LA Times is carrying antizionist propaganda

Ben Cohen critiques Ben Ehrenreich’s Zionism as Hitlerian concept piece on Z Word.

14 Responses to “LA Times is carrying antizionist propaganda”

  1. Saul Says:

    I told my fellow Elders not to retire. See what happens!
    Come on guys, Prague, Friday, 7pm?

  2. Saul Says:

    I see jews for justice are pushing the antisemitic line again,

    The Power of the Israel lobby in the US

    “Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has withdrawn his acceptance of chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman had signalled clearly that he would want to distinguish between the US’s foreign policy interests and those of Israel, and that this would involve criticizing some of Israel’s actions.”

    Temporary url: http://jfjfp.com/?p=697

    And, then, having pushed the Jews control the US line, they follow that “gem” – and apparently without irony – with,

    “To answer your question, there’s basically no credibility to the e-mail below concerning anti-Semitism in France…”
    (I guess that Jewish kid who was kidnapped for money since “all Jews are rich” is the strangest case of suicide on record!)
    So, jjfp tap into old antisemitic myths, then tell Jews they are wrong is they identify antisemitism where they live, and wonder why the majority of Jews ignore them which they then interpet as the “repressive establishment” excluding them!!

    They gotta be kidding!

  3. Saul Says:

    Freeman’s Lindburgh moment – can’t say a word without being called an antisemite, usurping US government for its own aims; Jews working for a foreign goverment – is here in all its glory………..

    “There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.”

    I remember the days that any decent group would recognise this garbage for what it is. Now, not only is it accepted, but Jews for Justice think this is radical and critical.

    Fools!

  4. Absolute Observer Says:

    Lindbergh……………….

    “A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.”

    Freeman,
    “I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue………………The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make……..The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. ”

    Freeman,
    “The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds”

    Lindbergh,
    “If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.”

    Freeman,
    “Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.”

    Lindbergh,
    “The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard………There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war. ”

    Freeman,
    “It is apparent that WE Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.”

    Lindbergh,
    “And if WE, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us”

  5. Absolute Observer Says:

    A last word,

    Freeman,
    “It is apparent that WE Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.”

    Lindbergh,
    “Many others dared no longer speak.”

    Lindbergh,
    “A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.
    Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.”

    Well, at least we know where IJV and JJfp stand on this quote…………..”Time to speak out” eh??

  6. Inna Says:

    If anyone wants to write the LA Times, their e-mail is letters@latimes.com .

    Inna

  7. Saul Says:

    It had to happen,
    Having relied on the antisemitic idea of a Jewish/Israel/Likud Lobby controls the most powerful government on earth, American Firster Charles Freeman adopts the fallback of the Livingstone Formula – he complains of, guess what – allegations of antisemitism!

    Interesting also how the substance of the Lobby keeps morphing…… it starts with the Jewish Lobby (1930′s and Independent last week); then the Israel Lobby (a couple of years ago) and now, coincidentally just as the awful Likud regains power in Israel, it becomes the “Likud” Lobby……..My, what a coincidence!

    Of course, the ability to change according to circumstances has always been the hallmark of antisemitism.

    One good thing to note about the story is that he has been given much support by “a very large number of Jews”. Just shows that “American Jews” can be as wrong as any other members of the populace!

    Prick us do we not bleed!

  8. Lynne T Says:

    I guess I’m missing something, but Lindbergh’s opposition to US participation in WW II wasn’t exactly a highpoint in Lindbergh’s career. I’m not an expert in PR, but that’s a strange horse to hitch one’s wagon to.

  9. Saul Says:

    The point is that Lidbergh was a pro-nazi antisemite who claimed that the US was being manipulated to enter a war “it” didn’t want mainly because of the underhand mechanisms of the Jews.

    If one compares Freeman’s statement with Lindbergh’s Des Moins speech one sees exactly the same arguments being made; i.e. antisemitic arguments that are now taken as cutting-edge radicalism by critical journals such as the Nation and is accepted and praised by JfJP.

    (A copy of the DM speech is attached as an appendix to Roth’s “Plot against America”)

  10. newcentrist Says:

    “Interesting also how the substance of the Lobby keeps morphing…… it starts with the Jewish Lobby (1930’s and Independent last week); then the Israel Lobby (a couple of years ago) and now, coincidentally just as the awful Likud regains power in Israel, it becomes the “Likud” Lobby……..My, what a coincidence!”

    Actually, anti-Zionists and other Israel haters have been talking about “Likudniks” controlling the US since 2001, if not earlier. For these imbeciles, Likudnik = supporter of Israel = neocon and as you know neocon is often a synonym for Jew.

    I remember hearing Paul Wolfowitz speak back in 2003. He said the notion that he was a Likudnik was strange as he supported the two-state solution and an end to the expansion of settlements. But it didn’t prevent people from continuing to call Wolfowitz a Likudnik. Many continue to do so today.

  11. David Says:

    I don’t get it. You yourself have accused Freeman of antisemitism. Can he not deny the accusation without being accused, in turn, of employing the Livingstone Formula?

    I’m in 2 minds about this, although I’m certainly not a supporter of Freeman. The Washington Post piece stresses “other issues” – Tibet, Saudi Arabia etc. But the NY Times and Israeli newspapers seem to be toeing the line that it was all about Israel.

    And it if was, so what? AIPAC does have a lot of power and uses it to help the Israeli government of the day (which certainly consists of a “ruling faction” – and no-one mentioned the Likud). And many American Jews are uncomfortable with that – which is why J Street was formed, for example. http://www.jstreet.org/

    There’s nothing antisemitic in that. Or foolish. Can one say that AIPAC is a powerful lobby? Can one say that it lobbies for the interests of a foreign state (Israel)? Can one say that one opposes the policies of this state and therefore opposes this lobby? Can one say that many American Jews also oppose these policies and are uncomfortable with AIPAC (and is it not part of Israeli “policy” that the State of Israel represents “all” Jews and the Jewish People, so therefore AIPAC also claims to be speaking “on behalf of all American Jews”?)?

    What can one say, in your opinion, without being antisemitic or foolish?

    And why, might I ask, is the “foolishness” of American Jews any more or less foolish than that of Israel Jews? I guess you think it’s antisemitic to call attention to the foolishness of one so-called “collective” of Jews, but perfectly OK to talk about other Jews as foolish if they disagree with you, or act to oppose the policies of Israel. Or form an organisation in order to do so collectively?

    You are all tied up in knots. Perhaps you don’t intend it, but it seems to me the end result of your analysis is that you always find some reason to say that public criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

  12. newcentrist Says:

    David writes:

    “no-one mentioned the Likud”

    These people have been saying “Likudniks” (meaning Jews) control U.S. foreign policy for a long time. The same people have been saying “Zionists” (meaning Jews) control U.S. foreign policy for a long time.

    Freeman:

    “I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.”

    What “political faction” do you think Freeman is referring to here? My guess is Likud but I am open to other interpretations.

  13. Daniel Says:

    Thank you for that, David. Solid, clear and sober reply.

  14. David Says:

    I’m hoping for a discussion of more substance than just the very minor question of whether Freeman did or didn’t mean the Likud. The Freedland article is interesting. He mentions J Street, he also states that AIPAC is “pro-Israeli Right Wing.” Is he an antisemite? Or perhaps one of Saul’s “wrong” Jews?

    However, since after throwing around accusations of antisemitism and references to the Livingstone Formula, no-one seems to be interested in seriously addressing the questions I raised, I will talk about that:

    Of course you are correct that people have been pointing at “the Likud” for years. I’m not disputing that.

    But Freeman has not mentioned the Likud, although he is clearly a manipulative and seemingly unpleasant person, whom I am not trying to defend. And “faction” doesn’t automatically mean “party.”

    Anyone who knows anything about Israeli politics knows that the major parties are led by what could certainly be described as a “ruling faction,” especially when viewed from a “Left” point of view. This group consists of the leaders of the State in its infancy (e.g. Peres, although there aren’t many more of them around), as well as their children and the children of the leaders of the Yishuv: Olmert, Netanyahu, Livni, Hangegbi, Sneh, Herzog, Meridor, Begin and too many others to mention).

    This group of people, while of varying political views, have maintained in practice a broadly similar set of policies when in government, particularly from the point of view of the Palestinians’ biggest fear and complaint: The continuation of settlement building in the West Bank, and the tacit encouragement of the settlers. This despite much-publicized and “painful” clashes with the settlers and their fellow-travelers.

    In addition, from an ideological point of view regarding Israel and its “place in the scheme of things” (David vs. Goliath, constant existential threat, morality of its policy etc), the positions of the leading parties are close, if not identical.

    With the likely formation of a hard Right government, that may change, as Lieberman and th National Union try to force the Likud to put up or shut up and don’t present a very nice face to the world. (Netanyahu is desperate to bring in Kadima as a fig leaf). Either that, or as Mohammed Dahlan said, Lieberman will actually be very important to peace with the Palestinians.

    Anyhow, how about a discussion of opposition to AIPAC and antisemitism? Would stupidly claiming that AIPAC is controlled by the Likud make one an antisemite? Or saying that AIPAC is powerful (as opposed to claiming that “the Jewish Lobby” is “all-powerful”) or represents the interests of a foreign government? Does saying that the “Zionist Lobby” is powerful, or the “official Zionist Lobby,” or the “Right-Wing Zionist Lobby” automatically mean that the speaker or writer means to claim that a sinister all-powerful Jewish cabal is secretly running things? Does referring to a “group” means that one means Jews rather than AIPAC? Or that it means Jews rather than supporters of the Israeli government right or wrong? Because that is what Saul says.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: