Talk:James Petras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've added the passage below, because without it, the article gives the misleading appearance that James Petras is a a rather mainstream socialist, when in fact other socialists (e.g., Sam Manuel) have found some of his theories to be hateful.

Some of his more controversial essays have argued:

• On September 11 The idea that radical Islamists carried out the attacks of September 11 is a "conspiracy theory"; it is more likely that the attacks were the work of a secular group. There is evidence that prior to September 11, Washington had planned to overthrow the Taliban, and it is plausible that Washington used the attacks as a pretext for going to war in Afghanistan. ^[1]
• On Danish Cartoons The Mossad, with the help of the Ukranian Jew Rose, helped plot the Danish cartoon conflict pitting the West against Islamic peoples. This greatly facilitated Israel's capacity to implement its "genocidal policy" , a "Nazi-like economic siege over 4 million Palestinians, intended to starve them into surrendering their democratic freedoms." This "cultural conflict at the service of genocide" is a "crime against humanity".^[2]
• On Jews Loss of manufacturing jobs for workers in New York City was no doubt facilitated by "the ethnic-class differences between the six-figure salaried Jewish labor bosses and the low-paid Asian and Latino workers". The myth of war for oil "is circulated by almost all the major progressive Jewish intellectuals and parroted by their Gentile followers, who are in word and deed prohibited from mentioning the AIPAC word in any public meetings or manifestos. The power of the minority of politically active Jewish financiers in the pro-Israel lobby is spreading far beyond the area of US foreign policy into the cultural, academic and economic life of the US." To retaliate against professors Mearsheimer and Walt, who wrote a paper critical of The Israel Lobby, all the major Jewish publications "have launched together with all the major Jewish organizations, a propaganda campaign of defamation...and pressure for their purge from academia." While most Jews oppose the Iraq war, "they are not willing to criticize the pro-war Jewish lobby or to mention Israel ’s involvement in precipitating the war through its occupation of Palestine." ^[3]

Precis 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, should this guy be listed under anti-Semites? I dislike trying to sort through the difference between 'anti-Zionism' and anti-antisemitism, but he keeps on harping about 'Jewish Power', and 'Jewish Financiers'. Also, his language in this article http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_21643.shtml kinda seems to be directed at Jews, not 'Zionists'. I don't really know; any comments? Gilead 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, for the following reason. Anti-semitic writings don't necessarily prove anti-Semitic motivation. Here is an example. In 2003, Tony Judt wrote a column in the NYT proposing the elimination of the Jewish State. Many (who feel that a catastrophe would result for millions of Jews living under Islamic rule) find Judt's idea to be anti-Semitic. However, if Judt truly believes that his suggestion is a just one, then one can't say on this basis that he himself is an anti-Semite. As for Petras, he may be an anti-Semite, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Precis 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference between anti Zionist and antisemitic is crucial, and folks are too quick to use both interchangeably.

You have a point, but he keeps going on about the 'Jews'. He seems to be implying that Jews control the media, US foreign policy, and even public debate. To be honest, he sounds like David Duke; he blames Israel/Jews/Zionists for manipulating the United States, and seems to be purposefully playing on the whole 'Jewish Control' theory. For these reasons, I think he should be labeled anti-semitic, but I'll wait for a consensus on the matter. Gilead 11:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The case is not as clear cut as it is, e.g., for Larry Darby. Precis 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The bit about Israel Shamir is wayy off. He is neither a Nazi nor a Swede -- absolute misinformation. He was born Jewish, served in the Israeli Military, and is since a convert to Episcopal Christianity.

"The bit about Israel Shamir" is ABSOLUTELY accurate. His Swedish name as well as Nazi politics were conclusively proven by the anti-facist publication "Spotlight" three years ago. It is true that he is now an Episcopal Christian -one who in his speeches and writings preaches the most sweeping lies and libels against "THE JEWS" and Jewish people worldwide (at one point comparing them to "a virus"). He has also supported genocidal violence against them, as can be seen on his website recently where he saluted Saddam Hussein for "bringing the war to the Jews" i.e the scud missles he dropped on Isreali civilians. This is but one of many examples (there is also his Pro-Hitler holocaust denial), most of which can be seen on "Shamir's" own website. Others have been exposed by genuine pro-Palestinian actvists such as Ali Abunimah & Hussein Ibish. In any case, it is now clear that Petras himself now shares this overall line of argument.

The question shouldn't be is Petras anti-semitic but are his ideas worth considering and is he accurate. To me he is a mixed bag; has some extreme ideas and his "sources" may be people who share his prejudices. Alternatively some things seem to be well referenced and his cast of characters related to OSP is also presented in Kevin MacDonald's "Understanding Jewish Influence". Looking up some of these characters lead me to others, all with similar profiles, all part of the American Enterprise Institute and seemingly all major players in determining our Mid-east policy; frightening! Had I not followed up on Petras' remarks I don't think I would have known of how big and close knit these people are. A real setup for "group think".Rcnau 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)rcnau