My last article concerned the supposed ‘anti-Semitism’ of Islam. As I said at the beginning of that article, sometimes it seems that one might be an ‘anti-Semite’ if he/she doesn’t like bagels. 😆 The word is used so loosely these days that it’s virtually meaningless.
However, there are some occasions when something one says or publishes does at least appear to be genuinely anti-Semitic – even though with further thought it may turn out that it was not actually so. Such a case came up in a recent discussion in the comments section of Loonwatch. I didn’t make any comments myself, because it actually has nothing to do with the topic of the article. However I feel that the subject of discussion in the comments is worthy of examination.
The article is a reposting of an article about Iran by Glenn Greenwald. In the comments section, someone asked when Iran last invaded another country. One of the Loonwatch staff replied that she had written to Richard Falk (emeritus Professor of International Law at Princeton University) to see if he could confirm her researched conclusion that it was 1795. Mr. Falk replied that he believed she was correct.
That should have been sufficient to answer that question; but one commenter objected that Richard Falk is an ‘anti-Semite’ and a ‘conspiracy theorist’ regarding the events of 9/11/2001 – so his input should not be accepted and used lest Loonwatch’s credibility be undermined. He gave some links to verify his accusations.
The ‘proof’ that Professor Falk is ‘anti-Semitic’ stems from a cartoon he published in an article (though there is also a link to an apology issued by Mr. Falk saying he had not been aware of the anti-Semitic nature of the cartoon when he published it – and he deleted the cartoon); so I went to one of the links to view this ‘anti-Semitic’ cartoon. I won’t repost the cartoon, because I do find it somewhat crude and vulgar; but I question whether it’s really ‘anti-Semitic’. However, here’s a link in case you want to view it. The first thing you’ll see is a letter objecting to the cartoon; but if you scroll down, you’ll find the cartoon itself.
I looked at the cartoon before reading the letter about it, and my immediate reaction was: “how is this ‘anti-Semitic’?” I saw a drawing of a rabid dog – chewing on human bones and with the letters “USA” on it – urinating on “Lady Liberty”. Now I could obviously see how someone might consider that ‘anti-American’ – though there are plenty of US citizens who would feel that’s quite an appropriate symbol of current US Government and its policies; but I simply couldn’t see how there was anything ‘anti-Semitic’ about it.
So I scrolled back up and read the letter of objection. The letter said that the dog was wearing the Jewish head covering known as a ‘Kipa’ which had the Star of David on it. So I looked at the cartoon again, and sure enough there it was. But it was not difficult to understand how Richard Falk may not have noticed that ‘Kipa’ and Star of David when he initially published the cartoon.
The question I have, though, is whether this is actually ‘anti-Semitic’, or is it rather ‘anti-Zionist’ or ‘anti-“Jewish State of Israel”’? The rabid dog with the letters USA on it is obviously meant to be anti-US Government; but it is not meant to be an attack on all US citizens (plainly, since Mr. Falk himself is a US citizen, and he knows that there are plenty of US citizens who agree with him in opposing US Government policies). Is this not also the case with the Jewish symbolism? Is it not clearly a symbolic statement of opposition to the Jewish Government of the Israeli State, and the way the USA is in ‘lockstep’ (as President Obama recently expressed it) with that Government? It is no more an attack on all Jews than the dog is an attack on all US citizens.
Nevertheless, Mr. Falk did acknowledge that the cartoon was anti-Semitic once it was pointed out to him, apologized for it, and deleted the cartoon. In his apology, he made it clear that he is opposed to any form of racial bigotry. Here’s an excerpt from that apology:
…My intention has never been to demean in any way Jews as a people despite my strong criticisms of Israeli policies, and some versions of Zionist support. My interest and commitment has always been directed at finding a just and sustainable peace for both peoples, although I believe that this must be based on a belated recognition of Palestinian rights, and not on power relationships.
To be clear, I oppose any denigration of a people based on ethnicity, race, religion, stage of development, and believe in the human dignity of all people in their individual and collective identity…
So much then for the ‘anti-Semitism’ of Richard Falk. Unless you’re one of those who find any criticism of the Zionist nation of ‘Israel’ to be unacceptable, there are no grounds for that anti-Jewish accusation against Mr. Falk.
What then about the “conspiracy theory” charge? The commenter posted a link to a video clip in which Mr. Falk denies the validity of the “official story” about 9/11 as well as (in another comment) a link to an article written in November of 2008 in which Richard said that there were too many questions about the “official story” still needing to be answered – too much evidence indicating that the Government was seeking to cover up the real story.
There’s certainly no doubt that the Professor doesn’t buy the official Government explanation of the event. Naturally, anyone who has been reading my blog won’t expect me to be upset by that! 😀 I congratulate Mr. Falk on having the intellectual courage to be willing to examine the evidence, and the moral courage to speak out about the deception being carried out by the U.S. Government.
The very fact that people of the intellectual caliber of Richard Falk and David Ray Griffin express strong reasons to disbelieve the story we’re normally given should in itself be enough to make us seriously question what we’ve been told. There are simply far too many scientists and engineers, as well as professional pilots and others, who find the evidence absolutely overwhelming against the ‘official story’, and favoring the conclusion that our Government is practicing deliberate deception. Consider this video for instance; it’s 2 hours and 15 minutes of testimony by scientists and engineers. Naturally you might not have the time to watch the whole thing (at least all at once), but just watching a portion of the video should make you rethink your position if you’ve previously thought that only “uneducated kooks” believe in those “conspiracy theories”. You might also check out this site for “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”.
It’s unfortunate that, as Mr. Falk said in the first video clip I linked to, many people think that just by calling something a “conspiracy theory” it eliminates the need to actually check out the evidence. So many people are deathly afraid to be labeled a “conspiracy theorist”; they’re more concerned over what people will think about them than they are about finding out the truth of the matter.
As I’ve commented before, though – and will probably do so again in the future – there’s simply no such thing as a theory about the 9/11 events which is not a “conspiracy theory”. There is no “lone gunman” scenario for those events. One either believes the official Government “conspiracy theory” that a bunch of “extremist Muslim terrorists” carried out those atrocities; or one believes an alternative “conspiracy theory” that some other group of people planned and carried out those murders (like a cooperative effort between US and Israeli ‘Intelligence’ Agencies). How can anyone sneer at someone else as a “conspiracy theorist”, when he himself of necessity believes in a “conspiracy theory”? 🙄
So, in conclusion, Richard Falk is certainly no “anti-Semite”, though he is critical of Israeli policies and at least of some Zionist supporters; and he should be congratulated for his intellectual and moral honesty and courage in seeking to expose the deceptions of our Government.