From the Constitution of the United States:
Article II
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have the power “To declare War”.
I’ve looked at the U.S. Constitution (again) to see if I can find anything which gives a president the right to start a war, and I can find nothing.
By the way, I have not studied the Supreme Court constructions of those portions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has left the original Constitution unrecognizable in many respects (the present construed Constitution would certainly come as a shock to the people who wrote the original, probably cause for another revolution), and I wanted to see what the original intention was.
If Bush and other presidents have argued that as Commander in Chief of the military they have the right to order the military to invade other countries without a declaration of war by Congress, they are being illogical. What if the writers of the Constitution had not made the President the commander of the military, so that the highest generals and admirals were the commanders in chief? Would that empower the generals and admirals to invade other countries without a congressional declaration of war?
A civilian commander in chief should have no greater power to start a war than a military commander in chief. By the same reasoning, neither does the commander in chief of the military have the power to continue or end a war without congressional approval.
Let’s not forget that it is the “executive” power which is vested in the president. He comes second to the legislative branch in the Constitution, and his job is to execute – that is, to carry out and put into action – the enactments of Congress. There is nothing at all in the Constitution that says the president is “the decider”. Congress is the decider and provider; the president is the lackey who carries out what Congress tells him to carry out.
I hope, without optimism, that the Democrats of today will wrest back some of the power of a president who mistakenly considers himself top dog. Maybe one reason Congress has been so weak-kneed about retaining its constitutional powers is that it's easier to let somebody else get the blame for decisions. "Who cares, as long as I get re-elected."
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Comments of Note
An extremely interesting series of comments has been published in connection with my post of December 17, “Gas Chamber Lies: Dachau”. Please don’t miss them.
As in George Orwell’s “1984”, where a major public truth can become a lie overnight and be replaced by a contradictory truth, “established truths” about gas chambers have a history of magical and incompatible transformations. This article by Masanori Nishioka from the Japanese magazine “Marco Polo” includes the following indisputable account of such a stage magician’s trick:
“On Aug. 26, 1960. Dr. Martin Broszat, a historian who was in a position to be a Second World War and ‘Holocaust’ spokesman for the West German (Federal Republic) government, made a statement to the effect that the Nazis built ‘gas chambers’ only in occupied Poland and that there were no "gas chambers" in Germany proper (Die Zeit, Aug. 26, 1960).
“Dr. Broszat was head of the West German government's Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, which until that time had announced a great many ‘proofs’ of the existence of ‘gas chambers,’ and was recognized as the organization that reflected the German government point of view on historical matters. It was Dr. Broszat himself, head of the Institute for Contemporary History, who suddenly denied the existence of what had been ‘fact’ until the day before: ‘gas chambers’ in Germany proper, in such places as Dachau and Buchenwald.
“From that day forward, the ‘truth’ of the ‘Holocaust’ was ‘revised,’ and the ‘Dachau gas chamber’ and the ‘Buchenwald gas chamber,’ which had ‘existed’ until the day before, suddenly ceased to exist.
“However, in his declaration, Dr. Broszat did not offer a single reason to explain this ‘revision of the truth.’
"After Broszat's declaration the ‘accepted fact’ was established throughout the world that Nazi ‘gas chambers’ were built only in Poland, and in 1975 even the famous Jewish activist and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal made a declaration confirming that there were no ‘gas chambers’ in Germany proper.”
Simon Wiesenthal, the leading "Nazi hunter" whose name is given to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, admitted in a letter to the British periodical, “Books and Bookmen” (April 1975, p5) that "there were no extermination camps on German soil..."
The conscientious Japanese article cited above was carefully researched over a long period by its author and the publisher’s staff and was published in a widely read high-end men’s magazine comparable to “Esquire” is in the U.S. Although the facts in the article are correct, the publication gave rise to a shocking attack by groups dedicated to preserving “Holocaust” myths on the “Marco Polo” magazine. Among the axe wielders were the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the government of Israel. I would have thought that a Japanese magazine would be immune to such threats and slanders because there is little Jewish presence in Japan, but as often happens the attacking groups got to the publisher primarily through advertisers. . . and the magazine was closed down!
The web page linked above summarizes that disgraceful episode:
“This special report provides background to the campaign by international Holocaust pressure groups to punish a major Japanese publisher for allowing an article questioning the Nazi gas chambers to appear in one of its magazines. The article, by physician Masanori Nishioka, appeared in the February 1995 issue of Marco Polo, a 250,000-circulation monthly aimed at Japanese males. Jewish-Zionist groups such as the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, instigated a boycott of Bungei Shunju advertisers, including Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, and Cartier. Within days, Bungei Shunju shut down Marco Polo. Soon thereafter, Marco Polo's successful and respected editor, Kazuyoshi Hanada, quit, as did the president of Bungei Shunju, Kengo Tanaka. (A full report can be found in an article in the March/April 1995 Journal of Historical Review, available from the IHR.)”
As in George Orwell’s “1984”, where a major public truth can become a lie overnight and be replaced by a contradictory truth, “established truths” about gas chambers have a history of magical and incompatible transformations. This article by Masanori Nishioka from the Japanese magazine “Marco Polo” includes the following indisputable account of such a stage magician’s trick:
“On Aug. 26, 1960. Dr. Martin Broszat, a historian who was in a position to be a Second World War and ‘Holocaust’ spokesman for the West German (Federal Republic) government, made a statement to the effect that the Nazis built ‘gas chambers’ only in occupied Poland and that there were no "gas chambers" in Germany proper (Die Zeit, Aug. 26, 1960).
“Dr. Broszat was head of the West German government's Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, which until that time had announced a great many ‘proofs’ of the existence of ‘gas chambers,’ and was recognized as the organization that reflected the German government point of view on historical matters. It was Dr. Broszat himself, head of the Institute for Contemporary History, who suddenly denied the existence of what had been ‘fact’ until the day before: ‘gas chambers’ in Germany proper, in such places as Dachau and Buchenwald.
“From that day forward, the ‘truth’ of the ‘Holocaust’ was ‘revised,’ and the ‘Dachau gas chamber’ and the ‘Buchenwald gas chamber,’ which had ‘existed’ until the day before, suddenly ceased to exist.
“However, in his declaration, Dr. Broszat did not offer a single reason to explain this ‘revision of the truth.’
"After Broszat's declaration the ‘accepted fact’ was established throughout the world that Nazi ‘gas chambers’ were built only in Poland, and in 1975 even the famous Jewish activist and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal made a declaration confirming that there were no ‘gas chambers’ in Germany proper.”
Simon Wiesenthal, the leading "Nazi hunter" whose name is given to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, admitted in a letter to the British periodical, “Books and Bookmen” (April 1975, p5) that "there were no extermination camps on German soil..."
The conscientious Japanese article cited above was carefully researched over a long period by its author and the publisher’s staff and was published in a widely read high-end men’s magazine comparable to “Esquire” is in the U.S. Although the facts in the article are correct, the publication gave rise to a shocking attack by groups dedicated to preserving “Holocaust” myths on the “Marco Polo” magazine. Among the axe wielders were the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the government of Israel. I would have thought that a Japanese magazine would be immune to such threats and slanders because there is little Jewish presence in Japan, but as often happens the attacking groups got to the publisher primarily through advertisers. . . and the magazine was closed down!
The web page linked above summarizes that disgraceful episode:
“This special report provides background to the campaign by international Holocaust pressure groups to punish a major Japanese publisher for allowing an article questioning the Nazi gas chambers to appear in one of its magazines. The article, by physician Masanori Nishioka, appeared in the February 1995 issue of Marco Polo, a 250,000-circulation monthly aimed at Japanese males. Jewish-Zionist groups such as the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, instigated a boycott of Bungei Shunju advertisers, including Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, and Cartier. Within days, Bungei Shunju shut down Marco Polo. Soon thereafter, Marco Polo's successful and respected editor, Kazuyoshi Hanada, quit, as did the president of Bungei Shunju, Kengo Tanaka. (A full report can be found in an article in the March/April 1995 Journal of Historical Review, available from the IHR.)”
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
More on: Cowardice, or Business as Usual?
Yesterday I criticized the Democrats for taking more interest in their job security than in carrying out the American people’s mandate to end the Iraq war. This "New York Times" headline sums up the mess:
"Many Voices, No Debate, as Senate Is Stifled on War"
I’ve heard only one politician, Democrat or Republican, speak convincingly about the need for direct, immediate action to end the war. He shares my diagnosis of Democrats – weak knees and absence of vertebrae.
Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) said on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”:
Well, I think part of the problem is that obviously a majority of the Senate voted for this war, and a lot of them have a real concern about how they‘re going to come off if they just have to admit that this thing was a mistake and we need to get out.
And so you have, in the Warner resolution, some nice language, but it talks about not withdrawing any of the troops in the near future. It talks about increasing the war in al Anbar Province, which was really another form of escalation. It talks about saying we can‘t consider cutting off the funding.
So it essentially cuts us off at the knees in terms of our ability to get out of this war. And I guess it has to do with the continuing feeling that some members of the Senate want to have it both ways. They want to sort of say they‘re against the war, but they don‘t want to take the steps to end the war.
The fact is, the president and the Republican leadership are so out of touch with reality of the American people is, they don‘t understand that this war is a disaster, and the American people want us out of there.
Now, the problem is, it‘s a little easier for them to pull a stunt like this, because the Democrats are being too weak as well. We‘re talking about primarily just whether or not we‘re going to have a weak resolution about the escalation. But the election in November, we hadn‘t even heard about the escalation. The issue here is, how can we, as Democrats, working with some Republicans, find a way to end this war, to have a timetable to end it, and to get tough on this thing?
And that‘s my concern on the Democratic side is, we‘re being too timid. We‘ve got to take on this war directly.
The way to enforce it in my bill is to simply say the funding is no longer there at the end. But this idea that somehow we‘re going to take away something from the troops that are there already, that‘s just not true. Our proposal is that the troops will be out of there. That‘s the safest thing for the troops is to not be there.
And that‘s what our proposal would do. It wouldn‘t take away their equipment. That‘s just one of the red herrings or phony arguments that the Republicans use, and usually effectively scare the Democrats into not standing up for what is right.
"Many Voices, No Debate, as Senate Is Stifled on War"
I’ve heard only one politician, Democrat or Republican, speak convincingly about the need for direct, immediate action to end the war. He shares my diagnosis of Democrats – weak knees and absence of vertebrae.
Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) said on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”:
Well, I think part of the problem is that obviously a majority of the Senate voted for this war, and a lot of them have a real concern about how they‘re going to come off if they just have to admit that this thing was a mistake and we need to get out.
And so you have, in the Warner resolution, some nice language, but it talks about not withdrawing any of the troops in the near future. It talks about increasing the war in al Anbar Province, which was really another form of escalation. It talks about saying we can‘t consider cutting off the funding.
So it essentially cuts us off at the knees in terms of our ability to get out of this war. And I guess it has to do with the continuing feeling that some members of the Senate want to have it both ways. They want to sort of say they‘re against the war, but they don‘t want to take the steps to end the war.
The fact is, the president and the Republican leadership are so out of touch with reality of the American people is, they don‘t understand that this war is a disaster, and the American people want us out of there.
Now, the problem is, it‘s a little easier for them to pull a stunt like this, because the Democrats are being too weak as well. We‘re talking about primarily just whether or not we‘re going to have a weak resolution about the escalation. But the election in November, we hadn‘t even heard about the escalation. The issue here is, how can we, as Democrats, working with some Republicans, find a way to end this war, to have a timetable to end it, and to get tough on this thing?
And that‘s my concern on the Democratic side is, we‘re being too timid. We‘ve got to take on this war directly.
The way to enforce it in my bill is to simply say the funding is no longer there at the end. But this idea that somehow we‘re going to take away something from the troops that are there already, that‘s just not true. Our proposal is that the troops will be out of there. That‘s the safest thing for the troops is to not be there.
And that‘s what our proposal would do. It wouldn‘t take away their equipment. That‘s just one of the red herrings or phony arguments that the Republicans use, and usually effectively scare the Democrats into not standing up for what is right.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Cowardice, or Business as Usual?
I don’t consider myself naïve, but I confess that I thought the Democrats would make a big difference in Washington after the November elections. Visions of bold Democrats wiping Congressional corridors with Republicans must now go the way of the Tooth Fairy. What we see instead is an exhibition of spineless cowardice.
But wait. . . “Cowardice” implies that because of fear one avoids something he knows he should do. Simply running out of a burning house isn’t cowardice because no duty is being neglected. What do you call a situation in which a political candidate insincerely promises to do certain brave things which he or she has no intention of doing? What of the Democratic candidates who knew throughout their campaign bravado that they were just mouthing words, with no intention of acting?
I say that “cowardice” is an appropriate word, but I think it should be classified as worse than simply running away at the last minute because one is scared. The Democrats’ cowardice is aggravated by untruthfulness, by fraudulent promises about things they had no intention of doing.
They were elected basically for one reason, and they know it: To get the United States out of Iraq. Yet ever since the election they have backed away from that duty.
Their behavior confirms what I have written here before: The federal government is first and foremost a giant, ongoing job fair, and each election is a job-grabbing greased pig chase. The only thing that matters to politicians is getting elected and staying elected. And their dementia worsens once they taste the glory of life in Washington.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said last night on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that his fellow Democrats know they were elected to stop the war and yet are doing nothing because they are frightened of being accused of “not supporting the troops” and because they voted for the war in the first place. Ironically, the reason they voted for the war in the first place was fear of being called “wimps” and . . . guess what? . . . being accused later of “not supporting our troops”.
If Democrats automatically sink to the lowest level of brainless Joe Six Pack WWF Patriotism for fear of losing votes, that means that the U.S. is in effect being run by the lowest forms of intelligence in the land. (Hooray for democracy!) If Democrats are more concerned about losing their jobs because Grandma might falsely accuse them of not financing armor for her grandson than they are about ruining their country with a lunatic war, they are proving the truth of every criticism I’ve made.
A “New York Times” article of February 5 prompted me to write this post. Excerpts:
“But while Democratic critics may wish to challenge the administration’s blueprint, political and fiscal constraints will make it hard for them to assert their own priorities.
“In theory, the budget presents the Democrats their first real opportunity to rewrite the administration’s policies, especially on tax cuts, that they have been attacking for six years. But in practice, Democrats know that the only way they can find the revenue to restore the administration’s proposed spending cuts would be to cut back on military spending, delay their stated intentions to balance the budget or rescind the Bush tax cuts in future years. They are not especially eager to do any of these.
“’The long-term budget crisis appears so distant that it’s going to be very hard to get politicians excited about it this year,’ said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. ‘No one wants to risk popular support by doing something courageous.’”
But wait. . . “Cowardice” implies that because of fear one avoids something he knows he should do. Simply running out of a burning house isn’t cowardice because no duty is being neglected. What do you call a situation in which a political candidate insincerely promises to do certain brave things which he or she has no intention of doing? What of the Democratic candidates who knew throughout their campaign bravado that they were just mouthing words, with no intention of acting?
I say that “cowardice” is an appropriate word, but I think it should be classified as worse than simply running away at the last minute because one is scared. The Democrats’ cowardice is aggravated by untruthfulness, by fraudulent promises about things they had no intention of doing.
They were elected basically for one reason, and they know it: To get the United States out of Iraq. Yet ever since the election they have backed away from that duty.
Their behavior confirms what I have written here before: The federal government is first and foremost a giant, ongoing job fair, and each election is a job-grabbing greased pig chase. The only thing that matters to politicians is getting elected and staying elected. And their dementia worsens once they taste the glory of life in Washington.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said last night on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that his fellow Democrats know they were elected to stop the war and yet are doing nothing because they are frightened of being accused of “not supporting the troops” and because they voted for the war in the first place. Ironically, the reason they voted for the war in the first place was fear of being called “wimps” and . . . guess what? . . . being accused later of “not supporting our troops”.
If Democrats automatically sink to the lowest level of brainless Joe Six Pack WWF Patriotism for fear of losing votes, that means that the U.S. is in effect being run by the lowest forms of intelligence in the land. (Hooray for democracy!) If Democrats are more concerned about losing their jobs because Grandma might falsely accuse them of not financing armor for her grandson than they are about ruining their country with a lunatic war, they are proving the truth of every criticism I’ve made.
A “New York Times” article of February 5 prompted me to write this post. Excerpts:
“But while Democratic critics may wish to challenge the administration’s blueprint, political and fiscal constraints will make it hard for them to assert their own priorities.
“In theory, the budget presents the Democrats their first real opportunity to rewrite the administration’s policies, especially on tax cuts, that they have been attacking for six years. But in practice, Democrats know that the only way they can find the revenue to restore the administration’s proposed spending cuts would be to cut back on military spending, delay their stated intentions to balance the budget or rescind the Bush tax cuts in future years. They are not especially eager to do any of these.
“’The long-term budget crisis appears so distant that it’s going to be very hard to get politicians excited about it this year,’ said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. ‘No one wants to risk popular support by doing something courageous.’”
Sunday, February 4, 2007
More Benefits of U.S. Policies and Propaganda
***Improved Life for Iraqis . . .
Washington Post Feb 4
“AMMAN, Jordan - Inside his cold, crumbling apartment, Saad Ali teeters on the fringes of life. Once a popular singer in his native Baghdad, he is now unemployed. To pay his $45 monthly rent, he borrows from friends. To bathe, he boils water on a tiny heater. He sleeps on a frayed mattress, under a tattered blanket. Outside, Ali, 35, avoids police officers and disguises his Arabic with a Jordanian dialect. He returns home before 10 p.m. to stay clear of government checkpoints. Like hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees here, he fears being deported to Iraq.”
***Better Understanding of Palestinians and Islam. . .
The Christian Science Monitor Jan 29
“The police say a group of football players from Guilford College — estimates range from 5 to 15 — beat up three Palestinian students, two of whom are among those who come to Guilford from a Quaker high school in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The third was a friend who attends North Carolina State University in Raleigh. The Palestinian men said they were taunted with racial slurs and called 'terrorists' as they were beaten and kicked.
“National hate crime experts contend the fact that such an alleged attack could take place at a school like Guilford – voted by Newsweek as the 'hottest for social conscience' in 2006 – is a reflection of how deeply distrust of Islam now permeates the United States. For data, they point to polls, such as one done by CBS last April. It found that 45 percent of Americans now have a negative view of Islam – more than 9 percentage points higher than in the tense months following the 9/11 attacks. And a Washington Post poll found that the number of Americans who believe Islam stokes violence has more than doubled – from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent in March 2006.
‘What we have here is a climate where Islamaphobia is not only considered mainstream, it's considered patriotic by some, and that's something that makes these kinds of attacks even more despicable.’”
Comment: The mass of people do not change their attitudes based on their own observations, research, and thinking. If they are interested enough to pay any attention at all to issues, most of them blindly follow the Pied Piper of television, movies, newspapers, magazines, and political statements. If Americans have a more negative view of Islam and Muslims than they did in the months after 9/11, it is because they have been taught and persuaded to have that view.
***Greater Hope for the Future. . .
NEWSWEEK Jan 22 issue
“Hassan Ali, a sociologist at the Iraq Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, estimates that at least 1 million Iraqi kids have seen their lives damaged by the war—they've lost parents and homes, watched as their communities have been torn apart by sectarian furies. ‘These children will come to believe in the principles of force and violence,’ says Ali. ‘There's no question that society as a whole is going to feel the effects in the future’—and not only Iraqi society. From the Middle East to Europe to America, violence may well beget violence around the world for years to come.”
---
I highly recommend a film I recently rented from Netflix: THE INNER TOUR. It follows a group -- mostly Palestinians -- on a bus tour of Israel. It is the only way they can enter and see what is for some of them their former native home. Their unguarded conversations with one another eliminate any need for documentary commentary. This DVD is truly eye-opening.
Washington Post Feb 4
“AMMAN, Jordan - Inside his cold, crumbling apartment, Saad Ali teeters on the fringes of life. Once a popular singer in his native Baghdad, he is now unemployed. To pay his $45 monthly rent, he borrows from friends. To bathe, he boils water on a tiny heater. He sleeps on a frayed mattress, under a tattered blanket. Outside, Ali, 35, avoids police officers and disguises his Arabic with a Jordanian dialect. He returns home before 10 p.m. to stay clear of government checkpoints. Like hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees here, he fears being deported to Iraq.”
***Better Understanding of Palestinians and Islam. . .
The Christian Science Monitor Jan 29
“The police say a group of football players from Guilford College — estimates range from 5 to 15 — beat up three Palestinian students, two of whom are among those who come to Guilford from a Quaker high school in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The third was a friend who attends North Carolina State University in Raleigh. The Palestinian men said they were taunted with racial slurs and called 'terrorists' as they were beaten and kicked.
“National hate crime experts contend the fact that such an alleged attack could take place at a school like Guilford – voted by Newsweek as the 'hottest for social conscience' in 2006 – is a reflection of how deeply distrust of Islam now permeates the United States. For data, they point to polls, such as one done by CBS last April. It found that 45 percent of Americans now have a negative view of Islam – more than 9 percentage points higher than in the tense months following the 9/11 attacks. And a Washington Post poll found that the number of Americans who believe Islam stokes violence has more than doubled – from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent in March 2006.
‘What we have here is a climate where Islamaphobia is not only considered mainstream, it's considered patriotic by some, and that's something that makes these kinds of attacks even more despicable.’”
Comment: The mass of people do not change their attitudes based on their own observations, research, and thinking. If they are interested enough to pay any attention at all to issues, most of them blindly follow the Pied Piper of television, movies, newspapers, magazines, and political statements. If Americans have a more negative view of Islam and Muslims than they did in the months after 9/11, it is because they have been taught and persuaded to have that view.
***Greater Hope for the Future. . .
NEWSWEEK Jan 22 issue
“Hassan Ali, a sociologist at the Iraq Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, estimates that at least 1 million Iraqi kids have seen their lives damaged by the war—they've lost parents and homes, watched as their communities have been torn apart by sectarian furies. ‘These children will come to believe in the principles of force and violence,’ says Ali. ‘There's no question that society as a whole is going to feel the effects in the future’—and not only Iraqi society. From the Middle East to Europe to America, violence may well beget violence around the world for years to come.”
---
I highly recommend a film I recently rented from Netflix: THE INNER TOUR. It follows a group -- mostly Palestinians -- on a bus tour of Israel. It is the only way they can enter and see what is for some of them their former native home. Their unguarded conversations with one another eliminate any need for documentary commentary. This DVD is truly eye-opening.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
From the Lower Depths
Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce a brilliant new commentator, “Anonymous”, from whom I received two Comments on older posts after I had published the last post.
I am calling your attention to his comments on “Which Authoritarian Governments”
and “Behind U.S. Foreign Policy, Part 2" because they are priceless examples of the kind of vicious non-argument I’m always complaining about. (His second comment might appear at first glance to come from me: Because of technical difficulties I had to quote his comment within a comment of my own instead of publishing it separately.)
Let Anonymous speak for himself. I think you’ll see why he hides behind the name “Anonymous”.
I am calling your attention to his comments on “Which Authoritarian Governments”
and “Behind U.S. Foreign Policy, Part 2" because they are priceless examples of the kind of vicious non-argument I’m always complaining about. (His second comment might appear at first glance to come from me: Because of technical difficulties I had to quote his comment within a comment of my own instead of publishing it separately.)
Let Anonymous speak for himself. I think you’ll see why he hides behind the name “Anonymous”.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Words as Mines in a Minefield
VIEW FROM THE MOON frequently criticizes Israel, Zionists, the Israel Lobby, and certain activist Jewish organizations such as The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the American Jewish Committee (described by the “New York Times” as “an ardent supporter of Israel”).
Most of the people within those categories are Jews. Therefore when I criticize those categories I am criticizing Jews . . . but -- and this is the important point -- not all Jews.
My difficulty as a writer comes from the sensitivity that surrounds the words “Jew” and “Jewish”. It is almost impossible for a non-Jew to use those words in the context of criticism without attracting a charge of antisemitism – an emotionally loaded smear word which is supposed automatically to defeat any opponent and any argument.
It is very convenient -- instead of pitting facts against facts -- to use the illogical “reasoning”: (a) The ADL is composed of Jews. (b) You have lambasted the ADL. (c) Therefore you are an antisemite (one who hates all Jews).
Or: (a) Israel is a Jewish state run by Jews. (b) You have severely criticized Israel. (c) You are therefore antisemitic (i.e. evincing hatred of all Jews).
“Antisemitism” is a misleading word anyway because it includes “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia, including Hebrews and Arabs”. (Webster) As misused today, it refers solely to Jews. In that specialized sense its dictionary meaning is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group.” It is more commonly intended by its wielders to mean “hatred of Jews as a group.” That was the meaning advocated by an ADL official I encountered at a deposition. Incidentally, he had difficulty choosing a word to describe Jews as a group. He rightly declined the word “race” and settled on both “a people” and “a nation”. It is interesting that he did not include “a religion” because, he said, not all Jews are “religious Jews”.
My problem is to write as smoothly as I can while at the same time making clear that I am using the word “Jews” in a particular restricted sense, depending on the context. Writing can become very awkward if words have to be qualified every time they are used. In most circumstances readers apply their common sense, but not the wielders of the battleaxe “antisemitism”.
Marlon Brando called Jewish fire and brimstone down upon his head when he said, "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews.” That seems a simple statement of fact, right or wrong (in that case right) as in “the Mormons are the most powerful group in Salt Lake City”, and yet Brando was declared antisemitic. Would he have been spared the charge of antisemitism if he had said, using less of a generalization, “Hollywood is run PRIMARILY by Jews; it is owned primarily by Jews”? I don’t think it would have saved him any more than the broader statement “Hollywood is run by THE Jews; it is owned by the Jews” would have put him in deeper muck. The tactic is for any criticism of any Jews to be branded with the scare word, “antisemitism”. There is no logic involved, and therefore argument over the niceties of language is pointless.
Nowhere in this blog -- when I criticize groups that are Jewish or primarily Jewish -- am I referring to all the people who consider themselves Jews. If I refer to “the Jews” wreaking havoc in Palestine or Lebanon, I am talking about those Zionist/Israeli Jews who are involved in those activities, and not to every Jew in the world.
I’m very much aware from personal experience that all Jews are not Zionists and do not support Israel, and that there are Jews who question the conventional “Holocaust” story and its use for political ends, and that there are even Jews who do not like Jews. In Washington, D.C. I worked with and was good friends with attorney Mark Lane (“Rush to Judgment”), who was Jewish and strongly anti-Zionist. He became emotional as he described his observations in Israel -- for example, Palestinian crops and orchards dying for lack of water because Arab water had been diverted to the swimming pools of the conquering Jews.
Having said clearly that I do not include Jews as a group in my criticisms of particular Jews and Jewish organizations, I am now going to write an extension of this post based on an article in today’s “New York Times” entitled, “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor”.
Most of the people within those categories are Jews. Therefore when I criticize those categories I am criticizing Jews . . . but -- and this is the important point -- not all Jews.
My difficulty as a writer comes from the sensitivity that surrounds the words “Jew” and “Jewish”. It is almost impossible for a non-Jew to use those words in the context of criticism without attracting a charge of antisemitism – an emotionally loaded smear word which is supposed automatically to defeat any opponent and any argument.
It is very convenient -- instead of pitting facts against facts -- to use the illogical “reasoning”: (a) The ADL is composed of Jews. (b) You have lambasted the ADL. (c) Therefore you are an antisemite (one who hates all Jews).
Or: (a) Israel is a Jewish state run by Jews. (b) You have severely criticized Israel. (c) You are therefore antisemitic (i.e. evincing hatred of all Jews).
“Antisemitism” is a misleading word anyway because it includes “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia, including Hebrews and Arabs”. (Webster) As misused today, it refers solely to Jews. In that specialized sense its dictionary meaning is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group.” It is more commonly intended by its wielders to mean “hatred of Jews as a group.” That was the meaning advocated by an ADL official I encountered at a deposition. Incidentally, he had difficulty choosing a word to describe Jews as a group. He rightly declined the word “race” and settled on both “a people” and “a nation”. It is interesting that he did not include “a religion” because, he said, not all Jews are “religious Jews”.
My problem is to write as smoothly as I can while at the same time making clear that I am using the word “Jews” in a particular restricted sense, depending on the context. Writing can become very awkward if words have to be qualified every time they are used. In most circumstances readers apply their common sense, but not the wielders of the battleaxe “antisemitism”.
Marlon Brando called Jewish fire and brimstone down upon his head when he said, "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews.” That seems a simple statement of fact, right or wrong (in that case right) as in “the Mormons are the most powerful group in Salt Lake City”, and yet Brando was declared antisemitic. Would he have been spared the charge of antisemitism if he had said, using less of a generalization, “Hollywood is run PRIMARILY by Jews; it is owned primarily by Jews”? I don’t think it would have saved him any more than the broader statement “Hollywood is run by THE Jews; it is owned by the Jews” would have put him in deeper muck. The tactic is for any criticism of any Jews to be branded with the scare word, “antisemitism”. There is no logic involved, and therefore argument over the niceties of language is pointless.
Nowhere in this blog -- when I criticize groups that are Jewish or primarily Jewish -- am I referring to all the people who consider themselves Jews. If I refer to “the Jews” wreaking havoc in Palestine or Lebanon, I am talking about those Zionist/Israeli Jews who are involved in those activities, and not to every Jew in the world.
I’m very much aware from personal experience that all Jews are not Zionists and do not support Israel, and that there are Jews who question the conventional “Holocaust” story and its use for political ends, and that there are even Jews who do not like Jews. In Washington, D.C. I worked with and was good friends with attorney Mark Lane (“Rush to Judgment”), who was Jewish and strongly anti-Zionist. He became emotional as he described his observations in Israel -- for example, Palestinian crops and orchards dying for lack of water because Arab water had been diverted to the swimming pools of the conquering Jews.
Having said clearly that I do not include Jews as a group in my criticisms of particular Jews and Jewish organizations, I am now going to write an extension of this post based on an article in today’s “New York Times” entitled, “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)