Joe Knippenberg on Cynthia McKinney for Congress

Joe Knippenberg, one of the targets of my post endorsing Cynthia McKinney has apparently posted a link to that post from his blog here. That link got my attention when I noticed a large number of people coming in from the same location. It turns out, by Joe's own words, that he is not Jewish. He says:

Not that it matters, but I’m not Jewish. In the part of the world from which my father hails, lots of non-Jewish names end with "berg."

So, not being able to verify this information, I'll need to take Joe at his word and offer the corrective of that portion of my previous post. I would say that I find it odd that A) he doesn't say where this place is and B) what he doesn't acknowledge that Jewishness is actually supposed to be inherited from the mother. But that's neither here nor there given that it appears I was incorrect in accessing Joe's ethnicity.[edit 8-7-2006] Knippenberg is apparently a German name dating back to 1309]

That said the rest of Joe's "corrective" consists of:

Cynthia McKinney has a substantial record of supporting radical opponents of Israel. You don’t have to be Jewish to object to that. And I haven’t yet said anything about the way in which she has dealt with the substantial Jewish community in her district.

The hatred and disdain that she and the aforementioned supporter display approach that displayed by someone like David Duke. I don’t have to be the precise object of the hatred and disdain to object to it and vote against the person who displays it.

So, Joe, the non-Jew, is clearly a Israel supporter perhaps even a Zionist. He critiques McKinney for not being held hostage to the "jewish Lobby" and those conservative Christians who want the end times to come and whos support of Israel is really not for the benefit of the Jewish people (whom will be burnt to an eternal crisp upon the second coming). No you don't have to be Jewish to object to 'radical opponents of Israel' but you don't have to be a non-Jew to oppose Israel either. Of course, given the irrational means by which Israel is "defended" it is unclear what constitutes "radical opposition" To Israel. Is being opposed to extra- judical killings of Palestinians "radical"? Is being opposed to second class citizenship for non-jews in Israel radical? Is being opposed to the means by which Israel was created, namely removing the previous inhabitants from their homes, radical? Who determines what is "radical opposition" to Israel?

Of course, like the critique that met the scholarly work on the "Israeli Lobby" some time ago, Joe 'berg takes a book out of his Jewish friend's playbook Link people critical of Israel to a KKK or other White Supremacists. An old, and I shall say, tired, tactic. Of course, if you object to the policies of Israel you must hate jews, want to put them in ovens, kill them on the side of the road for traveling with Negroes..oh yes, that;s right, good old southern white men did that last one, and good old white men in Europe (perhaps where Joe's ancestors came from) did that.

What is truely telling about Mr. Knippenberg is that, like too many of his Jewish counterparts, he attempts to distract a credible critique of his writing by attempting to smear the author as a bigot. The talking heads over at his blog are having a field day on the "Cohen, Hamburg, etc." name game playing and not a single one has taken on the central critique offered on this blog. Simply stated, rather than deal with the issue that Jewish organizations bought Denise Majette (and said so in print). Out of state Jewish organizations provided economic "assistance" to other races affecting black incumbents. Hence Joe's (and Hank's) critique that McKinney is getting "out of state" financial support and support from "gasp" Muslims, is hypocrisy at it's highest level.

But no, Knippenberg would rather we be "conventional" Negroes who "keep our heads down" and ignore the facts.

[update: Joe's been checking us out and posted an "update" to his original link. Does he dispute the central facts in the original Cynthia McKinney post? Does he even acknowledge the fact in the original McKinney post? Of course not. No instead he posts a link to This article which he seems to believe I will dismiss because it is a Jewish Newspaper. No, not quite. As the dear Provost ought to know, a scholar does not dismiss information because of where it comes from but rather based on it's veracity. Of course, for a Pro-Israel individual such as Joe 'berg, the positions quoted in the paper are beyond reproach. clearly such a statement as:

Mr. Tayeh's comments appeared in a letter to the editor in the November 28 issue of The Hill, a Washington weekly. "What is more disturbing to me is that many of these pro-Israeli lawmakers sit on the House International Relations Committee despite the obvious conflict of interest that their emotional attachments to Israel cause," he wrote, identifying himself as a member of Ms. McKinney's staff. "The Israeli occupation of all territories must end, including Congress," he added.

cannot be true. Cannot be based on verifiable information. Nay, though Others have come to the same conclusion. it must be as this paper puts it:

"the most vile anti-Semitic canards that have been invoked against Jews throughout the ages,"

Yeah, we know the drill. Should I again remind Mr. knippenberg about who put who in gas chambers?

But of course the shrilliness, kind of like truthiness, continues with comments like:

Rep. Eliot Engel of New York said he found it "very hard to believe" that a congressional staffer would send a letter "without that member of Congress, or anyone in their office, knowing about the letter."

No, of course not. Just as we are not to believe that Bush leaked or allowed the leak of a CIA operative. After all managers in any situation allways, allways, allways know what communiques are leaving their offices. Allways. Without fail. Well look, right; I am currently observing a legal situation at a university where a correspondence went out that should not have, which landed the author in
"hot water" because the subject was defamatory and the object of defamation was 'accidentally" sent a copy of it. I'm glad Rep. Engel runs such a tight ship though.

Of course that's not the real issue. Joe's issue is that:

cKinney has a history of consiorting very closely with confirmed enemies of our long-time ally. She speaks about the U.S. being an "honest broker," but that presupposes an equivalence between Israel and those who dispatch suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians and who apparently will not be satisfied while the state of Israel still exists.

Where to start? Anyone has McKinney, on record or off that states that she supports destroying Israel? Anyone? OK.
Next I agree that there is no equivalence of Israel and Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Israel has billions of dollars of US military equipment with which to bomb, assasinate or otherwise hold Palestinians hostage. There is no equivalent. Israel is a settler state not unlike Aparthied South Africa. I bought this up earlier and Joe still hasn't found the time to address that. Joe doesn't have a problem with colonizing an area of the world. He believes those colonized ought to roll over and play dead or at the very least "keep their heads down". Of course anyone who disagrees with Joe's line ought not be in office, in which case the only people who should be in office are those who support Israel. In this case then the comment quoted in the Forward that:

"The Israeli occupation of all territories must end, including Congress,"

Would have to be correct, no?
[/Update]

Technorati Tags: critique, Cynthia McKinney, politics