Friday, August 18, 2006
Trolling My Own Blog
I'm not the first to have done this -- but I doubt that me doing this will have the same impact as that bit of trolling by a feminist blogger a month or two ago that started the blow-job wars (which were fun, but not nearly as fun as it sounds) roiling across the feminist province of left blogistan.
Anyway I was talking with a friend last night and I began to wonder about the following questions: how do y'all feel about AIPAC? Do you think that it has undo influence? Do you think that it really helps Israel or is in business for itself? Do you think that a lot of the power that is ascribed to "the Israel lobby" (e.g. McKinney blaming it for her defeats) really lies somewhere else: e.g. with other groups spending money and swaying elections but somehow letting the Israel lobby take the credit (which it does since it likes to look powerful -- and given the anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jewish power, what's the psychology here?)? Do AIPAC and similar groups ever let themselves be used as tools by groups with other agendas, which groups some in the Jewish community think are pro-Israel and think are being used by us Jews as tools (i.e. when "the Israel lobby" defeats a candidate, is that really done for Israel's sake or does the lobby think it's doing what it's doing for Israel's sake but it's really aligning its actions with benefactors having other agendas that really are not friendly to us Jews)?
And what about AIPAC in general? Do other nations have similar lobbying groups or is Israel unique in having such a group lobby on its behalf? If other nations do have such groups, how come you never hear about them? Is it a matter of AIPAC being a focus for otherwise nebulous anti-Semitism? If so, is it an acceptable or even smart thing for us Jews to provide anti-Semites with a focus for their hatred? Is it good to ferret the hatred out? Or is it bad to give anti-Semites the "we don't mind Jews, we just hate Israel" cover? If other nations do not have such lobbying groups, why does Israel have such a group? Sure it's a free country and tons of people spend tons of money lobbying and those who focus on the "all mighty Israel lobby" likely are paranoid at best, but still: why should Israel have a lobby if other countries don't? And if your response is "well, why don't other countries have such lobbies?" do ask yourselves: how would you feel about a similar Arab lobby (and I don't mean the oil lobby -- I mean a lobby whose ostensible interests was in promoting aid and comfort to an Arab entity, not promoting business with same)? Would you accept such a lobby as "well they have a right to do so" or would you feel about such a lobby about the same way as the crazies feel about AIPAC: "how dare they influence our politics like this?"? Come-on now ... be honest ...
And what about us Jews who worry about such things? Are we being too paranoid?
Anyway I was talking with a friend last night and I began to wonder about the following questions: how do y'all feel about AIPAC? Do you think that it has undo influence? Do you think that it really helps Israel or is in business for itself? Do you think that a lot of the power that is ascribed to "the Israel lobby" (e.g. McKinney blaming it for her defeats) really lies somewhere else: e.g. with other groups spending money and swaying elections but somehow letting the Israel lobby take the credit (which it does since it likes to look powerful -- and given the anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jewish power, what's the psychology here?)? Do AIPAC and similar groups ever let themselves be used as tools by groups with other agendas, which groups some in the Jewish community think are pro-Israel and think are being used by us Jews as tools (i.e. when "the Israel lobby" defeats a candidate, is that really done for Israel's sake or does the lobby think it's doing what it's doing for Israel's sake but it's really aligning its actions with benefactors having other agendas that really are not friendly to us Jews)?
And what about AIPAC in general? Do other nations have similar lobbying groups or is Israel unique in having such a group lobby on its behalf? If other nations do have such groups, how come you never hear about them? Is it a matter of AIPAC being a focus for otherwise nebulous anti-Semitism? If so, is it an acceptable or even smart thing for us Jews to provide anti-Semites with a focus for their hatred? Is it good to ferret the hatred out? Or is it bad to give anti-Semites the "we don't mind Jews, we just hate Israel" cover? If other nations do not have such lobbying groups, why does Israel have such a group? Sure it's a free country and tons of people spend tons of money lobbying and those who focus on the "all mighty Israel lobby" likely are paranoid at best, but still: why should Israel have a lobby if other countries don't? And if your response is "well, why don't other countries have such lobbies?" do ask yourselves: how would you feel about a similar Arab lobby (and I don't mean the oil lobby -- I mean a lobby whose ostensible interests was in promoting aid and comfort to an Arab entity, not promoting business with same)? Would you accept such a lobby as "well they have a right to do so" or would you feel about such a lobby about the same way as the crazies feel about AIPAC: "how dare they influence our politics like this?"? Come-on now ... be honest ...
And what about us Jews who worry about such things? Are we being too paranoid?
# posted by alberich @ 3:18 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Why does this remind me a bit of the
"d'you" scene in Annie Hall?
Many countries have lobbies, many countries have very powerful and well funded lobbies. They bother me less than the lobbies for national and transnational corporations who do everything to the United States that anti-Semites claim that the "Jews" do, usually with the full approval of the ones who complain about AIPAC.
Does AIPAC have too much influence, probably, but it's hardly alone. With what happened re Lebanon it just might be that it's the Bush regime that is the one exercising undue influence in the relationship.
I don't think any lobby has ever done more to lead the United States into disaster than the Brits did over Iran in the 50s. That set up a large part of the disaster we find ourselves in today.
I'm sure that in terms of sheer power China and Saudi Arabia probably hae more power than Israel exerts. One has the oil the other holds our mortgage.
No. Given what happens all the time to people who are Jews, no, it's not paranoid to be constantly on alert. As a gay man, it's natural and healthy to know the dangers that might be right there all the time. It's smart.
"d'you" scene in Annie Hall?
Many countries have lobbies, many countries have very powerful and well funded lobbies. They bother me less than the lobbies for national and transnational corporations who do everything to the United States that anti-Semites claim that the "Jews" do, usually with the full approval of the ones who complain about AIPAC.
Does AIPAC have too much influence, probably, but it's hardly alone. With what happened re Lebanon it just might be that it's the Bush regime that is the one exercising undue influence in the relationship.
I don't think any lobby has ever done more to lead the United States into disaster than the Brits did over Iran in the 50s. That set up a large part of the disaster we find ourselves in today.
I'm sure that in terms of sheer power China and Saudi Arabia probably hae more power than Israel exerts. One has the oil the other holds our mortgage.
No. Given what happens all the time to people who are Jews, no, it's not paranoid to be constantly on alert. As a gay man, it's natural and healthy to know the dangers that might be right there all the time. It's smart.
Why does this remind me a bit of the
"d'you" scene in Annie Hall?
One of the favorite scenes of my (non Jewish) H.S. friends and I. Whenever we meet, they always ask me "Jew eat?".
Actually the friend in question is one of two friends of mine who match the image of the diaspora Jew used by Zionists of 100 or so years ago to indicate what happens to us Jews in the diaspora. I tried to fix these two friends of mine up, actually, figuring it was a match made in ... well, somewhere ... but it didn't work out -- it didn't even start (possibly because I wasn't obvious enough that I was trying to fix them up?).
So your observation is right on the mark.
As to your substantiative points: then why do we generally only hear of AIPAC? Does this reflect anti-Semitism? Sometimes the reason you hear only about AIPAC is actually because of people who generally support AIPAC kind of focusing on (and hence repeating) anti-AIPAC criticism: perhaps to distract us away from looking at corporate lobbies? If so, though, why are people who ostensibly claim to be friendly to Jewish/Zionist interests, so willing to be scapegoats (and what does this say about the psychology of neo-cons?) and why are some on the left so willing to let themselves be distracted by the singling out of AIPAC?
"d'you" scene in Annie Hall?
One of the favorite scenes of my (non Jewish) H.S. friends and I. Whenever we meet, they always ask me "Jew eat?".
Actually the friend in question is one of two friends of mine who match the image of the diaspora Jew used by Zionists of 100 or so years ago to indicate what happens to us Jews in the diaspora. I tried to fix these two friends of mine up, actually, figuring it was a match made in ... well, somewhere ... but it didn't work out -- it didn't even start (possibly because I wasn't obvious enough that I was trying to fix them up?).
So your observation is right on the mark.
As to your substantiative points: then why do we generally only hear of AIPAC? Does this reflect anti-Semitism? Sometimes the reason you hear only about AIPAC is actually because of people who generally support AIPAC kind of focusing on (and hence repeating) anti-AIPAC criticism: perhaps to distract us away from looking at corporate lobbies? If so, though, why are people who ostensibly claim to be friendly to Jewish/Zionist interests, so willing to be scapegoats (and what does this say about the psychology of neo-cons?) and why are some on the left so willing to let themselves be distracted by the singling out of AIPAC?
With AIPAC, sometimes it's clearly about anti-Semitism sometimes it's anti-Israeli expression- for reasons other than anti-Semitism such as severe disagreement with policies- sometimes I think it's just sheer nativism and if the first two groups brought up other lobbies of other countries there would be more opposition to those too.
But the anti-Semitism is the loudest and most characteristic strain.
At least these are my ideas on it.
I still think the corporate lobbies, national and transnational are more powerful than AIPAC. They present such vast opportunities for the corrupted to join in the money making of their corrupters.
You can be paranoid or just very realistically worried and it's not always clear where the line is. I really think it's a lot like the constantly being on guard that I feel as a gay man. You never know who might pose a real danger to your physical well being or your spiritual well being.
It's easy to misunderstand, human communication being as imperfect as it is. Look at my blog last week and the several attempts to explain what I wanted to say about fairly simple issues. It still wasn't very clear.
The left. Well, some of that is probably anti-Semitism, some of it might be frustration with the conservative governments that Israel has had for most of the past two decades. Some of it is the kind of frustration with the entire Middle East which never seems to get better.
I'm always wondering about CounterPunch. Alexander Cockburn has crossed over the line into anti-Semitism but the magazine sometimes seems to be more anti-Israel than anti-Semitic.
None of this is very straight forward. It's amazing that people are still concentrating on Zionism as an aspirational idea. I think any country that has been around for two generations is definitely already there, especially if it has the bomb. The circumstances in which Israel would be destroyed would bring a conflagration of unimaginable size that I doubt anyone but an insane end-timer would try to do it. There are some of those among Moslems but even the fundamentalist clergy seem to mostly be about their own power in this life.
But the anti-Semitism is the loudest and most characteristic strain.
At least these are my ideas on it.
I still think the corporate lobbies, national and transnational are more powerful than AIPAC. They present such vast opportunities for the corrupted to join in the money making of their corrupters.
You can be paranoid or just very realistically worried and it's not always clear where the line is. I really think it's a lot like the constantly being on guard that I feel as a gay man. You never know who might pose a real danger to your physical well being or your spiritual well being.
It's easy to misunderstand, human communication being as imperfect as it is. Look at my blog last week and the several attempts to explain what I wanted to say about fairly simple issues. It still wasn't very clear.
The left. Well, some of that is probably anti-Semitism, some of it might be frustration with the conservative governments that Israel has had for most of the past two decades. Some of it is the kind of frustration with the entire Middle East which never seems to get better.
I'm always wondering about CounterPunch. Alexander Cockburn has crossed over the line into anti-Semitism but the magazine sometimes seems to be more anti-Israel than anti-Semitic.
None of this is very straight forward. It's amazing that people are still concentrating on Zionism as an aspirational idea. I think any country that has been around for two generations is definitely already there, especially if it has the bomb. The circumstances in which Israel would be destroyed would bring a conflagration of unimaginable size that I doubt anyone but an insane end-timer would try to do it. There are some of those among Moslems but even the fundamentalist clergy seem to mostly be about their own power in this life.
I still think the corporate lobbies, national and transnational are more powerful than AIPAC.
I somehow think you're right. Do you think that perhaps even some of the things blamed on or credited to (depending on your POV) AIPAC and the like are really the doings of the corporate lobby? If so, then why is AIPAC so keen to take credit for / let itself be blamed for such things? Sometimes it seems as if those most vociferous in labeling Jews like me as "self-hating" are the ones that are almost eager to let themselves become scapegoats? And isn't that self-hating? So what's with the projection?
None of this is very straight forward. It's amazing that people are still concentrating on Zionism as an aspirational idea. I think any country that has been around for two generations is definitely already there, especially if it has the bomb.
Perhaps because Israel has not (and cannot) live up to the (often contradictory and un-reasonable) asperations of Zionism ... Zionism is a bit like Marxism (or any other "ism") -- you can always say when the Zionist state (or a Marxist state or what have you) doesn't live up to the asperation, it's because of the implimentation. But so long as the asperation remains theoretical, people will still concentrate on the aspirational idea.
I'm always wondering about CounterPunch. Alexander Cockburn has crossed over the line into anti-Semitism but the magazine sometimes seems to be more anti-Israel than anti-Semitic.
It just frustrates some of us because some of the people at CounterPunch are quite smart and really cut through a lot of b.s. that no-one else can even manage to peer through, yet they have this lack of basic understanding in some cases about what's going on in Israel. Much of the CounterPunch crew (and I've had some personal correspondence with a couple) does not seem at all anti-Semitic, but they are a perfect case of becoming dragons while fighting the dragon of media bias (which itself cuts both ways on Israel: one can make a very good case that the media is biased against Israel -- AFAIC, the media is biased in favor of petro-dollars and those "cowboys" who hold them which means it hates "farmers" like the Palestinians as much as it hates Zionist settler/farmers: the ME conflict is not really Israeli/Arab but a "farmers" vs. "cowboys" conflict straight out of Oklahoma! with both sides superimposing an Israeli/Palestinian conflict in order to divert away the real conflicts).
The circumstances in which Israel would be destroyed would bring a conflagration of unimaginable size that I doubt anyone but an insane end-timer would try to do it. There are some of those among Moslems but even the fundamentalist clergy seem to mostly be about their own power in this life.
This is what gets me about those who say "we must pre-emptively attack mad ME dictators like we should have pre-empted Hitler". Ignoring the fact that containment was the 20/20 hindsight response of how we should have dealt with Hitler, why would the ME dictators be any more insane than GW Bush, for example? Why do we assume this enemy to be more insane than the last one for which containment turned out to be the appropriate strategy? And shouldn't conservatives be the ones arguing to stick with what works?
Look at my blog last week and the several attempts to explain what I wanted to say about fairly simple issues. It still wasn't very clear.
I think this is more a "know thyself" issue. I think you were generally being clear and the rest of us don't really know how we think on some of these issues, so we respond in a scattershot way. It is we who cannot communicate with ourselves about and make coherent how we really feel. You are just a frickin' genius whose words are not beyond our comprehension but whose thoughts are beyond our capacity for rational response ;)
I somehow think you're right. Do you think that perhaps even some of the things blamed on or credited to (depending on your POV) AIPAC and the like are really the doings of the corporate lobby? If so, then why is AIPAC so keen to take credit for / let itself be blamed for such things? Sometimes it seems as if those most vociferous in labeling Jews like me as "self-hating" are the ones that are almost eager to let themselves become scapegoats? And isn't that self-hating? So what's with the projection?
None of this is very straight forward. It's amazing that people are still concentrating on Zionism as an aspirational idea. I think any country that has been around for two generations is definitely already there, especially if it has the bomb.
Perhaps because Israel has not (and cannot) live up to the (often contradictory and un-reasonable) asperations of Zionism ... Zionism is a bit like Marxism (or any other "ism") -- you can always say when the Zionist state (or a Marxist state or what have you) doesn't live up to the asperation, it's because of the implimentation. But so long as the asperation remains theoretical, people will still concentrate on the aspirational idea.
I'm always wondering about CounterPunch. Alexander Cockburn has crossed over the line into anti-Semitism but the magazine sometimes seems to be more anti-Israel than anti-Semitic.
It just frustrates some of us because some of the people at CounterPunch are quite smart and really cut through a lot of b.s. that no-one else can even manage to peer through, yet they have this lack of basic understanding in some cases about what's going on in Israel. Much of the CounterPunch crew (and I've had some personal correspondence with a couple) does not seem at all anti-Semitic, but they are a perfect case of becoming dragons while fighting the dragon of media bias (which itself cuts both ways on Israel: one can make a very good case that the media is biased against Israel -- AFAIC, the media is biased in favor of petro-dollars and those "cowboys" who hold them which means it hates "farmers" like the Palestinians as much as it hates Zionist settler/farmers: the ME conflict is not really Israeli/Arab but a "farmers" vs. "cowboys" conflict straight out of Oklahoma! with both sides superimposing an Israeli/Palestinian conflict in order to divert away the real conflicts).
The circumstances in which Israel would be destroyed would bring a conflagration of unimaginable size that I doubt anyone but an insane end-timer would try to do it. There are some of those among Moslems but even the fundamentalist clergy seem to mostly be about their own power in this life.
This is what gets me about those who say "we must pre-emptively attack mad ME dictators like we should have pre-empted Hitler". Ignoring the fact that containment was the 20/20 hindsight response of how we should have dealt with Hitler, why would the ME dictators be any more insane than GW Bush, for example? Why do we assume this enemy to be more insane than the last one for which containment turned out to be the appropriate strategy? And shouldn't conservatives be the ones arguing to stick with what works?
Look at my blog last week and the several attempts to explain what I wanted to say about fairly simple issues. It still wasn't very clear.
I think this is more a "know thyself" issue. I think you were generally being clear and the rest of us don't really know how we think on some of these issues, so we respond in a scattershot way. It is we who cannot communicate with ourselves about and make coherent how we really feel. You are just a frickin' genius whose words are not beyond our comprehension but whose thoughts are beyond our capacity for rational response ;)
admiral car insurance
diamond car insurance
general car insurance
california car insurance
in car insurance
cheapest car insurance
car insurance los angeles
auto insurance quote
compare car insurance
online car insurance
best car insurance quote
aaa car insurance
aig car insurance
cheap online car insurance quote
churchil
l car insurance
direct line car insurance
texas car insurance
car insurance rating
antique car insurance
car insurance quote
aig car insurance
best car insurance quote
california car insurance
car insurance policy
antique car insurance
instant car insurance quote
allstate car insurance
affordable car insurance
cheap car insurance quote
compare car insurance
http://cheap-car-insurance.quickfreehost.com
Random Keyword: :)
compare car insurance rate
Post a Comment
diamond car insurance
general car insurance
california car insurance
in car insurance
cheapest car insurance
car insurance los angeles
auto insurance quote
compare car insurance
online car insurance
best car insurance quote
aaa car insurance
aig car insurance
cheap online car insurance quote
churchil
l car insurance
direct line car insurance
texas car insurance
car insurance rating
antique car insurance
car insurance quote
aig car insurance
best car insurance quote
california car insurance
car insurance policy
antique car insurance
instant car insurance quote
allstate car insurance
affordable car insurance
cheap car insurance quote
compare car insurance
http://cheap-car-insurance.quickfreehost.com
Random Keyword: :)
compare car insurance rate
# posted by 
: 9:08 AM
: 9:08 AM << Home
