View Story | 199 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
and you're right, normally, I am better than that. But, as I've pointed out before, I can disagree vehemently with people like mattes, litho, Heath, and many others while respecting their right to post their views here.
This particular diarist, however, (and one other)has shown no reason why he/she should be present on a site devoted to progressive democrats, if he/she truly believes in the phrase we've quoted above.
by dfb1968 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:30:50 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
And, to be perfectly honest, I have been very tempted to give your original comment a doughnut; the reason I haven't done so is because I thought that rather than having the comment hidden, it would be better to call it out for all to see as the kind of comment that we all need to avoid making around here.
If you have a problem with any particular individual's participation, isn't the appropriate response to contact the administrators rather than engaging in name-calling?
by livosh1 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:48:48 AM PDT
You call the administrators if you want. I'm going to point out to everyone that reads Umkahlil's diaries that he/she believes they all live in "Zionist Occupied America", and let everybody make up their own minds as to the company they want to keep.
And, if you think the comment is troll-worthy, then give it a fucking doughnut.
by dfb1968 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:14:02 AM PDT
You decided to pile on and engage in name-calling. It is indeed unfortunate that you believe that to be an appropriate response.
And, I am not going to give your comment "a fucking doughnut" because I think it would be more useful to leave it here and openly condemn it rather than moving it to hidden comments.
by livosh1 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:29:12 AM PDT
Every single diary, aA (and maybe others as well, can't remember) drags up that same comment. Get over it. It's one comment. Probably, and I can't speak for umkahlil, but probably it was just an exaggerated way of saying that the pro-Israel (or zionist) Lobby in the U.S. has way too much influence than is desirable. Which is surely true.
Can we move on, now? Remember all that has been said about not attacking the diarist and focusing on the diaries? I think that's a really good idea, and would appreciate if people practised what they preached.
The Heathlander
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:25:35 AM PDT
Umka posts a diary almost every day and has yet to answer the question head-on. She avoided my questions as to how she felt about the peace process and a final status state a few days ago too.
If she ever answers, whether I agree with the answer or not, I'll start sharing your opinion.
by unfounded on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:03:22 PM PDT
and if you feel that after many days of questions she still hasn't answered, you must surely accept that she isn't going to answer.
So just accept that, store it in your head if you want to, and move on. We're not putting diarists on trial, here. We're not trying to find out if they're nice people (not that umkahlil's not nice - from what I can see, she's lovely. But that's not the point). We're hear to debate the diaries.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:34:21 PM PDT
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:35:11 PM PDT
seems to believe that they can say or write whatever they choose in other fora without being accountable here. If, contrary to fact, in another place I had written that all Arabs should be expelled from west of the Jordan River, forcibly if necessary, do you really think it would be inappropriate to ask me to explain myself here?
Heathlander and another American agree on I-P Peace Plan.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:48:16 PM PDT
hijacking your latest reposting of "The Myth of the Myth of the...etc"?
Yeah. I do think it'd be pretty damn innapropriate. You don't get to chronically hijack diaries and harass diarists simply because you feel like sabotaging diaries.
...i realize now / you were not to be blamed, my love / you didn't choose your name, my love...
by Diaries on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:51:30 PM PDT
then perhaps. But this isn't relevent at all. What it seems you've done is searched through umkahlil's blog in an effort to find something incriminating, and you've hit upon a statement made two years ago that was a bit of an exaggeration.
As I say: get over it.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:53:07 PM PDT
The diary includes the following statement, among others:
central to understanding the psyche of the Palestinian.
While I'm not comfortable with the notion that something as complex and heterogeneous as a people can be reduced to a single psyche, if we are to take Umkahlil at her word, we must inquire into the nature of "the psyche of the Palestinian."
Does Umkahlil, do a significant number of Palestinians, believe that America is "Zionist occupied"?
To the extent she, or they, do entertain such a delusional belief, how are we to understand its impact on their psyches and the problem that delusion poses for their coming to terms with reality and our helping in the achievement of peace in the region?
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:19:06 PM PDT
where is this uniform progressive Democrat "thought code" that you keep citing?
"All Progressive Democrats think so-and-so".
"All Dkos members think so-and-so".
Or maybe you would like to institute such a code here, as in:
"All GOOD Progressive Democrats MUST think so-and-so about Israel".
"All GOOD Dkos members MUST think so-and-so about Israel".
sick.
I suspect that you would REALLY like to call the diarist a rider with the Klan, but even you know that that would make you look like a flaming crazy.
Is there some sort of history that you have with the diarist that I am not getting here?
Ugh, how creepy, the official DKos politically correct thought code.
by happy jack on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:04:12 AM PDT
This has nothing to do with Israel. There are many posters here who hate Israel that I have never done anything except try to argue against their position.
This is about America. The quote in question is not about Zionism in Israel. The quote is "Zionist Occupied America". Please correct me if, when I say this is a far right-wing position, I am mistaken.
by dfb1968 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:10:21 AM PDT
can be found on the extreme left, which is to say that people of varying political views can hold antisemitic views.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:14:04 AM PDT
But this is one of those instances when you don't get to say: "I'm criticizing Israel, not Jews."
by dfb1968 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:15:20 AM PDT
be opposed to the political policies of Israel without holding antisemitic views?
Is being opposed to the political policies of Israel automatically antisemitic?
If I don't want to fund Israel's apartheid policies, does that mean that I hate all Jews?
by happy jack on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:27:56 AM PDT
"Zionist Occupied America" is nearly like saying "ZOG", Zionist Organized Government, which is, yes, ignorant hate speech.
We have a "Corporatist Organized Government", and that is it.
However, in defense of the diarist, he did not say "Zionist Occupied America" HERE, did he?
by happy jack on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:21:04 AM PDT
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:25:19 AM PDT
So, they tone down the rhetoric when in mixed company? The question that the diarist has never answered is simply: Do you believe this or not? If the diarist says: It was a mistake saying that, I was young, I was mad, whatever, then fine, I'll leave it at that. But he/she has had many chances to disavow the statement, and refuses.
by dfb1968 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:25:24 AM PDT
You want to ban the diarist from here, for what he/she said elsewhere, and admit it, you think that you know the diarist's inner soul based on what he/she said elsewhere, and you are justified in therefore calling for the expulsion of the diarist from here, because you think that the diarist hates all Jews.
That is pretty extreme.
That smells to me like a "thought code".
Should the diarist be dunked in the water to see if she floats like a witch?
Did the diarist ever say ANYWHERE that all Jews subscribe to the protocols of the elders of zion, stuff like that?
by happy jack on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:44:11 AM PDT
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:11:41 AM PDT
This particular diarist, however, (and one other) has shown no reason why he/she should be present on a site devoted to progressive democrats, if he/she truly believes in the phrase we've quoted above.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
This smells like banning language to me!
by happy jack on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:21:10 AM PDT
Who cares? Firstly, it's certainly not hate speech. It's just an exaggeration (and by the way - "zionist" ain't equal to "Jews"). Secondly, just wite about the frickin' diary. OK, so you don't like the diarist. And? Why does that matter? Either you think the comment was bad enough to warrant banning, in which case take it to the admins. Or you don't, in which case stop holding a grudge match and focus on the diaries.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:28:58 AM PDT
the quotation has been cherry picked from a post I made on my personal blog two years ago. Former Congressman Paul Findley wrote a book, They Dare to Speak Out, regarding consequences befalling those in academia, the media, and Congress, who speak out against Israel.
by umkahlil on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:58:12 AM PDT
Here's your platform. Once and for all, say you made that statement when you were young, when you were mad at someone, whatever. But, don't just say it's an old comment. Say you don't believe you live in "Zionist Occupied America"
by dfb1968 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:00:26 AM PDT
that Israel's advocates wield on Congress. From Meirsheimer and Walt:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/...
The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: "Help AIPAC."’
by umkahlil on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:32:24 PM PDT
is simply delusional. Mearsheimer and Walt are discussing a phenomenon of influence, and reasonable people -- including Noam Chomsky -- believe that they have overestimated that influence. In all events, M&W do not, so far as I am aware, claim that we live in a "Zionist occupied America," which is the claim you so far have been unwilling to disown.
It seems quite likely that being possessed by such a delusional notion on such an important subject, namely, the governance of the United States, creates a dangerous barrier to understanding the world as it is and making reasoned judgments about what goals are attainable and at what cost.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:23:14 PM PDT
You could post a comment here or there disavowing the "Zionist occupied America" claim. Or by refusing to do so, you can reinforce the conclusion that you still believe it.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:13:44 AM PDT
with crap like this?
There are many posters here who hate Israel
"It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson
by Euroliberal on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:22:50 AM PDT
are plenty of people that think AIPAC exerts way too much control over our politicians. And AIPAC is aligned with the most-winged Israeli politicians. Or pro-war ones.
Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92
by mattes on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:21:35 AM PDT
Mattes... do you believe it is accurate? Do you think this is a 'Zionist occupied' country? Do you think 'Zionists' control the government?
How did I live without him?
by Pumpkinlove on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:23:36 AM PDT
The term really makes no sense.
by mattes on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:26:14 AM PDT
it was an exaggeration, presumably for effect. It seems some people here are so desperate to discredit new diarists that they'll jump on anything.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:31:20 AM PDT
thanks Heathlander. Way too much has been made of a phrase that is an exaggeration, but to ask me to "disavow" it is over the top and to infer that I'm an adherent of David Duke's philosophy is ridiculous. I believe that Zionists play America quite well, however. For example, a good friend of mine told me that she believed that Palestine was empty before Jews went there. She was astounded after I'd loaned her my copy of Walid Khalidi's Before Their Diaspora, a picture book of Palestinians in Palestine from the late 1800s up until 1948, to find out that Palestinians had inhabited Palestine. So, the "land without a people for a people without a land" notion really took hold of the western consciousness for awhile.
Now, obviously, it should be clear to anyone that I don't literally mean that Zionists occupy America since I have praised the MSM in my diaries on Daily KOs for publishing Ali Abunimeh, George Bisharat, John Whitbeck, and Saree Makdisi.
by umkahlil on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:50:06 PM PDT
you don't believe to be true?
And/or you're willing to exaggerate to employ a classic antisemitic trope?
I do not think you've improved your position.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:31:10 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 199 comments