|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Urbana-Champaign IMC letter on IMC Switzerland |
Current rating: 0 |
by gehrig
Email: zemblan (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified!) |
02 Mar 2002
Modified: 08 Mar 2002 |
|
Here is our letter of support for IMC Switzerland. I have also posted it on IMC Austria and IMC Germany. |
We, the Urbana-Champaign IMC, support IMC Switzerland in its mission of providing an open and independent channel of public communication. We are saddened that IMC Switzerland is currently offline as a consequence of the legal action by Aktion Kinder der Holocaust. We pledge our solidarity and support.
This controversy pits two important but irreconcilable principles against each other: on one hand, unfettered, uncensored free speech; on the other, the repudiation of racist and antisemitic rhetoric. The Urbana-Champaign IMC has also found itself caught between these two principles in the past, and we recognize the significant moral and ethical quandary IMC Switzerland finds itself in.
The cartoon panel at the heart of the controversy is part of a series critical of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. It bears repeating that it is not the pro-Palestinian stance which is at question here. It is only the final panel, which by implication equated the Israelis with the Nazis, which triggered the ADKH protest.
We do not accuse the cartoonist Latuff of antisemitism, although we believe that he had not fully considered the moral implications of the cartoon panel at the time of its posting, and we believe he has not yet shown any real understanding of the core complaint against him. He boasts of "having struck a nerve"; he has, but not the one he thinks.
In particular, we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy with Nazism, a hyperbolic comparison that is at best tasteless, deeply offensive to most Jews and Germans, and historically untenable. The Nazi "Final Solution" killed nearly one third of the world's Jewish population within half a dozen years; the AKDH is not wrong to assert that such ground should be tread lightly. We accept that their motivation comes not from a desire to stifle criticism of Israel, as has been alleged, but as a genuine cri de coeur.
Nevertheless, the mission of the IMC movement requires that free speech must prevail. IMC Switzerland exercised sound moral judgement in deprecating but not removing the cartoon. We feel that this is a perfectly acceptable solution.
We call upon the AKDH in friendship to reconsider their suit against IMC Switzerland. Proceeding against the IMC would be, we strongly believe, ineffective or even counterproductive. The Latuff panel is, ultimately, too insignificant to merit the closing of IMC Switzerland. Given its international nature, the Internet cannot be purged of all expressions of antisemitism -- or any other type of insanity. But the Internet also allows for new opportunities for education and bridge-building, and we find it more productive to concentrate our energies there.
We send all our best wishes to IMC Switzerland in hopes that their site will soon rejoin IMCs throughout the world, giving voice to the voiceless. |
Comments
|
Extremely well written |
by
JW
(unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
Couldn't have said it better myself. :) |
|
Is cowardice a way out for IMC? |
by Latuff
latuff (nospam) uninet.com.br (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
 |
|
|
|
LATUFF HAS IT EXACTLY RIGHT |
by FREE PALESTINE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
03 Mar 2002
|
 |
What a bunch of zionist wimps they have over there at Urbana-Champaign. Or maybe I should say Urbana-CHAMPAGNE, because they're acting like they're driving drunk.
The Latuff cartoon depicts perfectly the relationship of the lowly IMC U-C peasants approaching their zionist sovereign lord and master. This attitude is why there need never be any compromise in depicting the zionazi foe. The reality is that no matter HOW you portray the zionazis, they will always cry "antisemitism" and run to their IMC internal allies for protection.
This is further evidence that IMC which likes to pose as a "radical" group seeking social justice is nothing of the sort. It's just another group of Democratic Party moderate wannabes who have no real understanding of oppression or how to deal with it. In a few years, you'll see them doing a Jerry Rubin routine, working in the stock market for the next Enron, becoming government bureaucrats and heading up news desks at CNN and Fox. |
|
This is bullshit! |
by Aybe Sea
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
"Now get down on your knees and say your`e sorry"!What the hell is this? Would have been great if IMC Champaign/Urbana expressed a solidarity wish without the gratuitous asskissing accompanying it.
Too fucking bad if a certain segment of a social/religious entity is offended by this or that.They have a choice.Like it or leave it.
OPEN PUBLISHING NEWSWIRE!Fair warning right there!I don`t see any of entitled outcry against the photo with two entity soldiers standing over the body of a Palestinian man for a trophy photo op!Which I`ve seen about every day since it was published!Don`t tell me that that photo wasn`t published over there.What do they have to say about that?
I certainly don`t like it even if the situation was reversed.But you what? I just skip by it.I don`t have the unquenchable desire to control what everyone else chooses to read.
Champaign/Urbana IMC;get your heads out of your asses!The shutting down of IMC Switzerland for lawsuit purposes is censorship! Sure your`e upset and aware-just don`t kiss ass!I really don`t find Latuff`s art offending personally.If he or someone else posts something I don`t like, well, I`ll turn the page!Simple as that.
So I hope you guys think before you embarrass your regular readers next time.You`ve just added to the fodder of the right! Thanks! |
|
Let the Truth Be Known |
by human
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
There are plenty of examples to show how Zionism equates with Nazism that would easily win in a court of law. Also, the term "anti-Semetic" does not equate exclusively to Jews, it does to Christians and Muslims as well when Zionists behave in a racist and hateful manner toward them in the Holy Land. I say, let them have their law suit and bring their own behavior out in the open in front of a court of law.
Plus, even authentic Jews say the Holocaust has been overblown by the Zionist Jews. There are many anti-Zionist Jewish organizations who will vouch for the credibility of IMC Switzerland's right to hold up free speech in this particular matter. |
|
The Critics Should Take Note |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
Modified: 04:00:12 PM |
The critical comments above reflect the inability of their makers to realize that IMC will NOT take a side in this dispute, other than to stand up forcefully for the Swiss IMC's right to conduct their editorial policy in the manner they see fit. The statement does not back away one inch (one centimeter?) from a being call for the Swiss IMC being able to resume publishing immediately.
For the IMCs, this is a freedom of press issue. In this case, there are conflicts between this fact and other's freedom of speech. If an IMC makes a decision about what to do about any particular article, it is editing. If a government makes such a decision (or forces it on an IMC), that is censorship. We oppose censorship. We retain the right to edit as we see fit and support the Swiss IMC's right to do likewise.
Point of clarification: The statement is specifically on behalf of the Steering group at U-C IMC. This should have been noted when it was posted.
ML is a member of the U-C IMC Steering group. |
|
Zionist-Nazi Cooperation |
by Holocaust Family Member
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
Those of us from Holocaust families who support the Palestinian liberation struggle know for sure that the Zionist State of Israel is no different from Nazi Germany in its actions against the Palestinians. This should come as no surprise. The Zionists have a history of cooperation with the Nazis, including the Transfer Agreement, a means by which certain Zionist lives were saved by breaking the boycott of Nazi goods, which existed in the 1930s. The State of Israel is a fascist, racist, militaristic, theocratic puppet state of US oil imperialism. Latuff's drawings are not anti-Semitic at all, and remember both Jews and Arabs are Semites. The horrifying actions on the part of the State of Israel against the Palestinians are completely indefensible and the Zionists who shake the Holocaust schtick are utterly despicable and hypocritical.
The Zionists were in fact nowhere to be found when it came to resisting the Holocaust. Regardless of political ideology, it is understood by most of the Jewish Community that it was the Red Army of the Soviet Union that literally saved our lives, as the turning point of WW2 was the Battle of Stalingrad and it was the Red Army that arrived in Berlin first.
In addition to the connection of Israel to Nazi Germany which does exist, the anti-Semitism which exists here in the US and has been expressed on Independent Media must be condemned and removed to "Hidden Articles." We had a series by some outfit claiming to represent Latinos, which spewed forth anti-Semitism since they wanted to be the capitalist representatives of the Latino population, and not the Zionists, although both support capitalism. I do not believe they represent Latinos; I believe they represent one of the many fascist groups we have in the US.
There is a vast difference between asking an article be removed or moved to a different section and shutting down a website. The Zionists must be condemned for this censorship and for their torture and murder of the Palestinian people, and theft of their homes and orchards, all with American tax dollars. |
|
Defend Free Speech Si; Defend Zionist Racism No! |
by d elliott
quibono (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
Your coming to the defense of the Switzerland IMC is laudable; your remarks concerning the distinction you draw between Nazi and Zionist racist criminality shows a shallow grasp of the matter.
"A
There is a quantitative distinction which can be drawn between the two historical phenomena but not a qualitative one.
Ideologically the two are siblings born of the same Blood and Iron Bismarckian context -- or as Herzl put it "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil); both reflected aspirations of emerging Central European bourgeois/petite bourgeois strata to get into the big game until then the playground of the Western powers UK, France, USA plus the Tsars: colonialist expansion into territories populated by, in Kipling's immortal phrase,"the lesser breeds without the Law".
voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!... Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important... to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonizing."Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism (precursor of Likud), The Iron Wall, 1923.
"We must expel Arabs and take their places." David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
The IMC movement is an institution in its infancy, including in its volunteer ranks many whose knowledge of communications technology is fantastically impressive. We who are about to become obsolete salute you. And the concepts of non-hierarchical relationships and cooperative work have advanced mightily. But.
Many IMC people lack background in political issues other than the ones, like environmentalism and "globalization" as it has emerged in the last few years. Evidence of a lack of historical background is everywhere evident. Many seem to believe that the resistance to capitalism and the accompanying war-mongering began with the movement against the War in Vietnam, which itself is viewed as a chapter of barely relevant ancient history.
Here are three texts, which if mastered, you can ignore everything Noam Chomsky ever wrote and still have a perfect grasp of the globalization phenomenon, as well as the key to understanding everything said and done by the zionists and their Ideological State Apparatus:
Das Kapital, Vols. I,II,III: "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Vladimir Lenin; (don't assume that I am a "marxist-leninist" because I am not, but I know expert analysis when I see it - this work predates the October Revolution); And:
Three works by Dr Lenni Brenner, two downloadable from the Web: begin with "The Iron Wall: Zionism in the Age of the Dictators"., and don't miss "Jews in America Today" which you may find still available.
While you're at it find Power Structure Research on the web and download the reading list.
Start with H. Zinn and the Foners, and study US history in detail. That's where the bodies are buried, millions of them, in the sense of Corpii Delecti.
Epistemological doubts? Check out Ignatiev. And Buddhist psychology. That should keep you from getting in a rut!
And since communications is the chosen field, don't forget Brecht "theorie of radio", but Do read the "Diaries" of the first genius of mass communication: one Paul Joseph Goebbels. |
|
disappointing letter |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
bleechk
What a weak letter
It gives the rabid zionists validity in their efforts to silence all criticism of Israel
Latuff's cartoons do not say that what Israel is doing now is equal to the holocaust, but it is making the point that there is a similarity in nature - oppression and killing of another people. There is a reason over a hundred Israeli soldiers refuse to participate - also, Nazis called themselves a superior people, a racist statement - and the Jewish religion calls themselves the chosen people, which is also a fundamentally racist statement.
The relentless cry of 'anti-semitism' is driven by an effort to be the chosen people, driven by a belief, conscious or unconscious to be superior. The zionists cannot stand to just be people, amongst all sorts of other people. They want their special place.
Latuff is entitled to express his opinion on the matter, and it is an opinion that has some reflection of the current situation. He is making a reasoned point. Efforts at censorship should be refuted, without kissing up to the one attempting the censorship.
Support for free speech rights for Latuff and IMC should be unequivocal, not also including statements on how justified the mouth foaming zionists are and would they please reconsider because the internet is just not policable, as if we would if we could. What ass kissing!
One scientist published a paper on his genetic research which indicated that Palestinians and Jews are racially identical. The powerful zionist lobby, declared him anti-semitic, and managed to have the study completely squashed, with all issues of the magazine it was published in withdrawn and the researcher censored. It is completely unacceptable to them to have to be equal to Palestinians. They want to be superior. They are racists
It is disappointing to see any IMC bowing down to racism. |
|
Suffering doesn't have a race |
by Dissenter
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
You are to be congratulated for having acted in support of Switzerland IMC, but some of your assertions are too reprehensibly dangerous to go unchallenged.
Specifically: "In particular, we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy
with Nazism, a hyperbolic comparison that is at best tasteless, deeply offensive to most Jews and
Germans, and historically untenable."
Dismissing the parallel between Israeli policy and Nazism as a "rhetorical device" is insulting to those suffering Israeli atrocities, as well as to thinking people to whom the similiarites are clear. The above assertion assumes arrogantly that your own bias is fact.
The Israelis have gone out of their way to ensure that the Palestinians are under a virtual house arrest, as demeaning and murderous as any pogrom suffered under Stalin or the SS. There are more ways to kill than the gas chamber or lining up people and shooting them, and the IDF has done them all, including poisoning water wells and ripping up houses and farms. The list expands as the commanders "think outside the box" as it were.
How many people have to die before parallels can be drawn with the Holocaust? How much blood needs to be shed today? Ironically, it seems "remembering the holocaust" precludes really internalizing what should be its lessons ... that we must be on guard and fight actively against repression of all people. The sacrosanct place "the Jewish plight" and the "Holocaust" seem to occupy for people seems to do the opposite. Meanwhile, the people who are suffering and dying must be experiencing horror similar, if not identical, to that of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Dogmatists like the AKdH are practicing the same racism they denounce. |
|
Comment from an Urbana-Champaign IMC member |
by Travas
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
As a member of the UC-IMC, I find it hard to believe that the Steering group would publish such a statement. Perhaps I should show up to more meetings. The Zionist policies of Israel should be equated with Nazism; the parallels are painfully obvious.
"In art, Morality is nonsense
In practice, it is immoral
In people, it is a sickness." |
|
Please Read and Attempt to Understand |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
Travas,
I would encourage people to attend Steering group meetings and participate. We welcome the input.
On the other hand, I also ask you to carefully reread the original post and my comments below it. Most of the criticisms are entirely misplaced and misconstrue what the statement says.
The U-C IMC Steering group took no position other than in support of the Swiss IMC's right to follow their own editorial policy. Any assertions that the we took a position one way or the other on the conflict in the Middle East itself is simply wrong. I do not see us doing so, but you're welcome to bring it up, if you'd like. |
|
disappointed |
by loel
loel (nospam) coolrio.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
As a cofounder of Houston IMC and having worked with both LA and NYC IMC's I want to express my extreme disappointment in the letter that UC IMC wrote concerning the closing of the Swiss Site and the Latuff cartoon.
It is clear that the authors of the letter do not have a real grasp of what is going on in the Isreali - Palestinian conflict. Israeli policies are racist and fascist, just as those of the NAZI's were. The parallels and similarities between them are obvious.
I am one IMC contributor and supporter for whom you do not speak.
loel coleman |
|
otro vez |
by loel
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
"Any assertions that the we took a position one way or the other on the conflict in the Middle East itself is simply wrong"
The following statement from the letter reeks of taking a position that the Isreali policy is not as horrendous as it is and is therefor suggestion that their policy ought be whitewashed. This is called "[taking] a position one way or another..., etc."
"In particular, we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy with Nazism, a hyperbolic comparison that is at best tasteless, deeply offensive to most Jews and Germans, and historically untenable." |
|
a few personal comments |
by gehrig
zemblan (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
I'm speaking for myself here. And I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out what letter it is that some of you folks seem to have read, because it doesn't seem to be the one that got posted.
Take another look to see what I mean.
The letter posted here _explicitly supports_ IMC Switzerland's decision not to remove the cartoon. It _explicitly_ condemns censorship. Yet we're accused of promoting censorship. Wha-a?
The letter posted here _explicitly refuses_, in as many words, to accuse Latuff of antisemitism. Yet we're accused of flinging the accusation of antisemitism around for political purposes. Huh?
The letter posted here _explicitly_ notes that the bulk of Latuff's series was not controversial; only a single panel was, and for reasons the letter spells out _explicitly_ as being the "Jew = Nazi" bit. (Which, by an amazing coincidence, is what AKDH said too -- except that everybody was too busy shouting their hatred at them to hear what _they_ had to say.)
The letter posted here _explicitly notes_ that free speech is the central notion of the IMC movement, and that free speech must prevail. So we're accused of being against free speech, natch.
The letter _does not defend_ Sharon or current Israeli practices. I'll say that again: the letter _does not defend_ Sharon or current Israeli practices. Neither does it condemn them. Why? Because the letter isn't about the Mideast. It's about AKDH and IMC Switzerland. The letter also doesn't take a stance on conflict diamonds, global warming, Microsoft's monopolistic practices, African debt forgiveness, or Enron's ties to the Bush White House, for the same reason.
Nevertheless, from the responses, you'd think the whole thing was one big valentine to Ariel Sharon and signed by Zionists Are Perfect, Inc. So I have to ask -- what letter did you guys read?
The only points where there is anything like controversy in the letter's stance are these two:
1) The letter rejects, not criticism of Israel, not criticism of Zionist policy, not criticism of Sharon, not criticism of American support of the Israeli right, not criticism of international Jewish support for the Israeli right, not criticism of the IDF, not criticism of the conservative Evangelicals supporting Israel blindly, but _simply and solely_ the rhetorical trope of "Jew = Nazi." But even this little call for responsible rhetoric is enough to set off some people shouting, "Zionists! Eeek! Zionists!"
And the letter goes on to explain _why_ the comparison should be rejected: not because Zionists should somehow be immune to criticism -- believe me, I hated Ariel Sharon before some of you were even _born_, and am not at all naive about what's going on now, even today -- but because there are some forms of pure rhetoric which do nothing but make respectful discourse needlessly difficult, and the cheap-shot exploitation of tragedy is one of them.
Is that really so difficult a point? Is that really so hard to swallow?
Again, that is the key word: "exploitation." It is no less skanky for an anti-Zionist to exploit the horror of the Holocaust as a vehicle for condemning Israel than it is for a Zionist to exploit the Holocaust as an excuse to build more West Bank settlements.
Is that really so difficult a concept? Yet I read responses from people who seem to think that we have argued that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic (!) or some other such nonsense. Reread the letter; it's spelled out there, and it's not what some of you are saying it is.
2) The letter accepts that, without further evidence, there is no reason to attribute motivations to the AKDH other than what they say they are. It seems a not-very-buried assumption on the part of Latuff and his defenders that AKDH, a priori, is not really what its very name says it is, but is instead some sorta se-e-ecret Zionist front. Evidence? How dare a progressive ask for evidence! Let's all just stampede instead! How dare anyone suggest that there may just be two sides to the story?
There's certainly no shortage of overt antisemites who delight in the "Jew = Nazi" comparison because they know how specifically hurtful Jews find it; give me five minutes at Google and I could pull up a hundred examples from the kinda guys who sign their posts "88" (a white supremecist code for "Heil Hitler"). Folks like David Irving, he of the "I am a Baby Aryan" jingle, who have no bones about their intention to spiff up ol' Uncle Adolf's image. If you think that doesn't happen, and happen a lot, you're being naive. But -- and this is where AKDH goes astray -- that doesn't mean that everyone who makes such a comparison is inherently an antisemite. Some people haven't thought it through; some people just can't be bothered to consider the kind of historical sensitivities you get when you lose a third of your people.
Eventually, though, it's been my experience -- about two decades of it -- that those who are actually reaching for understanding about the Mideast (rather than excuses to hear their own voices) generally come to see that there are far better, more effective ways to express rage against Israeli policy than by intentionally jamming their thumb into the wound of the Holocaust and then wondering why people get so upset.
@%< |
|
more explanation from a u-c imc member |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Mar 2002
|
I thank gehrig for clearly expaining the letter and pointing out exactly what it says and what it doesn't.
That said, some further clarification on how this letter came to exist in the first place is necessary. At the Feb. 24 meeting of the U-C IMC Steering Group we consented to write a letter of support for the Switzerland IMC, as the Steering Group, not as the entire IMC, since we cannot speak for the IMC. In the course of the week the person who had brought the issue to the group and who agreed to write the letter asked another person, gehrig, to do it. That is the letter you see above.
The Steering Group was not informed about this change, and a draft of the letter was not circulated before it was posted. When I saw it here I was surprised.
At today's Steering Meeting we addressed the fact that the letter does not speak in the name of the entire U-C IMC and that the Steering Group did not indeed actually consent to the entirety of this letter, since it carries more commentary than simple solidarity with the Swiss IMC.
However, it is also true that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. The letter now lives on the Internet and cannot be recalled or edited to suit our actual consensus. While several of us are uncomfortable with the letter--all for varying reasons--we also seemed to agree that there was little to be gained in trying to change it or issue a clarification, retraction or rewrite. It would be an exercise in futility and our energies would be better spent on many other activities.
It is my hope that the U-C IMC, its working groups and its members will be known for their actions and not just one letter that really wasn't written with full consent in the first place. As a founding member of the U-C IMC I would prefer look forward to what we can do to further the cause of independent progressive media and how we can help extend the power of media to the oppressed peoples of the world rather than worry over this letter.
There is no full consensus of political position at the U-C IMC, as there is none in the IMC mov't as a whole. Its diversity, transparency and openness to dissent and debate are its strengths. Gehrig has made points that merit reasoned debate, and dismissing them and the U-C IMC out of hand furthers nothing.
The U-C IMC is open to everyone, and anyone may come in and take part in any meeting. Consensus includes everyone in attendance, not just members. If you wish a new or different statement to be written, please join us and help us write it. Steering Meetings happen Sundays, Noon, 218 W. Main ST., Urbana, IL. Until then, I've got work to do. |
|
to gehrig: |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
Latuffs cartoon series does not say Jew = Nazi
It does say that Israeli National policy has a similarity in character to Nazi Germany. This is not an anti-semitic position to take and is in fact an argument that can be made with some justification
You tell all the responders that they must have mis-interpreted the letter. . .
take this quote:
"This controversy pits two important but irreconcilable principles against each other: on one hand, unfettered, uncensored free speech; on the other, the repudiation of racist and antisemitic rhetoric."
You are implying that Latuff's cartoons are anti-semitic, for if they are not, there is no conflict of two principles as you say
then take this quote:
"We call upon the AKDH in friendship to reconsider their suit against IMC Switzerland. ÊProceeding against the IMC would be, we strongly believe, ineffective or even counterproductive. ÊThe Latuff panel is, ultimately, too insignificant to merit the closing of IMC Switzerland. Given its international nature, the Internet cannot be purged of all expressions of antisemitism -- or any other type of insanity."
What you are doing here, is calling Latuff's cartoon anti-semitic and insane, which is again in contradiction to the earlier statement otherwise. You are pandering to AKDH and their position. You are saying that they are right, but please have mercy on Swiss IMC because the internet is too hard to police. . .and because Swiss IMC does otherwise good work
then take this quote:
"In particular, we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy with Nazism, a hyperbolic comparison that is at best tasteless, deeply offensive to most Jews and Germans, and historically untenable."
You may personally find Latuff's cartoon repugnant, however, it is clear that many other people, in fact the majority of replies to this post and others at a couple other imc's are critical of your letter. Perhaps there is a reason and you should not dismiss it so quick.
Latuff's cartoons are legitimate expressions.
There is nothing sacrosanct about 'the' holocaust. The Jews do not have sole claim there. There were more non-Jews killed in camps than Jews. The Nazis killed 3 million Soviet POW's in little more than a couple years.
In Bangladesh in 1971, approx 3 million were killed by the Pakistanis in a mere 9 months, perhaps the most concentrated mass killing in history. Is that just a holocaust, while we are here talking about "The" holocaust?
many people are deeply offended by this setting one horror so much above others that most people dont even hear about these others. It does a terrible disservice to the millions and millions of people who have died in horrific mass killings across time and the globe.
The Jews have no special claim to suffering.
Quote from reply:
"Again, that is the key word: "exploitation." It is no less skanky for an anti-Zionist to exploit the horror of the Holocaust as a vehicle for condemning Israel than it is for a Zionist to exploit the Holocaust as an excuse to build more West Bank settlements."
Using the horror of the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis as a means to stop a current injustice is certainly different than using it to perpetrate that injustice.
That you personally agree with AKDH is up to you. It was disturbing that this attitude was being put forth as representing the UC-Imc. Now that it is explained otherwise by paul, his suggestion to move on sounds good. We all have plenty of work to do. |
|
IMC is NOT UC-IMC |
by IMC Anarchist Organizer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
I want to remind readers that no one IMC represents the network as a whole or any other IMC for that matter. UC-IMC's statement is theirs and theirs alone. Please remember that the IMC is a NETWORK of autonomous collectives, each with very different political perspectives and experience *and* politics.
I come from an anarchist background emphasizing labor and class struggle. I have been working on the network infrastructure for IMC since the beginning. Many of us understand that an attack on one is an attack on all. So, in this spirit, we must not let IMC Switzerland get shut down.
Personally, I don't like the UC-IMC statement for many of the reasons listed above, but in particular, the naivete expressed in asking AKDH to drop it's lawsuit. Are you serious? We must demand that they drop it because we are in solidarity with Swiss IMC and the politics of the newswire. We must protest this type of pressure tactic wherever it may occur.
In Solidarity,
IMC'er |
|
A support wich is worse than a silence |
by Iris Bar, Haifa Israel
nur (nospam) netvision.net.il (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
Dear Urbana IMC members;
I read your so-called "support" letter, I want to tell you:
Lattuf is not accused in antisemitism - his only foult is to stand with the victims, at the days when all the media (and, unfortunately, big part of the "alternative" media) are standing & supporting the butchers (e.g. Bush, Sharon and their firends).
When I'm reading your cowardish letter to the Switzerland IMC, I see that you don't have the courage to support the victims against the prosecutres, (The Palestinians against the Israeli government, Lattuf against the right-wing Zionist lobby).
people who lack such courage in days of peace, when any danger doesn't threaten them - would have no courage at days of war and fear.
I'm sure, that if you were living during the NAZI's rule - you were standing quietly, and not supportin, nor helping any of the victims: Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc. etc.
During the WWII, Switzerland closed her door in the face of the Jewish refugees. Closing the IMC will not erase this crime.
Standin in silence, while Israeli government & army is murdering the Palestinian refugees, will not erase the crime of standing in silence while the Jewish refugees were murdered.
You can do nothing to help the people who were killed 60 years ago.
Do something to help the people who are being killed now.
NEVER AGAIN
The writer of this comment is a Jew, and a person that more than 100 people in my family were murdered by the NAZI's, |
|
Reality Check: Try Reading (and Comprehending) the Letter |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
I have to wonder at the level of reading comprehension among the critics of the letter. This comment is yet another example of this troubling lack of political and social sophistication.
The letter solely addressed the right of the Swiss IMC to decide on and practice their own editorial policy. Among the editorial policies that we supported was the Swiss IMC decision to allow Latuff's controversial cartoons to stay on Swiss IMC, which is what led to their ongoing closure. Yet Latuff chose to attack us. The dude is shallow, politically naive, over-simplistic (but cartoons often are), and fixated on his own ego, but we still thought that the Swiss IMC decision to allow the cartoons to stay and be open to criticsm (or support) was the correct one. The letter does not take a position on the disputes in the Middle East, but this important fact somehow escapes our critics, who somehow expect that we should take such a position, just as Latuff expected the letter to support HIM, rather than the Swiss IMC.
Then these same crtitics jump to the conclusion that we SHOULD have taken the position that they favor. You all are welcome to your views, but I have yet to see a flood of similar statements expressed in print from other IMCs. There was even someone claiming to be with the Houston IMC who insisted that we we not speaking for him (no duh, once again; no such claim was made in the letter, but he felt free to jump to that conclusion also.) It should be noted that, AFAIK, Houston IMC has issued no letter of ANY kind of support for Swiss IMC.
Considering the diverse nature of the IMC movement and the specific threat to the Swiss IMC, I would have expected a flood of supporting letters, taking various viewpoints, from many IMCs by now. Yet what we see is a flood of "I'm more radical than you" missives that seem more akin to the discourse on a junior high school playground. But this is not surprising, because the level of ability displayed by these critics to deal with facts and reasoning seems to reflect the critics ability to use critical reasoning skills at that low level.
The U-C IMC never intended to take a position one way or the other on the situation in the Middle East. The letter does NOT do so, despite the efforts to misrepresent it. We have too many differing viewpoints internally to be able to do that. Are the critics suggesting we conduct some sort of political purge until we are able to issue such a letter of support? This kind of Stalinist crap is surprising from the claimed adherents of a diverse movement which claims to be largely based on anarchist principles. But that is why I tend to not take what I've seen so far too seriously, in addition to the lack of clearly articulated arguments about why what was STATED in the letter is somehow incorrect.
I don't believe that the comments that I've seen represent those who are active particpants in IMCs. Rather, they seem to represent a vocal minority who oppose any viewpoint except those exactly like their own. The IMC movement would not be where it is if it was truly organized by such people; it would merely represent a variant on the dominant media, excluding those viewpoints they disagree with. I hope that those who are in the global Newswire collective are noting the identities of our critics so that they take a long look at ever allowing any of these folks to be Newswire clerks. These critics do not possess the objective, critical reasoning skills to be allowed to decide what others should be allowed to express in line with IMC editorial policy. |
|
We All Must Be Stupid |
by Doroteo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
According to gehrig, all who criticize the CU IMC letter are obviously of inferior intellect and therefor their criticisms are not to be taken seriously. Bullshit!!!!
Doroteo |
|
interesting error |
by brian
bhagy (nospam) urbana.indymedia.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
As a member of the U-C IMC steering focus group, i was surprised to see the posted letter. we, as the steering group, decided to come up with a letter showing solidarity to the Swiss IMC. And more importantly, it was intended that the letter be understood as coming from those present in the U-C IMC steering meetings, and not necessarily of all the members and readers of the U-C IMC. the letter posted never was shown to the group for any feedback. therefore the letter inaccurately claims to be from us, when in fact it is only from the person who wrote it.
The U-C IMC steering focus group does, from consensus, wish to support the Swiss IMC's ability to make its own decisions on how to operate (this is my paraphrased description of what we talked about). If I had known the letter would have included some political analysis of the Latuff cartoon series, i would have blocked the decision to post it, in favor of rewriting it to support only what we intended (that is, the solidarity behind the Swiss IMC).
I agree with many of the observations pointed out above. Knowing the person somewhat who wrote the letter, I don't think his intent was to create a letter which would be viewed as bowing down to the AKDH position. However the statements from the letter that many people have pointed out do allow for that understanding to be present. And it is understandable to me why Latuff would create the cartoon of the U-C IMC bowing down to the AKDH.
However, i would like to point out something interesting (and desirable) in this whole mess. Where else in the media world other than the IMC network can such conversation take place? To be able to offer a perspective (even if not from those who it is said to be from) and then have a multitude of responses pointing out other perspectives (informative and opinionated), thus allowing for a greater understanding of the issue at hand, this i consider to be one of the greater strengths of the IMC, including the U-C IMC. I definitely have learned more about the Latuff controversy (not to mention the Israel/Palestine conflict) from just this single posting and the comments to it. Whereas I don't appreciate the posting being made in the name of the steering group (without our approval, which from the posting it would otherwise sound like we had approved), i do appreciate the opportunity for people to help paint a more complete picture of an article posted. |
|
Noting identities of critics? scary. |
by fairly new imc reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
Huh?
ML states, "I hope that those who are in the global Newswire collective are noting the identities of our critics so that they take a long look at ever allowing any of these folks to be Newswire clerks. These critics do not possess the objective, critical reasoning skills to be allowed to decide what others should be allowed to express in line with IMC editorial policy."
Is there a newswire gestapo? I thought the newswire was open posting. Are there IP address logs being kept on hand for the FBI too? |
|
Nope |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
My comment was directed at the fact that a number of commenters seemed to have absolutely no appreciation of the fact that the imposition of their own viewpoints on other IMCs or the Newswire is not what IMC is about. Since IMC is an all-volunteer organization, it is entirely possible that some of the commenters might volunteer to be Newswire clerks at some point. Given the fact that there seemed to be little in the way of respect for reasonable differences of opinion among many of the commenters to the much-disputed U-C IMC letter of support for Swiss IMC, I was just noting the fact that such weak timber is not what one would want to construct an IMC on.
If you don't like that, you are welcome to differ. I would suggest that it is appropriate to at least read the comments in context, which is at the root of much of the misunderstanding on this issue. Please read before jumping to conclusions, which the above poster seems to be doing, as has been typical throughout this brouhaha. |
|
Racism at UC IMC |
by Rene
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
When I first read the letter, It was my impression that it was written by an anti-Arab/Muslim racist. A second reading reinforced that opinion.
The major thrust of that letter was a scurrilous attack on Latuff, giving credence to the AKDH right-wing, censorship. The kind of support you gave IMC Switzerland to print the cartoons is something that no IMC cares to have. You should keep that kind of support for your worse enemies. You do need a reality check. |
|
Confusion, demands |
by Mark Bialkowski
mbialkowski (nospam) rogers.coMAPSBLOCK (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
Having watched debate over this letter, I'd like to say a couple things.
I've been an occasional volunteer with IMC-Ontario, a fairly active member of the www-newswire clerk team, and I make the rare appearance on the features and editorial lists. As usual, I speak only for myself.
The point of contention is Latuff's final chapter of the "We Are Palestinians" series. The person who wrote the letter saw fit to attack and minimize the cartoon. I quote from the letter:
"It is only the final panel, which by implication equated the Israelis with the Nazis, which triggered the ADKH protest."
I believe it has been pointed out that the equation being made was between Israeli government policies toward Palestinians and Nazi German government policies toward Jews. In all the condemnations I've seen, everyone attacks the Israel==Nazi connection, but doesn't even go near the Jew==Palestinian connection being made in the form of the little boy, as if mentioning it will force a discussion of the message Latuff intended to express and put the controversial aspects in context.
Again, quoting from the letter:
"In particular, we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy with Nazism, a hyperbolic comparison that is at best tasteless, deeply offensive to most Jews and Germans, and historically untenable."
"At best" tasteless and deeply offensive? I found the connection between oppressors and the oppressed rather powerful, myself. The images of Nazis and the Holocaust are overused in popular and activist culture; repressive individuals are called "Nazis", any mass slaughter is called a "Holocaust," perhaps rightly. Nazi Germany has become a cliche; you can find much worse linkages between Israel and Nazi Germany, such as that fellow who consistently refers to Israelis as "Zionazi filths". I personally think Latuff's final cartoon was the first invocation of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany that didn't come across as horribly cliched. It made an excellent point; that oppression is the same through history. It takes different forms, it has different degrees of horror, but it is still oppression, whether the victim is a Palestinian, a Turtle Islander, a Mayan, a Tibetan, or a little Jewish boy in Warszawa.
Once more, from the letter:
"We do not accuse the cartoonist Latuff of antisemitism, although we believe that he had not fully considered the moral implications of the cartoon panel at the time of its posting, and we believe he has not yet shown any real understanding of the core complaint against him. He boasts of "having struck a nerve"; he has, but not the one he thinks."
"The Latuff panel is, ultimately, too insignificant to merit the closing of IMC Switzerland. Given its international nature, the Internet cannot be purged of all expressions of antisemitism -- or any other type of insanity. But the Internet also allows for new opportunities for education and bridge-building, and we find it more productive to concentrate our energies there."
No wonder Latuff feels like he was attacked - he was. The letter may not have taken a position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it certainly took a position against Latuff's work in that particular panel, for reasons that I personally think lose their weight when the full context of the panel is considered. The Israel-Nazi Germany connection may be controversial, offensive to some, and cliched on IMC, but I think Latuff found a way to use that imagery in a powerful fashion. Considering that the rest of the series dealt with the concept of oppressors and the oppressed, looking too deeply into the linkage between the Israeli government and Nazi Germany misses the message of the entire series, and even takes the cartoon itself out of context. Indeed, some of the defenders here have incorrectly stated the connection being made. I find the last sentence ironic on several levels.
Quoting gehrig:
"The letter posted here _explicitly_ notes that the bulk of Latuff's series was not controversial; only a single panel was, and for reasons the letter spells out _explicitly_ as being the "Jew = Nazi" bit."
Words are tricky things. The connection being made was definitely NOT 'Jew = Nazi'; otherwise, what was that little Jewish boy doing there calling himself a Palestinian?
For the fifty-thousandth time, I will repeat this. The series broadly covers oppression throughout time, linking past campaigns of oppression with the current situation faced by the Palestinians. Controversial, perhaps, but I think pushing an IMC to shut down over the cartoon, among others, is ridiculous.
I'll have to dig up the e-mails on this subject, but I believe AKdH spokespeople have stated that they see the cartoon as antisemitic, and I think one AKdH spokesperson told Latuff in an e-mail exchange that criticism of Israel, or the panel, is antisemitic; again, I'll have to swim through mail archives to see which it was, but AKdH is definitely raising spectres of antisemitism, and I think even IMC.ch gave into this; Latuff's work had been relegated to an "open garbage bin" on grounds of being antisemitic.
Latuff has spoken to me before about the intentions behind his work. He spent a few months in Palestine, so he knows the situation from firsthand experience. He takes accusations of antisemitism to heart, because his target is not the Jewish people as a whole, only the Israeli government as it stands today. He is always concerned that his cartoons will somehow be hijacked by real antisemites, as the Palestinian cause has been at times by the National Alliance (ie; the "18 demands to the government of Israel", a joke of a document that led me to write a standard reply used when neo-Nazis try to leech some support from the Palestinian cause). Latuff even wrote a statement explicitly describing the motivations behind his work and tackling accusations of antisemitism aimed at him by several IMCs. The statement was rebuffed and ignored by many, which is unfortunate.
Perhaps most telling in this whole mess is that brickbats haven't only been tossed at Latuff by pro-Israelis; a couple hardline pro-Palestinians on the global newswire (and if you're reading this, I'm specifically looking at you, Majdur and FREE PALESTINE) also took offense at an aspect of the cartoon - the connection between the Jewish boy and the Palestinian people.
I think, to a great extent, the critics of the cartoon have attacked one of two aspects; the link made between the Israeli government and Nazi Germany, and in rare cases the link made between the Jews and the Palestinians. The attacks have come without acknowledging the full context of the cartoon, nor the series as a whole. The critics almost want to ignore the aspect of the cartoon they don't mention, as it forces them to confront realities and subtexts they personally don't want to deal with (note: I'm not a shrink, I just play one on the 'Net).
While I respect the right of UC-IMC and the letter writer to have their own opinions on this issue (otherwise, why the hell would I be here at all?), but I must strongly oppose the criticisms and downplaying of Latuff's work, which seemed to be one explicit aim of the statement. I think those criticisms are based on a flawed view of the cartoon in question, and a somewhat uninformed opinion of the situation at large.
Now, ML, about that statement directed at the newswire clerks... again, I'm speaking onlty for myself, and no, I won't take note of the critics, because I'm not going to block someone from volunteering their time to ride herd on the global newswire just because I disagree with their view on an IMC statement or a political issue. If a person is willing to carry out the established policy in a fair, objective fashion, and is active on the team, then there is little reason to deny that person the opportunity to help out. We're always discussing who should be a clerk, how many clerks there should be, and such, but I personally will not take note of the people critical of the letter, because I don't think they should be prevented from participating in IMC working groups on that basis. It's criticism. Deal. |
|
WHAT 'neutrality' ? |
by FREE PALESTINE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
 |
ML is completely whacked. He's been resounding that same theme about the statement being neutral all over the place. But here is the proof that the statement was anything but 'neutral':
"In particular, we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy with Nazism, a hyperbolic comparison that is at best tasteless, deeply offensive to most Jews and Germans, and historically untenable."
Such a shocking statement is an insult to the many Palestinians who have died as the result of zionazi genocide. The efforts of zionazis to try to draw distinctions between the criminality of their activities and those of the German nazis represent a falsification of high order. And UC IMC has taken an affirmative stance endorsing the effort to draw distinctions.
ML is probably under the false impression that genocide consists of wiping out a whole people, so that comparisons of zionazis with German nazis are unfair. That's a common idea, but if it were true, then one of the major 20th century holocausts - that of the Jews in World War II - would not equal genocide. About 1/3 of the Jews were wiped out, not even a majority. Yet unquestionably it was genocide. There is no pre-defined "lower limit" for genocide.
What defines "genocide" is not the numbers of people killed, but the INTENTION in killing them. Killing ONE person can be genocide, e.g., the dragging to death in Texas by truck of a man because of his race. This is similar to homicide, which means killing any person, not wiping out the whole human race.
Following is the relevant information from the UN Genocide Convention. Note that the Genocide Convention specifically recognizes "that at ALL periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity" [emphasis added]. And observe that the Genocide Convention defines genocide as follows:
"genocide means any of the following acts committed with INTENT to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" [emphasis added]
A zionazi filth who shoots a child because he is Palestinian has committed genocide, for example.
Sharon's Sabra-Shatila genocide is also covered, as well as all the acts of genocide carried out against the Palestinian people since the onset of the zionist occupation.
There is no question that zionism is a racist, fascist, apartheid nazi master race movement set up for the purpose of ethnically cleansing Palestine of its inhabitants in favor of the zionists.
And if any zionist is offended by this, too bad. I'm too busy being offended by the slaughter of innocent children by zionazis to worry about whether an image or a word bothers the murderers.
At any rate, I've proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that opposing comparisons between nazis and zionazis is emphatically NOT neutrality; rather it excuses the genocidal behaviour of the illegitimate and nonexistent
"state" of "Israel".
---
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by
General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948
entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII
The Contracting Parties,
Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world,
Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and
Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required,
Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
|
|
If All The Critics had Used a Well-Reasoned Approach... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
Mark,
I would not be so dismissive of them.
I agree with most of the points you make. At least you are dealing with the real issues, instead of reading between the lines and inventing ones that really aren't there.
My comment was directed at the fact that some people seem to have no ability to intellectually distance themselves enough from the argument to appreciate that there are differing, equally valid viewpoints on this issue. People like this MAY in the future be able to actually do this, and should be given the chance to if they volunteer, but I simply meant to note that this sort of attitude would NOT be an appropriate one for any IMC volunteer to take when dealing with IMC business. Perhaps they could rise above this, but I have legitimate doubts, based on the level of discourse seen here so far.
My own feelings (if we must go there) is that the political leadership on both sides in this struggle is absolutely bankrupt. This argument is NOT going to be won based on who can kill the most of their opponents. The Israeli government is absolutely reprehensible to me (although there are plenty of good people in Israel who I do not include in this condemnation) and the idea that the production line of martyrs via suicide bombing will create anything that the Palestinians actually hope to acheive is reprehensible likewise (fully recognizing that the Palestinian people are in a situation of repression that is a matter of state policy in Israel at this point.)
My concerns with Latuff are that he so frequently treds VERY close to turning discourse into condemnation by linking it to stereotypes. True, this part and partial of the art of cartooning. I'm glad to hear that he is personally concerned about this issue, as he well should be. And since he seems to be aware of this fact, he should not be at all surprised when significant numbers of people misapprehend what he is trying to put across. He holds the key to whether people will continue to misapprehend him.
It should be noted that what little work of his that has made it to this IMC has never been hidden.
Certainly the majority of the critics here have been far more interested in condemnation, than in discourse. This attitude is endemic on the global Newswire and is highly detrimental to the goals of IMC. Given that one of the principles is to let even people like that have their say, this is a conflict that is as hard to resolve as that between Swiss IMC's right to publish what they see fit and Latuff's right to draw as he sees fit. There are no easy answers, but to allow a discussion to dissolve into such a state without objecting to it is not helpful. I, too hold the keys here, among others, within the constraints set by our policies, to whether these replies have been inappropriate to this Newswire. You haven't seen me or anyone else cut this discussion short by such means. My own feeligs that most of the criticism has been of the schoolyard variety is my own opinion. I have expressed it and if folks want to criticize, go right ahead. It's just that I won't be paying much attention to people who can't treat others as a fellow human being by jumping to conclusions.
What bothers me is that these people who are condemning the statement for what it is NOT are simply turning the argument and doing EXACTLY what Latufff has been charged with from the opposite psoition. They are imputing meaning that simply is not there.
My troubles with the statement as written are exactly that--it is too easy to misinterpret what is there. If I had been given the chance to comment and revise it, as several other IMC members have already noted themselves, it would have come out differently.
As it is, this discussion has generated far more smoke than light. And that is the tragedy of stereotyping the other side, whether it is Latuff, Sharon, or those who can't rise above the level of calling others "zionazis". All of this is only designed to increase the hardship on ordinary people, who would just like to get on with their lives without living in fear. Tactics that increase the perception of fear are inappropriate. I should have been more careful about my choice of words in referring to the caliber of people needed to volunteer at IMC for this very reason and I regret and apologize to those who felt inclined to take it the wrong way. |
|
Bialkowski's smear |
by FREE PALESTINE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
 |
Look at what Bialkowski wrote above:
"Perhaps most telling in this whole mess is that brickbats haven't only been tossed at Latuff by pro-Israelis; a couple hardline pro-Palestinians on the global newswire (and if you're reading this, I'm specifically looking at you, Majdur and FREE PALESTINE) also took offense at an aspect of the cartoon - the connection between the Jewish boy and the Palestinian people."
Well, yes, I'm reading this (Bialkowski probably hoped I wouldn't) and I don't believe my eyes. I can't speak for Majdur, but I have posted NO criticism of any aspect of the cartoon; and certainly not "the connection between the Jewish boy and the Palestinian people." This innuendo suggests anti-semitism and is a simple effort at smearing. If I've made that statement, DOCUMENT it, Bialkowski. |
|
I know Majdur definitely flipped out |
by Mark Bialkowski
mbialkowski (nospam) rogers.coMAPSBLOCK (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
FREE PALESTINE:
Sorry about that. I looked through the archives, specifically the cartoon in question. I thought you'd also replied in an antagonistic fashion to Latuff's cartoon, as Majdur did:
"Alright (english)
by Majdur 5:04pm Thu Jan 31 '02
That really is about enough. You have now completely inverted the struggle and turned the oppressors into the oppressed.
You are a perfect Hegelian. No more of this please.
--Majdur"
"
I am disgusted by this equivocation (english)
by Majdur 5:44pm Thu Jan 31 '02
Latuff has turned everything into its opposite and in so doing destroyed any meaning to the Palestinian struggle. The direction he was headed was evident when this series began. I will thank Latuff to take a seat now, since he evidently has a great deal to learn.
I must firmly protest your continued attempts to an the ambassador of the PAlestinian cause. You have nothing to say that comes from a Palestinian source, so please shut-up.
--Majdur"
I haven't checked any other articles related to the cartoon, but I think I linked Majdur's antagonism with hardline comments you've made, and manufactured a memory of you posting something similar to Majdur's "equivocation" comments.
My apologies. |
|
Just Pointing Out The Obvious |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
It appears that Majdur and Sharon have far more in common with each other than they would either wish to admit. There's plenty of genocidal attitudes on both sides of this conflict. If we could just marginalize people like that, it would allow the majority that supports peace to finally acheive it.
Hate needs hate on the other side. Without it the paradigm of hate collapses. |
|
Typical Majdur (AKA Free Palestine) Stuff |
by ballsy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Mar 2002
|
page down to the comments at the link below:
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=144530&group=webcast |
|
'the majority that supports peace'? |
by FREE PALESTINE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Mar 2002
|
 |
ALL OF PALESTINE REGARDS
ZIONISTS AS NAZIS
---
"If we could just marginalize people like that, it would allow the majority that supports peace to finally acheive it."
- ml
ml is obviously living in the Twilight Zone. A victim of his own propaganda, he probably actually BELIEVES that a majority "supports peace". Not so. The zionazis ELECTED Ariel Sharon, and they did so directly, i.e., they voted specifically for the office of prime minister. The majority certainly wasn't voting for peace when they made Sharon their ruler. Sharon was not selected by the knesset, he was 'democratically elected' by the zionazis, who are well aware of his war crimes, not only at Sabra and Shatila but in his 1950s village massacres. Indeed, that's WHY they elected him and another reason why we are entitled to label all zionists as zionazi filths. See the article posted at IMC Global from the Jerusalem Post about Sharon's loss of support; it explains quite well that Sharon's support derives from his genocidal rapacity, not in spite of it.
As for the Palestinian side, the vigorous majority says that insha'Allah the Intifada must continue until final victory. And that's as it should be. The zionazi foe must be repelled and sent back to their homelands or killed whenever and wherever possible if they are found in Palestine. The ONLY peaceful solution is for the zionazis to leave.
What neither ml nor bialkowski nor other posters have shown is the practicality of any alternative to the removal of the zionists from Palestine. Peace conferences? We've had enough of those. New initiatives? Look what the zionists have done to Crown Prince Abullah's proposal. And also read Uri Avnery's article posted at IMC Global earlier this evening. As for the UN? The zionazis laugh at UN resolutions.
So you guys are totally out of solutions.
There is only one that can work: removal of the zionazis to their homelands. And they're already starting to do that on their own, with more LEAVING than ENTERING and occupying; and 16% of the zionazis would like to leave but can't because they don't have the money to do it. Rather than blocking it, that's what you need to support.
At least it is if you want to see peace in the Middle East.
A final point. I certainly see no basis to insult Majdur by comparing him with a monster like Sharon. I think that Latuff's cartoons are valuable; apparently Majdur does not. But the basis for his dislike is in reference to the WHOLE SERIES of cartoons, and not just the particular one where the Jewish kid says he is Palestinian. |
|
I Don't See Any Difference Between These two |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Mar 2002
|
Sharon: One Palestinian, One Bullet
Majdur: One Zionist, One Bullet
It is a fool's errand to believe that there is any military solution to the problems in Palestine/Israel. Sure, removal of the people involved would solve the problem, but this is only likely to occur in a cataclysmic battle where both sides essentially kill each other off with attitudes like that from Free Palestine and Sharon. I know there are some fundamentalist Christians who look forward to just such event, but any rational human must reject such madness. |
|
Cool document |
by saul
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Mar 2002
|
|
The Antisemitic turned from Europe in his arabic asylum. But first the palestinian kids have to learn how to write nazisymbols, its mirror-image +GGGG+ |
|
ML - just admit the truth |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Mar 2002
|
"I have to wonder at the level of reading comprehension among the critics of the letter. This comment is yet another example of this troubling lack of political and social sophistication."
I have to wonder at the smokescreen of self glorifying intellect you wrap around yourself.
The letter kissed ass - It directly condemned Latuff, and pandered to the ADkH - It was an embarrassment to many imc activists. It's rather obvious.
"The letter solely addressed the right of the Swiss IMC to decide on and practice their own editorial policy."
BULLSHIT - More of the letter is spent condemning Latuff, and pandering to ADkH, than in supporting IMC-Swiss.
" Among the editorial policies that we supported was the Swiss IMC decision to allow Latuff's controversial cartoons to stay on Swiss IMC, which is what led to their ongoing closure. Yet Latuff chose to attack us. The dude is shallow, politically naive, over-simplistic (but cartoons often are), and fixated on his own ego, but we still thought that the Swiss IMC decision to allow the cartoons to stay and be open to criticsm (or support) was the correct one. The letter does not take a position on the disputes in the Middle East, but this important fact somehow escapes our critics, who somehow expect that we should take such a position, just as Latuff expected the letter to support HIM, rather than the Swiss IMC."
Latuff told the truth and very aptly captured the spirit of the letter in his follow-up cartoon, but rather than face it and accept it, you choose instead to attack him personally, and you go on to desparage his character by calling him shallow and egotistical - This is the same attitude first expressed in the letter, and now made even more clear.
Addressing the state of denial of much of the American public starts with us being willing to face the truth and not grip to denial, even when it is embarrassing to us personally.
Just admit the letter was a blunder and move on, otherwise you yourself are perpetrating the same pattern of denial. |
|
