|
Post by hollister on Oct 10, 2006 17:03:20 GMT -7
Does anyone else find this disturbing? In N.Y., Sparks Fly Over Israel Criticism Polish Consulate Says Jewish Groups Called To Oppose Historian By Michael Powell Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 9, 2006; Page A03 NEW YORK -- Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate here last week, saying the academic was too critical of Israel and American Jewry. The historian, Tony Judt, is Jewish and directs New York University's Remarque Institute, which promotes the study of Europe. Judt was scheduled to talk Oct. 4 to a nonprofit organization that rents space from the consulate. Judt's subject was the Israel lobby in the United States, and he planned to argue that this lobby has often stifled honest debate. If you want to read the full article it is at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800817.html
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 10, 2006 18:32:29 GMT -7
Mr. Toney Judt being of a some what controversial at times writer. He is very good. But it would so seem, not too smart in the game of politics. It is all about positioning/real and or alleged power. In government, this how the game is the reality of life, that and funding. With out a foundation of positioning, then funding is not a reality. One next to this fatal mistake, was that of agreeing to present his talk at an Consulate building, rather it be the Polish Consulate or which ever,it is the same. What ever is presented on or in Consulate grounds, reflects upon the national prestige of the grounds of national representation. The final professional mistake of Mr. Judt, was his ignorance or disregarding of the actual and real power of the Israeli Lobby groups. These people are well funded and very powerful. There was some time back, a report written that out lines this power base, and Mr. Judt apparently had not read the report,or disregarded the report. It is titled: {Jewish Control of U.S. Foreign Policy} it is rather lengthy, but very well written by that of: Mearsheimer-Walt. It is on a pdf file, I do trust this will not cause difficulties for accessing. johnmearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdfCharles
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Oct 11, 2006 0:45:42 GMT -7
Hollister, I think the problem is totally intra-American. It iwould be difficult to understand why the Polish consulate gets between the devil and the deep blue see, engaging into the hot argument among the Americans by the simple 'renting space' to the organisation that invited the speaker. Without getting into the argument who is and who isn't entitled to speak freely in the US I think that I have to agree with the following fragment of the article.
>David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Congress: "The message of that evening was going to be entirely contrary to the entire spirit of Polish foreign policy."<
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 11, 2006 12:11:16 GMT -7
Hollister, I think the problem is totally intra-American. It iwould be difficult to understand why the Polish consulate gets between the devil and the deep blue see, engaging into the hot argument among the Americans by the simple 'renting space' to the organisation that invited the speaker. Without getting into the argument who is and who isn't entitled to speak freely in the US I think that I have to agree with the following fragment of the article. >David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Congress: "The message of that evening was going to be entirely contrary to the entire spirit of Polish foreign policy."< bujno I do agree with you for as basicly you have paraphrased my remarks. What I disagree with though, is with the actions of the Polish Consulate officer, and also that of the non-actions of Mr. Tony Judt. Both buckled under with out a murmur. For one thing, The Polish Consulate officer had only to within his official duties, to refer the matter to the non-profit organization written agreement of rental of space in the Consulate {Polish} building. For within the agreement will be specific written agreement of non-alliance, {waiver of liablity and hold harmless agreement} of any meeting held within the rental space as being of non-alignment/interest to or of the Polish Government. For in that written rental agreement will be all rules and expected behaviour of that of the users of said room. And all expenses required for maintenance of the rental space to be Bourne by the responsible party of the rental agreement. But, this was not done. For Mr. Judt had/has at his disposal a very large number of protections to his benefit. And these were not used. For one protective benefit, Mr. Judt, once on/in the confines of the Polish Consulate, was under the responsibility and protection of the Polish Government, for that piece of property is Polish Sovereignty. If invaded by uninvited person/s it could and should be considered an invasion of Poland. The other safe guard ignored by Mr. Judt is this: The American Constitution {Bill of Rights}. The first amendment is: Freedom of speech. This was totally ignored. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Text_of_the_Bill_of_RightsOne of the primary prerequisites of government: You never take any thing on face value. Perhaps I am in the wrong book and on the wrong page on this. But, I do not think so. On my previous post reply was mention of the {Mearsheimer-Walt report in the pdf format {sorry, was unable to provide out side of that format} For this would have given the foundation of this situation and reason of occurring. But to simply pass this off as {intra-American} situation is diffently not a viable programme. Perhaps I come from an alien foreign culture that is not of this civilized world, but, I do not believe that. If as a people, to compete in this world and keep your right of choice, you must be willing to fight for it. In the world of business {government} intelligence is the manner of knowledge and use of the weapons available to be used, and that is local/regional/federal and the constitution that is the foundation of law in most industrial nations in the known world. In summation, I think the Polish Government was wrong {by virtue of the Consulate Officer in Charge} I think the non-profit organization that arranged in the first place for Mr. Judt to speak was wrong in not defending their right to offer this service. I think that Mr. Judt was wrong by not defending his free choice of speech that is guaranteed to him by the constitution of the nation he resides in. This is not just a German speaking, this is what all free men and women must speak out for protection of their rights. Because, it would take not, but a little, to lose those rights and become a number within each respective government. Charles
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Oct 11, 2006 12:27:56 GMT -7
>David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Congress: "The message of that evening was going to be entirely contrary to the entire spirit of Polish foreign policy."< I probably am going to regret this but.... Bunjo, I appreciate you comments but I have to ask - since when does the AMERICAN Jewish Congress get to define Polish foreign policy? And Charles - I do not think the last chapter on this has been written yet - people in Higher Education are concerned about what happened. I am not sure how talk came to be scheduled at the Polish Consulate - that may be an interesting story in itself - or it may be that the Consulate often hosts public lectures as a sort of community service - if this is the case - then as you point out - the talk was not "out of place." If the talk was scheduled in this particular venue for some type of POLITICAL impact - then shame on the organizers for poking the bear! As the Mearsheimer-Walt report you cite quotes Judt - I suspect that Judt is/was fully aware of the report. I offer this counter scenario to the one you propose - that Judt knew that his discussion may cause some criticism and wanted to use that potential criticism to open up a dialog about this very issue in a wider venue rather than just among academics. I think it may be too soon to condemn Judt for "not defending his free choice of speech that is guaranteed to him by the constitution of the nation he reside(s in)" After all, what should he have done? Gone to a street corner and held his talk AFTER it had been canceled and people notified of the cancellation? I think he is DOING something - the story is being discussed - CAREFULLY discussed but discussed nonetheless. I have to say I do not have a dog in this fight between Judt and the Jewish American Congress et al - but I am a proponent of the free exchange of ideas and that is my concern here.
|
|
scatts
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 812
|
Post by scatts on Oct 11, 2006 13:08:37 GMT -7
Holly, to answer your question, yes, I do find it disturbing. However, no more disturbing than all the other manipulation that goes on in the name of protecting the rights/interests/name/memory/whatever of jews worldwide.
It worries me most because I can't say what I really think about it all for fear of being branded a jew hater, which is very far from the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 11, 2006 13:35:38 GMT -7
Hollie
I am very relieved of your post response to that of mine. For one thing, I do have a tendecy to go to fast and too hard, I do not mean any harm to any one, it is just my nature {I am one of those with a internal engine that is always in full power mode}
I do trust that you are correct as to this situation. I just hate abuse from any dictating group.
well, as you have said, there is a continuing chapter on this {I truly hope so}.
With Respekt to all
Charles
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 11, 2006 14:17:16 GMT -7
scatts Please not to be concerned, for I as a person am completely confident that you are not a Jew hater, and this for sure under the blue skies of our heavens. But, if you have an opinion, either it be negative, or might it be positive, now is the time to stand up and be counted,,,by all means. For one, I would be very interested in hearing your view point in consideration of this matter... For with your input, adds to the whole for the benefit for others to think of. For we are all influenced by the thoughts of others, rather it be negative, or rather it be as a positive. But, the primary thing, is it is a freely given opinion or fact of matter. So Scatts: shoot me or let me live... Charles
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Oct 11, 2006 14:51:39 GMT -7
Tony Judt is an insightful historian, well-know to the Polish reader as he has numerous texts published in our media. Some in Poland agree with his theses, others don’t. I am one of those who are opposing some of his ideas which I read as proposing the dis-intergration of the Israel state, and I am not an exception in this way of reading his writings. Polish governement’s attitude towards Israel is that this is a sovereign and fully democratic state and an ally of Poland. Those are the facts. Now, the represenative of American Jewish Congress, according to Washington Post has expressed an opinion that when the lecture would have taken place „The message of that evening was going to be entirely contrary to the entire spirit of Polish foreign policy.". I don’t read that as defining Polish foreign policy, rather as presenting, summarizing it on the matter of the exsistance of Israel. And it is with that interpretation that I agree.
Polish foreign policy is defined in Poland. Please try to differentiate Polish policy towards Israel and Polish policy towards different groups of people or organizations based on ethnical and national grounds. These are not equal. Some of such organizations – Germans in Germany and Jewish Americans in US – want to make a profit out of Polish come-back to the free-world. That free-world Poland re-entered just 17 years ago is not a paradise of angels, there’re a lot of the devils, some of them in perfect disguise of the friends, free to act as it is a free-world. So, it is not a very easy game we still have to go through. But, as you know, Poland is making her’s way through, including her’s consulates.
So, I still stick to my point of view – the problem is entirely American, if disturbing than to Americans, and Poland should not get involved in the American controversies. And the controversy is in the US (for example - in this same article, Judt complains that he was forced to cancel another speech at Manhattan College in the Bronx). I don’t expect and wouldn’t like Polish consulate to get involved in the American internal matters and be used in the fight between the lobbies.
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Oct 11, 2006 16:07:42 GMT -7
Guys, the Polish consulate acted in accordance with the USA Bill of Rights and the development of democracy in Poland. Criticizing Israel is not anti-semitism. Israel, Palestine, various Arab countries and Iran are presently making deals behind the scenes. Note how quiet it is in the Mideast lately. Carl
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Oct 11, 2006 16:37:05 GMT -7
I just want it to be clear that my whole intent in posting the article was the fact that the talk was canceled over suspected outside influence's concerns that they may not agree with what was being discussed by an individual - the fact that it the speech was to be given in the Polish consulate was just the "hook" to post it here on the Polish forum. I fully appreciate that the Polish Consulate was put into a very difficult situation and a very difficult decision had to be made - and from what I can tell from the article - they made it with grace and diplomacy. I also think they were right in removing themselves from being in the middle of the disagreement.
I have a thing about academic freedom.... and my concern is that special interest groups whatever and whomever they may be have too much influence in shaping national (and yes international discourse).
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 11, 2006 17:04:15 GMT -7
Tony Judt is an insightful historian, well-know to the Polish reader as he has numerous texts published in our media. Some in Poland agree with his theses, others don’t. I am one of those who are opposing some of his ideas which I read as proposing the dis-intergration of the Israel state, and I am not an exception in this way of reading his writings. Polish governement’s attitude towards Israel is that this is a sovereign and fully democratic state and an ally of Poland. Those are the facts. Now, the represenative of American Jewish Congress, according to Washington Post has expressed an opinion that when the lecture would have taken place „The message of that evening was going to be entirely contrary to the entire spirit of Polish foreign policy.". I don’t read that as defining Polish foreign policy, rather as presenting, summarizing it on the matter of the exsistance of Israel. And it is with that interpretation that I agree. Polish foreign policy is defined in Poland. Please try to differentiate Polish policy towards Israel and Polish policy towards different groups of people or organizations based on ethnical and national grounds. These are not equal. Some of such organizations – Germans in Germany and Jewish Americans in US – want to make a profit out of Polish come-back to the free-world. That free-world Poland re-entered just 17 years ago is not a paradise of angels, there’re a lot of the devils, some of them in perfect disguise of the friends, free to act as it is a free-world. So, it is not a very easy game we still have to go through. But, as you know, Poland is making her’s way through, including her’s consulates. So, I still stick to my point of view – the problem is entirely American, if disturbing than to Americans, and Poland should not get involved in the American controversies. And the controversy is in the US (for example - in this same article, Judt complains that he was forced to cancel another speech at Manhattan College in the Bronx). I don’t expect and wouldn’t like Polish consulate to get involved in the American internal matters and be used in the fight between the lobbies. Bujno I have completed 3 readings of your post, and I am still at a loss, yes. To place this into proper context of the presented ential presentation of The Washington Post. The opening statement was as follows: {Two Major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University Historian from speaking at the Polish consulant have last week, saying the academic was to critical of Israel and American Jewry} That was it, the remainder was boiler plate. The only connection to this, was it was to be held at the Polish Consulate. I have no issue with what you have proposed, or of the Israelie and or of the Polish Consulate. My issue is taking this out of context. Are you not becoming some what overly dramatic and defensive in concerns to the Nationality of Poland? This is only a reported story from an American news agency sourced in a majour city in the USA, nothing more or less. The primary concern is of the personal rights that were violated in the light of the American constitution of freedom of speech. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps I am missing some thing here, for I find no refereance of Polish Foreign Policy or for that matter any referance to Poland other then the speech was to be held by a non-profit organization in a rented space at the Polish Consulate. Charles
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Oct 11, 2006 17:18:46 GMT -7
I just want it to be clear that my whole intent in posting the article was the fact that the talk was canceled over suspected outside influence's concerns that they may not agree with what was being discussed by an individual - the fact that it the speech was to be given in the Polish consulate was just the "hook" to post it here on the Polish forum. I fully appreciate that the Polish Consulate was put into a very difficult situation and a very difficult decision had to be made - and from what I can tell from the article - they made it with grace and diplomacy. I also think they were right in removing themselves from being in the middle of the disagreement. I have a thing about academic freedom.... and my concern is that special interest groups whatever and whomever they may be have too much influence in shaping national (and yes international discourse). Hollie You are doing just fine, yes? Worry not for what you have presented in good faith, we here are all of a learnt group and it is good to have a spirited discussion, for within the content of discourse of each, we learn a good deal of the other. And as such, we build with knowledge as a foundation of understanding. Just keep the faith and know the word, for the word is knowledge. Charles
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Oct 12, 2006 21:52:54 GMT -7
Evidently Canada is also a place where no question of Israel's policies is alowed. I suppose the only safe place in teh world to criticize any Isralie activity is in Israel itself. There, I suspect, it is taken as a topic of conversation and not anti-semitism! from canada: www.cbc.ca/Liberal contenders slam Harper for 'anti-Israeli' accusation Last Updated: Thursday, October 12, 2006 | 3:54 PM ET CBC News Liberal leadership candidates angrily denied and denounced an accusation by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that most of the contenders for the party's top job were "anti-Israeli." Harper made the remark in response to Michael Ignatieff's recent comments that the Israeli air strike in Qana during the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict was a war crime. "Well, that's a serious charge," Stephen Harper said when asked by a reporter about Ignatieff's stance. "As you know, I don't support that view. "Frankly, I think, though, this is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually all of the candidates for the Liberal leadership. And I don't think it's helpful or useful." Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae slammed Harper for the "shameful" comment and demanded an apology. "I think what he said was disgraceful," Rae said. "I think to suggest that there is a pro-Israel party in Canada and there's an anti-Israel party in Canada is something of which he should be thoroughly ashamed." Ignatieff said in statement that it was "disgraceful" for Harper to play "crass politics with the issue of the Middle East." "Frankly, it is beneath him and his office to do so." Asked by CBC News about Harper's accusation, Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy said he shouldn't have to dignify the prime minister's remarks with a response. But he added that he's on the record for supporting Israel and being a friend of the state. "Mr. Harper really diminished his post of prime minister by being so unstatesmanlike," Kennedy said. Leadership candidate Stéphane Dion said he was "insulted" by Harper's criticism. "I think it's not prime ministerial," Dion told CBC News. "The prime minister is dividing communities, dividing the nation for clearly partisan purposes." An attempt to clarify The controversy was sparked by Ignatieff, who was trying to clarify previous controversial remarks about Qana on a Radio-Canada program, Tout le monde en parle. In August, after the air strike that killed more than two dozen people, Ignatieff told the Toronto Star that civilian deaths were inevitable in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. "This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that," he said. Ignatieff soon expressed regret over those remarks and on Sunday sought to explain what he should have said. "I was a professor of human rights and I am also a professor of the laws of war and what happened in Qana was a war crime and I should have said that," he said. Ignatieff's recent comments have drawn criticism from a number of Jewish organizations. His Toronto campaign co-chair also withdrew her support. Israel has apologized for the air strike, saying army officials did not know civilians were in the area. Israeli officials said the neighbourhood was targeted based on intelligence that Hezbollah fighters had used it to launch rockets at northern Israel. During the conflict, Harper came under criticism by some for firmly supporting Israel in its battle with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Two weeks ago at La Francophonie summit, Harper opposed a proposed resolution recognizing the suffering of only the people of Lebanon in the conflict.
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Oct 15, 2006 10:11:08 GMT -7
No one is a Jew-hater on this forum. Criticism is not hate. Carl
|
|