Counterpunch: Neumann vs. Halpurn

To demonstrate how wonderfully diverse and open-minded the left really is, over at the Progressive Center for Anti-Semitism, aka Counterpunch.com, a debate of sorts has developed between "Palestinian" academic activists Jeff Halpern and Michael Neumann. The spectacle is quite remarkable to behold, as two horrifically self-loathing Jews present their twisted cases against the Jewish State for the rabid left's reading pleasure.

Halpern's, Israel as an Extension of American Empire, is an essay presenting the prevailing leftwing opinion that Israel is exploiting and persecuting the poor "Palestinians" as an extension of diablolical US imperialism and capitalism. The best way to put an end to Israel's terrible abuse of the "Palestinians" would be to apply the magical elixor for all of mankind's miseries: Utopian Socialism.

According to Halpern, once the Arab rights to "Palestine" are recognized equally with the Jewish rights to Israel peace finally will have a chance. He places the blame for "Palestinian" suffering squarely on shoulders of greedy, Big Corporate America, and America's insatiable lust for military expansion. In other words, if we'd all just behave like good little Communists, voila, the problems in the Middle East would all be solved.

Here is an excerpt in which Halpern spews the typical leftwing BS:

There are many tragic and self-destructive features of the Occupation for Israel itself. Although the country was founded on the "original sin" of exclusivity and the expulsion of the refugees, it nevertheless had (has?) the potential to develop into a normal, even progressive society. Many of the socialist principles that accompanied the Zionist program led in those directions. Israel always talked of democracy, even extending citizenship to its Arab population in 1948, even though the underlying concept of a "Jewish democracy," coupled with a deep-based fear of demographics only exacerbated by the Occupation, has emptied that of much of its content. It constituted itself as a welfare state, only to see that largely dismantled as the Israel-Palestine conflict gave dominance to the right whose agenda, together with expansion, was anti-socialist and pro-privatization.

Meanwhile, Neumann, for his part, kicks the anti-Israel vitriol up a notch. His essay, A Study in Dogma, does not call for a more "even handed" approach to the Palestinians followed by the usual Communist rhetoric, as he views such dreamy solutions as overly utopian and lacking the practical urgency needed to save his beloved "Palestinians" from the blood-thirsty Jews. What Neumann actually wants to see is the complete destruction of the State of Israel, with America giving 100% support to the Palestinian cause against the Jews. He could care less if it comes from Leftwing or Rightwing measures, he just wants Israel exterminated, period.

Here's an excerpt:

The fact--the fact leftists bust a gut to ignore--is that The Big Corporations would be far, far better off if the US switched sides completely, and supported the Palestinians to the hilt. It is difficult to argue this just because it is so screamingly obvious. The Big Corporations want oil: Israel pisses off the oil producers, bigtime. Israel does not, contrary to leftist orthodoxy, help the US control the oil. For Christ's sake guys-- Israel would have to shove through Syria or Lebanon or Jordan to get near any oil.

...But this is just the tip of the strategic iceberg. Suppose the US supported, not the Israelis, but the Palestinians. Is there any doubt that the US would have had a far easier time getting support from the Arab and Muslim world? Again, the contrary is just unimaginable. If the US had been close friends of Turkey, Syria and Iran; if the Gulf states had earned less opprobrium for allying themselves with Israel's only powerful backer, indeed virtually its only backer--might that not have made it a tad easier to invade Iraq, or for that matter to fight the War on Terror? As matters stand, the chief role of Israel in US policy is to pop up as a worry and expense.

Now, it should be noted that this Trent University professor's pathological hatred for Israel goes above and beyond the likes of even Halpurn or Chomsky. His latest book, The Case Against Israel, said much about where he stands on the topic, but perhaps nothing is more revealing about the depths of his obsessive hate for Israel and the Jewish people than an email exchange he had with the webmaster of the anti-Semitic website, JewishTribalReview.com.

Said Neumann:

My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. And, implausible as it may sound to you, I believe I can do *much* more damage by staying entirely away from such issues.

Isn't the state of academia at an all time high, gang? Such devotion to scholarship puts a tear in my eye.

So, as we see, Counterpunch offers us up this deliciously progressive choice: We either have a Palestinian activist Jew who despises Zionism and wants to see the Jewish State eradicated and rebuilt as the Communist State of Palestinians (Halpurn), OR, on the other side, we have a Palestinian activist Jew who despises Jews and wants to see Israel destroyed at all costs and replaced with Arab Palestine.

Decisions, decisions...Wait, I know! I'll have you the reader decide who to pick!

Who would the readers of the Madzionist rather see running the country?

A. Jeff Halpurn
B. Michael Neumann
C. Charo
D. Baby Zionist

I know who I'm not choosing.

-MZ