Teaching Stroube the secret Zionist handshake...

[Michael Rostonthe eminently practical]

Stroube wrote:

>you fundamentally misrepresent the overwhelming >disproportionate nature of zionist cultural
hegemony through >the media including academic debate and pernicious lexis->nexis. you
assume an even keel and then go on to all sorts 
>of hypothetical threat construction to justify censorship. 

Okay, so the accident of history that resulted in Jewish people in the United States becoming
unusually educated relative to other immigrant groups, resulting in our heavy presence
throughout academic debate, the media, etc., (though still in far smaller numbers than
everyone else given that we make up 3% of the US population as an ethnic group) means
that there is a Zionist effort to control all communications?

Damn it, this is just down right starting to offend me.  What I find remarkable about
Jack's posts is that he posts message after message from reasonable thinkers like Said,
Herman, and Arab media sources who refer to Zionism only in its historical context, and
very clearly steer themselves away from the usage of Zionist conspiracy language.  

And then Jack has to give the thing the name of "Zionist cultural hegemony" and other
assorted crap.

It seems as though last month there was a very brief effort to consider Jack's language
of 'Zionism' as offensive.  I only see it getting worse.  The thing about this Zionist
cultural hegemony is that it is not.  The number of Jews in American media, governance,
military circles, non-governmental organizations, etc.,  who support Israel as it presently
exists is heavily outnumbered by the number of non-Jews.  That's a fact that we can't
get around.  It's the folks who do business with Israeli firms, sell weapons to the Israeli
Defense Force, and so on.  The people who make these decisions are not exclusively Jews
who are part of some murky Zionist movement that posesses some sort of cultural hegemony.


If these people you're quoting can steer clear of this linguistic construction, why can't
you?

You're assault on CSIS is also misguided.  The Taylor Internship program is imperfect
in my eyes.  The fact that it goes only to one to three First-Round debaters seems unfair
to me.  Nonetheless I think that it's good that folks at CSIS are seeking to recruit people
in their operation who did not attend one of the feeder schools in Washington DC that
many of us DC-bound people have to compete with.  

Moreover, CSIS is not a monolith.  I beg you to demonstrate the direct connection in ideology
between Alex Lennon (who edits the Wash. Q.) and Dr. Taylor (distinguished alumni who
used to be a debate coach), i.e. the people responsible for the internship program, and
hawks like Anthony Cordesmann (in the Strategic Studies Program).  I don't think you can
find it, because CSIS is a non-monolithic entity filled with a remarkable number of differing
programs.  

For instance, while Cordesman is publishing his hawkish reports from his post-DOD perspective,
CSIS has a whole program devoted purely to the study of Islam as a political force.  Folks
like Shireen Hunter and Abdulaziz Sachedina provide a vastly different perspective on
affairs in the Arab world, the Persian Gulf, Asia, and so forth, seeing Islamic societies
in all of their differences, rather than seeing them as strategic bumps that need to be
smoothed out.  

>From what I understand, interns arriving at CSIS are given a variety of options of what
they'd like to work on.  It's not simply some process whereby debaters are socialized
toward evil.  

Maybe we need to get the pro-Israel throttle off of America's policy toward the peace
process.  I think that's true, but I think a lot of other people are saying that, too.
 An event hosted by my previous employer and several other organizations, (which can be
found here: http://www.mepc.org/forums/special/0106.htm)

had repeated references to the problem of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee
cutting off all debate and discussion about the extension of the Iran-Libya Sanctions
Act in Congress.  Rather than targetting an organization which is being kind enough to
employ a handful of post-undergrad college debaters, why don't you set up protests of
AIPAC recruiting on campus.  If you'd like to get a look at these activities, see http://www.aipac.org/campus.cfm


They're a lot more problematic than the demonization of Alex Lennon and a few people at
CSIS for their "Zionist cultural hegemony."  While imagining yourself as some sort of
giant-slayer, you're instead just going after a very small manifestation of a much larger
problem.  Rather than feel-good activism against an NGO you don't understand, fight for
the campagin finance reform that will end the throttle of organizations like AIPAC on
our national political life.

Michael Roston
-underneath all currents

"Self-determination should be a fact
not essentially a right."

                 -Stereolab



ProbeMail / http://www.probemail.com