Berlet!
You are the one playing by some strange indeed devious rules. I was not referring to the Vest article. I added the Jason Vest article as an additional *informational* reference about JINSA. I was clearly referring to the paragraph from the *JINSA* website as making Jewishness co-extensive with Israel. Learn to read.
Joe W.
____________
Wanzala!
The Jason Vest article in the Nation goes to elaborate lengths to NOT lead the reader to conclude (wrongly) that "'Jewish' and 'Israel' are ... co-extensive." He does exactly the OPPPOSITE of what you claim. The Vest article is not antisemitic. You simply can't tell the difference between a critique that IS antisemitic and a critique that is NOT antisemitic. Just as you appear unable to tell the difference between an article that uses fact-checking and logic and one that does not. This makes it almost impossible to enagage you in a serious discussion--you simply are playing with a different set of rules.
-Chip Berlet
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Wanzala [mailto:jwanzala at hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 12,
>2004 4:34 PM
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia
>
>
>How about JINSA, the "Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a
>non-profit, non-partisan educational organization committed to explaining
>the need for a prudent national security policy for the United States,
>addressing the security requirements of both the United States and the
>State of Israel, and strengthening the strategic cooperation relationship
>between these two great democracies." ? Here the term 'Jewish' and "Israel'
>are seen as co-extensive.
>http://www.jinsa.org/about/about.html
>http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
>
>From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia
>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:59:03 -0400
>
>Wanzala!
>
>The Jason Vest article in the Nation goes to elaborate lengths to NOT
>lead the reader to conclude (wrongly) that "'Jewish' and 'Israel' are
>... co-extensive." He does exactly the OPPPOSITE of what you claim. The
>Vest article is not antisemitic. You simply can't tell the difference
>between a critique that IS antisemitic and a critique that is NOT
>antisemitic. Just as you appear unable to tell the difference between an
>article that uses fact-checking and logic and one that does not. This
>makes it almost impossible to enagage you in a serious discussion--you
>simply are playing with a different set of rules.
>
>-Chip Berlet
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Wanzala [mailto:jwanzala at hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:34 PM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Double Standard: Israel and Saudi Arabia
> >
> >
> > How about JINSA, the "Jewish Institute for National Security
> > Affairs, a
> > non-profit, non-partisan educational organization committed
> > to explaining
> > the need for a prudent national security policy for the
> > United States,
> > addressing the security requirements of both the United
> > States and the State
> > of Israel, and strengthening the strategic cooperation
> > relationship between
> > these two great democracies." ? Here the term 'Jewish' and
> > "Israel' are seen
> > as co-extensive.
> > http://www.jinsa.org/about/about.html
> > http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
> >
> > As to the business of how confortable Bush is with other rich
> > people, in
> > contrast to Clinton, let's not forget that while Clinton
> > himself came from
> > humble beginnings, his cabinet was surpassed in its number of
> > millionares
> > only by the current Bush cabinet and most of Clinton's
> > closest non-white
> > consorts, other than the people in the photo ops, were
> > wealthy African
> > Americans like Vernon Jordan and Ron Brown.
> >
> > The portrayal of the Saudis in F911 was very problematic
> > indeed. ___________________________
> >
> > Liza Featherstone wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk