ADBusters: One trope over the line says Dawg

I think it's too bad that the Godwinism will distract some people from the taking a hard look at a valid comparison of the two walled, open-air prisons.

Sure they aren't exactly the same, but there are enough similarities that it SHOULD be something that puts the situation into perspective. Unfortunately some people shut down when they hear the word "Nazi".

@ al-Q

Of course it is, I agree. And I think it's a perfectly valid comparison. I think it is unfortunate that some people who might otherwise get the connection will be distracted by what they think is an outrage simply because it involves the Nazis.

But I'm not suggesting it should have been soft-pedalled to spare those sensitive souls. It's something for them to deal with.

Certainly not in its current form.

I read some of the online criticism of the AdBusters piece last night.

The criticism that Israelis aren't Nazis because they aren't rounding Palestinians up and sending them off to their deaths made me think of another important similarity between the two prisons. Both snapshots show highly unstable situations that cannot continue as they are indefinitely.

Clearly the Nazis found what they thought was a solution. It begs the question of whether the Israelis actually see their current suppression of Gaza as a state that can last in perpetuity, if they hope that the Palestinians will somehow change or go away, or if they just have no plan at all.

Quote:

That's what always bugged me about israel and made it an issue i follow.  How can a group of people who were so wronged turn around and immediately start inflicting similar wrongs on another group based on many of the same reasons the nazis gave for hating jewish people.

This is probably why Nazi comparisons come so easily to critics of Zionism. If there is any state on the planet that should know better than to behave  like this, Israel is it.

That's some link, Unionist:

Quote:

The poor man seems to have suffered the same even-handed treatment that I once received over at Babble (M-L), better known as EnMasse. I had ventured to defend Green leader Elizabeth May against bogus charges that she was "anti-choice." Same deal: I was exposed to a withering barrage of insults and denunciations, and when I told the most repulsive of my antagonists--the same self-styled "Unionist" who authored the quotation above--to go forth in fornicating fashion, it was only then a "moderator" stepped out from the shadows and proceeded to lecture me about politesse.

EnMasse didn't have to ban me. I banned myself forthwith.

This "Unionist," in fact, is quite the Grand Inquisitor. He subsequently criticized an EnMasse participant for daring to link to a post of mine, referring to me as a "creep" (an obscure political category he often employs), and "anti-choice," even suggesting that I was anti-Semitic--this time for my defence of a memorial in Berlin to the gay victims of Nazism. He effectively runs the show at Babble, quick to denounce all and sundry who do not adhere to his version of the General Line. The "moderators" step out of his way. Perhaps they're afraid of him. The regulars adore him.

So, is babble Marxist-Leninist, or is this cur referring to EnMasse?

Are you really "in fact," the Grand Inquisitor, and how do you keep all this adoration from going to your head?

"Please recall that this is the same Dawg who defended Cheri DiNovo's support for suppression of anti-apartheid activists."

"Unionist" is a liar. No surprise there.

I also let him know that I didn't happen to agree with his defence of the Ontario NDP (re IAW).

Child of Holocaust survivors? My eye. Just a common-or-garden basement-dweller, giving the left a bad name. As far as I'm concerned, he's a far-right agent provocateur--or he may as well be.

Dr. Dawg is a prollific blogger and an eloquent champion of the left on his best days. Sadly, his best days did not coincide with his time on babble or EnMasse.

At any rate, could we make this thread less about Dr. Dawg and more about Adbusters and/or Gaza-Warsaw Ghetto comparisons?

ETA: Inconvenient, your last comment is out of line and a personal attack. It's not allowed here. I don't know who you are, but if you are here out of contempt for this site and its members, you'll be asked to leave. This is a final warning.

Allow me to help you out the door, friend. Good luck with your ally-building elsewhere on the web!

I do remember a thread a few years ago started by Rasmus Raven that talked of racist views at Adbusters.  I don't think this qualifies, but I can see how Adbusters would be getting extra attention.

Quote:

I do remember a thread a few years ago started by Rasmus Raven that talked of racist views at Adbusters.

Wasn't it Adbusters that posted a list of American "neocons" and then kindly indicated who among them was a Jew?

In the past, Bernie M. Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress has campaigned against Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Mark Twain's The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn and Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn's A Nation On Trial. After two decades of his pro-censorship activism, it is hard to take Farber's baseless insults seriously. 

More Farber Censorship Insanity

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/article829893.ece

Telecoms propose shutting hate sites
Published Tuesday, Jun. 13, 2006

A proposal to give Internet service providers the power to shut down hate-mongering or pornographic websites received an enthusiastic response Monday by top telecommunications executives, said the plan's creator.

Bernie Farber, chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, presented the idea at the Canadian Telecom Summit in Toronto to senior managers from such major Internet providers as Rogers, Cogeco, and Sympatico, owned by BCE Inc.

"It was very well received," he said. "It speaks well for their desire to do something about this."

Most service providers are unable to remove objectionable content from their servers unless it has been found illegal through a lengthy court process, Farber said in his speech.

Farber proposed that major Canadian Internet providers devise a protocol based on existing laws that would allow them to remove hateful or pornographic material at their own discretion.

"It doesn't take a lot to discern what is pornographic and what is hate," Farber said. "As long as the context is there ... they have some expertise to make those decisions."

Farber said while his proposal was very well-received, there was some concern about how customers would react if certain content were filtered or removed.

"My response is, let them sue you," Farber said. "This is a commercial business."

"A newspaper doesn't have to accept every letter to the editor, and an ISP doesn't have to accept everybody as a customer if they choose not to."

While nearly every ISP posts a disclaimer saying offensive material won't be tolerated, Farber said the warnings are meaningless under the current system.

"It's all talk," he said. "They have the option to do it, but they'll only do it if there is a finding of illegality. And that was basically admitted here."

Members of police hate crime units were also receptive to Farber's proposal, saying that universal guidelines would help curtail the electronic distribution of hateful or pornographic material.

Det. Don McKinnon, a member of the hate crimes unit with the London, Ont. police force, said the technology needed to monitor on-line content already exists.

He said hate crime could be significantly reduced if ISP's were permitted to use it as they saw fit.

"The technology that is available ... is much similar to call blocking," said McKinnon, explaining it's basically a website blocker.

"It is complicated, but if you know what you're doing, it's not impossible."

Both McKinnon and Farber said events in the past few weeks likely made telecom executives more open to today's proposal.

The recent arrests of 17 terrorism suspects from Toronto alerted the world to the ease with which marginal communities can evolve on-line.

On June 8, an Edmonton man made history when he was convicted of promoting hatred of Jews on his website, making him the first Canadian to be successfully prosecuted for such a crime.

After the encouraging response Monday, Farber plans to organize meetings between national ISPs to ensure the proposal becomes reality as soon as possible.

Bernie Farber and Canadian Jewish Congress do not speak for all Jewish Canadians.

________

http://www.sources.com/Releases/NR256.htm

Jewish Canadians Concerned About Suppression of Criticism of Israel
March 10, 2009

More than 170 Jewish Canadians have signed a statement expressing their concerns about the campaign to suppress criticism of Israel that is being carried on within Canada. The signatories include many prominent Canadians, including Ursula Franklin O.C., Anton Kuerti O.C., Naomi Klein, Dr. Gabor Mate, and professors Meyer Brownstone (recipient of Pearson Peace Medal), Natalie Zemon Davis (former president of the American Historical Association), and Judy Rebick.

The signatories are particularly concerned that unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism deflect attention from Israel's accountability for what many have called war crimes in Gaza. They state that B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress have led campaigns to silence criticism of Israel on university campuses, in labour unions and in other groups. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff unquestioningly echo the views of these particular Jewish organizations.

The signatories strongly state that they are against all expressions of racism. While firmly committed to resisting any form of prejudice against Jewish people, their statement explicitly states that these spurious allegations of anti-Semitism bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind. The statement underlines the immeasurable suffering and injustice to the Palestinian people due to the severe poverty, daily humiliations, and military invasions inflicted by the State of Israel.

Statement: Jewish Canadians Concerned about Suppression of Criticism of Israel

We are Jewish Canadians concerned about all expressions of racism, anti-Semitism, and social injustice. We believe that the Holocaust legacy "Never again" means never again for all peoples. It is a tragic turn of history that the State of Israel, with its ideals of democracy and its dream of being a safe haven for Jewish people, causes immeasurable suffering and injustice to the Palestinian people.

We are appalled by recent attempts of prominent Jewish organizations and leading Canadian politicians to silence protest against the State of Israel. We are alarmed by the escalation of fear tactics. Charges that those organizing Israel Apartheid Week or supporting an academic boycott of Israel are anti-Semites promoting hatred bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind. We believe this serves to deflect attention from Israel's flagrant violations of international humanitarian law.

B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress have pressured university presidents and administrations to silence debate and discussion specifically regarding Palestine/Israel. In a full-page ad in a national newspaper, B'nai Brith urged donors to withhold funds from universities because "anti-Semitic hate fests" were being allowed on campuses. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff have echoed these arguments. While university administrators have resisted demands to shut down Israel Apartheid week, some Ontario university presidents have bowed to this disinformation campaign by suspending and fining students, confiscating posters, and infringing on free speech.

We do not believe that Israel acts in self-defense. Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid, receiving $3 million/day. It has the fourth strongest army in the world. Before the invasion of Gaza on 27 December 2008, Israel's siege had already created a humanitarian catastrophe there, with severe impoverishment, malnutrition, and destroyed infrastructure. It is crucial that forums for discussion of Israel's accountability to the international community for what many have called war crimes be allowed to proceed unrestricted by specious claims of anti-Semitism.

We recognize that anti-Semitism is a reality in Canada as elsewhere, and we are fully committed to resisting any act of hatred against Jews. At the same time, we condemn false charges of anti-Semitism against student organizations, unions, and other groups and people exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech and association regarding legitimate criticism of the State of Israel.

Instead of making things up perhaps its best to read it from the author's own pen. Here is what I found with a simple Google search:

Stated Farber:

"

In this light, CJC has worked with school boards across the country asking that this particular play be taught in a later grade and by teachers who are able to translate the issues of intolerance and insensitivity as part of the lesson within the play.

On this last point, some have argued that this is tantamount to censorship. Nonsense. Age appropriate decisions in curriculum design is hardly censorship nor is it book banning.

The CJC does not, and has never, urged that The Merchant of Venice be banned. It simply wants it taught to students who can better handle it."

http://www.cjc.ca/2005/01/28/merchant-of-venice-it-still-hurts/
Hope that helps. Any luck on Huck Finn?

Oh, hi Prophit/boanfar. Did you forget you've been banned from babble? That's why your previous (several?) handles didn't work. They've been blocked. How bouts leaving it at that?

All best,

milo204 wrote:

Unionist, i wasn't saying that all jewish people are responsible, but wasn't the state of israel founded in part by people who did survive the holocaust?

I sincerely doubt it. The ruling Zionist elite didn't just arrive off illegal refugee ships busting the British blockade and rise to the leadership of the political class by 1948. The founders were raised in the kibbutz and moshav movement over previous decades, starting at the turn of the 20th century - like Ben Gurion.

Quote:

How they could then turn around and form a vicious, violent and racist state that inflicts the same wounds on another group is beyond me.

On the assumption that you simply don't understand the history, maybe you should check it out. The zionist movement - a minority trend in late 19th century European Jewish politics - promoted the view that Jews needed their own "homeland" because they could not and should not live among the nations. It was inherently ethnocentric and chauvinistic. Zionism shared this view in common with various anti-semitic trends. Opposed to it were many enlightened, democratic, socialist trends, which abhorred the notion of separation.

Quote:

i think my comment clearly implies i'm talking about the people who actually created the state, not just people who happen to have the same religion as those who created it but played no part.

In that case, don't f***-ing call them "Jews" and don't wonder how such poor victims could have become victimizers. You might as well say, "Gee, Muslims have suffered terribly from civilian casualties inflicted over the centuries by colonial invaders - how could they then turn around and bring down the Twin Towers!!!??? And oppress their own women????"

Understand? Or do you need more analogies?

"the dirty secret of Zionist history is that Zionism was threatened by the Jews themselves. Defending the Jewish people from persecution meant organizing resistance to the regimes which menaced them. But these regimes embodied the imperial order which comprised the only social force willing or able to impose a settler colony on the Palestinian people. Hence, the Zionists needed the persecutors of Jews to persuade Jews to become colonizers afar, and they needed the persecutors to sponsor the enterprise.."

from: Ralph Schoenman, The Hidden History of Zionism

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch06.htm

milo204 wrote:

As you can see i do not refer to  "jews" anywhere in the post(or the post above), and am specifically talking about the policies of the state of israel.

I don't want to belabour this, but here's what bothered me:

milo204 wrote:

How can a group of people who were so wronged turn around and immediately start inflicting similar wrongs on another group based on many of the same reasons the nazis gave for hating jewish people.

If you don't mean "the Jewish people" by that statement, then I apologize - but the issue then becomes that you are just plain wrong. The founding elite of Israel had nothing to do with the victims of the Nazi genocide. They were not the same "group of people". They were not "so wronged" by the nazi murderers. They were in Palestine before and during WWII. There was no Nazi occupation of Palestine. They missed the horror. And if you want to do some further research, they have been treating the real genocide survivors - the minority, those unfortunate enough to have made their homes in Israel - like crap. Let me know if you can't find what I'm talking about.

I'm just saying that it's important to be careful. For a Jew to say, "we have suffered through the ages, so we must not make others suffer", is a legitimate cultural statement to one's peers. For someone else to say it - with specific reference to the murderers in charge of Israel - is borderline at best. Those people are not Jews in our best traditions. I don't care how they self-identify. They are the enemy of the Jewish people.

on that, point taken.  I should have made a distinction between the actual founders of the state/political elites and those that fought in the war of independence and helped enact the policies and fought or participated in settlement building in the years that followed.  

Not where your position is...

Genuflexion works wonders.

My Oxford gives that as an alternative to genuflection...perhaps you have become reliant on Webster, U.  The one that drops the u's?

@ Unionist

Well it's nice to see some people are taking him to task for it over there.

And who knew Atwood was a verb?