire things to remain much as they are.

    Chomsky’s objection to BDS and the right of return for Palestinians show how that soft zionism works. It’s only a softer image to make a what is a thoroughly repugnant, supremacist ideology palatable to progressives and other people who have functioning value systems.

  87. 3bancan said on January 8th, 2011 at 8:34am #

    Luis Cayetano said on January 8th, 2011 at 6:27am #

    LC”s comment is from the FIRST to the LAST word the purest hubristic mendacious zionazi blather…

  88. hayate said on January 8th, 2011 at 8:54am #

    Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?

    In a recent interview renowned linguist Noam Chomsky called the BDS campaign ‘hypocritical’. Jeffrey Blankfort, who is the author of an earlier important critique of Chomsky’s position on Palestine, responds:

    [http://pulsemedia.org/2010/07/20/chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or-liability]

    Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

    Jeffrey Blankfort

    [http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html]

    Those two article go into great detail on chomsky’s zionism and how those views of his negatively impacted his approach to Palestinian-israeli relations. As I wrote, zionism is zionism. There is no “good” zionism just like there is no “good” racism. A little or a lot, it’s still repugnant.

  89. Luis Cayetano said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:29am #

    ”Teenagers use that comment frequently”

    Not interested. I backed it up, so whether teenagers use it doesn’t even qualify as a secondary or tertiary issue. Nice that you wasted a whole paragraph on this non-issue, though.

    ”I don’t the use of that word much among adult progressives and leftwingers, though.”

    No, you’re above it, obviously. You much prefer slurs and false accusations about people you know nothing about, as well as the Nazi tactic of repeating a lie a thousand times until it becomes ”truth” (to you). ”Retarded” is beneath civilised and comradely folk like you. Hell, Palestinian activists are beneath civilised and comradely folk like you. Maybe you should get over yourself sometime soon.

    ”The rest of your hyperventilation there was little different.”

    Cool! Now all you need is an argument to back that up. Your ”response” was conspicuously lacking in, well, a response. Even one would be nice.

    ”Chomsky is clever about framing his zionism so that it sounds reasonable and popular, but zionism is zionism, no matter how one sugarcoats it.”

    Zionism is (or was) a broad movement, much of it reactionary and racist, some of it not (I’ll say it again for the slow ones: ”in favour of Arab-Jewish working class cooperation”; ”a substantial part of the workers movement in Israel at the time was anti-state”). No one’s obligated to remain within the constricted boundaries of discourse that you want to set up. Rightly or wrongly (let’s assume wrongly) Chomsky was a Zionist youth leader, but he’s got more credibility in Palestine from beneath his fingernail than you’ll ever have in your lifetime as a whole person. That’s what really grates on you, I bet: you want to pontificate, but you’re too scared to get yourself any ‘street cred’.

    ”Pretending their are “good zionisms” and “bad zionisms”, “mild zionisms” and “harsh zionisms”, which essentially what chomsky and his like-thinking supporters are doing, is little different than those claims the democrats are a marked difference to republicans.”

    Except there is a marked difference between some Zionisms and others, and it’s simply this: some call for the brutal expropriation of the indigenous people in the area, others call(ed, when they existed) for socialist solidarity with the indigenous on a class basis and for the amelioration and disintegration of divisions. In other words, opposite goals. That’s a marked difference. If not, let me know.

    <B<''It’s the lesser evil horseshit of those eager to prevent meaningful positive change and desire things to remain much as they are.''

    ''Eager to prevent''. ''Desire things to remain much as they are''. Hmmm. Yeah, we really have it in for the Palestinians, don't we? We just HATE oppressed people, and love being in the service of colonial power. That must be why we engage in mass action to STOP things going the way they are, to raise awareness of the plight of Palestinians, to send food and medical supplies to Palestinians, to promote the works of Palestinian activists and others (''fake Left'', in your parlance, as opposed to the ''true Left'', of which you're the sole member), to end Israeli crimes by demanding an end to Western participation in them. Yes, we work towards meaningful change in order to prevent meaningful change. Makes sense to me. Seriously though, your comment doesn't even rise to the level of stupid. You know this perfectly well, but since you've now dug yourself into a hole that prevents you from openly acknowledging your error, you remain dedicated to feel-good platitudes that have zero effect on anything (you dipped your toe into the water of Doing Something, and found the heat to be uninviting, so you stayed on the shore and spat at those who took a dip). You're also dedicated to slandering the entire movement because it doesn't mindlessly adopt whatever it is you're calling for (i.e. pie in the sky slogans that haven't a chance in hell of achieving anything – EXCEPT if they're part of a step by step process that takes into account the realities of the world. But, again, you're too good for that, so while others do the dirty work, you wag your nice clean fingers by consigning yourself to slogans. Rational people, on the other hand, take reality into account. That is, if they actually want to help Palestinians. If you really hate Palestinians, on the other hand, then doing what you do is perfect, or just join AIPAC and be done with it). Saying ”Palestinians should return to all their lands and Israel should be ended” is nice, but it doesn’t mean shit to anyone. It’s not an alternative because it isn’t a strategy, it’s a desire. Period. What are you doing to do about it? It’s just you saying ”I want to feel good about myself and I don’t care whether it’s going to help the Palestinians”.

    If you have any ideas as to how to bring your idea into being, without first going through the two-state solution (agreed to by the whole world except for Israel and the United States. The former would have to come around if the latter can be pressured by its populace, but you’ve locked yourself out of that avenue, because you’re dedicated to the stupid notion that Israel controls the world. Conveniently, that absolves you from even the responsibility of doing anything) and the gradual amelioration of cultural, class and other divisions, we’d all love to hear about it. In the meantime, no one cares, so keep your worthless, hypocritical, unsolicited platitudes to yourself.

    ”Chomsky’s objection to BDS ”

    Weasel comment. He’s participated in many BDS initiatives, but with the following qualification: as long as they actually HELP Palestinians while also educating Westerners about the plight of Palestinians and how they can help end it (I actually watched the video. You only looked at it). A blanket BDS program, as he said, is pure hypocrisy (if we boycott Tel Aviv University, why not also Harvard or MIT for their involvement in US wars and crimes, which have been far in excess of anything Israel has achieved? Or do you just go for small states and leave the imperial godfather alone?), and it plays directly into the hands of the warmongers. Or maybe you casually skipped over that part too.

    ”and the right of return for Palestinians show how that soft zionism works”

    That’s not an argument, just a claim. I addressed this already, and you’ve failed to engage what I said, instead turning back to the same old mantra which apparently absolves you from any responsibility to formulate an argument in the first place. Your claim to be a champion of the rights of Palestinians is becoming increasingly difficult to entertain. In fact, it’s now reached the point of ludicrous. I’ve rarely seen anyone conduct themselves in such a disgusting manner.

    ”It’s only a softer image to make a what is a thoroughly repugnant, supremacist ideology palatable to progressives and other people who have functioning value systems. ”

    Okay, so no argument then.

    That exhausts your charges.

  90. bozh said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:42am #

    ‘jewish’ zionism=u.s., german, french, russian, chinese, italian, serb, ottoman, akkadian, et al’s theft of land with murder-expulsion of indigenous people.

    all these movements in basics and traits [murder, expulsion] i have posited above may be called one ‘movement’. tnx

  91. hayate said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:42am #

    Luis Cayetano said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:29am

    ”Teenagers use that comment frequently”

    Not interested. I backed it up, so whether teenagers use it doesn’t even qualify as a secondary or tertiary issue. Nice that you wasted a whole paragraph on this non-issue, though.”

    Actually it is, rightwing hasbarat. Progressives and leftists don’t go around calling things “retarded”. They also don’t put down things as “gay”. That you do, is really all one needs to know about you when judging whether the rest of what you wrote is worth finishing.

    You zionists are getting more and more unpopular despite all your efforts to dominate every discussion, every movement, everything, really. In fact the more you span and annoy, the less popular you seem to get. Intelligent people know how to take a hint…. ;D

  92. 3bancan said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:43am #

    Luis Cayetano said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:37am #
    “hate spewing, ignorant, moralistic, and utterly hypocritical”
    That’s what the hubristic mendacious zionazi blatherer LC and his zionazi friends are. Every single comment of theirs is a superb proof of it…

  93. hayate said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:44am #

    Oops

    “Actually it is, rightwing hasbarat. Progressives and leftists don’t go around calling things “retarded”.”

    Should have been:

    Actually it is, rightwing hasbarat. Adults, progressives and leftists don’t go around calling things “retarded”.

  94. 3bancan said on January 8th, 2011 at 9:58am #

    Max Shields said on January 8th, 2011 at 8:55am #
    “Perfect example why fewer critical thinkers (or thinkers of any sort) and dissonent voices visit this site”
    “The Tide Has Changed” says Gilad Atzmon. More and more CRITICAL THINKERS are COMING, replacing the old zionazi blatherers…

  95. Luis Cayetano said on January 9th, 2011 at 8:49am #

    Absolutely disgusting. My comments have all been censored by a cowardly administrator who probably got a complaint from one of you losers (probably defending your ”human right” not to be offended. Just shows what a bunch of scared liars you are. You can’t bear the notion of someone showing you up, so you run off to Big Brother and cry about being ”offended”).

    ”Actually it is, rightwing hasbarat. Progressives and leftists don’t go around calling things “retarded”.”

    Yes they do. I’m an example. You can also check on YouTube, where the comment sections of religious fundie and right-wing videos are drenched in comments of exactly this type.

    Non-issue.

    ”That you do, is really all one needs to know about you when judging whether the rest of what you wrote is worth finishing.”

    And the fact that you latch onto this as being AT ALL significant is a perfect indicator of the depth of your ”critique”, as is your continued disgusting use of slurs.

    ”You zionists are getting more and more unpopular despite all your efforts to dominate every discussion, every movement, everything, really.”

    You three fascists are the ones trying to muscle everyone out of expressing even mild criticisms of your positions and to monopolise the ”debate”, backed by your cowardly censors. Again, total hypocrites.

    ”In fact the more you span and annoy, the less popular you seem to get.”

    I know. Exposing your mindless lies isn’t popular with you. I get it.

    ”Intelligent people know how to take a hint…. ;D ”

    Okay, so that leaves you out.

    ”That’s what the hubristic mendacious zionazi blatherer LC and his zionazi friends are.”

    Throwing words together doesn’t add up to an argument. You STILL have refuted anything I’ve said. Do so. Until then, I’ve got less than no respect for you.

    ”Every single comment of theirs is a superb proof of it…”

    Nice to know that you’re against saying things in favour of Palestinians, then.

    ”More and more CRITICAL THINKERS are COMING, replacing the old zionazi blatherers… ”

    Trolling doesn’t qualify as critical thinking. Sorry ’bout that.

    But you guys have fun, high-fiving each other’s comments.

  96. hayate said on January 9th, 2011 at 9:56am #

    Those everready batteries are something, eh.

  97. Deadbeat said on January 9th, 2011 at 11:38am #

    I always find it interesting when it comes to Chomsky that anti-Zionists are demanded by Chomskyites to provide evidence. Now we have Luis Cayetano CLAIMING there is a “variety” of Zionism without providing ANY evidence to support his argument only his pontifications.

    So now I would like for Mr. Cayetano to provide evidence for this claim that there is a variety of Zionisms that CONTRADICT each other since he is claiming there to be a brand of Zionism that argued against a state for Jews and one that promotes a state for Jews. Either Zionism is racist Jewish nationalism or it’s not. So please provide EVIDENCE to support your argument.

  98. Deadbeat said on January 9th, 2011 at 11:41am #

    Luis Cayetano writes

    You three fascists are the ones trying to muscle everyone out of expressing even mild criticisms of your positions and to monopolise the ”debate”, backed by your cowardly censors. Again, total hypocrites.

    More name calling and “victimhood” rhetoric. Name calling clearly doesn’t adhere to the rules of conduct established by the moderators.

  99. catguy00 said on January 9th, 2011 at 3:35pm #

    There is no single definition of Zionism. I asked on this board a while ago but even the usual suspects were very vague about it.
    The far right certainly has a different definition than the far left.

  100. Deadbeat said on January 9th, 2011 at 3:56pm #

    catguy00 writes ..
    There is no single definition of Zionism. I asked on this board a while ago but even the usual suspects were very vague about it.

    Please provide evidence to support your argument of “multiple” definitions otherwise you are just making a baseless assertion.

  101. Max Shields said on January 9th, 2011 at 4:18pm #

    Deadbeat, why don’t you provide your definition of a zionist?

    Seems that was the first question. Otherwise, 90% of your posts are moot. The other 10% will require a clear definition of a “pseudo-leftist” (aside from name calling).

  102. Deadbeat said on January 9th, 2011 at 5:11pm #

    Max why don’t you ask Luis and categuy00 to provide evidence to back up their arguments. If you need a definition of Zionism refer to Theodore Herzl.

  103. catguy00 said on January 9th, 2011 at 5:37pm #

    With respect to your allies on the far right:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government

    ………………………………………………………………………………………….

    In 1996, the Aryan Nations posted on its website an “Aryan Declaration of Independence, in which we find that “the history of the present Zionist Occupied Government of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations… [all] having a direct object—the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.” Holding “the eradication of the White race and its culture” as “one of its foremost purposes”, the “ZOG” is accused of relinquishing “powers of government to private corporations, White traitors and ruling class Jewish families.”

    Since 1996 the name has spread in usage, and is now popular with many other antisemitic organizations. Swedish Neo-Nazis, for example, say that Jews in what they call the Swedish Zionist Occupied Government are importing immigrants to “dilute the blood of the white race”.[10] Websites such as Jew Watch accuse the entire spectrum of Western nations and other countries of being ruled by “Zionist Occupation Governments”.[

  104. Max Shields said on January 9th, 2011 at 7:34pm #

    Deadbeat because YOU are the one who is obsessed.

    I suspect you would never make your claims in public. I suspect you reserve your pathology for DV. You have found a few manic pathological believers here on DV. You have completely and thoroughly become your “enemy”. There is no zionist fanatic (or any fanatic for that matter) that could match your delusional paranoia.

  105. 3bancan said on January 9th, 2011 at 7:55pm #

    Max Shields said on January 9th, 2011 at 7:34pm #
    Max’s comments clearly show that it’s he who suffers from his “delusional paranoia” … and some other even worse disorders…

  106. Deadbeat said on January 9th, 2011 at 9:20pm #

    The reason why Max attacked me and I’d prefer the moderators leaving Max’s insults intact is because his arguments are weak and its reveals his inherent affinity to a racist ideology. Rather than attacking me he would instead at least QUESTION why the Left anointed a racist as its intellectual leader.

    Would not the Left ask the same question if we were talking about David Duke? Of course. Their disdain for Duke as a former KKK member who never rejected his adherence to White Supremacy is no different than Chomsky’s adherence to Zionism.

    As I have often argued the Left is defined by PRINCIPLES. It is adherence to those principles that gives the Left its POWER — nothing else. Why? Because in the struggle against the powerful all you’ve got is solidarity and the only way to build solidarity is via TRUST.

    Since the Left is infested with soft, hard and in-between Zionists BETRAYAL will be its only outcome. This will lead to a host of social consequences. One of them is the growth of REACTIONARIES. The recent shooting of the Congresswoman is only the latest example.

    If Max is truly human and places his HUMANITY above some ridiculous classification (Jewish) and supremacist ego then he would see racism for what it is and CONFRONT it rather than make excuses for it. It’s that simple.

  107. hayate said on January 9th, 2011 at 9:46pm #

    Max Shields said on January 9th, 2011 at 7:34pm #

    “Deadbeat because YOU are the one who is obsessed.

    I suspect you would never make your claims in public. I suspect you reserve your pathology for DV. You have found a few manic pathological believers here on DV. You have completely and thoroughly become your “enemy”. There is no zionist fanatic (or any fanatic for that matter) that could match your delusional paranoia.”

    It’s a bit rich for you to go on referring to others as pathological, manic, paranoia & delusional after the way you harassed Mary the other day, misogynist. Your own words, max:

    Max Shields said on January 8th, 2011 at 2:15pm #

    “This article would have been more appropriately titled: A Guide for Paranoid Delusionists: From the Scribbles of One Who Knows.

    Having provided these guilelines one could and should readily use to track her posts on DV. I see little difference between this tribe and those of the Salem and McCarthy Witch Hunting escapades.

    Does anyone know who mary is?”

    &

    Max Shields said on January 8th, 2011 at 3:14pm #

    “kanomi said on January 8th, 2011 at 2:40pm # “You especially should not do that to people who do know rhetoric and can easily rip your head off in a debate, they can brutally destroy you as handily as trained martial artist can defeat an unarmed man twice his weight.”

    That’s a mighty ugly thought. (Actually, I think she took her degree from BigU.Com For $50 bucks, credit cards accepted you can be prolific too.”

    &

    Max Shields said on January 8th, 2011 at 4:06pm #

    “mary said on January 8th, 2011 at 2:23pm #

    So you don’t know who mary is; and what’s more you are displaying Lila’s micro guide #7. Could you be someone to watch out for mary…who ever mary is?

    I know mary the poster is someone who will take this comment as if, because mary the poster is a thorough going anti-zionist, pro-Palestinian, to mean that any questions about who mary is as a way of twisting that into a pro-Zionist anti-Palestinian.

    Ya’ll see how the game is played? Thank you Lila for providing fuel to the Paranoid tribe on DV. (Watch it Lila, your next post may just be your own-undoing…we’ll use your “guide” to judge…)”

    [http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/01/the-micro-guide-to-spotting-propaganda]

  108. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 2:19am #

    categuy00 writes …

    With respect to your allies on the far right:
    http://en.wiekipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government

    This is clearly an ad hominem designed to discredited the argument that Zionism has a great deal of influence over western, especially U.S., governments because those making the charge are White Supremacist or on the Rights. However the leftist James Petras makes a similar charges and has backed up his arguments via scholarly research.

    Once again it’s OK for catguy00 to discredit claims of Zionism influence via White Racism while simultaneously defend Jewish Racism. This once again illustrates the betrayal of the Left by the pseudos.

  109. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 2:22am #

    Still waiting catguy00 for you to provide evidence that there are two completely contradictory forms of Zionism.

  110. Luis Cayetano said on January 10th, 2011 at 5:27am #

    ”Now we have Luis Cayetano CLAIMING there is a “variety” of Zionism without providing ANY evidence to support his argument only his pontifications. ”

    Well, I did, and so did Chomsky if you listen to him: the strain that called for (I’ll say it again, because you seem oddly hard of hearing on this point) ”Jewish-Arab working class solidarity” and ”not a Jewish state” (in fact, against it. That’s admittedly a pretty strong difference to anything even approximating Operation Cast Lead apologetics). Therefore, a political philosophy that DENIES that Jews are special, and that is a defensive reaction to ”anti-Semitism in Europe” (ie. a security arrangement, having nothing to with any notions of manifest destiny and the superiority of Jews over non-Jews). We seem to have different understandings of the word ”Zionism”. If by Zionism, one ONLY means a militaristic, expansionist creed that calls for expropriating the land of other people and violently expelling the inhabitants, and establishing Jewish supremacy, then (by default) you’re right: there aren’t significantly different strains of it. They’re all versions of a vicious, racist ideology. If we’re talking about what Chomsky means, on the other hand, and what he allows the TERM to encompass (in the same way that ”politics” can encompass anarchism and fascism, and ”jihad” can encompass self-improvement and suicide bombing. I don’t know why you insist on a non-continuum for Zionism, when clearly people have meant it in different ways, just as people have meant jihad in different ways) – the establishment of safe-havens for Jews as a result of real or perceived anti-Semitism in Europe (and NOT as a result of a ”special calling” or some such to establish a Jewish settler state, which one heard from Israel’s founders and hears from today’s rabbis in Israel), without the expropriation of local inhabitants and living side-by-side and in solidarity with them (that word and its meaning are impossible to get away from, if you pay attention to it), and without the establishment of a state apparatus to lord it over other people, then we’re having a disagreement over what a term can encompass. If jihad can be allows to mean such radically different things, then I see no reason to deny Zionism the same courtesy. Allow that Chomsky’s use of the term is inappropriate (if only because it confuses matters, especially since Zionism today- and for a good long while now – has been virtually synonymous with the illegal and immoral impulses of the State of Israel); the CONTENT of his use of the term is crystal clear in its having a diametrically opposite flavour to what you’re alluding to. So you can keep on flogging this dead horse, but we’re still talking about utterly different things, whatever the labels we choose. If it makes you feel better, we’ll call Zionism in the sense you understand it simply Zionism, and what Chomsky was working for as ”Jew Safe Haven-ism’ without a state” (surely you’re not against THAT?).

    ”If you need a definition of Zionism refer to Theodore Herzl.”

    That’s fine, but still irrelevant to what we’re actually talking about: Chomsky’s sense of what the term can encompass, which has nothing to do with the uglier versions we all want to vanquish, other than the common element of ”Jewish”. Herzl’s definition is a definition. That doesn’t mean we’re obligated to remain confined within its scope. Words can mean different things, if we simply explain what we have in mind.

    ”Still waiting catguy00 for you to provide evidence that there are two completely contradictory forms of Zionism. ”

    That evidence isn’t forthcoming because, today, there probably aren’t two forms of it. The claim here is that there were (aka. much of the Israeli labour and kibbutz movement back in the day, not what Hertzl or some former Prime Minister said).

  111. Luis Cayetano said on January 10th, 2011 at 6:13am #

    Deadbeat, please don’t pontificate about Left solidarity, when you have reverted to naked fabrications and Red Herrings to tarnish and smear those who want the same things as you. Our task should be how to help the Palestinians, not to indulge in self-congratulatory camp-fire fantasies about the elimination of Israel, with ”brave” and ”principled” statements about the right of Palestinians to retake all their land. If you really hate the Palestinians, then go ahead and advocate things that will bring about the Sampson Option (though this is somewhat disingenuous of me. You haven’t, as a matter of fact, ”advocated” anything, other than simply stating what you’d like to see. That isn’t a position, though. It’s a desire, and it doesn’t mean a thing to a Palestinian in Gaza or the West Bank, or in the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Adopting your ”stance” is a million times more of a dead-end for the Palestinians than you imagine Chomsky’s ‘gate-keeping’ to be. That’s why serious Palestinian activists have little time for you. That’s not something I’m saying out of spite. I’m saying it because it’s true. All you offer to these people is false hope and the chance to be slaughtered in the face of overwhelming military force so as to stoke your own Pie in the Sky designs and sense of being an ”honest” Leftist, and that is something that’s really beneath contempt among comrades. There’s no principle – except in a nebulous, self-reflecting way – in saying that 93 percent of the land of what is now Israel should be given back to its historical owners in one fell swoop. OF COURSE it SHOULD be. Who’s going to argue with that from a moral point of view? That’s a right that should be affirmed of the Native Americans of the United States (I hope you don’t live there, or if you do, I trust that you’re fastidiously working towards returning all the land. That is, if you’re as interested in upholding your ”principles” as you claim), of the Aborigines in Australia and of a host of other displaced, marginalised and mistreated peoples. Is it going to happen? No. And that’s the reality of it (by the way, each time you choose to mystify Israel, you unknowingly insult and denigrate the plight of brutalised non-Palestinian peoples. If you really think that Jews aren’t supermen, then live up to that rather than assisting this inflated sense of self-importance that pervades Israeli society and which stokes the voices calling for ever more repression). Acknowledging the reality of states is a million light years from ENDORSING it.

    So I’ll ask again, because I’m always open to new ideas: if not through the settlement plan (as a first step) that the world (except for Israel and the United States) accepts – including Iran, Hamas and the Arab League – what avenues based in reality (and if you don’t want to talk about that, then there’s no point even having a Left) would you present to the Palestinians as a serious option for having a chance to achieve some of the things you advocate?

  112. Max Shields said on January 10th, 2011 at 6:45am #

    Well said, Luis. I suspect, since I have asked many times, what exactly Deadbeat would envision as a peaceful resolution in the I/P conflict, that he has none. Nor do I see much regarding the Palestinians and a discussion about a ROR. He and a few others here are on a rampage against Chomsky and those they’ve called gatekeepers. If they have points of disagreement with Chomsky they turn those into how Chomsky is really attempting to divert away from Israel so as to keep the Israeli-Zionist agenda moving forward.

    It is this twisted logic that perpetuates most of what they post. They search for others, either posters or commentators who they can apply their “analysis”. You must agree with their brand of thinking or be one or be labeled a Chomskyite gatekeeper pseudo-leftiest. I know, it’s childish. That there are a few here repeating the same diatribes makes discussion banal at best. At worst it is harassing made irresponsible by their repetition (ask one a question and all three respond over and over with inane comments.)

    Luis should you choose to “stay here” over time you’ll see that these tactics are unabated. Your name is now a target. So if you wish to comment on a US empire piece you’ll be targeted as a pro-Zionist who is only trying to let the Israel cabal off the hook by calling the US an imperial empire!!!

    Yes Luis, you are attempting to converse cogently with this kind of poster. No argument penetrates this cacophony.

  113. Hue Longer said on January 10th, 2011 at 7:08am #

    “Chomskyite”

    That one stuck, but I remember being called something to do with Zinn (Zinnian? Zinnite? Zinnafarian?). I wish that one had stuck…silly stuff

    It’s possible these guys are hasbarat and have targeted this site; what they are doing is much more effective than coming in wearing a Zionist hat.

  114. mary said on January 10th, 2011 at 9:45am #

    I think we need something from Gilad here who is spot on.

    Shoah Backfires
    Monday, January 10, 2011 at 1:27PM Gilad Atzmon

    For years Israelis and Zionists have been pumping ‘Shoah’ into our veins by using every possible propaganda outlet: media, education, Hollywood, music, literature, billboards and so on.

    Seemingly they have been very successful : We are all properly ‘ Holocausted ‘. We accept the suffering of the Jewish people — and we have even managed to draw a universal message from it all.

    We do accept that a real Shoah is taking place in front of our eyes in Palestine, where the Jewish state locks millions of Palestinians behind bars: it starves them, it stops medical supplies, food, cement, and educational materials from getting in. But it does not stop there — when the Jewish state feels like it, it also kills Palestinians indiscriminately. It either blitzes them with white phosphorous , or sends in its tank battalions to drive over Gaza.

    In preparation for Holocaust Memorial Day (1), London Zionist mouthpiece The Jewish Chronicle is very disturbed by a UK-based pro Palestinian web site named shoah.org.uk. The site is obviously dedicated to the Palestinian Holocaust.

    The Jewish paper insists that the Shoah — like Israel — is a ‘Jews only club’. They do not want to ‘let anyone else in’.

    Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust told the Jewish paper, “Using the word ‘Shoah’ in this context is done with the sole intention of causing offence to Holocaust survivors, their families and the wider Jewish community and shows the greatest possible disrespect to the tragedy of the Holocaust.”

    I would fiercely argue that Pollock is wrong. Using the word ‘Shoah’ in this very context is there to awaken the world, the Jews, and holocaust victims in particular, to the fact that the biggest current perpetrator of crimes against humanity — is actually the Jewish state.

    Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, said: “This website is yet another sickening example of how the Holocaust is perverted by anti-Zionists in order to attack Israel and Zionism.”

    Mark Gardner is almost correct; anti Zionists do indeed use the Shoah as a means of mirroring. And it is now an accepted fact that the Palestinians are the last victims of Hitler. It is also becoming accepted that the Israelis are the Nazis of our time. And tragically enough, the crimes in Palestine carried out by the Jewish state are also being committed in the name of the Jewish people. As if this is not enough, it is Jewish pilots who drop white phosphorus from planes which are decorated with Jewish symbols.

    These facts are disturbing and demand the immediate attention of world Jewry.

    Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies ( another morbid institute that claims to represent British Jews ) told the Jewish Chronicle that “even without delving into what is clearly a one-sided and skewed narrative, by virtue of its title, this website is extremely provocative and any trivialisation of the Holocaust in which over six million Jewish men, women, and children were systematically murdered is completely abhorrent.”

    Benjamin is probably too lame to grasp that what we see here is the total opposite — We are actually witnessing an acceptance of an astute universalising of the holocaust as carrying a humanist message for all of us. We can see a deeper understanding of the true moral meaning of that historical event.

    Surely we need to stand up against all forms of ethno-centric homicidal policies. And it seems clear that Israel is no different from Nazi Germany in that regard. In fact Israel is far worse, because Israel acts under the guise of being a democracy, and its merciless policies are a reflection of the majority Israeli population’s yearning to live in a ‘Jews only’ state.

    However, a few questions are still left open — Why exactly do the aforementioned Jews from the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies want to maintain the notion and reality of historical suffering as being exclusively Jewish property? Why don’t they want anyone else to use the word ‘Shoah’? Why do they demand a total control over the usage of words and applications of meanings ?

    Can you imagine a Ukrainian protesting against the word ‘famine’ being applied to the situation in Ethiopia?

    I really wonder why so many Jews insist on grounding their identity politics on suffering and being hated by others?

    For clearly, one must admit that being loathed is not exactly something to brag about.

    I am bewildered.

    (1) It is interesting to read the definition of the Holocaust Memorial Day on the official HMD’s site:

    “HMD is about remembering the victims and those whose lives have been changed beyond recognition of the Holocaust, Nazi persecution and subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and the ongoing atrocities today in Darfur.”

    Basically everywhere except in Palestine.

    {http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-shoah-backfires.html}

  115. 3bancan said on January 10th, 2011 at 10:59am #

    mary said on January 10th, 2011 at 9:45am #
    I would add also this video from Gilad’s site, as a reminder of what all the zionazi racist hubristic verbal diarrhea being spread on the net by the zionazi genociders like Luis Cayetano & Co. is all about:

    [http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-israeli-lie.html#entry9984727]

  116. shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 11:03am #

    {and subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and the ongoing atrocities today in Darfur.}

    The ‘genocide’ in Darfur was constructed by the JUDEOFASCISTS in “Save Darfur, a Jewish organization and “holocuast’ museum.

    Please watch the following video to see what Mahmood Mamdani has to say. The West policy in Sudan and training of the ‘rebel’ by zionist stooges are the reasons behind killings in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan.

    {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrblZ1gdDU}

    I am also very disappointed with the ‘left’ in the West and Islamic countries that stayed inactive and silent while the Judeofascists are pushing for the partition of Southern Sudan. It is shameful to know that Black Report Agenda cooperated with Obama, a war criminal, throughout this ordeal.
    The Zionist black elite including Martin Luther King family, Andrew Young, and rest of the black politicians cooperated with Obama, the black face of US imperialism/Zionism fully.

    {http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159519.html}

    Twenty police officers were among the victims of the Abyei incident, which lies on the north-south border.

    The violence there comes as southern Sudan is voting in the second day of a referendum on secession. The week-long vote is expected to lead to its separation from the north.

    This referendum is part of a 2005 peace deal that ended decades of conflict between the country’s north and south. A turnout of 60-percent is needed to validate the vote.

    Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir has urged people to vote for the secession of their region.

    Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir has recently warned that southern Sudan is not ready for secession and could face instability. He, however, has promised to accept the referendum’s result.

    Reports say Bashir has been under intense pressure from the United State to ensure the vote goes ahead on schedule and to avoid returning to civil war.

    This is while a senior Sudanese official says the US and Israel are playing a key role in sowing seeds of discord and fueling the country’s civil war and unrest in its south.

    “The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, is likely to be escalating the conflict,” Sudanese Ambassador to Tehran Suleiman Abdel Towab told Press TV last week.

  117. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 1:38pm #

    Luis Cayetano writes

    DB: ”Now we have Luis Cayetano CLAIMING there is a “variety” of Zionism without providing ANY evidence to support his argument only his pontifications. ”

    Well, I did, and so did Chomsky if you listen to him: the strain that called for (I’ll say it again, because you seem oddly hard of hearing on this point) ”Jewish-Arab working class solidarity” and ”not a Jewish state” (in fact, against it. …

    Your argument is circular. You initially site Chomsky to make your argument about “Zionisms” and as evidence you come back cite Chomsky again. Thus I have to conclude that Chomsky is the sole source of this claim. Other than citing Chomsky you present NO EVIDENCE that there are multiple CONTRADICTORY forms of Zionism. Zionism has always been about Jewish Nationalism. There is no evidence that I can find that Zionism represents”Jewish-Arab working class unity. Once again Luis please provide EVIDENCE to support your claims.

  118. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 1:46pm #

    Hue Longer still with the name calling. He even go as far as to lie about it…

    LOL … Finally found Hue Longer’s duplicity…

    Here is Hue Longer labeling me a “Zionist’ and he even went so far as to deny it…

    Hue Longer said on June 3rd, 2010 at 1:33pm #

    You are a Zionist posing as an angry, functionally illiterate anti-Zionist Zealot? Whose dual job it is to distract discussion away from every topic posted at DV-ironically abusing and misusing words like irony and ad hominem while making any new person wandering by feel like remaining lonely in their opposition to Zionism?

    I’d love for the discussion to be about the topic. Maybe the editors can post one of your CAPS laden rants as it’s own piece so we’ll know where to get your take on everything else that is submitted—it’ll also save you from lashing out every time you get corrected.

    So old Hue still engaging with his name calling BS. You can be of service Hue and advance the discussion by assisting Mr. Cayetano with some research and provide evidence to support his contention that there are multiple contradictory forms of Zionisms.

  119. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 1:53pm #

    Luis Cayetano writes …

    Deadbeat, please don’t pontificate about Left solidarity, when you have reverted to naked fabrications and Red Herrings to tarnish and smear those who want the same things as you. Our task should be how to help the Palestinians, not to indulge in self-congratulatory camp-fire fantasies about the elimination of Israel, with ”brave” and ”principled” statements about the right of Palestinians to retake all their land.

    Mr. Cayetano is so oblivious to his own RACISM because of the “Left’s” utter failure to challenge it and DIRECTLY CONFRONT it these past decades primarily due Zionism being so embedded among Leftists.

    Jewish racism has become so MAINSTREAM that Mr. Cayetano can make his remarks without batting an eyelash and in the same manner that David Duke can justify his adherence to White supremacy.

    And finally there is Max Shields cheering Mr. Cayetano’s racism on from the bleachers.

  120. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 2:04pm #

    Luis Cayatano writes …

    ”If you need a definition of Zionism refer to Theodore Herzl.”

    That’s fine, but still irrelevant to what we’re actually talking about: Chomsky’s sense of what the term can encompass, which has nothing to do with the uglier versions we all want to vanquish, other than the common element of ”Jewish”. Herzl’s definition is a definition. That doesn’t mean we’re obligated to remain confined within its scope. Words can mean different things, if we simply explain what we have in mind.

    On the contrary, you are engaging in a CIRCULAR fallacy. You argued that Chomsky claims that there are multiple forms of Zionism. I am asking you for EVIDENCE. Herzl provides the evidence of the form of Jewish Nationalism that pre-dates even Chomsky. Chomsky is CLAIMING that there is another benign form that CONTRADICTS Herzl version. I’m asking you to PROVE that there is another form of Zionism that contradicts the Herzl version. You haven’t done that. All you have done is repeat the premise of your argument which is to repeat Chomsky’s CLAIMS.

    All I want from you Mr. Cayatano is the very same demand you made when I asserted that Chomsky is a Zionist. I as well as Hayate offered links to various supporting sources of Chomsky’s Zionism.

    Your premise is that Chomsky belonged to a “different” and totally contradictory Zionist sect. I’m asking you to provide evidence of this other sect that you’ve asserted. This should be an easy task for you to provide this information if such a sect truly exist.

  121. hayate said on January 10th, 2011 at 2:07pm #

    The ziobigots flock together like that on every site that allows it. It’s called s.w.a.r.m.ing and israel’s zionist supporters are the major practitioner of this site disruption tactic.

  122. hayate said on January 10th, 2011 at 2:18pm #

    Funny how s.w.a.r.m. works. First they deny chomsky is a zionist. Then when shown undeniable proof, they revert to “well, he’s one of the “good zionists”, he doesn’t believe in all that “bad zionist” stuff”.

    :D

  123. shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 2:25pm #

    Deadbeat:

    {Jewish racism has become so MAINSTREAM that Mr. Cayetano can make his remarks without batting an eyelash and in the same manner that David Duke can justify his adherence to White supremacy. }

    You are right, don’t trust him. He is another version of (Gideon, Michael Dawson, RH2, KL5, lichen, Cameron, ….) who come here to buy credibility for an apartheid state. Chomsky supported the war against Iraq and now against Iran by supporting and signing petitions of HOPI and CPD, according to Charles Herman CPD acted as US government front. Their main slogan was “neither US war, nor Saddam dictatorship”. They have similar slogan for Iran.

    Chomsky supported the lies of Iranian traitors like Akbar Ganji – an NED agent who received $500000 from CATO institute for his services – that Iranian election was ‘fraud’.
    You can look at his weblog to see for yourself.
    He has removed all his posts on Iranian election not to be exposed. You don’t see articles under 2009 year, all belong to previous years. His line is the same as US officials. He is Anti CHINA, pro ‘environment’, Anti religion, pushing for secularization Zionist style, glorification of Israeli “peace groups” and “listen to the heroes of Israel”!!!!!!

    {http://warofthewaves.blogspot.com/}

  124. catguy00 said on January 10th, 2011 at 3:00pm #

    Chomsky is such a profound “Zionist” that he is banned from entering the Israel.

  125. catguy00 said on January 10th, 2011 at 3:04pm #

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “This is clearly an ad hominem designed to discredited the argument that Zionism has a great deal of influence over western, especially U.S., governments because those making the charge are White Supremacist or on the Rights. ”

    You asked me for different defintion of Zionism. I gave you one from the far right. They view immigration, miscegenation, mulitculturalism, gay righs, feminism etc…….as a Zionism.

    On the other hand you have failed to provide a clear definition of what you believe to be Zionism outside of “Jewish Supremacy”

  126. catguy00 said on January 10th, 2011 at 3:06pm #

    shabnam wrote”

    “He is Anti CHINA, pro ‘environment’, Anti religion, pushing for secularization Zionist style. “”

    The above is a good example. Please explain how any of these positions are “Zionist”.

  127. shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 3:17pm #

    You are such a lazy person. Why don’t you look at the provided link to find out for yourself. Think first, before hitting the keyboard.

  128. shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 3:22pm #

    {Please explain how any of these positions are “Zionist”. }

    READ AGAIN. Where did I imply that these positions are ‘zionist’?

  129. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 3:44pm #

    catguy00 writes …

    You asked me for different defintion of Zionism. I gave you one from the far right. They view immigration, miscegenation, mulitculturalism, gay righs, feminism etc…….as a Zionism.

    CUTE! What you provided was a definition of “Zionist Occupied Government” not Zionism itself and not of the Zionism that Chomsky claims. In fact what you attempted in your argument was to discredit the claim of Zionism’s INFLUENCE on the U.S. (and western) government via an ad hominem fallacy — meaning that since the claim is coming from the White Supremacist Right the claim is tainted by the Right’s racism.

    The irony is that you’ve got Jewish Fascist in contention with White Fascist. The problem is while there is a world-wide AWARENESS of White Fascism, Jewish Fascism is acceptably mainstream.

  130. Max Shields said on January 10th, 2011 at 4:34pm #

    shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 11:03am #

    I am familiar with the work of Mahmood Mamdani and find him reputable on this topic of Sudan. Not sure why you are introducing this into the discussion on Wikileaks per se. Maybe you can explain.

    From what I’ve read I don’t think Luis, Hue Longer, catguy00 (and I know I’m not) even remotely associated with Zionism or Israel. Again, that’s from what I’m reading here.

    However, Deadbeat, it has crossed my mind more than once that you, hayate, and 2beancan are false flags. I could be wrong. It is just difficult to understand why you would call posters racists, zionizis, pseudo-leftist, or whatever your lasted word selection for those you cannot convince that your ideology has merit (at least in large part, though there is a willingness to agree on the most important issues regarding Palestinians and the Israeli predatory state and its repeated acts of crimes against humanity).

    We may have common ground, as well as differences. I for one don’t think a 2 state solution is viable regardless of who “signed off” on it. There are fundamental reasons why such a “resolve” cannot, in my opinion work. I’ve stated them on DV a number of times. Luis and I may disagree on that.

    You, Deadbeat, on the other hand, have never suggested (that I know of) a solution that you think is viable. Perhaps you’d like to state that.

    Or perhaps you’d just like this tit-for-tat excerise in futility that you, hayate, and 2beancan perform day after day.

  131. Hue Longer said on January 10th, 2011 at 4:40pm #

    DB,

    did you notice the question mark in my perfect statement regarding how you come across (as well as your terrible understanding of logical fallacy)? I have no problems admitting I called you a name (I may have referred to you as a fuckwit but not sure if I actually typed it) but again, the QUESTION was in regards to YOU labeling others and I was showing a much more likely scenario with you better fitting those labels. In fact, thanks for posting it, please let it stand and consider it. Dead Beat, If you are not a “RACIST”, “ZIONAZI”, “LYING” “TROLL”, you coming in here and claiming others are, is NOT helping this website and the articles from concerned anti-zionists trying to share information.

    I’ve explained this to you many times, but like circular reasoning or ad hominem, you don’t understand. I’m glad Hayate is concerned for your freedom of speech, but having mouths doesn’t mean you should open them

  132. shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 5:30pm #

    Max: Aparently you did not see the quote I copied at the top of my comment
    {and subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and the ongoing atrocities today in Darfur.}

    These lines are from Mary’s comment. Since you, Max Shield, are not worried about Partition of Southern Sudan based on lies and deception of Charles Jacobs, (Child Slavery) a hoax, to carry out the partition of Sudan according to ODED YINON, “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” or the ‘left’, then I wanted to remind people of what is happening now.

    Have you seen an article about Sudan, for the past year and half about Sudan? No one CARES that what is happening to Sudanese people by imperialism/Zionism and its stooges including Obama, Clinton, Kerry or Susan Rice. Hollywood stooges, George Clooney and Mia Faro were involved. I know you DON’T CARE, but this is VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE WHOLE REGION, to tell the least. This partition is going to affect on movements and states in the region including Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and beyond. But I know YOU DON’T CARE.

    {http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/853/op2.htm}

    If you knew Arabic or Persian then you would have understood the grave sitution of Sudan and its partition.
    You are so indifferent that you cannot see the connection.

    {http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf}

    Save Darfur is mainly a Jewish Organization where constructed the “genocide” hoax in Darfur.
    {http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=20232}

    In Southern Sudan, however, the Judeofasfist Charles Jacobs from David Project and Camera, who led “child slavery” hoax to brainwash American people against Sudan. He played a prominent role at the university including at HARVARD UNIVERSITY during 1990s up to 2005 where Bashir was forced to sign an agreement to hand in half of his country to the West to improve Israel and US position at the horn of Africa. The zionists played very important role in partition of the Sudan. Wake up.

    {http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/yGOpfH_5_pY/Prof.-Mahmood-Mamdani-and-John-Prendergast}

  133. jayn0t said on January 10th, 2011 at 5:40pm #

    Hue (above) is mixing up several contributors when he accuses Deadbeat of using words like ‘TROLL’ in capital letters. Deadbeat doesn’t do that, he backs up his argument with facts, like Noam Chomsky’s admitted adherence to the Jewish apartheid state (oh, he said he wants a ‘binational’ state, in a recent radio interview, but that’s what Eugene Terre`Blanche, the South African white nationalist leader said :-). I find Deadbeat one of the best online left-wing debaters I know of – fiercely partisan but fair.

    I finally got barred from Lenin’s Tomb, not for “left antisemitism”, which is what I usually get banned for. It was for trying to question the use of the term ‘racism’ as a way of reducing ethnic conflict. So thank God for Dissident Voice and Palestine Think Tank.

  134. Max Shields said on January 10th, 2011 at 5:59pm #

    “Since you, Max Shield, are not worried about Partition of Southern Sudan based on lies and deception of Charles Jacobs, (Child Slavery) a hoax, to carry out the partition of Sudan according to ODED YINON, “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” or the ‘left’, then I wanted to remind people of what is happening now.”

    What???

  135. Hue Longer said on January 10th, 2011 at 6:03pm #

    Hello, jaynot,

    I trust you are correct on the use of “troll” and if so, stand corrected that DB uses it. I think DB is not the other posters that come to mind (and probably yours too) …but he’s only good with “debate” as it is so commonly misused to describe anyone passionately yelling in hopes of winning- getting corrected be damned. His illogical witch hunts are not made better by the fact that he’s a supposed leftist and there’s still that problem of hanging out in front of the club making sure no one would want to come inside

  136. Max Shields said on January 10th, 2011 at 6:05pm #

    Hue you point is well taken. I look at most of the articles (I can only think of one poster who seems a tad, no making that excessively, paranoid) and think why do they waste their time here, when these grotequely mono-obsessed-“anti”-zionist fraught commenters keep harping on the same thing. It’s baffling to me.

    The thought of taking the time and energy to write a thoughtful piece for DV (whether I agree with all of them or not) only to have it trashed by the comments here seems like such a waste.

  137. shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 6:16pm #

    Max writes:
    {From what I’ve read I don’t think Luis, Hue Longer, catguy00 (and I know I’m not) even remotely associated with Zionism or Israel. Again, that’s from what I’m reading here.}

    Please review Luis’s weblog. He very much admires Dawkins and believes in his politics. Do you know who Charles Dawkins is? I am sure you know his work in science and perhaps have read his famous book ‘selfish gene’ which I don’t agree with. But this is not the problem. The problem for me is his association with Ex Muslim crowd who are part of the Islamophobic industry used by the west intelligence agency. He has retired himself to be active full time advocating for ‘secularism’ and death to religion. He, however, like other ‘secularists’ and Ex Muslim members, do not target Judaism or Christianity, but only Islam although they claim all religions are target which is nothing but a lie.

    I don’t know Luis know his involvement with the Islamophobic industry, I assume he knows. Then, apparently, he does not have any objection to it as his weblog, I included in the earlier comment, shows because he advocate Richard Dawkins’ speeches and lectures in his weblog. Dawkins has cooperation with the neocons such as Maryam Namazie, Ayaan Hershi Ali and Ibn Warraq, all supporters of Islamophobic industry.

    {http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/08/ayaan-hirsi-ali-interview}

    If you appreciate David Duke politics, then I would accept Richard Dawkins’ racist attitude towards Muslim.

    {https://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/richard-dawkins-on-the-counicl-of-ex-muslims-of-britain/}

  138. 3bancan said on January 10th, 2011 at 6:50pm #

    Max Shields said on January 10th, 2011 at 4:34pm #
    “Or perhaps you’d just like this tit-for-tat excerise in futility that you, hayate, and 2beancan perform day after day”

    Wow, as if weren’t Max Shields who is this site’s champion of “tit-for-tat excerise in futility”!
    Btw, I presented a just AND viable solution to the genocide in Palestine in my comment (August 29th, 2010 at 5:56pm) to the article Roundabout as Conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s Psychology of Liberation
    by Denis Rancourt / August 25th, 2010. – Of course zionazis and their supporters will find it “undoable/unrealistic/unviable/… “, or – using Chomsky’s standard consent-manufacturing phrases – “irrational/hypocritical”, “It won’t happen!”…

  139. 3bancan said on January 10th, 2011 at 7:39pm #

    A compulsory reading to this topic:

    [http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m73777&hd=&size=1&l=e]

  140. shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 7:44pm #

    ISRAEL’S SECRET ROLE IN SUDAN’S BREAKUP

    Northern Sudan is one of the best-educated regions of Africa and Sudan as a state one of Africa’s most powerful militarily. After the Arab disaster in the June 1967 Six-day War with Israel, Sudan provided shelter bases for the remaining Egyptian airforce place that had not been destroyed by Israel.

    Sudan trained Egyptian airforce and ground forces, something that alarmed Israel. The Israelis realized that a strong Sudan would be a permanent geopolitical threat to them.

    The following year, Israel started to support and arm the breakaway Anyanya movement of southern Sudan and using the then Ugandan army commander, Major-General Idi Amin as coordinator, funneled arms to the southern rebels.

    This was part of the reason that Israel actively supported the 1971 military coup that brought Idi Amin to power in Uganda.

    On Sept. 4, 2008, Avi Dichter, a former Israeli internal security minister and former director of Israel’s internal security service Shabak, presented a lecture in Jerusalem in which he explained Israel’s role in stirring trouble in Sudan.

    Said Dichter: “Our allies or our friends in southern Sudan are capable of implementing the Israeli agenda. We had to weaken Sudan and deprive it of the initiative to build a strong and united state. That is necessary for bolstering and strengthening Israel’s national security. We produced and escalated the Darfur crisis to prevent Sudan from developing its capabilities.

    “Our strategy which was implemented in southern Sudan in the past and is being implemented now in Western Sudan [location of Darfur] has succeeded in changing the situation in Sudan so that it becomes critical and divisions occur,” Dichter continued.

    “The present conflicts in Sudan will sooner or later lead to its partition into several entities and states. There are international forces led by America that insist on interfering in Sudan in favour of the independence of southern Sudan, and also of Darfur, similar to what happened in Kosovo,” Dichter said.

    {http://ugandarecord.co.ug/index.php?issue=74&article=891&seo=Israel’s%20secret%20role%20in%20Sudan}

    All forces in the region MUST BE UNITED AGAINST ZIONISM and its supporters.

  141. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 8:15pm #

    Kudos Shabnam for your reporting about the Sudan. I had no context about this situation without your commentary. You helped me understand the role of Zionism in this region of the world.

  142. Max Shields said on January 10th, 2011 at 8:33pm #

    shabnam said on January 10th, 2011 at 5:30pm #

    First, I have idea who Charles Dawkins is. My comment was clear, I am not responsible for who posters are, but I haven’t seen anything recently (that is since the REAL zionist troll squad last hit here some months ago…I’ve not noted them lately).

    I’m certainly not arguing against the Israel’s interventions into the African continent and particular Sudan. I am very suspicious of what is going on there, but that’s another story.

    For those who think (2beancan) that I agree with Chomsky on the 2 state, well I DON”T and have said so with great frequency here. It is not a viable solution however it may seem to appease those who believe you can split the “baby”. That land is of a piece and I believe it is a bioregion that cannot be sustain the population as two nations.

    But the real issue I have with Chomsky and those who support the 2-state, is the notion that it is a politically viable solution. One need only imagine a Palestinian state with army, airforce, navy, economic trade, demand for increased water access (currently deprived by Israel) and much more.
    I cannot imagine an Israeli state willing to have this neighbor.

    A single bio-region/state, would reintegrate Palestinians. There numbers would over time assure political strength, the land and all natural assets and resources in the region would be better managed then to split them off. I’m not saying that it is an easy solution given the predatory state. But as the US empire declines, this will be the only way peace can come to the region, and Israel will become less of what it is without its parent to bail it out.

    That is why, the US and its decline should be what we are watching rather than looking to some kind of Soviet style Israel (Israel is only relatively strong as a military power in the region because of its relation with the US). When the race is over, Israel will begin to shrivel. It will be further isolated. The end is not fully discernable, but it is in process.

  143. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2011 at 9:25pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    For those who think (2beancan) that I agree with Chomsky on the 2 state, well I DON”T and have said so with great frequency here. It is not a viable solution however it may seem to appease those who believe you can split the “baby”. That land is of a piece and I believe it is a bioregion that cannot be sustain the population as two nations.

    Let’s be clear Max about your position regarding Chomsky. You are right that you have consistently been in disagreement with Chomsky on the two-state solution. But the REAL problem is you’ve been inconsistent in your disdain for Zionism. You are against Zionism SO LONG AS the discussion LIMITS Zionism to Israel. But when it comes to analysis and discussing Zionism’s INFLUENCE upon the United States political economy you are right there alongside Chomsky.

    Zionism is an IDEOLOGY that is NOT limited to the boundaries (whatever they may be) of Israel. Israel is the physical form of Zionism and help to generate Arab backlash towards Jews and maintains the victimization psychology that binds Jews together around Zionism.

    The goals of Israel as a nation differs from that of the United States but it is Jewish influence IN THE UNITED STATES that binds the U.S. to Israel. It is not the other way around. Both Chomsky and you are on the same page in that denial.

  144. catguy00 said on January 10th, 2011 at 10:34pm #

    Deadbeat wrote: “CUTE! What you provided was a definition of “Zionist Occupied Government” not Zionism itself and not of the Zionism that Chomsky claims. ”

    That ZOG is meant to destroy white society is part of the Zionist definition as white nationalists see it.

  145. catguy00 said on January 10th, 2011 at 10:39pm #

    Shabnam”If you appreciate David Duke politics, then I would accept Richard Dawkins’ racist attitude towards Muslim.”

    This is really weak.

    Dawkins is an ATHEIST. He abhors all RELIGION.

    Some more than other but particularly the abrahamic religions since they have inlficted the most damage on the world.

    I fully agree with him.

  146. 3bancan said on January 10th, 2011 at 11:53pm #

    Max Shields said on January 10th, 2011 at 8:33pm #
    “For those who think (2beancan) that I agree with Chomsky on the 2 state, well I DON”T and have said so with great frequency here”
    I NEVER said I do. Max said (August 29th, 2010 at 7:35pm:
    “I am for the dissolution of the state of Israel, the right of return of Palestinians and the recreation of a state that is sustainable within that region – just peace.” What the hell does that foggy “recreation of a state that is sustainable within that region” mean?
    “A single bio-region/state, would reintegrate Palestinians”. Ie, the state remains Jewish/is run by Jews, the Jews remain the – unlawful – owners of the stolen land, and the Palestinians, the owners of the land are only “integrated”, ie treated as second-rate citizens. And no justice done to the criminals against humanity and to their victims…

  147. hayate said on January 11th, 2011 at 12:14am #

    When somebody claims they are anti-zionist, but then spend most of their time attacking anti-zionists and defending zionists, what does that say about their so-called anti-zionism?

    It’s like someone claiming to be opposed to the death penalty, yet cheers when a person gets lynched whom they though beat a murder rap.

  148. Deadbeat said on January 11th, 2011 at 1:14am #

    categuy00 writes …

    Deadbeat wrote: “CUTE! What you provided was a definition of “Zionist Occupied Government” not Zionism itself and not of the Zionism that Chomsky claims. ”

    That ZOG is meant to destroy white society is part of the Zionist definition as white nationalists see it.

    That’s NOT a definition of Zionism. That is a right-wing INTERPRETATION of Zionist influence of U.S. government. There’s also a left-wing interpretation that you tend to dismiss best articulated by Jeffery Blankfort and James Petras.

    However your claim is that there is another benign definition of Zionism promoted by Noam Chomsky’s false claims of Arab and Jewish working class solidarity. Neither you or Luis Cayetano have provided any evidence to support that claim and now you are using a red herring fallacy to make your case because you have no evidence. All you have to do catguy00 is concede that you have no evidence and that you made a mistake. I won’t make fun of you.

  149. Deadbeat said on January 11th, 2011 at 1:33am #

    Here’s an interesting critique of Dawkins …

    Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins Scapegoat Islam

    Could Dawkins be using his “atheism” as a means to promote “Islamophobia” (read: Zionism)? I think that may be the point of Shabnam’s argument. I never heard of this guy before but I wouldn’t be surprised. If others can share more information I’d appreciate it.

  150. hayate said on January 11th, 2011 at 2:14am #

    Deadbeat

    Dawkins is the latest popstar of a long line of zionist phony atheists. Take a look at this:

    Richard Dawkins on Islam

    [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc693r_richard-dawkins-on-islam_news]

    or

    Richard Dawkins reproduces Pat Condell’s ‘Ground Zero mosque’ rant DateSunday, June 6, 2010

    “In response to a request that the video be removed, Dawkins writes:

    “I believe Pat Condell deserves a hearing. He may sound extreme, but that could just reflect the extremes he is fighting against. I don’t know the corresponding figures for America, but polls in Britain suggest that an alarmingly high percentage of young British Muslims support the terrorists of 9/11 and 7/7, and some 40% of Muslims want Sharia Law introduced into Britain. Disquietingly high percentages supported the death sentence against Salman Rushdie and the threats of violence against the Danish cartoonists. Even ‘moderate’ Muslim leaders support the principle that apostasy deserves the death penalty, even if they are too nice to carry out the sentence themselves. I think it is well arguable that Islam is the greatest man-made force for evil in the world today. Pat Condell is one of the few with the courage to say so.”

    [http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/6/6/richard-dawkins-reproduces-pat-condells-ground-zero-mosque-r.html]

    He’s another zionist Islamophobe misusing atheist views to support zionist prejudice.

    For a while, he was a popular thread topic ad the guardian’s talkboard (he gets a lot of play at the guardian, I believe). The zionist laborites (not Labour, but newlabor) love him.