[Imc-uk-features] From Gilad Atzmon on the debate you are having

[mish]

Hello all

I'm following this debate with interest.  I'm tending towards supporting
yossarian on this particular article, though I've argued the other way
before.

> First off I'm sorry that I haven't read all the material
> that this discussion has referenced... yet...  

I can't say I have the time to read it all either ...  And I don't think
we should all spend lots of our limited activist time reading all of it.

> On Sat 03-Nov-2007 at 02:39:52PM +0100, mary rizzo wrote:
>> Yossarian is quoting me saying:
>>
>> III)  "America is about to lose its sovereignty...After
>> so many years of Independence, the United States of
>> America is becoming a remote colony of an apparently far
>> greater state, the Jewish state."
>>
>> Gilad: Indeed, becoming an Israeli mission force
>> fighting some idiotic neocon wars against Iraq, Syria
>> and Iran serves Israeli interest only.  Unless you,
>> Yossarian, can suggest otherwise.

"serves Israeli interest only"!!!  Hardly - Chris describes one
motivation far more plausible than purely Israeli interests.

> I think otherwise, I think that the primary motivation for
> the imperial genocide in the Middle East is the oil [1] in
> the face of imminent or already passed [2] Peak Oil.

and there are plenty in the US (and UK) military industrial complex who
argued (at least before the invasion) that it was in their interest.  Of
course Israel would figure in the calculations, but it would not even be
the prime consideration, let alone the sole one.

I also dislike the fine lines in the terminology Atzmon uses.  Using
"Jewish" as the term (or "Jewish political identity") is not going to be
clear in general, and does lead to being quoted by anti-semites, not to
mention playing into the hands of the pro-israeli government lobby being
able to shout "anti-semite".

> I just wanted to address one aspect of this debate --
> should all articles that suggest that US foreign policy is
> strongly influenced or determined by Israel be hidden?

Of course not.  I think that is one point that is likely to get
consensus.  But that is only of limited relevance in this particular debate.

As to how to move forward on this, I think it would be good to have some
solid proposals for general guidelines around this topic.  It may not
stop there being some borderline posts for us to argue about, but I
think it would often help.  Some specific points we may want to address
in proposals would be

* do we agree that there should be blanket bans on some posters (eg BNP)
or should every post be considered on its merits?

* should we demand that posts concerning the influence of the pro
israeli government lobby in the US not use particular language?  If so
what are the terms objected to?  "Jewish lobby"  "Zionism" ...

I imagine those who have spent more time than me looking at this issue
would be able to come up with more specific points than that.

On the subject of FTP's block, my understanding is that if a block is
made then all sides should make an effort to find a position that all
can agree on.  I think it would be very useful for FTP and yoss to meet
and discuss these issues.

They obviously do not have the power to decide this for imc uk, but a
focussed discussion by key people in a dispute can cover ground much
faster than an email conversation.

I would expect that the conversation would come back to this list, but
there might be proposals from that conversation which would move on the
conversation on this list.  And it would still go to the network
meeting, but the more work done in advance, the better.

That's enough for now I think ...
mish