Sudan As A Strategy
Andrew Schamess has an interesting post in his blog on Charles Jacobs, president of the David Project (the organization that produced the controversial film Columbia Unbecoming):
I was intested in Dr. Jacobs’ human rights work. The Benador site was kind enough to reprint an article he had written in the Boston Globe on the slavery issue, called Why Israel and not Sudan, is singled out:
It is hard to explain why victims of slavery and slaughter are virtually ignored by American progressives. How can it be that there is no storm of indignation at Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, which, though they rushed to Jenin to investigate false reports of Jews massacring Arabs, care so much less about Arab-occupied Juba, South Sudan’s black capital?
The answer? Suprise! The human rights community has a double standard, obsessively criticizing Jews and others of European descent, while remaining mum in the face of atrocities committed by non-whites, especially Arabs. Hmm. You can disprove this pretty easily with a visit to the the Amnesty International web site.
Yesterday night the “Pro-Israel” group on campus sent out an email calling for people to protest the Sudan massacre with a candelight vigil. The vigil was sponsored by local groups and organized by the American Anti-Slavery group (Jacobs founded this group and is also co-founder of right-wing CAMERA – Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America; how Orwellian). The email read:
Defending Israel’s name on campus only holds weight if we speak out about injustices taking place everywhere, not just when it comes to the Middle East. In that vein, we strongly encourage everyone who can to attend the vigil in Wash Sq Park on Monday night for the victims of the genocide in the Sudan.
This approach seems a bit insincere and inconsistent; human rights advocates shouldn’t turn a blind eye to Israel (what do you think “defending Israel” means), just because the situation in Sudan also deserves great attention. But if you take a look at Jacobs’ David Project, it seems that this is exactly the message he is trying to convey. Unfortunately, this trend is not new. If you look at “Pro-Israel” propaganda fliers, you can find charts comparing Israel to various Arab regimes (they set very high standards!).
This strategy is simple – somewhere else the situation is always worse, so if you pick on Israel it is because you are an anti-semite. Of course if this logic is applied to Israel apoligists themselves, the question must be asked: Why are you obsessed with defending Israel’s human rights violations while there are much more important issues to fight about?
All that being said, I support all those who fight injustice in Sudan and anywhere else in the world.
I do not think you’re right–it is certainly not insincere.
I think that the problem that many activists find is two fold. First, they are immediately denounced by their peers for speaking out about both Israel’s right to exist and other humanitarian causes. This is due to the need of some on the “left” to impose an ideological consistency on the world, and therefore not recognize that a Jew might naturally have more empathy for the plight of the Jewish people, and the Arab for the plight of the Palestinian people, and therefore both could decry racism and slavery while still supporting their respective national movements.
The second problem is that the “left” imposes idealist humanitarian judgments on Israel and yet does absolutely nothing to condemn the neighboring regimes, which are much more despicable in every way. This hypocrisy is in many cases rooted in a type of anti-Semitism, I believe, that stems from the distinguishment of the Jews from other peoples and the holding of the Jews to a higher standard. It is the other side of the “chosen people” coin, and I do not believe that we will ever be rid of it–nor do I think that holding one’s own people to a higher standard is a bad thing. It’s when you hold another people to a higher standard than you hold their brothers and cousins that you get into prejudice and moral segregation.
To finalize, I’d like to relate an experience I had with Francis Bok, one of the escaped Sudanese slaves Charles Jacobs introduced me to. We spoke about his slavery, his escape, and his way to the United States. And he told me, with tears in his eyes, “and then Dr. Jacobs called me and told me he wanted to help me. I asked him why he would care, and he told me ‘because my family were slaves in Egypt and I am commanded to free slaves where-ever I can.’ And so, thanks to Dr. Jacobs, I too can work to free slaves, and I like him will not stop until no-one is in slavery.” I agree with both of them, and the tears in my eyes, as in the eyes of Frances and Charles, are no less genuine.
Since when are Jews just like everyone else? Huh? For centuries we’ve been vilified for being different, now, all of a sudden, we’re supposed to be “just like them”???? No..I don’t buy it…I truly believe that the only reason that there is this enduring obsession with Israel and so-called “human rights” is anti-semitism. There is no other explanation for it.
Ariel,
i dont know who imposes idealist judgements on judgements on israel from the “left” – and what is this “left” exactly. If Israel is criticized more than syria, the answer is simple – American peace activists have more responsibility to the crimes happening in the occupied territories because their tax monies are directly subsidizing them. American support for Israel’s occupation is the direct reason why at least in America there are progressive forces who identify with the Palestinian cause of liberation. Peace activists, if they want to be practical, have to resist something resistable. in the US it is the america government, supporting Israel.
It is hypocrticial to be blind to the crimes that your “own” country commits while advocating other people’s humans rights. thats hypocritical (its ok when we do it, its bad when they do it).
all in all you bring it down to the same old anti-semitism and thats a shame.
I’m glad to see Ariel beat me to the point. I would only add that it could also be worth exploring the imbalance between these suspicions toward Jewish/Zionist activism regarding Sudan and the lack of any similar suspicion on the part of Palestnian activists and their sympathizers as they single out Israeli human rights violations (as well as exaggerating, and even fabricating others), while Arab establishments are awarded seemingly unlimited latitude in their despotism. In other words, if antisemitism has nothing to do with it, then why is it only Jews and Zionists who are prohibited from “changing the subject,” so to speak?
Asaf – that’s not particularly convincing. Egypt is in almost every respect—at least when it comes to human rights violations—worse than Israel.
Egypt, likewise, receives just *slightly* less money from American taxpayers than Israel. Why isn’t Egypt ever denounced?
I don’t think anyone has argued that one should be “blind” to Israel’s crimes…rather the argument has been that Israel’s crimes are not even a fraction of the crimes that neighboring countries commit.
what about the hypocracy of the American gobernemnt and its selected approach to human rights violations around the world (see, for instance, its support of Colombia, Turkey and Israel). your explaination of anti-semitism is very shallow because it cannot explain similar political phenomena such as the one i described above.
“This approach seems a bit insincere and inconsistent; human rights advocates shouldn’t turn a blind eye to Israel”
I believe your approach is insincere actually. Nobody is suggesting that the world “turn a bind eye to Israel”. The first question is why, during your typical anti-war protest, in any country worldwide, one is bound to encounter a number of anti-Israel protesters but never an “anti-Sudanese slavery and genocide” protester? Many Jews protest Israel; that’s healthy. The second question is, where are the Arabs against Sudanese genocide, huh?
Two questions. Please answer. Thanks!
Asaf,
sometimes you’re good at putting the tail squarely on the donkey’s butt.
If you look at “Pro-Israel” propaganda fliers, you can find charts comparing Israel to various Arab regimes (they set very high standards!).
So we can’t compare Arabs to Israelis/Jews? We can’t ask, nay, demand full compliance of treaties and agreements because Arabs can’t reach these high standards ‘we’ supposedly set for them? Excuse me, we can’t call the kettle black?
Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt
“So we can’t compare Arabs to Israelis/Jews?”
we are talking about governments not people.
My point is this – If Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, why compare it to the anti-democratic regimes- why not compare it to europe or the US for that matter?
Asaf: “i dont know who imposes idealist judgements on judgements on israel from the ‘left’ – and what is this ‘left’ exactly.”
This is a great question. The left is more likely in the eye of the beholder than a specific reference to any political orientation anymore. From the catch-all target for conservative echo chamber resentment to various self-styled progressive organiztions, anything apparently can be labeled “leftist” without paying much attention to the debate between broad public interests and laissez faire economics.
(Cont’d): “Peace activists, if they want to be practical, have to resist something resistable. in the US it is the america government, supporting Israel.”
Except that the US government also supports Egypt and Jordan, as well as the authority of the Saudi royal family. And President Bush is the first American chief executive ever to mention Palestinians and statehood in the same sentence.
“My point is this – If Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, why compare it to the anti-democratic regimes
For that matter, why compare white people with brown people?
“The first question is why, during your typical anti-war protest, in any country worldwide, one is bound to encounter a number of anti-Israel protesters but never an “anti-Sudanese slavery and genocide” protester? Many Jews protest Israel; that’s healthy. The second question is, where are the Arabs against Sudanese genocide, huh? ”
I really dont represent or idenify with the bulk you call the anti-war movement and have no need to defend it. again – as I said – america has direct responsibility for sponsoring the occupation and thus may be held accountable by protestors. That would be my motive at least. but i would also hold a anti-genocide poster of course.
Regarding there being no Arabs against Sudanese genocide, are you referring to governments? I think the reasons are fairly obvious. please make the differentiation though between the people and the government.
“For that matter, why compare white people with brown people?”
I really dont get your point. the argument i presented is a straw man – it compares democracy within the green line, ignroing the undemocratic regime beyond it.
Asaf: “we are talking about governments not people.
My point is this – If Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, why compare it to the anti-democratic regimes- why not compare it to europe or the US for that matter?”
Because Israel has a different relationship with the Arab establishment. And unlike Israel, the legitimate national sovereignty of European nations and the United States are not constantly challenged in international forums such as the United Nations, and through formal states of war by 19 of 22 Arab League member nations.
According to Asaf the UN shoud back off all those brown skinned totalitarian regimes and focus on Israel because it’s a white democracy with leaders possessing the capacity for superior, western-style reasoning. Therefore Israel is placed in the difficult position where they are expected to actually understand and institute calls for change. Is that correct Asaf?
A consistently recurring question that comes to my mind is why Zionism is broadly omitted as a genuine liberal movement. Maybe it isn’t just because its particular mission is the national liberation of the Jews, but that possibility is never far from the front of my mind.
“I really dont represent or idenify with the bulk you call the anti-war movement and have no need to defend it. again – as I said – america has direct responsibility for sponsoring the occupation and thus may be held accountable by protestors. That would be my motive at least. but i would also hold a anti-genocide poster of course.”
OK. Forget anti-war protests. How about any “progressive protest” as a category. Why at such protests can one often see anti-Israell posters but no anti-Sudanese slavery/genocide posters? The question is WHY is this the case? I don’t care about your own personal reasons for why you do or don’t do things.
“Regarding there being no Arabs against Sudanese genocide, are you referring to governments? I think the reasons are fairly obvious. please make the differentiation though between the people and the government.”
I don’t care…both governments and people. Why do they not seem to care en masse?
“A consistently recurring question that comes to my mind is why Zionism is broadly omitted as a genuine liberal movement.”
Call it the evolution of European guilt for the holocaust. Although Zionism may once have been a liberal cause, now Europeans are made more comfortable by saying, “Look, those Jews if given a chance, are actually just as bad as we once were. Therefore, we were not so bad.” As reported in the Jerusalem Post last week 50% of polled Germans believed that the Israeli government was “AS BAD” as the Nazi regime. Very depressing.
“A consistently recurring question that comes to my mind is why Zionism is broadly omitted as a genuine liberal movement.”
Call it the evolution of European guilt for the holocaust. Although Zionism may once have been a liberal cause, now Europeans are made more comfortable by saying, “Look, those Jews if given a chance, are actually just as bad as we once were. Therefore, we were not so bad.” As reported in the Jerusalem Post last week 50% of polled Germans believed that the Israeli government was “AS BAD” as the Nazi regime. Very depressing.
Asaf,
You’re wrong.
– Eli
Philip: “Call it the evolution of European guilt for the holocaust. Although Zionism may once have been a liberal cause, now Europeans are made more comfortable by saying, ‘Look, those Jews if given a chance, are actually just as bad as we once were. Therefore, we were not so bad.’ ”
I understand some of the European rationale you describe. In addition, it seems as if Jews make great victims in certain Christian liberal narratives, as if Jews were not much more than living history characters from the Bible and in dire need of their protection. But also among American conservative thinkers, many (though certainly not all) adopt Zionism as a kind of knee-jerk proxy opposite what they perceive as “the left,” even as “the left” has abandoned many of its liberal principles when choosing sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Examples of such liberal values introduced in Israeli society include, but are not limited to, gay rights, women’s equality, and the separation of religion and state. While none of these can be seemless elements in Israeli society, to the extent that they do exist there are often passionately opposed by conservatives in the United States.
Asaf,
Your a general in the IDF and….
It’s June 10,Israel has seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River(including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights.
What do you do with Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank? Please keep in mind the regional feelings about your country.
As someone who is involved with israel activism at Berkeley- and here, our Israel Action Committee would never try to pull the crap that david project does, and we try very hard to keep ZOA away from us- i have to say, what the group is saying about having to defend against genocide makes a lot of sense. israel is defending itself against terror, ignorance, and hate. why not support other groups that are going through the same? do israel activists now how to completely restrict their activism to purely zionist ends because otherwise it would be disengenuous? that simply doesn’t add up.
and why DO israel activists compare israel’s human rights record with that of other middle eastern countries? because those are the only other countries in the world that have to forecfully control their arab minorities- and israel does it much better than everyone else, including now the US. Israel is a western democracy that has to deal daily with terror, and to expect ANY governement to act with the utmost of democratic principles is ridiculous because every democratic govt in history has shredded their own principles a bit in great times of war or strain- any studen of american history should know that.
Shtreimel — I believe that was right around the time Ben-Gurion first started advocating for giving up all the territories, with the exception of East Jerusalem. Nu?
BearsForIsrael — You’ve brought up another of the reasons why governments in general are a bad idea.
Asaf-
“somewhere else the situation is always worse, so if you pick on Israel it is because you are an anti-semite”
Until you come back with an alternate, plausible explanation, the above explanation makes the most sense.
You cite American support for Israel as a possible explanation. This of course is ridiculous. There has been widespread contempt for Israel way before the U.S. became a major military supplier of Israel in the early 70s, and started sending funds to Israel following the Sinai peace accord.
Also, as mentioned above, many countries receive just about as much aid as does Israel, and much more once adjusted for GDP.
Furthermore, the “concern” over Israel isnt limited to the US, in fact its far more intense in Europe and the mideast.
Lastly, is it not highly coincidental that the same people who seem to be most concerned about the plight of the Palestinians happen to be the groups of people who have historically been the most anti-Semitic (arabs, Europe)?
The most likely explanation for the strong worldwide interest in Israel is the one you simply refuse to accept. Ignoring history and common sense is no way to gain understanding on a subject.
Sam,
“Shtreimel — I believe that was right around the time Ben-Gurion first started advocating for giving up all the territories, with the exception of East Jerusalem. Nu?
I’m not asking what Ben-Gurion would’ve done. Hell, I can quote many sources around that time asking for the thrid temple to be rebuilt, to annex WB/Gaza to be part of Greater Israel. Etc., etc.
Again…what YOU have done the first few weeks after the 6 day war?
Fact is, most anti-Israel folks use the WB/Gaza/refugee thing as a pc approach to condemning the very state of Israel. But you gotta push ’em to admit it. First they’ll tell you Israel/America/Britain were the aggressors in the 6 day war. And then they’ll tell you the same about the Sinai campaign. And how can we forget the ’48 war, where Islamist and far-left/right spinsters claim that Israel provoked that war for more territory.
So when you ask them what they’d do after the 6 day war, they usually say something like: “Well, I wouldn’t have started in the first place”. And then the bile starts to flow.
Here is my response and the ensuing dialogue from semitism.net:
Me:
So one cannot protest against slavery and atrocity in the Sudan unless one is willing to be anti-Zionist. Sounds to me like you believe in protest only for left-wing progressives.
Why is it so damn difficult for some of you people to admit that the atrocities in the Sudan are being carried out in the name of Islam by Arab marauders who view black people as less than human?
Andrew:
That’s not what I said. Of course you can be pro-Zionist and protest abuses in Sudan. I criticized Jacobs not for being pro-Israel and critical of the slave trade in Sudan, but for using the Sudan issue as a cover for right-wing advocacy.
Your response is quite typical of the Jewish right. You don’t bother paying attention to arguments other than your own. Rather than dispute, you distort. Rather than engage, you oppose.
Are your ideas really so weak that you can’t defend them rationally?
Andrew:
You know, as I was driving home I found myself regretting my intemperate response to your comment (above). Please accept my apologies. It’s not fair to say you don’t listen to opposing arguments when you are reading this blog, and taking the trouble to comment. And I do want dissenting opinions. There are times when I’m wrong, and I learn a lot from the way people react to what I write.
I think it’s perfectly appropriate to deplore atrocities in the Sudan, regardless of who is carrying them out. I’ve taken on the Israel-Palestine issue because it’s closer to home, and as a Jew I feel responsible for what my own people are doing to others. But I’m glad that there are people speaking out about human rights abuses in Darfur. Forced migration, starvation, and other ills inflicted on a civilian population are terrible wrongs, regardless of who is carrying them out.
My quarrel with Jacobs is that he doesn’t seem to care about human rights abuses per se, except as they make good copy. They’re just an excuse to smear Arabs and divert attention from Israel. Furthermore, he makes it out that the human rights community is attacking Israel and ignoring Sudan, which is simply not true. Check the Amnesty and Human Rights Watch sites and you’ll see.
I feel the same way about polemicists who use the Israeli occupation as a way to foster anti-Jewish sentiment. Protest the occupation because it’s wrong. Dont try to use it to prove that Jews are hateful and greedy, or whatever. And you do understand, don’t you, that that’s exactly what Jacobs is trying to do vis a vis the Arabs?
At any rate, thanks for reading this blog, and please keep commenting. I’ll count on you to help keep me honest.
Me:
I’m sorry to say this Andrew, but many people who protest, left and right, have other agendas. I myself have spoken out against alliances between Zionists and Christian evangelicals. (I have also spoken out repeatedly against anti-Arab racism in the Jewish community.)
During the Soviet period, many left-wingers who supposedly stood up for human rights had little to say about widespread abuses in Communist countries, and many of those people are the ones leading the anti-war movement today.
In the case of Sudan, most of the left has been comparatively silent because Arabs are considered allies of the anti-war movement and because it is apparently a greater priority not to risk Islamophobia (or to be anti-Zionist) than to recognize that it is indeed Arabs that are doing this and there is indeed a humanitarian catastrophe. This is a collective Arab problem; the Arab League has been silent on it because they see that as protecting their own.
HRW and AI may issue reports, but they are not the province of the political left.
Jacobs may have more than one agenda, but his organization has certainly done a great deal to help the situation. He’s brought former slaves to speak to US audiences, lobbied Congress, and gotten the press to cover the story. Activists have a bad habit of criticizing everything they don’t accomplish themselves, and the left-wing response to Charles Jacobs is an example of that.
Wow. Maybe this is a lesson learnt; dont put up posts during finals.
I am sorry guys, it seems i need to give many answers to many people so this gonna have to wait.
In a most general way possible:
– I think anyone who believes in democracy and human rights should criticize all undemocratic regimes, including egypt of course! that is my stand.
philip, sayin that arabs dont care about genocide in sudan is like saying that jewish dont care about idf human right violations or that americans dont care about the the war in iraq. these statements, partly true partly false, cannot be varified by anyone.
regarding your comment of of progressive protests not including sudanese genocide – that assumes that protests against sudanese genocide arent progressive. i dont know why you are trying to lump together such a diverse ‘movement’. It has no headquarters, so there is no point sending complaint letters.
LSAT – the accusation of antisemitism is preposterous – because ariel directed it to an entity that does not exist. state your argument (israel singled out is antisemitic) and also state who is singling it out. Am i an antisemite for singling out the country in which i lived in all my life? or what about a pissed off american who is sick of subsidizing the oppression of the palestinians?
most people know more about israel and not egypt. its an interesting question why, but i am not sure it has to do with antisemitism. am i the only one who sees the political importance of the Israeli-palestinian conflict in the global scheme of things?
Asaf, with due respect, the lasst line above says it all about you. What you fundametntally seem to misunderstand is the global scheme of things. Do you think countries really care about human rights violations as much as they should? Do you really think that Israel, or any other country for that matter, is going to provoke a massive human-rights related response? That is not how the world works. The facts is that Israel is criticized because it’s easiest to shit on and because most of the countries doing most of the criticisms have sizable populations that simply hate israel and may very well hate Jews.
What you fail to see is that the ‘global scheme of things’ involves Israel’s right to sovereignty (not the palestinaians, who, for better or for worse, do not yet have a state), but most importantly what is becoming a global fight against religious oppression, particularly amongst so-called islamists.
Damn, i sent that too early. what i meant to add to that was that i don’t mean we’re in a fight against islam- far, far, far from it, and i will fight any such racist stereotypes as ‘muslims like terror’ and stupid statements like that. but it is simply undeniable that we have incredibly oppressive muslim regimes preaching hate and destruction, and their message is all the more powerful because they’re hijacking a religion in order to do so.
You know what the global scheme of things is these days? Fighting those regimes, and while you and i can argue what’s the best way to do that, I see too many countries making Israel their reason for terror. We should not revoke our support for Israel because sovereign nations don’t like her; rather, we should recognize that many of these states, and indeed, entities like ISM and Hamas, simply seem to be advocating terror as a global means to an end, and that is completely unacceptable. we are not living in a world where things are simply right or wrong- we are living in a world where people love when Jews go against Israel so that they can use those images to mask a much larger struggle that is incredibly harmful to Israel in particular but also to Jews and the West in general. i hate to say this, but stop being so idealistic and recognize that the very global context that you seek is the reason that so many of us hear your arguments and cringe.
when i wrote: “am i the only one who sees the political importance of the Israeli-palestinian conflict in the global scheme of things?”
i didnt try to explain how the world works. But the fact is that peace activists, countries etc. put a lot of importance to this conflict, and not for anti-semitic reasons. thats all. so i wasnt being idealistic, i dont think you got my point.
back to finals.
Hey Asaf, I think this ‘American tax payers should be pissed about what their money is funding and thats why many leftists talk so much about Israel’ stuff is bullshit. American tax payers paid for the chemical weapons of Sadaam Hussein that he used against the Kurds as well as countless human rights violations. Fact is, Israel gets picked on. Does Israel break Intl. Law? Absolutely. BUT why do Univsersity leftists generally spend more time on this conflict than worse abuses by China or Turkey or Sudan? Is it antisemitism? I dont think so. When I was at columbia, i was friends with a lot of anti-israel people that i dont think were antisemites. however, you can be antisemitic in your consequences even if your motives are not antisemitic. Still, there is some other reason. I think that there is really a true obsession with this conflict in leftist academic circles. Not to trivialize the death of 1000 Israelis or 4000 Palestinians, but it pales in comparison to what is happening in the Sudan. I think leftist academics love this as a topic because they view israel (incorrectly, in my opinion) as a vestige of colonialism.
Are you wrong to criticize Israel? No, especially since it’s your country. Is anyone wrong to? No, criticize whoever you want. But leftist academics shouldnt hide behind a mask of humanitarianism while ignoring much worse suffering elsewhere.
I do, but the question is why we have that unbalanced focus- my suggestion is that the Israeli conflict is a microcosm for a larger one.
I do, but the question is why we have that unbalanced focus- my suggestion is that the Israeli conflict is a microcosm for a larger one.
1) Both sides in the Sudan conflict are Muslim
2) I would like to see someone *justify*, with evidence, the claim that “the left has been comparatively silent on Sudan.”
Please, come on. Show me the study you did, and quit all this anecdotal bullshit.
I didnt say they were silent but from my experience studying undergrad at Columbia, there are many more protests and more focus placed on the Israeli/Pal conflict by the leftist groups on campus than other social injustices.
Same here at Berkeley. Right after thanksgiving, we had a divestment protest. We’ve yet to have a Darfur one…
Asaf: “only 3 exams and one kant paper to go”
Remember. Anything you can do, Immanuel Kant.
(Cont’d): “am i the only one who sees the political importance of the Israeli-palestinian conflict in the global scheme of things?”
Depends what you mean by things like “global” and “importance.”
asaf, in the midst of midterm exams, studying to become a muslim, and preparing for his sex change operation by trying on various burkas (you look good in that pink one, asaf), continues to drone on with his attacks on israel, the country he deserted, leaving his ex comrades to defend babies, women and men from murauding murderous muslims.
bottom line- youd have to be deaf, blind and stupid not to realize the disproportionate attacks on israel for minor transgressions v. those of odious practices of arab states. want the evidence? if you need it, read the front page of any paper for a week.
those who continue to attack israel on this site arent worthy of response. their meaness of spirti, their myopic vision of justice, their hatred of jews, judaism, and israel are self evident. for those who want to respond to the asafs of the world, hope youre doing it for your own enjoyment, hes the original red diaper baby, making him see reason is equivalent to making your goldfish understand the theory of relativity (oh damn, a reference to another evil jew).
a little note – the candlelight vigil was respectful and very inspiring. I hope more stuff like this happens on campus. it was a mostly jewish crowd, ad i hope next time for more diversity.
We are planning an interfaith mission to Sudan and/or Chad to bear witness to the atrocities and help in the camps. No solid dates yet, but we are looking at feb/march. Contact me for more info.
b’shalom,
Menachem
Asaf-
Thank you for ignoring all my points and for your completely incoherent response.
I see you are not too bright, so i am done discussing this with you.
Sam:
The original argument here is not whether the left is silent, but whether Zionists have the right to be pro-Israel and anti-Sudan slavery. The point here is that leftists are not so pure that they should be pointing out everyone else’s so-called inconsistencies.
All I can say, besides what I said above, is that the argument that Zionists who criticize the Sudan are insincere or inconsistent at best reminds me of an extremist rabbi who argues that one must observe all 613 mitzvot according to strict interpretation or none at all. It’s a form of leftist ultra-orthodoxy.
It’s no secret that between Israel and Sudan, much more attention is lavished on Israel (highest concentration of media in the world) even though the casualty rate is less than 1/15 that of the Sudan, the human rights situation is totally incomparable, and so on.
There are a number of possible explanations. The first is that self-styled anti-war anti-imperialist left-wingers do not wish to lose their Arab allies, and they understand that fierce criticism of the Sudan is not currently tolerated in the Arab world; the Arab League has been silent on the issue. (The role of Arabs in radical circles is substantial. Lynne Stewart defended Sheikh Rahman, the Egyptian terrorist responsible for the first WTC bombing, after an appeal by Ramsey Clark of the International Action Center that the IAC and fellow travelers owed something to the Arabs.) Even leftists I talk to who are critical of the Sudanese government (and most are), make a conscientious effort not to say that it is Arabs who are committing these crimes, though they stop at nothing to point out that Jews are the ones committing the crimes in Israel. There is a noxious PC problem.
Another is that Western radicals are racist (unknowningly) like many Westerners and turn a blind eye to crimes committed by non-white people because such crimes do not fit under their rubric of imperialism. I’m sorry to say that there’s some truth in that, because it’s not just the Sudan, but all of Africa that takes a back seat to conflicts involving white people. I supported Kosovo on principle, but I think Sudan is far more deserving of humanitarian intervention than Kosovo was.
There are other possibilities, but the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a conflict with two protagonists that has had about 4000 deaths in five years, is treated with several times the media exposure and activist attention as Sudan, a conflict with one protagonist where tens of thousands have died over the past year alone, should be a shock to the conscience of humanity.
“only 3 exams and one kant paper to go :)”
This line was too good to pass up on. Its so cute how asaf tries to subtly point out to us how he is all intellectual.
Asaf studying kant would be like putting a top-hat on a monkey and calling him Fred Astaire. Keep dancing, monkey. Keep dancing.
Asaf, everyone knows that nyu is a reject school for over-privileged kids. Youre not impressing anyone.
LSAT i told you that for a full answer you’re gonna have to wait. there are ton of people responding and you cant expect me to answer everyone. patience..
LSAT whats up with that? do you really want to join avi green in his childish ad hominem attacks? really doesnt make you look anymore respectful by the other people who post here.
The first is that self-styled anti-war anti-imperialist left-wingers do not wish to lose their Arab allies, and they understand that fierce criticism of the Sudan is not currently tolerated in the Arab world; the Arab League has been silent on the issue. (The role of Arabs in radical circles is substantial. Lynne Stewart defended Sheikh Rahman, the Egyptian terrorist responsible for the first WTC bombing, after an appeal by Ramsey Clark of the International Action Center that the IAC and fellow travelers owed something to the Arabs.)
Did you get this from the National Review or something? Who are “left-wingers you talk to?” Do they actually involve themselves in sustained campaigns on issues? Maybe I’m ignorant of my own “side,” but I have pretty much no clue who Lynne Stewart is and I’ve been involved with anti-war and anti-globalization movements for the past four years. As far as I know, we have no “Arab allies” except for individual Arab people who show up to protests. So I really haven’t the faintest clue what you’re talking about. As for Ramsey Clark, just about everyone knows that he is a Soviet apologist and not representative of any group greater than the IAC or perhaps ANSWER, which is pretty much the IAC with an extra layer of bureaucracy on top.
This all just makes me think that people here study groups like anthropologists of the early twentieth century, as opposed to the late. You look at them as objects and then decide you can make decisions about them based on your own previously existing assumptions. If you really want to understand “the left,” whoever the hell that is, or to understand groups of Arabs or Muslims, you have to actually spend time among them. And for God’s sake, Shatov, why do you just assume that they will kill you simply for being Jewish? Maybe bin Laden and a small circle of his supporters would, but beyond that I think this generalization is wrong. J and I were arguing about it on another thread — it’s just rampant among certain posters here, and it makes me sad.
Sam:
“And for God’s sake, Shatov, why do you just assume that they will kill you simply for being Jewish?”
First, I’m agnostic. Second, what makes you think that they wouldn’t? Average Iraqis now commonly refer to Americans as “Jews”. I can only assume that a radicalized Iraqi or foreign-born Islamist jihadist, i.e. a typical militant insurgent in Iraq, would support killing any Jew on principle. Also keep in mind that antisemitism in Iraq under Saddam was particularly virulent.
Please try to make an argument, or better, quote some news sources to make a case that Iraqi insurgents would *not* kill a civilian Jew regardless of nationality if given the oppurtunity. I’m guessing you understand the insurgent mentality because ” you have…actually spen[t] time among them”?
Sam:
“And for God’s sake, Shatov, why do you just assume that they will kill you simply for being Jewish?”
First, I’m agnostic. Second, what makes you think that they wouldn’t? Average Iraqis now commonly refer to Americans as “Jews”. I can only assume that a radicalized Iraqi or foreign-born Islamist jihadist, i.e. a typical militant insurgent in Iraq, would support killing any Jew on principle. Also keep in mind that antisemitism in Iraq under Saddam was particularly virulent.
Please try to make an argument, or better, quote some news sources to make a case that Iraqi insurgents would *not* kill a civilian Jew regardless of nationality if given the oppurtunity. I’m guessing you understand the insurgent mentality because ” you have…actually spen[t] time among them”?
Sam:
I know a lot of people in the anti-war anti-imperialism movement. I go to radical lectures about once a month at my public library. A close friend is a prominent organizer. I know of what I speak.
Lynne Stewart is the radical lawyer who defended Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. She is currently on trial for failing to obey special restrictions placed on her by the government in communicating with her client. These restrictions, called SAMs, are not unusual in terrorist cases. In an article in the NY Times Magazine about Stewart, it was reported that she took the case after a plea from Clark that “that if she refused, the Arab world would feel betrayed by their friends on the American left.” It’s good to hear that Clark is seen for the apologist that he is, but I think you underestimate the level of respect he has in the anti-war movement.
Much of the organized Arab-American world is quite involved in the anti-war movement, from the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to CAIR. In Europe, they are far more involved; the Muslim Association of Britain, the main communal group for Muslims in England, was one of the main organizers of the anti-war marches there, and many of their members carried antisemitic signs, which is no surprise if you look at who they are. The same is true of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, a large lobbying organizations for Arab governments.
As a result, leaders in the anti-war movement are very careful not to antagonize these organizations, despite the noxious policies they support, which includes being soft on the Sudanese government because it is Arab and possibly because the victims are black.
Shatov, forgive me; I misread your sentence and thought you were referring to all Muslims, rather than only to Iraqi insurgents. However, not knowing enough about Iraqi insurgents, I certainly retain my feeling that I am unqualified to make such a statement as you did.
Michael Brenner: Thanks for the clarification on Lynne Stewart. All I’m going on is what you’ve said, so I guess I have no comment on the matter. My own feeling is that the fact of Arab involvement in anti-war activity (oh, and in Britain isn’t it the case that the Muslim organizations are composed primarily of South Asians, not Arabs?) should not lead to taking any position on Sudan different from the one we would normally take. Do you have any evidence that people feel reluctant to criticize the Sudanese government due to these relations? Have your organizer friends expressed such feelings to you? If they have, tell them I said to grow some backbone and criticize the Sudan anyway. It’s not like the Arab-American groups have any other allies, and besides, they have no right to feel betrayed by our criticism of what people across the world who are not them are doing.
Anyway, at U.Va. we just had a big Darfur teach-in with one white-guy professor speaker and one Arab speaker, both of whom were obviously in favor of some sort of humanitarian intervention. The event was quite well-attended and leftists were well-represented there. I don’t know if much will come of it, but other events are planned and it certainly doesn’t seem like there has yet developed a political “dividing line” on the issue between “left” and “right.” So, that’s just my experience.
American olim disagree. Check the latest news on AmEchad
sam, stop being so bullshit. you know damn well that there has been a deafening silence from most of the left regarding the genocide in the sudan. if your own blindness prevents you from from reading the nytimes, or the washington post, and seeing the massive number of stories that condemn the us, or israel, v. the number of stories that report the un and/or so-called human rights groups critiquing the government of sudan, then you are truely illiterate or stupid; if you look at cspan’s coverage of any of the various anti-war marches and gatherings (which somehow always have massive numbers of anti-israeli protestors as well), look for ANYONE carrying a sign protesting muslim sudanese murder of black xtian/animists from the south.
and your pathetic response: “i saw one really white guy who stood up at our local pta meeting and spoke with his white shirt on objecting to the treatment of black sudanese.” its comments like yours sam that makes most of us not want to bother posting – your ignorance (if thats what it is)is so great that you cant be taken seriously (and btw, if you really dont know who lynne stewart is, you havent read the featured story in the sunday nytimes magazine section of a few months ago; you havent read front page stories about her in the nytimes, latimes, or the washington post, so sam, you are either so uninformed about world events that anything you say is worthless, or you lie.
sam, at least in your defense, you havent followed the asaf traitor route and deserted your country and her army.
and one more thing, just saw “rwanda” last night, an excellent movie about the genocide in that country that killed about a million tutsis. where was the fucking un, the human rights establishment, the great liberals of this country, demanding we do something (this occurred during the clinton administration). of course, that little scum asaf would like to disqualify any jew or supporter of the us and/or israel from commenting on genocide around the world, we should all only critrique israel. will asaf, no one will be silenced by your opinion. perhaps when you convert to muslimhood the arabs will listen to you a little more (but not of course if you go ahead with that sex change operation, as a woman youll be chattel in the muslim culture)
Look, the focus on Israel, not to be too cynical, but the focus on Israel has a very negative effect on poorer regions of the world. That’s one major reason why I don’t buy the European line on the conflict. It is not just Israelis and Palestinians who suffer from having this absurd level of media exposure; it’s everyone else who is not covered because so many resources are spent on the I-P conflict. If the media took a tenth of what it commits to the I-P conflict and put it in Africa, where so many more people are dying, that continent would be a lot better off.
Both sides in the Sudan conflict are Muslim.
Both sides are also, more or less, black. The “Arab” side is also black, from what I’ve seen.
To Michael Brenner: I pretty much agree with you about media coverage of Israel-Palestine. However, if the media just covered whatever was happening where there were the most people, or the most poor people, we would be reading most of our stories about India and China all day. Is this what we *should* get from the media? Maybe. But they report on things that they perceive as related to American interests, and near the top of that list is the I-P conflict. I would love to see the conflict downgraded to a lower level of coverage, so that every Brit and Frenchman didn’t suddenly feel the need to weigh in.
You know, Avi Green, you oughta try breathing slowly and checking your temperature before you post here. I think your spittle is getting my screen wet.
To anyone else, this seems like a good way to learn about Darfur:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/darfur/
“Both sides in the Sudan conflict are muslim.” Sam, are you just stupid, or do you think you can lie your way to winning an argument. Literally every paper in the us
(ny times, latimes, washingpost, chicago sun-times, etc. etc.) identifies the sudan conflict as one between arab/muslim northernors, and black/xtain southerners. so which is it sam, you are an ignoramous who doesnt read a paper or watch the news? or a liar who thinks no one else reads. please post somewhere where your idiocy will be appreciated.
“The “Arab” side is also black, from what I’ve seen.”
Sam the repressed cryptoracist sees “real” race.
So why “arab” and not “black”?
I don’t believe in race. God, some of you are just vicious in your assumptions of what other people think.
I mean that one can’t contrast the two sides in the conflict by somatic differences. By ethnicity, one side is “Arab” according to a more or less recently developed Sudanese identity based in language, and the other side is “African” based on tribal affiliations with the Fur or others. Somatically, however, they don’t differ much in terms of relative skin pigmentation.
To Avi — perhaps we are talking about two different crises. There is a more than twenty-year-old civil war in the Sudan, largely divided by religious differences between the north, which is Islamic, and the animist South. I was referring more to the recent Darfur crisis, however, which is an east-west divide, and has a bit of a different makeup.
I’ll admit I could be wrong. I am probably not the Sudan expert you are. I haven’t read any books on Sudan, only the occasional news articles, so I make stupid assumptions based on the fact that the spokesman for the Sudan Liberation Movement in Darfur is named Bahar Ibrahim, which doesn’t seem like an animist name to me. But hey, Avi, you’re the expert. Please educate us all so your delightful style of argumentation can bring some good to the world.
Sam:
“I don’t believe in race. God, some of you are just vicious in your assumptions of what other people think.”
Yes how vicious of me to make such an assumption, i.e. the assumption that a college-age, antiglobalization protester could believe in such an colonialist, outdated, culturally-constructed notion such as race.
(Never forget!)
(Mobius calls J racist.)
(Shatov implies that Sam “believes” in race.)
The brutality!
The horror!
p.s. question:
If a certain heart medication seems to work for individuals of African descent but not for those of European descent does the heart medication “believe” in race (at the “somatic” level)?
p.p.s. question:
Are you a Cartesian dualist?
sam, i had resolved to not direct any more posts to you, since you are: a) not well read, not very bright, and post out of ignorance – whats the point; or, b)you are one of those doctrinaire leftists who with all the evidence in the world before your eyes, you blind yourself to what you dont like (stalin killed people – no way) again, whats the point; but by coincidence, on the 12:30 segmnet of npr in los angeles, about two hours ago, (you know npr, that far rightist supporter of the kkk), 15 minutes were devoted to the various arab/muslims murdering the blacks of the sudan. some of the murderers were official armed forces from the central government; some were unofficial but supported by the central government; and some were unofficial but ignored by the central government. millions of blacks christian/animists are murdered by muslims, and you continue to claim its not a muslim issue – sam, you are a fool, a liar, or an idiot: but for sure your views are there to aid evil, and sam, that makes you evil. is this an ad hominem attack? yes. why am i making it? because those who support and or justify and or cover up evil, even if only verbally, become fellow traffickers in evil. so sam, you continue to commit evil, i just hope that some day, in this world or the next, you pay the price.
You know, Avi, if you were to strip out all of the vitriol and insults, I bet people would consider what you have to say a little more closely. As a bonus — and I say this as someone who’s not very religious, admittedly — it’d really cut down on the number of halakhot you break.
That said, I don’t think talking about “Arab” and “Black” (or “African”) sides to the Darfur conflict is injecting something that isn’t there. I’m no expert either, but my understanding is that it’s been around for decades, and is one of the basic structuring elements in the modern politics of the country, particularly through/since the split and reunification.
In other words, what I’ve been given to understand — true? who knows? — is that there are groups who identify as Arab, and groups who don’t, and that has formed the unifying factor which has created the basic political cleavage in Sudan. I’ve certainly heard people talk about a Northern elite trying to “Arabize” the country in the way that Algeria was.
Whether or not that’s true, it certainly has nothing to do with pigmentation and some of the other things that have been discussed here … as Arab Sudanese are forced to acknowledge when they run into racism in other parts of the Arab world.
Shatov,
I’ll ignore your slips into Avi-land and address your more interesting questions.
1) Why do some medicines work better for African-American, or Jews? Doesn’t this mean “race” exists?
My answer is no. Why not? Because when the European “scientists” who created our current conceptions of race, with their talk about “Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid,” they didn’t just mean that centuries of intermarriage among populations would render those populations vulnerable to specific diseases and ailments that others weren’t vulnerable to. They meant a whole set of characteristics, and most importantly characteristics that would impact *behavior*. That’s the notion of race that’s been passed down to us, not some pared-down list of populations with medical vulnerabilities.
Moreover, most studies show that medical differentiation is much greater within races than across them.
2) I think that the Law of the Excluded Middle is something we are often better off avoiding.
“I’ll ignore your slips into Avi-land and address your more interesting questions.”
You first directly accused me of a “vicious attack”. So spare me your indignation, please. I was simply “teasing you back”. Viciously, I might add.
Anyway:
“Because when the European “scientists” who created our current conceptions of race, with their talk about “Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid…[ were refering to] a whole set of characteristics, and most importantly characteristics that would impact *behavior*”
Maybe these 19 C. scientists were talking about behavior…19 C. “scientists” also were quite wrong about intelligence, or physics for that matter, but that doesn’t mean we abandon a field of academic inquiry…Anyway, I asked you about the effectiveness of medication based on racial categories. You ignored the question: If a certain medication is more effective for a particular race doesn’t that suggest that race, as a construct, is at a “somatic” level, to some degree, veridical? I’m sure you noticed that certain people look alike (and different too!). The Aztecs recognized that the conquering Spaniards were physically different from themselves without the aid of 19 C. social scientists.
As for my question about dualism:
“I think that the Law of the Excluded Middle is something we are often better off avoiding.”
I think you’re talking about the dangers of setting up a fasle dichotomy between mind and body, right? So why are you harping on the distinction between body and behavior in conceptualizing race? (But still proclaiming that race doesn’t exist even at the level of body!) You sound very confused.
It may be that your reluctance to approach questions like these earnestly is what leads to your extremist positions and hence your frequent errors when making moral judgments. What you’re really “avoiding” is thinking about difficult questions because you believe it might lead to “non-egalitarian” conclusions. But this is not the case, neccessarily. The fact that historically such ideas have been exploited by unsavory social movements doesn’t give you license to be completely irrational and contradictory.
p.s. Notice how you substituted “Jews” for “Europeans” in my original question. A little revealing no? Jews are the white, blond-haired goliaths huh? I thought Jews were practitioners of a religion? Get your story straight!
I didn’t ignore the question. I said that groups of people that live together for a long time, intermarry, and breed, are likely to develop particular diseases or responses to disease. I also said that this is unrelated to the cultural baggage that comes along with a term like “race” and doesn’t, by itself, justify its usage. The fact that the Aztecs could see that Spaniards looked different from them doesn’t mean there are races. I think you’re actually a bit confused yourself here. I’m not saying that Chinese people don’t look different than African people. I’m saying that the fact that people of different geographical regions have different appearances doesn’t mean, and is not considered to mean by most scientific opinion, that there are any significant biological differences between them other than those “somatic” differences that produce difference of appearance.
As for your pop psychology, it’s useless.
p.s. notice how you had the medicine working for African-Americans, and *not working* for Europeans, whereas in my substitution I had it working for African-Americans and Jews. So you’ve got a little logic mix-up there.
“groups of people that live together for a long time, intermarry”
What is “intermarriage” between “groups”? Can you be more specific?
“there are [not] any significant biological differences between them other than those “somatic” differences that produce difference of appearance”
OK, forget it, so you do “believe” in race at the somatic, biological level. That wasn’t clear from your original post when you accused me of suggesting that you “believe” in race. It seemed ealier that you didn’t think races are “real” at the level of biology, but were *merely* the social constructions of 19 C. colonialist social scientists.
Took you long enough to admit it!
“As for your pop psychology, it’s useless.”
The above is popular psychology? Where am I getting it from? Oh, it’s useless, never mind…(you’re not proving my point or anything!)
Best wishes!
Sigh. I didn’t “admit” anything.
My point, this whole time, was that the “racial divisions” we see on the level of appearance are not the same as the “racial divisions” the nineteenth century scientists created, which involved a lot more than appearance and reache deep into issues of culture, behavior, etc., essentially describing all possibilities for members of each “race” according to bogus biological qualifications.
Thus, our notion of “race” that we’ve had all the way up until the 1960’s has included all that stuff as well as simple differences of appearance. If we *were* referring only to simple differences of appearance, we wouldn’t need the word “race” because there’s almost no point in dividing people up in such a way without the attendant “deeper” differences those scientists made up.
Sam:
How do you mean “If we *were* referring only to simple differences of appearance, we wouldn’t need the word “race” because there’s almost no point in dividing people up in such a way without the attendant “deeper” differences those scientists made up.” There are definite differences in appearance between people of African, Oriental, and European origins. (For that matter, there are differences between people of African origin and Abiriginies, who are both dark skinned.) While race may not be your word of choice how would you describe thoses diffences. The problem you seem to be having is that you want to reject the term because of the ‘historic baggage’ that the term carries. I have no problem with that particular concept, but the differences between the groups exist whether you attach the word race to them or not.
Frankly this discussion is kind of strange to me. We are all arguing about something that if it on a anit-Jewish site (pick one) we would all be offended about because many of us would feel we were being singled out by the people talking about it. But here we are ‘arrogantly’ discussing it.
“My point, this whole time, was that the “racial divisions” we see on the level of appearance are not the same as the “racial divisions” the nineteenth century scientists created, which involved a lot more than appearance and reache deep into issues of culture, behavior, etc., essentially describing all possibilities for members of each “race” according to bogus biological qualifications.”
Sorry I was assuming this discussion was taking place in the 21st C. My error.
“Frankly this discussion is kind of strange to me. We are all arguing about something that if it on a anit-Jewish site (pick one) we would all be offended about because many of us would feel we were being singled out by the people talking about it. But here we are ‘arrogantly’ discussing it.”
Welcome to the world of pseudo-sensitive knee-jerk post-colonialist liberalism!
Indiginous “culture” is the new “race”; the new “class”!
The radical Left meeting the fascist Right!
And you never answered my question:
“groups of people that live together for a long time, intermarry”
What is “intermarriage” between “groups”? Can you be more specific?
And why would this cause illness?