Man, Alec Jones Is Not Even Hiding It..

[Tin Foil Timothy]

are you suggesting that there are no anti-Zionists who are really motivated by hatred of Jews?

If you read my posts you'll see that I'm doing no such thing. Dress up a straw man as a question and it's still a straw man.

But assuming it was a genuine question rather than an assertion I will answer it....

I'm not naive enough to believe their are no anti-Semites. but I'm also not naive enough, or stupid enough, to claim most anti-Zionists are anti-semites.

While racism exists, in my experience most people are decent enough to not prejudice people. But they will criticize behavior where they see fit whatever someone's background

if you read the writings of many anti-Zionists, they often go into issues that have NOTHING to do with Zionism. Such as the Russian Revolution, the American Civil War, international banking, the death of Jesus. These are the pet subjects of anti-Semites.

Lets not forget that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had NOTHING to do with Israel, Palestine, or Zionism.

And you should know that it's common to stifle criticism of the Israeli Lobby/Zionist movement by labeling it racism.

You should also know that the fight against real racism is being handicapped by the political hijacking of the term. It's got so bad that whenever someone cries Anti-Semitism those of us who actually care about racism have to check whether it's real anti-Semitism or just another attack on criticism of Zionism/Israel lobby

 

[Brainster]

Are you serious?

Zionism as a political movement still exists you know. It's one of the most powerful lobbies. AIPAC used to be called the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs.

People who are Anti-Zionist are those who are not happy with the way this movement has so much power to promote the Pro-Israel lobby at the expense of other issues.

Zionism as defined at Dictionary.com:

–noun
a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel.

Zi·on·ism (zī'ə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

So my assumption is that those who are anti-Zionist are concerned with the destruction and demolition of the state of Israel.

Anti-semitic kooks, in other words.

You may have some other definition in mind. Unfortunately dictionary.com is not a wikipedia-type site where you can make up your own definitions.

 

[Trojan_Jockey]

Zionism as defined at Dictionary.com:



So my assumption is that those who are anti-Zionist are concerned with the destruction and demolition of the state of Israel.

Anti-semitic kooks, in other words.

You may have some other definition in mind. Unfortunately dictionary.com is not a wikipedia-type site where you can make up your own definitions.

Clearly, when many of the CTs talk about Zionism they don't actually know what it means. The talk of Zionist influence, politicians and presidents being controlled by Zionist puppet masters etc. is old fashioned antisemitism, nothing less.

Some truthers may be new to the scene, and perhaps not well read, and thus be unfamiliar with the history of scapegoating the Jews. They read the Protocols and think it is real. They don't have the reasoning skills to separate fact from fiction. They don't even mean to be antisemitic, probably never expressed any racism in their life, but the idea that Zionists control the world is just too exciting, too simple and too satisfying for them to even consider that it might be a lie motivated by racial hatred. They don't mean to be antisemitic, but hell, these theories are so much more exciting that what you learn in school!

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Zionism as defined at Dictionary.com:

So my assumption is that those who are anti-Zionist are concerned with the destruction and demolition of the state of Israel.

Anti-semitic kooks, in other words.

You may have some other definition in mind. Unfortunately dictionary.com is not a wikipedia-type site where you can make up your own definitions.

That over-simplified assumption has been used for years and is getting a bit tired now. Sure there are some, mostly Arab fundamentalists I would imagine, who want the destruction of Israel.

But you can be against the behavior of the Zionist movement without wanting the destruction of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Even many Jews are against Zionism. Are they also Anti-semitic?

It's important to recognize the difference between zionism ( a recognition and support of the existence of a Jewish State ) and the Zionist Movement ( a political lobby )

It's not anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli Lobby for it's influences. It's not anti-Semitic to criticize the persecution of the Palestinians and any other wrong doings by Israel.

The labeling of any criticism of the Zionist movement as anti-semitic is an old tactic mainly promoted by groups like the ADL.

Your dictionary says: "Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel."

Correct. And criticizing the way the way that is being conducted is not anti-semitic and legitimate political criticism.

if you think that all those who are anti-Zionist are concerned with the destruction and demolition of the state of Israel you are severely mistaken.

 

[Doctor Evil]

It's not anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli Lobby for it's influences. It's not anti-Semitic to criticize the persecution of the Palestinians and any other wrong doings by Israel.

The labeling of any criticism of the Zionist movement as anti-semitic is an old tactic mainly promoted by groups like the ADL.

You seem to be making a claim that there is a systematic effort to paint any criticism of the Zionist movement as racist. Well, I think this is plainly wrong. You can find many places where there thoughtful criticism of Israeli policies, and no one seem to make that claim. Heck, quite a lot of it can be found in the Israeli newspapers.

Can you actually provide evidence for your claim?

It seems to me that your constant whining about this is some kind of special pleading. From what I have seen you have not yet supplied us with any specific criticism of any actual Israeli policy. It is not that hard to do. In fact, I can easily fill a page with very detailed criticism of this type and I assure you that no one with think that I am antisemitic. When someone argue obsessively about Jewish Lobbies, without and specific, detailed, and factual criticism, it is no wonder that people become suspicious. This type of behavior have history.

Can you tell me what actions of AIPAC you find illegitimate? As far as I can see, they are a group of US citizens trying to influence their government policies. There are other such lobbies, including ones who also are mainly focused on foreign policy. You may think the policies they advocate are wrong, but this does not seem to me to be they crux of your argument. You seem to be implying that they are somehow doing something which is inherently wrong. Can you explain exactly what?

Last, but not least. The claim that antisemitism is used to stifle political discussion has become very popular in recent years. In some circles it has received the name 'the Livingston formulation'., names after the former mayor of London. He has used it after some incident with a Jewish reporter, which he later tried to relate to Israel in order to change the subject.

He did not simply insult a Jewish journalist by suggesting that he had worked as a Nazi concentration camp guard and then refuse to apologize for the comment. He reacted to criticism of this insult by publishing an article in the Guardian under the title 'This is about Israel, not anti-semitism'(March 4 2005), in which he sought to change the topic of discussion by insisting that the problem is not anti-Semitism but Israel's 'racist' policies. (I responded to this piece with a letter in the Guardian, which can be found here.)

I recommend that you take a look at the site I have link. It is maintained by a group of left-wing academic which are worried about the rise of antisemitism. They have taken some care to try and identify when criticism is valid, and it goes beyond some line. You do not have to agree with them, but you may gain from actually reading some of their arguments.

 

[Brainster]

It's not anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli Lobby for it's influences. It's not anti-Semitic to criticize the persecution of the Palestinians and any other wrong doings by Israel.

Well, there is the question of balance. How much time do these same people spend criticizing wrongdoings by, say Egypt? Or by Cuba? Or Burkina Faso? Has anybody spent much time denouncing the influence of the French lobby?

Of course not. Now why is that, do you suppose? Is Israel the worst country in the world, and once it cleans up its act the anti-Zionists will move on to the second worst offender?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You seem to be making a claim that there is a systematic effort to paint any criticism of the Zionist movement as racist. Well, I think this is plainly wrong. .

Yes you're correct. Your claim that I am claiming there is a systematic effort to paint any criticism of the Zionist movement as racist is, indeed, plainly wrong.

I am doing no such thing.

In fact there's a name for fabricating or misrepresenting an opponents view point and then proceeding to attack this misrepresentation or fabrication. It's called a Straw Man argument.

 

[Praktik]

Of course not. Now why is that, do you suppose? Is Israel the worst country in the world, and once it cleans up its act the anti-Zionists will move on to the second worst offender?

Well, to answer this question honestly I'd say that there is definitely some small proportion of the people who "focus" on Israel who are anti-semitic.

But most others just have a personal interest in what goes on there and their sense of justice might be inflamed by the vagaries of the occupation or to take an American-centric view, some are just annoyed by the fact that coverage of Israel is so one-sided when Israel itself enjoys a much wider spectrum of debate on the issue. They want to redress this imbalance.

On the "progressive left" there's definitely a strong anti-occupation movement and this is motivated far more by perceived injustice than it is by anti-semitism. At the worst, you could maybe argue that the most irrational in this demographic are "useful idiots" for true anti-semites - but I wouldn't really want to engage in that kind of demagoguery myself..

On the Buchanan-right, I'd say there is a strain of nearly anti-semitic talk, usually couched in code words. I subscribe to The American Conservative out of personal interest (I am no paleocon) and I've seen pieces there that ride the edge and I've seen plenty of others arguing from a first principles perspective that the "passionate attachments" to foreign countries warned of by Washington are dangerous - and that Israel is a prime example of a "passionate attachment" which causes America to make decisions contrary to its basic self-interest. I do not think that the latter type of piece is in any way anti-semitic - its more the ones that make a point of hyper-focusing on the neocons, and the neocons "jewishness" which could be seen as thinly-veiled anti-semitism. Fact is that neocons or no, America is generally "Pro-Israel", so focusing on them I think is kind of missing the larger point and evidence of an irrational approach to the issue and maybe something darker besides...

There's also the fact that Israel is a much more important country than say, Burkina Faso, its conflict is decades long and has filled the news media with atrocities committed by both sides.

America has also "taken a side" in the issue and just like any other position America takes with regards to its foreign policy this is going to drive debate.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Well, to answer this question honestly I'd say that there is definitely some small proportion of the people who "focus" on Israel who are anti-semitic.

But most others just have a personal interest in what goes on there and their sense of justice might be inflamed by the vagaries of the occupation or to take an American-centric view, some are just annoyed by the fact that coverage of Israel is so one-sided when Israel itself enjoys a much wider spectrum of debate on the issue. They want to redress this imbalance.

On the "progressive left" there's definitely a strong anti-occupation movement and this is motivated far more by perceived injustice than it is by anti-semitism. At the worst, you could maybe argue that the most irrational in this demographic are "useful idiots" for true anti-semites - but I wouldn't really want to engage in that kind of demagoguery myself..

On the Buchanan-right, I'd say there is a strain of nearly anti-semitic talk, usually couched in code words. I subscribe to The American Conservative out of personal interest (I am no paleocon) and I've seen pieces there that ride the edge and I've seen plenty of others arguing from a first principles perspective that the "passionate attachments" to foreign countries warned of by Washington are dangerous - and that Israel is a prime example of a "passionate attachment" which causes America to make decisions contrary to its basic self-interest. I do not think that the latter type of piece is in any way anti-semitic - its more the ones that make a point of hyper-focusing on the neocons, and the neocons "jewishness" which could be seen as thinly-veiled anti-semitism. Fact is that neocons or no, America is generally "Pro-Israel", so focusing on them I think is kind of missing the larger point and evidence of an irrational approach to the issue and maybe something darker besides...

There's also the fact that Israel is a much more important country than say, Burkina Faso, its conflict is decades long and has filled the news media with atrocities committed by both sides.

America has also "taken a side" in the issue and just like any other position America takes with regards to its foreign policy this is going to drive debate.

Well said Praktik!

One gets particularly suspicious when people complain about the lack of criticism for other world injustices in threads dedicated to Israel, Zionism and related issues

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Well, there is the question of balance. How much time do these same people spend criticizing wrongdoings by, say Egypt? Or by Cuba? Or Burkina Faso? Has anybody spent much time denouncing the influence of the French lobby?

Of course not. Now why is that, do you suppose? Is Israel the worst country in the world, and once it cleans up its act the anti-Zionists will move on to the second worst offender?

Praktik already answers your questions above. But yes you are right in regards to balance. The Israel issue is very unbalanced. no other country would be allowed to get away with what Israel is doing. So it's not unreasonable that people are going to try and redress that balance by speaking up about it.

It would be very unreasonable to think that people criticizing Zionism and Israel do not care for other world injustices

 

[Brainster]

Well, to answer this question honestly I'd say that there is definitely some small proportion of the people who "focus" on Israel who are anti-semitic.

But most others just have a personal interest in what goes on there and their sense of justice might be inflamed by the vagaries of the occupation or to take an American-centric view, some are just annoyed by the fact that coverage of Israel is so one-sided when Israel itself enjoys a much wider spectrum of debate on the issue. They want to redress this imbalance.

On the "progressive left" there's definitely a strong anti-occupation movement and this is motivated far more by perceived injustice than it is by anti-semitism. At the worst, you could maybe argue that the most irrational in this demographic are "useful idiots" for true anti-semites - but I wouldn't really want to engage in that kind of demagoguery myself..

On the Buchanan-right, I'd say there is a strain of nearly anti-semitic talk, usually couched in code words. I subscribe to The American Conservative out of personal interest (I am no paleocon) and I've seen pieces there that ride the edge and I've seen plenty of others arguing from a first principles perspective that the "passionate attachments" to foreign countries warned of by Washington are dangerous - and that Israel is a prime example of a "passionate attachment" which causes America to make decisions contrary to its basic self-interest. I do not think that the latter type of piece is in any way anti-semitic - its more the ones that make a point of hyper-focusing on the neocons, and the neocons "jewishness" which could be seen as thinly-veiled anti-semitism. Fact is that neocons or no, America is generally "Pro-Israel", so focusing on them I think is kind of missing the larger point and evidence of an irrational approach to the issue and maybe something darker besides...

There's also the fact that Israel is a much more important country than say, Burkina Faso, its conflict is decades long and has filled the news media with atrocities committed by both sides.

America has also "taken a side" in the issue and just like any other position America takes with regards to its foreign policy this is going to drive debate.

Yes, what a shame America stands with the only country in the Middle East that allows its Arab citizens to vote.

It's clear to me that anti-semitism drives Buchanan and some of his more odious contributors like slimeball Justin Raimondo. The American left is more motivated by their simplistic template of supporting the oppressed versus the oppressor; apparently the fact that the oppressed blow up teenagers outside discotheques and families in pizza parlors is seen as a righteous reaction instead of the thuggery that it really is.

On the topic of media coverage of Israel, I don't see a lot of "Israel is perfect" in the news; do you think the coverage of Jenin was more fair and balanced in the US press or in the European? Or the death of Rachel Corrie?

 

[Praktik]

Yes, what a shame America stands with the only country in the Middle East that allows its Arab citizens to vote.

It's clear to me that anti-semitism drives Buchanan and some of his more odious contributors like slimeball Justin Raimondo. The American left is more motivated by their simplistic template of supporting the oppressed versus the oppressor; apparently the fact that the oppressed blow up teenagers outside discotheques and families in pizza parlors is seen as a righteous reaction instead of the thuggery that it really is.

On the topic of media coverage of Israel, I don't see a lot of "Israel is perfect" in the news; do you think the coverage of Jenin was more fair and balanced in the US press or in the European? Or the death of Rachel Corrie?

Well, I think it should be fairly obvious to most impartial observers that the scope of debate on Israel in the American media is narrower than that in Israel - witness the difference in coverage during Olmert's ill-advised Lebanon War in 2006...

Look, I understand that there are plenty of things to be outraged about going on in Israel - whether its collective punishment or random acts of terror in Haifa, illegal settlements or corruption in the PLO. For each "tit" listed as an evil on the Israeli side there's plenty of "tats" to list on the Palestinian side and vice versa. Arguing over these points is rarely fruitful in my experience..

Your invocation of suicide bombers or Israel allowing Arabs to vote doesn't change the fact that others are focusing more on the occupying power - and that plenty of these people are plainly not anti-semites and motivated by other concerns which I attempted to list.

Understand my post as a descriptor of those points of view from different political segments rather than me taking a Tariq Ali or "first principles" approach to the conflict personally.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Well, I think it should be fairly obvious to most impartial observers that the scope of debate on Israel in the American media is narrower than that in Israel - witness the difference in coverage during Olmert's ill-advised Lebanon War in 2006...

.

It certainly is. The West is not given the full picture of the actions of Israel in the Western Media.

You can easily verify this by looking at comparable news stories at Hareetz or Ynet News

 

[Thunder]

Even many Jews are against Zionism. Are they also Anti-semitic?

.

Exactly how many Jews do you think are actively anti-Zionist?

Since there is no large Jewish organization that is openly anti-Zionist, all we can look at is the Naturei Karta and Satmar Chassidim movemants.

They each have less then 50,000 members.

By the way, how can you possible argue that Jewish lobbys hold undue influence in Congress, when their total yearly donations are MINISCULE compared to other lobbying groups such as the AARP and other Corporations??

 

[Trojan_Jockey]

TFT, perhaps you'd like to respond to the points that Doctor Evil made. I guess that you missed the post, although you strangely responded to some of it and not the rest. Anyway, I'll post it again because I think it's very important for the discussion:

Can you tell me what actions of AIPAC you find illegitimate? As far as I can see, they are a group of US citizens trying to influence their government policies. There are other such lobbies, including ones who also are mainly focused on foreign policy. You may think the policies they advocate are wrong, but this does not seem to me to be they crux of your argument. You seem to be implying that they are somehow doing something which is inherently wrong. Can you explain exactly what?

 

[moon1969]

He might be an anti-semite but his right about the zionists. I haven"t heard any jew talking about how evil Stalin was. Always Hitler this and Hitler that. Day after day. My grandfather lost his home in Karelia after WW2 and got nothing. Zionist and jews got Israel after 1948? Where is the justice in that? You see karelians were humiliated in Finland. I forget it. Every american thinks that jews are better than those karelians or chechens or other people who were victims of Stalin and got nothing afte WW2 but zionists got their own country.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

TFT, perhaps you'd like to respond to the points that Doctor Evil made. I guess that you missed the post, although you strangely responded to some of it and not the rest. Anyway, I'll post it again because I think it's very important for the discussion:

Can you tell me what actions of AIPAC you find illegitimate? As far as I can see, they are a group of US citizens trying to influence their government policies. There are other such lobbies, including ones who also are mainly focused on foreign policy. You may think the policies they advocate are wrong, but this does not seem to me to be they crux of your argument. You seem to be implying that they are somehow doing something which is inherently wrong. Can you explain exactly what?

The paragraph you quote is a straw man and I've I already responded to that post. I just didn't quote all of it for brevity.

I haven't said I think AIPAC or it's actions are illegitimate. It's customary to find out someone's opinion before putting an opinion in their mouth and then asking for them to clarify it.

And seeing as you seem to be hovering around a lot we haven't heard much of your views.

Do you think it's anti-semitical to criticize the Zionist movement not for ti's involvement in creating Israel per se, but for it's involvement in creating Israel at the expense of the indigenous population?

Do you think it's anti-semitical to criticize the Zionist movement/Israel Lobby for it's power in influencing America's Middle Eeat foreign policy to teh extent where it's probnably not in America's best interests?

Do you think the collective punishment of the Palestinians is fair?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Exactly how many Jews do you think are actively anti-Zionist?

Since there is no large Jewish organization that is openly anti-Zionist, all we can look at is the Naturei Karta and Satmar Chassidim movemants.

They each have less then 50,000 members.

Even many Jews are against Zionism. Are they also Anti-semitic?

By the way, how can you possible argue that Jewish lobbys hold undue influence in Congress, when their total yearly donations are MINISCULE compared to other lobbying groups such as the AARP and other Corporations??

Well congress receding for a Jewish holiday is a bit of a giveaway. But the whole 'taking sides' with Israel in the Israel/Palestine issue is the biggest giveaway.

What other lobby's do ALL presidential candidates and other top politicians stand up and make big speeches at? The AIPAC yearly conference is like a who's who of US politics.

Not to mention the 30 billion the US is giving to Israel for arms over the next 10 years.

I've never ever heard anyone try to argue that the Jewish Lobby doesn't have a powerful influence in the US Congress though. Even those who are Pro-Israel.

That's as absurd as those who argue that because they saw planes hit the towers it is proof it's not an inside job. Or those that argue that because Palestine was never made an actual State it's OK for Israel to simply steal teh land of individual Palestinians.

Parky I can see that you're a definitely pro-Israel fella.

 

[dudalb]

He might be an anti-semite but his right about the zionists. I haven"t heard any jew talking about how evil Stalin was. Always Hitler this and Hitler that. Day after day. My grandfather lost his home in Karelia after WW2 and got nothing. Zionist and jews got Israel after 1948? Where is the justice in that? You see karelians were humiliated in Finland. I forget it. Every american thinks that jews are better than those karelians or chechens or other people who were victims of Stalin and got nothing afte WW2 but zionists got their own country.

To be fair, nobody tried to systematically wipe out the Kerelians the way Hitler did the Jews.
BTW I think you kind find plenty of Jewish Historians who have very nasty things to say about Stalin.
And, sorry, but Finland is not getting Karelia back anytime soon.

 

[1337m4n]

Rubbish!

Most people I know who you would call "twoofers" have nothing against Jews whatsoever. They do criticise the Zionist movement.

All this 'codeword' BS is childish.

I'll condemn anyone for criticizing anyone because their race, sexuality or gender. But will speak up when political criticism is being labelled racism in order to stifle it.

I've never heard Alex Jones spew anything anti-semitical. But if you have evidence of him doing so then please present it and I'll be the first condemn him for it

They don't criticize the Zionist movement. They criticize Jews. They use the term "Zionist" but they're talking about Jews.

I have personally observed this kind of behavior and your insinuation that it is "childish BS" is insulting. Just one of many examples is a post I saw in a facebook group titled "How to identify Zionists". The post went on to list Jewish names and to do nothing else. That is a deliberate attempt to equate being Jewish with being a Zionist. Any idiot can see that when he's not blithely defending his neo-Nazi buddies.

How about I turn your challenge on you. Find ONE instance where Alex Jones used the term "Zionist" and was ACTUALLY political criticism. You will be unsuccessful. Instead you will get stuff like "Zionists control the media!" with the evidence being a list of Jewish names in media. Again, a blatant attempt to equate Zionism with Judaism.

What I find baffling is why you get so indignant towards people who call out this crap. I'm not trying to "stifle" anyone's speech. The assertion is inherently stupid anyways; how exactly am I "stifling" anyone? Am I pointing a gun to anyone's head and telling them they can't post this crap? Certainly not. I fail to see how any of this could possibly be "stifling" criticism of Israel. Especially when there isn't any criticism of Israel, just criticism of Jews or "Zionists" by people who don't even know the definition of the word, but that's beside the point. People are free to spew whatever racist crap they want. But freedom of speech is a two-way street, thus, I am likewise free to call them out on their racist crap. If they don't like me calling them out on it, that's their own damn fault. "Freedom of speech" is not "freedom from criticism" and I resent the implication that criticism--even criticism that you blindly believe is false--is somehow the same as censorship. Maybe it'd be different if I were the head of some media corporation, but I'm not. I'm just some random dude on the internet. Folks like MaGZ and Clippy are big boys; they can defend themselves against that big meanie 1337m4n if they think I'm wrong; they don't need you doing it for them. In fact I think they'd be embarrassed by your performance thus far. In contrast, if you allow racism to go on disguised as "political criticism", you get lovely things such as lynch mobs.