Saturday, May 19, 2007

The new Anti-Semitism: Authorized by the DNC

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------




Did you watch the speech? Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee [DNC], spoke last year to the Yearly Kos. I wrote a post about the rising Anti-semitism that can be found the at the Huffington Post, Daily Kos and James Wolcott. Wolcott is behind the Vanity Fair website, and unlike the author here, you cannot contact him. So much for Democratic partisan manliness.

By the way, if there is no anti-semitism within the Democratic ranks, why all the huffing and puffing against "Neo-Conservatives?" Most "Neo-Conservatives" were formerly Jewish Liberals who became Conservative Republicans because they believe more Democracy in the Middle east would stop Terrorism. Does the Democratic party belive in democracy? Or do only Western and North Asian nations deserve to have that honor?

So, why am I highlighting Gov. Dean at the Yearly Kos? Well, with writers at the Daily Kos like The Heathlander, and others in this post citing reasons not to support Israel, will Gov. Dean decry the Kos?

No, he won't. They give the DNC money and volunteers. As long as the Heathlander expresses interest in forcing the Jews towards the sea rather then a two-state solution with both sides, the Kos and the DNC are taking a devil's bargain.

I believe in the two state solution. Let the Palestinians live freely within their state, let the Israeli's live freely within their state. All that I ask is that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist and stop firing Kayusha rockets into Israel. Should the Palestinians get their State yet? No, not until they learn to get along well with their nearest neighbor. If both sides are smart, commerce and socializing will occur. Kumbaya.

Again, why Howard Dean at the Yearly Kos 2006? In case I hear that the DNC has no say over the Kos or no influence or no support. The head of the DNC is at the Kos convention where the Heathlander publishes. What Democratic Blogger will stand up to the Kos?

This post has been authorized by the Valley of the Shadow.

17 comments:

  1. "By the way, if there is no anti-semitism within the Democratic ranks, why all the huffing and puffing against "Neo-Conservatives?""

    It's simple. It's the neocons who orchestrated this illegitimate unprovoked war in Iraq that has killed over 3000 of our troops, and they've been planning it since the 90's. They used 9/11 as their own personal Reichstag fire to pass a political agenda that would never have flown under normal circumstances. I don't care if many of them are Jewish, Black, Latino, Hindu, gay or what have you. They're basically using Hitler's playbook (pre-emptive invasion, hyper-nationalism, painting legitimate opposition as un-patriotic, hyped threats, intolerance, etc) for world domination. The fact that many of them are Jewish is simply ironic.

    Your saying that just mentioning neoconservatives is proof that the entire left are anti-semitic is laughable.

    I too think a two state solution is best. How do all these outlandishly sweeping accusations of anti-semitism help to achieve that? And isn't anti-semitism itself really an outlandishly sweeping generalization about the Jews? You should strive to rise above that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jason,

    Have you read the Posts I point out? When you have writers of the Daily Kos (not commenters) saying the best thing is for Israel not to exist, forgive me for not finding much to sympathise with within the Democratic party.

    I started seeing Anti-semitism within the Dems around 1992 at my school, not only were their views tolerated, they brought a Presidential candidate to my school and their views became legitimitized. When I read the nation or hear Pacifica, I hear the code words of "Neo-Con" for "Jews."

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's just too simplistic to attribute the words and actions of some to an entire larger whole. I'm not denying that anti-semitism exists on both the left and the right. And there are people who are obsessed with money who are both gentile and Jewish. But to say that because there are antisemites on the left that the entire left is antisemitic is akin to saying that Jews are obsessed with money because some just happen to be.

    And the whole neocon=jew thing is about the most unfounded thing I've ever heard in my life. It's using the classic logical fallacy of ad-hominem attacks to deflect legitimate criticism of a very real group who have very ugly politics. Are the true conservatives in the republican party who are uneasy about the takeover of their party by neocons also anti-semitic?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jason,

    You forget that I stated my Political career on the Left. But at the same time, I have been at Norquist's Wed. Morning meetings, and having been in both parties structure, I have one conclusion from actual life experience:

    The Right would support Israel and the Jews, but the Democrats (i.e. Kos, James Wolcott, etc) who would sacrifise the Jews (or Neo-cons) on the alter of keeping the Arabs happy.

    And the Right who hate Neo-cons, some are Buchaninites who became Ron paul supporters (who I dispute about their power within the party -- little or none). But when I read the Nation or hear Pacifica or read the daily Kos, "Neo-Con's" are said with a little more spittle, and seem to forget about protecting Israeli's and Jews in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:52 PM PDT

    Anti-Semitism on three liberal web sites. Wow, big deal. Considering we get absolutely slanted coverage on the middle east from MSNBC, CNN and Fox along with all the newspapers in this nation in favor of Israel, whats the problem here?

    Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab rhetoric appears almost every hour on TV both outright and ambiguously. There are guys that have made careers out of it. Politicians dont have a problem with it either.

    I figure this, if the media and the politicians want to go after Muslims, they lower the standard for everyone else. If the media allows Glen Beck to spout off about Muslims, then the bar lowers for everyone including Jews.

    More Jewish whining as usual. There is real discrimination out there by the people holding the puppet strings on our politicians, discimination that costs people wealth and the opportunity to progress. Jews are the last people who should be complaining about racism. They get everything they want.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I believe that a two state solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict is the best soluton provided states are economically, politically, and socially viable.

    It was proposed at one time that the Palestinian territories of the West Bank be incorporated into the preexisting nation state of Jordan however, this idea is ludicrious especially in light of the strained relationship that exists between Jordan and the Palestinian Authority formerly known as the PLO.

    In 1970-1971 the PLO led by Arafat attempted to engender within Jordan a full scale civil war by attempting a coup d'etat against King Hussein I and later assassinating Prime Minister al-Tal in November of 1971.

    Due to this strained relationship and the social political and economic non-feasibility of incorporating the territories King Hussein divested Jordan of direct responsibility for the Palestinian territories and its people beginning on January 1, 1989.

    The withdrawl of Jordan as a direct and active participant from the negotiations and talks related to Israeli -Palestinian Conflict has resulted in the PLO and its succcesssor turning more and more to Syria and Egypt.

    Hussein I like his grandfather Abdullah I before him proved to be generally an adept politician and his aptitude insured the survival of one most dependable allies in the Middle East because, although the ties between the House of Saud and the U.S. are strong they tend to fluctuate more wildly than relationship between the U.S. and the Bani-Hashem do.

    Peace will come when humankind as a whole realize two things, that King Hussein realized many years ago.

    1. What does a man seek in this world? A position, or a throne? Man seeks peace of mind the fear of Almighty God. As long as one knows there is a judgement day, he tries to keep his conscience clear and do what he can.

    2. When the time comes, no hour could be postponed or brought forward. The true believer is he who has faith in the one God who has no partners, he who respects rights and freedoms of others, he who has lived his life in submission to God's will.

    Peace will come when both sides recognize the rights and freedoms of the other and acknowledge without condition the inherent right of the other to exist as a nation-state. Then, and only then will the peace process truly begin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I had no idea that you started out on the left. So what brought you to the dark side? You seem to be a single-issue sort of guy, and you seem to let that single issue seriously cloud your judgment and logic. That's a shame, especially considering that much of the right's support of Israel has to do with the evangelical belief that in order for their crazy biblical apocalypse scenario to play out, Jews have to control the holy land. After that, everyone but the evangelicals get to burn in hell for all eternity. So I have to wonder what's more anti-semitic, an honest critique of the policies of a country, or blind support for that country because it will lead to the sort of end-times that they read about in the Left Behind books?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jason,

    My "Conversion" tale is a post for another day. Did you read the posts I linked to?

    The earlier links are to Kos and Wolcott. The later links are Kos and Heathlander. Read it and let me know if you still support those views on the Middle east.

    Chess,

    When the Palestinians are interested in building a State and not willing to kill their children to destroy Jewish children, the two state solution will make sense. Until then, I say "Bring back Bibi!"

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, did you notice the Anonymous did not leave his website or email address to contact after his rhetorical rage. I might be whining, but I am here to listen to the critics. Where are you Anonymous? Hiding behind the children suicide bombers or are you willing to answer with a name and a website? Jason disagrees and he is published, what are you afraid of?

    ReplyDelete
  10. JSF, I do not disagree indeed your response to my comment is part and parcel of my viewpoint, although I speak more softly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't need to read the links, or to defend or condemn other people's words. Three links do not speak for an entire range of political spectrum of individuals with their own individual ideas and beliefs. I'm sure you don't agree with what every last person on the right has to say on every given subject.

    I'd like to see somebody try to broker some peace between the Israelis and Palestinians instead of hurling anger at each other, and this is something that the right and left really need to come together on in order to be even remotely effective. And that's not going to happen as long as both sides are spewing insults at each other. I would think that both sides want the killing to stop, don't you?

    I am very interested to hear your opinion on the right wing evangelical support of Israel strictly as a piece in their apocalyptic puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jason,

    My views on the Left are tempered by those links. Do you think the Kossites are not influential within the Democratic party? James Wolcott writes for vanity Fair magazine, not a partisan rag. I will answer your question if you read all these statements. Hey, a political hack like me could easily tie the Heathlander's words to the 2008 Democratic candidate. What words? Please read them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. OK, since I am genuinely interested in your opinion on that, I'll get to those links tonight or tomorrow and post my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK, I went through all three Kos posts, and while expecting to read something straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by the way you've been ranting, what I found was one speculation of what things would be like without the country of Israel (one point of which was Jews and Arabs living in peace), a critique of the government of Israel, and a story on how an academic who was critical of the government of Israel was kept out of an Ivy League job by people who consider criticism of the government of Israel to not be covered under free speech.

    So, it would seem to me that you consider any criticism of the country or government of Israel to be morally equivalent to Hitler. And if you really wanted peace, you would get past that bullshit and be able to learn the difference between crazy people who genuinely hate the Jews and want to see them wiped off the planet and serious thinking people who disagree with what the government of Israel is doing and try to find some common ground with the legitimate critics. I would think that the common ground is that we all want the killing to stop.

    But you seem to be of the position that there is no such thing as legitimate criticism of Israel if you would label the examples you stated as being evidence of anti-semitism. You and I have danced around this many times before. I hope it sinks in sometime.

    So, what do you think about the Evangelical right's support of Israel as a pawn in their apocalypse fantasy?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jason,

    Let me give two quotes, one from a PM of Israel from the Left, Golda Meir:

    "When the Arabs love their children more and hat the Jews less, there will be peace.

    Forty years later, Bibi Netanyahu, a PM of the right, said this:

    "If the Israeli's put their guns down, it will be a slaughter; If the Palestinians put their guns down, there will be peace."

    40 years encompassing the Left and Right of Israel. You know I listen to pacifica radio, read the Nation magazine and follow Kos. Each of these outlets are major players in the new Democratic party.

    When I read "A world without Israel," I seem to notice these newbies forgot that a Holocoast occured a few decades back. Without the loss of many, Israel would not need to have been created as a safe haven. If Israel goes, where is the next safe harbor if another Hitler alights?

    People like the Heathlander support the Palestinians. However, what are the Palestinians doing to make peace with their neighbors or even build a state? As long as the Heathlander writes for Kos, and the Kos a major player in Democratic party politics, I know that I will worry if the Dems contrrol all branches of Government, I will worry if they will support Israel.

    I will accept the crtics of Israel if they themselves accept the existence of Israel.

    The answer to your question is being composed for a post.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't dispute the points you make, but it does not really address the fact that you seem to consider legitimate criticism of Israel to be the same thing as hating the Jews. Even supporting the Palestinian cause does not equal advocating the beliefs and tactics of the most extreme Palestinian factions. Personally, it drives me crazy when the possibility of peace is blown by a suicide bombing or some asshat saying they want to destroy Israel just as much as when I see Israel build that wall or bulldoze homes and people or shoot kids who are throwing rocks. As long as neither side is even attempting to sit down at a table and work out a diplomatic solution, both sides are wrong as far as I'm concerned. But even the post about imagining the world without Israel doesn't come close to advocating violence against Israel. It's nothing more than masturbation.

    I really do look forward to your new post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Many years ago made by a Judge Billings Learned Hand in a speech called The Preservation of Personality in 1927.

    Our dangers, as it seems to me, are not from the outrageous but from the conforming; not from those who rarely and under the lurid glare of obloquy upset our moral complaisance, or shock us with unaccustomed conduct, but from those, the mass of us, who take their virtues and their tastes, like their shirts and their furniture, from the limited patterns which the market offers.

    The issues raised in this debate I find intriguing in the sense that while, the two parties mainly involved express viewpoints that represent the opposing ends of the spectrum politically and therefore the exchanges can become intense at times there is one point upon which both would agree.


    Any attempt to mandate or make compulsory a single viewpoint must be regarded as an anathema.
    The ability of the republic to endure it seems to me requires individuals take great care an remain wary of utilizing the legal system to impose through force of law an individual viewpoint as Robert Jackson eloquently pointed out in 1943:

    Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

    Every conservative, liberal, moderate or independent regardless of social, economic or political leanings would concur with Voltaire's long held maxim:

    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...