(cifwatch) Though I’ll likely never personally be rich enough to be characterized as a ‘wealthy Jewish donor’, according to Rachel Shabi I evidently have what it takes to be a “superiority-complex” racist Jew.
Shabi’s latest piece, Mitt Romney’s ‘insult the world’ tour excels on picking on the Palestinians, included this strap line:
Shabi suggests that Mitt Romney was inspired by the desire to please rich, racist Jews in suggesting that culture partly explains Israeli success and that underdevelopment in the PA may have something to do with cultural and political mores.
Indeed, per Shabi, Jews are responsible both for Palestinian failures and Mitt Romney’s racism.
Here are the choice quotes from Shabi’s piece:
On Jewish donors/Jewish racism
“Over a £16,000-a-plate campaign fundraiser breakfast with Jewish donors in Jerusalem, Romney aired his deep thoughts on “the dramatic, stark difference in economic vitality” between the Palestinian and Israeli economies. These thoughts were obtained by reading books, he prefixed, before surmising that Israeli accomplishments were down to “at least culture and a few other things” – oh, and also, “the hand of providence”. So Romney thinks that Palestinians are screwed because Israelis have a better culture…
The presidential hopeful doubtless believes this standard-issue, superiority-complex racism – and that it’s what his donors want to hear.” [emphasis added]
Palestinians not to blame for social/economic failures
“Perhaps, when the Republican visitor noted that Palestinians were stumped by “a few other things” he was just using internationally recognised shorthand?
Maybe he’s parsing for “things” like the checkpoints, barriers and roadblocks that thwart movement of Palestinians and products – and thereby railroad any attempts to revive an economy.”
“In addition to those books, Romney could read any number of reports about Gaza, including from the IMF and the World Bank, which state that its crippled economy is down to Israel’s five-year blockade.”
Israeli success is not based on merit
“And he couldn’t possibly have referenced “things” without it also alluding to America’s generous aid package to Israel, the largest annual recipient of US financial assistance and whose military aid was upped just prior to Romney’s visit.”
Yes, of course, the ‘root cause’ of Israel’s security measures are clearly not related to the violent intifada which claimed over 1100 Israeli lives and maimed thousands more, but rather the hideous spite of a chosen people’s might.
The clearly ‘supremacist’ idea that Jewish culture may imbue the state with certain advantages must be defeated.
Israel’s international advantages in biotech start-ups, the percentage of its citizens with university education, the number of patents per person and scientific papers per capita – as with its democratic institutions which have weathered every political and military storm for over 64 years – are clearly connected to the largess of the indulgent West.
Israel didn’t build it.
We simply must not hold the terrorist group which Palestinians voted into office even minimally responsible for the situation in Gaza. The ‘H Word’ must never be uttered. Such a simple-minded causation – between Hamas’ firing of Iranian imported rockets into Israel and the blockade – must be denied at all costs.
The deluded few which suggest that culture matters – those of us so intellectually impoverished – must invariably possess a distorted understanding of what the word “racism” means.
Those of us not endowed with a piercing intellect have misguidedly assumed that the term denotes the belief that some people are inherently or biologically inferior. Consequently, nothing they do can alter their inevitable backwardness – culture being malleable, while biology is not.
Shabi demonstrates that only the Semitic 1% haughtily insist on the role culture has played in Jewish survival (and success) throughout history, and the deleterious effects on Palestinians by theirs.
Similarly, our false consciousness prevents us from granting Palestinians – the recipient of more than $2 billion per year from the international community – a moral pass, a furlough from critical scrutiny.
The extreme ‘right’ thoughts which haunt our political imagination must be what give rise to our outrage over the PA’s incitement and crude antisemitic hate advanced in their mosques, state-controlled media and schools.
And, it certainly has to be our reactionary values which inform a stubborn insistence that those who advocate for ‘Palestine’ should also demand that the PA create genuinely democratic institutions, a free press and independent judiciary; that Palestinians take steps to improve their human rights record towards women, gays and religious minorities.
Overall, our supreme political pathos quite chillingly expects the same moral performance from Palestinians as they do of Israeli Jews.
Isn’t it clear?
We ‘superiority-complex’, racist Jews truly possess crazy and dangerous ideas!
(The PJ Tatler) Anti-Semitism is included in the codebook as a subgroup for both the “racist” and “extreme right-wing” categories, but it is missing as a subgroup for the extreme left-wing. Because after all, it’s not like extreme left-wing groups like the Center for American Progress revel in their anti-Semitism, right?
The extreme far-right is composed of groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty. (Emphasis added)
If you’re fiercely nationalistic (pro-American), anti-global (anti-UN), suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the Framers), reverent of individual liberty (like Patrick Henry), and believe in “conspiracy” theories (like the federal government allowing the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify limiting American’s rights under the Second Amendment, a la Fast and Furious), then according to these taxpayer-funded researchers, you too are on the “extreme right-wing.” Many Americans would be surprised to find themselves so categorized by the researchers at START.
It should be no surprise that two subgroups identified in the codebook under “extreme right-wing” include “gun rights” and “tax protest.” Tea Party terrorists, anyone?
Again, this raises the question: who gets to categorize the data?
Reading through the study, some baffling issues arose. In Table 4 (p. 22), titled “Hot Spots of Religious Terrorism by Decade”, three “hot spot” areas — Los Angeles, Manhattan, and Wasco, Oregon (former home of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) — are identified: But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year-old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life?
And then there was the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles Airport El Al counter by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet that killed two and wounded four others. The FBI and Justice Department concluded that the attack was a terrorist attack by an Egyptian assailant bent on becoming a Muslim martyr.
These are reflected nowhere in the study. Perhaps, like the 2009 Fort Hood massacre by Major Nidal Hasan, who gunned down his U.S. Army colleagues while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” these incidents are considered acts of “workplace violence” and not religious terrorism?
Have these incidents been redefined to prevent facts from conflicting with an agenda-driven narrative? Or have these data points been excluded altogether?
didn’t have any alarm bells ring when you voted for a guy who lied about his background?
this would probably not of convinced me that Shalit should of been traded for, but it is important to have… at the very least it would help me spell some of these guy’s names consistently.