being waged against Israel and the Zionist project.

We see it every day here in the IP group.

Don't even try to pretend that there is not a propaganda campaign being waged against Palestine and Iran as well, we are not blind.

Try AIPAC for one, you can't possibly tell me that the Israeli side presents only fair and balanced information about the situation in Palestine.

...to demonize, misrepresent, defame, lie and exaggerate against Israel; in an effort to portray it as evil, nazi-like, apartheid, beyond the pale, and having no right to exist?

Where's this WRT everything Palestinians do?

Give examples of AIPAC doing that, please.

There is far more pro-Israel media than there is pro-Palestinian media in the United States.

Don't tell me that Mitt Romney is the only one who says this kind of shit either:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-18/politics/35497236_1_peace-talks-mitt-romney-palestinians

Also, where did he lie, misrepresent, bash, or demonize Palestinian leadership?

And if you don't see the bashing not just of the Palestinian Leadership, but the Palestinian people as well in his statement then you are blind and trying way too hard to defend Mitt Romney.

And I don't defend people like Romney or Hagel for their social, economic, or foreign policy views.

You believe Palestinians are being bashed unfairly and demonized (not just criticized) for what reason? I'm being serious.

I was responding to the OP which suggests that Israel is the victim of being unfairly demonized, I am just pointing out that neither side is innocent when it comes to bashing the other side.

...entirely and I'm not talking about that. I want evidence of a deliberate misinformation campaign.

Not surprising you would defend Romney though, your transparency page shows that you know the topic of bashing very well and what Romney said actually seems tame compared to the venom in some of your hidden posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358320

What do you make of that?

Is that an example of criticism or demonization?

There are clearly people on both sides who are wrong, neither side is innocent when it comes to bashing. All you need to do is look at your own transparency page to see this.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/poll-most-rightist-israelis-would-support-palestinian-state-dividing-jerusalem.premium-1.490926

And Rubin swallows and propagates it:

As I have quoted before:

'What we are seeing today in the West is a definitional struggle: Is the principal danger to European society "Islamophobia" or radical Islamism? If it is "Islamophobia" then it is possible to rationalize a policy ignoring the roots of terrorist attacks and radical forces in the Muslim community while tending to *appease demands for more power, funding, and privileges*. Otherwise, it is claimed, Muslims will be tortured, murdered, expelled, and mistreated.

Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."

Indeed, this is largely what's happening in Europe: *almost anything is justified to ensure that Muslims are happy*.

Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and *the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy*, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.

There is also a different way to look at the situation: By following these policies European governments are likely to increase *not only the threat to their own stability, culture, and society from Islamism* but also to increase the likelihood of antagonism toward Muslims. After all, increasing power, demands, extremism, and violence from Islamists is going to echo on the other side far more than would a more moderate strategy in dealing with these immigrants and citizens....

In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of *this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.*'

I have put asterisks around the most worrying quotes. Rubin is not just worrying about security threats from Muslim extremists; he is claiming that Islamophobia *does not exist and that the main or only problem is 'radical Islamism' *within Europe*. He is not just implying that the Europaean countries may be weak in response to a terrorist threat: he is arguing that these countries are allowing Muslims to take over their societies; that they are a threat to *national identity*; that Europaeans are appeasing Muslim immigrants' demands for more 'power, funding and privileges'. It all reminds me VERY much of antisemites' allegations about Jews and 'Zionists' in their countries.



Moreover, he quotes Melanie Phillips approvingly in another article.



Yes, I agree that there too many people who demonize and spread false propaganda about Jews/ Israel/ 'Zionists'; but Rubin cannot be taken as a serious authority on the subject, as long as he is prepared to buy into and promote another bigoted hate campaign (and the two hate campaigns are not mutually exclusive by the way; many Europaean xenophobes are both antisemitic and Islamophobic, and most of all, anti-immigrant).

Due the reasons you mention.

European style multi-culturalism has not exactly been a resounding success though, and that is feeding the neo-facists.

their descendants - any more than 'antisemitism' is mainly fed by misdeeds by the Israeli government. In both cases, there may be occasional incidents where this is partially true; but in the overwhelming majority, neofascism is a modern version of the old-style racism that eventually created old fascism. What is 'feeding it' most now is the economic crisis; and a sense of grievance against immigrants claimed to be 'taking our jobs'. It could be argued on rational grounds that unlimited within-EU immigration, established before the economic crisis was predicted, is adding to the unemployment problem in some places; but the idea that immigrants as a whole are overwhelming Europe, turning it into 'Eurabia', and threatening national identity is just a current form of the xenophobic scapegoating that has always disfigured Europe, and ironically, has always been the key cause of antisemitism.

Multiculturalism' has several meanings, and at its worst can be a bit of a euphemism for 'segregation plus self-segregation'. I do not think that all forms of multiculturalism have worked well; but this is not the reason for neofascism; and Melanie Phillips, and therefore Rubin when he quotes her, are about as accurate on the subject as Pat Buchanan is about immigrants and Jews.

If conservatives only realized what I just said and explained that to the American people they would win the next election by a landslide. Instead, people are pushing a permanent philosophy and that horrifies many historic liberals who will vote for Democrats and Obama. After all, this empowers propaganda that the Republicans want to turn the clock back a century or two. What is most needed now is not ideology but common sense.

For example, has throwing money at public schools made education better, or made it worse? How many of the spending programs justified by alleged good intentions, nice promises, and moral-sounding goals actually bettered the lot of poor and disadvantaged people, rather than created cushy jobs for decidedly non-poor and advantaged bureaucrats, inefficient unionized government employees, and recipients of grants for doing little or nothing?'''

So let’s be non-ideological serious people. Have the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and all of the other bureaucrats and red-tape worked or not? Was the taxpayers’ money well-spent or thrown away? Are alleged good intentions and worthy causes just covers for sophisticated corruption and theft? Patriotism was once the last refuge of scoundrels. Today, that’s been replaced by claiming to save the environment, benefit the poor and downtrodden, and impose social justice through the redistribution of wealth (i.e., gimme!).

To paraphrase Obama’s key patron, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.

Thus, applying common sense does not mean that the bland centrist way is the best campaign theme. In confronting a terrible imbalance, strong measures are needed that include serious cutbacks in government, regulation, and spending. The oldest successful theme in the book is to run against corrupt Washington bureaucrats and special interests who are ripping off the taxpayers...

Yet it is vital to remember — as most American voters do subconsciously — that neither liberals nor conservatives, Democrats or Republicans are innately correct due to their membership in such categories. They are only right when the policies and ideas they propose are beneficial and workable for the country. That is how American voters should judge in 2012. If they do so there will be a new president in the White House. If they don’t it’s because you haven’t explained things very well.'

Etc.


And from another article:

'Barack Obama is not a Communist, a fascist, a Muslim, a Marxist, a Progressive (in the pre-1920s' meaning of that word, before it just became a cover for Communists and other leftists), or even a socialist. Obama and those who control much of America’s academia, mass media, and entertainment industry—plus a number of trade unions and hundreds of foundations, think tanks, and front groups—are believers in a new, very American form of leftism. It is very statist, very dangerous for freedom, and economically destructive. But we first have to identify what “it” is. Our difficulty in doing so has been a huge reason why we have not persuaded more people--though goodness knows a lot of people have woken up that there is a huge problem here.'




And - here we get back to issues of relevance to his expertise on Israel in particular:

(After President Obama's re-election):


'The strategy of higher taxes, high regulation, increasing government intervention, and bigger government are already unattractive in Israel and will be even more so. ... the Obama-European approach has been disastrous.. . Romney’s expertise on turning around failing businesses would have provided the proper management. But that’s not going to happen.'

I quoted this same paragraph in November, and annotated it 'Probably wrong about Israel actually'. Now all the evidence is that he wasn't 'probably wrong about Israel'. He was absolutely wrong about Israel. More wrong than I imagined. Not only were Israelis not as pro-'austerity' and pro-cuts as Rubin imagined; their opposition to such measures seems to have influenced their votes far more than almost anyone imagined. He was not the only person to be wrong about Israel: almost all commentators, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, seem to have completely underestimated HOW much of a role in the elections would be played by economic issues and a desire to defend public services against austerity.

And this is one example of how those, who link 'support' for Israel to support for American and Europaean right-wing policies, actually play into the hands of the 'mirror-imageists' who see Israel as part of an 'axis of evil' in league with the Bushies and their associates.

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

He's written multiple books defending moderate, secular, liberal Arabs & Muslims against extremist Arabs & Muslims. He very clearly distinguishes b/w the two.

On the other hand...

Most of the hard, anti-Israel Left and David-Duke Rightwing not only don't distinguish b/w the two, they refuse to do so. They're all the same to the hard Left and Buchanan Right. They certainly never speak out against the extremists who victimize the moderates and seculars because they simply don't care. And any moderate or secular Arab or Muslim writing against the extremists is usually labeled a neocon, right-winger, or bigot. They believe the MB, Hamas, Assad, Khomeini, etc.. speak for "the people". Such a worldview couldn't possibly be more illiberal as it consigns our liberal, moderate, and secular allies in those countries to hell. Don't think they don't know this.

Ask yourself why a progressive/communist like Maryam Namazie is avoided like the plague by both the extreme Right/Left when it comes to Islamism.

Do you share his view that Islamophobia doesn't exist, Shira?

on edit: I only realised when I finished reading through this thread that you've had yet another post hidden and been locked out of the thread and can't answer my question. Just so it's clear, I remember you trotting out the same strident defence of Barry Rubin at DU2 and ignoring each and every bigoted comment he'd made about Muslims. And as before you claim he's written books, none of which you appear to have read, and which you don't quote from or refer to in any way. Let's face it. Someone trying to defend a bigot like David Irving from charges of bigotry could point to one of his earlier books and ignore everything else and they'd be doing exactly what you did.

This isn't the first time I've pointed this out, and I doubt it'll be the last, but it's not a good look at all to be so incredibly ultrasensitive to any and all bigotry aimed at Jews (even to the point of seeing criticism of Israel as antisemitism) and turn around and take a starkly differing approach to bigotry against Muslims where at times it does come across as insensitivity.....

-snip-

What exists here on the surface as disproportional insanity is actually ideologically determined and politically intentional. The result is an environment in which the virulently antisemitic, genocidal, anti-Christian, anti-American, and pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood is the beneficiary of apologetics while Israel is “bad.”

A nut from an extremist cult spit on a teenaged Jewish girl in a small town in Israel and the next thing you know there is a serious Western debate over Israel losing its soul. A few fans from Israel’s most nationalist football team don’t want Muslim players—Arabs already play for all the other teams and are never harassed—and the next thing you know the New York Times compares Israel to Nazi Germany.

Or the Israeli election was widely presented as the impending triumph of neo-fascist forces even though the far-right party received less than 10 percent of the vote, what that category usually receives. The New Yorker gave us a hitherto unknown professor at a university in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as its expert on Israeli politics. Or the New York Times article claiming that many Israelis were complaining that the Iron Dome system shot down Hamas missiles because it would be better--the reporter lied--if more Israelis were killed or wounded since that would impel the country to change its evil, hard-line ways and seek peace.

-snip-

Yet again this situation can no longer be dealt with as an ordinary, though rather spirited and emotional, debate. It is a massive, often conscious and deliberate, campaign of defamation. No longer on the margins, this campaign has penetrated into using the commanding heights of the Western mass media, intellectual, and academic institutions.

The reason for pointing this all out is that there are millions of well-intentioned, honest people who would be shocked if they had the paradigm shift between taking a good portion of this material as honest and well-intentioned and understood that they are being subjected to a concerted propaganda campaign of lies. If they comprehend that, they are far more likely to reject these lies as well as having their eyes opened to wider disinformation campaigns going on today.

I need to grab a tissue.

I may use that in future .

it bucks international law;

it bucks UN resolutions;

it runs over people with bulldozers;

it builds illegal colonies on land not belonging to them;

it creates an apartheid state;

it denies that it is an apartheid state;

it unilaterally attacks other countries;

it assassinates people it wants to get rid of;

it wants to start a war with another country.


Yes, everybody is out get it all the time everywhere.

Israel is working hard to get to a place where the US is not only its biggest supporter but its only supporter.

Since all of these examples are either untrue or are examples of commonplace acts by most nations, is there a reason that you believe Israel deserves to be singled out for discrimination internationally, at the UN for example? If Israel is an apartheid state then using the same definition it seems fairly certain that pretty much every Middle Eastern nation is also practicing apartheid. And states like Jordan and Syria have broken far more laws, and committed exponentially more atrocities than Israel has ever dreamed of doing themselves. Syria, for example, has killed more people in the past year or so than Israel has killed in the past 100. Yet it seems pretty obvious that both of those states still retain UN privileges denied to Israel. Is this blatant discrimination something you defend or support, and if so, why?

Are you really unaware of even one out of many ways the UN discriminates against Israel specifically and Jews in general?

Yes, any criticism of Israel must be exactly that: "a concerted, systematic, and vicious campaign to discredit and demonize...mass production of hate speech."

"We see it every day here in the IP group."

One could say the opposite of that. Every day, regardless of what bad press Israel makes for itself, there are some who will spin this as a propaganda campaign waged against Israel and the Zionist project.

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

...Israel = Nazis, Apartheid, has no right to exist, etc.

And that is intentional.

the choices of the POTUS for SoS and Secretary of Defense depended so much on the nominee's support for a foreign country, I can not remember a time when support for that same foreign country was an issue in a Presidential campaign, I can not remember a time when a Congressman could get away with telling the PM of a foreign country he and his party would keep the POTUS under control when it came to foreign policy concerning that country

ya sounds like concerted campaign to me too but not the one Mr Rubin claims

In the middle east. The US should not be supporting them in the manner we have in the past. We absolutely should not be providing military or financial aid.

Answer: Around 60,000, including over 3,000 children.

Bonus Information: That is more than the number of Palestinians killed in the last sixty years.

Is Israel responsible for that?

I would say that the USA and UK are responsible for quite a lot of the trouble in the Middle East, through the invasion of Iraq. And then of course there are plenty of Middle Eastern dictators causing lots of problems for their unfortunate populations - notably Assad of Syria.

The Middle East is a lot more than I/P.

I also think that the charge is scapegoating - and for that reason not productive of peace.

Who in their right mind supposes that neocons like Rumsfeld, Kristol, Cheney and the like, owe their grandiose visions to Israel, in any but the most peripheral way? Who in their right mind supposes that al-Zawahiri and bin Laden owe their insane terrorist dreams to Israel, again in anything but the most peripheral way? Likewise for the puppet "royalty" in Qatar and Saudi Arabia etc. who spend billions on self-defense against their own people and, for cover, ramp up a schism between Muslim sects (in what way are actors like playboy prince Bandar bin Sultan called "Muslim", esp. of the extremely conservative Wahhabi sect? Except insofar as the House of Saud uses religion to control and manipulate.) How in the name of all that's holy can the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's be laid at Israel's feet?

The list goes on and on and that kind of blanket charge against Israel is just plain false.
As LeftishBrit says, "The Middle East is a lot more than I/P", and a bit of perspective is helpful.

You know, when Bush and his Republican flunkies were wetting their diapers and squalling like a bunch of constipated infants about how mean the entire world was for criticizing our abuse of Iraqis, I thought maybe it was isolated, an embarrassing spectacle that we would be done with after said toddling turds left office and the adults took over.

Looks like it's not unique to the Bush Babies, but also can be found in neocon snivelers the world over.

It also has an air of an upper middle-class white guy whining that the new black garbage collector on hte block got his job by "affirmative action" or something.

Just whine, whine, whine, in the most senseless and infantile ways. Boo hoo, the world thinks Israel is an asshole nation. Maybe Israel should stop being a fucking asshole, instead of whining that its assholery is not cherished and admired.

Yes, it is pretty damn funny, the kinda wacko opinions sometimes posted as OPs.

is quite telling about those opinions albeit rather out of place on a progressive Democratic party website

I've sometimes seen pro-Palestinians quote rightist Obama-bashers like antiwar.com (who are not in any case pro-Palestinian IMO, just xenophobic-isolationists).

All RW sources are toxic IMO.

Colorful and direct.

Israel - a permanent state of Victimhood. Does it ever get boring? And don't you see that's why most people don't give a shit anymore?Of course you don't see that. The Pro-Israel radicals are too busy polishing their halos and wondering why most people don't completely swallow their BS when they say so. Crazy.