re: #73 Obdicut

How is it gutsy to say “Look at all these Jews who are neo-cons”?

But, that’s not really what they said, is it? That’s a nice shorthand which rather does a disservice to what they actually said (whether you like what they actually said or not.) I stand by my point that I believe it was a gutsy argument to make, and one worth discussing and/or disabusing, if one is so inclined.

How was it in Israel’s interests for the US to invade Iraq?

My opinion? I don’t think it actually was, in truth. In the neo-cons’ view, however, remember that guy who hated Israel, offered rewards to terrorists willing to blow themselves up to kill Israelis, and was willing to send scud missiles their way?

Do you realize that those are entirely different things? Being happy at the generalized first amendment is cool. Being happy that someone is saying a particular thing may or may not be cool, depending on what that thing is.

All associate with windsagio @ 70 here: “we can talk about the ‘hyperliteral intentional misunderstanding’ slot some more”

Right. But it doesn’t mean we actually have to approve of or like whatever the hell anyone says, or to give them a platform to say it.

Who said you did?

Finklestein has said loads of odious crap. Do I want him prevented for saying it? No. Do I want him criticized, and for decent people not to use him as a reference because of the terrible shit he’s said? Yes.

And that is your right. Phew, glad I posted the actual text of the 1st Amendment for ya, so there’d be no confusion here. :-)

The main concern is that OW is going to attract anti-semites, both of the Paulian version and the “Jews are Nazis”— like Finklestein— type.

Be concerned as much as you like. Though I would argue that whereever a large group of people gather to express their First Amendment rights, and where they are likely to be noticed by TV cameras and such, there are gonna be a lot of folks “attracted”. Just ask the Phelps family. Does it make you concerned that military families hold funerals, knowing that the Phelps’ are likely to show up and express their First Amendment rights?

the open nature of the gathering makes policing groups difficult and demonstrating that intolerance will not be tolerated even more difficult.

You didn’t really just write those words, did you? (And you held me accountable for saying “I’m a strong believer in democracy and the First Amendment, so happy to see both folks expressing their opinions “?!)

It is the form, as much as the substance, of Occupy that makes me concerned about antisemitism there.

Be as concerned as you like. Or join the fight for what matters above all right now (even as you have your own personal concerns about stuff.)

It really, for me, in your article was mainly naming AIPAC and ECI as the “U.S. Israel Lobby”, instead of two examples— in your headline and opening paragraph— that threw up red flags for me. I fully think ECI should go jump in a river with an anvil tied to its head, and I do think that Obama has been wrongly criticized for being weak on Israel when he is not, in any way, and in some ways is actually a better supporter than Bush was.

Happy we see eye-to-eye re: ECI and the appalling, opportunistic attacks on Obama/Israel. That said, you justify the pass AIPAC gave to years of trading with Iran how, exactly? Do you think AIPAC would have given that same pass to, say, Obama or Nancy Pelosi or moveon.org having traded with (or invested in a company that was trading with) Iran, illegally, for years until only very recently?