Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumYes, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism
Anti-Zionists support an ideology that is inherently anti-Semitic. This is not a statement of opinion, but of undeniable fact.
The Jewish State was created to mitigate the persecution of Jews, so anti-Zionists oppose the only ideology that saves the Jewish people from pogroms, genocide, inquisitions, and oppression. If anti-Zionists achieved their goal and destroyed the Jewish State, then the Jewish people could move backwards to the days of ghettos, camps, and gas chambers.
This does not mean that all of these people support a second holocaust. Some anti-Zionists certainly support the death of all Jews worldwide (see the Hamas Charter for more details), yet others may counter argue that they have no hatred of the Jewish people and only hate the Jewish State. These people usually say that they support replacing Israel with a Palestinian-lead State that would grant equal rights to its Jewish minority.
Why are these individuals also anti-Semitic? Because anti-Zionism revolves around the horrifying notion that the Jewish people are not an ethnic group, but are merely members of a religion.
more...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/yes-anti-zionism-is-anti-semitism/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti- Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel. Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative "Jewish lobby," the Jewish/Zionist "world conspiracy," and Jewish/Israeli "warmongers." One major driving force of this anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism is the transformation of the Palestinian cause into a "holy war"; another source is anti-Americanism linked with fundamentalist Islamism. In the current context, classic conspiracy theories, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are enjoying a spectacular revival. The common denominator of the new anti-Zionism has been the systematic effort to criminalize Israeli and Jewish behavior, so as to place it beyond the pale of civilized and acceptable conduct.
more...
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-wistrich-f04.htm
meir34
(5 posts)--from a very good blog written by an Israel-supporting Jewish political scientist. pragmaticliberalism.com
"Why would I support such a deal? Don’t I know that Iran is not to be trusted? Am I not aware of the terrorism throughout the Middle East that Iran supports, if not funds? Actually, it is precisely for those reasons that I support the negotiations. With a deal in place, we are much better situated to identify any breaches in the agreement than without it. Under the deal, as it has been noted, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) must certify that Iran has complied with the requirement that they have reduced the number of centrifuges by two-thirds before any sanctions will be lifted. The same thing goes for reducing their uranium stockpile. The inspections requirement gives the IAEA more access to centrifuges than intelligence has ever yielded. Would you rather have inspectors on the ground looking for violations than not? That question is the very essence of the argument that the deal favors us much more than Iran..."
Response to meir34 (Reply #440)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to shira (Reply #1)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
Troggle
(2 posts)...that under the terms of your argument it is impossible to criticise Israeli policy in the West Bank without being 'racist'? I understand both sides' perspectives, but this kind of catch-all argument is probably why a lot of people get so wound up with Israel. Just saying.
If indeed "this is not a statement of opinion, but of undeniable fact", I'd kind of expect more, you know...facts. All your blog provides is opinion. Empirical evidence and solid theoretical work equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism would be useful in attempting to establish a fact. As far as I can tell, the former deals with opposing an ideology of return and/or territorial expansion, while the latter is concerned with an opposition to all things Semitic (which is an ethnic grouping that includes non-Jews, by the way).
All in all, a good piece of ranting, but poorly argued and generally a bit disjointed.
Criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank is not racist and not impossible. In fact, it is extremely common in Israeli media and newspapers. It's a pretty standard part of the political discourse there. Similarly, newspapers around the world present criticism of many of those policies.
Also, the term anti-semitism means prejudice against Jewish people. It has nothing to do with any ethnic grouping called "Semites" that include non-Jews. It was a made up term specifically to apply to Jews.
Troggle
(2 posts)but having read this chap's blog, you can only draw the conclusion that, since Israeli expansionism is frequently justified by either security demands or Zionist ideology, and since anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, one is automatically racist.
I'm no expert on this, but I'm pretty sure there were Jewish leaders in the late 19th/early 20th century who advocated a Jewish homeland in all kinds of places, such as Latin America...so presumably under the blogger's logic they had some kind of "self-hating" false consciousness as well. The argument is so demonstrably stupid it doesn't really warrant further discussion.
On a side note, I have checked this and you are correct on the definition of anti-Semitism. Etymologically, however, it doesn't make much sense.
shira
(30,109 posts)Many Zionists are fierce critics of Israeli policies. That doesn't mean they're automatically anti-semitic.
Zionist ideology? What's that?
Many Zionists are against Israeli "expansionism". I'm assuming you mean the settlements and their growth. These Zionists are not making anti-zionist arguments.
No one accuses, or has ever accused any Jewish leaders of being "self-hating" for advocating a Jewish homeland in another nation. The author of the OP certainly doesn't.
Here's what he's saying - and what others before him have argued:
1. Jews are more than just co-religionists. They're an ethnicity sharing a culture and have considered themselves a nation for several millennia. Anti-Zionists argue this is not true, Jews are not a people/ethnicity/nation and therefore Israel shouldn't exist. This is hardly different from those they accuse of bigotry and hatred for denying Palestinians are a people deserving of the same right to nationhood.
2. Zionism is simply equal rights for Jewish nationalism. Anti-zionists against it are the equivalent of those opposing equal rights for oppressed groups of people.
3. Anti-zionist arguments routinely - and without exception - rely on old, antisemitic stereotypes. The anti-zionist movement is unwilling to address this hate within their movement. Either because they agree with those tropes and canards, or they're afraid the movement would implode if they did. Witness the fallout that happened when Gilad Atzmon was recently excommunicated from the greater movement.
4. Anti-zionists know full well what the end-game is WRT their ideology. A majority Arab nation that replaces Israel and that would presumably be run by the fascists of Hamas or the PLO would result in chaos and mass murder against the Jews currently there. This isn't even controversial. The 2 nations cannot co-exist peacefully. In fact, that's not even the goal of anti-zionists, as their BDS movement calls for separatism and is against normalization b/w the 2 peoples.
5. Anti-zionists only conditionally like Jews who hate Israel like they do. Those Jews who are not anti-zionists (almost all) are considered evil fuckers who are foul, apartheid/colonialist oppressors in favor of the nazi agenda vs. Palestinians. We're talking pure, unadulterated hate vs. the Jewish people.
6. There are more arguments, but here's one more. No one other than batshit, extreme hate-filled whack-jobs advocates for the destruction of another nation. No one would take such a person seriously. But this pretty much sums up the anti-zionist movement.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Some are old-time bigotry and need to be fought...others are grounded in a notion that nationalism is the problem.
A lot of anti-zionists are people who used to BE pro-Israel but then became convinced that that state wasn't going to even try to be a "light unto the nations" and would just be another right-wing nationalist ethnic-supremacist state. The people in that group could be engaged by making a real effort to change the things the Israeli government does that they happen to find unacceptable. It's wrong to treat people in that group as if they are anti-semites, because they aren't-they're just progressive anti-nationalists.
Also...I'd say points #3 through #5 in that list are bullshit. Most of the anti-zionists I've met like Jewish people as much as they like anyone else. They aren't filled with "pure,unadulterated hate". While I disagree with them on the one-state approach, I knew them to be passionate opponents of all forms of bigotry, and passionate opponents of anyone being oppressed.
If you want to argue against anti-zionists, fine...but you don't have to demonize them to do so. They aren't evil...they just happen to have different views on the matter than you do.
shira
(30,109 posts)...anti-Jewish bigots among their ranks.
Just one.
The PSC, ISM, FGM, BDS movements can't even agree to throw all the Gilad Atzmons and his supporters out of the movement. Google the fight within the movement and you'll see his supporters think Zionists (Jews) influenced his ouster and now Zionist influenced hacks are running the show. Look it up. His supporters won't be thrown out of the movement, ever. The movement would implode (they'd lose all their rightwing support, the majority of their movement). The movement cannot rid itself of bigots and their stereotypes of Jews. You'd think such anti-racists would be hypersensitive about using old anti-semitic tropes. They're not and we all know it.
And of course anti-zionists know the end game of their 1-state movement. Anthony Loewenstein answered that 6 million had to die in order for there to be one state. Spin that all you wish, but his partner at that event (Frank Barat) estimated 200,000 would die.
You must not realize it, but the Jewish anti-zionists within the movement are extremely rare within the Jewish population worldwide. It's been often said, they could hardly fill a room in Israel. They represent less than 1% of all Jews worldwide, meaning they and their bigoted supporters oppose more than 99% of the Jewish population. I really doubt you'd agree with <1% of women, gays, hispanics, blacks, muslims, or any other ethnic group in order to oppose >99% of the people in those groups. Face it, they're bigots.
======
Your comment here is a real doozy:
Israel's more progressive than the USA, and by a wide margin. Considering they've been in a state of war for all their existence against neighbors who want Jews dead, Israel deserves to be graded on a curve. Israel's already had an Arab President (Majallie Whbee). In addition, an Arab judge found Israel's former President Katsav guilty and sentenced him. The point being, Israel is a progressive state and not "ethnic-supremacist". You may want to consider not using that description again, since David Duke pretty much coined the phrase "Jewish supremacy".
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)are staunch opponents of antisemitism and, to my knowledge, always denounce antisemites and drive them away when they can. Yes, some crazies might show up at a rally(that's what happens at rallies for ANY cause, unfortunately), but that doesn't equate to an official policy among such groups of tolerating antisemitism. There are plenty of anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bigots that show up at "Stand With Israel" rallies, as far as that goes, and as far as I know speakers at those rallies never make a distinction between Palestinian extremists and rank-and-file ordinary Palestinian civilians...they blame ALL of them for what the worst of the worst do. Would you agree that such a distinction SHOULD be made when speaking of extremists and civilians on both sides of that issue?
shira
(30,109 posts)...then why don't they routinely go on record against Israel's neighboring regimes who are state sponsors of the most vile antisemitism imaginable? Why don't they recoil in horror from that and make it well known that's not what they stand for at all? That is, if they're so hypersensitive about all forms of bigotry including anti-semitism.
As for loonies in a crowd, that's quite a bit different than being supporters of extreme rightwing bigotry, isn't it? And yes, refusing to condemn it is support.
I suppose you agree with my last post, right? You couldn't argue against any of the points.
Bradlad
(206 posts)I'm out in my van pulling my drift boat around to the finest fly-fishing rivers in the Western US which is what I do every year at this time for a few weeks. It's a real treat to check at a hot spot every few days where I get to read your well-stated comments that do such a great job keeping a sense of reality going in this forum. Thanks for the re-charge.
Response to Bradlad (Reply #49)
azurnoir This message was self-deleted by its author.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)if you don't loudly announce every other time (at least) your against it, then obviously you must be for it, right?
shira
(30,109 posts)...in fighting antisemitic bigotry, regardless whether it's coming from the mideast or within their own ranks.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...Islamist terror. Here's some WRT recent Libyan events:
http://www.kulfoto.com/interesting-things/29696/benghazi-people-against-terrorism
Not so much WRT Anti-Zios who say they're anti-racist but aren't when it comes to Jews.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...because Jews aren't a race?
Does the same apply to gays, women, muslims......since they're not races either?
=======
Drop the wordplay.
Anti-zios claim to be - at the very least - anti bigotry and hate.
They're demonstrably not.
JLII
(11 posts)Considering they've been in a state of war for all their existence against neighbors who want Jews dead, Israel deserves to be graded on a curve.
Really? Are folks who disagree with that anti-Semites?
Israel's more progressive than the USA, and by a wide margin.
Got time to put a little meat on that bone? Basis for request: claiming Whbee's presidency makes Israel progressive is akin to claiming installing a wannabe like Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS makes the Republican Party progressive. Not feelin' it here.
shira
(30,109 posts)...no death penalty, more self critical media, more liberal court system, pioneers in stem cell research, state-subsidized college tuition. Female Prime Minister back in the 70's. The Israeli Knesset has Arab factions in it that want Israel destroyed, as well as a communist party. Better civilian to combatant kill ratio in times of war. And Israel isn't fighting wars overseas and killing millions like the USA.
Appreciate your taking the time to fill in some of the blanks, shira.
Pretty easy to view fewer unilateral invasions and more analytical media as progressive, but impressive by any standard that Israeli government protects trade unions; by itself that raises my opinion of Israel. "Self-critical" media seems a little vague or postmodern (belly-button contemplation is as likely to be a waste of time as progressive).
If educational subsidies are need-based they would qualify as progressive; if they are blind to need and instead function as middle class welfare, that is not particularly progressive (see, delusional US wannabe-progressive movement).
"More liberal court system" means what in terms of quantitative results?
UK, India and Pakistan had female prime ministers too. Admittedly they were smarter than Reagan and higher integrity than Clinton, but one doubts les Anglais or Indians or Pakistanis feel all warm and progressive remembering them; my point being having a woman Grand Poobah is meaningless in the absence of progressive results.
To your claim about collateral damage, while one accepts the accuracy of your numeric claims, six-thousand years of results indicate that killing civilians giving aid and comfort to one's enemies isn't the worst thing in the world. Be clear I would have Bush and Obama on trial for their crimes against world peace; I completely agree war mongering is an international crime. A death sentence international crime.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)A group aiding needy Holocaust survivors in Israel has cut the elderly recipients' stipends by 20% this month, Ynet has learned.
Some 10,000 destitute survivors have discovered recently that the NIS 1,500 ($400) stipend they receive from the Company for Location and Restitution of Holocaust Victims' Assets each quarter has been cut by NIS 300 ($80). The recipients were never informed of the move, but had to learn about it from their bank account statements.
Over the past four years, the organization has been doling out a total annual allowance of NIS 6,000 ($1,600) to each impoverished survivor. The new cuts have reduced that sum to NIS 4,800 ($1,275).
Sarah, 82, who survived a stay at the Mogilev-Podolski Ghetto in Ukraine, is one of the many survivors who heavily depend on the organization's aid. Her meager stipend from the State amounts to NIS 2,600 ($690) each month.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4217386,00.html
http://www.meirpanim.net/campaign/2011/RH2011/clean.htm
what was that again?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and who is thinking of moving there. She told a very different story. Who knows which is true?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Hmmmm, documented evidence provided by the agency itself, or anecdotal evidence from 'someone who went there'... too close to call!"
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it would all depend on ones own financial status and age along with other factors education, children, married or partnered , something that is true just about anywhere
cali
(114,904 posts)typical self-selecting crap from you. First of all, it's fucking stupid to compare the U.S. to Israel which has all of 7 million people and yeah, I say the same thing to the morons who try to compare Denmark or Sweden to the U.S.
In any case, if you insist on the comparison, Israel is not more liberal then the U.S. on a whole host of issues.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Tue May 28, 2013, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Get a load out of this new OP, wrt what Israeli Arabs really think...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113442244
Also, check out the links starting here:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/113411071#post7
Educate yourself rather than spew the bigoted, rightwing talking points of Hamas, the PLO, BDS. Demonizing and slandering the Jewish state doesn't promote peace. It does the exact opposite.
Shameful.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)This is something that Jews have believed for a few thousand years. Israel is the ancient name of the region where modern Israel is located. It is also the name of the ancient country of the Jews. Finally, Israel is the nation that follows the Torah which they believe was given to the world by God. The point is that the Jewish people can not be separated into a religion, which people can claim to not hate, and a nation, which they do hate. If you hate and want to destroy the Jewish state, then you hate Jews.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)First of all, we are talking about Israel, the modern Nation/State that currently exists in the Middle East, not any sort of metaphorical religion-based national concept. Those two things are (and must be kept), distinct from one another. Anyone seeking to blur the line separating those two very different things is deliberately seeking to confuse the issue (for either positive or negative reasons), to meet some sort of political end.
The reason some say that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic is that as the sole Jewish state (which necessarily treats "Jewish" as a national term in this respect), it has no shortage of enemies. When distinguishing between those who criticize Israel, the question becomes whether the critique is based on legitimate issues of policy, or if it is just based on the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Arguing for the destruction of Israel is totally fine, and is not even necessarily anti-Semitic, assuming that the critic's arguments somehow do not single Israel out or hold it to a totally different standard than any other states. In that case, perhaps the critic opposes nationalism in all forms and seeks the dismantlement of all nation-states altogether.
However, the vast majority of anti-Zionists adhere to an ideology that singles Israel out from hundreds of other nations (many of which are FAR worse in every category than Israel will ever be), not just for criticism, but for attacks that far outstrips any of Israel's perceived crimes. When the anti-Zionist denies Israel the right to exist on its face, when he denies the right of the Jewish people alone to express national self-determination, while remaining indifferent to every other states' right to do so, this can only be described as anti-Jewish.
What you advocate here seems to be a perversion of anti-Semitism that makes it just about impossible to criticize Israel without being labelled a bigot. This is not merely unfair, it is dangerous. People need to have a way of expressing disapproval of Israeli policies without facing unfounded accusations of bigotry. In fact, one of the most common criticisms of Israel right now is that they respond to any critical comment with false accusations of anti-semitism, seeking to blunt even legitimate discourse through fear of slander. Though non-violent, this kind of tactic is very similar to terrorism that Israel so frequently faces. Worse, it doesn't even work. People can't be muscled into treating Israel with kid gloves. There will always be criticism, and this tactic will eventually invite MORE of it, not less. Worse still, if every critique of Israel is met with such vile slander regardless of its accuracy, eventually people will stop respecting the charge. If everything becomes anti-semitic then nothing is anti-semitic. The term becomes robbed of its power and eventually, its very meaning. On the vile site MondoWeiss I recently saw this Gilab Atzmon quote. (As disgusting as all of his quotes are, this one was distinguished by the amount of people there who believed in it wholeheartedly.)
“An antisemite used to be someone who hates Jews;
nowadays an antisemite is someone Jews hate.”
While I disagree with this quote, to say the least, this post of yours seemingly advocates a policy that will all but ensure its widespread acceptance. Hating Israel does not DEFINITIVELY mean that you hate Jews, (although it often does.) The key is determining WHY this hatred exists before we allow such a hideous term as "anti-semitic" to be used against them. For to use such a powerful label capriciously or, FAR worse, against a totally innocent person, we blunt one of our most damaging weapons and end up hurting ourselves more than anyone else.
shira
(30,109 posts)Bradlad
(206 posts)I'd say you both have good points but there is a problem with seeing such fine distinctions - no matter how much they might make it seem that there are rational ways to deal with Israel's enemies. Strong emotion is not of the rational mind. As emotional intensity increases, reasoning capacity is gradually diminished and evolutionary instincts gain more control over behavior. The stronger the emotion, whether hate, love, fear, whatever, the less the reasoning brain has the ability to affect behavior.
Another effect of strong emotion is that the brain becomes less aware of boundaries of kind. Such boundaries as between species of spiders are the domain of an intellect that evolved to make very fine distinctions in nature. When strong emotions are present the ability to see those distinctions is reduced. Someone instinctively fearful of spiders will not be able to make the distinction between harmful or beneficial spiders. They will fear almost any small insect, spider webs will make their heart race, etc. Similarly, someone who strongly enough hates the idea of the state of Israel will hate the Torah, people wearing skull caps of any kind, people with large noses, people with names that end in stein, etc. They may deny this but emotions are manifested in physical changes in the body such as heart rate, perspiration, eye motion, etc. Lab emotion sensors would pick it up.
For those who extremely hate the very idea of the Jewish state the hater can not avoid hating anything associated with Israel - primarily the Jewish people who live and take refuge there - no matter what methods they have learned to avoid being labelled an anti-Semite in social situations. Consistently judging the morality of Israel's existence by standards they only apply - and obsessively apply - to this one place in the world is a good indicator that their hatred for Israel is so strong that it must necessarily include the nation of people who take refuge there (and maintain and defend that state) and everything that supports and protects that state and its people from danger.
I'd say that this emotional background is the subtext for the majority of threads in forums like this. Many of the arguments can be seen as a sometimes interesting game of attempts by Israel-haters to justify their consuming emotions, evident in their desire to see the end of the state of Israel, while maintaining plausible deniability to charges of anti-Semitism.
Side note: The difference between Western leftist and ME Arab haters of Israel is that in the West hatred for the idea of a Jewish state and the Zionists who created it who supposedly stole the land of the natives, can be so strong it necessarily includes some hatred of all Jews as an unavoidable emotional spill-over. This, even though the Western left have developed many ways to avoid the charge (and even convince themselves in many cases) they are not anti-Semitic. For most Arabs in the ME, their cultural hatred of Jews is so strong it necessarily must spill over to include hatred for the state where they live and find protection. Also hatred of their sponsors such as the US. Being a conservative fundamentalist culture they have little need to hide it - except by leaders at times for diplomatic reasons. Usually ME Arab hatred of Jews and everything about them is a badge of honor. (Neo-Nazi or Western rightist Jew hate is another category but follows the same principles spelled out above.)
I'd also add that I am attempting a rational analysis of a complex topic that requires some objective generalization. I do not believe that any individual Arab or Western leftist (or member of this forum for that matter) necessarily falls into these descriptive categories. In fact I am certain that many do not.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)You state: "Arguing for the destruction of Israel is totally fine, and is not even necessarily anti-Semitic, assuming that the critic's arguments somehow do not single Israel out or hold it to a totally different standard than any other states."
I disagree with this statement for several reasons. First, in theory, although it may not be specially antisemitic, anti-nationalism is in general anti-human. It is a denial of humans' basic right of association. For most people, their people hood is their primary ideological identification. And usually where it isn't (extremists excluded), it's because the national identify is sham in the first place and their natioal identity actually lies elsewhere. The argument is like saying someone isn't a bigot because he hates everyone. Not exactly a positive statement.
Second, Jewishness consists of a triarchy (a hierarchical trinity) of ideas, as I originally posted. God. Torah, Israel (nation or people, called in modern terms the Jews). Religious Jews believe that there is a priority to these ideas, and even non-religious Jews recognize their importance. I'm not talking about the modern state of Israel, although I am making reference to the ancient existence of the Jewish people by using the ancient name Israel for the Jews. Denying Israel's existence is based in part on denying that the Jews are a nation, and that is per se antisemitism. And it works both ways. Suppose someone said that they hated Judaism because they hated all religions, but that they didn't hate Jews as a people (or as a "race"
? Is that still not antisemitic? Jewish religious minorities such as Neturei Karta are a different matter. They don't deny Jewish national identity. They believe that the State of Israel contravenes the Torah and the will of God, which take precedence over the national existence of the Jews. Their position is that Israel should not exist, yet. Most anti-Zionists deny Jewish national existence for all time.
Third, at the receiving end, I don't really care whether someone hates my existence because they don't like nationality in general or whether they specifically hate only Jewish nationality. It feels like being hated either way. Same for being hated either because I'm a member of the Jewish religion or the Jewish people. Hate is hate.
Fourth, many, if not most antisemites use the terms Zionists, Israel, and/or Jews interchangeably. In fact, the term anti-Zionist came into favor as a way to hide their antisemitism.
Fifth, as you point out, most anti-Zionists single out Israel. In fact, how many anti-nationalists have you ever heard of who give aid and comfort to the enemies of any state except Israel? I know of none. And that suggests to me that in practice that the idea is just another smokescreen to hide antisemitism.
Sixth, I am more concerned with attacking ideas than I am specific people. Someone can be a very nice person, treat me very well as a Jew, and still have noxious beliefs. In most cases, it's the ideas I hate, not the person harboring them.
The concept of a unified Jewish people in no way allows one to claim that mere criticism of Israel's government (or even of the Israeli people and their desires) is antisemitic, since by "Israel" in this instance is meant the nation of Israel (the idea that the Jews are a nation), not the State of Israel. It does mean that almost any denial of the Jewish people's right to a national existence is antisemitic.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And their Jewish identity is just as strong as yours is. Many of the early Zionists were, in fact, athiests or agnostics.
Judaism can be just as much a personal, cultural, or moral identity as it is religious or nationalist.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)They may not believe in the Biblical Narrative, Ken, but they certainly know that there is one. Where do you think that cultural and moral identity comes from? Even the non-religious have to recognize the importance of the religous part of Judaism to the existence of Jews.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that God and a country can be inseperable.
My sense of it is that Judaism is a real identity and that the definition of that identity is unique to each Jewish person. Why can't we leave it at that? Why is there this obsession with stating that there's only ONE way to be Jewish-OR that being Jewish has to mean being an Zionist?
Is it really necessary to impose "the line" on this?
doxyluv13
(247 posts)However you want to slice it, it's possible to be against the policies of a country without hating its inhabitants. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.
shira
(30,109 posts)...Israel's non-arab inhabitants - as we're all seeing WRT Greta Berlin and the silence of everyone affiliated with Free Gaza.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)
Mere criticism of Israeli government policies isn't anti-zionism. So either you don't know what anti-zionism is or you were merely creating a straw man. Which is it? Anti-zionism means being against the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. With the exception of religious anti-zionists, it means denying the national identity and/or rights of the Jewish people. That is antisemitism.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)for various reasons, including the fact that Zionism was a secular ideology, or that the annexation of Palestine or a part thereof for a Jewish state would cause resentment in the Arab world, or because the creation of Israel was best left to the messiah if and when he arrived. Most ultra-orthodox Jews still have an ambivalent relationship with the Israeli state - while they are not anti-Zionist, they are certainly not pro-Zionist.
Zionism is simply Jewish irredentism, it is no different from the Greeks wanting to take back Constantinople, or the Chaldean Christians wanting to establish a state around Mosul, or the Kurds wanting to establish an independent Kurdistan.
Can one oppose the creation of an independent Kurdistan without being accused of hating Kurds? You would think so. Of course, the fact is that Israel came into being, and as a matter of practical necessity it must continue to remain so. Israel has as much right to exist in that regard as all the other post-colonial countries (Canada, the US, Australia) which were likewise established on the theft of land from previous inhabitants.
But the most ridiculous part of this argument is that it essentially requires Palestinians to be glad that they were dispossessed of their land in order to not be regarded as an anti-Semite. It is absurd to expect that Palestinians should regard Zionism with joy in their hearts, given its implications for them. It is like expecting a Native American to support the concept of manifest destiny. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism means that Palestinians must remain anti-semites forever, unless they are prepared to become Uncle Toms.
shira
(30,109 posts)...nor did they demonize/dehumanize every chance they could get (like extreme rightwing anti-Muslim bashers today who, as complete losers, have little besides their hate to keep them going). They didn't have one standard for Israel and another for every other nation. They didn't contend that Jews were not a people or nation. Their advocacy didn't threaten the actual lives of millions of people. They certainly wouldn't consider Israel's leaders as evil, depraved, or more dangerous than the leadership running Iran, Egypt, and Syria.
When certain Palestinian "anti-zios" conjure up the Protocols for the Elder of Ziyon, claim Jews control the banks, media, etc. or when they call for or celebrate the murder of Jews, that makes them as antisemitic as anyone else.
And here's the real clincher: When certain antizios, bds advocates, and ism lovers don't bat an eyelash at filth like this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11343829#post90
...what other explanation can there possibly be other than they're antisemitic? I can't imagine any "anti-racists" who would be just as indifferent to kkk or neo-nazi calls for the lynching or killing of Blacks, Muslims and Hispanics.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)are Genocidal, because we all know that any civilized people do not say a bad word about their foreign military rulers
and let's not forget that Palestinian UN bid is 11 days away so we'll be looking forward to more posts like this one
shira
(30,109 posts)And it seems you're making excuses for antisemitism. Anything goes due to perceived Israeli wrongs...
I wonder if you believe Jews are entitled to hate Arabs due to being victims of terror attacks. As long as there's a reason for it, it's okay - right?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)apparently, you are now amending that claim to say that anti-Zionism is sometimes anti-Semitism, but sometimes not. Rather like your insinuation that anyone who supports the one state solution is a Nazi, unless they happen to be a Jewish settler, in which case they are not.
shira
(30,109 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...when the anti-zionist movement's leaders are Jew hating bigots like Gilad Atzmon, George Galloway, Lauren Booth, Jenny Tonge, and Ronnie Kasrils, that speaks for itself. When the movement tosses out and rants against its own beloved Kahane Chai slobbering idiots, you can argue it's not antisemitic.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I must admit I hadn't, nor Ronnie Kasrils either, I had to google them both.
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)Otherwise, no one at all would have heard of her.
Kasrils is well known in South Africa, but not a key preoccupation for most Israelis or Palestinians
shira
(30,109 posts)...who had a role in ousting Gilad Atzmon from the movement? He also blasts Atzmon's fans like Lauren Booth on his blog.
Think he's okay?
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)but I strongly agree with him about Atzmon!
shira
(30,109 posts)Here he is defending Jenny Tonge:
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/03/jenny-tonge-victim-of-cleggs-cowardice.html
Defending Stephen Sizer:
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/01/17/psc-founder-tony-greenstein-defends-stephen-sizer-claiming-not-a-whiff-of-racism/
And giving kudos to Gerald Kaufman for likening Israel to the Nazis:
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/01/sir-gerald-kaufman-veteran-british.html
So whaddaya know?
A nasty bigot who thinks Atzmon takes Jew hate just a bit too far.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)He has gone from being a leader of the movement to being ousted from the movement in the space of two posts. I don't think anyone has gone from the manor house to the doghouse quite so quickly.
shira
(30,109 posts)John Mearsheimer, Richard Falk, Ramzy Baroud, Lauren Booth, Kathleen Christison, Mary Rizzo, Paul Larudee (ISM), Ken O'Keefe, Greta Berlin, Joseph Massad, and James Petras?
If he's not a leader, he's still a well regarded anti-Zio in pro-Palestinian circles.
The infestation of Jew haters within the anti-Zio movement is significant, wouldn't you say?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)The best-known of those based in the UK is George Galloway, and he is a complete prat who has managed to destroy his own tiny political party. Jenny Tonge is a failed obscure British politician; Lauren Booth would never have been heard of if she weren't Tony Blair's sister-in-law; and Atzmon is just a nutter. Ronnie Kasrils is a bit better known, but his main role is in South African politics, nto anti-Zionism.
shira
(30,109 posts)...Anthony Loewenstein, Frank Barat, Norm Finkelstein, Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimah, Mondoweiss, and every leader within the movement (ISM, FGM, BDS, PSC) who cannot help but resort to old anti-semitic stereotypes and nazi comparisons.
Do you see any of these so-called progressive leaders who find Hamas/PLO, MB, Iran, Syria, etc.. views and actions abhorrent or repulsive? Why not just say they support Palestinians but have real issues with repulsive people they say they must work with who hate women, gays, jews, christians, seculars, etc.? What are they waiting for? The fact is they support the vile agenda of their fellow anti-zionists and support the most extreme right-wingers on the planet.
shira
(30,109 posts)She does the tweets for FreeGaza (with > 19,000 followers).
What do you think of her recent pro-Nazi tweets?
http://storify.com/avimayer/the-free-gaza-movement-shows-its-anti-semitic-side
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)Some people are against all forms of nationalism including Zionism. That is not antisemitism.
If people think that Jews are the ONLY group that doesn't deserve a national homeland, that is antisemitic.
Also, of course, there are some people who use the terms 'Zionists' and 'antizionism' as code-words for 'Jews' and 'antisemitism', just as there are others who use the term 'cultural preservation' as a code-word for 'racism' or 'family values' as a code-word for 'homophobia'.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
shira
(30,109 posts)Fine, but try naming those within "some" of the movement who do not spend 99% of their time raging only against Israel.
The way I see it, if you nor anyone else can see or admit to the PSC, ISM, FGM, and BDS being bigoted due to singling out Israel for destruction, routinely using antisemitic stereotypes/nazi comparisons, or refusing to condemn extreme rightwing bigots they work with (who they may as well be supporting), then there's no point continuing.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)it's not as absolute as the writer of that link makes it out.
And it's not as if the only way to fight antisemitism is to give the Israeli government unquestioning support in its insistence on oppressing Palestinians...it's equally valid to fight antisemitism by fighting against all forms of bigotry and injustice...and decent human beings recognize that ALL forms of bigotry are equally odious and equally in need of being combatted- it's not as if antisemitism is the only form of bigotry that matters. All the others do just as much harm and are just as lethal in intent. It's wrong to fixate about one form of hate and act as if all others don't count.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)An antizionist or nonzionists can also be a person who simply doesn't take Israel's side in the dispute, without necessarily wanting Israel to be wiped out.
And in any case, this issue won't be decided by activists who want Israel replaced by a democratic non-sectarian state, so why spend so much time attacking them?
Why not find a positive way of responding to them...by actually calling on the Israeli government to stop doing the things to Palestinians that drive some people to wash their hands of the state out of despair that that state will ever even try to end the war, or will ever make any serious effort to help a Palestinian state come into being?
Most of the antizionists I know didn't get that way out of malice...the came to the conclusion that the state you make such a show of unquestioningly defending on all security issues simply wasn't ever going to see reason and accept that the crisis is based on the legitimate grievances of Palestinians, rather than prejudice. You could be one of the people that pushes the Israeli government to make the kind of changes that would re-engage these people and help create a positive solution, rather than simply temporarily preserve an ugly, unust, and untenable status quo for a few more miserable years. There's nothing in the way things are now that's worth keeping in place, shira-there's nothing in the way things are now that's actually good FOR Israelis. Why defend what you know is futile? Why not work for something better, rather than just cyber-screaming invective at people of good will who simply disagree with you?
There's no way that keeping the settlements could possibly be MORE important than peace. What matters is knowing that nobody's kids will be having to put on uniforms anymore, not where those kids are going to live.
shira
(30,109 posts)....like the ISM, FGM, PSC, and BDS.
The number of anti-zionists who actually have a problem with those jew-hating organizations, who are vocal in their condemnation of said organizations, is miniscule.
I can't see how progressives or liberals can ignore, deny, explain away, or defend such vile, despicable people.
I can't imagine them thinking they'd get away with doing the same to blacks, arabs, or muslims as they are doing WRT jews.
====
And in your post, you appear to be giving them a "reason" to hate Jews (b/c of Israeli policy).
There's no more reason to hate Jews than there is to hating blacks, arabs, muslims, or gays.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's been proven to you over and over and over again that Israel does not EQUAL "The Jews". It's simply a state that claims to be Jewish. It isn't synonymous with Jews and almost no one who disagrees with what it does to Palestinians does so out of malice towards Jews. And you know it. The survival of the world's Jewish communities does not hinge on the Israeli side defeating the Palestinians and having dominance over Palestine.
Resisting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is no different than resisting any other occupation anywhere else. Why is it that you can't accept that? It's just about not wanting to be dominated by somebody else. That wish isn't prejudice. All military occupations are unjust, wherever they happen in the world. The last just one ended when the Allied got out of Germany in the early Fifties. None that's occurred since then is comparable.
And you can't seriously be arguing that Palestinians should have to submit to the Occupation just to prove they aren't bigots.
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm not sure how many more examples you require just on this page alone proving w/o question that the vast, vast majority of anti-zionists are jew haters.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Admit it...deep down inside, you STILL buy the Likud bullshit that "a two-state solution is a two-stage solution".
shira
(30,109 posts)...there's a big difference between criticism and the antisemitism that the anti-zionists spew.
I don't expect you state again that Israel requires criticism and the anti-zionist jew haters are the only ones trying to hold Israel accountable.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)trying to hold the Israeli government(btw, the Israeli government is NOT synonymous with "Israel" as a collective entity, btw) accountable. And I am not personally an anti-zionist, just a person who believes in fair play and an decent level of discussion and debate.
ALL that I said was that antizionists cannot be automatically called antisemites...a faction of them are, and I condemn that faction as does every decent human being on the planet, but that doesn't represent antizionists AS A GROUP. And focusing on demonizing antizionists (a group that will never decide the outcome of the I/P dispute in any case) rather than on taking the steps needed to actually END the conflict, is a colossal waste of time. The antizionists are NOT the people who matter here. It's the Israelis and Palestinians themselves who are. Antizionists are nothing more than people who disagree with you. They don't deserve to be treated as if they're a bunch of Nazis, and you make yourself look hysterical and paranoid when you obsess on them(and Hamas) to the exclusion of all else.
There are Israelis and pro-Israeli people who hold the Israeli government accountable(most notably, heroes of the cause of peace and justice like Uri Avnery and Rabbi Michael Lerner). They are just as pro-Israel as YOU are, shira, but they speak out about the truth of the situation and they speak truth to power, both in Jerusalem AND in Washington. Those who defends the Occupation and continued settlement expansion, however, as you do, are neither trying to do that OR cares about creating a just future for the Palestinians. If you defend the Occupation and continued settlement expansion, you are AGAINST peace, because those things make peace impossible. Peace Now is VERY clear on this points, and disagrees with YOU on almost every issue in the debate.
The I/P dispute is about real grievances, not prejudice. Pretending it's about prejudice, pretending that the side you cheer for is made up purely of sainted victims, while the other side is nothing but bloodthirsty maniacs, is just an excuse to avoid trying to work for a just and humane resolution to the dispute, and an excuse to simply preserve an untenable status quo simply for the SAKE of preserving it. It's about avoiding dealing with reality. You're a better person than to settle for denial as an organizing principle.
Will you at least agree, if nothing else, that there is no possible justification for making any of the settlements ANY larger than they are now? That the current settlement size and population is ENOUGH? That's a bare minimum thing to agree to, shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)No, not at all.
Despite everything just on this one page alone.
The IHH supporters of Hamas are now arming the Syrian MB. Turkey says the IHH is working with al-Qaida. Not one of the anti-zio organizations above has a word to say about that. Hell, not one of the anti-zio "peace and humanitarian" organizations listed above ever says anything about the jew-hating incitement coming out of the Arab territories around Israel. Less than 100 hours ago, Hamas was gunning down Palestinians and using bulldozers to push Gazans out of their homes. You won't find much of anything from the "humanitarian" anti-zio "peace" activists about things like that, which happen daily.
How much more evidence do you require proving that the vast majority of anti-zios are jew-hating bigots who loathe Palestinians almost as much as they do "zionists"?
Would you ignore, make excuses for, or deny activists who hate blacks, arabs, or gays so badly that they'd happily work alongside maniacs who want those people dead and work each and every day trying to do so?
Don't attempt to keep trying to change the subject. The OP is about anti-zionism being anti-semitic.
Stick to that, please.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I NEVER said that ONLY antizionists are trying to hold the Israeli government accountable, and you damn well know it.
You need to retract that claim.
It's enough to say that SOME antizionists are antisemites. Some are, some aren't. Those that are must be condemned, those that aren't don't deserve to have that accusation leveled at them. Leave it at that. OK?
shira
(30,109 posts)But you're right. Sorry.
OTOH, you can't be serious about only some anti-zios being anti-Semites. Here's the latest on Free Gaza leader Greta Berlin' pro-Naziism:
http://storify.com/avimayer/the-free-gaza-movement-shows-its-anti-semitic-side
Go on, deny that.
And oh, BTW, Greta Berlin not only endorsed Gilad Atzmon's recent Jew-hating Magnum Opus, she wrote that his account of....
Finally, here's something to chew on, from the OP:
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Some are(and are to be denounced for it)some aren't. It serves no purpose to collectively demonize all of them.
The PSC did kick out Atzmon, for example. A lot of other antizionists dislike and denounce the guy(it's not as if you are the only one who ever said anything about him) and a lot of them are committed universalist anti-racists and anti-bigots who oppose nationalism and just feel that the Zionist project became an irreparable injustice to the Palestinian people. You can't assume they all speak with one voice and in any case antizionists aren't going to be deciding the issue.
The best way to combat antizionism is to address the injustices Israel is doing to Palestinians and to work to end as many of those wrongs as possible. The first step is to recognize that, as a support of Israel's existence you can't just take the Israeli government's word for it that everything they do to Palestinians is unquestionably justified by "security". Israeli politicians are not that different than politicians anywhere else...they don't like giving up power and they don't like being any more accountable than they have to be...you need to take what they say with a huge grain of salt.
You also need to acknowledge that, while some Palestinians are antisemites, antisemitism isn't the BASIS for the Palestinian resistance to the Occupation. Any people who are under a military occupation are going to resist that occupation if resistance is at all possible...there's never been a case where a people under occupation that retained the capacity to resist simply chose not to as a gesture of good faith. In the case of the postwar Allied occupations of Germany and Japan that some like to invoke, those were two nations that had been utterly defeated in a war, and in a war in which there side's position had no moral legitimacy and was based on no legitimate grievances. The Palestinians haven't been militarily defeated, military victory is impossible for either side in the conflict, and they DO have legitimate grievances about how they've been treated by the Israeli occupiers since 1967(and not trivial grievances either). It's absurd to believe that those grievances don't matter and the only issue involved is religious or ethnic prejudice against their occupiers. As a defender of Israel, it's crucial that you acknowledge that the Palestinian position is based on reality, and that, whatever you can say about their tactics, they do have a right to their anger. Only when you do that can you work for the kind of changes needed to break the deadlock and actually make peace.
This will sound like a paradox to you, shira, but the best way to defend Israel is to acknowledge the common humanity of ordinary Palestinians and accept that their resistance does have validity to it. Pretending that their actions are based on nothing but irrational prejudice is the way to avoid EVER ending the violence.
shira
(30,109 posts)Both within the SAME damned week! And not only tweeted but posted on Facebook....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=18729
And note again, now days later:
Nothing.
Not a peep.
Let's see if you can denounce Berlin for being utterly and completely busted for her Naziism.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not like I spend my days keeping track of the players in the antizionist movement(a movement I'm not a part of).
I denounce all antisemites, including the pro-Israel ones(like Arthur Balfour, Harry Truman and most U.S. Republicans)as well.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and endorsed by every anti-zionist organization out there.
Like the BDS people, the ISM, PSC, all the Mondoweiss and EI freaks, etc...
And they're all silent.
====================
Can you imagine Greta Berlin sending out a couple of KKK anti-black videos, or a couple of anti-Muslim gutter videos?
What would all the anti-racists say?
How would you react to THAT news?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why should we take the OP's word for it?
And I just denounced Greta Berlin, if you didn't notice. I would have done so earlier if I'd ever heard of her. OK?
shira
(30,109 posts)@alexbkane I would've expected those listed as @freegazaorg leaders, other than Greta, to step up and show leadership. They're absent.
Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite
10:39 AM - 5 Oct 12 · Details
Face it, the entire movement is far more embarrassed and ashamed rather than shocked or outraged.
They're not shocked because they know how despicable most of the movement is. This is no surprise whatsoever.
They're not outraged b/c gutter, KKK style, anti-Jewish, Nazi hate is something these "anti-racists" really don't have a problem with.
rateyes
(17,453 posts)What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that Israel is a theocracy with laws based on the religion of the Jewish people? If so, count me among the anti-Zionists. I am opposed to ALL theocratic governments.
Does it mean that Israel is a state where only people of the Jewish race are allowed to govern? If so, count me among the anti-Zionists. I believe in democratic self-government of, for, and by all of a state's citizens.
I am under the impression that Israel is a secular democracy with citizens of all races and religions. It seems to this feeble mind that if this is the case, that perhaps calling Israel a Jewish state a misnomer.
In my opinion, if Zionists want a theocracy, or an oligarchy controlled by Jews where minority rights are not protected, then being anti-Zionist is not the same as being anti-semitic. If this is not their goal, can someone explain to me what their goal is, and why would they use the term "Jewish state" to describe it?
shira
(30,109 posts)Israel is Jewish in the broadest sense, and that includes atheist Jews and "half" Jews according to orthodox Judaism. In fact any people who would have been considered Jews, even if it were only 1 grandparent who was Jewish, were considered Jews by the Nazis.
Jews aren't a race.
Also, Arabs do govern in Israel. In the Knesset, courts (supreme too), as well as the Presidency (Majallie Whbee).
rateyes
(17,453 posts)is correct. So, I ask again, what id the goal of the Zionists, and why refer to that goal as a Jewish state? The term conjures up in most non-Jews minds the picture of a theocracy.
shira
(30,109 posts)You know very well Jews can secular and atheists, right? It's their homeland just as much as religious Jews.
If non-Jews can only see Jews as being religious and the state of the Jews being a theocracy, they're ignorant.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Majallie Whbee is an Israeli Druze who filled in for a few days when then President Katzav took a leave of absence due to rape charges (of which he was convicted) and everyone else was out of town, Druze are not the same as Palestinians with Israeli citizenship they are a separate group with their own religion
This page was last modified on 13 September 2012 at 08:35.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Druze
Israel is the Jewish state because the majority of Israeli citizens who also happen to be Jews BTW want it that way there is an ethnic/cultural hegemony of sorts
and while there are Arab political parties they are in a position of being a forever minority with very little power or voice in Israel's making of laws ect
shira
(30,109 posts)Druze only count when anti-zios try to accuse Israel of oppressing them.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I mean the US has managed to elect a Black POTUS
shira
(30,109 posts)....a theocracy or ethnic supremacist state.
You're wrong.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but fortunately people can read and that includes links
rateyes
(17,453 posts)it won't be long until the Jewish population is a minority in Israel. Will the majority, at that point, be th ones exercising the power? Or, are the Zionists doing things by law to try and correct that "problem?"
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Arabs are and have remained about 20% of Israel's population, despite a higher birth rate
bemildred
(90,061 posts)That's why.
A lot of the population growth for both sides is in the OPT.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)there is that supposed 10 kids per family goal among some of the religious settlers, and I suppose spending 7.5 years of your life pregnant isn't so bad.........
doxyluv13
(247 posts)As far as political power goes, Israel is a Jewish State. Arab's who avoided being expelled in 1948, and their descendants, have the right to vote, but are kept from having any influence by a gentleman's agreement amongst the Jewish parties to keep Arabs out of the cabinet where the power is. Those under occupation in Gaza and the West bank have no right to vote in Israel. Neither do those who are still refugees, or their children.
Also, due to the gentleman's agreement, and due to the way, seats are allocated, small ultraorthodox parties always hold the balance of power and so influence policy way beyond their numbers.
shira
(30,109 posts)Or did you just make it up?
Look up Majali Wahabi - first Arab President of Israel.
Look up Justice Salim Joubran - a Judge who upheld President Moshe Katzav's rape conviction.
Israel's Arabs can do whatever they want and can file suit (and win) when discriminated against.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Is that the claim here? Anti-zionism == antisemitism? That's what I get from this, they both imply each other, so they are equivalent.
Because we didn't used to be allowed to say that, so if we are going to say that now, I want it clear.
shira
(30,109 posts)Zionism is equal rights for the Jewish people.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Thanks.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)no Jew anywhere would have equal rights especially in the US, right? 
King_David
(14,851 posts)But without Israel , Jews would never be safe in this world. That's a fact.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and especially in the US and/or Canada eh?
because prior to Israel there were tons of laws in both countries that discriminated against Jews, right?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Maybe not immediately prior to the creation of The Jewish State, but certainly in the past.
For example ,Canadian beaches used to have sign up " no Jews or Dogs allowed"
( I am surprised you never knew this )
Ships of Jewish refugees will never be turned away from the USA or Canada again because they would land in Haifa.
Without Israel who knows what the future for Jews would be.
With Israel though we have something we have never had before , strong Jews who fight back and protect us all.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)can you sight laws on the books in those countries?
shira
(30,109 posts)...when no other country in the world would allow them to escape the ovens, right?
How can anyone with a conscience say no to that?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)should have, that they did not was it self a horrible thing in fact, but then again that is 20/20 hindsight, but that said it is as horrible as sending refugees back to a country where they will be subject to torture as the UK did this week with Tamil, or turn away refugees, as another country did recently too, in fact turned them over to those that had stated quite plainly they would be killed as a result, which one was that, slips my mind but I'll think on it
shira
(30,109 posts)But I'm especially impressed that you found a way to demonize Israel (Jews) once again, and in the very same paragraph to boot, denying collective Jews of the world - and especially those from 70 years ago - equal rights and their own homeland that could've saved millions. And at the same time accusing Jews of doing the same today to immigrants.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in my post I mentioned the UK
King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)This allegation pops up a lot in Jewish blogs and articles in Jewish online zines, judging from a Google search. It also makes an appearance in the wiki article relating to Canada and antisemitism.
When a specific beach is named, it is usually the Sunnyside beach in Toronto a d the time period is general,y the mid fifties. It seems impossible to locate a picture of the sign, which is curious given how notorious it seems to be.
There are certainly records of exclusionary signs against Jews, although they were by no means prevalent. The one group that were frequently subjected to exclusionary signs were blacks.
Like the "no Irish need apply" legend (which may have popped up from time to time but was never widespread) this may be an example of exaggerated folk memory.
King_David
(14,851 posts)/snip
In cottage country, and even on Toronto's beaches up to the mid 1950s, it was common to see signs that read "No Dogs or Jews Allowed".
So it was in Ontario, the most diverse of all of Canada's provinces that work began in establishing a mindset of equality.
Ontario Jews worked together with black leaders and labour groups to advocate for a human rights apparatus in the province. Canadian Labour Congress human rights co-ordinator Kalmen Kaplansky, Alan Borovoy, a young law student and budding civil rights lawyer, then head of the Jewish Labour Committee; Canadian Jewish Congress community relations director Ben Kayfetz; and renowned civil rights litigator Sidney Midanik all worked with black leaders like Bromley Armstrong and Dan Hill to press their case.
Their advocacy led to the establishment in 1961 of the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- the first such body in North America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bernie-farber/human-rights-canada_b_1510399.html
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)are you willing to answer that now?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Spot on.
No need adress your tangent questions.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The article claims that it was common to see such signs up to the mid fifties in Toronto, but no one seems to have actually taken a picture of any of them.
A forum thread on the straight dope website deals with the issue. The "no dogs or (insert ethnicity here)" meme is quite a common one. However, there is very little, if any documentary record of such signs having existed.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330749
shira
(30,109 posts)Before Israel and during WW2, where were all those influential Jewish voices trying to convince Roosevelt to do something about what was happening overseas?
Jews in North America were so weak back then before Israel that they couldn't even do anything to get the Jews from the SS St. Louis into the mainland.
With Israel, Jews found their voices and, more importantly, were able to successfully advocate for oppressed Jews worldwide.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)into WW2 sooner, my how interesting especially at this juncture in time
shira
(30,109 posts)...to help Jews in Europe.
But I love what you're implying.
Had they spoken out for Jews prior to WW2, they'd have been beying for the US to go to war?
You'd have attacked North American Jews speaking out and advocating for European Jews prior to WW2?
IOW, Jews STFU?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and short of military intervention what real effect would anything short of physical intervention have done? None that is the answer simply none
oh and you 'misread'; the intent of my additional comment about this point in time
COLGATE4
(14,840 posts)drive from upstate New York to Florida in the wintertime. There were Florida towns that had signs on their public beaches reading "No dogs or Jews allowed". In Miami there were hotels that would not rent a room to a Jew. In fact, antiSemitism was so prevalent in the deep south not so long ago that there is an old Jewish joke about it:
Abe and family stop at a filling station in the South. Attendant comes out, looks at them and asks "Juice"?
Abe reponds "So vat? Don't we get no ges?"
Wasn't funny then either.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)interesting but it is not the 1950's anymore and Jews in the US and Canada were in no danger BTW that sign is a popular little story in these parts 
COLGATE4
(14,840 posts)unwelcome as well. But they were expected to 'know their place' and would never had gone within 100 yards of a 'whites only' place of any kind. The difference is that Jews usually could, in the language of the times, "pass for white" - thus the need for additional 'defensive measures' passed by the Christ-loving Southern folk.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you do realize that this has been discussed and debunked here prior don't you?
COLGATE4
(14,840 posts)Yes, Jews living in northern states had no idea that their visiting some Florida public beaches and hotels were supposed to be off-limits to them. Silly people.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and the same could not be said for Blacks living the north?
COLGATE4
(14,840 posts)(more probably) deliberately obtuse.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but what is amazing is the speed with which in minutes after my first post in hours you attack, almost feels stalkerish in a way
however it was bebunked on this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=18726
COLGATE4
(14,840 posts)into believing that a coincidence in the timing of my responding to your post is anything more than just that. Paranoia isn't attractive.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I was just about to PM and apologize thanks for sparing me that
King_David
(14,851 posts)But there was nothing debunked in that thread.
'Discussed' is different to 'debunked'.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so your reply is expected
Response to azurnoir (Reply #308)
King_David This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)to make the Holocaust an issue? Well what ever it takes to prove a point I guess, bringing up the Holocaust is usually a show stopper, even if it was not mentioned previously
shira
(30,109 posts)....not necessarily individually.
Zionism began a generation before the Holocaust, but for the very same reasons. Herzl knew Jews (as a collective) weren't safe anywhere except in their homeland.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but it is quite odd that you seem only willing to speak of Jews collectively not as citizens of many different nations including Israel
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)No other religion has had an international committee take land from one group and give it to them on such a scale, but it can be argued that no other religion has been so universally persecuted.
Let's get the "homeland" issue out of the way right now. Three major religions claim that land as holy land. They can't all own it.
If the real goal is to mitigate persecution of Jews, there could not have been a worse place to establish a Jewish state. My solution (and not meant to be trite in any way) is to create a new Jewish state on the Baja Peninsula. The climate is similar and it would be cheaper than protecting 6 million Jews in a sea of people who have hated them for centuries (as far as I know, Mexicans and fish are not generally antisemitic).
My point is that I don't feel a conflict in supporting the rights of Jewish people to practice their religion and culture while realizing that the U.S. and the U.K. exhibited seriously poor judgement when establishing a Jewish state where they did.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)Let's start with, [font color=blue]we put [it] in the wrong place.[/font] Unless you mean the Jews themselves, then your statement is false. "We" didn't put Israel anywhere. The Jews created Israel. Okay, to be strictly accurate, they recreated Israel.
[font color=blue]No other religion has had an international committee take land from one group and give it to them on such a scale[/font] There are two things wrong with this statement. First Jews are more than a religion. In reality, they are a religious based nation or people. That's why they are callled the Jewish People. Second, the "international committee" you are referring to--the UN--did not take land from anyone, and did not give land to anyone. In fact, the UN had almost nothing to do with the creation of Israel. I suggest that you read both the UN Charter and UN General Assembly Resolution 181--what is know as the Palestine Partition Resolution. The truth is that the UN was mostly covering for the British, and did not create Israel at all.
[font color=blue]My point is that I don't feel a conflict in supporting the rights of Jewish people to practice their religion and culture while realizing that the U.S. and the U.K. exhibited seriously poor judgement when establishing a Jewish state where they did.[/font] Except that the US and UK did not do very much to set up Israel in the first place. More important, Israel is where it is because that's where the Jews wanted to be, and where they had and have a right to be. Sending them to Baja might appear to you convenient, but there are two problems with it. First, Baja is Mexican territory. That is, there is a pre-existing state of Mexico that rules Baja, and they wouldn't want to give up their land. Second, the Jews have no historical or cultural connection to Baja, they they do have those connection with Israel.
Response to aranthus (Reply #225)
Name removed Message auto-removed
shira
(30,109 posts)On Sunday, September 30, a disturbing tweet was posted by their official account (click to expand the image):
much more...
http://storify.com/avimayer/the-free-gaza-movement-shows-its-anti-semitic-side
doxyluv13
(247 posts)Shira, not that this Times of Israel piece need much refutation--it's just the usual "blame the victim" trope you always push, but here's a piece by former U.S. intelligence officer Philip Giraldi.
It lays out the case against Israel without a drop of antisemitism.
It is called "Why I Dislike Israel":
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/10/03/why-i-dislike-israel/
shira
(30,109 posts)From the article:
Laughable.
And this idiot is former CIA?
Scary.
The rest of his article deserves ridicule as well.
=========
He wrote this about our POTUS:
Not surprising for a contributing editor to the rightwing American Conservative.
This Obama hating dumbass doesn't deserve to have his shitty articles posted here at DU - a website dedicated to keeping Dems in power. Not putting Republicans in to replace them.
=========
And you're wrong. He's just another piece of shit who believes the Jewish Lobby controls US policy (akin to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and shows his contempt - not only for Israel but Jews - when he shows his utter contempt with the "Holocaust Industry".
Rabid hater.
doxyluv13
(247 posts)I notice you didn't point out one part of his article that is anti-semitic. SO point proved.
Thanks for signing your piece honestly.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and has contempt for the Holocaust "Industry" didn't explicitly out himself in his most recent rant?
Yeah, you're right. You win.
Congrats!
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)suitable for quoting on a progressive site.
Here is what I posted about antiwar.com a few years ago:
'antiwar.com, despite it's liberal-sounding name, is not a liberal organization at all. It's explicitly old-style isolationist and America-First:
'Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that "War is the health of the State." With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism, and as Bourne emphasizes: " . . . it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution ." At its core, that "nature" includes the ever-increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.
In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well:
"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."
This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoes this sentiment: "We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State." Since opposition to war is at the heart of our philosophy, and single-issue politics is the only avenue open to us, Antiwar.com embodies the politics of the possible.
....The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony. They have made enemies of the patriots of all countries, and it is time for those enemies to unite - or perish alone.
0
Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. "America first!" regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom - a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.'
So they aren't just opposed to this war, which of course I am too; or in favour of exploring all other possible solutions before resorting to war; or opposed to excessive or unnecessary interventionism - they are opposed to ALL American military interventions EVER, including the intervention in WW2. And this is not on the grounds of absolute pacifism - which I strongly respect even if I don't think it's invariably possible in this world. It's on the grounds of ultra-libertarian isolationism, of a fairly xenophobic variety. It's just as right-wing and xenophobic as as the neo-conservative imperialism, even if in a different way. I am not going to accept anything that comes from this site, without considerable checking - and neither IMO should other liberals.'
As for Giraldi himself, he is a supporter and former advisor to Ron Paul, and has contributed frequently to 'American Conservative'.
As regards the particular article: it goes on from saying that political corruption is endemic in Israel (true, thought also true of many other countries) to basically implying that Israel controls the American government and is at least partly responsible for American wars, past and future. Whether or not this is specifically antisemitic, it is certainly xenophobic.
shira
(30,109 posts)On several issues there is no significant difference in views between the hard Right and fringe Left.
Israel is one of those issues.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Tell us, when was the last time you actually bothered to read anything there, and on what do you base this conclusion?
shira
(30,109 posts)Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. "America first!" regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom - a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.'
They seem similar to Pat Buchanon and Ron Paul.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.davidpietrusza.com/1948-progressive-party-platform.htmlThree years after the end of the second world war, the drums are beating for a third. Civil
liberties are being destroyed. Millions cry out for relief from unbearably high prices. The
American way of life is in danger.
The root cause of this crisis is Big Business control of our economy and government.
With toil and enterprise the American people have created from their rich resources the world's
greatest productive machine. This machine no longer belongs to the people. Its ownership is
concentrated in the hands of a few and its product used for their enrichment.
Never before have so few owned so much at the expense of so many.
Ten years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the
people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic state. That, in its essence, is fascism."
Today that private power has constituted itself an invisible government which pulls the strings of
its puppet Republican and Democratic parties. Two sets of candidates compete for votes
under the outworn emblems of the old parties. But both represent a single program—a
program of monopoly profits through war preparations, lower living standards, and
suppression of dissent.
< . . .>
PRINCIPLES OF THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY
The Progressive Party is born in the deep conviction that the national wealth and natural
resources of our country belong to the people who inhabit it and must be employed in their
behalf; that freedom and opportunity must be secured equally to all; that the brotherhood of
man can be achieved and scourge of war ended.
You really need to read more history before you pass such harsh judgement on your contemporaries, shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)
...than anything liberal or progressive. I'm sorry, but Paul and Buchanon are extreme.
Check out "nowarforisrael" and you'll find David Duke making the same points. Red meat for extreme Righties and fringe Leftists.
Here's an example of an anti-war, neo-nazi agenda:
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's in your head, tabatha. Either you support the policies of whatever party is in charge of Israel at the moment, or else you're a frickin' Nazi or Stalinist.
In 2005, David Duke cited Justin Raimondo's criticism of Bush's Iraq War policy as having been inspired by the neocons, and some seized on that as proof that Raimondo is some kind of neo-Nazi. I don't think so, and I don't think any fair-minded person would draw that same conclusion.
You seem to lump all critics of Israel together is the same sort of "You're either with us or against us" declaration of war that Bush, Jr. articulated in his GWOT speech. Very reactionary and xenophobic, indeed.
You aren't carrying your burden to back-up your categorical attacks. You don't even give decent examples to illustrate your points.
shira
(30,109 posts)In fact, Buchanon is a repeat contributer to antiwar.com.
Simply google "Pat Buchanon antiwar.com" without the quotation marks and you'll find one article after the next. Of course if Buchanon isn't an extremely vile, xenophobic isolationist to you, this won't make a difference.
As to Justin Raimondo, it took me only a few seconds to find that he describes himself as a Buchanite conservative. Which just goes to prove my point. That prick backs a vulgar racist and anti-semite. What do you think that makes him? And Raimondo runs antiwar.com.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's Buchanan.
Patrick Joseph "Pat" Buchanan is an American conservative political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, politician, and broadcaster. Wikipedia
Born: November 2, 1938 (age 74), Washington, D.C.
Spouse: Shelley Scarney (m. 1971)
Siblings: Angela Marie Buchanan, William Buchanan Jr., More
Education: Georgetown University, Columbia University, More
Movies and TV shows: Morning Joe, The McLaughlin Group, Crossfire, Capital Gang, More.
Raimondo and Buchanan agree on few things, but that doesn't make them both wrong about everything. It certainly doesn't prove your point. You haven't proved any points except that you tend to broadly over generalize the categories of people you hate.
If you have to splatter people with a broad brush of being "vulgar racist and anti-semite", please be accurate. And provide examples for a change. Cheez-itz.
Amateurs.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's why Raimondo backed Buchanan's Presidential bids in 1992, 1996, and 2000. It's why Raimondo describes himself as a Buchanite Conservative. And it's why Raimondo has commissioned Buchanan for dozens of his articles.
What do think of Buchanan's racism and bigotry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#Accusations_of_anti-semitism_and_Holocaust_diminution
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=pat+buchanon+racist+black&oq=pat+buchanon+racist+black&gs_l=hp.3...1064.5684.0.5895.25.23.0.2.2.0.197.2034.18j5.23.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.nTQJ1Hvlmi4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=189034c2ca497c3d&bpcl=39650382&biw=1279&bih=591
leveymg
(36,418 posts)diverting the issue onto a stinky, old paleocon like Pat Buchanan.
I have no illusions about Pat. He was on Nixon's CREEP team, he was a Reagan political strategist, he's an unapologetic, unreconstructed Cold Warrior. Old School. But, that doesn't make him wrong about everything. And, it certainly doesn't make Raimondo anything other than extraordinarily open-minded that he gives Buchanan a forum. But, then again, there are a number of reputable journalists who continue to work with (and disagree with) Pat, whose judgement it is that's he's not an antisemite. From the same Wiki section in Buchanan's bio you linked:
a number of conservatives and his journalistic colleagues, some of them Jewish, including Jack Germond, Al Hunt, and Mark Shields, have defended him against the charge
You still haven't provided any proof other than you're into guilt by association, and that you have no game as a polemicist. Give us something that clearly supports your point about Raimondo, or just fold 'em.
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)That is, I don't agree that DU-ers frequently link to antiwar.com, or that it's a favourite for leftists in general, but I do agree that it's a far right site.
I have bothered to read it quite recently! As regards the basis for my conclusions, I have set much of it out in the post to which Shira was replying. And here is part of their own description of their principles:
'Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that "War is the health of the State." With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism, and as Bourne emphasized, "it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution [the State]." At its core, that nature includes an ever increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power. ..
In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well:
"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."
This is the perception that informs our activism and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoed this sentiment: "We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State." ...Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site. ..The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of "Left" and "Right." ..The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty ..'
Their great hero Murray Rothbard was one of the big proponents of the evil 'Austrian School of Economics' (whose policies are perhaps best summarized by the phrase 'Let them eat cake!')
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Anti-imperialism as an American political movement goes back to the 1880s, and encompassed a wide variety of perspectives ranging from the humanism of Mark Twain (which we might today consider to be on the Left), through the transcendental pacifism of Henry David Thoreau, to the Christian populism of William Jennings Bryant (who was in some ways considered reactionary in his religious and economic views even in his own day).
I see that nothing fundamentally has changed. It appears to me the AntiWar.com appeals to the same wide spectrum of American opinion, and should not be shunned or silenced simply on the basis of a selective reading of a partial segment of its editorial line and readership. To shun and silence on the basis of selective reading is to show a prejudice and small-minded bigotry of its own kind. That is what bothers me most about shira's argument, and also about yours.
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)must never support any group or individual that holds such views. This is not cherry-picking. It is a central issue; one that cannot be sacrificed or ignored. People who hold these views are essentially making war on the poor, the ill, and the elderly or disabled; and are killing them just as surely as if they were bombing them.
If a right-winger wishes to support a single issue of the left, that's up to them, and should, I suppose be welcomed; but it does not stop them from being far right. The extreme-right nationalist parties of Europe such as the British National Party and France's National Front are on the whole against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This does not make them other than far right-wingers.
Also: this particular organization is a proud descendent of groups that opposed intervention in WW2, and would have let Hitler take over Europe rather than intervene. In most cases, accusing opponents of current wars of being 'appeasers who would have kowtowed to Hitler' is a vile slander; but in the case of this organization, it appears to be quite true. And, although they welcome the support of pacifists, their core views seem to be not based on pacifism, but on an opposition to 'big government'. Their fundamental slogan might be 'Defeat FDR in 1940!'
It is true that being anti-war might appeal to a variety of political perspectives; but antiwar.com is promoting a right-wing perspective. Paleoconservative rather than neoconservative; but the two are equally dangerous in different ways.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Antiwar.com is a project of the Randolph Bourne Instititute. That would be a peculiar offspring, and an even more peculiar name for the parent group if either Antiwar.com or the Bourne Inst. were Right-wing, as you claim.
Here's Bourne's bio on Spartacus School.Net (hardly a Rightist site):
Bourne's first articles were first published in the Atlantic Monthly. He also wrote for the New Republic and The Masses. This brought him into contact with other left-wing radicals such as Max Eastman, who described Bourne as: "A hunchback with twisted face and ears, a bulblike body on spindly legs, and yet hands with which he could play Brahms melodies on the piano with such delicacy as brought tears both of joy and pity to one's eyes. He had a powerful mind, philosophic erudition, a commanding prose style, and the courage of a giant."
<. . .>
In his literary criticism, Bourne argued for a socially responsible fiction and helped to influence the work of novelists such as Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Floyd Dell and Theodore Dreiser. Bourne also wrote several books on education including Youth and Life (1913), The Gary Schools (1916) and Education and Living (1917). Casey Nelson Blake has argued that these books established Bourne as "an early interpreter of twentieth-century cultural radicalism".
A pacifist, Bourne was one of the main figures in the movement against the involvement of the United States in the First World War in 1917. Max Eastman, the editor of The Masses, argued that "Randolph Bourne was the most stalwart of these publicists (against the First World War)". Bourne was especially upset by John Dewey decision to support the war. This resulted in a savage attack on Dewey in Seven Arts. These anti-war journals were forced to close-down as a result of the Espionage Act. Bourne wrote: "I feel very much secluded from the world, very much out of touch with my times. The magazines I write for die violent deaths, and all my thoughts are unprintable."
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)A right-libertarian; an opponent of FDR; an opponent of intervention in WW2.
And they also endorse Murray Rothbard, an ardent economic right-winger and anti-egalitarian, who considered that taxation is 'coercive theft', who supported Strom Thurmond for president in 1948, and who supported Pat Buchanan for president in 1992. Here is an article by Rothbard himself. Is this somebody to be endorsed by progressives?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html
Let me ask you a question. Do you agree with me that right-libertarianism and the desire to 'shrink the state' and get rid of social safety nets is an incredibly dangerous and wicked policy that needs to be fought as hard as possible? If not, then I don't think we have much to say to each other. If you do think so, then can you really not see the dangers of an explicitly libertarian site like Antiwar.com?
delrem
(9,688 posts)But why do you think that the only loud antiwar voices seem to be coming from the extreme libertarian sector?
In the US today it seems that both major parties are in lockstep to war.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Ch. 2, http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html
Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it.
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
I can also see some of the points being raised by the libertarians who so offend you, and much to disagree with, so there is some value to reading them, as well. As Mill points out, to attempt to suppress opinion one dislikes is the greatest danger of all. I believe that is what shira and some others on this thread are attempting to do.
shira
(30,109 posts)...when they bash Blacks? Or homophobes when they rip into LGBT's? Or neo-nazis who demonize Jews? Would you try selling these folks as fellow progressives?
I would hope your answer is no to all 4 questions. Whether or not their political positions match your own.
So why this tolerance or tacit support of Buchanan and his cheerleaders like Raimondo?
The thing with Buchanan is not only is he a proven bigot and racist, but he's also a religious conservative for school prayer, a homophobe, he's against immigration (very racist), anti-abortion, against euthanasia, against gun control, against minimum wage increases, anti-welfare, anti-safety net....
http://www.ontheissues.org/Pat_Buchanan.htm#Immigration
I don't see how it's possible selling him and his supporters like Raimondo as progressives or even centrists. Those views are ridiculously rightwing.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Unlike you, it seems, I read widely - there are those writers I support strongly and those who I'll oppose to death. Some of them express progressive views I enthusiastically agree with in part and, on the next page, I will find something vile, reactionary and obnoxious. Political magazines with multiple authors tend to be that way.
I do not have to agree with all I read. Some things that are almost mandatory reading are sometimes the most offensive.
Many political writers and journals are tepid and predictably stay within one dredged channel of ideology - I avoid them, as there is little to learn there. I am afraid that's all you would allow, being a one-track ideologue, and that's why you are dangerous. You're a censor.
shira
(30,109 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Allow me to add one last thought to my previous post about censorship.
The fact that you are a censor makes you more dangerous than Buchanan.
shira
(30,109 posts)So is DU also more dangerous than Buchanan?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's already plenty of totalitarian and intolerant thought. Even I have my limits for such things.
As for Buchanan, he rubs right up against my limits in some ways. I am not defending all of what he says, just his right to say it and to be heard. In addition to many other things I find objectionable about Pat, as a paid political operative he too has played the role of professional censor, character assassin, and dirty-trickster: http://media.eriposte.com/2-1.htm
Buchanan would become a central figure in the Right's media strategies over the next thirty years, always working inside the two institutions he attacked relentlessly: "Big Government" and the "liberal media." While plotting his political comeback in 1966, Nixon had hired Buchanan as his sole aide from a job as the youngest editorial writer on a major U.S. newspaper, the ultraconservative Globe Democrat, where Buchanan used information fed to the publisher, Richard Amberg, by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to smear civil rights leaders.12
But, he's now just a cranky old man without any handle on institutional power to suppress others, so I'll have to tolerate him. I occasionally listen to him because he still, in some ways, has interesting things to say.
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)
consider that Mitt Romney's views should be taken seriously on DU?
I believe in democracy; I believe that people of all stripes should be allowed to express their views in the public domain without censorship. HOWEVER, that is not the same thing as saying that they should have the right to present themselves as progressive. DU is supposed to be a progressive site; and quite rightly excludes the views of Republicans.
In my view, anyone who opposes social safety nets and supports Thatcherite/Reaganite economic policies and their offshoots, or worse, is beyond the pale from a progressive point of view and should not be treated as an ally on DU, whether they be antiwar.com with their right-libertarianism, or Barry Rubin, considered by some of the pro-Israel people here as a liberal, writing after the election that 'The strategy of higher taxes, high regulation, increasing government intervention, and bigger government are already unattractive in Israel and will be even more so. ...(Probably wrong about Israel here actually). the Obama-European approach has been disastrous.. . Romney’s expertise on turning around failing businesses would have provided the proper management. But that’s not going to happen.'
This is not the same thing as saying that they should not be allowed free speech.
As I once said to someone on DU who defended Dan Pipes on 'free speech' grounds and thought it 'bigoted' not to give such views a hearing: Voltaire said 'I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. He did not say, 'I disagree with what you say, but I promise to consider them with an open mind'. The two are different.
.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You would seem to allow -- in principle, mind you -- free expression of ideas, but in practice would ban them from being referenced or linked on this board on certain vaguely defined rules held by you that they aren't (in your mind) Left-liberal or redistributive enough. Well, even if we adopt that rule, different people's standards for what constitutes progressive ideas differ. So, who decides what's suitable for DU? You? Me? A jury? Admin?
Personally, I like to decide such things for myself, and accept that others have different ideas and notions about what is good and just and true. So, I rarely try to silence them, even if they upset me. By the same light, I would expect to be treated the same way. That sort of social compact and tolerance, I believe, is the only rule that's going to work in a large community of expression. Taking this a step further, if you accept that, the only sort of discourse that one should ban is that which disrupts the free exchange of ideas - in other words, censors should be banned. Do you understand the dilemma you and shira are creating?
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)It is the dilemma that a progressive community is creating. DU is to some degree a refuge from the right wing. If I want to read the opposition's point of view I can (and too frequently do) read the Daily Telegraph, or the Murdoch press, or some right-wing blog.
And Admin and juries do expect that people should endorse a broadly progressive consensus on DU.
You haven't answered my original question: Do you think that Mitt Romney's views should be presented on DU as part of acceptable progressive discourse?
Do you think that Dan Pipes or Pam Geller or Melanie Phillips should be legitimately cited as an acceptable point of view on DU?
That is the logical conclusion to banning all forms of censorship on DU.
I do not think that people should be forbidden to vote Republican, or that Republican propaganda should be banned from the media and the internet; nor is it likely to be. I believe in democracy and a free press. BUT I do not think that DU is the appropriate place for right-wing advocacy.
Perhaps you do think that the supporters of Mitt Romney or Dan Pipes should be able to promote their views on DU without censorship. After all, some people (especially anti-progressive Republicans!) do think that Romney is comparatively progressive - so, as you say, where do you draw the line? And I had endless debates back in 2007 with a DU-er who thought that Dan Pipes was a totally acceptable person to quote on DU.
If you do think this, then at any rate you're consistent! But this would change DU from being a progressive or pro-Democratic board to being a general political debate board. That would make it very different from what it is at the moment. You make it sound as though 'Shira and I' are trying to change DU from its original purpose (incidentally, Shira and I hardly march in lockstep, and I have had quite a few arguments with her, very similar to the one that I'm now having with you, about whether right-wing sources are acceptable if they support one's 'side' in the I/P debate). In fact, it seems to me that if you wish to change DU to a general political debate board where any source is acceptable, then you are the one who wishes to change it from its original purpose. If a majority wish to change it, then fair enough; but it would be quite a profound change.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)than what is actually said?
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)(in fact, one where I was replying to Shira):
'As regards what I'd do 'if their opinion is spot-on': it is unusual, though possible, that an opinion embedded in a generally abhorrent belief system would be truly 'spot-on'. Some details of it might be correct, but usually these are embedded in something nasty: e.g. hawkishness, or ultra-isolationism that exudes bigotry, or a harsh attitude toward poor and vulnerable people. Thus, I believe very strongly that the Iraq war was utterly wrong. The BNP also believes that the Iraq war was utterly wrong; so does David Duke. Does that mean their opinion is 'spot on' or that one should quote them on it? Not really. They are right that the war was wrong, but they think it is wrong because they are opposed to any 'foreign entanglements', not because they are peace-lovers or because they have a sophisticated awareness of the reasons why this war was unjustified and counterproductive.
Occasionally a bad messenger may, however, be genuinely right about a specific issue. For example, David Cameron, whom I detest as a politician, supports gay marriage. I think that he is right to do so. However, I would not quote him on the subject without a lot of qualifications. I might say, 'I think Cameron is a dangerous and incompetent leader, and his economic policies are a disaster to most people, and he is cruelly allowing his Ministers to trample all over poor people and the sick and disabled, and to plan the sell-off of the public services - BUT he is right on this one specific area of gay marriage'. Cristina Odone, a British right-wing journalist whom I detest, is pro-vaccination. I might say, "Cristina Odone is on the wrong side of almost all issues, and nasty about it, BUT she is right about vaccination'. But I would not imply that these people are respectable individuals because I agree with them on some specific issue, and I would usually try to quote people with generally decent views preferentially, if possible.'
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken O’Keefe, the former Gaza Freedom activist, who now parades under the slogan ‘trade not aid’, part of the neo-con zeitgeist, has now utterly discredited himself with his association with the ex-Grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke, a neo-Nazi through and through.
He falsely claims that Duke has abandoned the openly White Supremacist Stormfrontn - a lie which would take about a minute to uncover.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/10/ken-okeefe-believes-palestine.html
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)is antisemtic and made claims about Zionism = Nazi about so here from your link
The struggle for our inalienable rights is one opposed to all forms of racism and bigotry, including, but not limited to, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Zionism, and other forms of bigotry directed at anyone, and in particular people of color and indigenous peoples everywhere.
We oppose the cynical and baseless use of the term anti-Semitism as a tool for stifling criticism of Israel or opposition to Zionism, as this assumes simply because someone is Jewish, they support Zionism or the colonial and apartheid policies of the state of Israel – a false generalization.
Our struggle is anchored in universal human rights and international law in opposition to military occupation, settler-colonialism, and apartheid, something people of conscience of all ethnicities, races, and religions can support.
Finally, we call on people around the world to join us in a morally consistent stance that opposes racism and bigotry in all forms. An ethical struggle for justice and equal rights in any context entails zero tolerance for racial discrimination and racism anywhere.
By endorsing Duke and embracing him as a fellow activist, O’Keefe has besmirched these worthy, essential principles.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/10/ken-okeefe-believes-palestine.html
shira
(30,109 posts)...what will your reaction be?
Will you be revolted at yet another anti-zio bigot?
Will you just scoff at the evidence, no matter how strong?
Or just deny it?
Other?
ETA
And while we're at it, we can discuss Abunimah while we're at it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)be my guest as for anything else I'm done here
shira
(30,109 posts)http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/truths-and-lies-behind-israels-attacks-gaza-and-its-whining-about-rockets
Yes Mr. Abunimah,
All Israelis are guilty and are therefore legitimate targets of Hamas. They have no right to live.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ali Abunimah@AliAbunimah
We do not know if the Gaza ceasefire will be extended. We do know that the resistance is waging a legitimate struggle with just demands.
shira
(30,109 posts)MP George Galloway has emphasised that his Respect Party “abhors and campaigns against racism” after being alerted to comments by a party officer questioning whether Adolf Hitler was “the bad guy”.
Naz Kahn, who last week was being praised on Facebook for her selection as a new woman’s officer for Respect, made the comments on the same site on September 30.
Responding to a video called The Palestine you need to know, she said: “It’s such a shame that the history teachers in our school never taught us this but they are the first to start brainwashing us and our children into thinking the bad guy was Hitler. What have the Jews done good in this world??”
She later added: “No, I’m not a Nazi, I’m an ordinary British Muslim that had an opinion and put it across. We have worse people than Hitler in this world now.”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/88071/respect-activist-was-hitler-bad-guy
shira
(30,109 posts)Ali definitely needs a vacation.
Too much Joooz on the brain!
King_David
(14,851 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)According to his most recent tweet.
shira
(30,109 posts)FYI:
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign's Ben White writes for al-Jazeera and the Guardian (to name but a few). He is the author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide. Mr. White is, of course, a supporter of FreeGaza and BDS and cannot stop obsessing about the Jooooz...
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)You seem to be proud of the fact that the anti-zionist movement is polluted with sick bigots.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I'm not proud of bigotry in any form, especially when it dilutes actual antisemitism.
shira
(30,109 posts)And that reality is leading anti-zionist movements these days are without question anti-semitic.
True, they don't have to be.
But they are.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 27, 2014, 07:31 AM - Edit history (1)
First, the PRESS-TV article:
If the shoe were on the other foot, the Zios would be screaming to have the facilities bombed, but we won’t do that. The WMD contamination would be a disaster. Even conventional weapons landing just on their nuclear waste sites would create a catastrophe for anyone down wind. It’s the cheap way of making a conventional warhead go nuclear, using the target’s own waste material.
Netanyahu played his role as expected. Straight out of the Talmud, his coalition does not accept demands from the non-Jewish sub-humans. He will bet the farm on the Jewish Lobbies in the main Western countries, that they can bully their host country legislatures to do their bidding. They have a long track record....
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/06/276472/it-is-sanction-time-for-israel/
It just gets worse as it descends into neo-Nazi bile.
===================================================
London BDS tweeted it before later trying to scrub it, once they were caught.
Good thing the screenshot was captured first:
https://twitter.com/avimayer/status/277725652852035585
===================================================
Now here's PSC condemning London BDS for promoting it:
http://palestinecampaign.org/index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=4&l2_id=24&Content_ID=2928
Good thing, right? Well...they deny at the end of the article that it's the authentic London BDS group. They pretend they have nothing to do with this "lone" tweeter. The problem is, they've worked in coordination with this group before:
https://twitter.com/avimayer/status/277719622692773888
https://twitter.com/avimayer/status/277719748698066944
https://twitter.com/avimayer/status/277721999562915840
PSC playing dumb again. Will PSC come clean and admit their ties to this vile group?
shira
(30,109 posts)At the end of the article, he describes Hamas' incitement as covering the bases. Like all others who are hostile vs. Israel, not a word of condemnation or concern about Hamas' calls to kill all the Jews. Just silence.
Presumably, if Hamas were to make calls for "killing all the niggers", alleged anti-racists like Abunimah and his ilk would be just as silent.
delrem
(9,688 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)"We kill the Zionists because they are conquerors and we will continue to kill anyone who takes our land and our holy places … We will free Jerusalem inch by inch, stone by stone"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/08/hamas-gaza-palestine-khaled-meshaal-israel
delrem
(9,688 posts)Are you that in need of a pretext to steal more Palestinian land? Why do you even need a pretext, you steal it just because you can, then hate them for any resistance.
shira
(30,109 posts)And from Hamas' charter to what they say in their media constantly, they're very clear about wanting the Jews dead.
Anti-zios tend to deny, ignore, or explain away this neo-Nazi style incitement. I'm not sure Abunimah has ever brought it up or condemned it. He certainly didn't in the article just cited.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Whether he's Israeli or not makes little difference.
shira
(30,109 posts)The organization he runs has an obnoxiously antisemitic charter that calls for the killing of Jews.
Hamas makes it very clear in their own media and institutions that their war is against the Jews (not Zionists in particular).
========
What Abunimah is doing here is similar to parsing David Duke's words in order to deny his own obnoxious antisemitism.
========
Why did you call out David for wanting to "steal" more land? What does that have to do with the OP? And now that you brought up stealing land, let's continue with our discussion about your racist position; in particular the one where Jews are stealing land from Palestinians. You're quite clear that by stealing land, Jews have no rights whatsoever to what was Judea/Samaria for the last 3000 years minus the 19 that Jordan occupied it. It's racist denying Jewish rights to the land. And whenever you make this "stealing" claim, you're doing nothing to promote peace. Instead, you're ensuring more conflict, more terror, more bloodshed; as though Hamas and other extremists have good reason to protect "their" land from thieving Jews.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Don't you see the importance of being accurate?
Saying that Meshaal is a racist, bigoted POS does no more good than someone else saying that Netanyahu is a racist, bigoted POS. It fills the air with hate. If someone says that Netanyahu is a racist, bigoted POS, the already converted will cheer, but if that person goes on and claims that Netanyahu said what he *didn't in fact say*, e.g. "we will kill" rather than "we will fight", it only turns away the unconverted, who see only misrepresentation and hatred.
As I've said to you earlier today, when you posted a totally unsubstantiated attack on me, accusing me of all kinds of thought crimes, that I'm not willing to discuss issues with someone who does nothing but spew unsubstantiated hatred. Show me in my own words why you think I'm in error - knowing that my focus is on universal human rights - and I'll give the best response I'm capable of.
PS, if David stands against Netanyahu's recent declaration that settlements will be expanded - Netanyahu's open and immediate reaction to Palestine's recent action at the UN - then I stand corrected. Otherwise it's BS, it's the same old same old pastrami sandwich.
delrem
(9,688 posts)You reference another article entirely. Shira's link was:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/uks-observer-adds-kill-jews-hamas-leader-khaled-meshals-gaza-speech-when-he-did
And this article explains that "kill" is a mistranslation, that the correct translation is "fight".
Don't tell me that you didn't know what you were doing!
King_David
(14,851 posts)They never mean what they say ?
Except they never claim ever that they were 'mistranslated ' either,it is always some dude in the USA or such claiming this nonsense.
Be it Meshell or that Iranian Nutjob Ahmedinajat , they are always 'mistranslated' .
Thanks for the laugh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read :
Hamas in Their Own Words : (it ain't that funny )
http://www.adl.org/main_israel/hamas_own_words.htm
delrem
(9,688 posts)The article was written by Ali Abunimah at EI, not "some dude in the USA", and we're not discussing some hyperbolic "always" but rather Meshal's actual speech, which EI carries verbatim in a video.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Ali Abunimah
Ali Hasan Abunimah is a Palestinian American journalist and co-founder of Electronic Intifada, a not-for-profit, independent online publication about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
Born: December 29, 1971 (age 40), Washington, D.C.
Books: One country
Education: University of Chicago, Princeton University
Wikipedia
delrem
(9,688 posts)I made a mistake, jumping to the conclusion that he was Palestinian.
What's your excuse?
King_David
(14,851 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Definition of MENDACIOUS
: given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth <mendacious tales of his adventures>
— men·da·cious·lyadverb
— men·da·cious·nessnoun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mendacious
That is a lie , lol
delrem
(9,688 posts)And you squirm.
Response to shira (Original post)
AldoLeopold This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to shira (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I do not think you know what a Zionist is.
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)In fact, most of the early Zionists were totally secular.
And many Israeli politicians today, including some very right-wing types like Avigdor Lieberman, are nonreligious.
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)and the piece is from September. Must it be posted again, and again, and again, and again?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that happens with lots of this posters OP's sometimes as on DU2 for years must be popular or something
delrem
(9,688 posts)Unless a person refuses to make any distinctions at all.
Why bother arguing with an idiot who pretends that they can't distinguish a sect from a political movement?
The person is obviously playing a game. They are obviously trying to waste your time.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but another example of what I'm talking about here scroll down notice the start date and the last post date
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=327519&mesg_id=327519
delrem
(9,688 posts)kick! hehe
King_David
(14,851 posts)Can't say that you see that too often here even on IP from either side .
Yet for you it comes quite easy ?
shira
(30,109 posts)....it has proven to be anti-semitic. That can be seen by the many posts in this thread. One example after the next. Practically every anti-zionist supports the PSC or the ISM, FreeGaza, BDS, etc. All provenly anti-semitic organizations.
About the only anti-zionists I know who are NOT anti-semitic are the Satmar Hassidic sect, which is against Zionism on religious grounds.
It turns out there are many Christians and Muslims who are anti-Zionist for religious reasons, but like the Neturei Karta Hassidic sect, they show their true face with centuries old tropes, blood libels, etc.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I wonder how Israel and the Gaza Strip would be today if New York State was the chosen location for Israel.
Harry_Scrote
(121 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,698 posts)Trying to cow people into letting Israel kill as many of the Palestinians as they want to for fear of being called a "bigot." Trying to make people feel guilty for not valuing Jewish lives over the lives of Palestinians.
I do not trust the other side of Jerusalem either, but as long as Israel knows it can kill who they want, how they want, and as many as they want, there will be no peace.
Harry_Scrote
(121 posts)I am not sure of Shira's motives, but I can say he/she is off-putting. I'm trying to understand him/her but the task is not easy.
shira
(30,109 posts)Just about every leading anti-zionist organization and every leading anti-zionist leader can be proven to be an anti-semite. There are numerous examples in this thread alone.
Need more evidence?
Anti-semites should not expect others to take them seriously when criticizing Jews. All anti-zionist criticism (demonization) is nothing but a delegitimization tactic. It's not to help Israel improve and become more liberal. The goal is to destroy Israel. These vile, ugly people are no better than extremists who hate Arabs and want Arab regimes obliterated or nuked.
delrem
(9,688 posts)"Just about every leading anti-zionist organization and every leading anti-zionist leader can be proven to be an anti-semite. There are numerous examples in this thread alone.
Need more evidence? "
You haven't given any evidence yet. You might think you have, but you haven't.
"Anti-semites should not expect others to take them seriously when criticizing Jews."
True. This is true by the very definition of what it is to be a prejudiced anti-semite.
"All anti-zionist criticism (demonization) is nothing but a delegitimization tactic. It's not to help Israel improve and become more liberal. The goal is to destroy Israel. These vile, ugly people are no better than extremists who hate Arabs and want Arab regimes obliterated or nuked."
A truth, but then a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.
You haven't shown that all anti-zionist criticism is mere "demonization", whatever that might mean. In fact you haven't addressed any such criticism at all.
You haven't shown how zionism might be "legitimate", so haven't explained what "a delegitimization tactic" might mean. You haven't explained what you mean by "more liberal".
You conclude this stream of consciousness with "These vile, ugly people are no better than extremists", but you haven't shown any actual *reasoning*. You haven't even tried.
What I understand from this is that you very much care for Israel, you see much good in Israel that's worth preserving, worth fighting for. Perhaps Israel is the culmination of the greatest good in the world, for you. But I don't see a rational understanding.
shira
(30,109 posts)There's much more on that here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113418727
Catch up on that and tell me they're not antisemitic despite what Ali Abunimah of EI, Tony Greenstein of the PSC, Naomi Klein, and others have written and denounced in response.
delrem
(9,688 posts)equals:
"Are we to assume that all the organizations listed here approve of Mullins's outrageous claims about the Holocaust? Can we assume anything else? "
• 14 Friends of Palestine, www.14friendsofpalestine.org
• Abnaa Al Balad, Palestine, www.abnaa-elbalad.org
• Abrahams Töchter (D), www.abrahams-toechter.org
• ACAT, Catalunya/Espanya, http://acat.pangea.org
• Adams, Miriam and Steve, New Mexico (USA)
• A Different Jewish Voice (Een Ander Joods Geluid) - Amsterdam, NL, www.eajg.nl
• AIPPP (Patrimoine Palestinien) Strasbourg
• Aktionsbündnis für einen gerechten Frieden in Palästina (Deutschland)
• Alternative Information Center, http://www.alternativenews.org
• American Friends Service Committee-Pacific Southwest Region (AFSC), www.afsc.org
• American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), www.progressiveportals.com/aifc
• Americans Against the War - France (AAW-France), www.aawfrance.org
• Americans For A Just Peace In The Middle East, www.ajpme.org
• Americans for a Palestinian State, CA, http://americansforapalestinianstate.org/
• American Muslims for Palestine, www.ampalestine.org
• Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights (Oregon, USA)
• Antonine Friendship Link, (UK)
• Arab-Jewish Partnership for Peace and Justice in the Middle East (Chicago), www.arabjewishpartnership.org
• Araguaney Foundation (Spain), http://www.fundacionaraguaney.com
• Arbeitskreis Nahost Berlin (Middle East Group Berlin), www.aknahost.org
• Archbishop Desmond Tutu (South Africa), see his letter of support
• "Aristera!" ("Left!" (Greece), http://www.koel.gr (click on "Aristera!"
• Association France Palestine Solidarité, www.france-palestine.org
• The Australian Friends of Palestine Association, www.friendsofpalestine.org.au
• Australians for Justice and Peace in Palestine, www.ajpp.canberra.net.au
• Australians for Palestine, www.australiansforpalestine.com
• Banias, Yannis, Member of Parliament in Greece (Syriza Partie)
• Barnes, Andrea, peace worker (USA)
• Bat Shalom of the Jerusalem Link, www.batshalom.org
• Bay Area Peace Navy, www.docspopuli.org/articles/PN/BAPN2008.htm
• Bay Area Women in Black, www.bayareawomeninblack.org
• Berkeley Women in Black, www.bapd.org/gbemck-1.html
• Bishop Munib Younan (Jerusalem), www.elcjhl.org
• Blincoe, Nicholas, author (UK), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Blincoe
• Britain Palestine Twinning Network, www.twinningwithpalestine.net
• Brouillet, Carol, Congressional Green candidate, California, www.communitycurrency.org
• Bubbies and Zaydes (Grandparents) for Peace in the Middle East, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Burden, Richard, MP, Birmingham Northfield (UK), Chair of Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group, www.richardburden.com
• Cafe Intifada http://home.earthlink.net/~cafeintifada
The Caipirinha Foundation, http://culturesofresistance.org
• Campagne Civile Pour la Protection du Peuple Palestinien CCIPPP (France), www.protection-palestine.org
• Center for Studies and Alternative Information on Middle East (MA.D.I.S.A.)
• Center for Theology and Social Analysis (Missouri, USA)
• Checkpoint 303 (Tunisia/France/Palestine), www.checkpoint303.com
• Chicago Faith Coalition on Middle East Policy (Chicago), www.chicagofaith.org
• Chomsky, Noam, www.chomsky.info
• Citizens for Justice in the Middle East (Kansas, USA)
• The Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel), http://coalitionofwomen.org
• Code Pink, www.codepink4peace.org
• Collectif judéo-arabe et citoyen pour la paix, Strasbourg
• Comité pour une Paix Juste au Proche Orient in Luxemburg CPJPO, www.paixjuste.lu
• Le Comité Solidarité Palestine de Saint-Nazaire (France)
• Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine CJPIP (USA), www.cjpip.org
• Coordination de l'Appel de Strasbourg pour une paix juste au Proche-Orient, www.eutopic.lautre.net/coordination
• Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), www.cair.com
• Conscience International (USA), www.conscienceinternational.org
• Corrigan-Maguire, Mairead, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Corrigan
• The Cyprus IndyMedia Collective, http://cyprusindymedia.org
• Deir Yassin Remembered, http://www.deiryassin.org
• DePaul Academic Freedom Committee (Chicago), www.academicfreedomchicago.org
• Deutsch-Palästinensische Gesellschaft e.V., http://dpg-netz.de
• Dimitriadi, Antigoni Karali, Vice President of KEDE (Center of Research and Action for Peace, Greece)
• Dritsas, Theodoros (Greece), Syriza MP for Pireas
• Dropkin, Greg, Liverpool (UK)
• El Hoss, Dr. Salim, former Lebanese prime minister, see his endorsement letter (in Arabic)
• European Jews for a Just Peace EJJP, www.ejjp.org
• Farrah-France (Réfugiés)
• Follain Community Health Project, Waterford Women's Community Network
• Finkelstein, Norman G., www.normanfinkelstein.com
• Friends of Al-Aqsa, UK, www.aqsa.org.uk
• Friends of Sabeel (N.W.)
• Gai, Racheli, Tucson, Arizona
• Galloway, George (UK), RESPECT MP for Bethnal Green and Bow
• Gaza 3ala Bali (Gaza on my Mind), from Ramalla area,
http://gaza3alabali.wordpress.com
• Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP), http://www.gcmhp.net
• Gesellschaft für Österreichisch-Arabische Beziehungen/Society for Austro-Arab Relations, www.saar.at
• Gibson, Dr Ian, MP for Norwich North (UK)
• Global Exchange, San Francisco, CA, www.globalexchange.org
• Guns2Guitars (Israel), www.guns2guitars.org
• Gutierrez, Andrew Paul, PhD, Professor of Ecosystem Science, University of California, Berkeley
• Halpin, Dr. David, co-ordinator Dove and Dolphin aid voyage to Gaza
• Halifax Friends of Palestine, Yorkshire (UK), http://halifaxfriendsofpalestine.org.uk
• Hardy, Jeremy, star of "Jeremy Hardy versus the Israeli Army", and comedian,UK, Wikipedia
• Holton, Doug (UK), Theatre practitioner, author of "Culture and Activism in India" (with Michael Walling) and "Cultural Revolutions"
• ICAHD-USA, http://icahdusa.org
• I love Palestine, http://www.ilovepalestine.net
• International Action Center San Diego, CA
• International Solidarity Movement Northern California, www.norcalism.org
• International Solidarity Movement Michigan
• International Solidarity Movement-Chicago chapter (USA), www.nwsustain.org/ism_chicago.htm
• Intersindical Alternativa de Catalunya (IAC), www.pangea.org/iac
• Intifada-Solidarity Association to the Palestinian People (Greece), www.intifada.gr
• Iona Community, Glasgow, www.iona.org.uk
• ISM Denmark, www.palestinafredsvagter.dk
• ISM France, www.ism-france.org
• ISM Switzerland, www.ism-suisse.org
• ISM Italy
• ISM Spain, www.internacionalesporpalestina.org
• ISM London UK, www.ism-london.org.uk
• Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - UK (UK), www.icahduk.org
• I-Witness Palestine, Southern California, www.iwitnesspalestine.org
• Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD), www.icahd.org
• Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East (EJJP-Austria)
• Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in Middle East - EJJP Germany, www.juedische-stimme.de
• Jews for Justice for Palestinians (UK), www.jfjfp.org
• Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
• Jewish Voice for Peace, www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org
• Jewish Women for Justice in Israel/Paletine, Boston, MA
• Justice for Palestinians, San Jose, CA, U.S.A., website
• Kersanidis, Stratos, Film Critic, Athens, Greece
• Kos Grabar, Bojana, Amsterdam (NL)
• LA Jews for Peace, www.LAJewsforPeace.org
• Leon, Michael, Consultant, http://malcontends.blogspot.com
• Liverpool Friends of Palestine (UK)
• Loach, Ken, filmmaker (UK), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Loach
• Los Angeles Palestine Labor Solidarity Committee
• Lucas, Dr. Caroline, Green Party MEP South East England, www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk
• Meead, Portland Daily Photos, http://portlanddailyphotos.blogspot.com
• Mahon, Alice, retired UK Labour Party MP, Wikipedia
• Mansour, N.S. (Bill), Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University
• MAS Freedom, the human & civil rights advocacy affiliate of the Muslim American Society, www.masnet.org
• Meulenbelt, Anja, Kifaia Foundation, Amsterdam, http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anja_Meulenbelt
• Meyer, Dr. Hajo G. (Netherlands), Holocaust survivor, author of "The End of Judaism"
• Middle East Crisis Response, Woodstock, NY, http://mideastcrisis.org
• Middle East Study Group (California, USA)
• MidEast: JustPeace, Michigan, www.mideastjustpeace.org
• Morgantini, Luisa, MEP, Vice President of the European Parliament
• The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK), www.mpacuk.org
• Nabulsi, Dr. Karma, Oxford University, commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/karma_nabulsi/profile.html
• National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW)
• Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed, member of the House of Lords (UK), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazir_Ahmed,_Baron_Ahmed
• Netherlands Palestine Committee, http://www.palestina-komitee.nl
• Neturei Karta International, www.nkusa.org
• Network for the Political and Social Rights (Greece), http://diktio.org
• New Profile (Israel), www.newprofile.org
• Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia, http://seanacc.org
• North, Titus (USA), political science professor and former candidate for Congress, http://www.votenorth.org
• Norwich Friends of Palestine PSC
• Not In Our Name (NION): Jewish Voices Opposing Zionism, www.nion.ca
• NOVA - Social Innovation Centre (Catalonia/Spain), www.nova.cat
• Olive Cooperative, UK
• Olympia/Rafah Sister City Project - Olympia, WA/Rafah, Gaza, www.orscp.org
• Omer, Mohammed, Journalist (Palestine), www.rafahtoday.org
• The One Democratic State Group-Gaza, www.odsg.org
• Palestinian Agricultural Development Association-PARC/Gaza, www.pal-arc.org
• Palestine Aid Society, Los Angeles
• Palestine Committee of Norway, http://www.palestinakomiteen.no
• The Palestinian Centre For Human Rights (PCHR), http://www.pchrgaza.org
• The Palestine Medical Relief Society, www.pmrs.ps
• The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), www.palestinercs.org
• Palestine Relief Fund, Sydney Australia, www.palestiniansunited.org/palrelief
• The Palestinian Sailing Federation, www.geocities.com/palsailing/photopage.html
• Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UK, www.palestinecampaign.org
• Palestine Solidarity Committee - Seattle, www.palestineinformation.org
• Palestinian Community of Catalonia, Spain
• The Palestinian Youth Network
• Pau Ara Madrid
• Pau Ara Valencia
• Pax Christi Metro New York, www.nypaxchristi.org
• Pax Christi UK, www.paxchristi.org.uk
• Paz Ahora, www.pazahora.org
• The People's Voice: Ragnar Johannessen & Schuyler Ebbets, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/
• Peterson, David, Writer & Researcher, Chicago, www.electricpolitics.com/2008/05/principles_of_the_imperial_new.html
• Philadelphia Jews for a Just Peace
• Popular Committee Against the Siege, Jamal El-Khoudary, see endorsement letter
• Portland Peaceful Response Coalition (USA), http://www.pprc-news.org
• Progressive Librarians Guild (PLG), http://libr.org/plg/index.php
• Qureshi, Kamal, Danish MP, www.kamal.dk
• Rachel Corrie Foundation (Washington, USA), www.rachelcorriefoundation.org
• The Ramadhan Foundation (UK), www.ramadhanfoundation.com
• Resource Center for Nonviolence, Santa Cruz, CA, http://www.rcnv.org
• Rivero, Michael (USA), http://whatreallyhappened.com
• Salahuddeen - The Voice of Palestine (South Africa), http://salahuddeen.net
• San Jose Peace and Justice Center (SJPJC), www.sanjosepeace.org
• Sakorafa, Sofia, Member of the Greek parliament and former Olympic Women's javelin champion
• Sansour, Leila, film director, founder of Open Bethlehem (UK), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Sansour
(• www.openbethlehem.org)
• Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, www.scottishpsc.org.uk
• Sheehan, Cindy, anti-war campaigner, Congress candidate (US), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
• Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign (UK), www.sheffieldpsc.org
• Shropshire Palestine Talks (UK)
• Simpson, Dr., Brad, Asst. Professor of History & Int. Affairs, Princeton University
• SouthBayMobilization (San Jose), http://www.sbm4peace.org
• Stand Up Seattle, Seattle, WA, www.standupseattle.org
• SUSTAIN: Stop US Tax Aid to Israel Now, http://sustainphilly.blogspot.com
• Syed, Shakeel (California), http://shakeelsreflections.blogspot.com
• Tours In English - Palestine - Israel - West Bank, http://www.toursinenglish.com
• Tromsø, Norway, see endorsement letter of the mayor
• Union Juive Française pour la paix (France), www.ujfp.org
• UNISON (UK), www.unison.org.uk/international/pages_view.asp?did=7382
• Un Ponte Per... (Roma), www.unponteper.it
• U-pal (Understanding Palestine) (UK)
• US Academics For Peace (USA), www.conscienceinternational.org
• USS Liberty Survivors 1967- Friends of FGM
• Visions of Peace with Justice in Israel/Palestine, www.vopjip.org
• Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle East Peace, www.wiamep.org
• We Are Wide Awake (USA), www.wearewideawake.org
• "We Refuse to Be Enemies: Jews, Muslims and Christians in Coalition for Peace", Connecticut
• The Western New York Peace Center, www.wnypeace.org
• Wilson, Dr Bill, MSP for the West of Scotland, http://www.billwilsonmsp.org
• Women in Black - Amherst, Massachusets
• Women in Black-Armidale, Australia
• Women in Black - Cambridge, UK
• Women in Black, Edinburgh, Scotland, www.wibs.org.uk
• Women in Black - Green Valley, Arizona
• Women in Black, India
• Women in Black - Los Angeles, www.wib-la.net
• Women in Black, Netherlands, www.vrouweninhetzwart.nl
• Women in Black - St. Louis, MO
• Women in Black - Tucson, AZ
• Women in Black-Victoria BC, Canada
• Women in Black, Vienna, Austria, www.fraueninschwarz.at
• Women of a Certain Age (WCA) New York, NY, http://wca2004.org/
• Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), http://www.wilpf.org/
• Women Walk Home For A United Cyprus, www.cyprus.com.cy/womenwalkhome.htm
• The Working Group on the Middle East, Metropolitan Chicago Synod - ELCA
• Xarxa d'Enllac amb Palestina, Catalonia, Spain
• Xarxa de Solidaritat amb Palestina del Pais Valencia
• Yesh Gvul, support group for Israeli occupation refuseniks, www.yeshgvul.org.il/index_e.asp
• Zaytoun, UK, www.zaytoun.org
• Zochrot (Israel), www.zochrot.org
shira
(30,109 posts)There's Abunimah's back-and-forth with Greta Berlin.
There's Berlin's ties to Gilad Atzmon, Alison Weir, and other VERY nasty antisemites.
And here's a good article on Mondoweiss for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113418727#post205
The Facebook group she administered was vile.
It's much more than 1 tweet.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Considering that you've already in this short time written pages of crap accusing me of VERY nasty thought crimes, I don't take your word for it when you accuse others of being VERY nasty. No doubt there are whole groups of people who share your obsession and scour the net for any quotations that will show antisemitism here, there and everywhere, in support of ridiculous generalizations that everything they've ever said and every organization somehow connected with them is VERY nasty. I'm sure you can link to years of archives of your posts that accuse this that and every other person or group of being VERY nasty. But I'm not so learned as you about all these VERY nasty people, and had to go to wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Americans_Knew
From these brief wiki overviews I don't get an impression of anything VERY nasty. Quite the contrary. I have no doubt that both, being activists, have said some iffy things.
I doubt that either of them has said anything so iffy as you have said, as e.g. in your totally unfounded accusations about what I think, believe and "support".
I'm not going to be drawn any further into your pointless obsession. I'm sure you can continue forever piling up links and making incendiary accusations against individuals who disagree with your POV - but unless I see an actual argument from reason that tries to make some rational point I'm done with wasting my time (and having to deal with your emotional barrage of accusations!)
shira
(30,109 posts)...and you respect their work, or are they people you've barely heard of before our conversation (meaning you don't know much about them)?
Google Ali Abunimah with Gilad Atzmon.
Also, feel free to PM some of the regulars here - your colleagues against Israel - who have been posting in I/P for years. If they're keeping up with this thread, I don't believe they'd have any problem admitting Atzmon is a nasty Jew hating antisemite.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)From the OP:
It is almost certain that at least one person will read this article and state, “I oppose many policies of the state of Israel, so this means that I am an anti-Zionist, but I am clearly not anti-Semitic!” In contrast to what some people incorrectly think, Israel’s vibrant political culture allows for a diversity of opinion on Israeli policy. One is only anti-Zionist when he opposes the existence of Israel, and not when he opposes a specific policy of the state.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Are ideologies the most efficient connection to behavior? Or are there a variety of ways that any given ideology can be implemented, hence their nature as ideology, as opposed to instructions, or operating principles.
Many people aren't against Zion. They're against a much larger more general category of phenomenon characterized by violence and that includes the violence perpetrated by Palestinians, though there are those, such as myself, who regard Palestine as being in the lesser-empowered element in this situation and, therefore, having less potential to affect the situation than at least 2 of the other main actors: Israel and the Arab League.
Response to shira (Original post)
Post removed
King_David
(14,851 posts)You can not argue facts , so you resort to personal attacks.
I alerted on your filth.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)I'm wondering if that's new?
I only alerted 2 x before and I know that they sent full results , but not this time.
Ms. Toad
(35,467 posts)All you get for a second alert is the results of the jury vote on the first alert.
King_David
(14,851 posts)The post was up then down .
Ms. Toad
(35,467 posts)Democratopia
(552 posts)A view shared by many Jews.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/notjews.cfm
The idea that Zionism saves Jews from persecution is false. It puts Jews in more danger. In 1948 it made sense, but outside Israel, Jews are generally not really targeted for persecution. By the way, my wife is a Jew and a Zionist
shira
(30,109 posts)...the Jews there should have either packed their bags or handed the keys over to Arafat, living at his mercy?
Democratopia
(552 posts)Israel is a nation that needs to be protected. However, as in USA, we need to separate religion and politics.
King_David
(14,851 posts)"A view shared by many Jews"
If you think it's a view shared by " many Jews" then you don't know " many Jews" despite who your wife is...
Democratopia
(552 posts)I suggest you should mix more with others, and try to be less obnoxious.
King_David
(14,851 posts)A right wing homophobic fundamentalist group of anti Zionist religious Zealots who attended a Holocaust Denial conference with
David Duke hosted by that NUT JOB in Iran, Amedinajet ?
They represent a few dozen , nut jobs. Your wife I hope does not support these crazies.
That is what you are offering me as 'many Jews' ?
That crazy homophobic group is your PROOF ??
Naturei Karta can Fuck Off as far as I am concerned.
Any other proof?
Democratopia
(552 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)You do not know this ?
Are they all "homophobic nut jobs" too?
YES
aranthus
(3,386 posts)If not, then you are simply asking for trouble by posting them. In fact, you have no standing to make their arguments at all. First, your claim that "many" Jews believe as TTJ or Neturei Karta is just statistical nonsense. At best, they comprise maybe 1% of the world's Jews. They don't get to define the rest of us. More important, if you aren't TTJ or Neturei Karta, then you don't believe what they believe, and you believe for different reasons. As has already been stated on this thread, they are both very conservative Orthodox sects. It's very unlikely that a member of TTJ or NK would post here.
More to the point. Both TTJ and NK believe differently from the typical Leftist or Conservative anti-Zionist. TTJ's and NK's beliefs on Israel may be summarized as, "The Jewish people have no right to Israel at the present time." That means that in the future they would. The typical anti-Zionist believes that Israel has no right to exist ever, at all. So the two beliefs are actually very different. Second, TTJ and NK believe what they do based on a peculiar to them reading of the Scriptures. So unless you share their religious views, who cares what they say? Traditional anti-Zionists don't give a crap about the Scriptures, and are against Israel's existence for various political, chauvinistic and/or antisemitic reasons.
So the beliefs and arguments of TTJ or NK don't support the positions of anyone else, because they are completely different beliefs. Also, they don't shield traditional anti-Zionists from the legitimate charge of antisemitism. I don't know what your real beliefs are, and I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that most Jews who know anything about TTJ and NK also know that they are used, and allow themselves to be used, by antisemites to create a false shield against the charge of antisemitism. So instead of supporting your position, when you cite to TTJ and NK it's like shining a spotlight on yourself that you may in fact be an antisemite and dishonest to boot. That isn't you, and that isn't what you want to say. And again this isn't directed at you per se. TTJ and NK get trotted out by lots of people on many sites including often on DU. I'm saying to everyone that when you do, what it does is hang a very unflattering sign on you.
Democratopia
(552 posts)So, well over 100,000 Jews - I would say that is a lot.
For the record, I am not an anti-Semitic. I chose to marry a Jew. I have been to Israel. I certainly support the right of Israel to exist. I have a lot of respect for the Jewish culture. Where I do have a problem is where criticism of Judaism + Israel foreign policy = "anti-Semitism." I find this to be at odds with notions of freedom, democracy and reasoned debate. It is very dangerous and clearly SOME Jews are offended by it.
King_David
(14,851 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Good to hear....but why you post so much of their propaganda shtooyot here on DU ?
Democratopia
(552 posts)I have met Jews who share my view that Zionism is a problem - not a Jewish state being the problem, but the use of Zionism to stifle debate. I would say there must be many Jews who think that. These are Jews who have helped to shape my opinions. The Jews who pull out the anti-Semitic card and are unable to engage in a rationale conversation about Israel have had the same impact on me as hard-line Republicans. They wrap their identity up so far in Zionism that they cannot separate themselves from the actions of their political leaders. I have a problem with that. This is why I say Zionism has no place in the 21st century. It was a much needed project to provide safe haven, but it has happened, Israel exists. Celebrate Israel, the Jewish faith and culture. Never forget the past, but Zionism has already happened. There is no need to drum up such powerful nationalism. It is time to just be.
King_David
(14,851 posts)The quote above from your post Is just a slice of how jumbled and confused a post it is.
Sorry no offense but this post, as demonstrated , makes no sense .
Democratopia
(552 posts)That project has achieved its goals. What we have now is the word Zionism being banded about as though it is an excuse for anything that the Israeli foreign policy makers want to do. There are two separate things, a religion and politics. Whilst it took politics to create the Jewish state, we no longer need today's Zionism, which is now an all-embracing term to make the actions of political leaders excusable in the name of a religion. This is why I say a religion is being hijacked.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Ak your wife ?
Democratopia
(552 posts)We also have Republican Jewish friends who are unable to talk about Jewish foreign policy. It makes their blood boil with fury to hear a view they don't like. They use the word Zionism a lot and they use the words anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic a lot. It is THIS concept of Zionism I do not grasp. The Fox News concept.
King_David
(14,851 posts)You mixing with the wrong , tiny minority,Jewish crowd....
Listen to your wife.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Take this article. It states that opposition to a political idea is inherently the same as hatred of Jewish people. For this to make sense, one must believe that Jewish people are one and all identified with this political idea. That every Jew is a Zionist (as the author defines zionism, of course) and that Zionism is inherent to all Jews.
In other words? The author of this article holds that every Jew thinks the same. Holds that every Jew shares the same ideas. That so long as you know a person is a Jew, you are guaranteed to know where they stand on the issue. And if they dpn't support it, well, they're "self-hating," and thus not really Jews, not worth having their opinions considered.
This is of course baldly antisemitic. It's not hidden, it's not insidious, it's not couched in doublespeak and dog whistles. it's right there; Zionism = Jews. Period, end of story, at least according to mr. Harris of TorchPAC. All Jews, marching in lockstep, to what this racist fuck insists is the meaning of "Zionism."
The idea is, if you scream "antisemitism" loud enough when called on your hatred for Arabs, it might distract people. It's pretty much the only method the anti-Palestinians have, much as the anti-women sorts love to squeal about "the babies!"
Unfortunately, the more you cry wolf, the less people care... so when the wolf actually shows up? Some have noticed that actual antisemitism - that is, hatred directed against Jews, not disgust towards bigots hiding behind Jews - is on the rise. Could this be because of this effect? When everything is antisemitism, then what impact would actual antisemitism have?
shira
(30,109 posts)....all of which show those organizations and their leaders to be the textbook definition of antisemites, means what to you?
Since you'd describe yourself as a leftwing anti-racist, I expect you to be just as vigilant against Jew hatred as you are any other form of racism and bigotry. But you're not. Why?
Is it that you haven't seen enough examples of textbook antisemitism in the organizations listed - or from their leaders? If not, how much evidence do you need?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You list off names of organizations you dislike, and with derped eyes and frothy lips, screech "ANTISEMITES!" - you know, like I just mentioned. Anyone who fails to tug their forelocks in agreement with you will similarly be so dubbed. Go for it, it's all you've got.
Are some members of these groups antisemitic? Wouldn't surprise me. Greta Berlin clearly is.
But she's not the one claiming every Jew on earth either adheres to this political philosophy or is a self-hating Jew.
As Delrem points out upthread, you're not exactly strongly-qualified on the subject, Shira. As for my vigilance against antisemitism, maybe you should pay a little more attention. And maybe you should realize that there is absolutely no difference between the claims "Every Jew is a communist" and "every Jew is a Zionist."
At least Greta Berlin doesn't seem to be using her own antisemitism to claim she's pro-Jewish.
shira
(30,109 posts)Shira is wrong about this organization because.......or about this individual because.....
Nothing.
Why not just admit you cannot defend anti-zionists?
Better, why not name a leading anti-zionist you know who isn't a ginormous bigot? Or an anti-zionist organization who doesn't fit the textbook definition of antisemitism?
That's the challenge. Take your time.
If anti-zionists aren't anti-semites, you should have no problem finding masses of them.
===========
And you'll have to do better than your ad-hominems about pro-Israel Jews being anti-semites.
That's laughable.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Shira expects everyone to do as Shira does, just see a name and roll their eyes and go "Oh, them," because Shira is an authoritarian and can't conceive of people acting out of lockstep with the groupthink.
I just did defend anti-zionism, Shira. At least, against the claim that it's antisemitism. You can't deal with that, so you throw a handful of names out there just to see what sticks. Kind of your MO, regurgitate a sloppy argument and hope someone slips in the mess. Failing that, you change the subject to go "Yes but what about..."
And again, I ask you put your ass in a chair and read up what "ad hominem" means. A key point of it is that an ad hominem attack is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And I think when we're discussing antisemitism, the fact that you're right here declaring that all Jews either believe X or that they're "self-hating" is actually quite relevant. it really undermiens your credibility on the subject, even more than the bullshit besides that does.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)
In the following thread, and in particular, this post from Mondoweiss:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/113418727#post205
It doesn't expose just Greta Berlin, but her fellow travelers in hate (and all others who've worked closely with her in the past). Berlin is a nutcase who cannot control her hateful impulses. There's simply no way those who've worked closely with her in the past could NOT have known her views prior to this latest scandal.
I'll remind you that practically every anti-zionist has backed the FreeGaza movement, even when they were exposed years ago for working directly with Hamas, the IHH terror group, and other very ugly individuals and hate groups. These facts made no impression whatsoever on anti-zionists. Nothing. FreeGaza is the ISM. Same founders. BDS supports both the ISM and FreeGaza. The PSC has fought alongside FreeGaza. EI and Mondoweiss are in neck deep with them. Even if these groups weren't cheerleaders of FreeGaza in the past - and they were - they've exposed themselves just as Greta Berlin has 100's, maybe 1000's of times.
Anti-zionist apologists are still digging their heels in maintaining that FreeGaza is not anti-semitic, only that Greta Berlin is; facts be damned.
Another favorite of mine from that thread is a FreeGaza dude who is BFF with David Duke:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/113418727#post217
This guy was on the Mavi Marmara. He has been a guest speaker with Jenny Tongue and other well known anti-zionists many times at anti-zionist events. He's even nuttier than Greta Berlin if you can believe that. There's simply no way possible other anti-zionists didn't know who this scummy POS freakshow was years ago. Did they out him then? No chance. Why would they do that? Haters stick up for their fellow haters.
Find me anti-zionists these days who are not heavily involved with or supportive of the ISM, BDS, PSC, FreeGaza, EI, Mondoweiss, etc.
They don't exist.
=========
I'm curious. When groups like the ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and individuals like Eli Wiesel, Robert Wistrich, etc...all experts on anti-semitism, routinely condemn hatred from anti-zionist groups, what do you make of that? Are they full of shit? All rightwingers with an agenda? They don't know what antisemitism is?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Now, for a moment, pause and look at your argument. You are arguing guilt by association here, basically. "Oh, Greta Berlin was part of X group, and Y group endorsed X group, and Z group talked with Y group, so they're all just like Greta Berlin."
This is a pretty dumb argument, but hey, feel free to make it. While you're patting yourself on the back for being such a good zionist and making such an unshakable argument, I'm just going to list off a few of the Zionists you're holding hands with, who you share guilt with by your own argument...
Meir Kahane
Ann Coulter
Pam Gellar
Grand Ayatollah Yishai...
Is it starting to sink in yet? No? Okay, let's have some more!
David Horowitz
Baruch Goldstein
Andrew Breitbart
Yaakov Teitel...
How about now? No?
John Bolton
Yigal Amir
Daniel Pipes
Charles Krauthammer...
Well, if you don't get the drift now, you're pretty dense. While you're holding hands and singing Hatikvah with these guys, are you sure you want to rely on a guilt by association argument here? Because frankly you've got enough of a stench around yourself from the things you actually say, but if you want to be held responsible for everything your fellow zionists do? Well hey, we can do that. I think it's a fast downhill slide, but I don't exactly expect the highest standards when discussing things with hte likes of you.
Did you just ask me if Robert Wistritch is a right-winger who's full of shit?
Ever heard of a film titled "Obsession; Radical Islam's War Against the West," Shira? Imagine if someone combined "Birth of a Nation" and "Jud Suss" and made the result an attack on Muslims. That's Obsession. Rabbi Jack Moline characterized it as "the protocols of the learned elders of Saudi Arabia." It's so deep in shit that the Endowment for Middle East Truth - an anti-Muslim propaganda outlet - withdrew its endorsement of the film
Wistritch was the film's primary academic adviser.
So is Robert Wistritch a right-winger who's full of shit? Absolutely. So what does that make you, since you're trying to lionize him alongside Eli Weisel?
shira
(30,109 posts)Paul Larudee (who founded the ISM) is also a co-founder of FreeGaza. And here he is still defending Berlin...
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/paul-larudee-on-the-abunimah-berlin-affair.html
Here are other current "NEW" board members of FreeGaza (including Ann Wright) defending Berlin...
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/free-gazas-new-board-we-support-justice-in-palestine-not-dem.html
Has Berlin stepped down? No. Is there any reason to believe the FreeGaza board members will ask her to do so? Nope. And why should they? Here's another FreeGaza board member named Greta Duisenberg:
http://cifwatch.com/2010/11/12/gretta-duisenbergs-unambiguous-antisemitism/
With vicious antisemites running the show at FreeGaza, why would anyone expect Berlin to resign? They're just digging their heels in deeper defending her.
I notice you had nothing to say about Ken O'Keefe (David Duke's BFF). Very popular with FreeGaza. He still does tours on the anti-zio talk circuit.
So FreeGaza is still okay with you? Not anti-semitic?
As to the guilt-by-association accusation, you'd have a point if the great majority of Zionists supported that rogues list of characters you mentioned. The problem is they don't. No one @ I/P here at DU does either. But OTOH, FreeGaza and its cheerleaders like the ISM, PSC, BDS, Mondoweiss, and EI are all enthusiastically followed by pretty much ALL anti-zionists who feel they have to walk in lock-step with each other or risk their movement being exposed. They either don't care about anti-semitism b/c they're anti-semites themselves or they're silenced and censored (the reasoning being that it's too risky exposing the movement for what it is). The "cause" or Palestine is more important than outing anti-semites.
So nice try, but this comparison of yours fails. Try again?
I also notice you didn't respond to the fact that the ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Eli Wiesel all denounce the anti-zionist movement. They are all experts and leaders in the fight against anti-semitism. I should have included the UK's very own CST as well. Anti-zio advocacy, both by word and deed, matches the textbook definition of anti-semitism (and also the EUMC working definition of anti-semitism). Who - besides repulsive rightwingers like David Duke - would attempt to explain away or ignore these expert organizations?
As to Wistrich, I don't see any evidence suggesting he's rightwing. I've never read anything by him that appears to be bigoted. Did he say anything bigoted in the 'Obsession' movie? And if not, being affiliated with this movie (as an expert in his field) is the only thing that leads you to believe he's a bigot? Talk about guilt-by-association.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I was too busy sitting back and being amused by your including an islamophobic right-wing fuck like Wistritch right there next to Eli Weisel. That's kinda like putting Chuck Murray and Cornell West into the same category, Shira. I thought maybe you were just ignorant, but now?
Well, now you're telling me that being actively involved in the production of a blatantly islamophobic right-wing shitheap of a film is no cause for concern.
...While arguing that a person posting an antisemitic video is cause for an entire organization to shut down completely or something.
That's interesting.
I'm going to consider my points proved, Shira.
...
As Delrem points out upthread, you're not exactly strongly-qualified on the subject, Shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)I can only assume you won't respond to the arguments b/c you have nothing and cannot defend a hateful, anti-semitic organization like FreeGaza.
As to Wistrich, if he was a bigot there'd surely be OTHER evidence out thre proving he really is, rather than your weak excuse of guilt-by-association. Where is it?
OTOH, when I call out FreeGaza and certain anti-zionists, it's not just because of one questionable (as in Wistrich's case) incident. These anti-semites have long rap sheets proving that it's way more than just 1 or 2 incidents that damn them. Did you read the article @ Mondoweiss from a fellow activist who wrote of Greta's Facebook group, which was very anti-semitic? Greta's crime was posting that video on Twitter. Had she only done so in her Facebook group, no one would be the wiser and that hate group would still be at it. The very fact that Greta Berlin endorses Gilad Atzmon's vile work (which cannot be defended) goes to show she really is what people are accusing her of being.
You should know that I know what you're up to. And it's not to debate whether anti-zionism is anti-semitism or not. You won't win that argument. All you have are your potshots and deflections. When you realize you have nothing, and you do realize it, you just call others racists, rightwingers, and warmongers. If you wish to continue that rather than argue anti-zionism is not anti-semitism, go for it and have fun playing with yourself.
Democratopia
(552 posts)One reason that there is resentment against Zionism is exactly the situation you describe.
Does a Scotsman who wants Scotland to divorce itself from the UK hate England and all English people? No. But a man who does not agree with Zionism is guaranteed to be called anti-Semitic.
Does a Texan who wants Texas to leave USA hate Americans? No. But a man who does not agree with Zionism is guaranteed to be called anti-Semitic.
There are two different issues. 1 - Religion. 2 - Nationalism. Some Jews may not see the difference. Others do.
In my experience, the most fervent Zionist don't even live in Israel. In USA, our founders saw the importance of separation of state and religion and that is how it should be. As you say, the anti-Semitic card has been overplayed. It has been overplayed by the political right in America to suit an agenda that Israel be used as a puppet for US foreign policy. If there shall be no discussion and no debate, then there ceases to be democracy.
King_David
(14,851 posts)no reply eh?
aranthus
(3,386 posts)First one does not have to think that all Jews think the same to accept that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Do all Italians think the same? Of course not. Would almost all of them think that you were anti-Italian if you argued that Italy had no right to exist? Of course they would. Second, in fact most Jews do agree on the issue of Israel's existence. The only ones who don't are groups like True Torah Jews and Neturei Karta, which are maybe 1% of the world's Jews, or else Leftists of Jewish Parentage. That is people who are nominally Jews, but whose beliefs come from Leftism and not Judaism. In other words, the vast majority of Jews believe in a jewish people that has national rights like other peoples. Since most anti-Zionism is based on a rejection of Jewish national rights it is per se antisemitic.
Democratopia
(552 posts)I certainly agree that Israel has a right to exist. However, I do not agree that as Israel is a Jewish state, its foreign policy and politics is beyond criticism. This is where I think Zionism is a problem - not Zionism itself, but a belief in Zionism that is so extreme that it means that anyone who criticizes Israel is branded anti-Semitic.
shira
(30,109 posts)But you're coming from a different perspective. Your criticism is based on making Israel better, not tearing it down.
Anti-zionists like David Duke and his ilk @ Stormfront or Pat Buchanan only criticize out of hatred in order to defame, demonize, and dehumanize. They want Israel gone. They want Jews harmed. Can we at least agree most of their criticism is illegitimate and is laced with vitriol?
It's been written several times on this thread that anti-zionism need NOT be anti-semitic. And it's not when one considers Satmar Hassidic Jews (not Neturei Karta) who don't believe Israel should exist until Messianic times. They are not actively working with neo-nazis, psycopaths, repulsive rightwingers, and outright, textbook definition anti-semites who have an axe to grind with the Jews.
But the rest of the anti-zionists ARE doing that, daily when they're closely affiliated with and very supportive of proven anti-semitic organizations like BDS, the ISM, FreeGaza, the PSC, and others like ElectronicIntifada & Mondoweiss. Organizations supportive of terror and attacks against Jews (Palestinian right to resist). No amount of evidence exposing these groups for who they are, no matter how damning, elicits any condemnation against these hate groups. No outrage, no reflection. Nothing. Just denial or deflection. Many dig their heels in even more in defense of these hate groups.
An example is Helen Thomas. No matter the evidence, no condemnation by the vast majority of anti-zionists. No outrage. Nothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x339494#339503
In fact, Helen is respected even more these days by her fellow haters. Mel Gibson is another. John Galliano. Etc...
If someone comes out hating on Blacks, Gays, or Arabs and is defended to the hilt, what do you make of such apologists other than the fact they're fellow haters? And if the apologists are making the same, sorry, hateful comments themselves is there any question they're fellow haters?
aranthus
(3,386 posts)That's why we have to be so careful with defining terms and saying what our arguments are. People who declare taht any criticism of Israel is antisemitism aren't speaking from a believf in Zionism. They are speaking from foolishness, defensiveness, their own chauvanism, etc. Zionism means only the belief that the Jewish people are entitled to a state. It doesn't mean that they are entitled to all of the Holy land, and it certainly doesn't mean that people like Netanyahu are beyond criticism. The trick is to pick out the honest critics from those who simply want to get rid of the Jewish state entirely.
Democratopia
(552 posts)is over. It has achieved its goal. So, I don't agree with you in defining Zionism in only one way, for now Zionism means something different - the muddling of Judaism with the actions of the Israel political leaders - and this is why I say a religion has been hijacked. You cannot have a foreign policy in the name of a religion without compromising either that religion or that democracy.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)aranthus
(3,386 posts)"The belief that Jews should have their own nation; Jewish nationalism."
In simple terms, Zionism means that you accept the legitimacy of Israel's existence. Anti-Zioniism means that you want Israel gone.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however we both know it's stickier than that because geographically speaking Israel has as of yet to define itself
aranthus
(3,386 posts)First because most borders between countries have changed over the years. Second, because most of Israel's borders are defined. Third, because anti-Zionism rejects any Jewish state, so that the borders issue is a bit of a red herring.
The real problem is the tendency to expand the meaning of Zionism beyond what it really is. That occurs on both sides of the issue.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)when Israel does not define itself or is defined several different ways I can say I support Israel's existence within the Green Line but that is as far as it goes, which for a goodly number of people is not good enough
shira
(30,109 posts)You support Israel becoming majority Palestinian and eventually another failed Arab state.
Basically the position of Fatah.
Or am I wrong?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however it is indeed you threw RoR into a discussion where it was not mentioned
Democratopia
(552 posts)It is not me who is trying to redefine Zionism. It is those who cannot separate religion (and race) from the actions of political leaders.
King_David
(14,851 posts)no one replied, eh?
shira
(30,109 posts)....within 1949 lines? How can you be for Israel's existence within 1949 lines and also support Palestinian RoR? That will just ensure there is no more Israel, but a Palestine within the green lines.
And no, it's not good enough to be for both the 1948 Israel and also RoR. That's the Arafat phased plan to destroy Israel. Being for RoR is being for one Palestinian state, from the river to the sea.
You can't say you're for 2 states when you're for RoR.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as either for or against
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That Jews who do not accept Zionism - mind you, Zionism as defined by Michael Harris - are self-hating Jews. i.e, "auto-antisemites," not-really-Jews, whose opinion doesn't matter.
And it's that particular definition, that version of Zionism espoused by the sorts of people like Michael Harris, that causes the problems. Anti-zionism is not about the existence of Israel. It exists and it will continue to do so until it doesn't, just like any other nation. The problem is that Zionism, the variety practiced by Israel, and as advocated by Harris, and by Shira, and many others... Is not about there being a Jewish homeland. it's about there not being a Palestinian homeland. It's about "finishing the job", pushing the Gazans into the sea and the West bank Palestinians into the desert. Zionism, as exercised, is not about benefit and prosperity to Jewish people, but rather about oppression and disenfranchisement of Palestinian people.
Jewish national rights do not have to come at the expense of other people. The loudest troop of Zionists however, insist that this is mandatory. As I said, there are many varieties of Zionism. The one promulgated by Mr. Harris and so many other anti-Palestinians is nothing but a fig leaf, a smiley face to cover for their overwhelming hatred of the Palestinians.
And nice dismissal of Jews who don't share your politics, by the way. If you want to shit on leftists, I suggest you slither your shit back to freerepublic or atlas shrugs, wherever your usual hangout is, 'cause DU ain't the sort of place to go in that direction.
Democratopia
(552 posts)as well as the rights of other people.
You articulate very well the problem as many see it.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Your 'supporters' do not reply to you
aranthus
(3,386 posts)It has had and still has a very specific meaning. If you want to argue that those who want to "finish the job" are motivated by Jewish chavanism and not Zionism, I have no problem with that. But they are exceeding what Zionism was and is about when they say or suggest such things.
And the article makes a very specific argument: "Why are these individuals also anti-Semitic? Because anti-Zionism revolves around the horrifying notion that the Jewish people are not an ethnic group, but are merely members of a religion."
And to answer your coming question, yes, Jews who do not believe that the Jews are a people are per se antisemitic. Even TTJ and Neturei Karta believe in a Jewish people. Peoplehood is one of the fundamental elements of Judaism. If you reject that, then you are engaging in antisemitism.
Democratopia
(552 posts)aranthus
(3,386 posts)You don't get to define the movement. Just as I wouldn't dream of defining Catholicism or Buddhism because I'm not a Buddhist or a Catholic. You don't have the right to imput ideas to a movement that it doesn't actually have. You can critique what people do in the name of that movement. You can say that what they do is outside the accepted beliefs of the movement. What you can't do,what no one has the right to do, is say that whatever you don't like about what people do is that movement. It would be like me saying that the Catholic dogma includes pedophilia because some priests are pedophiles. That's not fair.
And I'm not even sure what you mean about "bringing ethnicity into this." That is what the thread is about, whether the attack on a particular ethnicity's national existence is anti that ethnicity. Per se it is.
Democratopia
(552 posts)It is those who cannot separate religion (and race) from the actions of political leaders who have redefined it. I suggest those who see an aggressive Israel, a USA puppet military outpost, are trying to redefine Judaism when they call this Zionism. This is not the word of the Torah that is essentially pacifist. Not that I am saying Israel should lay down arms, but wake up to the contradiction that others can clearly see.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Don't know much about political movements, do you? Spare the "no true scotsman" argument.
And yes, I'm aware of Mr. Harris' straw man argument. It's kind of cute, with how fragile it is.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)Mostly there is the Zionism that actually is, and there are the many Zionisms that non-Zionists try to fabricate in order to hide their true agenda. For example, your claim that Zionism means anti a Palestinian state is just nonsense.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You call it "Jewish chauvinism," but I keep getting told it's "zionism." That my opposition to the continued brutalizations, disenfranchisements, and indignities heaped on the Palestinians means I want to see Israel destroyed, which makes me an antizionist, which apparently makes me antisemitic...
In effect I'm told I hate Jews because I don't hate Arabs enough.
And that keeps getting labeled with the tag "zionism" by your fellows around here. By the nation you claim to support - it's the one yelling "Zionism!" while slicing up the West Bank and bombing journalists in Gaza.
You can argue that "it's not Zionism," and maybe you have a point; it's not the same as the Zionism that was conceived in the 19th century, for sure. But then, what Mao and Stalin practiced wasn't exactly "communism," either, but their efforts have handily changed the expectations and perceptions of the term. Again, I'm not sure you understand how political movements work. They're not frozen in stone. They change and grow and develop and alter, along with the people who believe in them, the situations they're placed in, and whatever new ideas are brought in.
As practiced today, as endorsed by all these "zionists" running around... Zionism is a brutal anti-Arab political philosophy. You don't have to like it, but don't snivel at me about what other people have done to the philosophy.
shira
(30,109 posts)I don't know where you get that shit from. And then you accuse me of being anti-Palestinian and against a Palestinian homeland? Seriously? I cannot say it enough times, but I back the Clinton Initiatives of 2001, the Geneva Initiative of 2003, and Olmert's offer of 2008. I'll back any deal that leaves Israel intact, secure, and at peace. A deal that also sets the path for Palestinians to run their own successful state (the more successful, the less inclined they'll be to go to war vs. Israel).
I'd say there are only a minority of Zionists out there truly against a Palestinian state. Many Zionists who say they're against it only do so b/c they believe it's impossible for there to be a Palestinian state next to Israel that will live in peace alongside it.
OTOH, I know of no anti-zionists in favor of any of the 3 peace proposals above. I see no anti-zionists working towards making a future Palestinian state successful and truly progressive or liberal. All I see is that they oppose Israel's existence and would like to see Israel replaced by a majority Arab state. One that is the antithesis of all progressive/liberal values. If all Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank is run by Hamas, so be it. They prefer such a scenario over the continued existence of Israel. I cannot think of anything more disgusting, hateful, warmongering, and rightwing than that kind of position. If you disagree, then how am I wrong?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Tell me again about that "disputed territory" and how blowing up Palestinians makes Israel a better place.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:17 PM - Edit history (2)
....are by definition against a Palestinian state? Isn't it possible such people believe that despite Jewish rights to the land (both legal and historical) Israel should still compromise and give up rights to nearly all the WB and Gaza in the interests of peace?
And you know there aren't Zionists here who believe "blowing up Palestinians" makes Israel a better place. This is just another way for you to deflect and accuse your opponents of racism, warmongering, etc. You're intentionally perverting what your opponents believe and fighting a strawman.
Now here's where I'm going to accuse you of the same....
Pop Quiz: Imagine a shooter mixed in with a dozen children who are shielding him. That shooter is firing from among the children into a heavily populated area also full of children. You have a chance to take him out with a rifle and you're about 30 feet away. If you miss, you could possibly kill a child he's shielding behind. What do you do? Go for it and try shooting the bastard or allow him to keep killing the other kids? You only have 2 choices.
If you do nothing, shame on you for allowing him to kill more children you could have saved. If you fire at the son-of-a-bitch and miss, I'm going to accuse you of wanting to "blow up children".
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm going to make two assumptions here.
1) The guy is also armed with a firearm or other weapon that he could easily turn on the people around him if I were to try to deal with hte problem in another fashion
2) He's using cover within a crowd, rather than having the kids literally strapped to him like body armor or something.
If (1) is not true, if he's, I dunno, setting up a rebar tripod to lob flying pipe bombs, I go in, clobber him with the rifle, and bring his happy ass in.
If (2) is not true, if he's somehow set it up so that any shot I take is guaranteed to kill one of the persons he's using as a shield, well then it becomes a real dilemma!
So with those two assumptions, I take the shot; it's one bullet, with minimal risk to the crowd (Thirty feet? It's a rifle, not a blunderbus!) to take down a man who is a proven threat to other lives.
This is ethics 101, Shira. Keep studying, maybe some of it will start sinking in.
Now, here's where you screw up;
See, the problem is, the scenario you described is not at all like the one I present in the question, "does blowing up Palestinians make Israel a better place?"
You're trying to put me in Israel's role here, taking out a dangerous miscreant who has innocents around him, yes? But... you've armed me with a rifle. Maybe I'm not the absolute best shot in the world, but I'd feel pretty confident about my chances at thirty feet with a rifle of succeeding at the task with very minimal risk to the people around the target. Ray Charles would feel good about his chances, I mean jeeze, thirty feet?
Thing is? Israel doesn't use rifles at thirty feet.
Israel uses these;
From this altitude;
Which results in this:
Israel also uses these;
Which results in this:
So, if you want me to be Israel in your scenario, take away my rifle and give me a bunch of frag grenades, then ask me, "do you take out the gunman with those?"
The answer is no; I evacuate the people he's targeting and then try to find a way to rescue his hostages. By the way this is also the answer if assumption #2 is not true.
shira
(30,109 posts)Yeah, I should've written you're farther away than 30 feet. But you're the children's only hope. You cannot evacuate the other children without more being harmed. But you did say you'd shoot. So there you go. If you miss from say 100 feet and you kill a child, I'm sorry but now you're a murderer no better than the shooter you're trying to take out. Killing children is not the answer to others killing children. Of course, this is according to your own morals and ethics.
I see you also tried deflecting and going with emotional photographic propaganda. The problem there is that Israel has a proven record of being more careful WRT civilians during combat than any other nation in the history of the planet. If they had more accurate weaponry that only took out bad guys and no one else, ever, and we're talking 100% accuracy at all times, I'm sure they'd patent the weaponry. Unfortunately that weaponry doesn't exist due to technical malfunctions and human error. I could also provide photos of rocket/missile damage to Israelis to counter yours, but I didn't.
Point is, you're expecting Israel not to retaliate ever, for fear that even if they take out 100 Hamas to 1 civilian, that's murder. Israel should just lie back and take those rockets. Just the same, if you miss that shooter with your rifle and hit a kid, you're a murderer according to your own logic. No matter how precise and careful, you're just "blowing people up". Better that the shooter kills other kids than you try defending them and shooting another child.
On a related note...
I read a comment recently WRT Israel being wrong to attack Hamas in order to counter the rockets. Some guy commented that Iron Dome was something like 90% effective and not too many Israelis were being hurt, so Israel shouldn't fight back. In response, another guy made an analogy. "If you were wearing a super awesome jockstrap that was 90% effective, would you retaliate back at me if I were to keep kicking you in the nuts"?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You want to cast me in the role of Israel for it, right? So you hand me a rifle.
A rifle is a discriminate weapon. It's designed to sight a target and send a bullet at just that target. It's made for small-scale precision killing of individuals. It's a good choice for the scenario at hand, which is why police forces utilize them in hostage situations.
A bomb is sort of the opposite of a rifle. It's indiscriminate. A bomb explodes and sends concussive forces, shrapnel, and fire in a sphere around. it hits everything within that sphere. Man, building, goat, kid, trees, cars, pregnant women, houses, streets, terrorists, nursing homes absolutely everything. A bomb's purpose, it's raison d'être, is mass carnage and destruction. This makes a bomb - or grenades, missiles, or any other sort of explosive ordinance, extremely bad for the situation described.
You want me to take the role of Israel, but Israel isn't using rifles, Israel is using bombs. This isn't "emotional propaganda," (...really?) but plain simple fact; Israel drops bombs on Gaza.
So back to your ethics scenario. You want me to be Israel? Then a more apt situation is you handing me a grenade and asking if I will use it to take out the target, knowing that it is certain to harm or kill his hostages as well. The answer to which, as I stated, would be no.
If I miss with the rifle and hit an innocent, then yes, that is tragic and something I would have to live with. But that risk of causing undue harm with my errant bullet is more acceptable than the certainty of causing massive harm using the grenade.
If you can't conceive of alternatives to blowing up a bunch of people with a bomb, Shira, then you have no place to be calling my ethics into question.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:26 AM - Edit history (3)
You have a weapon and are capable of stopping the shooter, but it's likely (close to guaranteed) you'll take out a few kids surrounding him as well, no matter how careful you try to be. You either do nothing and watch as he kills 5, 10, 20 kids......or you fire. It's him and 1-2 children or it's >20 children being killed by him.
Your choice.
What do you?
Remember, you're not Superman. You can't just zap him with your heat vision and not hurt anyone else....
It'd be nice if you were Superman. Only the bad guys would pay. Unfortunately, the Israelis aren't Supermen either.
Hey, is it me or does it look like Superman needs to lay off the pasta for a while?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's not the either-or scenario.
Anyway, it's 5:00 AM. Maybe am more smarter later.
shira
(30,109 posts)He's killed 3, 4, 5.....
You're their only hope.
You either act NOW or watch as he kills more than 10, 20.... in the next minute. It's him and 1-2 other kids or it's anywhere from 30-60 kids he's about to kill. While you've been chatting with me, he's already killed 3. Now 4....5....6.
Another few seconds and he's about to get your own child.
What do you do?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Which is the point I've been making since you brought it up.
1) Israel is not using rifles. Israel is using bombs.
2) The reality is that there are more options than you present. That you have no interest in options that do not as a matter of course kill innocents, does not mean those options do not exist.
3) Even if your scenario were true to reality, there's an issue of repetition. if I kill five kids to stop this bad guy, then I kill seven kids there, and then ten over here, two over there... Again and again and again, i keep killing all these innocents to stop the bad guy. Well, I'm not actually stopping the bad guy, it doesn't look like. In fact it comes to a point where I'm a bigger danger to innocent life than they are.
4) With that in mind, your numbers are very far from reality. To reflect the actual reality of the conflict, I would have to be killing - guaranteed - seven innocent people to save one. That's the ratio of civilian deaths, seven to one. That's over the entire conflict since the start of the Intifada in 2000. If we trim it down to just the fatalities in Gazan rocket attacks and the responses against Gaza, then I'm looking at killing sixty seven innocents to protect one.
Now. Would you murder - not risk, would you outright kill sixty innocent people to save one person? Would you kill seven? Would you willingly kill one innocent person to save another?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
There's no thinking your way out of this one. You're running out of time and kids are dropping before your eyes.
The count is going up by the minute and no matter how accurate your weapon is, there's always a chance it'll malfunction or you'll miss due to human error. What you're certain of is that if you do nothing, many more will die. Do you take out the shooter and take a couple kids around him, or watch as he kills dozens more? And to make it more personal, he's aiming closer and closer to kids, family, and friends of yours.
What do you do?
I promise to answer you. I just need to see how you'd react either way, as there are no other options. And now another was just shot dead.
Scoot, what are you going to do?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I have already answered your question. You decided to re-invent it so that killing innocents is integral... despite as shown by your first attempt, it clearly is not. You want to justify the killing of innocents, and you will stoop to any level to do so.
So then. I will leave you to your fantasies, your masturbatory delusions about how it's absolutely integral to splash the blood of innocents around.
shira
(30,109 posts)You could have saved many lives while thinking there must be other options.
Looks like you'd do the same if put in the same scenario again.
So tell me, how is it better to allow the killer to have his way killing dozens rather than try to stop him?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You started off fine, with the rifle example. When you didn't get what you wanted - justification for your own desire to see innocents die - you changed the situation. And you have failed to answer any of the questions I have posed you.
No, I will not murder innocents to prevent innocents from being murdered. You, apparently, would. Which makes me think that in this scenario, you would be the person who needs to be stopped.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:15 PM - Edit history (2)
...rather than killing the shooter and a few civilians surrounding him.
Whether you think it's stupid or not, you could've saved dozens of people but chose not to. I don't see how that's morally or ethically superior to taking out the shooter. In fact, it's far worse and I'm sure you see it that way too.
To prove it, let's say a police officer was in your shoes and he shot the killer along with 1-2 kids. He just saved dozens but you'd want that officer charged with murder, correct?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Are we back to talking about exposing innocents to risk - the soldier with the rifle, the cop with his sidearm?
Or are we still going with guaranteed destruction of innocent life as in your second attempt at this?
because there's a difference between risk of harm and guaranteed harm. The difference between a bullet and a bomb.
Also, would you be as willing to sacrifice the lives of Israeli Jews as you are Palestinian Arabs? Do you believe that a person who wants to stop the slaughter of Palestinians is justified in throwing a grenade into Benny Gantz' house, blow up his wife, any children present, but so long as the CiC of the Israeli armed forces is stopped, that's acceptable losses? Hezbollah's justified in lobbing missiles into kibbutzes to "take out" the IDF forces firing from those places, heedless of innocent life lost? Should the people of the West bank start undertaking bombing campaigns against the settlers who threaten them, and so what if some little girls die in the process of taking out their militant fathers?
Because that's exactly what you're advocating. If it's good for one side, then there's no reason for it to not be just as good for the other. But I suspect you change your tune as soon as the race of the people you are labeling as expendable and inconsequential changes.
Which just goes to show your premise - "there's no alternative so it's totally okay!" - is exceedingly stupid and probably based in... let's just say certain irrational biases.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)....groups committed to harming Jews, via terror for example? Do they share the same agenda as Hamas (end of Israel, Jews out of Israel, resistance (terror vs. Jews) is a legitimate right, etc)?
Democratopia
(552 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)
We keep hearing how Iran wants to obliterate Israel, and yet there are Jews living in Iran. I have not heard that they are being exterminated, have you? So it isn't Jews who are the problem - and we should be careful about playing the anti-semitic card whenever an organization threatens or attacks Israel. To say Jews are the problem fails to address the issue because obviously Jews can live in peace in the nation that is supposedly planning to destroy Israel. To find peace, one must start by understanding what the problem is. What do you think the problem is? Do you think the Israel foreign policy is a problem to its neighbors and nearby enemy? Do you think American policy has anything to do with it? Do you think modern day Zionism is the problem? Or do you think it can all be explained away by saying it is hatred of Jews?
shira
(30,109 posts)...and I'm certain other Jews here do too. You will not hear them say that Iran has no problems with its Jews. As to Iran/Israel, Iran is currently supplying Hamas with Fajr missiles and other armory while consistently threatening to destroy Israel. I take them seriously. You apparently do not.
Can we agree Hamas hates Jews? Because if so, there a few Jews in Gaza. They happen to be anti-zionists who Hamas accepts, for the time being, as useful idiots for the cause. Does that mean Hamas isn't anti-semitic?
To answer you: It's hatred of Jews. There's literally mountains of evidence pointing that way.
Democratopia
(552 posts)Let me give an analogy. The IRA wanted to break up the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. It killed and maimed police, politicians and ordinary people. It got a lot of its funding from sympathizers in USA. I was one of the people who said, never negotiate with terrorists. I was proven wrong. I am glad I was wrong.
Did the people of Northern Ireland hate the English? No. But if the people of Northern Ireland had lived in relative squalor in what amounted to an open air prison, they might have done. Did the Irish blame America? No. What happened was that most people just wanted to live in peace. The politicians got together and worked on creating a plan for peace. The people voted and they voted for peace. Might not be a perfect solution and there might not be total peace, but things are a hell of a lot better. Just saying, "The IRA hate us. Period," achieves nothing. It makes the situation worse. I was one of those people, but my excuse is that I was young and naive. No excuse really, I was still wrong.
Saying all these groups hate the Jews achieves nothing. Look at the reasons why this might be. Try to understand your enemy, talk to them, know them, not hate them back, and then show them that they are wrong to hate you by leading them on a path to peace. The whole Zionism thing is a diversion. Israel is an established nation. That is not negotiable. It isn't relevant that three quarters of the population identify themselves as Jewish. It was relevant in 1948, but not now. What is important is to be a leader who can lead your enemy to peace, just as happened in Northern Ireland. Don't ever close the door to peace. Saying they hate us because of who we are is closing the door.
shira
(30,109 posts)This isn't about Palestinians getting their own state. They've missed that boat many times over the past century. Ask yourself why.
We all know why. Hamas and friends absolutely hate Israel and are very serious about wanting to destroy it. The IRA wasn't like this. Like it or not, this is a religious war as far as Hamas and friends are concerned.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)There are religious anti-Zionists who I would not necessarily consider antisemitic. True Torah Jews and Neturei Karta, but as I have pointed out above, their arguments only work if you are a member of those groups, so they are irrelevant to any argument about whether anti-Zionism is antisemitic. The other group of anti-Zionist Jews are Leftists. Their anti-Zionism comes from their Leftist beliefs and not their Jewishness, so their ideas are as much subject to the charge of antisemitism as anyones. And as Shira has pointed out, people who associate with or support violently antisemitic groups are antisemitic. What matters is what they think and write and say, not who their parents were.
And just exactly what do your "anti-Zionist" friends believe? Do they believe that the Jews are not a people entitled to a state at all? If so then they are truly anti-Zionist, and also antisemitic Jews. Otherwise, they probably aren't. Do they believe that the Palestinians should have a state? Not anti-Zionist. That all the Settlements have to be moved so that the Palestinians can have all of the West Bank for their state? Not anti-Zionist. That Netanyahu is an ass? Way not anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionist means that they think that the Jewish people are not an ethnic group, but are merely members of a religion, and that therefore, they don't have a right to a state of their own. To be anti-Zionist you have to be against the existence and national rights of the Jewish people. That's why being anti-Zionist is per se antisemitic.
rbixby
(1,140 posts)tiny piece of land (comparatively so). I just wish there was some way to adopt a sort of melting pot philosophy there like we have here. Granted yes, its not perfect, but with so many people laying claim to the same land, it seems a little odd that everyone can't just share it.
I guess that's the big question for both sides, they've both spent millenia on the same land, why can't both sides come to some kind of mutually beneficial sharing agreement. I guess the divisions are too deep for that though.
Democratopia
(552 posts)Africans, many people living in peace. About one in five are Arabs. All most people want to do is live in peace and get on with their lives. All this flag-waving Zionism is not what most Israelis are focused on and it shouldn't get in the way of the path to peace.
rbixby
(1,140 posts)I've always thought that it wasn't so much a religious or cultural thing. I think the uncertainty in the area helps keep the price of oil high, which benefits everyone in the oil producing countries, both monetarily, and in the military aid that they get from their allies.
shira
(30,109 posts)....al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. I'm not talking the people in general, but their totalitarian leadership as they call all the shots. These elites in charge do not share our liberal/progressive values. In fact, they don't share even one progressive value with liberals and progressives. They work to destroy all that, as Arab liberals living in those nations will attest to. Arab liberals live in constant fear. I'll remind you that one of the first things the Ayatollah of Iran did in 1979 was hang and execute western left-wingers, liberals, and progressives who worked with his crew to overthrow the shah.
Think on that.
To make it simple, western progressives and liberals basically believe that 2 nations living in true peace with each other is a win-win situation for both nations. The Taliban, Syria, etc.. do not believe in win-win scenarios. They are all zero sum. Either one nation wins or loses. That's it. A win-win for both is anathema.
There's nothing Israel can do currently to make peace with their neighbors. Israel's very existence is a big, fat FAIL in their opinion. An absolute embarrassment that can only be fixed by utterly destroying Israel. Total victory. And back to 75 years ago for Jews when they were helpless, powerless, and hunted.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"we have no partners for peace"
thank you again
shira
(30,109 posts)....first and foremost over progressive/liberal values.
Since you disagree, tell me why you expect Hamas to make genuine peace with Israel.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I'll give ya this this your getting the Hasbara how to make a rightist policy palatable, sorry if it still doesn't fly though
to with you'll predictably say you've got nothing or deflection or some such a true post count builder huh?
eta starting a conversation about how your so for a two state solution but........ with the Tailiban is a dead give away
shira
(30,109 posts)...so long as there's a Palestine. You've made yourself clear here many times. When it comes to human rights vs. your version of self-determination, you are for the latter first and foremost. If Palestine becomes more progressive/liberal, fine. If not, also fine.
What a complete betrayal of all progressive/liberal values.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)There are large numbers of Jewish people who oppose Zionist policies and Zionists denigrate them and call them "self hating"
In a nutshell not all the Jewish are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jewish
aranthus
(3,386 posts)Opposition to Israeli policy (other than the policiy of surviving as a Jewish state) isn't anti-Zionism. Being anti-Zionist means opposing the existence of a Jewish state. The fact that some people who are nominally Jews hold that belief doesn't safve it from the charge of antisemitism. Especially since the people on the ground (Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states) mean opposition to the Jewish state's existence when they speak of anti-Zionism, it is totally disingenuous to claim that it means something else.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You make objectively false claims in support of the OP
There is the false claim that Anti-Zionism means opposing the existence of the Jewish state. That is a lie because many Israeli citizens, both Jewish and Palestinian, oppose the current ruling ideology of Israel but wish the separate state to continue. Zionist ideology proposes the primacy of the Jewish claims to lands in Palestine and that all state policy should be in furtherance of the sole occupation of Israel by those of Jewish faith and/or ancestry. Zionism denies the claims of the displaced (of whatever faith). Extreme religious Zionism wishes the establishment of a theocratic government, like that claimed to have existed in the time of the Judges.
Another falsehood was, essentially, that there are Jews who hate their Jewish identity because they oppose Zionism and hence are anti-semitic. Well Zionists would claim that wouldn't they. The existence of Israeli politicians who oppose the aims of the current ruling clique in Israel is an embarrassment and hence the Zionists make their opponents out to be race traitors.
Next please remember that anti-semitism existed long before Zionism and hence being anti Zionist does not of necessity mean being anti-semitic.
Lastly please order your thoughts, place them in paragraphs and try to provide supporting arguments. Picking apart your incoherent rant was difficult and not at all instructive
pelsar
(12,283 posts)sorry...now go back do some research, keep your mind open and you'll find quite a wide variety of definitions of zionism over the years by very patriotic israelis, that dont fit your narrow definition...(hint they go left...)
then come back an rewrite your post.....it shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes...assuming you have an open mind and are willing to learn...you might be one of those who prefer not to, your reply will tell us.
shira
(30,109 posts)Even the most hardcore Palestinian advocacy groups cannot be bothered.
PSC: Some Palestinians are more Palestinian than others
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/12/18/psc-some-palestinians-are-more-palestinian-than-others/
No outrage. No demonstrations. No UN condemnations either.
Anti-zionists don't give a toss for Palestinians unless Israel is involved. So what other explanation makes sense other than that their advocacy is based on pure hatred, not support for Palestinians?
shira
(30,109 posts)Oh shit.
Busted!
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/israels-worldwide-repression.html
Guess the Elders of Zion pamphlet was real!
MUHUHAHAHAHA!!!!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...and their human rights violations racist?
There are those, who being PC, won't dare criticize Islamic nations for violating the rights of women, gays, and religious minorities. Are they racists too? IOW, the racism of low expectations?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I'm not sure why. It was a simple question I asked you.
Frothing, right wing obsessive criticism of anything is tiresome.
shira
(30,109 posts)...is tiresome.
That's how I see rabid demonization of Israel (the pan-Arab/Islamist totalitarian, rightwing narrative).
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...which is pretty much always the case from those married to the Palestinian narrative. IOW, the ethnic majority in Israel are colonial, thieving, ethnic cleansing, genocidal apartheidists....
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)No, my friend. Those in Israel who act outside of international law by colonizing Palestinian land (not within Israel), take what both the UN and International community see as unlawful (land theft), and treat the Palestinians as dirt (apartheid) are worthy of criticism.
The Israeli government is also worthy of criticism when it turns a blind eye to these practices and even encourages them.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's sanctimonious bigotry.
It's simply outrageous to claim that Jews (the majority population since the mid 19th century) are colonialists in Jerusalem.
Nothing but hate.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)have something to say about that as well. While we're on the subject, I mentioned Israelis...not Jews.
The former is the proper way to address them. The latter simply makes the mistaken argument that "Jews" are what I am referring to or demonizing.
You should be more careful in what you are implying about others.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Last night Tel Aviv University history professor Shlomo Sand referred to Israel as a “shitty nation” (clip 1). He called Israel “the most racist society in the world” and said that he has been fighting “Jewish racism all my life” (both clip 2). And he declared that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist in the western world today (clip 3).
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/shlomo-sand-at-soas-israel-a-shitty-nation-most-racist-society-in-world/
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Israel is “a shitty nation?
That must really burn your ass since he is of Jewish heritage, resides in Israel and criticizes his own people.
Does that make you want to get all "Sicarii" on his ass?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)
...and his name is Khaled Abu Toameh. He used to write for the PA back in the 90's but now writes mostly for the Jerusalem Post. Since he routinely criticizes the PLO and Hamas, he isn't well liked by the pro-Palestinians here.
You know how it is - any criticism of Hamas and the PLO is frowned upon. It's bigotry, rightwingery, etc....
Now imagine Toameh did a Shlomo Sand, calling Palestine a shitty nation, saying it's the most racist society in the world, and claiming anti-Palestinian bigotry simply does not exist.
How would you view this guy?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The question, by me directly to you, was...
Wow. Shlomo Sand, a professor of History at Tel Aviv University believes Israel is “a shitty nation?
That must really burn your ass since he is of Jewish heritage, resides in Israel and criticizes his own people.
Does that make you want to get all "Sicarii" on his ass?
Now you can either answer or not. I can't force you to, but I just really wanted to know how you felt about a person of Jewish heritage that resides in Israel that criticizes Israel.
Instead of deflecting as usual why don't you just put it into your own words..
Here's the question: How do you fell about a person of Jewish heritage that resides in Israel that criticizes Israel; in this instance Shlomo Sand?
shira
(30,109 posts)...is smearing Israel and its people. It's like you get off on it, and anything that takes you away from the smear job is a distraction you're just not interested in.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The question, by me directly to you, was...
How do you feel(sp) about a person of Jewish heritage that resides in Israel that criticizes Israel; in this instance Shlomo Sand?
shira
(30,109 posts)Sand is on record stating there's no such thing as a Jewish people and that the term is invented....
Fuck him.
=======
So I feel pretty much the same way of him as you would Abu Toameh. You'd surely claim he was an anti-Palestinian bigot, if he had said the same about Palestine.
=======
You just accused me in another thread of being bigoted for attacking Palestinian society.
Sand did the same WRT Israel and you're 100% behind it.
Amazing hypocrisy!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That's probably the most honest thing I have every seen you write.
It's too bad that you don't exercise that kind of thinking more often and apply it equally.
You brought Sand, or Zand into this dialog so don't preach to me about what I am behind 100%.
I didn't post anything related to Sand until you brought him into the mix, to keep your own thread above the fold, so don't accuse me of things that you can't back up.
And yes, you were called out for using a few pictures to debase an entire culture. Live up to your own shortcomings.
shira
(30,109 posts)A reporter for The Times expressed surprised that news of a Labour Party investigation into racism against a member of Parliament was not in BBC radio news summaries.
A Guardian journalist, noting that Finkelstein was Jewish, immediately engaged in an ad hominem and completely irrelevant attack, raising the topic of settlements in the state of Israel.
The Guardian reporter’s ugly response to Finkelstein’s Tweet represents the classic antisemitic “reflex” of holding Jews collectively responsible for the perceived sins of the state of Israel – a bigoted association he’s made on at least one other occasion in a column at the Guardian.
Daniel Finkelstein is not an Israeli.
He happens to be a Jew but is no less British than Michael White.
http://cifwatch.com/2013/03/14/the-antisemitic-reflex-a-jew-baiting-tweet-by-the-guardians-michael-white/
shira
(30,109 posts)White’s Guardian blog entry took aim at Cohen for mocking antisemites in the film “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan”.
The 2006 “mockumentary” focused on a fake Kazakh television personality who leaves his homeland of Kazakhstan for America to make a documentary film for the Kazakh Ministry of Information. The fake reporter utters sexist, racist and antisemitic comments as he crosses the US, encouraging those he encounters to make similarly bigoted remarks.
White’s commentary included the following:
Nor was Cohen’s own justification for the film – he was roundly criticised and Kazakhstan allegedly threatened to sue him – convincing. He told the Rolling Stone magazine – here’s the Telegraph’s account – that “the joke is on the racists”, because only such people could imagine that his gross parody of Kazakhstan – a place where gays wear blue hats, women live in cages and anti-Semitism is rife – could really exist.
He then addressed Cohen directly in the following passage:
[font color = "red"]Again, for clarity, Sasha Baron Cohen (like Daniel Finkelstein) is a British Jew, and not an Israeli.
Michael White saw a Jew ridiculing people who engaged in crude antisemitism and his first reflex was to associate him with the settlements in Israel. It’s as if he’s demanding that Jews must first prove they’re sufficiently opposed to the settlements before ‘complaining’ of anti-Jewish bigotry.
What other vulnerable minority in the world would be asked to pass such a moral test before their concerns about being subjected to racism are taken seriously?
http://cifwatch.com/2013/03/15/the-settlements-which-occupy-michael-whites-mind-sasha-baron-cohen-edition/
shira
(30,109 posts)Reshef doesn't even live in Israel.
http://yossi.davi.la/bio.html
randr
(12,477 posts)We should be thankful we got over that and are able to judge our leaders without the veil of religion or nationalism clouding our minds.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Israel deal with it's own problems.
Aren't Arabs and Palestinians Semites?
shira
(30,109 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)but this so extremely upsetting, I'm not sure I can.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)
Israeli
(4,289 posts)Of course, after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
There is no connection between the Oslo mass-murder and the assassination in Tel Aviv. Or is there?
During the months leading up to Rabin’s murder, a growing hate campaign was orchestrated against him. Almost all the Israeli right-wing groups were competing among themselves to see who could demonize him most effectively.
In one demonstration, a photo-montage of Rabin in the uniform of an SS officer was paraded around. On the balcony overlooking this demonstration, Binyamin Netanyahu could be seen applauding wildly, while a coffin marked “Rabin” was paraded below. Religious groups staged a medieval, kabbalistic ceremony, in which Rabin was condemned to death. Senior rabbis took part in the campaign. No right-wing or religious voices were raised in warning.
The actual murder was indeed carried out by a single individual, Yigal Amir, a former settler, the student of a religious university. It is generally assumed that before the deed he consulted with at least one senior rabbi. Like Anders Behring Breivik, the Oslo murderer, he planned his deed carefully, over a long time, and executed it cold-bloodedly. He had no accomplices.
OR HAD he? Were not all the inciters his accomplices? Does not the responsibility rest with all the shameless demagogues, like Netanyahu, who hoped to ride to power on the wave of hatred, fears and prejudice?
As it turned out, their calculations were confirmed. Less than a year after the assassination, Netanyahu indeed came to power. Now the right-wing is ruling Israel, becoming more radical from year to year, and, lately, it seems, from week to week. Outright Fascists now play leading roles in the Knesset.
All this – the result of three shots by a single fanatic, for whom the words of the cynical demagogues were deadly serious.
The latest proposal of our fascists, straight from the mouth of Avigdor Lieberman, is to abrogate Rabin’s crowning achievement: the Oslo agreements. So we come back to Oslo.
Is that Dr. Goebbels I hear laughing in hell?
shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,289 posts)did you read what I posted ?
During the months leading up to Rabin’s murder, a growing hate campaign was orchestrated against him. Almost all the Israeli right-wing groups were competing among themselves to see who could demonize him most effectively.
In one demonstration, a photo-montage of Rabin in the uniform of an SS officer was paraded around. On the balcony overlooking this demonstration, Binyamin Netanyahu could be seen applauding wildly, while a coffin marked “Rabin” was paraded below. Religious groups staged a medieval, kabbalistic ceremony, in which Rabin was condemned to death. Senior rabbis took part in the campaign. No right-wing or religious voices were raised in warning.
you think " anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism "
I dont agree .
I despise Binyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman and all of our Right wing racist fanatics and everything they stand for .
If they represent Zionism then I want no part of it .
Does that make me an anti-semetic ?
Its all politics shira .... Left versus Right , right versus wrong .
Screaming " anti-Semitism " at anyone who opposes the occupation and the policies and politics of Binyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman IMHO is downright desperation .
shira
(30,109 posts)All you see is criticism of Israeli policy, right?
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)"Armed struggle must not be discouraged, but rather made as effective as possible."
Paul Larudee
Are these the words of a peace activist?
http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.com/2013/03/paul-larudee-of-international.html
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)So much so that they have to dredge up older posts to feel relevant.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)http://jvp-boston.org/advisory-rasmea-odeh/
https://twitter.com/ChicagoJVP/status/502626833775747072
http://jvp-pdx.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=23&cntnt01returnid=70
http://muzzlewatch.com/2014/11/10/odeh-found-guilty/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Muzzlewatch+%28MuzzleWatch%29
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Alison Weir believes Jews sacrificed christians in the middle ages and this explains why Jews in Israel would harvest Palestinian organs.
Classic definition of an old-school anti-semite.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)"Jewish-Americans have generally superseded the WASP’s as the new elite, as the new whites".
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/others-interview-blumenthal
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Sheen claims to be an anti-Zionist and that's why he bashes Talmudic Judaism.
shira
(30,109 posts)She was apparently well received this past week (Nov 20, 2014) at Kent University....
https://twitter.com/Resistance48/status/535454978471895041
shira
(30,109 posts)Mondoweiss reports that it wouldn't be surprising if Israel used actors to fake Holocaust testimony.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/yad-vashem
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)"Like many Jews of Conscience, Shlomo, you’re fed-up with all things Jewish."
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/shlomo-resign-jewish
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Fast forward to today and, in less than two years, the situation has become more grim for Jewish students. There has recently been a dramatic spike in anti-Semitic incidents on campuses nationwide. In fact, more than 40 percent of Jewish American college students report that they have experienced or are aware of anti-Semitism on their campuses. Just this month, swastikas were drawn on two fliers posted at Northeastern University to publicize a lecture by an Israeli military official. Last month, a Jewish student at Claremont University had his Israeli flag and mezuzah ripped off his dorm room. A month before that, a Jewish student at Temple University was punched in the face, knocked down, and called “baby-killer, racist, Zionist pig” by a fellow student. Last spring, SJP at Vassar College republished a vile anti-Semitic Nazi cartoon. Around that same time at the University of Michigan, anti-Israel student activists hurled death threats at a Jewish student and called him “dirty Jew” and “kike.” And these examples cover only roughly the past six months.
Back to New York, where Brooklyn College students still worry about SJP’s discriminatory practices on campus. A resolution against SJP’s unlawful behavior was never instituted. Concerns are voiced at CUNY John Jay and the CUNY Graduate Center, ranging from students’ fear to wear their yarmulkes on campus due to the recent anti-Zionism morphing into anti-Semitic chants, to the legality of a pro-BDS resolution vote being held on a Friday night to prevent Jews from vocalizing their side. At Fordham University, students are worried because a professor who vocalized opposition to the American Studies Association’s pro-BDS stance was investigated. Unfortunately, the list goes on an on....
...Jewish students have the right to feel safe on campus. They have the right to walk the halls wearing a yarmulke. They have the right to hang a mezuzah. They have the right to host pro-Israel events, and to speak freely about their support for Israel in the classroom and on the square. When he headed the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Brandeis Center President Ken Marcus took the first step by including protection against anti-Semitism under Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. But more must be done to ensure that universities comply with the law.
I know firsthand how distressing it is to be a victim of anti-Zionism that morphs into anti-Semitism. I will carry that passion of personal experience with me when helping other students. The Brandeis Center chapters give law students like me a chance to do our part.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/11/30/jewish-students-have-the-right-to-feel-safe-on-campus/
shira
(30,109 posts)Co-opting Anne Frank for political purposes and trivialising the Holocaust is what Jakov and Dominik Sedlar, two Croatian film-directors did. The film is produced by Branko Lustig. Aussie Dave is (rightly) shocked:
We are already used to the Israel haters co-opting Anne Frank for their propaganda, but seeing this still shocked me.
The publicity material:
http://antisemitism-europe.blogspot.com/2014/12/croatia-anti-israel-palestinian.html
shira
(30,109 posts)Latest ADL appeal: More than 1/7 of the whole world hates Jews. So give us money. https://twitter.com/adl_national/status/539939863563206656 …
In his twitter pic, Blumenthal is posing with Rasmea Odeh.
shira
(30,109 posts)Reactionary anti-Zionists united with bigoted Jihadi Imperialist terror movements that target Jews for mass extermination.
Lowest scum of the earth & brown shirts of our time...
shira
(30,109 posts)A few days ago the anti-Israel hate site Mondoweiss published an article titled “Palestine’s Foreign Ministry pushes back on prisoner story…” The article praised a Palestinian campaign to rebrand the murderers held in Israeli prisons as “freedom fighters” and “political prisoners”. Mondoweiss called this “an injection of truth”.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/palestines-foreign-ministry-pushes-back-on-prisoner-story-says-occupiers-are-the-terrorists
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Israel is no normal state, but one governed by the forging of Zionist system-logic into a Satanic ideology: -
See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/israel-nominaton-hagel#sthash.S5zTpjmD.dpuf
shira
(30,109 posts)I am anti-Zionist, and I am a member of the Jewish ethnic group.
shira
(30,109 posts)...that Mondoweiss is an anti-semitic hate site.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Submit once again to being ruled in that region, despite the obvious danger:
shira
(30,109 posts)Compares Hamas to French resistance during WW2
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/515066637255725056
shira
(30,109 posts)@brightoncm Beware of being used in political foodbank stunt by Brighton rightwing Zionists @SussexFriends. Pass word to other foodbanks
https://twitter.com/BrightonBDS/status/541289165682671616
@huxley06 @rachellehoward_ Watch out for food bank stunt by right-wing Brighton Zionists @SussexFriends. Pass word to other food banks
https://twitter.com/BrightonBDS/status/541290419875622912
shira
(30,109 posts)Most often discussions regarding Hamas in the Western media begin with its notorious 1988 Charter. But have media outlets who spew obsessively narrow readings of Hamas’s military position even bothered to do any research into its political work?
....Klein explains that
Hamas is a pragmatic and flexible political actor and focusing on its 1988 Charter completely misses Hamas’s contemporary identity. However, disgracefully the US and European states maintain their uneducated or purposefully misleading understanding of Hamas.
- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/understanding-hamas#sthash.wTK5PFeE.dpuf
shira
(30,109 posts)The Hamas Charter is considered by the movement's supporters as a key and stand-alone historical document pertaining to Hamas's political and social ideology. In the event that this document is altered or amended, it would cause a state of undue and untimely confusion and tension within the ranks of the Hamas supporters. It would also be seen as a concession to international and Israeli pressures, even if the changes made to the charter were not substantial or even if the new charter was more extreme in crucial issues such as the recognition of Israel or dealing with international proposals. As long as such amendments form part of international demand or foreign advice, then any response to these demands will be seen as a concession and a weakness in the eyes of both Hamas's supporters and the movement's political opposition. It will also send a message to international forces that soft pressure on the movement actually works....
shira
(30,109 posts)Sure, Hamas would only target Israeli military - NOT civilians with these tunnels.
Love how these dumbfucks go out of their way to defend Hamas.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 04:41 AM - Edit history (2)
Pretends to NOT to know that taking hostages is a war crime, whether civilian or military.
B'tselem disagrees.
But it's not just B'tselem's opinion. Here's the ICC on hostage taking, about a 1/3 of the way down the page. More proof in last paragraph here.
==========================================
Here's more Ken Roth on twitter going out of his way to give Hamas every possible benefit of the doubt....
https://twitter.com/KenRoth/status/501809183264899072/photo/1
According to HRW, Israel's malicious intent always presumed. Always a war crime. Meanwhile Hamas' intent must at all times be proven beyond any reasonable, even unreasonable doubt.
Another example of this.
shira
(30,109 posts)David Sheen is of course a big contributer to hate sites like Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada which are among the most popular garbage sites beloved by all western supporters of BDS.
shira
(30,109 posts)...who also funds Paul Craig Roberts.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=75717
Unz has also funded Electronic Intifada, Norm Finkelstein, Counterpunch, and Alison Weir...
http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/united-states/c/ron-unz-controversial-writer.html
A taste of Unz's rightwing Nazi-style rants linking IQ to race...
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/01/14/ron-unz-on-genius-iq-race-and-meritocracy/
shira
(30,109 posts)Jeffrey Blankfort's many contributions to Mondoweiss:
http://mondoweiss.net/author/jeffrey-blankfort
Here's a radio show in which Blankfort defends David Duke, questions the Holocaust narrative, and says Mossad was behind 911:
http://jaffagate.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/official-speaker-at-occupy-aipac-linked-to-david-duke-questions-official-naarative-of-the-holocaust-2/
Blankfort's very ugly letter to Ali Abunimah...
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2012/10/jeffrey-blankfort-to-ali-abunimah-must.html
shira
(30,109 posts)GRETA BERLIN: “MOSSAD just hit the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in a clumsy false flag designed to damage the accord between Palestine and France….Here’s hoping the French police will be able to tell a well executed hit by a well trained Israeli intelligence service and not assume the Muslims would be likely to attack France when France is their freind… Israel did tell France there would be grave consequences if they voted with Palestine. A four year old could see who is responsible for this terrible attack.”
shira
(30,109 posts)— Mary Hughes-Thompson (@Mariapalestina) January 7, 2015
I gotta wonder. #Netanyahu is pretty upset with France for voting YES on Palestinian state. And when Bibi gets mad, he usually kills people — Mary Hughes-Thompson (@Mariapalestina) January 7, 2015
Another gentle soul held in high esteem within the American anti-Zionist, pro-BDS community.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/palestines-foreign-ministry-pushes-back-on-prisoner-story-says-occupiers-are-the-terrorists.html
shira
(30,109 posts)How cute that Jewish Voice for "Peace" protests an Auschwitz discussion along with Hezbollah supporters.
https://twitter.com/NYC2Palestine/status/558369799970254850
https://twitter.com/AHarchane_/status/558366870089510912
https://twitter.com/NYC2Palestine/status/558549726300098560
shira
(30,109 posts)...Let me sum this up: Mr. Da’las, the Deputy Chief of Staff at UNRWA’s Gaza Union, released an official statement that is even more extreme than the statement made by Hamas. In this official statement, he rejects the offer to send Palestinian students on an educational tour to the US, because it includes a “fake trip” to a museum revolving “the alleged Holocaust,” where educators will “try to feed students concepts and ideas about the fake injustices suffered by the Jews” according to a “curriculum on so-called human rights.”
Is it possible that a curriculum that consisted of Holocaust education content was rejected by a United Nations’ agency official because of a claim that the Holocaust never happened? Ever since this disturbing story was published, I have been trying to get a clarification from UNRWA’s spokesperson, Chris Gunness at the most popular arena of our time for media personnel and news sources to exchange ideas and thoughts: Twitter. I had a good reason to believe that I will get a proper reply since Chris Gunness owns a Twitter account, which he is using on a regular basis to post UNRWA-related updates and interact with others....
...After asking a few times for a reply without receiving any response, I found out that it is because I was blocked from following him or reading his Twitter feed.
shira
(30,109 posts)Historian Deborah Lipstadt – author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory and successful defendant in the libel suit brought against her and Penguin Books by the Holocaust denier David Irving – has used the term ‘soft-core denial’ to highlight the damage done by Holocaust inversion. The false equivalencing of Israel and the Nazis, she says, ‘elevates by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessens by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did.’ And as Anthony Julius points out, the Zionist=Nazi trope not only says to the world that the ‘Zionists are to the Palestinians what Nazis were to the Jews’, but also that ‘the “Zionists” and Nazis share the same Fascist ideology’ and that ‘the “Zionists” were complicit with the Nazis in the Holocaust.’
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)....reasonable doubt that anti-Zionism is hate & that BDS is a hate movement (as well as pro-fascist). How much more proof could you possibly ask for?
You said you'd be against hatred if Mondoweiss was a hate site, so if that's true then see the Phil Weiss article from #429 just below this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113417963#post429
Shouldn't you be condemning such hatred?
Stargleamer
(2,184 posts)So anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitic? Sorry there were people living on that land.
If I could I would move everyone off this land and give it back to the Native Americans.
shira
(30,109 posts)Weiss suggested (a) that Jews are more inclined to cheat than are non-Jews, and indeed Jews don’t even recognize it as cheating;
(b) that the American non-Jewish establishment made some sort of deal with the Jews back in the 70s, in which Jews provided their economic prowess to the U.S. in exchange for support for the Israel lobby (indeed, that one is so ridiculous that my fingers rebelled at typing it);
(c) Jewish media company CEOs force their Gentile employees to express support for Israel and
(d) that Jews need to “understand our role” in causing the Holocaust because of the “power” we had. Weiss now elaborates that he’s talking about Jewish economic power, as if the German Jew who started as a peddler and built his business into a chain of department stores wasn’t simply an individual Jewish businessman who found success, but instead part of a cabal of Jews using their “power” to undermine the Gentiles, who retaliated via the Holocaust.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/mondoweiss-is-a-hate-site/
shira
(30,109 posts)One of the various vessels’ passengers will apparently be Moncef Marzouki who has collaborated in the past with Hamas-linked groups in Europe and their associated personalities involved in the organization of previous flotillas.
According to the Jerusalem Post, passengers on the ‘Marianne’ include:
“Israeli-born Swedish citizen Dror Feiler, a musician and spokesperson of Ship to Gaza; Henry Ascher, a professor of Public Health and pediatrician; Lennart Berggren, a filmmaker; Maria Svensson, spokesperson of the Feministiskt initiative; and Mikael Karlsson, chairperson of Ship to Gaza Sweden.”
Readers can refresh their memories regarding ‘peace activist’ Dror Feiler here and find archive background material on the organisers of previous such publicity stunts here.
The coordinator of the ‘International Committee for Breaking the Siege of Gaza’ – which partners the ‘Freedom Flotilla Coalition’ (along with ‘Miles of Smiles’ and the IHH) – is Hamas-linked UK-based activist Zaher Birawi who was also involved in the ‘Global March to Jerusalem’ in 2012.
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/05/12/flotilla-ahoy-a-refresher-on-the-background-to-another-anti-israel-publicity-stunt/
shira
(30,109 posts)@KenRoth Kenneth Roth retweeted Israel Foreign Min.
Easier to address a far-away humanitarian disaster than the nearby one of Israel's making in Gaza. End the blockade!
https://twitter.com/KenRoth/status/592372539680100355
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Obama: “Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire?” he said, in defining the questions that he believes should be asked. “And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/obama-interview-iran-isis-israel/393782/
shira
(30,109 posts)Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA — Protesters chanted anti-Semitic slogans and threatened to kill Jews outside a South African Zionist Federation event in Johannesburg on Sunday. “You think this is Israel, we are going to kill you!” and “You Jews do not belong here in South Africa!” supporters of the BDS movement shouted in front of the Sandton Convention Centre, where the South Africa-Israel Expo and a federation conference was being held.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.646235
shira
(30,109 posts)Obsessed with Jews much?
And here Mondoweiss goes full-on ZOG...
Avishai’s claims that American hardliners want the settlement program to continue, and "One cannot just assume that the Congress will care what Jews want" are absurd. Over and over, American presidents have said they oppose the colonization program; over and over these instincts have been nullified politically because of the Jewish presence in the power structure. The Senate is dominated by Democrats, and 1/5 of them are Jews, even though Jews are just 2 percent of the population. The Washington Post has said that over half the money given to the Democratic Party comes from Jews. Obama’s top two political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The news lately has been dominated by Obama aides Kenneth Feinberg and Larry Summers. And what does it mean that the Treasury Sec’y gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon’s Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)? As I have frequently said, the biggest money game in town on the Republican side is Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist Jew, who got engaged in 2000 with the specific aim of nullifying the "peace process." Today is Obama frustrated by "hardliners"? No: he’s frustrated by the likes of Chuck Schumer, who refuses to go to J Street.
More on Jews in the Establishment: In the last week or so I typically found myself counting Jewish names in media broadcasts. Everyone from Ezra Klein commenting on Charlie Rose about the Congress to Andrew Ross Sorkin on Terry Gross yesterday, talking financial policy, to Brian Lehrer having on three different Jewish journalists today, and one of them, Nina Totenberg, kvelling about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Last week on Charlie Ross, the political theorist Michael Sandel, who I believe is Jewish, said that the chief criterion of a society’s view of justice is not how it deals with killers but how it confers honors and recognition. Well our society confers honors and recognition on Jews way out of proportion to other groups. I don’t see this imbalance as a political issue, except as it touches on questions of Jewish identity and support for Israel. Because support for Israel is today a tenet of American Jewish identity construction– Ezra Klein’s criticism of the Gaza war being a heretical one inside Jewish life, Daniel Schorr’s Zionism being far more representative. And to think that that the Jewish presence in the media is not also a factor in the disastrous American foreign policy re the Middle East is not to think at all. Avishai’s analysis evades this issue.
Counting Jews.
Not a very healthy obsession.
shira
(30,109 posts)One of the more classic anti-Semitic tropes is denial of the Nazi Holocaust that resulted in the murder of some twelve million people, about half of whom were Jewish. Whether explaining the deaths away as the result of typhus, casualties of war, or numerical fabrication, Holocaust denial (often under the guise of "historical revisionism" has become en vogue for those with an agenda of anti-Semitism. Holocaust denial can range from full denial that there were any death camps or gas chambers to denial of some of the more odious facts of the period.
One party engaged in the act of Holocaust denial is Jeffrey Blankfort. Blankfort, who remarked, "I do not believe there was any official Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews because, had there been, there would not have been close to a million left alive," is a journalist and activist who has front-page pieces at Mondofront. Blankfort, who was most recently seen on Mondofront complaining about Jewish money in political campaigns, also believes that Zionism is to blame for whatever aspects of the Holocaust he is willing to accept as fact:
It would seem odd that a site like Mondo, which claims to be "devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective" would welcome the writings of someone as clearly non-progressive as Blankfort. However, it isn't just Blankfort. Just last week, site proprietor Philip Weiss authored a piece promoting an interview between Weiss and Gilad Atzmon on Jewish identity.
By any reasonable measure, Gilad Atzmon is both a Holocaust denier and unabashed anti-Semite. In his piece, Truth, History, and Integrity: Questioning the Holocaust Religion, Atzmon writes:
[...]
I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?
I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.
Atzmon starts with the classic Fox News tactic of "just asking questions," and manages to suggest that maybe the Nazis didn't have it out for the Jews, and maybe Auschwitz wasn't a death camp, and that the story of the Holocaust is merely "a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws." However, Atzmon doesn't stop at Holocaust denial, he goes full Protocols in his "On Anti-Semitism" polemic:
Atzmon goes on to delve into the centuries-old "Jew as Christ-killer" libel:
1. How is it that people living today feel accountable or chased for a crime committed by their great great great ancestors almost 2,000 years ago? I assume that those Jews who get angry when blamed for killing Jesus are those who identify themselves with Jesus's killers. Those who would commit this murderous act today. Those Jews are called Zionists and they are already advancing into their sixth decade of inhuman crimes against the Palestinian people and the Arab world. Zionism, for those who do not know, is a repetition of the darkest age of the Jewish Biblical era. It isn't that surprising therefore that Zionists have selected the most suicidal chapters in Jewish history (such as Massada and Bar Cochva) and turned them into the pillars of their reborn culture. On the other hand, we must praise the Zionists for being consistent. Zionists claim that the whole of Palestine belongs to the Jews because their Jewish ancestors lived there 2,000 ago. Jews attempting to live on confiscated Palestinian lands nowadays regard themselves as the same Jews who lived in Palestine two millennia ago. This must explain why Zionists are so offended when they are blamed for theactions of Judas. They are offended because they are all Judases. Might I remind the reader that the Judases of today are armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons without being signed to any international control treaty.
2. Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus? I wouldn't ask the Italians to apologise on behalf of the Romans for their part in Christ's killing simply because Italians do not feel remotely offended when Romans are blamed for it. I merely suggest that if a Jew feels offended when accused, this reveals attachment to the perpetrators. It might be the right time for the Jewish state to ask for forgiveness on behalf of the Jewish people for their immoral behaviour.
One would think that Atzmon would have no place on a supposedly progressive blog like Weiss'. But if you look at Weiss' history of Jew-counting, the relationship between the two might not be as surprising as you think.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/29/988922/-Mondofront-Now-with-Gilad-Atzmon
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/how-many-more-orgasms-will-be-had-for-zionism
shira
(30,109 posts)http://david-collier.com/?p=1711
shira
(30,109 posts)Did you really think right-wing provocations on the Temple Mount would pass quietly? That the burning of the Dawabsheh family would pass with no response — and even more so the defense minister’s arrogant claims that Israel knew who the perpetrators were but wouldn’t arrest them?”
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.680443
Hamas couldn't say it better.
shira
(30,109 posts)This letter is addressed to that small fraction of the political Left which not only criticises Israeli government policies or practices, but also demonises and denigrates Israel at every opportunity and thus denies its legitimacy.
We see you, we hear you, day after day, making your ignorant, bigoted and malicious accusations against Jews and Israel. You claim to be speaking for human rights and for justice, but your words and actions betray you. You are haters, liars and bullies.
You presume to define our Jewish identity to suit your own sensibilities and convenience. You assert that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. You say we are only a religious group and deny our 3,500 year old history as both a national and a faith community. In short, you presume to tell us who we are – a liberty you would not dare to take with any other group – and you are wrong.
You say you have nothing against Jews. You say you are only against Zionists. You categorise us into “good Jews” who oppose Israel and “bad Jews” who support Israel. This is your cynical, sinister way of offering acceptance only to those Jews who are so lacking in knowledge or moral fibre that they are willing to embrace your hollow caricature of what it means to be Jewish. You are against the millions of Jews, the overwhelming majority, who are proudly Jewish and support Israel’s right to exist as the State of the Jewish people.
You are guilty of ignoring, minimising and obfuscating the antisemitism within your ranks. You claim to be anti-racists but will not condemn the all too obvious anti-Jewish racism which is manifested every day by adherents of the anti-Israel movement – on websites, on social media, at demonstrations, in public lectures, talks and speeches. When this antisemitism is exposed, you go into hysterical denial, accusing those who expose the ugly anti-Jewish racism you have helped to spawn of trying to stifle public criticism of Israel. As if there is any shortage of public criticism of Israel.
When Jews are attacked or murdered in Istanbul, Mumbai, Toulouse, Paris, and elsewhere, you blame the victims – you say “Israel is the cause of antisemitism”. You say “If Israel behaved better, then Jews throughout the world would not be attacked.” Yet you would not dream of blaming the victim for any other form of racism or racially-motivated violence.
When Jews are murdered in Israel, you defend it, excuse it, minimise it and at times condone it. You demonise Israeli Jews. You say they are “occupiers, oppressors”, whether they live in a remote outpost on the West Bank or in Tel Aviv. These Jews, you claim, are “settlers” who steal Arab land. You say all of Israel is Arab land. You cry: “Resist!” You give succour and encouragement to those who murder Jews.
much more...
http://jewsdownunder.com/2016/02/10/open-letter-to-the-anti-israel-left/
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I checked out the site, and searched for "Palestinians", just for fun. Immediately four pretty problematic articles popped up. They seem to promote revisionist views that Palestinians aren't native to Palestine, that they're not a people, etc. There are also a lot of graphics all over the site promoting the idea that Palestinians hate Jews, as well as links to Regavim, PMV, Gatestone Institute etc. These four article are all written by a nutcase called Sheri Oz, but I've got the feeling that I would find more evidence of revisionist views and the promotion of hatred if I searched more.
But, anyway, do you think Jews Down Under is a hate site, borderline or not at all?
The True Nakba of the New Palestinians
Source: Jews Down Under, by Sheri Oz, 02/10/2015
“. . . the Palestinians didn’t exist before the Nakba, they came into being because of what was a traumatic event for them.”
This flies in the face of the propaganda the so-called “Palestinians” are broadcasting around the globe, arguing that they comprise the indigenous nation in the land, pre-dating the Jews. Some, such as Saeb Erekat, even raise the ridiculous claim that the “Palestinians” are, in fact, the original Canaanites and that his ancestors inhabited the oldest city in the world – Jericho – 9000 years ago. There is no record of Canaanites for the past 3000 years, but historical evidence, or lack thereof, has never prevented the “Palestinians” from periodically weaving ever new fabrics of lies to present as if it is historical fact.
History shows that the Arabs (including the likes of Erekat’s family) originated from the Arabian Peninsula. Strange coincidence, eh? Arabs – Arabia. Go figure!
Read more: http://jewsdownunder.com/2015/10/02/the-true-nakba-of-the-new-palestinians/
Origin of the Palestinians According to a Genetic Study
Source: Jews Down Under, by Sheri Oz 04/11/2015
After having proven, in an earlier study, that Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews share Middle Eastern origins, a group of 7 Spanish researchers exchanged the Israeli scientist in the previous study team for 2 Palestinian Arabs to work on a paper aiming to prove that the “Palestinians” have been living in the Land of Israel at least as long as the Jews. The results were published in 2001.
(snip)
Read more: http://jewsdownunder.com/2015/11/04/origin-of-the-palestinians-according-to-a-genetic-study/
Promoting the “Palestinian” Fallacy
Source: Jews Down Under, by Sheri Oz, 10/12/2015
Does this mean that I need to agree to call these Arabs, Palestinians? I think not. Maroun would say that I am being pathetic – in fact, he used that very word in a number of responses to comments on his Facebook page and on the blog post itself. And even in the title to the post: It is Pathetic to Deny the Existence of Palestinians.
Just because someone calls himself or herself something does not make it so.
Read more: http://jewsdownunder.com/2015/12/10/promoting-the-palestinian-fallacy/
Palestinian By Any Other Name . . .
Source: Jews Down Under, by Sheri Oz, 09/12/2015
I propose that one major obstacle to a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Holy Land lies in the lie of calling the Arabs “Palestinians”.
History of the Name Palestine
By calling their mandated territory Palestine, Britain made cynical use of the name given to this area by the Roman Empire, who themselves adopted a twisted version of the name, Philistines, sworn enemies of the Jews, in order to separate the land from any association with its Jewish history.
And now, history repeats itself: if “The” Palestinians are supposedly the Arabs, then this facilitates the promotion of the hateful lie that Israel stole this land from its supposedly rightful indigenous population and has no claim to sovereignty.
Read more: http://jewsdownunder.com/2015/12/09/palestinian-by-any-other-name/
shira
(30,109 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I think the "Open letter to the Israeli left" is essentially a straw man. The author is merely refuting herself, when she picks off the arguments of the supposed anti-Israel left:
The anti-Israel left as portrayed in the article is mostly imaginary, and I hope that most people don't actually believe that it exists.
shira
(30,109 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Where do you personally - speaking of yourself - differ from these positions? Please explain...
These are the BDS 1-staters who advocate for full right of return, making all that area Palestinian majority which would result in a non-democratic Palestine with Hamas or something similar elected to lead...which would be an absolute threat to 6 million Jews there given the living conditions gays, women, and children have under Hamas, etc. Jews would be treated even worse.
Where do you disagree here?
True here too, as all BDS'ers are against any 2 state arrangement starting from the '47 Partition. It's not about establishing a Palestinian state free of occupation & settlements, as much as it's about eliminating the 1 Jewish state in the world.
To prove it, do you support the existence of a Jewish state? What arrangement could you agree to that would keep Israel a sovereign Jewish nation?
This is obvious, from Palestinians living under genuine Apartheid conditions in Lebanon to gays, women, and children under Hamas control.
I never see any BDS'ers ever speaking out about the above. Only crickets. Where am I wrong?
Right. BDS'ers are focused only on Israel, as if it's the worst country in the world. Iran & Saudi Arabia aren't boycotted...neither is Russia, N.Korea, Burundi, Cuba, China, Venezuela....
No other countries are targeted by BDS, only Israel.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It would have been much easier for me if you would have put up someone with extreme views as an example, like Ali Abunimah, Richard Falk or Gilad Atzmon. Then I could refute the whole thing by saying that your example is an idiot and not representative.
It's a little bit more difficult to refute myself, however...
Am I then one of those "leftists" the article is trying to respond to? No, not even remotely.
The article fail to include me thanks to the gratuituous use of hyperbole and descriptions of intent that just doesn't fit me. I hope you understand the concept of a description becoming less inclusive when several properties are strung together. I'm definitely not all of those things that define the description of the left in the article, probably not even a single one of them. Let's look at the definitions/ positions you brought up:
No. I think it's a moral imperative to boycott Apartheid and nothing else. There's no Apartheid in Israel, so I have no problem buying Israeli products. I do have a problem with the fruits of Apartheid coming from the West Bank.
I've very consciously chosen my stand on boycotting the settlements based on Palestinian rights and justice only, and nothing else. Removing the settlements means in no way an elimination of the Jewish state, but it would automatically mean an end to all morally justified boycotts.
Frankly, most of the problems that the Palestinians have right now stem from the occupation, even in Gaza, which is still under de facto occupation. There's no way these problems can be addressed without the removal of the occupation, and they will remain until it ends. It's of course important to speak up when the PA or Hamas are acting badly, but the way to change things to the better goes through the removal of the occupation.
(The 1947 partition? Where is the sane basis for using it under any circumstances?)
I'm criticizing Israel because Israel is a democracy, and I think that democracies should have the tools to stop discrimination, especially blatant legal discrimination against non-Jews inside Israel and just as blatant Apartheid in the occupied areas controlled by Israel. Additionally, I think that it's almost impossible for non-democratic countries to implement Apartheid, so Israel is currently the only Apartheid country since South Africa gave it up.
In the end your list reads more like a misunderstanding about what "leftists" believe than anything else.
shira
(30,109 posts)If that were the case, you should be cheerleading Israeli peace offers in 2001 and 2008 that would have effectively ended both.
You even said earlier you were against the '47 Partition plan.
Sorry, it's not adding up. Something's fishy here...
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I'm not sure I understand your argumentation. I know that the 1947 partition plan is used to assign historical blame to either party, but apart from that it's never used. If you're trying to assign historical blame, you're not clear enough.
When it comes to peace offers, We seem to have different views on how things are defined. I still don't know of any offer from the Israeli side that meant an end to occupation and settlements. All offers I know of have been absolute scams that left most settlements intact and no end to Israeli control.
Here's a map of the West Bank and the settlements, and if you know of any proposal that would've meant an end to the settlements, please let me know:
Source: http://www.mappery.com/maps-Palestinian-Territory
Better map here: http://www.btselem.org/download/settlements_map_eng.pdf
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:07 PM - Edit history (3)
It's not about settlements and occupation to you - it's about ending the Jewish state entirely - even if that means a Palestinian majority which then elects Hamas to lead a totalitarian fascist regime with a minority of Jews at their mercy.
You simply don't support a Jewish state. Which would be fine if you're against indigenous rights & Jews didn't actually need one to assure our safety, given the history of several thousand years of Jew hatred. You need to realize Jews will not be rationally persuaded or bullied BDS style into going back in time to when we were minorities in EVERY single country and hopeful that our security was assured as a minority (which it never was). It's not happening. Especially during these times when antisemitism is spiking worldwide to levels not seen since the WW2 period. Even in the best democracies today, Jews are increasingly hiding their Jewishness in order to not only be accepted by others, but to be safe. If so-called progressives don't get why a Jewish Israel is important to Jews worldwide, they never will. They don't give a shit, so they can all go to hell. THIS is a major reason why BDS is considered antisemitic by most Jews and by liberal democracies the world over.
As to the end of settlements, you're twisting yourself into a pretzel as you've stated recently you support land swaps. So what's your position now?
My point is, you're all over the place - seemingly against occupation and settlements but really just against a Jewish state. You're so inconsistent, I can't trust what you write here.
I can only surmise you are for 2 states; one that is exclusively Palestinian and racist to the core w/o a Jew remaining in it (after settlements are gone) and another state that eventually becomes another Palestinian state due to unlimited right of return.
Is that it? I think you seriously underestimate the IQ of the majority of Jews worldwide who know what that would mean for the safety of Jews worldwide.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)All I want to happen in the I/P conflict is a solution where the civil rights of all involved are retained and not diminished in any way. A solution could be one state, two states or whatever - I don't care. I personally think that the way things are, with the settlements and the PA nothing more than an Israeli puppet, the one-state solution seems to be the simplest way to provide equal civil rights for all. Israelis and Palestinians just have to get along. While land swaps are fine in theory, it's not possible to make swaps of equal quality. If Israel offers an acre in the Negev, it can be swapped for another acre in the Negev...
The reason why I think the 1947 partition plan was a bad idea, is simply because it didn't take the rights of the majority of the population in Palestine into account. The rights of Arab Palestinians to not having Palestine partitioned, especially for Arabs in areas allotted to the Jewish state, are just as valid as the rights of Jewish Palestinians to their independence. I think it would have been possible to accommodate the wills of both peoples without partitioning Palestine. However, the 1947 partition plan was a historical oddity, and neither side did anything to implement it.
shira
(30,109 posts)...then there is no way you can support a state that puts a party like Balad (forget Hamas for now) in charge of Jews.
When that starts happening, only THEN does your solution make any sense at all. Get it?
What makes you think the majority of Palestinians and their leaders would want a liberal democracy on par with the best in the world today?
You're not dealing in reality if you think Jews and Palestinians can get along in any 1-state scenario. The Jews want liberal democracy, while the vast majority Palestinians support a state similar to Jordan or Egypt (at best). Polls prove that, BTW.
As to the '47 Partition Plan, the Jews accepted it while the Palestinians did not. Had the Palestinians accepted, it would have been implemented. It's that simple.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It doesn't mean that you win this round, it just means that I'm not going to post more in this thread to save my own sanity.
Response to shira (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Since 1948...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html
http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me090126.htm
I think it's also quite telling that inciting Holocaust is going to justify
Gaza
The West Bank settlements
The complete blockade and control over every day lives of Palestinians.
The RW extremist government run by Netanyahu
I am sorry. I do not think that Holocaust victims would approve.
But don't mix criticism of Zionism (a nationalistic ideology seeking to take land from other people using religion and ethnicity as qualification and real anti-semitism which is basically being a racist.
I consider Zionism to be nothing more than a nationalist ideology based non ethnicity and religion.
The creation of Israel was supported by arrogant western colonial powers and USA at the ex pence of the people already living there.
Palestinians never had any beef with Jews. The beef came with the Israel and Zionism.
If one is a rational human being capable of seeing the picture from all sides, i think it would make more sense to come to the conclusion that things are not as black and white as one thinks.
Only Siths and extremists deal with absolutes.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
Viva la Israel!
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Are you implying that NOT endorsing illegal settlements on the West Bank, walling in an entire population on Gaze and then bomb the place when the blocade forces them to dig tunnels?
Here are two reasons why HAMAS is a creation of Israel.
Firstly, if the early zionists expected people to give up their homes (after 400 villages was taken to the ground), and let themselves be subjugated into 2nd class citizens or be wiped out, then you are a poor student of history.
Any insurgency against what they consider an occupying force is a natural consequence of occupation.
Secondly, Israel never wanted peace anyway. Abbas and Fatah was about to negotiate under the same banner, and negotiate peace. The Zionists didn't like that, so they forced an election in which HAMAS won. Palestinians were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't. The tactics are divide and conquer.
Hamas is the Islamic/Palestinian version of Likud. They feed off each other while spilling each others' people's blood. Mostly Palestinian blood.
This entire project has been nothing but a long term ethnic cleansing from the getgo.
shira
(30,109 posts)10% of Mondoweiss funding comes from conservative, rightwing racist Ron Unz, who also funds Paul Craig Roberts.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=75717
Unz has also funded Electronic Intifada, Norm Finkelstein, Counterpunch, and Alison Weir...
http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/united-states/c/ron-unz-controversial-writer.html
A taste of Unz's rightwing Nazi-style rants linking IQ to race...
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/01/14/ron-unz-on-genius-iq-race-and-meritocracy/
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:26 AM - Edit history (1)
https://twitter.com/NuritBaytch/status/745377648403185665Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: Mondoweiss, by Philip Weiss, November 28, 2012
Written by Ron Unz, a Jewish graduate of Harvard, the article deals with a delicate but important issue I have repeatedly brought up here, the outsize Jewish presence in what Unz calls “America’s ruling elites.” Unz is saying that Jews have rigged the system much as WASPs did in an earlier generation, and his appeal for greater fairness recalls E. Digby Baltzell’s work in the 1960s calling on the “Protestant establishment” to make way for talented Jews. For my part, I have written about the ways that Jewish kinship networks helped my career in journalism; and I have wondered if ethnic favoritism was not a factor in some elite appointments, from Council on Foreign Relations experts to the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Unz, The American Conservative publisher, says he was shocked to discover the downward trend in Jewish performance on tests. But he deplores what he calls the preference shown to young Jews by Ivy League administrations which, he reasons, are comfortable seeking out their own ethnic type because these administrations contain large numbers of Jews and because of a tradition of fighting quotas on Jewish entrance.
Here’s a summary of his argument:
Ivy League schools are the “funnel” for creating our ruling elites, and there is more and more competition for places in these schools. In the 1980s, the numbers of Asian-Americans doing well on standardized tests soared with the result that Ivy League schools began accepting more and more of them. But then in the mid-1990s, Asian admissions hit a fixed ceiling of about 16 percent of Ivy places. Unz says that this ceiling came into being even as the raw number of young Asian-Americans in our society was doubling. He believes that a “de facto ethnic quota system,” similar to the “longstanding” quotas established against soaring Jewish admissions in the Ivy League in the 1920s, was established for Asian-American admissions. (In the case of American Jews, those quotas were ultimately rolled back, Unz says, in large part because of the American Jewish presence in the media, where this violation of the alleged meritocracy was repeatedly assailed. “By contrast, Asian-Americans today neither own nor control even a single significant media outlet”; and have never made a public issue of the de facto quota.)
What's your opinion about this MW article? I didn't like it at all, for several reasons...
BTW, this is the only pro-Israel thread in this group which has been posted in recently, and while I think an exorcism is long overdue, I've got to pick at this rather stale thread due to lack of alternatives.
shira
(30,109 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)especially since Unz seems to support Mondoweiss financially.
It is very risky to argue in favor of such ideas, even partially, as it amounts to a silent acceptance of any underlying premises. It's not necessarily racist or anti-Semitic to do so, but it's too damn close for comfort, as it mostly involves making loose (and unfounded) assumptions about racial stereotypes.
I know that other people seem to think that there are some insights to be had by discussing race and cultural context like this, but I think it's pointless at best. In a way, my appreciation of Mondoweiss dropped a notch after reading the article.
And yes, Andrew Gelman seems to be right about Unz.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)I just want you to acknowledge he's the part of the ugly BDS campaign.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)He seems to be a conspiracy theorist, and I tend to disregard people like that, regardless of what they're for or against.
Now, I'm going to abandon this thread...
shira
(30,109 posts)Your kind of BDS.
Own it.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)And all his political policies represent Israel and all Jews. Right? Now, I get it. I am an antisemite. Hadn't realized.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)The answer is obvious. Abbas did not know that the the poisoning water story was debunked.
See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/accusations-against-amplify/#sthash.HvUN1dnf.dpuf
shira
(30,109 posts)
Response to shira (Original post)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.