[lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia

[Liza Featherstone]

I actually think "Saudi" money is OK, just as it's OK to talk about U.S. or
Israeli or British or French money. And we do talk about U.S. money: the US
money in Israel sustaining the occupation, etc. The reason the term "Jewish
money" creeps us out -- and it should -- is because "Jews" qua Jews are not
a nationality or government or any kind of body from whom "money" can
reasonably said to originate. Jews cannot as a body write a check.  Some
Jews as individuals send money to pro-Israeli groups, others send money to
anti-war groups, or subscribe to LBO. To talk about "Jewish money"
substitutes a racist cliche for analysis, as we all agree. Inasmuch as talk
about "Saudi" money is similarly not always about the government, it risks a
similar racism, but  when we make clear we are talking about the Saudi
elites, who effectively do run the country, I think it is acceptable. I
think Moore in his film did do that, especially with the shots of Bush
senior cavorting with the Saudi ruling class. There the message was not,
look, he's hanging out with these weird scary Arabs, but rather, look how
comfortable he is with other rich people, regardless of apparent cultural
barriers. Unlike Clinton, Bush I was not a guy was often shown relaxing and
kicking back with people very different from himself, so the image is
striking, making you think, oh, maybe they are not so different: perhaps
globally, the ruling class is his "base" rather than the American people who
voted for him.

Liza


> From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:15:38 -0400
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia
> 
> On Jul 11, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> 
>> You are completely missing my point here.  I'm saying that, *just as
>> it is not acceptable to speaks of "Jewish money,"* it is *not*
>> acceptable to speak of "Saudi money," and that, while leftists
>> *correctly* recognize and criticize the former problem, many of them
>> are evidently *incapable of recognizing the latter problem,* let alone
>> criticizing it, as your replies to me demonstrate.
> 
> Well, I'm glad to hear that you do not think that "Jewish money" is an
> acceptable term, and I agree that "Saudi money" would not be either. (I
> think that when people do use that term, they use it as a sort of
> sloppy short-hand for "money from the Saudi royal family and other
> wealthy Saudis," who presumably could be specified as individuals, so
> it is not a calumny on the whole country.)
> 
> I have another theory, different from yours, about why Moore put so
> much about Saudis and not about Israel in his film. But I still think
> that the question of why he put certain things in his film and not
> others is not one that we can profitably speculate about without any
> input from the man himself. What people who are curious about that need
> to do is to ask Moore himself, or an authorized representative of him.
> But I imagine they are a bit too busy these days to answer promptly.
> :-)
> 
> If anyone wants to put out a hard-hitting doc on Israel's role in world
> affairs, and I think the subject is important enough to justify a film
> on that specific topic, they are quite free to do so. There have been
> any number of them produced and distributed in this country over the
> years, as well as numerous books,'zine articles, web sites, etc., etc.
> I don't think there is any Jewish cabal, monied or not, that has the
> power to prevent the U.S. public from hearing about the faults of the
> Israeli government. Indeed, as many people have pointed out, there are
> quite a few Jewish individuals, or persons of Jewish heritage, who are
> strongly critical of the Israeli government, starting with the Chomster
> himself. So where is the censorship?
> 
> Of course, it's always been true that people with money, whatever their
> ethnic background, have been able to influence what the public sees and
> reads to an inordinate extent: "the press is free to those who can
> afford to buy one," as the old saying goes. But this saying is less and
> less true these days. The article in yesterday's NY Times Magazine,
> "How to Make a Guerrilla Documentary," discusses Robert Greenwald's
> upcoming "Outfoxed," as well as his film "Uncovered" about Iraq. The
> latter is coming out next month in theaters, in an expanded version,
> according to the Times story, so it will provide the 2nd punch of a
> "1-2 punch," after F911. The method Greenwald has been using --
> distributing films as DVDs through left-wing periodicals and orgs like
> MoveOn, and then in theaters if the demand builds enough -- is one way
> of getting around the "press is free if you can buy one" obstacle which
> will probably be used more and more in the future.
> 
> 
> Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
> __________________________________
> When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit,
> 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet;
> Nor ever ever shall, until that I die,
> For the longer I live the more fool am I.
> -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk