Now Anti-Semites Are Citing Harry Truman





Mr. Rabil is the former project manager of Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Washington. He is the author of Embattled Neighbors: Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

A newly discovered Truman diary, dated 1947, was published recently. The diary revealed scorn for "cruel Jews." He wrote "The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish," "they care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment." He continued: "Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog."

Now Truman's statements are being used by some Arabs to justify their hostility to Israel. According to an intellectual, writing in the London-based Al-Hayat, the recent rise of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe, is very much attributed to Israeli practices against the Palestinians, practices that allegedly parallel those used by Nazis. He writes: "Israel is a shame to the Jews everywhere. Everyone who supports it is a partner in the crime, for it has been transformed from a country for the survivors of the Nazism to a new Nazi state that is practicing what Truman predicted over half of century ago."

This intellectual insists that anti-Semitism must be denounced. Yet, he emphasizes that a "government comprised of war criminals in Israel explains the rise of anti-Semitism in every country." Another way of saying all this is that "I am not an anti-Semite though anti-Semitism is justified on account of Sharon's Nazi practices against the Palestinians, which had been predicted by U.S. president Harry Truman. Therefore Jews must forfeit their support of Israel so as not to become partners in crime."

This line of reasoning speaks volumes of the predicament of the Arab mindset and constitutes the mortal threat to Arab-Jewish peaceful co-existence. Why? Because at the heart of this reasoning is an implicit claim that Jews are evil and that their integration as a distinct group into the region is dangerous and thus unacceptable.

Arabs generally think that Truman admired and sympathized so much with the Jews that he was the first president to recognize and thus legitimize the state of Israel. His diary statements, however, reveal a very different opinion of the Jews. Arabs' reaction was that "we have been telling you so about the Jews, just read Truman's statements."

Truman was not the first president to entertain anti-Jewish ideas. Two other presidents come to mind: Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon. But all three presidents did not allow their personal opinions of Jews to affect their actions. Indeed, Truman recognized the state of Israel. Nixon worked for peace in the Middle East and filled key positions in his administration with Jews. Jefferson approved of the American Constitution that guaranteed the protection and equal rights of mankind including Jews.

Palestinian grievances and rights are legitimate. But attempting to prevent the integration of Jews in the region by questioning their nationalist and ethical credentials is misguided. It is no coincidence that Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat himself, have claimed that the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, the very symbol of Jewish religion and national belonging, is not the real one.

Zionism's mission has been largely achieved as the aspirations of the Jewish people for a homeland have been fulfilled. But Zionism, like Arab nationalism, is at a crossroads. Security for Israel now constitutes the focal point of post-Zionism, which is struggling to define its new identity while being torn by conflicting goals: keeping the spirit of Zionism alive by expanding settlements into Palestinian territories and achieving peace with the Arabs by relinquishing the settlements. Arabs should heed Truman's, Nixon's and Jefferson's deeds not their sayings. This is what will make Jerusalem the capital city of both Israel and Palestine.



Related Links

  • Alonzo Hamby,"Truman's Diary in Perspective"
  • Josh Pollack,"What Did Truman's Outburst About Jews Signify?"

  • Highlights of Truman's Hidden Diary


  • comments powered by Disqus

    More Comments:


    Nathan - 9/17/2003

    Gibson is an anti-Semite, period. If saying "The Jews killed God" is not anti-Semitic, then nothing is. Case closed.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/16/2003

    30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.
    How the U.S. has Voted // Vetoed- See any bias - See any pattern ?

    by rp 3:38pm Sat Mar 8 '03


    1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
    ---
    Year -----Resolution Vetoed by the USA
    1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
    1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
    1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
    1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
    1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
    1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
    1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
    1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
    1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
    1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
    1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
    1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
    1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
    1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
    1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
    1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
    1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
    1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
    1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
    1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
    1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
    1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
    1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
    1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
    1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
    1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
    1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
    1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
    1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
    1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
    1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
    1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
    1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
    1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
    1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
    1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
    1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
    1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
    1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
    1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
    1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
    1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
    1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
    1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
    1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
    1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
    1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
    1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
    1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
    1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
    1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
    1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
    1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
    1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
    1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
    1982 Development of international law.
    1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
    1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
    1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
    1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
    1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
    1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
    1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
    1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
    1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
    1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
    1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
    1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
    1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
    1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
    1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
    1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
    1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
    1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
    1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
    8 resolutions.
    1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
    1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
    1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
    1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
    1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
    1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
    1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
    1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
    1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
    1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
    1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
    1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
    1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
    1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
    1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
    1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
    1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
    1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
    1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
    1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
    1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
    1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
    1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
    2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
    2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
    2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.


    F.H.Thomas - 9/16/2003


    Dear Mr. Lamovsky:

    As always, you speak well and thoughtfully.

    Yes, it can easily be argued that Truman was only focusing upon the most recent events, and indeed, he was no great thinker. Also, you make a good point that, at that time, he was being pressed very hard by Jewish interests to give them preference over everybody and everything, in getting out of Europe, and into Palestine, Britain or the USA, ahead of everybody else.

    Let me see if I can extend your interesting premise a little.

    At that time, the ethnic cleansing of Germans and others from the eastern provinces, including the Baltics, Poland, Czechia, etc. had just been completed by the Soviets, and the "Iron Curtain" had formally descended, creating millions of German and other refugees in West Germany, many of whom were hovering near starvation.

    This was partly due to a deliberate allied policy, fostered by Eisenhower, Morgenthau, and others, not to adequately feed the remaining Germans, as punishment. (see: "Other Losses").

    That policy was changing radically, thanks to Marshall, with Truman's strong support. For all his short sightedness, and perhaps because of guilt feelings about the bomb, Truman lacked the ability at that time to see millions threatened with starvation.

    A good friend of mine was a little girl in Westphalia at that time, and has given me a horrifying perspective on what was happening. Put it this way: no pets survived. She was one of the millions of Germans who wanted out, but were beaten to the boat thanks to the efforts of Jewish interests to be first.

    Your premise is a fine one, which I will not diminish by contesting. Thanks for your comments.



    Bill Bailey - 9/15/2003


    Thanks Josh and Jonathan. From the point of view of this Gentile, you are the local Jewish heroes. I'm still bothered though, by what seems to be a dampening of critical thought in Jewish circles juxtaposed against a radical shift towards extremism in both Israel and America. It seems to me that American Jewish intellectuals were much more outspoken during the Lebanon invasion of the early 1980s then they are today in a considerably more outrageous, dangerous and longer-lasting situation. In those days I was living in New York, hanging out in Greenwich Village and reading the Village Voice, so my perceptions are quite possibly distorted by personal circumstance, and I WILL check out the sites recommended by Josh, but I am waiting, in vain so far, for the great and brave speeches by the big names, as I waited mostly in vain after 9-11 for denunciations by Moslems of madrasses fostering suicide terrorism, and for Democrats last year, other than Robert Byrd, to stand up against the reckless foreign policy incompetency in White House. I've written enough letters to newspaper editors and Congressmen to fill a small book, but a little inspiration from the high and mighty would be most welcome. Rabbi Lerner in San Francisco is a nice man, but doesn't do it for me.


    F.H.Thomas - 9/15/2003


    I truly enjoy your expressiveness and soul, perhaps because they bring to mind a remarkable woman who was born a long time ago in the tiny hamlet of Lynch, Kentucky, directly below the Eastern continental divide, and the headwaters of the Cumberland river, who became my mother. Bless her, she is there in spirit today.

    You are right about the social interaction between Southern whites and blacks before the civil war. In most areas you still see it. My college roommate, a fine boxer, and good debater, always said that in the South his family was treated as black, but with respect and affection, while in the north people looked right through them. It was normal for his mother to be stopped on the street by a white mother, and asked how little Bobby was doing, and really mean it. You do bring back memories.

    Let us for a moment focus on some happier things. I have a couple of books to recommend to you, if you have not already had the pleasure. One is "How the Scotch Invented the Modern World", by a Hopkins prof whose name has slipped my mind, which will give you a perspective on your own background,probably Scotch Irish like so many Southerners, that I am sure you will enjoy.

    The second is "Time on the Cross", c 1975, the first serious venture into history subjected to utterly rigorous proving by computer statistical analysis. Professor Vogel(sp?) of U Chicago got a Nobel for it. The subject is American negro slavery, but in the light of analysis, not myth. It is remarkable.

    Both will make you prouder of yourself, I think, and help that powerful mind to become even more impressive and assertive.




    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003

    Jews will be in big trouble if they attack Palestinians with the new genetic weapon that PNAC is promoting.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4706.htm

    Isn't it funny the way they are fighting and killing one another in the middle east and neither side is willing to give an inch. Gee, it must be something in the genes.

    Now who would that leave as prime targets for attack by the zionists in the White House? I think southern white people should develop this genetic weapon in order to use it as a deterent. ;o)


    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003



    Thank you Mr Thomas for your kind words.

    I think that southern people need more organizations whose purpose would be to explain to the world what worthy and excellent people we are.

    I would love to join in a forum discussion where people did not get political. It is never good to discuss history! We should discuss things on a personal level and attempt to build bridges of understanding among people.

    I was browsing thur the history section of the library the other day and I discovered that a British woman came to the US during the 1800s and traveled extensively around the south. She then wrote in her diary of her amazement that southern white people actually allowed their children to play with little black kids!

    That, she explained, is the very reason that southern white people talk funny. Why those white children will grow up and continue to talk funny and will be marked forever by it because all of polite society will know the source of it.

    I believe that her diary entry was used to justify the war of agression against us and Lincoln's illegal invasion of the south. Some people today continue to use this woman's words to forment hatred of us not only in the US but abroad, all the way over in Europe.

    It is never good to group people together. I am depleted and demoralized everytime I hear people talk about southern white people and accuse us of things.

    Why I never did anything bad to a black person in my life and I never would. Did you? We are innocent and quite often wrongly accused and abused.

    The next time you hear someone make snide remarks about us, just remember, that person is simply anti-white. Personally I don't consort with folks of that ilk and I trust that you don't either.

    We need organizations whose purpose would be to explain to people about the glorious new south! Why just look at all of the wonderful things that we have done for blacks lately! Steve McNair is my favorite football hero and I let him become a millionaire and everything!

    I wouldn't swap a fly! I voluteer at the local animal shelter and I read to people in old folk's homes.

    I want all of us to join together to build a fabulous nation! The south is poised to work to bring all people together in order to accomplish this and other high minded goals.

    Now all we have to do in the south is use our wealth and vast resources to fund organizations that will inform the masses of people, who because of their inferiority and inclination toward low brow persuits of non-worthy excesses of bigotry, how good we are.

    The United States is a good and benevolent nation. We feed the world. Some of the people of the world don't appreciate our help but nevertheless we endeavor to persevere.

    Lets continue to work toward a better understanding among all people and make a wonderful bridge to the 21st century.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003

    I thought I had acknowledged that there are Jewish people who are as against our middle east policies as I am.

    you said - accepting the al-Qaeda view that any support for Israel is justification for mass murder of innocent civilians

    Mass murder of innocent civilians is what Israel does everyday. Mass murder of innocent civilians is the policy of the Zionist White House and PNAC.

    Arabs have no military. The only way they can fight back is thru acts of terrorism just as the Irish fought back against England.

    It is horrible and it is wrong. That is why it is necessary that Israel and the US to make peace in the middle east and stop the killing. Mass killing of innocent civilians is wrong and the US and Isreal should know better. It is worse when we do it because we have the military power to make it a holocaust that goes beyond historical perportions.

    I believe that the Arabs are quite correct. If the US sides with Israel then we are a fair target for terrorism since that is the only method the Arabs have to fight back.

    The fact is Israel is a terrorist state that engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide. They are as evil as Al Queada or any other terrorist group. It is a crime and an outrage that the US gov supports them. It is a crime and an outrage against humanity and everything the US stands for that we vote down every resolution the UN brings forward in its attempt to hold Israel accountable and force them to obey international laws and the laws of humanity.

    Our support for Israel has dragged us into the terrorist game of constant killing and bloodshed. We are now forced to live in a military society where soldiers and weapons are everywhere. We now have to live in fear and be on constant guard. I do not consent to it.

    We have a bankrupting debt because of the philosophy of Zionists in the White House and in PNAC. Wolfowitz has publicly stated that he hopes some states go bankrupt. Domestic policy is part of the reason for our hugh debt and it is the policy of the people behind George Bush and those people are well known to both of us.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003

    He speaks! How delightful of you to finally give us the pleasure of a reponse!

    So we agree that the article was simply propaganda?


    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003



    quote
    The concept of genetically targetted diseases is not new (at least not to us science fiction fans) and would undoubtedly constitute a war crime and crime against humanity of the highest order.

    Are you arguing that Truman suggests Jews would be more likely tu use such a horrific weapon? (and do you think he's correct?)

    unquote

    It would be a war crime! Are you kidding me! What do you think pre-emptive war is? What do you think invading Iraq is? Bush and his inner circle could be tried for war crimes for what they have done. Based upon international laws that were established at Nuremberg!

    You think they wouldn't do it again? You think they wouldn't use a weapon to target people with certain genes? Only if you pretend you don't see what they are doing at the present time.

    You pretend to be innocent Jonathan. You say very little. You drop a hint or statement here and there to suggest that my comments and points are not valid, factual or accurate. You attempt to raise doubts but you have yet to make a case against what I say.

    You attempt to raise doubts about these horrible genetic weapons by stating that they are nothing new, at least not to si-fi fans as tho I am naive and over reacting while you, a blaze si-fi fan know all about this stuff.

    Forget Harry Truman. We don't need his words to tell us what the Zioists at PNAC and in the White House are capable of. If they have conceived the idea of these new bio genetic weapons then you can be certain they will become a reality.

    I don't know what Truman would say about Jews being more likly to use such a weapon. I am saying that they would not only be very likly to use such a weapon, they most certainly would use such a weapon. Do I not have evidence of it?

    Haven't Zionists taken us into an Iraqi holocaust? Haven't zionists planned the rearrangement of the middle east which will mean a bloodbath and war waged on defenseless people?

    Are the ones who have conceived of these genetic weapons and who plan, with the help of the Pentagon to make such weapons not the very same Zionists?

    God help anyone who is not an ally of Israel and Jews, that's all I can say. You want me to draw you a picture.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003

    Why Jesse, you are correct. Truman was just a simple man from a simple state and people are silly to make a big deal about something he said in his diary.

    He was just frustrated on the fateful day he made the offending entry. Given the fact that he was a simple man who accidently got into the White HOuse we should be understanding and cut him some slack.

    Bess was probably nagging him, the Jews were nagging him and I'm sure he had just had enough.

    Margaret Truman would have had a great career as a country singer. She was foolish however to think she could make it on the stage as a classical singer. Truman made a fool of himself writing to a reporter about her voice. That sort of thing is just not done and it serves to reveal Truman's lack of class and abilty for reflection.

    Truman dropped bombs on Japan and he probably made the decision to do so by flipping a coin since he clearly was not a man given to serious reflection.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003

    Well I'm glad it wasn't the KKK who was doing those things in CA or we most certainly would have heard about it on every news show on the networks and cable and then seen it on the Jerry Springer show with hooded klan members sitting on the stage.


    The US gov overlooks many things that Israel has done to us. They have spied upon us, they have killed Americans in Israel, and attacked our soldiers in acts of violence.

    What do you say to that Jonathan? Maybe I better do another satire.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/15/2003



    Jonathan I am sorry if I spoke about Jewish organizations while knowing so little about them that I actually confused the AntiDefamation League with another violent and illegal organization. You got me! I'm busted!


    Jesse Lamovsky - 9/15/2003

    "My belief is that the very real atrocities I described were behind Truman's statement to his diary."

    I have no intention of downplaying the extent of Soviet mass murder during this period, but I don't believe Truman had these atrocities in mind when he made these notes. At the time he was under a fair amount of pressure from Jewish and Zionist groups to proactively intervene on issues such as refugees and the status of Palestine. The passage may simply that of a man with a lot on his plate, a somewhat inelegant betrayal of frustration and exasparation with the constant "nagging" of Zionists and advocates for Jewish DPs (one group among a mass of people in a similiar plight).

    Truman was a small-time Midwestern machine politician who fell into the Presidency by mistake. He was not the most reflective man to inhabit the Oval Office, and it is difficult to imagine him brooding over "Jewish crimes", or at any rate crimes committed by Jews. This was a man who was intemperate enough to write a threatening letter- while he was President- to a music critic who panned his daughter's singing voice. Had he really been expressing his feelings about Jewish involvement in the crimes of the Stalinist regime, why wouldn't he have just made this explicit? After all, it was his diary, not a public document. Why be amibiguous?





    Josh Greenland - 9/15/2003

    You can find Jewish people and groups that are working against the Likud party and for peace and justice in the Middle East. You just have to look, and it isn't that hard to do. Here is what I've found doing only a little bit of searching:

    http://www.wctimes.com/0outlines/01530/isr.html
    http://www.socialaction.com/04-2001/7_organ_israel_part1.phtml
    http://www.socialaction.com/06-2002/neve_shalom.phtml
    http://www.socialaction.com/links.html#Israel
    http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
    http://www.btvshalom.org/aboutus/
    http://www.beyondblame.info/

    Some of these link point to the webpages of multiple groups.


    Josh Greenland - 9/15/2003

    "... the Anti-Defamation League (a huge information gathering and lobbying organization which has never used anything other than legitimate political action and free speech)."

    That doesn't accurately describe the ADL. It was caught in a scandal here in San Francisco in the early 1990s working with an "ex-"CIA guy, then an SFPD intelligence officer, Tom Gerard, and a private snoop in the gay community who owned an art gallery in the Castro District, last-named Bullock, as part of a scheme to circumvent legal restrictions on the SFPD's ability to run a "red squad" (a police intelligence unit which existed to spy on people who were legally exercising their first amendment rights to be politically active). This arrangement including an odd relationship between ADL, SFPD and the SF Consulate of the apartheid government of South Africa.

    One bit of information that came out of this scandal was that ADL had a long history of snitching to the government, including to the FBI, on people it didn't like. ADL has definitely used means other than legitimate political action and free speech in furtherance of its goals.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/15/2003

    Ms. Cornett writes: "In comparing the potential for harm that either could do I would say the JDL is far more dangerous because the KKK are fringe lunatics but the JDL is intellectual, enjoys a degree of legitimacy and is deadly. I think Mel Gibson has more to fear from them then Jews have to fear from Gibson."

    Intellectual? You're not talking about the same JDL I am, that's for sure. I hope you're not confusing the Jewish Defense League (a miniscule paramilitary organization which has advocated violence in self defense and one of whose leaders died behind bars for plotting a mosque bombing) with the Anti-Defamation League (a huge information gathering and lobbying organization which has never used anything other than legitimate political action and free speech).

    I don't know about Mel Gibson personally, but the number of anti-Semitic acts in the US annually far exceeds the number of acts of racist or religious violence carried out by Jews in this country.

    I find your willingness to accept and engage in groupism troubling. It is not a hopeful position: competition is not the way to a healthy future.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/15/2003

    Mr. Bailey,

    Ms. Cornett and I were not really trying to solve the problems in the Middle East as much as we were trying to figure out whether the US has any legitimate connection to the Middle East that would justify our committment of money and lives.

    Your analysis is quite good, and historical, though I would quibble on a few points, particularly your conclusion that prominent Jews have been silent on the need for greater vision and progress in US Middle East policy and Israeli policy. There are many Jews in the ranks of the left (which is where the neo-Cons came from, as I understand it), more, it is usually asserted than there are in the right, and many of them have been consistently and loudly opposed to both US and Israeli policy for many years. And, I would argue from my experience, leaders of American Jewish organizations have frequently called on Jewish audiences to support substantial and real moves towards peace, have criticized Israeli missteps and have urged US policy-makers to take imaginative and even-handed action in the Middle East.

    I would also argue, though from less direct experience, that Jewish leaders speak about the need for mutual understanding and real progress and criticize Israeli and Jewish leaders much more often than prominent Palestinians make publicly even-handed or critical remarks.

    I was at one time involved in a Jewish-Arab internet dialogue. I was invited to join by one of the Palestian-American members, who lamented the fact that there were so few on her side whom she could bring in to balance another Jewish voice. The list definitely had more Jews than Arabs/Palestinians (most of the Jews on the list put me on the other side, and were often suprised by my positions and arguments) which made dialogue difficult: strong Palestinian positions were met with a barrage of replies, which rather tired out the minority discussants. Nonetheless, the discussions were very fruitful, particularly when people listened more than talked, and were personal rather than political. And, by the way, history was the worst possible thing to talk about.....


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Mr. Thomas, in his gracious and substantive note, commented: "As regards Mel Gibson's film, Mr. Gibson has a perfect right to present a film of his faith "as is", and Abe Foxman should shut his arrogant mouth and sit down. This is the same right as a Talmudic scholar has to believe and publish the rascist anti-Christian clap which is contained in many of the older sections, Sanhedrin 57 and 106 for example. Freedom of religion is just that: it goes for everybody."

    Mr. Gibson does indeed have the right to present his film unedited and in all its literalist glory. And Abraham Foxman and myself have the right to say that it is historically incorrect, inciteful and objectionable. Freedom of speech is like that, too.

    The difference between the anti-Semitism of the Gospels and the anti-Christianity of the Talmud, if I can venture a point, is that the Talmud is a part of a consciously evolving tradition which very few Jews take precisely literally (or are even aware of, for that matter) and which was never really translated into policy.

    And my portrayal of the Gospels as propoganda is, as you say, an inexact translation, but one which is consistent both with the term itself (which as you point out doesn't mean "Historical Record", either) and with biblical scholarship dating back to the 19th century.


    F.H.Thomas - 9/14/2003


    Dear Mr. Dresner:

    Thanks for a learned and sincere statement, which is just the thing to help reconcile the damaging divide which Ms. Cornett correctly, in my view, perceives to exist.

    History quickly becomes full of myths, mostly because some interest group wants it that way. I see your candid statement of belief as cutting some of those cobwebs.

    In the view of cutting them a little further, I ask that you re-consider four areas in your comments:

    Deism was really not the religion of the Enlightenment, regardless of the amount of play which Jefferson's dalliance with it gets. Certainly Adams and Washington were not Deists. The real religious impetus was Scottish Protestantism, which is where the enlightenment eventually was centered. The reason why it was centered there was the decision, around 1650, to educate every Presbterian to read the bible and do sums, a revolution in Europe, at the time, which I would think that a person of the book would well appreciate. Once literate, great things often happen. One of our Hopkins colleagues has written a wonderfully entertaining pop history book I believe called "How the Scots Invented the Modern World" which I highly recommend to you.

    I believe that "gospel" came from middle German, "Gott Spiele" literally "God's Acts", or "God's Power" but is generally translated as "Good News". You are the first to translate it "propaganda", to my knowledge. On that point, I read in "Science" that Jewish archeologists excavating Megiddo, the home of Solomom, at the level when he is supposed to have ruled, have come up with not a trace. The same group likewise found no trace of David in similar excavations elsewhere. This leads one to think that these stories are perhaps like all old legends, e.g. Beowulf, Camelot, with a grain of truth, but mostly embellishment. I like Michaelangelo's "David" anyway.

    As regards "corrupt jewish leaders", it is interesting to note that, shortly after Jesus' time, Jews themselves rejected that form of Judaism, which Jesus clearly despised, in favor of rabbinical Judaism. Jesus was perhaps closer to the political reality of Israel than the priesthood whose livelihood he threatened with his ideas.

    As regards Mel Gibson's film, Mr. Gibson has a perfect right to present a film of his faith "as is", and Abe Foxman should shut his arrogant mouth and sit down. This is the same right as a Talmudic scholar has to believe and publish the rascist anti-Christian clap which is contained in many of the older sections, Sanhedrin 57 and 106 for example. Freedom of religion is just that: it goes for everybody.

    Thank you again for your helpful and learned comments. I would expect nothing less from a Georgetown grad.


    Bill Bailey - 9/14/2003


    This comment thread started out with considerable promise (more than the original shallow and biased article) but has since degenerated.

    The intractable problems of war and terror in the Mideast cannot fundamentally be blamed on either Jews or anti-semitism. Indeed the article which Barbara has found says almost nothing about former and nothing at all about the latter.

    The main problem here is the very strong Likud lobby in America, which, as Ahdaf Soueif rightly points out, has been tapped by the "neo-con" clique in the Bush Administration, in order to garner support for its efforts at a "Likudinization of America" (which I take to mean making America's foreign policy more like that of Israel under the Likud: fearful, myopic, unworkable, arrogant towards everyone else, and ultimately designed and destined for nothing more than death and misery). It must be emphasized that this is not a real "Jewish lobby": the Likudniks have infiltrated and co-opted groups originally designed to truly represent the interests of American Jews. (I am generalizing here for sake of space).

    Nevertheless, and keeping with the purported purpose of HNN to be about History, it is worth pointing out that Soueif omits three crucial historical developments which Likud supporters are also famous for ignoring and denying:

    1. From 1948 through the mid 1970s, Israel had cosmopolitan Western-oriented governments.

    Much of the affinity between Israel and America which Soule derides was actually true before Menachem Begin. Even Begin, however, was fundamentally concerned about protecting Israel's security, not about grabbing land. It was he in fact who gave up land for peace in 1979. Overall, Ariel Sharon is much worse as Prime Minister (from the standpoint of American interests) than Begin ever was.

    2. From 1948, until the mid 1990s, America was in a “Cold War” with USSR and Israel was our ally in that standoff.

    3. From 1948 until the mid 1990s, Palestinians organizations refused to recognize the very existence of Israel.

    Now all this has changed. Israel is ruled by nihilistic charlatans who prey on the fears of their subjects. The main objective of the Likud regime is to expand "settlements" in the occupied territories ("fighting terror" is mostly a ruse). Israel is no a longer an asset to America in the Cold War, nor is it an asset in the so-called "war on terrorism, and the mainstream Palestinian groups, who have been prepared for nearly a decade to strike a land for peace deal, have been purposefully marginalized by Israel’s Likud governments in order to encourage Palestinian terrorism which can then be used as an argument against peace negotiations (which would lead to having to abandoning their all-precious settlements).

    The current "intifada", cleverly provoked by Ariel Sharon, and less cleverly pursued by Yasir Arafat, and the brutal countermeasures in response to it have done nothing positive and caused much damage to the interests of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans. Only America could break this deadlock, but it has been blocked by the chokehold which the Likud Lobby has on the U.S. Congress.

    The problem is not blamable on Jews or on Anti-Semitism, any more than 9-11 was caused by Islam or by American anti-Islam prejudice, but Americans of all religions can rightly demand that prominent Jewish and leading Palestinian-American organizations and spokespeople stand up to denounce the extremism being perpetuated in their name, just as it was demanded of Moslem leaders that they denounce the 9-11 attacks. In this respect, both Jewish Americans and Arab Americans could be doing much more than they have so far. Since America's policy is heavily tilted towards an extreme Israeli position, it is the relative silence from many well-meaning American Jews that is the most disappointing failure here.

    BB


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett writes "You ought not to be complaining about the failure of Christians to uphold the standards of the founding fathers given the role that zionism plays in our lives today. Worry about your own religion and I'll do everything I can to hold back the rightwing Christian hordes of morons."

    What an interesting position to take. You can criticize me and my people, but I can't critize anyone but my own people.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett writes "If we didn't favor Israel my country would not have been the target of terrorists on 9-11. My family would not be paying money to rebuild Iraq while struggling to send kids to college and pay for health care and other needs while we have a budget deficit that totals the deficits of every adminstration going back to Harry Truman, happy coincidence, which my kids will have to end up paying."

    Two very different issues. First the deficit, which is much more the result of domestic tax policies than it is the result of foreign policy.

    And I think there has to be a distinction drawn between: a, criticizing our Middle Eastern policy including the extent and nature of our support for Israel in opposition to its neighbors and; b, accepting the al-Qaeda view that any support for Israel is justification for mass murder of innocent civilians.

    Ms. Cornett also writes "I have every confidence that I love Jews and Jewish culture every bit as much as Jews love southern white people and southern culture. Does that satisfy your need for a clear understanding of my abilty for objectivity regarding this subject?"

    Yes it does. Since you've clearly stated that you believe Jews to have no objectivity, compassion for, or standing to comment on southern whites or southern culture, you are excluding yourself as a responsible participant in this debate. Too bad.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett,

    Your attempt at satire was a failure, for me at least, because it wasn't funny and because it failed to illuminate anything.

    Now, to your questions, as best as I can.

    "1. Was Truman an anti-semite? If so how was it translated into policy which would give it meaning?"

    The evidence is ambiguous and I really couldn't care less one way or the other. The statements in his diary are ungenerous and stereotypical, though, like many stereotypes, based in a certain (limited and overstated) component of reality. His policies were, on the whole, pro-Israel. Unclear, yes, but accurate. I don't have detailed knowledge of Truman's life and policies outside of a few areas, but nobody commenting on this who is an expert has cited other particular evidence of either anti- or philo-semitism on Truman's part.

    "If he wasn't anti-semtic then why should Arabs take meaning from his words and use them for their own advantage?"

    Because it is to their advantage. As you've pointed out repeatedly, people use whatever tools and texts they find useful to their own position, whether or not they have a strong basis in reality.

    "2. If he was anti-semtic, what does that prove? Did he also hate other groups? should we inform those other people he hated so they can get on his case too?"

    The study of bias and its impact on policy is a fascinating field, drawing together intellectual, cultural, psychological and political history. It's not a matter of blame, for me, but of understanding why and how the world works. Truman, for example, was not particularly Black-friendly either, and grew up in a milieu where racism was common and accepted largely without question, but he signed the order desegregating the US military. So we may have here a case of one of the truly great individuals in history, capable of thinking past his upbringing and the common ideas around him to advance our development in new directions.

    "3. What are the implications of his anti-semtism?"

    I think I've covered that, mostly.

    "4. are arabs correct to use Truman's words to justify their agenda vs Jewish people?"

    Since I don't accept an anti-Semitic agenda as legitimate at the base, I'm certainly not the right person to answer this question.

    "5. If Truman was anti-semtic does that mean Americans are anti-semtic too? How should Jewish people respond?"

    Many Americans are anti-Semitic, at least in the sense of viewing Jews as a uniform group with largely negatively cast characteristics. Jews should respond, largely, as they have: clarifying the reality of Jewish American life and pointing out the historical ramifications of anti-semitic positions.

    "6. Is there actually a rise in anti-semitism in Europe? Why?"

    I don't know. There have been more prominent statements of anti-semitic positions, which seem to have more support than they probably would have in recent years. And the rise in Muslim and Arab immigrant populations also has both inspired anti-immigrant rhetoric (which is often anti-Semitic in both the narrow and broader sense) and established an audience which seems to accept anti-Semitic views.

    "7. Did Truman influence the rise of anti-semitism in Europe?"

    Since Truman's diary only came to light recently, I'm not sure how he could have, unless you buy the argument that the very existence of Israel, which he supported, is the necessary and sufficient condition for anti-semitism to increase.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett,

    The concept of genetically targetted diseases is not new (at least not to us science fiction fans) and would undoubtedly constitute a war crime and crime against humanity of the highest order.

    Are you arguing that Truman suggests Jews would be more likely tu use such a horrific weapon? (and do you think he's correct?)


    F.H.Thomas - 9/14/2003


    Thank you for that link. There is truly a problem with any sick soul which could contemplate such utter murderous inhumanity.

    The same thought processes, the same coldness of heart, no doubt went through the minds of the Soviet butchers, such as Kaganovich.

    And thank you as well for almost single-handedly inspiring most of the worthy discussion about this article. You clearly are heir to the Southern tradition of fine verbal expression, with a caring soul.

    To experience a fine Jewish historian who does not accept this "new speak" mythologizing, go to Norm Finkelstein's web site. This is a jew who simply cares about everyone equally, Jewish or not, who speaks out brilliantly about it, and who is a magnificent human being. (Particularly, see the cartoon.)


    Barbara Cornett - 9/14/2003

    I tried to post this but it didn't work. If it ends up posted twice I didn't intend to.

    You have to read this post and keep in mind what Truman stated in his diary.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4701.htm


    Barbara Cornett - 9/14/2003

    You have to read this link! Keep in mind what Truman stated in his diary as you read!

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4701.htm


    F.H.Thomas - 9/14/2003


    Dear Mr. Greenland,

    Thank you for your remarks.

    The purpose of this article was to discuss what Mr. Truman wrote in his diary, and to characterize it as "anti-semitism", rather than a sincere feeling on Truman's part.

    Since people do not lie to their diaries, however, it is reasonable to ask why Truman would have thought as he did.

    My belief is that the very real atricities I described were behind Truman's statement to his diary. You do your argument no good by trying to minimize these crimes, the worst in history, or to nit-pick my recitation, or to deny that there was an enormous Jewish role in them. Perhaps you will take Winston Churchill's word for it.

    In 1920 he wrote:

    "There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge (will eventually be unleashed)."

    Is Churchill now to be deemed by you an "anti-semite"?

    The first "Political Bureau" consisted of:

    Lenin = Jewish - Russian mix
    Trotsky = Jewish
    Sokolnikov = Jewish
    Zinoviev = Jewish
    Kamenev = Jewish
    Bubnov = Russian
    Stalin = Georgian

    History does have ethnic components, Mr. Greenland, and the proposition that any certain ethnic group, has never done a bad thing, is simply untenable. How could you look at the Nigerian Civil War without its central ethnic component. Mr.Truman spoke of a real evil, and I believe that these horrific crimes are it.

    I recommend you should study these facts better, as Mr. Churchill did, including the roles played by the various ethnic groups, in these tragedies.




    Barbara Cornett - 9/14/2003

    The problem is that the beginnings of Israel are very much debateable and how Jews see it is very different from how the person who wrote the article sees it.

    Both Jews and Arabs are semites and are subjective. I am not a semite. I can see both sides. You have an incredible advantage because you have the power of the US gov behind you. Its easy for you to talk and take the high road. Its easy for you to brush off the article and state that it is biased. Its not that biased from where I'm sitting.

    This whole thing is biased with the bais favoring Jews and Israel. Thats the problem isn't it?

    If we didn't favor Israel my country would not have been the target of terrorists on 9-11. My family would not be paying money to rebuild Iraq while struggling to send kids to college and pay for health care and other needs while we have a budget deficit that totals the deficits of every adminstration going back to Harry Truman, happy coincidence, which my kids will have to end up paying.

    What exactly do the kids in my family get out of all of this?

    You might be willing to sacrifice for Israel but I most certainly am not. I am not willing to bring the middle east madness to the shores of the US. I am not willing to be the victim of a terrorist attack because of Israel. Hell will not hold my fury if I lose a family member because of Israelies and Jews.

    Its hard to think of the fact that many Jews are as against what is happening as I am. It may be the correct way to think but it is still difficult.

    I wish the semites who want to fight could keep their bloody slaughter in the middle east and they can keep fighting til there is not one left for all I care.

    Now you want to blame some part of this on Harry Truman for god's sake. I don't buy it.

    Now whats your problem? Why don't you tell me why you think Truman should be dragged into this mess and try to be direct about it for a change. It does no good to tell me I'm wrong and question me if you refuse to state why you think I am wrong.

    You want to know what my problem is as tho you might very well ferret out anti-semtism. The eternal question. The eternal quest.

    What the heck difference does it make? Do you really care what I feel toward Jews? Well allow me to put it this way. I have every confidence that I love Jews and Jewish culture every bit as much as Jews love southern white people and southern culture. Does that satisfy your need for a clear understanding of my abilty for objectivity regarding this subject?


    Barbara Cornett - 9/14/2003

    Thats it?? Why don't you do me the honor of explaining how and why my satire was a failure. I merely stated what the article stated. The article you support.

    To tell the truth I have no idea if I am right or wrong!

    I put my ideas forward and waited for someone to tell me where and how I was wrong. so far I have heard nothing. Evidently those who think I am wrong do not have the energy or courage of their beliefs and will not make the effort to make their case.

    Please tell me

    1. Was Truman an anti-semite? If so how was it translated into policy which would give it meaning?

    If he wasn't anti-semtic then why should Arabs take meaning from his words and use them for their own advantage?

    2. If he was anti-semtic, what does that prove? Did he also hate other groups? should we inform those other people he hated so they can get on his case too?

    3. What are the implications of his anti-semtism?

    4. are arabs correct to use Truman's words to justify their agenda vs Jewish people?

    5. If Truman was anti-semtic does that mean Americans are anti-semtic too? How should Jewish people respond?

    6. Is there actually a rise in anti-semtisim in Europe? Why?

    7. Did Truman influence the rise of anti-semtisim in Eurorpe?

    I hate to sound like bill o'reily but please put up or shut up. You have an obligation to make your case. You must not leave me wondering in what ways I am wrong or what facts or truths I have missed. You should tell me what you know and experience that I have no clue about and help me to see another angle.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/14/2003

    If we are preceding from the pov of historical and bibical scholars I would say that you are absolutely correct.

    Unfortunately, Christians proceed from religious dogma or else they would not be Christians. You must deal with them according to their dogma and beliefs. It is not for you to decide what they believe or how they interpet the Bible. There is no reason for beliving Jesus must die and then condemning those who killed him. There is no reason to religious dogma. There is a site on the web that lists a million bibical contradictions. Do you think Christians are moved by it to question their own dogma?

    Suppose I critique Judaism and tell you about how silly it is. Suppose I make fun of the people in the middle east who I see on tv banging their heads against a stone wall and acting as tho they are mad.

    Non religious people may very well see how silly the whole thing is but all of that is lost on believers.

    Our forefathers may have expected Christians to follow in their footsteps but they certainly never expected Zionism to become the downfall of our nation either.

    Religion is encouraged as a way to manipulate political events and in and of itself is not the problem. If not for Zionism and the Christian right we would all be better off and religion could be kept out of government.

    You ought not to be complaining about the failure of Christians to uphold the standards of the founding fathers given the role that zionism plays in our lives today. Worry about your own religion and I'll do everything I can to hold back the rightwing Christian hordes of morons.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/14/2003

    I think I would compare the KKK to the JDL and they are both murderous terrorists that decent people avoid.

    I would happliy make satire of the KKK and welcome you to do the same! That's the difference between us Jonathan! I don't take myself too seriously! Have at it!

    When you say of 'SOUTHERN WHITES' "Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog."

    "The (southern whites)Jews, I find, are very, very selfish," "they care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the (swhites)Jews get special treatment

    I will say to you YES! YES! YOU ARE CORRECT! WE ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED!! I do not mind for one minute if you remind me of the KKK and everything it did. Let us talk of the slaves and the horror of their lives and what southern white people did to them! Let us talk of the degradation that was visited on defenseless black people by southern whites! Let us talk of plantations! the whiplash! Tara! Jim Crow! Whites only!

    Ask me about my childhood and how I would go to the movies on Saturdays and sit in the theatre with access to the restroom and consession stand while blacks sat in the balcony which they entered thur a seperate entrance! Ask me! I will tell you all! Then I will tell you how that is not the half of it!!

    I could write a book. I could tell you what it was like when as a child I gathered with all of the other white kids in the auditorium as our princple talked to us of things that were going to happen. How he told us not to be afraid. How I looked thur the glass doors out into the hall and saw the faces of frightened little black kids who were as scared and clueless as I was. They were attempting to segregate the schools.

    I can tell you about the vet's kid and the lawyer's kid who said "don't let them come here". I can tell you that I, whose father and grandfather would take the fox hounds out into the woods at night and sit around the fire and listen to the dogs run, along with black men who were their friends, told the teacher the black kids wouldn't hurt us. I lived on the same side of the tracks with black people. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, it must be evident to you, but I have no formal education as I was disadvantaged and certainly not college material anyway!

    Jews will attempt to make themselves look good and hide what they have done. I will not do that. So please compare the KKK to the JDL, you have my blessings.

    In comparing the potential for harm that either could do I would say the JDL is far more dangerous because the KKK are fringe lunatics but the JDL is intellectual, enjoys a degree of legitimacy and is deadly. I think Mel Gibson has more to fear from them then Jews have to fear from Gibson.

    The strongest KKK organizations today are outside the south.

    I would also recommend "Carry Me Home" by Diane McWhorter which explains the beginnings of the Klan as an organization to help people after reconsturction and how it became a racist organization.

    It tells of how Birmingham was the perfect setting for the civil rights movement because it had all of the elements in place. Birmingham was to be the Pittsburgh of the south until Carnegie destroyed Bessimer Steel.

    Birminham had a labor force made up of blacks and whites who had unions and worked together for worker's rights. Business split labor based upon race much as the rightwing uses race baiting today in order to get votes. Nixon's southern stragety for instance.

    Bull Conner was a famous and loved radio commentator who was used by business to inflame and divide whites and blacks. It is very interesting reading.

    Jonathan what do you think of organizations such as National Association for the Advancement of White People? I feel sorry for many of these southern white people. They are dirt poor, undereducated and without any hope. Don't you see this as a cry for help? what I see in the south is that most white people are not any better off then the blacks.

    Blacks complain that the democratic party takes them for granted. Well it takes me for granted too. In what way do I get representation?? I don't! Don't you think that might be one reason that I resent the self obssession that I preceive Jews to have?

    This organization is not trying to gain an advantage with PR, they are a sympton of conditions that are prevalent and desperate. Blaming blacks for their problems is obviously not correct but certainly the dynamic is understood and the reaction ought not to be contempt.





    Barbara Cornett - 9/14/2003

    Thank you for that information Jonathan. Tennessee where I live was torn apart by the war as half went with the Union and half with the south. It can safly be said they were confederate states tho I think.

    People down here don't much like Lincoln either! Wasn't it Virginia where people were in an uproar recently because someone wanted to put a statue of Lincoln in the town. They said it would be like putting a statue of Hitler in Israel.

    People have long memories and I guess we cling to certain identites and loyalities for some psychological reasons that we may not even be aware of and its human nature no matter what may be needed in order to bring diverse groups together to make a union.

    I'll have to remind my friend in Maryland about the Maryland song! She thought she was uptown and I was from the crazy south, but I guess she's not so uptown after all!


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett asks "I would like to ask you what you expect Christian people to do? Are Christians supposed to forget about the teachings of the New Testament and adjust their religious beliefs for the confort of Jews! They may as well forget about believing in Jesus and forget about being Christians! How arrogant of you to expect Gibson to alter his movie or his beliefs which are based upon the New Testament which teaches that Jews rejected Jesus as the promised savior of the Jews."

    I just got done with a whole debate on this very question (the heart of the discussion starts, roughly, with http://hnn.us/comments/17298.html) and I really don't want to go through it again.

    What I would like is for a larger segment of the population, Christian and otherwise, to realize that religious texts are historical texts, not timeless, not perfect.

    The problem with the Mel Gibson depiction is not that Jews rejected Jesus as savior, which they mostly did, but that they were most probably not directly or indirectly responsible for the death of Jesus in the way depicted in both the original and revised versions of the film. Though the Gospels were quite clear on the responsibility of Jews (by which literal readers mean all Jews and Catholics apparently mean "corrupt Jewish leaders") they were written decades after the fact and contain errors regarding Jewish law and custom which renders their depiction of Jews as historical actors suspect.

    I have no problem with Christians believing in Jesus Christ. I have a problem with anyone assuming that propoganda texts (and that's roughly what "Gospel" means) reflect exact reality without solid corroboration. I have a problem with religions which impose their contradictions on others (i.e. the death of Jesus was necessary, but those who were involved still get blamed instead of thanked). I have a problem with people who think they are being literal and strict when in fact they are being highly selective and interpretive but are too hypocritical to see it. And I have a problem with religions that denigrate other traditions and aggressively proselytize.

    This nation-state was founded by Enlightenment thinkers whose Christianity was Deism and who fully expected the rest of American Christianity to follow in their rational footsteps. I would argue that the majority of American Jews today are closer in their theological positions, to the founders than the majority of Christians. So, who should give up their religions? Nobody, but we could all grow up a bit.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett,

    This article isn't blatantly anti-semitic, though it is uncompromisingly anti-Israeli and, I would argue, based on an anti-Semitic premise. It's a subtle point, but an important one: the article starts with the assumption that Israel's existence is problematic from the start, and anti-Israeli aggression was a reasonable position to hold and maintain. From that point, it is easy to argue that any US support for Israel is unjust and unhelpful.

    Curious. You've been told, and admitted that you were aware, that many Jews opposed and continue to oppose hard-line security positions being taken by Israel and by the US. Certainly there are many Americans -- Jewish, Christian, Muslim and others -- who want peace, rather than continued violence, in the middle east, and who oppose the radical and dangerously foolish international and domestic agendas of the present administration. So what, exactly, is the problem?


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett,

    Some subjects lend themselves to satire and sarcasm better than others.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Ms. Cornett wrote "My imagined organization was meant to represent a Jewish organization such as the "Jewish Defense League" which actually does exist. Do you think that Jews are "a bunch of aggressively racist morons"?"

    Without extending the description to non-members, I'd certainly agree that the JDL was well-represented by your comments. Shall we do a comparison between the relationship between the JDL and the Jewish community and the relationship between the KKK and the South?

    There are organizations with titles like the National Association for the Advancement of White People and a White ADL (I don't remember the exact title) and most of them share membership, even leadership, with the most virulent and violent White Power movements in the US. Be careful what you satirize.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2003

    Actually, you're both right, sort of. Maryland was a slave state before the war began,and sentiment in Maryland strongly supported alliance with the Confederacy. But Lincoln, rather than face being surrounded by secessionist states, put the Maryland state legislature under arrest (suspending Habeus Corpus to do so) before a vote could be taken. So Maryland remained a member of the Union, though Marylanders, as in many border states, did fight on both sides.

    Maryland has never really forgiven Lincoln. The state song (sung to the venerable tune "O Tannenbaum") begins:

    The despot's heel is on thy shore, Maryland, My Maryland!
    His torch is at thy temple door, Maryland, My Maryland!
    Avenge the patriotic gore
    That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
    And be the battle queen of yore, Maryland! My Maryland!

    and goes on to call for Maryland to "burst the tyrant's chain" and heed the call of Virginia and "spurn the Northern scum." There have been attempts to write new words, but none has ever gained quite enough momentum to overcome historical inertia (and a little continued bad feeling).


    I'm also a graduate of Georgetown, which changed its school colors to Blue and Gray after the war in honor of its students and graduates on both sides.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/13/2003

    Verena forgive me!

    Josh when I said I was afraid the rest of the country would turn on us and wage war on us I was being ironic! You were not meant to take it seriously!

    However, I cannot help but notice your conclusion about my imagined organization.

    quote

    "Imagine that I am a member of "Southerners United Against Anti-White Hate"."

    An organization like that would keep people in the rest of the country thinking that Southerners are a bunch of aggressively racist morons.

    unquote

    My imagined organization was meant to represent a Jewish organization such as the "Jewish Defense League" which actually does exist. Do you think that Jews are "a bunch of aggressively racist morons"?


    Barbara Cornett - 9/13/2003

    please read this.

    http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/655/op41.htm

    Doesn't it appear that both American and Israeli Jews and all of those who deplore what is happening must fight against what our governments are doing? Jews and all of the rest of us.

    where exactly in all of this does anti-semitism play a part? I still don't see how it does.


    Josh Greenland - 9/13/2003

    "Most of the news presumes that everyone sees the news from the perspective of New Englanders or Californians."

    How do you figure the news is from the perspective of Californians? We have have nothing here equivalent to the New York Times - or CNN (which happens to be in Atlanta, Georgia).

    "See how upset you get when I put my southern veiws off on you? Obviously the south is not the center of YOUR universe. It works both ways!"

    Funny you mention this. There is also a lot of anti-California prejudice out there, ESPECIALLY among Southerners.

    "When kids started killing one another at schools and it happened at schools in the south they called us a 'gun culture'. You know how those southern rednecks are, they are not like the rest of us, they are a gun culture so of course they're killing one another and they don't think a thing about it. It doesn't even faze them because they're a gun culture."

    But when it happens at a disproportionately white upper-middle class school in Colorado, it's a "national tragedy." I think I see your point on this.

    "As you know the rest of America turned on the south and attacked us and waged war on us."

    Rational, informed people don't know any such thing. The South rebelled from the status quo, and performed the first aggressive act by shelling Fort Sumter. Pushing this neo-Confederate bilge is guaranteed to keep the rest of the country thinking that Southerners are a bunch of belligerent, bigoted yahoos.

    "We are terrified that they will get mad at us and attack us again."

    I don't believe this. You're the only person I've ever heard this from, and I communicate with many Southerners frequently.

    "We do not have the military to defend ourselves."

    Oh come on. The US military is disproportionately Southern.

    "Europeans don't like us either and if we are attacked they would join with our enemies."

    You need to take a chill pill. Your imagination is more than a little overheated.

    "Imagine that I am a member of "Southerners United Against Anti-White Hate"."

    An organization like that would keep people in the rest of the country thinking that Southerners are a bunch of aggressively racist morons.

    And have you EVER noticed that whenever ANYone, including Southerners, refers to "Southerners", they are ONLY talking about white people?


    Barbara Cornett - 9/13/2003

    sorry todd i can't talk about it. people are sick of that subject so please give it a rest. who cares.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/13/2003

    In a recent stunning discovery of Harry Truman's diary it was found that he made anti-semtic statements! This is clear evidence that Harry was anti-semtic. Oh my god!!!!

    What are the implications of this discovery? Harry appeared to be a decent fellow to the public but actually he was very sneaky. Now we know that he was evil and the evidence is written in black and white in his diary. If Harry was evil then that is a good indication that America must be seething with anti-semitisim and Jewish people have every reason to be fearful and on guard.

    The bloodthirsty Arabs who are known for their vile world wide terrorists attacks on innocent civilians are seizing upon Harry's words in order to gleefully justify their extreme hatred of Jews. They were at a loss before the discovery of Truman's diary but now they are free to kill at will and people will understand and blame it on Harry.

    Arabs are now saying "we told you so" and demanding that Jews not be allowed to live in the middle east because Harry's words are clear evidence that all Jews are bad and that they are inheriantly evil and if they move into the neighborhood no one will be safe because Jews are selfish.

    Europe is also seeing an increase in anti-semitism because they too now think that Harry, who was considered to be insightful and prophetic, must have seen into the Jewish soul and issued his warning to the world.

    Jews are right. Nobody likes them. They are in danger. Its all Harry's fault. Damn Truman and his stupid diary!

    There is one hope left.

    Now Arabs must be convinced to follow Harry's example and forget about the ramblings in his diary. It will be up to all of us to convince them. If they can just forget about the diary then we will be on the road to peace in the middle east.

    If Europe will soon forget about Harry's diary then they too will calm down. Europeans are gullible and easily manipulated. Harry convinced them to hate Jews but we can easily convince them to like Jews.

    Now, does this make everyone happy?


    Todd - 9/13/2003

    Please, basic US history:

    Maryland was a border state during the Civil War and was not aligned with either side, North or South. Units from Maryland fought for each. Hope your Russian History texts are better than your American.

    Regards.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/13/2003

    Verena, you are absolutely correct. I have lumped all Jewish people together and treated them in the very manner that I have been complaining about being treated myself. I am wrong to do that and you are right to call me on it. I am sorry that I often do that.

    You cannot have missed my constant complaints about NYC media. You would not believe the times I read news that treats southern people in such a negetive manner that I assume the writer thinks that southern people won't even be reading it and if they do the writer has no reason to be concerned. Everybody who counts agrees with her.

    Most of the news presumes that everyone sees the news from the perspective of New Englanders or Californians. See how upset you get when I put my southern veiws off on you? Obviously the south is not the center of YOUR universe. It works both ways!

    Do you imagine that you and I have the same perspectives and experiences? Jonathan has stated that thinking in terms of ethnic groups is nationalistic racism. How would you feel if it was automatically assumed that whatever I think should be your perspective and your interest also? How would you feel if I reported the news and talked about all of the country but then singled you out as tho you were another nation and called you The North.

    When kids started killing one another at schools and it happened at schools in the south they called us a 'gun culture'. You know how those southern rednecks are, they are not like the rest of us, they are a gun culture so of course they're killing one another and they don't think a thing about it. It doesn't even faze them because they're a gun culture.

    You think that doesn't make me mad? I would like to have kicked some of those NYC news anchors butts to Mars.

    Imagine for a moment that I am speaking here on behalf of "The Southern Anti-Defamation League". As you know the rest of America turned on the south and attacked us and waged war on us. We are terrified that they will get mad at us and attack us again. We do not have the military to defend ourselves. So I must do everything I can to speak out on behalf of the south and pervent anyone from saying bad things about us because I live in fear.

    We narrowly avoided a disaster when we prevailed over CBS and prevented them from airing an updated version of the Beverly Hillbillies.

    There is much anti-southern sentiment in America right now. We are hated because we owned black people and enslaved them and we marry our cousins. Europeans don't like us either and if we are attacked they would join with our enemies.

    Imagine that I am a member of "Southerners United Against Anti-White Hate". I must do all I can on behalf of southern people because people like you have bias against me. You have shown it in your expressions of getting tired of hearing about the south.

    Whats the matter with you! You are sick of hearing about the south already!!!!

    Well what in God's name makes you think people don't get sick of hearing about Jews and anti-semitism! Are you not sick of that!

    Thank you for making such an excellent point!

    My advisors at the Southern anti defamation league have told me that I ought not to rile you any further so I promise not to make any more references to you know who from you know where.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/13/2003

    Jonthan I am more than happy to hear from someone like you! After all Maryland was part of the Confederacy!! ;o)

    I want to state that I am very interested in reading about the history of the forming of the Soviet Union, however, I am only interested in reading historians who are held in high regard and do not intend to read any holocaust deniers.

    When Mel Gibson previewed his movie Jews immediately came out in protest expressing fear that American Christians would be outraged at the role Jews played in the crucifiction of Christ and would turn on them. Certain Jews stated that they were already receiving anti-semtic threats.

    In effect that was blackmail. If some nutcase, like the ones in Texas who dragged a black man behind their pick-up truck, attacked a Jewish person or burned a place of worship then Mel Gibson's name would have been in the headlines along with those people. Obviously Gibson does not want to be remembered in such a manner! He does not want to be labeled as someone who incites hatred against Jews! Therefore he was forced to edit his movie which he claimed was inspired by God.

    Christians really believe this stuff! I was raised in a southern baptist chruch and people are true believers! you can call them fundementalists or whatever you want but they believe every word of the Bible is literal and true and the Word out of the Mouth of God.

    Protestantism isn't an intellectual exercise as Judaism is. People are not trying to become more enlightened or gain knowledge or wisdom of the world, they believe they already have the only wisdom of the world and that is God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity. I say this to put into perspective for you what Gibson's movie means to him and to Christians. What an effect it will have on Christians! Jews understand the power that such a movie would have very well because they make self serving propaganda movies all the time.


    Gibson is doing it out of a zeal for his love for God. He is not doing it to make money. He is not doing it in order to make an artistic movie. He is making an artistic movie for the Glory of God and in that manner to worship and show God and the world his love and devotion to God. He is sacrificing himself and his art and his life for God who is his rightful service. That's how Christians veiw these things.

    You say Jonathan, that Gibson's small changes are not satisfactory to you. I would like to ask you what you expect Christian people to do? Are Christians supposed to forget about the teachings of the New Testament and adjust their religious beliefs for the confort of Jews! They may as well forget about believing in Jesus and forget about being Christians! How arrogant of you to expect Gibson to alter his movie or his beliefs which are based upon the New Testament which teaches that Jews rejected Jesus as the promised savior of the Jews.

    As far as I'm concerned all religion is bs. I don't believe in any Jewish myth or legend, but for people who do believe you cannot expect them to alter the teachings of the Bible for the benefit and confort of Jews.

    That is another reason I get so angry with progressive news on the web. People are constantly getting upset that Christians don't modify their beliefs for the politcial benefit of others! They have contempt for all Christians and thats why they can't effectively fight the Christian right.

    This nation was founded by Christians! How do you think you are going to be perceived if you demand that Christians give up their beliefs because they don't suit you!

    We have religious freedom!!! Jews have been historically persecuted but that gives you no right to demand anything of Christians in this country. If you do try to censor or affect Christian activity or speech I will fight you every step of the way. Jews fight for their beliefs and I will fight for mine. Thats how these things work. What I will not do is be silenced by you.

    No matter how prevalent regional accents are in any given area that does not excuse or justify the way southern people are treated by powerful Jews in Hollywood who have ruthlessly treated us in a racist manner and then who run around complaining loudly, using the power of their media, about others being anti-semtic toward them.

    Mississippi accents are the accents of the earliest Americans btw.

    If grouping ethnic people together is at the heart of nationalistic racism and is a bad thing then I am the victim of it too. I won't bitch about it if you won't. The fact is that Jews in Hollywood have treated us badly and then they turn around and scream anti-semtism. Perhaps they should treat others as they wish to be treated. If Jews are afraid as you suggest they are and that I have underestimated that fear then why are Jews so good at dishing it out. That doesn't sound like too bright an idea to me. They shouldnt' be antagonizing the people they claim to fear, should they?


    Jonthan, here is the bottom line. Whoever has power has it at the expense of everyone else. We took this land from the Indians. Are we anti-Indian? Oh yes we are and they pay for it but you don't see them running around trying to find damning evidence in Truman's diary do you?

    We used blacks to build this country. were we anti-black. Oh yes we were and we obtained great power from it. Israel is anti-arab and they behave accordingly because they want power over them. Better then the Arabs having power over the Jews isn't it? Everybody knows what happens to you if you are weak. The US has dealt out enough suffering so that we know we don't want to be weak.

    The Zionists at PNAC and in the White HOuse base their agenda on the teachings of Leo Strauss. Do a google search and learn about him. He believed that the masses of people are not intelligent enough nor do they have the guts to do what is necessary. What is necessary? To gain power and control. To have your own way and do what is in your own best interest.

    The Zionists in the White House have shown us that they have the guts to do what is necessary. Israel has shown that it has the guts to do what is necessary.

    Zionists have found a home in the US gov because Anglos are just as capable of doing what is necessary. Truman had the guts to do what was necessary. US operatives work day in and day out overthrowing democracies in the third world or anything else that is necessary to attain power and keep it.

    The question is, should anglos and Zionists trust one another? :o)

    Its about power and in that context talking about Truman being anti-anyone is silly. Of course you are anti-somebody else if you need to be. Why should Jews be an acception in a struggle for power? Everybody gets in the ring and dukes it out. Jews say, "excuse me, I'm Jewish and above it all, I don't have to play this nasty game just give me whatever I want".

    Bill Kristol got a chuckle out of the fact that Christian Zionists give their power away to them. He laughs at their stupidity but he has stated that it doesn't matter because after all "its our Israel".

    Why should I put up with the fact that Jews have one foot in the US and one foot in Israel. Not all Jews, but enough so that zionism has the main thrust. Israel is a foreign country. I don't want my gov hijacked by Zionists to the disadvantage of the US and my people. If I am labeled anti-semtic for attempting to take power from Jews and not wanting Jews in the White House then I will be silenced by that accusation. Why would I want that? Claims of anti-semitism are tools for obtaining power. As I have stated all power attained comes at the expense of someone else.

    The war against anti-semtisim is like the war against terrorism. How do you ever win it? when will it be won? How will we know when it is won? hint-it is a political tool.

    You are like Richard Rodriguez, a Mexican American whose family came here about a generation ago. He writes books about brown faces and how Mexicans are treated in the US. What if I went to Africa and started writing books about how rarely I see white faces and bemoaning the fact that I am not lifted up to play a more vital role in the governing of a black country and why doesn't everyone love me and realize how wonderful I am. If he wants to see brown faces why the hell doesn't he go back to f-ing gd Mexico! What the hell does he want from me! The fact is in 50 years Spanish will be the dominate language in the US and yet this man has the nerve to bitch about the US.

    We are told that with our present immigration policy the US will become unlivable and overcrowded and is already that way in many places. Mexicans can always go back to Mexico in spite of your declaration about ethnic nationalism and its meaning. They have one foot in the US and one foot in Mexico anyway. Millions of US dollars flow out of the country and back to Mexico and down to South America. when we become unlivable where will I go. I sure as hell can't move to Israel! Maybe Mexicans should check my diary for antiMexican racism! whatdya think!

    Jews came to the US in order to get the freedom and opportunity that others built and that they evidently can't find someplace else. Now you are demanding that everyone accomodate you or else they are antisemtic! If you are afraid here where do you think you could live where you would be safer? Can't you see that there would be a backlash if you claimed that our Harry Truman was a racist! sometimes I think Jews agitate everyone else just so they can have the satisfaction of calling people anti-semites!

    To sum up, claims of anti-semitism are a political weapon used to gain advantage.

    Do you believe Truman was an anti-semite? well he certainly didn't like Japanese people did he? The Japanese would look pretty silly if they made headlines "Harry Truman's Diary reveals he hated Japs!". Get real Jonathan.

    Jews want power in the US, in spite of your claims about ethnic nationalism which works in various ways to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others. Jews realize that whoever has power is hated by everyone else. That is one of the costs of power and you have to be willing to pay that price. To counter the backlash against Jewish power they have a propaganda machine that nutralizes it. I don't blame them. I'd do that too if I were a member of a powerful minority. It works.

    You bemoan the fact that religion has played such a powerful role in the historical persecution of Jews at the very moment Zionism is playing a crucial role in the politics of the United States of America. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    The people of the US, ALL of us would protect you Jonathan. We would not put up with any attacks on Jews. The problem is with hidden attacks on ethnic groups such as blacks. They are shot by police, they are imprisioned, our drug laws target them. Its these kinds of silent attacks that people should fear. Jews have wealth and POWER that protects them. Your claims that you are in fear and that I underestimate that fear is a powerful weapon. Be careful and truthful in how you use it.

    Be safe America! As safe as you allow others to be.


    Doe John - 9/13/2003


    David Irving is an accomplished historian, but his objectivity and credibility have been shown (in that big Court case in England a few years back) to have been incinerated, if they ever existed.

    Why, I wonder, is nobody talking about Truman's statement ? I suspect there is some truth to the suggestion that Jewish groups post 1945 hypocritically and selfishly ignored the plight of other refugees and victims (although it sounds like Truman exaggerated) and there are undoubtedly counterexamples as well.


    Verena - 9/13/2003


    Barbara, I agree with your basic complaint about how a statement of Harry Truman is being taken out of context and misused (though it seems to be Arabs that are doing the misusing at least as much as Jews). I am also very upset at recent outrageous statements by Democratic presidential hopefuls who apparently think they are candidates for leadership positions in the Likud Party in Israel.

    But why do you continually talk about Jews as if they were one homogeneous unified group ? Jews live all over the world and they are very different from place to place and person to person. So do and are people of African descent and practically every other ethnic group I've ever encountered in several decades of adult life. And no one is criticizing you for being from the South, which also has nothing to do with Truman, so why keep bringing it up ?

    By the way, I am neither Jewish nor Black nor from the South, but I have friends in all 3 of those categories and they are nothing like the blanket prejudiced stereotypes which you so object to and yet resort to over and over.


    John Doe - 9/12/2003

    The posting, as Josh has pointed out, is full of nonsense, but I was intrigued to the reference to the first politburo consisting of Jews except for Stalin and Bubnov. I assumed the first politburo HAD to include Lenin (who wasn't Jewish). I was right of course. It only took a couple of minutes to find the following:

    "10 [23] Oct 1917 Bubnov, Zinovyev, Kamenev, Lenin, Sokolnikov, Stalin and Trotsky elected members of the Political Bureau at the Central Committee meeting
    Oct 1917 Political bureau ceased to function after the success of the Bolshevik coup in Petrograd (October 25 [November 7], 1917)"

    Kamenev, Zionyvev and Trotsky were Jews ( Jews in the ethnic sense, that is - by religion they were all presumably athiests). I haven't been able to find out about Sokolnikov. But the most important person was Lenin, who wasn't Jewish. AND the first politburo lasted for a grand total of 2 weeks.


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/12/2003

    Ms. Cornett,

    Clearly you don't want to hear from a Jew on this subject (even one from the Southern borderlands, Maryland), but I'm going to take issue with a few of your statements anyway.

    You wrote: "Mel Gibson has taken on the Vatican and the Pope but he hit a brick wall when he faced the Jews. He was forced to edit a movie that he said was inspired by God."

    Mel Gibson was not forced to edit his movie. Nobody was going to keep it from being shown or distributed. He apparently made the decision that the controversy being engendered by his narrative decisions was endangering the success of his divinely inspired message, so he adjusted it. From what I have heard his changes have been very small, certainly not satisfactory to this Jew. So who won?

    You wrote: "Why is a Bronx accent ok but a Mississippi accent isn't?"

    There are a lot of places where "non-standard" accents are privileged. Politicians don't hide their accents. Country music requires a Southern accent (and if you don't have one, you're not Country). You hear a lot fewer New York accents than Southern ones in public life, in my opinion.

    Most of the rest of your comments rely on a fallacy that is at the heart of nationalistic racism: the unity of people identified by ethnicity or interest. How in the world do I benefit from Israeli policy that I have opposed for my entire adult life? How am I connected to the "Zionist controlled" Bush administration that consistently does precisely what I think it should not do?

    On the other hand, you grossly underestimate the degree to which Jews feel and are threatened even in US society. Anti-Jewish quotas in higher education persisted until the 1950s. Mel Gibson's film proves that Christian Zionism (which is also not exactly a friendly position) is more than balanced by widespread Christian disdain and intolerance towards Judaism. Anti-Semitism is a real and present phenomenon, much like disdain for Southerners, but with a history of proselytization and violence that threaten Jews individually and collectively.


    Josh Greenland - 9/12/2003

    "Remember that the Soviet Union resulted from a jewish coup which overturned a democratic Christian government."

    The claim that the Soviet Communists were all or mostly Jewish is a standard anti-Semitic lie.

    "All but Bobnov and Stalin on the first politbureau were Jewish, and Jews in the Soviet Union had a near monopoly of the security services, and the commissars, who did the blood work."

    I don't know who was on the first politburo, but from your mispelling of the word and your past historical errors, I'm not going to take your word for it. The Jewish monopoly on Soviet security services is a little hard to believe, given the number of prominent Jewish victims of the late 1930s purges. The "Jews = commissars" formulation has the familiar anti-Semitic canard ring to it. It's a scary-looking word, but do you even know what a commissar is, Mr. Thomas?

    "In 1932, 12 million Ukranians were murdered by mass starvation. The perpetrator was Kaganovich, CHEKA head, and a Jew. This mass-murder, the worst in history, had a big ethnic component: the murderers were almost all Jews and the victims almost all devout Ukranian Catholics."

    You claimed this in another forum. You then said the evil Soviets surrounded 1/3rd of the Ukraine, a huge area, after taking every crumb of food from it, and in 2 weeks, all 12 million occupants were dead of starvation. This is not credible on its face, and most historians believe this death figure is too high. I don't accept your claim that Kaganovich was head of the Cheka, nor that the Cheka caused the Soviet farmbelt starvation. (It was perpetrated by the Soviet government, but I don't accept from you that the Cheka specifically did the deed.)

    Also, you claim this is the worst mass murder in history, and then claim another one for the Soviets with an even higher death figure further down in your post. This stuff isn't even internally consistent.

    "In 1936-1939, about 3 million were murdered in a purge of the army and other organizations. Same perp. The victims were ethnic German Soviet in most cases. This was well covered in all the US papers."

    Gee, I've read about those times. If this was so well covered, why did I never read that the victims were mostly Soviet ethnic Germans? Probably because it's not true. And, one historical source has the Soviet purge and other murders figure (excluding the farmbelt famine) at 800,000.

    "In 1944, CHEKA murderers at Katyn Forest killed 14,000 ethnic Poles concentrating on Priests, army men, professors, and schoolteachers. The lead murderer was Vyschinski, a jew, who later was a prosecutor at Nuremberg!"

    Yep, the Katyn forest massacre did happen, and that death figure is about right. And the Soviets did specifically kill military officers and educated people. I don't accept on your word that Vyschinsky was the "lead murderer." I know he was a prosecutor during the late `30s purge trials, but don't think a prosecutor would lead a mass murder. And really, the non-Jewish (actually somewhat anti-Semitic) Josef Stalin ordered these killings.

    And the massacre occurred in 1940. The Germans discovered the site in 1943, making your 1944 date impossible.

    "In 1945, the Soviet Red Army managed the greatest act of ethnic cleansing in history, 13.5 million people, most ethnic Germans. During the course of this, 3.5 million were killed."

    Which is it, 13.5 or 3.5 million? 3.5m would not be the largest ethnic cleansing, but really, 13.5m wouldn't either because the Nazis killed more Jews, Poles and Soviet civilians than that. Or are you going to tell us that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy?

    "The Russian soldiers were forced by their commissars to rape, impail, or simply shoot those who could not flee fast enough."

    I believe the Soviets pulled the Communist party officials ("commissars") out of its army in 1943, so no such oversight would have existed in 1945.

    "Leading this effort was jewish poet Illa Ehrenburg, who wrote "Rape, Kill, let none survive..." and other incitations."

    Sounds like classic stuff from the fevered imaginations of anti-Semites. I don't think a professional poet, no matter how bloodthirsty his verse, would be heading the mass murder of millions. I think this post-WWII mass extermination lie comes from a much smaller kernel of truth: the Soviets did brutalize Germans when they first occupied Germany, but not on this scale.

    "The Holocaust is a get-out-of-jail free card for criminals."

    I'm just waiting for you to tell us that it never happened.

    "ps: Good sourse material in Norm Finkelstein and David Irving, both of whom have terribly suffered at the hands of this group."

    David Irving is a well-known pro-Nazi popular historian. No surprise that you would recommend him.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/12/2003

    Jesse, you are wrong. I most certainly am a progressive and I believe that Jews and every other person in the US should be free and equal and be protected by all of our laws.

    It is too bad that being critical of Jews by merely stating what I believe to be the reality will result in myself being thought of as someone who hates Jews. It is too bad that because I am a southerner I am stereotyped as a racist. I should be able to express my feelings without being pigeonholed in such a way just the same as anyone else here.

    Southern people are fair game and anyone who discusses us is not labeled. Discussions can be had about our history and nobody gets accused of hate as a result.

    I don't hate anybody. Hate takes too much energy, makes me feel ashamed and guilty and depressed. I don't need it and I don't want it.

    I believe I stated the facts about Jews and PR. If I am wrong then I hope someone will correct what I said because I care only about what is true and factual. That means I don't accept Jewish PR bs just to 'prove' I'm not an anti-semite which so many people are willing to do.

    The reason the south is down is because of ignorance, poverty and backwardness. No outside force can keep a people down. They are kept down by their own actions and situations which they bring about and perpetuate.

    The issue here was Jews and their claims that Harry Truman was an anti-semite. That's the only reason I was talking about Jews. Most of the time I am talking with Jews. I get most of my news from them. Whatever opnion I have was formed with information they have given to me.

    I love the US government. I am the US government. The last people who ought to be wanting smaller government are southern people. We receive most of the benefits of social government programs. If we are poor now, what would happen to us if the rest of the country no longer paid taxes that flow to the south in the form of social aid?

    Issues are complex. I will fight against the Jewish propaganda machine. They have a right to keep using it. All's fair in love and war. Politics is a game and whoever plays it well will suceed over others.

    Jewish propaganda is very sucessful with many southern people who know their religious dogma but know nothing about politics. I would like to demystify and dethrone Jewish people in their minds. Not because I hate Jews. It is because we southern people are giving away our power and making Jewish power stronger. I don't think that is in our best interest. It has nothing to do with hating Jews tho.

    Just because I love the south does not mean I want to live in the past. I want the south to have a greater voice in determining the direction of our country. I don't think that we would ever have taken the country into Iraq. I think we need to change our policy toward Israel and force them to make peace. I don't want to live like they do in the middle east. I want to live in peace.

    We also have to contend with the fact that China is a rising power and will eventually have superior economic and military power.

    speaking of racism, how do you think the people of the US would be treated if China had superior power?

    I have been told that part of the reason we invaded Iraq was as part of a larger plan to block China and maintain our superior power. That makes my opposition to war in Iraq more of a conflict.

    The US has always done whatever was necessary to maintain our best interests and it looks as tho we will do whatever is necessary regarding China. someday US history may thank the Zionists.

    It surely gets complicated doesn't it? Most of the action will never be known by the people of the US. The dirty work will be done by operatives we are not even aware of. People used to cut the throats of the hogs they raised themselves and knew where the fried ham and redeye gravy came from. Now people buy their meat at the supermarket and never give a thought about it. That's how Americans enjoy our freedom and power. It just is.


    Jesse Lamovsky - 9/12/2003

    "...I think that it is a good thing that Jewish people are criitizing Sharon and Israel. The progressive sites where I get my news are critizing Israel and the Zionists at PNAC. I acknowledge that, but they are also being racist toward southern people such as myself so they are hardly in a position to complain about racism toward themselves."

    True, Barbara, regrettably so. Seeing as you don't seem like such a "progressive" yourself (a good thing), you may want to look for news sites with a more libertarian, pro-Confederate view. There are a number of Jewish libertarian writers on these sites who are anti-big government (long the scourge of the South) and pro-Southern. Myles Kantor, Steven Greenhut and libertarian godfather Murray Rothbard (who joked that he was the only New York Jew to vote for Strom Thurmond in 1948) are but a few.

    "It is in the interest of Jews to keep the lid on the people of the south. I am just saying that I see through what Jews like the man who wrote the article above are doing."

    Well, I simply don't agree with that blanket statement. It is in the interests of the big-government left (some of whose ranks are Jewish) to keep the lid on white Southerners. But there are no built-in contradictions between Jews and white Southerners. And I don't think it's quite fair to place all, or even most, of the blame for the demonization of the white South on Jews. That having been said, I acknowledge that many of those most outspoken in their disdain for the white South have been Jews.

    I sympathize with your frustration and I agree with your opinions on Elie Wiesel and "Mr. Holocaust", Steven Spielberg. As someone who lost many relatives in the Shoah, I find the huckstering of mass murder to be repugnant and distasteful. I don't believe a Holocaust Museum has any place on the National Mall (where's the Civil War Museum?). And it's true that white Southerners, their heroes, and their symbols have been treated very unjustly for the past generation. But the enemy is not Judaism or Jews, per se. It is the all-encompassing, unconstitutionally large federal government. When Southerners revive the Spirit of '61 and fight for their rights, and if it is made clear that the federal Leviation, and not any particular ethnic group, is the enemy, I think the good people of the South will find many allies outside their section- including this Jewish "copperhead". Keep writing, Barbara, and keep asking questions!








    Jonathan Dresner - 9/12/2003

    A quick search reveals: Jefferson was a pretty typical Enlightenment thinker, disinclined to discriminate but also uninterested in investigating the true nature of the religious faiths he passed judgement on. Specifically, he was in favor of Jews having full civil rights and positions in government, but his views on Judaism -- shared by many Enlightentment thinkers -- was a stereotypical Christian perspective in which Judaism was "antiquated" and in need of modernization (which Christ tried, but failed).

    Jefferson had no personal animus nor political fear of Jews, but his attitude towards the religion was uninformed disdain.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/11/2003

    Verena, I think that it is a good thing that Jewish people are criitizing Sharon and Israel. The progressive sites where I get my news are critizing Israel and the Zionists at PNAC. I acknowledge that, but they are also being racist toward southern people such as myself so they are hardly in a position to complain about racism toward themselves.

    and Thanks for correcting me, I meant Howard!

    I know it must hurt to have things said about you and I'm sorry if I hurt you. I just don't think that Jews should be trying to make Harry Truman or anyone else out to be racist people in order to serve themselves. They do it to Henry Ford, Walt Disney and others. They have even tried to claim that Swartzenegger's father was a Nazi.

    My feeling is, so what! Is there a law that says you have to like southern people? Well there's no law that says people have to like Jews either, so why play gottcha?

    The people who have most denigrated the victims of Nazi Germany are Jews themselves. That shows the degree to which Jews will go to attain power thur PR.

    Eli Weisel was on Oprah talking about his experience. Oprah would ask him a question and he would tell some horrendous story for about two minutes, then Oprah would wipe her eyes, look into the camera and say "we'll be right back after this break" then some corporate ad would come on with great fanfare, music and loud selling. Then back to Oprah and Eli. "When did you last see your mother" "bla bla bla and I watched her walk away to the gas chamber and that is the last time I saw her" Oprah looks at the camera, barely able to speak as she wipes away a tear "we'll be right back"

    I wouldn't do such a thing to my pet cat.

    The fact is its not just the major progressive sites on the web where I get my news that treat southern people with bigotry. We are commonly treated in that manner by all of the nation. Basically we don't care. We know who we are and what we are and we like what we are, if other people don't like us we figure thats their problem.

    CBS was planning a 'reality' tv show with a real southern family in a new version of the Beverly Hillbillies. They were going to make fun of a poor southern family for the entertainment of the rest of the nation.

    I recently exchanged emails with a woman from Maryland who is a progressive writer at indybaltimore and she openly laughed at southern white people and told me we were jeered by people in NYC because of the judge in Alabama. The fact is a precious few people actually supported him, but that didn't stop the stereotying.

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/tenc-s03.shtml

    She also laughed at the fact that southern people re-enact the civil war and remember it and treat it with great importance. The richest people in America lived in the south before the war and now we are the poorest. It affected our lives, why wouldn't we remember it. We are laughed at for remembering our history but are expected to get all sad at any mention of "the" holocaust which is European history. That is the kind of thing that make people resent Jews.

    Remember when Steven Spielberg lectured black children about suffering?

    I understand the politics behind this stereotyping. During the 50s there was much talk about WASPs, who kept Jews out of their country clubs and business circles which was representative of WASP power. Jews wanted that power and to promote themselves. WASPs found it easier to be silent then to be labeled anti-semtic, Hitler, holocaust denier and all of the rest of it so they remained silent voluntarily. Now they can't speak out even if they want to.

    It is in the interest of Jews to keep the lid on the people of the south. I am just saying that I see thur what Jews like the man who wrote the article above are doing.

    The left whose leadership resides outside of the south has never been able to fight the christian right effectively. The reason for that is because they have open contempt for all Christians.

    Bill Berkowitz who has a column at workingforchange.com, one of my news sources, had a column called "Christian Watch". He wrote an article stating that Christians are the enemies of America. I wrote him and explained to him that my family has been in this country since its beginning and I did not appreciate the fact that he called my family the enemy of America. We are the people who founded and built America.

    I asked him how he thought it would go over if someone named Billy Bob wrote a column for a major internet site and called it "Jew Watch" and called Jews the enemies of America. He never had the courtesy to reply to my email but he changed his column to "Conservative Watch".

    If a southern white cop shot down a little black boy for throwing rocks half of New Jersey and NYC would get on a plane and head south to do their social activism and save the black people from the horrible white people. Why don't they get on planes and go help the Palestinians instead?

    By doing things such as that they cause people to resent them. Blacks won their freedom in the south and blacks alone. Blacks are capable of taking care of themselves and they don't appreciate someone else trying to get reflected glory for what they did. Blacks in the south don't need Jews from up north and whites don't want them.

    My grandmother was married and cooking three meals a day for her inlaws and farm hands and had three children by the time she was 16. There was a black family that lived in the same big farmhouse with my grandparents. I won't use their last names for obvious reasons, but Hattie and George had an upstairs bedroom across from my grandparents and down the hall from my mother. Mattie, their daughter often visited my mother when I was a child and they were friends, contrary to Hollywood propaganda. They helped to work the farm because everyone was poor and did whatever they could to survive. My people never owned slaves, we were mountain people.

    Has your family ever lived with blacks or do they just march with them?

    Have we decided anything regarding the article above? Harry Truman never took any action to hurt Jews, he merely recorded in his diary what he observed. Agreed?


    Jonathan Dresner - 9/11/2003

    According to the AP (by way of NYTimes' Maureen Dowd), Islamic authorities have banned the distribution of Barbie dolls because they are "Jewish."

    I can't even think of anything to add to this (Tom Paxton said it best: "Some people you can't satirize. You just quote them."). Truman's throwaway notes are just that: a quietly scribbled thought to clear his head and let him get on with his work.

    Whether or not those comments have any merit, clearly the Arab world is so deeply afraid of Jews that even the German-inspired Barbie is seen as a Jewish threat, which suggests to me that their anti-semitism is largely divorced from reality, though it has very real consequences.


    Verena Weissenberger - 9/11/2003


    "I am supposed to make distinctions between Zionists and Jews even tho the progressive news sources I read never make distinctions between the political Christian right and geniune Christians ?"

    If your news is distorted, Barbara, seek out new sources. I don't have a website at hand, but there are lots of Jews critizing Ariel Sharon, including the last Israeli Labor Party leader in the last election who said what HOWARD (not John) Dean was probably trying to say. Open up your ears, the truth will make you free.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/11/2003

    Thank you for that information Mr Thomas! I am very ignorant of the facts that you stated in your post but I can assure you I will not remain ignorant! I will find every book I can in order to learn about a part of history that you have made sound so fasinating even tho it was horrible!

    The people of the south are the poorest of the nation and we have no power. Suppose one day we decided that we wanted to seize power from the people in the US who now control it.

    When the republicans impeached Clinton, it could be argued, they set the stardard for what can be used to impeach a president.

    Zionists at PNAC, Zionists in the White House and Jews in Israel have set a standard for what action can be justified when one group seizes power and is intent upon keeping it.

    Sainthood is not a requirement for having power. Whoever can take it and keep it will posess it.

    What would southern white people be justified in doing were we to set about taking power in the US? In that context what would the accusations of anti-semitism mean? About as much as anti-arab means to Jews. Nothing.

    Here is a link to what has happened to John Dean when he dared to speak up about the middle east.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57770-2003Sep10.html

    this is the excerpt
    Quote
    Dean has created controversy for his off-the-cuff remarks last week on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Last week, Dean said the United States should not "take sides" in the Middle East conflict and said that an "enormous" number of Israeli settlements would have to be dismantled as part of a peace agreement. Yesterday, Dean shifted course, saying the settlements should be left to negotiators.

    The governor's original comments angered a number of Jewish leaders and drew rebukes from two rivals, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Dean came under fire yesterday from a group of House Democrats for his comments on the Middle East. "This is not a time to be sending mixed messages," the Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), wrote to Dean.
    Unquote

    Jews have power in Congress but even tho my country was attacked by terrorists because of them, I would be called an anti-semite for asking how much power they have and how they use it, on behalf of the people of the US or on behalf of the people of Israel and Jews. They certainly used it to control Dean didn't they?

    I was never asked if I would be willing to die for Israel. I was never asked if I would be willing to sacrific my family for Israel. I would not! I regret that the middle east madness of constant killing has been brought to the shores of my country. No wonder people don't like Jews.

    If southern white people had been killed and hated and chased out of every country we had ever lived in I don't think we would build a memorial to it in Washington DC! Only the Jews could turn something like that into postive, self serving propaganda.

    Why would Jews want to play gottcha with everybody and his brother? It only exposes the fact that so many people don't like them. why are they claiming that half of Europe is anti-semtic! At some point people are going to start demanding to know why the heck nobody likes them! Then where will they be!

    Thank you again for your comments Mr Thomas. I fully expected to be the object of scorn and to be called a southern hillbilly, redneck racist! Your post was a surprise but a good one! Thank you again!


    F.H.Thomas - 9/11/2003



    Yours is a passionate and wonderfully written piece. I sometimes trust a passionate expression more, because such come from a place closer to the heart. You have spoken truly and well, as Thucidides demanded of all of us, but so few have achieved.


    Just for interest, think about the Jewish artocities to which Truman was actually referring. Remember that the Soviet Union resulted from a jewish coup which overturned a democratic Christian government. All but Bobnov and Stalin on the first politbureau were Jewish, and Jews in the Soviet Union had a near monopoly of the security services, and the commissars, who did the blood work.

    In 1932, 12 million Ukranians were murdered by mass starvation. The perpetrator was Kaganovich, CHEKA head, and a Jew. This mass-murder, the worst in history, had a big ethnic component: the murderers were almost all Jews and the victims almost all devout Ukranian Catholics. Truman surely had this in mind in writing what he did.

    In 1936-1939, about 3 million were murdered in a purge of the army and other organizations. Same perp. The victims were ethnic German Soviet in most cases. This was well covered in all the US papers. Truman surely knew.

    In 1939, the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed, and the commissars moved into the Baltic states. A horrific spate of killings ensued with thousands killed took place, which was reported, and which he must have known.

    In 1944, CHEKA murderers at Katyn Forest killed 14,000 ethnic Poles concentrating on Priests, army men, professors, and schoolteachers. The lead murderer was Vyschinski, a jew, who later was a prosecutor at Nuremberg! Again, Truman knew it all.

    In 1945, the Soviet Red Army managed the greatest act of ethnic cleansing in history, 13.5 million people, most ethnic Germans. During the course of this, 3.5 million were killed. The Russian soldiers were forced by their commissars to rape, impail, or simply shoot those who could not flee fast enough. Leading this effort was jewish poet Illa Ehrenburg, who wrote "Rape, Kill, let none survive..." and other incitations. Truman was at that time in the government and knew in excruciating detail.

    Amazing how similar this is to what goes on in Israel today, and for the past 55 years.

    The holocaust, first called that about 40 years ago, is an important tool for Jewish power. It is always brought up when someone challenges the land of murder, Israel, whose leadership resembles Kaganovich more than anything. The Holocaust is a get-out-of-jail free card for criminals.

    It seems that the Jewish misdeeds in this past century need a massive expression of ruthless Jewish power to divert attention from. At least it is not so everywhere. The upcoming ambassador to Israel openly referred to Israel as a "shitty little country" and its leadership as "punks".

    Thanks again for such a lovely, and free, piece of writing.


    ps: Good sourse material in Norm Finkelstein and David Irving, both of whom have terribly suffered at the hands of this group.





    Barbara Cornett - 9/11/2003

    If you look in the dictionary and find the definition of racism you will find the method by which every group on earth promotes itself.

    Name one group that does not have bigotry toward others who are different.

    The US came into being as a result of bigotry toward Indians.

    For the simpleminded we talk in simple terms. For people who are aware of how nations and groups attain and keep power a more sophisticated conversation must take place. In other words, get real. Jews tortured claims of feeling pain about anti-semtisim is a tool to attain power and keep it. Give credit where credit is due. It works and they are good at it.

    Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing at this moment. They kill Arabs daily. Arabs don't need the words of Harry Truman to exercise the most extreme violence against Israel or to feel the most extreme hatred toward Jews. They also have a right to hate the US because we give Israel the tanks, guns and helicopters that are used against Arabs.

    How nice that US citizens, with no blood on our hands, can sit around chatting nicely about anti-semitism in safety and confort and drink iced tea and eat cookies at the keyboard.

    It is amazing that Jews are upset over something found in Truman's diary at the very moment innocent Arab people are being rounded up and disappeared in the USA.

    How fine bigotry and anti-anybody works for the powerful. We are correct to hate Saddam and anything we do to him is justified. He is evil. We are good. Never mind that Cheney, Bush Sr, Reagan and the US gov did business with him before. Today he is evil. You see how bigotry works within our gov and always has. It is a tool. It is much more than the dictionary definition. The dictionary difinition in the hands of the Jewish PR machine even raises the tool to a whole new level which serves the Jews very well of course.

    Southern people have been forced for 50 years to change their accents if they wanted to work in Hollywood. Why is a Bronx accent ok but a Mississippi accent isn't? How is it that southern people who are the descendents of the founding fathers live as second class citizens in their own country?

    You either have power or you don't. If religon, region, race and creed have no part in America, how come some are powerless while others have power. Keep religon out of politics? Yeah right. Keep MY religion out of the gov while you ruthlessly use your religion to attain power and keep it.

    We are told that the 10 Commandents must be removed from the court house in AL and rightly so. Religion must be seperate from government. Yeah right. We have Zionists in the White House determining foreign policy and they have taken us into an Iraqi holocaust. Truman was right. When Jews have power they exercise it with the same heartless bloodlust as Hitler or Stalin. If I am an anti-semite for saying so then I am an anti-semite because I will say it.

    The US is 200+ years old. We have had two holocausts. An Indian holocaust and a black holocaust. What is THE holocaust? Can you say big PR machine? Don't tell me about how Jews in NYC and Israel speak out against the wrong things Israel does when every Jew benefits from the PR and what Israel is doing.

    If the world were that simple, we could simply rely upon the dictionary definition of racism to determine our thoughts and actions. It is not that simple. We need to look at racism, bigotry etc and see how effectively they are used by the US government, by Jews in the US, by Mexicans who wish to come into our country and gain power, by Cubans who are loyal to Cuba but take part in our elections. There is no such thing as seperation of chruch and state. If you think there is and you obey the letter of the law kiss any power you have adioes. sorry about the sp.

    It can technically be said that race, region, religion must be kept out of our government. They play and everyday part in politics and nobody is better at it then Jews.

    In his movie about politics Warren Beatty made the point that Jews have a lot of control in Hollywood. Marlon Brando in a tv interview stated flatly "Jews run Hollywood". I invite anyone to research the issue and find out who heads every major studio in Hollywood to get the facts for yourself.

    Suppose a southern person accuses Hollywood Jews of bigotry against southern people who, as Truman stated in his diary, "Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog".

    What would the response be?
    "You are an anti-semite to say such a thing! Jews don't run Hollywood! That is just playing into the sterotype of Jewish people! You actually behave the way Jews in Hollywood say you do, so stop acting that way if you don't want to be sterotyped!"

    Isn't Israel behaving in precisly the way Truman described? Does Hitler or Stalin have anything on Sharon?

    In the article above the victim is being blamed. Arabs are being accused of justifying their behavior toward Jews based upon a statement made by Harry Truman. Give me a break.

    I never see any people making fine distinctions regarding the people of the south. We are all lumped together and held accountable for slavery, Jim Crow and Judge Roy and his Rock. Yet I am supposed to be aware that there are Jews in Israel and New York City who are against Israeli policies. I am supposed to make distinctions between Zionists and Jews even tho the progressive news sources I read never make distinctions between the political Christian right and geniune Christians.

    In other words Christians are the receipents of bigotry but they don't make an issue of it. No, that realm of expertise belongs to the Jews. If the shoe fits wear it. I will not be called an anti-semite for speaking the truth.

    Jews have a hugh PR machine. They use it to prevent any criticizm of themselves and they are able to label southern people as bigots if we protest their bigtory against us. It is dispicable.

    Mel Gibson has taken on the Vatican and the Pope but he hit a brick wall when he faced the Jews. He was forced to edit a movie that he said was inspired by God. Our forefathers gave us artistic, spiritual and political free speech. They never told us we were free as long as the Jews say its ok.

    Did Hollywood producers edit "The Last Temptation of Christ" when Christians became upset? Jews have enormous power and they weild it ruthlessly just as Truman said. They had no right to sabotage another human being's spirtual quest.

    Jews have been universally hated thur history. They come to the US and treat US citizens as tho WE are the ones who have killed and hated them. We have done nothing but protect and defend them.

    If I am mugged on the streets of NYC by a man, should I then hate and mistrust all men? That is psychologically perverted. Jews treat us as tho we have committed a crime against them so they can control what is said about them which puts them above free speech.

    There is not one single shred of evidence that the people of this country would turn on Jews if Gibson's movie dipicts the part Jews played in the crucification of Christ. On the contrary, are not southern christian conservatives Christian-Zionists themselves? Isn't that one factor that allows the zionists in the White House to persue their "rearrangement of the middle east"?

    The people in the US who need to worry are the ones who are the victims of Jewish power, not the other way around.


    Jesse Lamovsky - 9/11/2003

    It's odd that the author failed to include any evidence regarding Thomas Jefferson's attitude toward the Jewish people... but who knows? We don't know what he thought in his heart. What we do know is that it had no affect on his public life and in his political philosophy, and let that be good enough for us.


    John Doe - 9/11/2003

    Rabil wrote:

    "Truman was not the first president to entertain anti-Jewish ideas. Two other presidents come to mind: Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon."

    No question about Nixon (it's on tape), but Jefferson? I've never heard that accusation before. Does Rabil just mean that Jefferson found the Old Testament to be not to his taste ( which I would not call anti-semitism) or did Jefferson actually declare or exhibit hostility to the Jews living in his own time? Does anyone know to what he is referring?


    Verena Weissenegger - 9/10/2003


    To Barbara:

    If you would like to effectively criticize the pro-Israel "PR machine" here a few suggestions:

    1. Try not to be hypocritical. If you don't like stereotyping, don't do it. Call it the "golden rule" or just plain common sense. Jimmy Carter was from the South but he got the Nobel Peace Prize. Yitzhak Rabin also got the Peace Prize and he was Jewish.

    2. Recognize that the most effective and informed criticism of Israeli policies often comes from Israelis, most of whom are Jews, and from Jewish sources outside Israel. Yes, even from New York ! Sometimes these sources are themselves accused of being "self-hating Jews", but you need not endorse such stereotyping (see point 1 about hypocrisy).

    3. Find the spell check button on your word processing program.


    Barbara Cornett - 9/10/2003

    If I took names of all the people who have ridiculed me, hated me, sterotyped me and generally talked like I am evil because I am from the south I would have a list too long to contemplate, and many of these people are Jewish people out of NYC whose progressive newsletters I receive everyday in my email inbox.

    From the comments that have gone before and the fact that I feel the same way, I think it can be said that most people are just tired of the Jewish self serving PR machine that is always in gear.

    If anti-semtisim is re-emerging all over Europe and in other parts of the world is is ok if we ask the question: why is anti-semtisim re-emerging?

    Jewish people often accuse others of being anti-semtic but no one ever addresses the whys and wherefores. I look at Isarel and not only do I see a selfish nation, I see a nation of terrorists which would mean that Truman was being kind.

    How are we to judge Jews and Israel? By their actions or by special dispensation?

    I think things get said about EVERY group. Jewish people get blowback because they take acception to every comment. Why do we have to agonize over Truman's comments? God knows he must have said shitty things about other people too.

    By taking acception to every comment Jewish people attempt to set up a situation where people are afraid to be critical of them for fear of being called anti-semtic. How nice. I would like to be above criticism myself. That wouldn't be very democratic tho would it? That would mean that I see myself as somehow special and above it all. I bet I'd get blowback too.


    Geoff Ericson - 9/9/2003

    I agree that there is a straw man being knocked about here, but I dissent from the assumption that Robert Rabil is necessarily a run of the mill Likud propagandist. Unlike the incitations of Daniel Pipes which are incessantly featured here, this piece talks about "post-Zionism" and least the theoretical possibility of "dismantling settlements".

    And it IS the settlements which are THE key barrier to peace in the region. It is abundantly clear that all but the lunatic fringe of Palestinians have been willing for many years to accept the State of Israel within its internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, and even modest adjustments like Golan are not an insuperable problem to a peaceful two-state arrangement.

    If Hamas and Islamic Jihad had a government and a superpower behind them, were bulldozing Israeli houses in order to erect Palestinian settlements in Haifa, Nazareth and Rehovot, and assassinating anyone who opposed them, would we be talking about the deeply rooted anti-Arabism of Jews ?


    Jesse Lamovsky - 9/9/2003

    "This line of reasoning speaks volumes of the predicament of the Arab mindset and constitutes the mortal threat to Arab-Jewish peaceful co-existence. Why? Because at the heart of this reasoning is an implicit claim that Jews are evil and that their integration as a distinct group into the region is dangerous and thus unacceptable."

    I don't speak Arabic, have never been to a Middle Eastern country, and have never engaged in political discussions with Arabs, so I won't bother debating the extent of Arab anti-semitism. My issue is with the sentiment underlying the quoted statement, and its tacit acceptance of the present, destructive situation in Israel/Palestine.

    The unstated reasoning is thus: the Arabs hate us just because they are anti-semites. Any pro-active moves toward peace on the part of the Israeli government may be useless, perhaps even counter-productive, because the Arabs, like the Nazis, just hate us "because" (though the author does blandly grant the Palestinians their "legitimate... grievances").

    If this is really the line of thought of a lot of Zionists, than I ask: why bother? We came here to, what... fight our neighbors until eternity? Really? Who thought up that plan?

    Like every other piece of non-historical, pro-Israeli propaganda this site sees fit to print, the article fails to state the obvious: the Israelis are the strongest power in the region. Thus, the onus is on the Israelis to change the situation for the better. The key to peace in the Middle East lies not in ridding the Arab world of "anti-semitism". Allowing the Palestinian people their natural rights and their right to self-determination may help, though!


    Richard Kurdlion - 9/8/2003


    There can be little question that anti-Semitism, in many of its multiple variants, is a powerful tool in the hands of many Arab politicians and agitators. In the hands of Likud extremists, it has also been an excuse for anti-Arab prejudice and used to try to justify the unjustified permanent and violent subjugation of an entire people and the perpetuation of endless conflict. Rabil's information on Truman is indeed noteworthy, but if the ultimate goal is to "make Jerusalem the capital city of both Israel and Palestine", more than just greater enlightenment on the Arab side will be needed.

    Subscribe to our mailing list