[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] [Peace] News from Neptune for 14 March 2014

[C. G. Estabrook]

Ahmad--

I'm afraid that you may have difficulty finding a political category for those who should not "restrict our conversations to mere criticisms of each other" in a way that will include all the participants in the appended thread. 

I doubt you could get agreement among them even on a "general cause that unifies us all" - even if that cause is "stopping US atrocities" - because there will not be much agreement on what counts as "US atrocities."

In addition, although I think Chomsky's account of BDS (a "tactic") is correct, there is certainly "legitimate disagreement" on "particular implementations" (like the ASA boycott) - and perhaps some illegitimate disagreement as well. Both are matters that should be discussed, even if the discussion appears less than "constructive":


CHOMSKY: "There is an interesting mythology that I have opposed the BDS movement. In reality, as explained over and over, I not only support it but was actively involved long before the 'movement' took shape. BDS is, of course, a tactic. That should be understood. Norman Finkelstein warned recently that it sometimes appears to be taking on cult-like features. That should be carefully avoided. Like all tactics, particular implementations have to be judged on their own merits. Here there is room for legitimate disagreement. I have been opposed to certain implementations, particularly those that are very likely to harm the victims, as unfortunately has happened...
      "It is convenient, particularly for Westerners, to regard it as an 'anti-Israel movement.' There are obvious temptations to blaming someone else, but the fact of the matter is that Israel can commit crimes to the extent that they are given decisive support by the US, and less directly, its allies. BDS actions are both principled and most effective when they are directed at our [US citizens'] crucial contribution to these crimes, without which they would end; for example, boycott of western firms contributing to the occupation, working to end military aid to Israel, etc."


I do think that point should direct our political work: "Israel can commit crimes to the extent that they are given decisive support by the US." Our job is to inform Americans about what is being done in their name by the US government. 

"It is not simply that most people don’t know what’s going on, but they don’t even know that they don’t know." Criticism of ignorance - perhaps especially encouraged ignorance - would seem necessarily constructive.

Regards, CGE


On Mar 16, 2014, at 2:20 AM, SJP UIUC <sjp.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi to all, 
> This is Ahmad Hamdan, the president of the SJP at UIUC. Before I proceed, I am speaking amongst elders of the community and the movement, which may make me seem out of line, however, I've only done so as it has been invoked given that I am part of this thread. 
> I would like to start by saying I'm delighted to see how much conversation this recent lecture by Rabbi Rosen has sparked. I would also like to add that these conversations should be productive, and not counteractive to the general cause that unifies us all, that is stoping US atrocities, especially where they are highlighted in the Israel-Palestine conflict. 
> That being said, I'd like to ask that instead of restricting our conversations to mere criticisms of each other, we ought to have CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms, that further the said cause. 
> On the matter of BDS, and this is I'd say a statement on behalf of my SJP and myself, I do not doubt their intentions nor do I see any benefit in ostracizing the movement. In fact, I think it is proper to look at Chomsky's analysis of the movement, and not at a few out of context quotes. A proper analysis of this movement would begin by asking the goals of the movement, that is to sway public opinion of the US population. No significant divestment has been made enough to stunt the Israeli economy, as the biggest investor is our government. This, however, does not detract from the alternate goal of swaying public opinion on Israel. If this is to be done correctly, we should look at public reaction to such boycotts as the ASA academic boycott, where I think our university is a good example. Our university chancellor had immediately denounced the boycott, as did many universities, on the grounds of an attack on education and democracy, however misguided that may be. This reaction should have been anticipated by the boycott spearheads, and thus should have been taken into great consideration when doing such a bold move. I feel that as US citizens we ought to focus on our own government's atrocities by looking to exposing the realities of US tyranny rather than trying to demonize Israel, however tyrannical they may be, because the US will simply stand by Israel in these attacks and debunk the efforts of such movements. 
> Once again this is not to say that the BDS movements and others alike are ill intentioned or "wrong". I say we can use the momentum the movement has given recent activities to redirect our attention to the biggest perpetrators of hegemony and domination, the US. So, instead of attacking each other, what say you to us helping one another and redirecting our efforts to something close to home and more relevant to our population. I feel this is what people the likes of Chomsky have been working towards, and furthermore, it is not beneficial to anyone if the opposition to Israel appears to be divided and conflicted. 
> Thank you for reading, 
> Ahmad Hamdan
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:11 PM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:
> Carl, how soon you forget. Although you invoked the free speech argument, your defense of Francis went beyond that into its political content.
> 
> @%<
> 
> > On Mar 15, 2014, at 6:47 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
> >
> > Free speech rights don't depend on what's said.
> >
> > Nor on the beliefs of those speaking.
> >
> > If you don't believe in free speech for people you despise, you don't believe in it at all.
> >
> > I thought these things were decided during the Enlightenment.
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:55 PM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Carl comes clean! You don't care whether the person you repeatedly defended from charges of antisemitism was actually an antisemite or not. To you it's just some sort of game. Well, at least you admit that your rhetoric on the topic is empty and meaningless to you. And you demonstrate why the Counterpunchdrunks are so irrelevant.
> >>
> >> And say, is that the same Counterpunch who has published two Holocaust deniers in the last twelve months? Why, yes, it is (Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon).  Perhaps, Carl, you have tied yourself to the wrong mast? No, of course not, Carl is never more infallible than when proclaiming his own moral infallibility.
> >>
> >> But then, it's not like it's a moral issue or anything. It's only antisemitism. Who cares? Not Carl. And by inviting a Holocaust denier onto your show, you demonstrated that you were perfectly happy to have neo-Nazi propaganda from Steve Francis on AOTA, as long as it's *progressive* neo-Nazi propaganda.
> >>
> >> @%<
> >>
> >>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:07 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I neither know nor care very much whether Steve Francis is an anti-Semite. He may well be.
> >>>
> >>> What's your position on the (much more serious) issue sketched below?
> >>>
> >>> Do you agree with me, or with the editors of CounterPunch?
> >>>
> >>> --CGE
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:54 PM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So sez Carl "I Let Holocaust Deniers Play Me Like a Piano, But I'd Rather Not Discuss It Because That Would Require Admitting It" Estabrook.
> >>>>
> >>>> Carl, here is the direct question all your furious rhetorical aerobatics have failed to get off your tail. Do you finally accept that I attacked Steve Francis as an antisemite because he IS an antisemite, one you passionately defended again and again without quite getting around to the "oops" once he tipped his hand (forward at arms length at an upward angle)? Because if that's the case, it's time for a you-a maxima culpa you've never quite managed to deliver.
> >>>>
> >>>> Quick, Carl, to the Bloviotron! You must make new deflective/distractive measures!
> >>>>
> >>>> @%<
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:05 AM, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is an actual issue here, obscured as it is by David's amusing hysterics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's the difference between Mearsheimer and Walt on the one hand and Chomsky on the other. The editors of Counterpunch incline to the former, I to the latter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Roughly put, M-W see the Israeli government dominating US policy, against "American interests." (Their 2007 book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," even contends that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with control of energy resources but only to do with "Israeli interests" - which seems to me obviously false.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion. I've reviewed elsewhere what the record (historical and documentary) seems to me to show about the main sources of US ME policy, in books and articles for the past 40 years, and can't try to repeat here. M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don't think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation. Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby." {Chomsky at <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm>].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeffrey Blankfort (a friend of the late Cockburn's, whom CP continues to publish) has an extreme form of the former view; perhaps Norman Finkelstein can be said to have an extreme form of the latter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In an interview in September 2010, Chomsky said - accurately, I think -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'There is an interesting mythology that I have opposed the BDS movement. In reality, as explained over and over, I not only support it but was actively involved long before the "movement" took shape. BDS is, of course, a tactic. That should be understood. Norman Finkelstein warned recently that it sometimes appears to be taking on cult-like features. That should be carefully avoided. Like all tactics, particular implementations have to be judged on their own merits. Here there is room for legitimate disagreement. I have been opposed to certain implementations, particularly those that are very likely to harm the victims, as unfortunately has happened.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> '...It is convenient, particularly for Westerners, to regard it as an "anti-Israel movement." There are obvious temptations to blaming someone else, but the fact of the matter is that Israel can commit crimes to the extent that they are given decisive support by the US, and less directly, its allies. BDS actions are both principled and most effective when they are directed at our crucial contribution to these crimes, without which they would end; for example, boycott of western firms contributing to the occupation, working to end military aid to Israel, etc.'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's the point that should direct our own political work - "Israel can commit crimes to the extent that they are given decisive support by the US." Our job is to inform Americans about what is being done in their name by the US government. "It is not simply that most people don’t know what’s going on, but they don’t even know that they don’t know." Cockburn and Counterpunch have done yeoman service in changing that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --CGE
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:11 AM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Estabrook's admiration for "Counterpunch" goes a long way toward
> >>>>>> explaining how a neo-neo-Nazi like Steve Francis could dribble him so
> >>>>>> humiliatingly up and down the court like a basketball, with Carl
> >>>>>> insisting "I'm in perfect control of the situation" at each bounce.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you're Counterpunchdrunk, even *considering* the possibility that
> >>>>>> a critic of Israel is also an antisemite is absolute and complete
> >>>>>> capitulation to Bibi, must never never never be done, and everything
> >>>>>> possible must be done to shout down anyone who tries to point it out,
> >>>>>> even when it's flashing in neon letters like Francis's was all along.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Counterpunch coin has only one side: be as antisemitic as you
> >>>>>> want, use what antisemitic memes you want, expound what antisemitic
> >>>>>> conspiracies you want, but as long as you've mentioned the word
> >>>>>> "zionist" somewhere in there at least once, then the antisemitism is
> >>>>>> all magically lifted away, and Carl Estabrook is your bestest bestest
> >>>>>> friend.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> People like Francis know this, too. They know that they can trust on
> >>>>>> the Carls of the world to fall right in line. They know the last thing
> >>>>>> they have to fear is critical examination of their antisemitism from
> >>>>>> the Carls of the world.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And that's how you end up looking the way Carl did, having to pretend
> >>>>>> at every turn that the criticism of Francis's obvious and blatant
> >>>>>> antisemitism was all a dodge and a fake - right up until Francis
> >>>>>> started waving Die Fahne Hoch, when Carl suddenly went vewwy vewwy
> >>>>>> quiet, never quite getting around to uttering "ooops."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But, you know, that really was the best poor Carl could do, given that
> >>>>>> his trustiest periscope into the issue, Cockburn, is so cracked.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @%<
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:20 PM, "ya'aQov" <yaaqovz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rabbi B. Rosen's advocacy for BDS was uninformed, fake leftist posturing, as D. Green's is. Rosen had an epiphany during Operation Cast Lead; that didn't improve his accuracy and analytical prowess.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Possibly the best analyses of BDS is N. Chomsky's and N. Finkelstein's
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again and again, people pretending to speak on behalf of Palestinian people have NOT spoken with Palestinian people, and fail on representing them.  Neither are they representing Israel's opposition to their government's policies, nor are they attempting to collaborate with Israelis opposing the occupation.  Rabbi Rosen qas a good example for that: he mentioned friends in the Israeli opposition to he occupation, yet he never attempted to align his Jewish Voice for Peace with them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Protesting and bringing an end to the military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza will not be accomplished by uninformed, fake posturing, and fake representations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:25 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6MQiZk3CI0>.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A "Counterpuncher" edition
> >>>>>>> Produced and directed by Caleb Seripinas
> >>>>>>> on Urbana Public Television
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The new number o the New Left Review (January February 2014) contains an article by its quondam editor Perry Anderson on the life and career of the late Alexander Cockburn, simply best political journalist in America in the era of the coming of neoliberalism (and a major influence on our program). An excerpt:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From the start, long before Clinton was elected, Alexander foresaw what the governor of Arkansas, mired in state-level malfeasance and connexions to the Contra programme, would mean as a ruler of the country: Walmart jobs for the many and Marc Rich pardons for the few. Within five months of the new Presidency he was writing: ‘The Clinton administration is over. Oh, it will drag on in a thickening twilight of new beginnings and fresh tomorrows’, under a ruler whose language bespoke his vision: ‘Clinton’s sloppy, tired phrases limp through the reality of America like an obese Sunday jogger waddling down the road.’ Of his claim to diplomatic fame, Alexander, abandoning mockery, wrote in words that are no less implacably actual today:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "It would take the pen of Swift to evoke the nauseating scenes of hypocrisy, bad faith and self-delusion on the White House lawn today [13 September 1993], crammed as it was with people who for long years were complicit in the butchery and torture of Palestinians and the denial of their rights, now applauding the ‘symbolic handshake’ that in fact ratified further negation of those same rights. In the shadow of an American President with the poise and verbiage of the manager of a McDonald’s franchise, Arafat produced oratory so meagre it made Rabin sound like Cicero.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Right now, Palestinians get the right to manage the world’s largest prison, the Gaza Strip, plus one cow town. It’s as though the Irish in 1921 got Tralee plus a few acres in West Cork, with the British holding the entire eastern half, Belfast, Dublin, Waterford, plus all the resources, with its army free to roam at will across the Irish enclaves, themselves fragmented by British highways and drained of water. There will be no Palestinian sovereignty and an economy completely subordinated to Israel’s."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ###
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Students for Justice in Palestine
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140316/2351af98/attachment-0001.html>