> "Conspiracy theories about Jews abound."
> "Chip Berlet unpacks their appeal."
Is the latter a true statement, that Berlet "unpacks their appeal," or rather, does he throw fuel on the fire?
Pugliese refers us to the homepage of the New Internationalist:
(at: <URL: http://www.newint.org/>)
In a brief paragraph, summarizing the current edition of the New Internationalist, at the very address
(at: <http://www.newint.org/>),
to which Pugliese has referred us,
and, which brief paragraph also appears on a different N.I. page, entitled,
"What's New?"
(at: <http://www.newint.org/whatsnew.html>)
both of which, reference the title (and the subject) of their current edition,
on "Judeophobia: The scourge of antisemitism,"
NI's caption, in the brief paragraph, promoting the current issue, posits a sequence of four rhetorical questions... spelled out, verbatim, exactly as follows:
1. "Is there a resurgence in antisemitism?"
2. "Are Jews becoming more vulnerable to violent attacks and
hate crimes?"
3. "Is there a 'New Antisemitism' or is it just age-old Jew
hatred?"
4. "Is anti-Zionism antisemitism?"
The question for Berlet (and/or for Pugliese) is, where did you hide your discussion of the fourth question posed in the hype?
namely:
"Is anti-Zionism antisemitism?"
Ostensibly, the questions were posed to strike an appeal, for those who'd be drawn to, and who would then seek, if not actual answers to the questions, as posed, then at least some discussion of those questions, which the hype had put forth.
But the discussion, in fact, as billed by the hype, specifically, of the fourth question posed,
"Is anti-Zionism antisemitism?"
is nowhere, in fact, to be found.
The reader, seeking illumination as to this question, is then left to wonder, why was this question included, as part of the hype, and to promote the publication, and attract readers to it, on the basis of this title, on
"Judeophobia: The scourge of antisemitism,"
if (in fact) the discussion, as advertised, cannot be found because, pure and simple, it just isn't there?
Was there no intention to, so much as acknowledge, that Berlet (or his editors) had posed these four questions, to (literally) begin with?
Some might surmise, that this failure was but, a mere oversight, on the part of Berlet and/or his editors at the New Internationalist.
Yet, absent discussion of the question, as advertised, readers are left to infer, that, either Berlet, Pugliese, or the editors of the journal (or all the above), have now exposed themselves, to the full light of day, and now have been caught in the act of false advertising; which is to say, a shameless attempt at "pulling the wool over the eyes" of the unsuspcting?
So, how 'bout it, Chip?
As you yourself put it, "Inquiring minds want to know?"
Where, oh where, is your discussion of the question, as advertised,
"Is anti-Zionism antisemitism?"
Where (and why?) are you hiding the discussion, of the question, as advertised, that you (or your editors at the New Internationalist) had posed in the hype, and for what John Bizwas has (so delicately) phrased, as your "dreck" on the specified topic, of
"Judeophobia: The scourge of antisemitism,"
if, in fact, you take pains to avoid your own question, to wit:
"Is anti-Zionism antisemitism"?
Do you mean by anti-semitism, any and all expressions of anti-zionism?
Once upon a time, not too long ago (10/24/02), and on this very list, you asked,
"Does this make me an ardent anti-imperialist, or a... lackey of US imperialism?
And then, you wrote that,
"...Inquiring minds want to know."
Well, what "...inquiring minds want to know" in this instance, "Chip," are your answers to not only the questions as posed, if not by yourself, then on your behalf (if not your behest) to promote your thesis, on "Judeophobia,"
not only the question,
"Is anti-Zionism antisemitism"?
but also, since you yourself, have now let the proverbial "cat out of the bag," the follow-up questions, pour forth:
Are the terms, 'Anti-Zionism' and 'Anti-Semitism,' by your analysis, synonymous, and interchangeable?
Are all expressions of Anti-Zionism (by your definition) Anti-Semitic?
And again, as you yourself put it,
"...Inquiring minds want to know."
Are there any discussions of Anti-Zionism, which you don't regard (and haven't demeaned) as "Anti-Semitic"?
Is there any discussion, as may be found on the site which you author and edit, or that of the New Internationalist, or (for that matter), anywhere else on the web and to which you'd provide us referral, where there's straightforward discussion, delineation, and distinction, between the two terms, 'Anti-Zionism' and 'Anti-Semitism'?
Whose articulation of *opposition to Zionism* have you not condemned, as Anti-Semitic? and which you've forthrightly described as valid and well-reasoned, but which you believe, is NOT Anti-Semitic?
Or as viewed from another angle, as the United Nations Conference on Racism, held in Durban, S.A. from August 31st 'til September 7th, of (yes...) 2001, framed the question (and here we shall paraphrase):
"Is not the real question, that of whether, "Zionism is (indeed) a (flagrant) Form of Racism"? and of "racial supremacy"?
Isn't the question, which (institutionally speaking) you've been evading, that of whether Zionism is (truly) a (rank) form of Racism? and one that views Jews to be, "God's Chosen People"?
Could the delegations of one hundred sixty-plus member states of the United Nations, who attended the Conference in Durban, all be wrong? or did you and (as Joseph Wanzala so delicately phrasee it), your ditto-heads, help lay the foundation and nourish the environment, for the pre-meditated, and staged, US/Israeli walkout and boycott, of the UN's "World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance?"
While on the subject of racism, I believe that... were the facts to be known, a good many list members would anxiously await your forthright disclosure, as to the institutional, structural, racial and class-based demographics of the "bedroom suburb," north of Boston, known as Burlington, Mass. But, for the moment at hand, we shall not digress, down that road, any further (just now).
All the above is bearing in mind, as you yourself put it,
that "...inquiring minds want to know."
******************************************************
("Chip") Berlet wrote:
> "The article was part of a larger package of articles in the current
> New Internationalist magazine that talks about how antisemitism is
> eroding the ability of the political left to take a moral highground
> when criticizing the policies of the Israeli government; and how the
> Israeli government uses the issue as "moral justification for its
> policies."
Joseph Wanzala wrote:
> "When all else fails, Pugliese resorts to fabrication."
and,
> "...a phenomenon which occurs chiefly in the mind[s] of Chip Berlet
> and his ditto-heads."
John Bizwas wrote:
> "Now spare us your googling[,] Pugliese[,] and do some discussion,
> or is that too dangerous for you?"
and,
> "...it's the left's fault for being anti-zionist? Where do you get
> this stuff?"
and,
> "Who pays you to sit down and shut off your brain and write such
> nonsense?"
to which ("Chip") Berlet then replied:
>> "The New Internationalist has a long history of supporting justice
>> for Palestinians and "peace in the Middle East. It has carried
>> articles about increasing bigotry against Arabs and Muslims."
John Bizwas wrote:
> "It's dreck, and it doesn't have [a] long enough history[,] to
> have a long history[,] doing anything.
>
> No wait, it's the NEW New Internationalist[,] as opposed to the
> OLD New Internationalist?"
("Chip") Berlet then retorted:
>> "It would have been nice if you had bothered to do a little
>> homework before posting your remarks."
to which, John Bizwas then replied:
> "It would be nice if you answered one question directed at you[,]
> or met one criticism[,] with something other than sounding like
> a primary school teacher[,] who lacks an education, let alone the
> motivation to do any homework. Answer the question I asked[,]
> of the 'authority' you cite. How does Israel rise above[,] the
> interests [which] this authority cites[,] as the real problem in
> US foreign policy? Saying it doesn't make it so."
John Bizwas continued,
> "Do you really think, as Fallujah lies in ruins, an Arab city,
> a Muslim city lies in ruins, that ANTI-SEMITISM is the problem?
> Do you really think.... that ANTI-SEMITISM is the problem?
> Do you really think anti-semitism is the main problem facing
> the left?"
Far and away, the two most poignant questions, which have been presented to ("Chip") Berlet by John Bizwas, and to which we're awaiting an honest response, are:
> Who pays you to sit down and shut off your brain and write
> such nonsense?"
and,
> "Are you even a leftist?"
To be revolutionary, or to be counter-revolutionary:
That is the question!
****************************************************
(Coming soon to a theatre near you: "Berlet for Beginners,"
produced by the Portland Free Press, and ghost of Ace Hayes.)