The Left and Jews.

[a_random_joel]

Ok, here it is: a long rant on why I am so tired of seeing remarks about Jews in reference to certain actions. I am so tired of being afraid to have to question someone's remarks for fear they might play the "Why do you call everyone an anti-semite?" card. I understand and invite criticism of Israeli/Likud policy, and do not consider that Anti-Semitic. I also understand that the Anti-Semite charge IS abused here by certain individuals. But when people clearly use the words JEW, as in the "Jews in PNAC", the "Jews in the Admin", the "Jews who run the world", the "Jews who oppress the Palestinians" - that is clearly Anti-Semitic. One does not have to call me a k*k* to be guilty. Just as when one clutches their purse close to them in the presence of an African-American, they are still being prejudiced without using the N-word.

Yes, there are bad Jews. Just like there's bad Arabs, bad Scotsmen, bad Mongolians, etc. Why do the rest of us need to be punished, humiliated or walk on eggshells because of the actions or statements of a few bad apples? And how come when ever we question somone on it, we are automatically accused of playing the "race" card?

The fact is, Jews are overwhelmingly Liberal and Democratic. They have assisted in numerous causes from the Civil Rights Movement, Labor Movement, and various charities.

Please, I know this is flame fodder, and I am not intending it as such, but the occasional bigotry I find here really shakes me up from time to time. Let's put it this way, I know of no other ethnic/religious distinction who would sit quietly if even half of what's been said in some threads were inferred.

[bryant69]

1. In my mind, this parrallels

The way some on this board are willing to see terrorists who target civilains as freedom fighters resisting the oppressive American grip. It's a lack of perspective.

I'm not saying that the Muslim World doesn't have some legitimate beefs with us, I'm just saying that murdering civlians is murdering civilians.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Brian Sweat]

2. I agree with both of you.

I have a lot of trouble with some of the policies of the Israeli government, but I have seen anti-semitism here on DU. I find this troubling for a number of reason. First and foremost, it is racist and anti-thetical to my liberal views. Secondly, I find it ironic that there would be as much anti-semitism as there is here, because Jewish people have made so many contributions to liberalism.

As far as calling people freedom fighters, I don't really like that word because it was created for use in propoganda. People who target civilians, like the suicide bombers in Israel are terrorists, but when the Administration call Iraqi's who target US troops terrorists, it makes my skin crawl. You cannot call people terrorists for defending their home against invaders.

[mitchtv]

10. I agree with him, but not you

you seem to fail to aknowledge that military occupation IS violence against civilians. Ask an Irish Catholic in N Ireland."terrorism " is a weapon of the conquered. I have always said isreal has a choice , land or peace, she seems to be choosing land

[Brian Sweat]

33. Reread my post and tell me how your response has anything at

all to do with anything I said.

[mitchtv]

251. I just get the impression that your definition of terrorist would include

ony palestinian resistance and not those performing collective punishment on innocent civlians and families of "combatants".

[Brian Sweat]

271. I don't give a damn what impression you get

There is nothing in my original post to support either of your posts. You decided what my position was without the slightest bit of evidence to back up your conclusion and then you attacked me for supposedly holding that position.

In the future, try reading what people write instead of jumping to conclusions without any basis.

[existo]

275. actually you should give a damn because . .

there is a condemnation of palestinian "terrorists", but, at the same time, a defense of iraqi "resisters".

The fact is that the palestinian suicide bombers see themselves as fighting an occupation with the only effective weapon they have. They cant take on the isreali army with stones and a few ak47s. They dont have an army. All they have are these "terrorist" groups.

The palestinians are not the only ones to se themselves this way either. Did you know that the US vetoed a UN resolution condemning terrorism? Why, you may ask?

Because there was a line in it reading "nothing in this resolution shall apply to indigenous peoples fighting a military or colonial occupation." (i.e. the palestinians).

So that is why there is a double standerd deeply embedded in your statment. And yes, ive read it carefully.

[Brian Sweat]

283. CAN YOU READ?

Just like mitchtv, you're response has nothing at all to do with anything that I said. You have no clue what my position is on the issue. You just assume you know what you are talking about, but you don't.

I didn't say I didn't give a damn about what is happening in Israeli. I said a I didn't give a damn about what impressions mitchtv might have about my definition of terrorism. That hasn't got the slightest thing to do with Isreal. It about people like mitchtv and yourself who assume they know what they are talking about when they don't. It about people like mitchtv and yourself who assume they know someone else's opinion when they don't and then attack that person for what they perceive their opinion to be.

On Edit: Again, there is no double standard. You think there is a double stand, because you thing you know where I stand on the issue. You don't. You haven't the slightest idea where I stand on the issue. If you had read it carefully, you would realize that nothing that I wrote could possibly be interpreted as saying that what the Isreali's are doing to the Palestinians is NOT terrorism. You just decided, what out a shred of evidence that I think what the Israelis are doing is ok. You didn't get that from reading my remarks. You just decided for yourself what I think.

[morebunk]

324. A fact lost on most Americans: The communist movement was started

by Jews. Most communists and supporters in the bolshevick revolution were Jews. Check out your history. This is not an anti-Semite attack but a comment made to jar your thinking that everything is not as it seems. And one cannot believe that what is said to be evil is evil and what is said to be good is good.

[Wednesdays]

333. The Communist movement was started

by learned men who just so happened to also be Jewish. Are you suggesting that to be Jewish means one also has to be a left-wing radical?

Your argument has no merit. There have been plenty of radicals throughout history with no Jewish connections...the French Revolution and Robespierre come to mind. And many historical conservatives such as Henry Kissinger, are Jewish. Benjamin Disraeli, the very conservative Prime Minister of Britain, was also Jewish.

[loudnclear]

339. Really? Who were these people

What is your source?

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. No choice

Israel has no options. Many of those terrorist groups will continue to attack Israelis as long as they have one square inch of land. This is not pre-1967/post-1967. This is an argument about the survival of Israel, which these terror groups oppose.

[Classical_Liberal]

83. Israel has given one square inch of land to Palestinians

so on what are you basing this statement?

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. Hamas and others have sworn to destroy Israel

No Palestinian leader has ever gone after the terrorists. So Israel has never been offered peace with the Palestinians.

[Classical_Liberal]

114. There is no Palestinian state, so why should they go after Hamas

? Law and order is the responsibility of the government.

[Muddleoftheroad]

117. PA is their leadership

Their leadership WANTS a Palestinian state. The only way they will get that is from Israel. Israel wants a real peace, not a faux one. So to get a nation, the Palestinians need to shut down terror.

[Classical_Liberal]

120. The Palestinians can't police terror without a state.

So it is basically israel asking the impossible again.

[Muddleoftheroad]

Bullcrap

How many armed men are in the West Bank and Gaza? If Arafat said X needed to be done, he could get it done. He doesn't want terror stopped.

[Classical_Liberal]

141. He can't get shit done. He is just an "irrelevant" private citizen

under house arrest, and he can't force any armed men to do squat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

216. Sure

That's why Fatah follows him?

No, he CHOOSES to get nothing done. He could do a lot if he wanted.

[Classical_Liberal]

221. Fatah is a splinter group which means they don't follow anymore.

Hamas is an enemy of the PLO which means they never did.

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. Bullcrap

How many armed men are in the West Bank and Gaza? If Arafat said X needed to be done, he could get it done. He doesn't want terror stopped.

[AntiCoup2K4]

231. Hamas was created by Mossad.

And Mossad is probably still behind them.

For what purpose?

Sharon and the Likud do NOT WANT PEACE. They want every last Palestinian behind walls, expelled from the country entirely, or dead. Sharon probably prefers dead, as he's demonstrated repeatedly.

[rini]

321. Proof

where have you read this? What is this based on?

[Bandit]

123. It is about the survival of Israel in that particular location

I think some reason could be found if looked for. There is land available if we/they were to look around. I realize that we are talking holy sites but they are holy sites for Christians and Muslems also. Why should Palestinians have to bear the blunt of it all?

[_Jumper_]

135. Survival of Israel?

1,000 Israelis die in three years and it is a war for survival? Israel has WMD. That will ensure its existence.

[Selwynn]

183. Israel has engage in as much terrorism as anyone else. (nt)

[rini]

322. Proof

what deliberate attack by a para-military group on civilians to make a poltical statment? No proof that meets the definition of terrorism means you are just flapping your jaws.

[rini]

195. Once again

sincere and to the point

[CWebster]

235. "Survival of Israel..."

With one of the world's most powerful militaries, with more US aid than any country in the world, that regularly seizes land, bulldozes homes, imposes closures and curfews, monopolizes water, institutes punitive checkpoints, humiliates an impoverished people with no state, no army, no means of defense other than stones or a willingness to blow up their own bodies in desperation, who has violated every UN resolution, voted against every UN resolution for peacekeepers and other efforts and otherwise sabotaged every attempt to resolve the conflict in good faith and you have the nerve to say Israel's survival is threatened when it seems all they want to do is fight?

[laura888]

254. Yes, military occupation IS violence against civilians...

again: Israeli military occupation is violence against Palestinian civilians.

The analogy with Ireland is accurate, I believe.

[Selwynn]

182. The Israeli army is a terrorists force, by your definition

And I have no problem calling Palestinian suicide bombers terrotists as long as you can the countless attacks by the Israeli military terrorists actions for the exact same reasons. Terrorism is still terrorism whether it goes under the guise of government or not - and I get sick and tired of Israel getting a free pass on the US media and government.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchtv]

253. occupation is violence

whether it is turk/ brit/ isreali or us. collective punishment is wrong. So are missle attacks on individuals in urban areas , where collateral damage is likely.

[Brian Sweat]

284. The Israeli army definitely engages in terrorist activities.

They do not get a few pass from me.

[Ardee]

206. fine then

dont call them freedom fighters, but then please note that the actions of the Israeli government and its armed forces wrt reprisals for suicide bombings are simply state sponsored terrorism........

[Brian Sweat]

285. Absolutely.

The Israelis have probably killed more innocent Palestinians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis, but that doesn't make the suicide bombers saints either. Both sides are engaging in acts of terrorism.

[Selwynn]

308. Exactly.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

293. You're not going to like my response either...

...but I'm going to post it anyway. I'll try to respond to each of your comments in sequence:

"I have a lot of trouble with some of the policies of the Israeli government, but I have seen anti-semitism here on DU. I find this troubling for a number of reason. First and foremost, it is racist and anti-thetical to my liberal views."

You didn't give any examples of what you consider to be "anti-semitism here on DU". The same goes for your use of the term "racist".

"Secondly, I find it ironic that there would be as much anti-semitism as there is here, because Jewish people have made so many contributions to liberalism."

While I certainly don't deny the contributions made to liberalism, I find it ironic that you failed to mention that the Israeli government itself has become rightwing and extremely reactionary in nature. I also find it ironic that whenever anyone criticizes the Israeli government and/or policies, the anti-semitism card is played, and played rather heavily, IMHO. Being critical of any government's policies has nothing to do with unreasonable racial, cultural, or religious hated. While I do believe that a few DU posters are genuinely anti-semitic, I don't believe that it's at the level that you seem to believe.

"As far as calling people freedom fighters, I don't really like that word because it was created for use in propoganda."

Why or how do you think the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" were created? How do you think the British viewed the American colonists who, in the early days of the Revolution, shot British soldiers from behind rocks and trees? IMHO, one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist".

"People who target civilians, like the suicide bombers in Israel are terrorists, but when the Administration call Iraqi's who target US troops terrorists, it makes my skin crawl. You cannot call people terrorists for defending their home against invaders."

I find your comments here to be terribly conflicted. The suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine ARE defending their homes and families against the invading Israelis. By definition, they are also "freedom fighters" in the eyes of their fellow Palestinians and throughout the Middle East. They use suicide bombers because they don't have tanks and planes to use as the Israelis use their planes and tanks. IMHO, there is absolutely no difference between the Israelis indiscriminantly killing Palestinian men, women and children, and the Palestinian suicide bombers indiscriminantly killing Israeli men, women and children. You have to either classify both actions as "terrorism", or you have to classify them as "acts of war". Two things are very clear, IMHO...the Israelis are the invaders and the Palestinians are protecting their homes and families. I would expect nothing less from Americans if the U. S. were occupied by a foreign country. I do agree with your comments about the Iraqis who are indeed defending their country against a foreign invader.

[Julien Sorel]

17. I think this statement:

I'm not saying that the Muslim World doesn't have some legitimate beefs with us, I'm just saying that murdering civlians is murdering civilians.

is best viewed when turned around. The West kills far more Muslims than vice-versa, by several orders of magnitude. It's our media that make every Western death seem a tragedy, while the Muslim deaths are usually not covered at all, and when they are, they are marginalized and excused as being part of a 'war on terror,' or 'reprisals.'

[Chants]

133. Huh?

I am not so sure I agree with your stats. Could you please provide some links or other documentation?

Also, when you say the "West kills," who is the "west" and how are they doing the "killing?" Is Iseral part of the West? Russia? Brazil? Japan?

Do these westerners go to Muslim nations and just open fire? Do they bomb them from planes? Are they starving them, poisoning them?

Are you including deaths from military confrontations? Are you saying that Western foriegn policy kills Muslims indirectly? If so how? Is it possible that these military confrontations prevented more Muslim on Muslim death than it caused West on Muslim death?

I am not saying you are wrong. But After 3,000 people died in 9/11, I am having a hard time coming up with 3,000 non military deaths caused by westerners on muslims.

[_Jumper_]

137. How many Palestinians have been killed by weapons Israel received...

...from the US of A for FREE?

[Chants]

147. Dunno, you tell me

how many Palistinians were killed by weapons manufactured in the US.

Is it your position that the USA is morally culpable for these deaths? Partially culpable? Is Russia morally culpable for the deaths caused by AK-47 gunfire? Is Russia morally culpable for the few Isreali deaths becuase it manufactured the SCUDS Saddam launched at Isreal in Gulf War One? Are the Chechs or the Slovaks responsible for the deaths caused by weapons manufactured in the former Chechoslovakia?

It seems like an attenuated chain of culpability to me, but maybe you can change my mind.

[Selwynn]

188. Yes.

The US is of course morally culpable *IF* the intended effect of seeling weapons to Israel was that they be used to kill Palestinans. It depends on what the direct intent of the U.S was and if the U.S can be said to have a reasonable understanding of what the result of its actions would be. Then there is culbability.

[CWebster]

238. The West has killed thousands of Muslims

from Afghanistan to Iraq....so far.

[CWebster]

237. Good post

BillyBunter.

[Bandit]

121. And the US never does that do we?

:crazy:

[Lurking Dem]

3. My favorite argument

which pops up here form time to time is the "but it's not anti-Semitic if it's TRUE!"

If I were to state that it were my belief African-Americans were less intelligent as a race, and that lower test scores "prove" that is true so that statement isn't racist, I would be kicked off these boards and rightly so.

If a gay person states that they found something to be offensive or outright homophobic people (here) tend to apologize or at least re-evaluate what they said.

If a Jew here says that something is bigotted or anti-Semitic, we get lectured about why we are wrong.

I am sick of having to defend my support of Israel as a nation. I do not like right wing Israeli assholes any more than I like right wing Amercian assholes yet I have been accused of being a Sharon supporter, an occupation supporter, a Republican, etc., etc.

Good luck with this thread. You're going to need it.

[a_random_joel]

5. Thanks for the support LD!

I'm sure I'll need it. But I'm ready and able.

[dsc]

113. not so fast

I am a veteran of those anti gay threads and must say that while some did reevaluate others did no such thing. I was repeatedly lectured as to why I was overly sensitive and should just grow up.

[Lurking Dem]

126. I guess I missed those.

I am disheartened to hear it.

[Selwynn]

194. Wrong.

If you were to provide credible, scientifically sound, accurate evidence that people of african decent were in fact genetically and physically incapable of being as intelligent as some other race, you would be stating a FACT about the world. (Thankfully, and much to my relief, we live in a world where this is completely not true)

The reason why you would be kicked of the boards for saying what you are saying is because lower test scores, do not PROVE anything. You have not made a logically sound case. However, if you could in fact make a scientifically verifiable, logically sound case, then you are guilty of nothing except telling the truth even when the truth hurts.

Telling the truth about the fucked up policys of Israel is not anti-Semetic. It's telling the truth. Commenting in anger about the relative free pass given to Israel by the US press and government while it carries out its own terrorsim in the name of "protecting" itself is not anti-semetic. I don't have anything against any race. I have something againt ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE - blacks, whites, blues, greens, organes, hot pinks -- who are allowed to violate international law repeatedly, act with total impunity as the illegally occupty territory, continually deny basic human rights, and carry out military operations in the name of "security" that a war crimes, and terrorism by any definition of the term. I have a problem with anyone who does that. Guess what, I have the SAME problem with the Palestinians commiting acts of terror.

Angery against injustic has a blind eye to race. And POINTING OUT BULLSHIT has absolutley ZERO to do with anti-semitism.

What I am anti is anti-the-US-having-its-head-so-far-up-Israels-ass-that-we-refuse-to-stand-for -justice

[gate of the sun]

272. well for what it's worth this I agree with

thank you thank you thank you. I felt like if I said anything it would be attacked.

[rini]

198. Exactly!

[Selwynn]

309. Not exactly at all, see post 194

[virgdem]

4. Unfortunately, and this appears to be a concrete fact of life,

Jews are and have always been the universal scapegoat for the world's problems. Where ever we have settled, there appears to be a pre-defined bias against all Jews in general. It appears that Anti-Semitism is rearing its ugly head once again.

[Malva Zebrina]

104. It historically appears to be that way

you may want to check out how the Catholic religion fostered the anti-semitic views of it's followers for hundreds of years. You may want to check out why that happened that way--Paul was a Jew--but Paul changed the Jewish religion into the Christian mythology--and thereafter for hundreds of years, Jews were villified as the tribe that killed the mythologized Jesus Paul invented. I :eyes: when I think of it--we are better off with no religion--I am grateful to have evolved past that tribal knee jerk reaction. We are all, after all, only human beings. There would be no scapegoat, and there would be no land grabs back to biblical boundaries of more than two thousand years ago when a sky god gave a certain tribe exclusive rights to land because they were the "chosen" ones. Ugh--imagine there's no religion, in the words of a peaceful man.

[a_random_joel]

151. I agree with you in principle

And in an ideal world that would be how it is. But, and I hate to break this to you, we do not live in an ideal world.

For the record, I am actually Agnostic, in terms of my belief, and am a concrete supporter of Church/State separation, and am definitely against divisive tribal distinctions.

However, regardles of my beliefs, my bloodline and lineage betray me. Were another Hitler to pop up, I would be slain as surely as would my son and my non-denominational Christian wife.

What I am saying is, it is not only the Jews who perpetrate the distinction. Our ethnicity is enough to qualify for bigotry. Sure, I can blend in better than say, an African-American, but when the proverbial "shit hits the fan"... I am a potential target nonetheless.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ikojo]

193. I am Jewish and make nowhere near $75k per year!

I also come for a SOLIDLY working class family and was the first person in my family to attend college Not all Jews are rich professional/managerial types. I loath this stereotype when it rears its head in the Jewish community and even more outside the Jewish community.

Also, so what if every Jew made $1million per year, does that mean we should not worry about antisemitism? Would it be OK to hate Jews if we were all rich?

The same canard has been used against the gay/lesbian community (that gays/lesbians are more well educated and have a higher income than the general community so why are they whining) to halt anti discrimination laws from being enacted.

There are working class Jews its just that you don't hear about them as much as you do the rich ones.

PROUD WORKING CLASS JEW

[_Jumper_]

229. I didn't say all Jews are rich

I just pointed out the fact that they are the richest group in America to refute a claim about them being persecuted around the world. Jews exert influence in government and business that is far greater than their numbers in America. This isn’t from the 2003 version of the Protocols of Elders of Zion; this is reality. How many Jewish Senators are there? Who elected them? How many black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic Senators are there? During the Clinton administration Jews were appointed Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury—arguably the three most powerful cabinet positions. In the entire history of the United States a grand total of one racial minority has held one of those posts. Clinton’s two Supreme Court appointments were Jewish. There have only been two racial minorities appointed to the court in U.S. history, despite the fact that they make up almost one-third of the population.

Jews are certainly not persecuted here. Anti-Semitism against Jews is not widespread in 2003 in the nation that supports the Jewish state at the expense of its own security.


"The same canard has been used against the gay/lesbian community (that gays/lesbians are more well educated and have a higher income than the general community so why are they whining) to halt anti discrimination laws from being enacted."

The difference is that discrimination against those groups is widespread, unlike discrimination against Jews. Jews are an accepted part of the white majority now, and there success in government and corporate America proves that.

*****CORRECTION: I was wrong about the $75,000 average. 41% of Jewish households earn more than $75,000, but the median household income for American Jews is $54,000. I mixed the two up.*****

Source: http://www.jewishjournal.com/old/stats.5.5.0.htm

[ikojo]

246. I agree that Jews as a group do enjoy positions of power

disproportionate to their numbers in the general population.

I think that in order for someone to understand why Jews are HYPERsensitive to any whiff of antisemitism one must understand how the last great Jewish community viewed themselves...the German Jews were fully integrated in German society. They were the intellectuals, the doctors, the artists, the university professors etc. Many of them didn't even practice Judaism and were unaware that they were Jewish until reminded by the Nazis. Many German Jews fought for the Kaiser in WW I and received medals of valor.

Even after being in Germany for a thousand years, Jews were convenient scapegoats for the Nazis.

Even in 2000, while many were proud of having Lieberman on the Democratic ticket the fear was expressed that it was too high a profile for a Jew. A lof of people worried and expected an antisemitic backlash. To the credit of the US it never came or if it did it was not widespread. Most people were intrigued by Lieberman's religious affiliation.

While Jews are successful in the US, the memory of the Holocaust is only 60 plus years old. If Germany, a land viewed (at the time) as a cutured and educated society, could turn on its Jews then whose to say it cannot happen even in the US? Call it paranoid but many Jews, especially those of the Holocaust generation feel this way. This is why Israel is SO important to many Jews, right and left.

[_Jumper_]

248. I can understand their fear of renascent anti-Semitism

I am of South Asian descent and considered incorrectly to be a Muslim and Arab by most and I have an irrational fear in the back of my mind of a rise in racism resulting in us being put in concentration camps.

I just think that right now Jews are accepted into the white majority and doing well. I do agree that, unfortunately, there is a possibility that this all could change and anti-Semitism could return with a vengance.

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

282. You are an anti-Semite.

And I don't care if saying so gets me kicked off these boards.

[Mairead]

213. Do you have *any* cite for that 'per capita income of $75K' claim?

I can't imagine that you possibly could, and I really think you ought to retract if you can't trot one out.

[AntiCoup2K4]

240. Where is the persecution of Jews coming from?

Perhaps, Jumper, you should look in the mirror? Not saying you are intentionally an anti-semite, but you obviously believe a false myth that someone told you, this per capita income of $75,000 thing.

Do you also believe a similar myth that "all homosexuals are rich and well educated"??

Not trying to single you out, but this is how a lot of ignorance about people gets spread around... little things like this which seem harmless enough, and certainly don't equate in and of themselves with using words like "kike" or "faggot" - but still allow falsehoods to circulate and then those who DO practice the real hatred will be using the myth to their advantage

help us stop the Jews before they take all our money

or

We can't stop the "homosexual agenda" because they own the liberal politicians

As for the government giving Israel, especially Sharon, way too much slack, I can't argue that with you. But that's one corrupt government dealing with another and not a reflection of either the Jewish people or the majority of Americans.

[_Jumper_]

242. Read post #229

I simply confused a fact about 41% making more than 75K with their median income. The fact remains that they are affluent and have power that far exceeds their numbers. I haven't said it is a bad thing. I simply have stated it to show that they aren't persecuted in America.

[rini]

280. Why is it even an issue?

The average Episcopal? Catholic, Muslim..etc. Who cares! A non issue.

[_Jumper_]

328. Read the thread

Someone said they were persecuted and I pointed out that they are wealthy and powerful to refute that. Do you actually believe that is anti-Semitic??? *eyes*

[Muddleoftheroad]

292. How much power should they have in your questionable opinion?

Wow, I should archive this whole thread.

[_Jumper_]

329. Read the thread too

Where did I say or insinuate that them having power was a negative thing?

[Muddleoftheroad]

336. I read the thread

You insuated that they have disproportionate power and that they are not persecuted in America. I consider both claims to be false.

Jews, like every other group, have a little power, but not disproportionate. Quick name the Jewish presidents and Jewish heads of states of nations nots Israel.

Do you honestly think Jews are not persecuted in America?

[_Jumper_]

338. They are just 2% of the population (I was talking about in America)

Yet they have more power than larger minority groups. Look at government appointments under Clinton. Jews were appointed to the three most important cabinet positions and filled both SCOTUS vacancies. That former is 3x the number of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans who've held the top 3 cabinet posts in American history. Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, despite making up almost 1/5 of the population have never had a member of their "group" appointed to the SCOTUS throughout American history. Only two blacks have been appointed to it.

They have been able to have that much influence in one administration alone. That dwarfs what racial minorities have been able to achieve.

Look at Congress. What % of Senators and representatives are Jews? How many racial minority Senators are there? How many racial minority representatives are there in Congress that were minorities in their district? The fact of the matter is that Jews have been able to achieve remarkable electoral success despite being a member of a minority religion. This is more evidence indicating that they have been accepted as members of the white majority.

All this demonstrates that Jews hardly face widespread discrimination in 2003 in America.

"Quick name the Jewish presidents and Jewish heads of states of nations nots Israel."

The UK had a Jewish Prime Minister--in the 19th century! Now, name one other religion who has had a member reach the highest office in a country while being a minority, let alone being a minority that is less than 1% of the population.

I will concede that Jews suffer from widespread discrimination in most nations but they don't in America, Canada, and the UK.


"Do you honestly think Jews are not persecuted in America?"

Yes, they are not perseucted in the nation that damages its own national security for them(via support for Israel). They are members of the white majority now. If you think they're persecuted here make your case.

[jiacinto]

6. Some of the statements said about Lieberman fall under

that rubic. Such examples include:

Lieberman (R-Israel)
Lieberman (R-Likud)
Lieberman puts Israel ahead of America
Lieberman should run for mayor Jeraselum
Lieberman should move to Israel
Holy Joe

And that's just the tip off the iceberg of antisemtic slurs used against him here.

[edzontar]

19. I think it is legitimate to associate Lieberman with Likud

Though I would add that half of the DP is also guilty in my view of supporting these bastards because they don't want to be see as Anti-Israel.

Lieberman is just too supprtive of "Israel" (ie the present Israeli government) , no matter WHAT it does, for my particular taste.

Obviously talking about JEWS, etc, doing things is anti-semitic.

AS IS writing about how ARABS are evil etc.

Statements like these essentialize a group, race, religion etc. as evil and this by definition is racst and bigoted.

Saying you oppose Israeli GOVERNMENT activities or particular Israeli leaders is no more anti-Jewish than criticizing Bush and/or his policies is anti-American or anti-Protestant, or whatever.

[rini]

281. don't forget

all Methodists are republican conservatives, and all Catholics are Pat Buchanonites...what a bunch of garbage!

[JackRiddler]

29. excuse me...

but how does "Holy Joe" fit into this list? You're ruining whatever point you're trying to make.

He's called that because he constantly pontificates about faith and family values, a nice big alliance of the fundamentalists.

[a_random_joel]

38. I agree

Holy Joe is not a knock on his ethnicity, IMHO.

I call him that myself, and I am Jewish. I believe firmly in the separation of Church and State, and his comments tend to blur that separation.

[LeahMira]

61. A little of that goes a long way...

He's called that because he constantly pontificates about faith and family values, a nice big alliance of the fundamentalists.

Still, I think that a lot of progressives do themselves a disservice when they pooh-pooh religion. I think we are born spiritual people. I'm not sure I can define it any more clearly, except to say that we all wish for a caring and peaceful world... one that is less competitive to the point where there are so many "losers" created.

I think that sometimes liberals are rational and logical, and that's good but not by itself. After all, it reason and logic were such superior tools, all the world's problems would have been solved through reason and logic by now.

OK, so one of the reasons I like Kucinich is because he appeals to my aspirations and hopes. He's also logical and rational. But I do think that aspirations and hopes are sort of religious kinds of things, and unless we can speak to that part of people we will just sound dry and elite and all the things people say that mean they don't think we understand the average man and woman. I mean the average citizen does flop in front of the TV every night, but s/he also hopes and dreams... and goes to church a lot of Sundays.

Lieberman, with all his warts, isn't afraid to say that he worships something better also. He's not about forcing his beliefs on anyone, but he does respect that part of people.

[Mairead]

234. Sadly, LeahMira, reason and logic *are* superior tools, but like

any other tools, not everyone wants to make the effort to become expert in their use. Many would rather paint by number, as it were, and think themselves the equal of da Vinci.

[jiacinto]

214. It does fit because many of ihs detractors also use

the other examples I listed there.

[Brian Sweat]

47. The first five are bad, but Joe is ultra-orthodox

so I don't see how calling him Holy Joe is anti-semitic and more than calling Pat Robertson Holy Pat would be anti-Christian.

[GabysPoppy]

180. You are mistaken in your comments

Lieberman is Orthodox but he is not Ultra-Orthodox.

That term is usually reserved to members of the Chasedic sect, which he is not part of.

[AntiCoup2K4]

260. "Holy Joe" equals anti-semitism?? Gimme a break Carlos!

Liberman considers himself to be more "morally correct" than the majority of us. He's certainly not alone in that, a lot of other politicians do the same. It's just that most of them are conservative Religious Reich Republicans. The particular religious tradition which Lieberman observes isn't the issue. It's his insistence that we should all live by his interpretation of what that religion teaches. And if that's "anti-semitic", than am I also "anti-Christ" for rejecting the same self serving "moral correctness" from Tom Delay or Pat Robertson.?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. Israel is the Jewish State, and defines itself as such

I don't think it's always because of anti-Semitism that people might mix "Israeli" and "Jewish" - mostly it's because Israel does its best to erase the distinction as well.

Now about the left calling Islamicist terrorists and suicide bombers as "freedom fighters" I'll agree, it's utter hypocrisy. There is nothing slighly liberal or left about the totalitarian and oppressive regimes of the Arab world - leftists always like to root for the underdog, even when the underdog is outright evil and reactionary as in this case. It's wrong and against our principles, and it needs to stop. Then again I don't think it's nearly as widespread as it's made out to be, and there are quite a number of antisemetic fascists who like to pose as "progressives" on internet forums - sites like indymedia have almost been destroyed by these people.

Jews have always been the best leftists, in my opinion. I doubt the "left" would even exist if it wasn't for Jewish people.

[a_random_joel]

8. Israel is the Jewish HOMELAND

It is a Democratic state. Muslims and Christians have equal voting rights, and representation on the Knesset.

How many Islamic states are there? Are they Democracies? And how many offer Christians, Jews, or other religious distinctions egalitarian opportunities as Israel does?

Other than that, I think your points are valid.

[rudeboy666]

16. Palestinians?

How do they figure in Israeli democracy?

[a_random_joel]

23. Arabs, almost 20% of whom

are in ISRAEL proper. THey have voting rights. THey have representation on the Knesset. Look it up.

The Palestinians are on disputed land. I am not including them in this equation. There are many disputed borders around the world. Start with Kashmir. Or are the Hindus oppressing the Muslims there as well?

[rudeboy666]

27. rationalization?

"The Palestinians are on disputed land. I am not including them in this equation. There are many disputed borders around the world."

Having a whole population as second-class citizens(do they even have any trace of citizenship?) counts as a democracy?

As you say, they are not included in the equation!

[a_random_joel]

30. It is not a rationalization

It is a statement of fact. Border disputes happen all the time, and they usually aren;t very friendly.

Why don't you do us both a favor. WHy don't you look up the Jewish population in any ONE of the Islamic states, and tell me whether they are a whole population as second-class citizens.

While you're at it, why don't you look up Muslim oppression of Hundus and Sikhs as well.

Don't tell me about second class citizens.

[rudeboy666]

55. Rationalization II

"WHy don't you look up the Jewish population in any ONE of the Islamic states, and tell me whether they are a whole population as second-class citizens.

While you're at it, why don't you look up Muslim oppression of Hundus and Sikhs as well.

Don't tell me about second class citizens."

I am only talking about the Palestinians(something you haven't really answered).

But to make things clear: The oppression of Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs is EQUALLY repulsive. Moreover, the second-class status of many Jews in some muslim countries is furtherly repulsive.

Now, unless you want to argue in the 'two wrongs make it right' spirit, I want you to address the oppression of the Palestinian people in the state of Israel.

Do not evade the question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Not really second class in Muslim nations

Because most of the Jews in those nations were run out of town.

[a_random_joel]

79. I did

I addressed it in my opening statement, when I said I invite Criticism of the Israeli/Likud policy. I think the oppression of Palestinians is deplorable. I believe a two state solution is at least part of the answer.

But so many here equate the championing of the Palestinians as a "rooting for the underdog"; which exposes a glaring double standard, when the Jews have been ignored when they have been(and in some cases stil are) an "underdog".

[rudeboy666]

82. partly satisfied

"which exposes a glaring double standard, when the Jews have been ignored when they have been(and in some cases stil are) an "underdog"."

This is where you lose me.

I don't think that any rational person denies the oppression that the Jewish people have experienced(and still do in many parts of the world). This is beyond dispute.

However, when we focus strictly on the state of Israel, it cannot be denied that that country oppresses a whole segment of its population. Moreover, this fact weakens(not totally discount) its claim to be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

[a_random_joel]

88. Sorry

it cannot be denied that that country oppresses a whole segment of its population

The Palestinians are NOT part of the Israeli population. THEY don;t even consider themselves to be. Therefore we have a classic case of border dispute. Look at Kashmir.

[rudeboy666]

96. my point

"The Palestinians are NOT part of the Israeli population. THEY don;t even consider themselves to be. Therefore we have a classic case of border dispute. Look at Kashmir."

This sounds like rationalization to me.

The fact remains that the current state of Israel has a subjugated population within its domain. This is a stain on its claim to democracy.

[a_random_joel]

164. Wrong

You have a border dispute. Not the first, not the last, and never peacefully or easily solved.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

85. Israel is THE superpower of the MidEast, and the only nuclear power

Israel is in no way shape nor form the "underdog" in the Middle East.

[a_random_joel]

91. Never said they were underdogs

I was talking about Jewish minorities in other countries. Although, at several points in Israel's short history, they clearly were.

[_Jumper_]

162. Are they being killed daily and living in refugee camps?

Prejudice doesn't make the news like death and war do. 99.9% of DU'ers, if they heard about Jews experiencing widespread prejudice anywhere would support them.

[a_random_joel]

165. Not entirely true.

Why do you think I started this thread?

[Mairead]

90. The Israelis are invaders. That makes a difference.

They got a pass from the non-Islamic world for it, but they're invaders and colonialists all the same.

That makes a difference. Or should.

[a_random_joel]

92. So are we.

And many, many others. Welcome to History 101.

How do you think Islam spread? Or Christianity?

[Mairead]

115. Yes, but there was an international agreement against invading.

It was created in 1945. That was the principal charge at Nürnberg: invading. As from 1945, gratuitous invading was to be a war crime, and no country was to be allowed to acquire territory by conquest.

That's the big difference.

[a_random_joel]

127. So what happened in 1948?

Care to explain that one?

[Mairead]

176. Sure. UNSC members violated the UN's own charter

In giving 51% of Palestine to a Jewish immigrant population that had actual title to only some 6% or 10%, I believe, and who represented --even counting the huge influx of UK-protected recent immigrants-- much less than half the total population. It was, in essence, a relatively bloodless, sponsored invasion. Immediately thereafter, the Arab population were (as Benny Morris termed it) 'driven out' by the Irgun and other Jewish terrorist forces.

It was plausibly analogous to a home invasion in which the tenants of 1 apartment drive out the tenants of the other 9 apartments with the help of the cops. A total violation of the UN Charter. The Palestinians were completely innocent victims of more than a half-century of 19th-century-'white-man's-burden'-style colonialist dispossession.

[a_random_joel]

186. Completely innocent victims?!

I have in my defense offered that Israel has done some wrong.
You are living in fantasy land.

No point continuing. FYI, the Earth is ROUND.

[Mairead]

203. Yes, completely innocent.

They were living there in peace for a thousand years, raising their olives, fruit, goats, and children. The European Jews started coming in and soon it became obvious to the Arabs what was going on. The Arabs resisted --as who wouldn't! Their resistance was suppressed by the Brits and the Jewish incomers and the cycle continued.

Sounds like innocence to me.

[a_random_joel]

207. I like unicorns

They're all cute and cuddly.
Leprechauns too! Still waiting to find that damned pot o' gold, though!

[Mairead]

208. Well, this is why you get into trouble, I think

Your worldview can't be defended, but you insist other people accept it all the same. That doesn't work. Or at least not with me. I'm not so anti-Jewish as to do that.

[Cassandra]

219. Really

"I'm not so anti-Jewish as to do that."
So how anti-Jewish are you, exactly? On a scale of 1 to 10?

[Mairead]

225. "So how anti-Jewish are you, exactly? On a scale of 1 to 10?"

About -1, I think. If I believed in God I'd probably convert.

[Cassandra]

268. That's nice to know

n/t

[mbartko]

226. You are completely evading the question.

What, exactly, precisely, did the Palestinians so that they were not innocent?

[a_random_joel]

286. Wrong #1

I am not evading the question. The Palestinians are not the innocent victims that are being portrayed here. There were anti-Jewish pogroms in the 1920s. Many Palestinians left during the first war, because they were promised the land after their allies wiped Israel off the planet.

Finally, ever hear of the PLO? Innocent victims... please. I have critisized Israel for wrongdoing. Have a little integrity and recognize that both sides have blood on their hands.

What you saw as an evasion was simply my disbelief in the outragousness of such a statement.

[mbartko]

289. Oh, I see.

You subscribe to the theory of collective punishment on an entire people. Thanks for clearing that up. Much better answer than the unicorns.

[a_random_joel]

291. Now you are putting words in my mouth

Thanks for clearing that up. Much better than falsely accusing me of evading questions.

Do you actually read the threads, or do you just want to get some cheap shots in?

[mbartko]

305. I wanted to agree with your orginal premise...

But you make it very hard to stay on your side of the argument.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. You keep using "The Palestinians" as in "The Palestinians are not the innocent victims that are being portrayed here" to refer to what may be some Palestinians, You object when Jews are are lumped into a generality, but you honestly don't seem to afford others that courtesy.

So, no, I am not taking cheap shots at you. I agreed with your original statement. I was disappointed that the double standards you denounce you also employ, I was disappointed to see you reduce a situation in which dozens of UN resolutions related to the occupation have been violated and ignored as a "border dispute", and I am disappointed that you seem to be incapable of making a persuasive point without resorting to cynicism and a sense of superiority.

[a_random_joel]

311. Ok you're right

In the heat of the moment I did refer to some Palestinians as all, which was wrong. In my defense, Mairead referred to the "innocent Palestinians" which I was objecting too, so Mairead is just as guilty, most of us will agree not all the Palestinians are innocent.

Furthermore, it is a border dispute, like it or not. It is a bad situation, with bad activities on both sides, but I object to the classification of Israeli behavior as "genocide" or such nonsense.

[Mairead]

298. You continue to act as though the world started after

the Zionists started invading Palestine with UK connivance. In the 1920s, the handwriting was already on the wall. Many Arabs were aware of the (truly anti-Semitic: anti-Jew and anti-Arab) UK policy of supporting the Zionist invasion and they resented the hell out of it. There was no 'pogrom' as that term is normally defined.

I really think you ought to read Shabtai Teveth's biography of Ben Gurion. It's eye-opening. Or should be.

[a_random_joel]

300. You continue to act as if this thread

were a microcosm of the F/A forum. I don't care. My original post still stands.

[Mairead]

303. Yes, I know you continue to insist on the truth of your original post

But the fact that some of us see things differently to you doesn't mean you're right and we're wrong.

[a_random_joel]

313. You and eveyone else have the right to individual opinion

on the I/P issue. It is when that opinion specifically uses the words JEWS, that I object to it, and thus my thread.

Do you disagree?

[Mairead]

318. "Do you disagree?"

The way you're trying to frame the issue? Yes, I do disagree, and for the reasons I've already given. What you're saying doesn't meet the test of reason or logic. You're overgeneralising in a way that will inevitably --can only-- result in more tsuris, not less.

[AntiCoup2K4]

263. The difference is that Islamic states, for the most part, are theocracies.

Or defined as an Islamic religious dictatorship (or whatever term they use.) Israel on the other hand, is supposed to be a democracy. And in a democracy, the Palestinians shouldn't be excluded.

Concerns about the treatment of Jews and other non-Muslims in Muslim states are valid, but the comparison of these states with Israeli democracy is not.

[Malikshah]

39. Do a little homework on the Israeli Arabs historically

The evidence you use is true--but is by no means the complete picture.

Israel is as democratic as it needs to be--it is not a true democracy for all historically. Arabs that had remained in Israel did so in less than democratic conditions for quite a while--and to today must deal w/ a less than democratic system of rights.

Recent polls bear this out--polls from Israel, done by Israeli policy groups--http://www.idi.org.il/english/

Check out their studies. They paint a more accurate picture of the "democracy" you mention.

[a_random_joel]

41. Tell me about Islamic Democracy

Pretty Please.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

57. The lack of Arab democracy does not justify anything

Really, it doesn't. Saying "the Arabs are worse" is not an excuse for anything.

[Malikshah]

63. You beat me to it.

the previous response simply shows the nature of the argument put forth-- biased, one-sided, and wrong.

Sorry to rain on the "democracy parade" of some--but accuracy in this issue helps. Trying to change the subject is just pathetic.

[a_random_joel]

67. It points out the glaring double standard.

Got Hypocrisy?

[Malikshah]

86. Sorry-- no

Can I borrow some.

[rudeboy666]

62. It's D.O.A.

There is no Muslim democracy.

In fact, most of those countries are oppresive and reactionary.

But what does this have to do with critiques of Israeli democracy?

Does this somehow justify having a whole poplulation of second-class 'citizens'?

[a_random_joel]

69. Ahhh

It goes to the heart of the double standard. Many on the "Left" will defend the Muslim Minority in Palestine, but pays no heed to the Jewish minority in other states.

They will not even acknowledge that the Palestinians themselves have been a victim of Arabic oppression and politicization.

I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies, which is valid in this case.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. There are two Iran and Egypt

.

[a_random_joel]

93. You wanna buy some land?

Give you a real good price on arrable land in the Sinai...

[Classical_Liberal]

110. From Encarta

VI Government
print section

Egypt was a constitutional monarchy from 1923 to 1952, when military officers seized control of the government. Although Egypt became a republic in 1953, it essentially remained a military dictatorship dominated by a single political party. In 1978 a multiparty political system was instituted.

Egypt is governed under a constitution that was approved by a national referendum in 1971. The constitution, which was amended in 1977 and 1980, provides for an Arab socialist state with Islam as the official religion. It also stresses social solidarity, equal opportunity, and popular control of production.

Political power is concentrated primarily in the presidency. Since 1952 Egypt’s presidents have risen from the military, which holds considerable authority in the government. The orientation and policies of the government have shifted considerably with changes in the presidency.



http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761557408&pn=4#s36

[a_random_joel]

132. Try this

http://www.mindspring.com/~jaypsand/egypt2.htm

At the turn of the 20th century there were more than 25,000 Jews in Egypt, mainly concentrated in Cairo and Alexandria. This population had tripled by 1945, when the rise of Egyptian nationalism led to anti-Jewish riots that killed Jews and laid waste to a synagogue, a Jewish hospital, and an old-age home. A substantial number of Jews fled further anti-Jewish riots in the late ’40s and early ‘50s, most racing across the Sinai for the relative safety of Israel; emigration increased in direct proportion with the escalation of Egyptian-Israeli tensions. By 1957 only 15,000 Jews remained in Egypt; after the 1967 Six-Day War there were less than 2,500. The Jewish population dwindled further in the 1970s, leaving only a handful of Jews in the major Egyptian cities. The community may have disappeared altogether had President Anwar Sadat not signed the Camp David Accords with Israel in 1979 and allowed Egyptian Jews to once again establish ties with world Jewry. Relations between Jews and Arabs in Egypt since the peace have been tense but the Egyptian government has protected the Jews’ right to maintain their faith.

Most of the hundred or so Jews who remain in Egypt live in Cairo, though a handful remain in Alexandria. Most of them are elderly; there is no rising generation to replace them.

[Classical_Liberal]

139. It is a democracy that protects the right of jews ot maintain their faith

Ok. Don't get where your headed. How does that prove it is not a democracy?

[a_random_joel]

154. Did you only read the last sentence?

Democracy in Egypt is a very recent, and quite brittle, reality.

[Classical_Liberal]

156. it is still a democracy

. It either is or it isn't. It also has a constitution unlike another middle eastern country that is advertised as a democracy. You asked how many other democracies there were, in middle east. I answered.

[a_random_joel]

159. No

I believe I asked you how many ISLAMIC democracies there were. You mentioned one. I'll throw you a bone and give you Turkey as well. There may be a few others. Fine, 2 or 3 out of 20? Great record.

Israel is 1 for 1 on Jewish-state democracies. And has been ever since its birth. Unlike the examples you have provided.

[_Jumper_]

166. a_random_joel's anti-Islamic bigotry comes out the cloest

"I believe I asked you how many ISLAMIC democracies there were. You mentioned one. I'll throw you a bone and give you Turkey as well. There may be a few others. Fine, 2 or 3 out of 20? Great record.

Israel is 1 for 1 on Jewish-state democracies. And has been ever since its birth. Unlike the examples you have provided. "

:eyes:

Who cares????? That isn't the issue.

[a_random_joel]

173. There is nothing Anti-Islamic about my statement

The facts, which I can back up with links if you'd like, are that many ISLAMIC states (not by my definition, by their own) are NOT Democracies.

Israel, IS a Democracy. It is relevant, because, unlike the characterization that Israelis (or Jews) are racists because of their treatment of Palestinians, this belies the fat that almost 20% of the population IN Israel IS Muslim, and has suffrage and representation.

On the contrary, the Paletinian's allies, who are Islamic states(again, by their own definition) do not share many of these same values. Many have made anti-Jewish statements, and have called for the destruction of Israel. How many Jews or even Israeli politicians have called for the destruction of any Islamic or Arabic state?

That is not to say ALL Muslims or Arabs are bad. As I said, I am against generalizations against ethnic peoples. The policies of the government are fair game.

Keep trying.

[Classical_Liberal]

218. Isreal kicked out most of the Palestinians, which is why

they aren't the majority there presently. So that is just flat wrong. It only tolerates Palestinians in numbers so small as to not dent the politics of the country. Furthermore it still governs most of the Palestinians it kicked out, on the west bank and none of the Palestinians there can vote. In fact 80% of the Palestinians Israel governs both in Israel and on the West Bank can't vote in Israel and have no hope of ever voting in Israel. They are subjects, not citizens. The only way they could ever become citizens was through marriage to an Israelis citizen and Israel just specifically outlawed this. They also outlawed the children of such relationships from ever becoming citizens, even if that child has a Jewish mother. Every other human on Earth can become a citizen of Israel with a Jewish mother, unless ofcoarse you have a Palestinian father, which demonstrates malace toward that specific group.

[mitchtv]

257. we're on the same page today CL

didn't see that coming

[_Jumper_]

243. Veracious statements can still be bigoted

It is true that certain groups committ more crime but it is considered, correctly, racist to say so. IMO, the lack of democracy in Islam and Islamic nations wasn't the issue of this thread and you brought it into the conversation. If someone brought irrelevant anti-black or anti-Hispanic facts into a conversation certainly you would consider that racist. The same reasoning applies here.

I see your reasoning for bringing up Islam's problems and th eproblems in Islamic nations but I disagree with bringing it up in this thread. The lack of democracy in Islamic nations is an issue for another day.

[Classical_Liberal]

167. Israel has only existed for 50 yrs

Egypt has existed for 5000 yrs. Now if you go back to the first Israel it was a monarchy, then a subject state of various empires.

[a_random_joel]

174. Israel has existed as a Democracy for only 50 years, true.

How about Egypt? Surely you are not suggesting an Egyptian Democracy stretching back 5000 years?

[Classical_Liberal]

187. No I am suggesting that israel's history of democracy is fairly recent

as well, and still pretty shakey, but this conversation has gotten way off track by now and is fairly tedious. I find as a result of this tedious sort of defense israel, that your favored country is becoming less popular and not more popular with most duers. Ponder that awhile.

[a_random_joel]

190. OK

Once the cause celebre is unpopular we just give up on it, eh?

Cool, that means that when the Palestinian situation is no longer the flavor of the month for some leftists... they'll just drop it, and we can quit boring you with such TEDIOUS discussions.

[Classical_Liberal]

201. Hmm I must of got your goat

not intended, but maybe it got you thinking as well.

[mitchtv]

256. I may be wrong, but also Malaysia

as far as paletinians not counting, cause they're 'outside of Isreal proper, I feel thatthose in refugee camps had better be dealt with fairly, as they have a claim(legit)Like it or not

[mbartko]

227. You are evading another question.

You were asked to give your opinion on Israeli democracy. You answered by pointing to something else. That does not answer the question.

[a_random_joel]

287. Wrong #2

I already gave an opinion of Israeli Democracy. I was informed that it was a Democracy of convenience" or some such nonsense. News flash, there is no perfect democracy, nor do I think there will be one for a very long time.

I am not evading - I am refusing to rehash what I have already said.
The pointing to something else IS relevant. As I have said repeatedly, there is a double standard here. The Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is BROADER than just the Israelis and Palestinians. As many here have pointed out, the US is involved - some have even suggested US culpability for arming the Israelis. Well, that's good enough for me to show the much GREATER culpability of the Arabic states who have aligned with the Palestinans, and have done a lot more than just funding or arming them. Therefore it is NOT irrelevant to point out hte lack of Democracy in these allied states, because:
1. They are and have been active participants in the conflict
2. There is a possibility that their political system may be modelled by the Palestinians, which would kind of defuse the whole Democracy in Palestine argument.

[rini]

343. I can't believe that staement D-

[BurtWorm]

21. Be honest: Is Israel really the JEWISH homeland? Really?

What is a homeland, anyway? My Jewish wife's homeland is Washington Heights. My daughter's is the Upper West Side. I just found out last weekend I'm Rusyn. My ancestors came from Eastern Slovakia. I, on the other hand, came from Northern New Jersey.

I know I'm pointing this subthread more toward Foreign Affairs material, so let me bring it back by saying that I think the main problem--or I should say I *hope* the main problem--is language. People are not careful enough to be clear about what they mean. They say "the Jews" when talking about Israeli Jews because that's how this problem has been thought of and expressed in the US media: "the Arabs" vs. "the Jews." It's shocking to see this sort of talk on the left. Shocking and disgusting.

[a_random_joel]

26. My point being that

unlike a number of Islamic States, where minorites (especially Jews) are oppressed, the Jewish state is a Democracy.

[htuttle]

31. One point on that

The countries where religious minorities are MOST oppressed are those Arab nations that are allied with the United States, ie., Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, etc...

The countries in the Middle East where non-Muslims have had more freedom, ie, the secular Arab states, are the very ones that the United States is bent upon overthrowing...no doubt to be replaced by more fundamentalist regimes (ie., Iraq and Syria).

Case in point: If Hussein ends up being replace with al-Sadr in Iraq, will it ever be likely for an Iraqi Christian to rise as high as Tariq Aziz did?

While the rhetoric says one thing, the actions say another.

[a_random_joel]

44. Tariq Aziz is an exception

Read about the Jewish minority in Iraq historically.

[BurtWorm]

32. Palestinians aren't oppressed in Israel?

Or by Israel?

I hear you about the double standard there appears to be among some leftists--especially of the Alexander Cockburn, Ramsey Clark, A.N.S.W.E.R. variety. I agree with you: it's sickening to behold, especially when used as a license to make sweeping statements about "the Jews" or "powerful Jews" or "PNAC Jews." I'm totally in agreement with you about that.

[a_random_joel]

51. Israelis aren't oppressed in by Palestinians in Israel, or

Palestine? Or other Islamic countries?

There is a big, giant gorilla sitting on the backs of all those who criticize Israel for "oppression" of Palestinians. Not that I defend the oppression ina ny way.

But, that gorilla, is the historical persecution of Jews by Arab states, many of whom are not Democracies, that continues even to this day.

It's kinda like defending the Nazis for losing Alsace and Lorraine to French oppression.

[BurtWorm]

66. Is Israel a colony of Europe?

If you view it as a colony of Europe, all of the shit of the past 60 years becomes divorced from ancient history. Then you begin to imagine the possibility for a solution. Address the colonial issue. The solution lies that way.

[a_random_joel]

71. I see your point, there may be an answer there.It's all about perspective.

Touche. Care to expand on it?

[BurtWorm]

89. Europe organized the Middle East.

They did a shitty job. Now the US is trying to reorganize it. I don't have much faith that they have the vision to do the job rationally, which would entail treating all people who live in the region with respect and creating a foundation based on mutual respect to solve the problem, which is simply this: how can the ordinary people of the Middle East live in peace amongst each other. You won't get there by forcing a colonial template upon them. They'll have to work out the details. You'd hope they'd be smart enough to set religion and nationality aside and concentrate on building civil societies.

[a_random_joel]

95. That's fine Burt

I agree with you in principle. Too many here, and on the left who champion the Palestinian pause are knee-jerk reactionaries whc cannot examine their own illogic, let alone a reasonable solution.

And that, ultimately was the point of my post.

[BurtWorm]

105. And I totally agree with you on that, Joel.

I also admire your courage for bringing it up!

:toast:

[_Jumper_]

169. Every country opposes Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Except, of course, the USA.

Why single out Arabs when virtually the whole world denounces it?

[edzontar]

46. The concept of a HOMELAND is by definition RACIST

And when you have two or more ethnic groups with a completely legitimatre claim to the place, it is RACIST to deny one of thse groups their own "Homeland."

Or Motherland.

Or FATHERLAND.

The idea smacks of notions like: "We had this land first, God gave it to us, we are better than you, get out of here," etc.

It all makes me sick, frankly.

Ideally we would live in a world without borders.

Unfortunately we live in THIS one.

I don't know what the answer to this mess is, but I am pretty sure that all this HOMELAND talk will get us absolutely nowhere.

[a_random_joel]

52. Not when others are allowed to participate

I agree with you that the concept of nationalism can be very dangerous. Perhaps if the Jews were treated a little better in some of their host countries they would not have had a desire or need for a homeland?

Think. About. It.

[edzontar]

76. Well Joel, here's how I see it....

The Jewish population of Europe was not only mistreated, it was persecuted and subjected to a sustained effort at extirmination!!!

This was, in my opinion, the greatest single crime of the 20th century, and perhaps of all time.

That said, "allowing" people to participate is not quite the same concept as INALIENABLE RIGHTS---and it is on issues like this, such as the so-called "Right to Return," that the nationalist and (to an extent) racist underpinnings of the HOMELAND idea are made manifest.

I should really call Israeli policy not racist but neo-racist--I don't think that most Israelis personally view the Palestinians as racially inferior beings--or that the state of Israel was predicated on that notion in narrowly racist terms.

But I Do think the Palestinians are viewed as illegitimate occupants of the land by many--despite having lived in the region for countless thousands of years.

This becomes clear in Likud policies like the colonization of the West Bank, and the open discussion of ethnic cleansing in the territories.

But I take your point that it was brutal history that brought us to this point.

[_Jumper_]

172. You're correct

A lot of this bigotry and sense of superiority--on both sides of the I/P conflict--can be traced to their holy books, the Koran and Torah. Those books aren't exactly manisfestos of tolerance.

[a_random_joel]

175. Ok, Common ground

On this point we DO agree.

[CWebster]

59. It is an apartheid.

and your justification for it as some honorable and decent examole of Democracy is pathetic while bashing Muslim countries that have been denied their own pursuit of autonomy by Western occupation, appointed dictators and oppressors and military aggression.

Jews fared far better in Muslim countries than they ever did in the West and Muslims were not responsible for the Holocaust.

[a_random_joel]

75. History

Try it sometime.

Are you suggesting that the Israeli Arabs who live in Israel proper can be equated with the South African blacks under white rule? If so, please cite your sources. And explain the Knesset thing, and voting rights to me.

I never said the Muslims were responsible for the Holocaust. Are you going to deny the oppression of Jews under Islamic rule that has occurred and state that it is not valid? If so, there is no need to argue with you, for you clearly employ a double standard.

[CWebster]

249. see links

http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/Tutu_IU_Israeli_Apartheid.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1957644.stm

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. That's silly

It's not apartheid for Irish people to want to be in Ireland and to have Ireland facilitate that. It's not apartheid for Jewish people, who lost their homeland about 2,000 years ago, to want to go back and have their nation facilitate that.

A couple questions:

* Which side were the Arabs generally on in WWII?
* I note you used the term "fared better" for Jews in Muslim countries. Obviously, that is a distant memory. How do you think Jews FARE in Muslim countries now?

[BurtWorm]

100. Since all human beings are basically African

why don't we all move back to our universal homeland in Tanzania!

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. Let's go

But it might be a bit crowded.

[BurtWorm]

108. There's a helluva nice universe next door

e.e. cummings.

[_Jumper_]

177. It is bigoted to think a land is a groups' forever, even when...

...others have lived on that land for thousands of years.

You have no problem with people moving to a land and taking it by force from people that are living there???


"* Which side were the Arabs generally on in WWII?"

That is irrelevant Arab-smearing, or more accurately, ANTI-SEMITIC.

[mitchtv]

262. which side were the Irish on in WW2

think colonialism when you think of Arabs ,Irish during ww2. they were on their own side.(like argentina Brazil and Uruguay)

[LeahMira]

70. I think it was Robert Frost who said...

... that home is where, when you have to go there they have to take you in.

The 5000 years of Jewish history is one of getting kicked out of places, even places where we felt accepted as we did in Germany at one time. The Jewish people are a little paranoid about all this. It's hard for others to understand sometimes. It isn't just the Holocaust... the Holocaust was just the most recent manifestation of something that's repeated over and over again throughout our history. So, while your home may be in New Jersey and mine in Delaware, home is really where when we have to go there they have to take us in. That's why Israel is so important to Jews. (Plus, it's a lovely, magical land... even non-Jews note that fact.)

[BurtWorm]

98. But why is it a Jewish rather than a Palestinian homeland?

It's not magic that made it that. It was made that way by Europe. Isn't that great? Europe solves its "Jewish problem" by making a homeland for European Jews outside of Europe! Brilliant!

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. Let's just try this one

Because they are there and aren't leaving.

It's not the answer I would use, but it works.

[BurtWorm]

124. You're talking about which group?

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. LOL

You know the Jewish people aren't leaving. Israel exists, I wish the Arab world would accept that fact.

[BurtWorm]

273. It's nice to know you have a sense of humor about this!

;)

A solution should exist that won't require anyone to leave. They'll just have to learn how to share a homeland they all believe is theirs. That should be possible. But it will require a perspective and thinking completely different from the current one on all sides.

[Muddleoftheroad]

323. They are long past sharing

Maybe long ago it might have worked, but probably not. Now, no way in hell. Israel won't accept having the nature of its nation changed. It fought 2,000 years to have a nation and won't give it up.

[BurtWorm]

327. As far as I know, the "fight" was a little over 100 years.

Adding centuries to it does no service to the cause. Neither does mystification of geography, or mystification of any kind. What's called for is cold hard realism and intellectual honesty from all sides.

[CWebster]

250. Understood

But isn't what the Palestinians are being subjected to presently--who also have an ancient claim and connection to the land (if you want to use that as a measure), the same experience of the Jews?

I would rather be homeless and wandering forever than throw another from his home.


do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly

[JackRiddler]

43. What bulldada

The only immigrants allowed into Israel are Jews.

Palestinians from the outside cannot enter (or return, if they happened to have once lived there) and apply for Israeli citizenship.

Only those Arabs who were left over inside the Green Line after the 1948 war (and their descendants) qualify as Israeli citizens.

But any Russian claiming to be Jewish can make it in - and be settled on land in the territories occupied in 1967.

Sounds like an exclusively Jewish state, doesn't it?

In other words, Israel is a democratic state for Jews and for the minority of Arabs who qualified for Israeli citizenship back in 1948. And if representatives of said Arabs say the wrong thing in the Knesset, they get kicked out and threatened with jail time.

For the Palestinians in the occupied territories, the Israeli state can bomb them (well, we say we were going after an evildoer so it's justified no matter how many we kill in the process, eh?), seize their land on any pretext, bulldoze the houses, and build a settlement populated by Russian immigrants.

What Muslim states do is entirely irrelevant to that.

For my part, I assure you that I oppose U.S. support for all undemocratic regimes, Saudi Arabia's and Kuwait's as well as Israel's. The U.S. has no business screwing things up in the Middle East. Our military should defend our homeland, not any of theirs.

[a_random_joel]

58. What Bullmama

The only immigrants allowed into Israel are Jews.

Many countries have strict anti-immigration policies. BTW, how many Jewish immigrants are allowed into Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. etc.

And how many would live safe and egalitarian lifestyles?

[Classical_Liberal]

94. No other country is trying to make their foriegn policy ours

so come off it. I don't want to be a pea in the same pod with the israelis. Sorry.

[a_random_joel]

97. Ever heard of the Indians, my friend?

It all depends on perspective.

[Classical_Liberal]

116. so you are claiming the right to ethnically cleans natives?

because America did it?

[a_random_joel]

191. No I am pointing out an instance

where a foreign policy had adverse effects on a group of people.

[mitchtv]

261. Indians-Palestinians yup

all the same stuff . Isreal is intent on stealing the land of indiginous people- very little difference except now the whole world is watching

[Julien Sorel]

103. The Jews that live in those countries live as safely

as the rest of the people. As for 'egalitarian,' they live about as 'egalitarian' a life as the rest of the population as well.

It's kind of odd that you should start this out complaining about attacks on Jews disguised as attacks on Israel, and now you are simply defending Israel. You might want to ask yourself how that happened, and realize that one of the things that makes Israel such a touchy subject is the knee-jerk reaction, by some, not all Jews, to defend Israel for no reason other than its Jewishness. It's a different version of the same problem you started out complaining about.

[a_random_joel]

130. Nah

I am not defending Israel. I am pointing out the inconsistencies of those who defend the ideals of the Palestinians.

There are too many inconsistencies not to warrant mention.

And no, egalitarian does not include pogroms, synagogue burnings, suffrage, etc. etc.

Sorry, you're wrong.

[Julien Sorel]

161. You are defending Israel -- have the integrity to admit it.

And show me evidence of these 'pogroms, synagogue burnings, suffrage (sic), etc etc.'

Until you show me evidence of these things, and then show me they don't happen to Muslims, you're wrong -- and fooling yourself about your attitude towards Israel.

[a_random_joel]

171. Here ya go.

You're right. There are relatively few synagogue bombings and pogroms in most Islamic countries. There is a denial of Jewish suffrage(voting rights) to this day in many of these countries. Maybe because there are hardly any Jews left there to kill. Evidence is widespread. Google can help. I'm too tired to debate this, nor should I have to.

If you cannot acknowledge the harm done to Jews in Islamic states than you have a lot further to go before I can regard you as a credible and informed participant in such a discussion.

I'm not, nor have I ever said, that the Palestinian oppression is right or justified. I'm asking for:

1. no bigotry or blanket generalizations
2. a clear standard that opposes any injustices, regardless of the perpetrators

Finally, YOU show me the evidence of widespread Jewish or Israeli anti-Isalmic or Anti-Arab behavior, such as pogroms, burning of mosques, or not granting political equality.

Yes, I defend Israel's right to exist, and right to defend herself.
Why don't you have some integrity and do the same?

[Julien Sorel]

244. In other words, you cannot answer the question.

You're right. There are relatively few synagogue bombings and pogroms in most Islamic countries. There is a denial of Jewish suffrage(voting rights) to this day in many of these countries. Maybe because there are hardly any Jews left there to kill. Evidence is widespread. Google can help. I'm too tired to debate this, nor should I have to.

I am a little beyond Google on this issue, but thanks for the suggestion. You, unfortunately, are clearly not.

Finally, YOU show me the evidence of widespread Jewish or Israeli anti-Isalmic or Anti-Arab behavior, such as pogroms, burning of mosques, or not granting political equality.

I am a little amazed that, given extant circumstances in the occupied territories and Israel itself you would even bother with this.

Israel. West Bank. Gaza Strip. 1956. 1967. 1982. 1996. Do a Google, when you aren't so tired. You also might want to get onto the message board of the Jerusalem Post some time. I read it once, and almost threw up in disgust. The word 'Arab' is used in exactly the same circumstances and with the same tone and meaning as the word 'nigger' was used for centuries in this country.

[a_random_joel]

297. Google will work for both of us and it is irrelevant to my main point

I did not intend this to become a microcosm of the F/A forum, and that is what it has become.

Read my original post, and comment on that. I'm done with all the other side arguments.

[JackRiddler]

106. That's not the point...

I note, first, that you only take on a weak straw man version of my first point, and ignore the rest.

The point is not that Israel has a strict immigration policy, like many other countries, or that it favors a particular race, like other countries. The point is that a strict immigration policy that allows ONLY Jews in (or those who can successfully pass as such) and no one else discredits your claim that Israel is some kind of fair, race-blind democracy. It's not enough that the remaining aboriginals (the Arabs who remained inside the Green Line in 1948) haven't been disenfranchised (yet). What about the ones who were forced out of the country? And what about the Arabs in the territories?

You just cannot deal with the reality that Israel is an oppressor nation that defines itself as Jewish, whether it is a democracy (among Israeli citizens) or not. And no amount of finger-pointing at other countries, no matter how bad they are, changes that reality.

[a_random_joel]

184. Riddle me this...

Is there an inconsistency in pointing out that Israel is an oppressor, and neglecting to point out other oppressors, particularly those who align themselves against Israel?

Is there an inconsistency in pointing out that Israel has a strict Jewish-only policy(I doubt it, but in the absence of a link, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but not reporting the Anti-Jewish immigration policy of most Arab states?

I do not consider the border skirmish to be an "oppressor nation" in the classic sense of the word(not that I justify their actions). Yours and others equation of that is sensationalistic and affects your credibility on the subject. Talk about straw men.

[mbartko]

233. Once again, you are evading an answer...

by pointing to something else. This is like saying, "Well, I beat my wife, but my neighbor beats his wife, too."

[a_random_joel]

288. Wrong #3

Immingration in the state of Israel is not relevant to this discussion to begin with. As such, your characterization of me evading should be applied to other members who have brought it up.

When discussing the policies of states, it is crucial to look at them in the context of other states to determine their effectiveness, and/or ethics. And it happens all the time. What the hell do you think this board is all about? We are analyzing political issues by comparing them to ones we think are ideal, or to other standards. Welcoome to politics, my friend.

You gave me an example of personal behavior, which is completely separate from state behavior, and judged by a very different set of standards.

So, who's evading?

[mbartko]

295. I stick with my orignal assertion.

Everything that someone brings up about Israel that you can't defend, you merely point to something else. Despite your initial statement that you don't object to other people critizing Israel, and all you have if criticize the people who do in a very cynical way. When you can't defend an aspect of Israel, you point to something else. That is very childish. It is as childish as the Republicans excusing Schwartzenegger's sex crimes by pointing at Clinton.

[a_random_joel]

304. I too am critical of Sharon's policies

Just because I think Israel has the right to exist peacefully means I am a Sharon defender? I have pointed out in several places that I believed a two-state solution was the answer. But I am not going to allow people to say everything the Israelis do is evil, and everything the Palestinians do is great. They are both guilty of evil, they both have blood on their hands, and they both are aligned with powers that may not have their best interests at heart.

Anyway, none of that matters, because most of this thread is an evasion of my original point, in which I was criticizing the anti-Semitism that I encountered twice on this board yesterday. I was actively acknowledging that just criticism of Israel or Likud does NOT constitute anti-Semitism, and evidence of that can be found in almost ALL of my posts, or have you noticed that I have not called you an anti-Semite? What I encountered yesterday was enough to get my goat, and I am pretty tolerant and affable for the most part.

That is what this thread is about. Everything else can be debated in the F/A forum, which I tend to avoid.

[mbartko]

307. I argee 100% percent

"Anyway, none of that matters, because most of this thread is an evasion of my original point, in which I was criticizing the anti-Semitism that I encountered twice on this board yesterday."

I agree. This thread went on ten million tangents. I 100% agree with with that anti-Semitism is 100% wrong.

[a_random_joel]

314. Thank you

We are on the same page, then. Took us a while to get there, huh?

*handshake*

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a_random_joel]

138. I object

"Thus you have a people founded upon lies and deceit to this day"

Hit alert on me, but this is an Ant-Semitic statement through and through.

[Cassandra]

217. What, exactly, makes you any better...

"Through trickery and lying children of Abraham and Isaac snookered rightful heirs out of their birth rights and blessings. The mothers of these children did most of the shenanigans and put their sons up to the deeds. Thus you have a people founded upon lies and deceit to this day."

than David Duke? Or those Aryan Nation kooks? I was going to add another comparison but I'll leave that one off; you know what it is.

[_Jumper_]

152. Anti-Islamic bigotry from the topic starter?

What relevance did Islamic dictatorships have to this discussion? You just had to take a stab at Muslims. Practice what you preach...

[a_random_joel]

155. You missed the point.

State sponsored Jewish oppression is a reality in many Muslim countries. It is not a stab at Muslims. It is a stab at those dictatorships, and a stab at the double standard and hypocrisy that rears its ugly head in such discussions.

Because many of these states also happened to be or have been active participants in the I/P situation, it is more relevant than many other analogies that I can think of. But, even if not, the analogy would still be valid because of the double standard that I mentioned.

Nice try.

[_Jumper_]

157. What relevance do Islamic countries have to the issue?

You just had to bash Muslims. Practice what you preach...

[a_random_joel]

163. A lot of relevance

We are discussing an issue in which the Islamic countries I mentioned have been active or proxy participants in the conflict that is being discussed.

Even if they weren't an analogy is useful in pointing out the inconsistencies in an argument. That is to say that the Palestinians are completely innocent victims in this situation, and that by supporting the underdog, you are willing to completely ignore the record of this underdog's allies. Totally valid.

PNAC is a bad policy.
PNAC consists of some Jews.
All Jews are bad.

Bad syllogism.

Palestinians are victims of oppression.
Some Jews are responsible for this oppression.
Not all Jews are responsible for this oppresion.

Good syllogism.

[Selwynn]

310. And it is also a state sponsor of TERRORISM

The Israeli army engages in the textbook definition of terrorism, and there are countless of well documented human rights absues and international law violations going back decades. So maybe until that problem gets cleaned up we should back off the high praise of how "great" Israel is.

[_Jumper_]

149. "Jews have always been the best leftists"

So who has been the worst???? Isn't this a thread against generalizations?

[a_random_joel]

158. I agree with you here

This too is a generalization. It is important to recognize the contributions that many Jews have made to Left causes. Just as it is important to recognize those made by African-Americans, Muslims, Mexicans, or anyone else.

There is a large majority of Jews who are registered Democrats, and who have been notable on the Left. They do not represent all Jews, nor are they the "best leftists".

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. I am sick and tired of all of the conspiracy theories!!!!!!!!

The Jews are NOT trying to take over the world and "poision" our children and corrupt our morals or anything else!

Most anti-semetic Jewish comments come from the right which dispises Jews! Actually they despise all non-Christians too!

Thank You a_random_joel!!!!!!!

This Jewish Bashing shit must stop, now!!!!!

[CWebster]

11. Rather than making blanket accusations

why don't you point it out when you see it and discuss why you find it offensive?

People in the past have objected to sexist terms, and although I used one(bitch) myself today, I hesitated before posting. I have to admit the word is starting to make me feel uncomfortable- expecially now when the culture is increasingly dominanted by militant values and nuturing and compassion are considered a weakness.

In complete honesty, I have one complaint: That more American Jews are not more outspoken about the state of affairs in Israel today. I have heard some say that if they didn't support Israel despite all, no one else would. But I ask you--how can you ask it of anyone under the circumstances?

[a_random_joel]

12. Bull

I've been here long enough and encountered numerous threads that display what I am referencing. TWO in LBN today alone.

It is not a blanket accusation.

[CWebster]

42. Bull yourself

Are you specific be specific or you are making blanket accusations and getting mighty high and indignant about it?

I was raised Catholic and I'll be the first one to stand in line to criticize the Church. In addition I think this fanfare about the Pope in the last few days is a disgrace, they're cannonizing him like he is a saint and he ain't dead yet.

I'll be the first one to stand in line and criticize this country when I feel that it is on a tragic course. What does that make me

And you, are your complaints truly about anti-semitism or you just offended that anyone would have anything negative to say about Israel and the tragic course it is on?

[a_random_joel]

64. No indignancy intended

If someone said all bloody Catholics did X, I would defend them jsut as well.

The actions of the Church do not necessarily represent the attitudes of all Catholics. Kinda like the actions of the Likud government do not represent all Jews.

Congratualtions! My argument in a nutshell.

[CWebster]

73. mine as well

I know the difference between an antiCatholic bigot and someone who cares enough about their religion to speak out when it is being hijacked, and you?

[a_random_joel]

101. Absolutely

See Post #1.

[dreissig]

13. Israelis Aren't Jews?

"Jews who oppress the Palestinians" - that is clearly Anti-Semitic

I beg to differ with you about whether it's "clearly" anti-Semitic to blame the oppression of the Palestinians on the Jews. What is the fair-minded alternative to that statement? Who can I blame the oppression on, except the people who are doing it?

[a_random_joel]

18. Israel is a Democracy

As such, it has non-Jewish citizens, who have voting rights and representation.

Furthermore, there are opposing political viewpoints EVEN AMONG THE JEWS. Perhaps you have heard of the Labor party?

I beg to differ with you about whether it's "clearly" anti-Semitic to blame the oppression of the Palestinians on the Jews

The use of the word JEW in this statement is Anti-Semitic. I AM A JEW. I DO NOT SUPPORT SHARON.I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS POLICIES. I DO NOT OPPRESS PALESTINIANS.

There, is that a fair-minded enough alternative for you?

[Classical_Liberal]

40. Isreal doesn't give non jews the same shot at citizenship

so the numbers of non jewish voters are token. It only allows Palestinians that never became refugees on the west bank to vote. 1 to 2% of black voters managed to vote in the South during Jim Crow years. The Labor party briefly presented actual opposition under Mitzna, but Perez and his supporters kicked Mitzna out and joined the Sharon Government. Perez declaring" opposition isn't necessary!" There is no political opposition to Sharon. It died, when they got rid of Mitzna.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. Immigration

All nations set immigration rules. Israel does the same. I encourages Jews from around the world to immigrate to Israel. Since it is the Jewish homeland, that makes sense. Ireland does much the same for the Irish.

[Classical_Liberal]

112. I don't get your obsession with Ireland

The Irish already lived there. Dah. Ireland accepts many non irish immigrants. The Israelis are more like Ulsterites than the Irish, anyway, so I don't think you want remind us of them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. Not an obsession

I see strong similarities and I've been to both places. Ultimately, the Irish wisely made peace and accepted half a loaf (or most of it actually) to get a nation. In return, they shut down terrorism.

[Classical_Liberal]

122. Actually Ulster just allowed binationality so there is no

comparison at all. In addition Ulster accepted that it may very well disappear when the Catholics become the majority. Care to try that solution? Even before it accepted binationality it gave the Catholics citizenship.

[Muddleoftheroad]

134. The situation in Israel is comparable

to the foundation of the Free State. So you are about 80 years ahead of yourself right now.

And comparable doesn't make it identical. Ireland has been incorporated into the EU. Israel has no similar diverse regional entity to join.

[Classical_Liberal]

148. It is more similar to the founding of the Protestant state of Ulster

actually, since the Irish had not disappeared from Ireland for 2 eons, and weren't displacing anyone. The protestants on the other hand had never been native, with perhapst the exception of the Scotish ones, and were definately seeking to displace the natives.

[_Jumper_]

200. First, take a look at your avator...

How about judging immigrants on the content of their character instead of the content of their chromosomes?

Would you have supported the White Australia and White New Zealand immigration policies which were scrapped in 1973 and 1986 respectively? The rationale for them was that since they were "white" countries they would have immigration policies that allowed only whites in.

[Muddleoftheroad]

220. All nations restrict immigration

I'm black, but if I push the point I can get Irish citizenship because of those chromosones, a few of which happen to be Irish. Anybody who can show Irish parents or grandparents automatically gets into the club. Irish great-grandparents make it a little harder, but if you push, they give.

America sets its own immigration requirements. All nations do. In Israel's case, as the JEWISH HOMELAND, it gives a preference to (drumroll please) Jewish people.

Arab immigrants have 20 some odd (some very odd) nations to go to. Jews can't go to those nations as immigrants.

[_Jumper_]

239. You didn't answer the question

Would you or would you not have supported the White Australia and White New Zealand immigration policies?

" I'm black, but if I push the point I can get Irish citizenship because of those chromosones, a few of which happen to be Irish. Anybody who can show Irish parents or grandparents automatically gets into the club. Irish great-grandparents make it a little harder, but if you push, they give."

What is with you and Ireland? Ireland's immigration policy isn't the issue. I said that I believed in a non-discrimnatory immigration policy. Let all that meet the qualifications in; but don't discriminate based on their genes. MLK would probably agree with me on this...

"America sets its own immigration requirements. All nations do."

How many nations have discriminatory immigration policies in 2003?

"In Israel's case, as the JEWISH HOMELAND, it gives a preference to (drumroll please) Jewish people."

Is that your indirect way of saying you would have approved of the White Australia and White New Zealand policies? What would you think of a White America policy?

"Arab immigrants have 20 some odd (some very odd) nations to go to."

What is with your obsession about bashing Arabs??? Arabs aren't the issue.

"Jews can't go to those nations as immigrants."

Really? Please explain what the immigration policies are for Arab countries.

[Muddleoftheroad]

325. You are comparing apples and motorcycles

The two have little to do with one another.

Israel and Australia have little in common other than the fact that they are nations.

As for other nations' policies, all of them set limits. The U.S. limits how many citizens may come from certain nations. Is that not discriminatory? Israel does not do that. All Jewish people can come to Israel even if 2 million came from one place.

I mention Ireland because it DOES use genes as an issue. That is Ireland and, by consequence all of the EU. I do not know the nature of immigration policies for the entire world, nor do I care.

I don't bash Arabs, but I bash their governments, their leaders and the wackos in their nations. Numerous Arab nations limit freedom, have no free press, no free elections, etc. Why would I NOT criticize them?

Immigration policies in the Arab world are not the issue relating to my comment. It's what happens to Jews after they end up IN Arab nations. I don't know whether Arab nations would allow it or not because it is an academic exercise only.

[_Jumper_]

330. Discrimination is discrimination

Do you or do you not support a nation discriminating based on genes in its immigration policy?

"Israel and Australia have little in common other than the fact that they are nations."

You, despite your avator, support discriminatory immigration policy by Israel. Australia and New Zealand used to discriminate. Are you really pro-discrimination or are you just part of the "Israel can do no wrong" crowd? I asked the question to ascertain that.

If Ireland does indeed discriminate it is an exception to the rule. The major immigration magnets, the USA, Canada, the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others don't discriminate. They believe in judging people by their character...

"I don't bash Arabs, but I bash their governments, their leaders and the wackos in their nations. Numerous Arab nations limit freedom, have no free press, no free elections, etc. Why would I NOT criticize them?"

Nice try. You brought them up several times when they weren't relevant. If someone brought up Israel and bashed it in an unrelated thread, such a thread about France, you would consider that anti-Semitic, wouldn't you?

Why not have one set of rules when it comes to bigotry????

[LisaB]

337. "I'm black"

Geesh what a place to jump in after lurlking these months! It always perks my ears up when someone claims an ethnicity in a sensitive subject. Even assuming it's true, I don't see how that makes your opinion more or less valid! My two cents.

[Julien Sorel]

50. Are you suggesting that the Arab Israelis support the oppression of

the Palestinians?

[Flying_Pig]

14. I don't think much it's so much about the "Left & Jews", as it is

about the Left, and Likud-run Israel. I certainly make the distinction when I am discussing subjects concerning Israel and politics. Not all Jews support Likud, thankfully, and, it's not about being "against" Israel either. It's about being against Israel's present government, and their policies.

There are pro-Israel people in PNAC, of all faiths, the same with the Bush administration, and the Democratic Party.

Anyone who blames "Jews" for whatever, *is* being anti-Semitic. What I find though, is that there are some who *try* to label anti-Israeli government feelings, anti-Semitic feelings. This is equally wrong, and a really chicken-shit way to de-rail what otherwise would be a purely political argument.

As a person of Jewish heritage, I am just as disgusted with those who are true anti-Semites, as with those who unfairly toss out the accusation for their own aims.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

153. I am pretty much in agreement with this statement

[ex_jew]

15. But Jews can change ....

I've seen a (to my mind) very convincing argument that the reason Jews strongly supported civil rights in the 60's was not that they simply feel kinship for oppressed minorities per se, but that support for civil rights was largely a tactic for attacking the establishment. Now that Jews are no longer oppressed (certainly not in the US) there really isn't anything in common between them and the "under-privileged". Jews got richer and thus more conservative, just as one would expect, and their loyalties became torn. What's so bad about "standing up for Israel" ? What's so bad about tax cuts for the rich (if you happen to be rich) ? Why shouldn't vouchers help me send my kinds to private school ? Etc., etc.

My politics were formed by the enthusiasms of the 60's. I DEARLY miss the sense of purpose and excitement which we felt then. But things change, and you have to keep an open mind. If organized Judaism seems to have become largely self-protective, with little thought given to the 98% of the world which is not Jewish, perhaps it's not the best setting for progressive thinkers. Perhaps you can learn from any and ALL traditions, rather than constantly trying to decide "what's Anti-Semitic". Or perhaps not.

[a_random_joel]

20. Your use of the word Jew

All Jews support vouchers.
All Muslims are Jew-killers.
All Christians are Muslim-killing crusaders.
All something is this.

Do you see the fallacy I am attacking?

[Classical_Liberal]

28. I see it, but Israel is guilty of deliberately bluring

the distinction between itself and all jews too. I don't think this phenomenon will go away until the majority jewish left starts taking back the field. It is pretty obvious to me that the Democratic party is scared that if it doesnt' support israel unconditionally that Jews will abandon them. Yesterday they passed two bills almost unaninimously. One saying that the invasion of Iraq made Israel safer, and the other applying sanctions on Syria because they were in Lebanon. Syria is in Lebanon to keep Israel out. Israelis are better off with Israel out. America is better off with Israel out. The Lebanese are better off with Israel. Everyone in the world is better off, but the passed that bill anyway. Dems who state this fear openly have their ass jumped on by the same Likud supporting groups that do everything they can to create that very fear. Look at what they did to Moran. I don't understand why you are not just as aggressive about their bluring of the line as you are at those who are anti-israel who blur the line.

[a_random_joel]

36. I support a fair and reasonable solution to the problem

Therefore I am offended when someone says JEWS oppress the Palestinians. I don't oppress anyone. That is my point.

BTW, I don;t understand why those who are so aggressive in defending the Palestinians aren't equally as aggressive in defending against blanket statements, or the plight of small Minority ethnic populations residing inside Islamic countries.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. I report them to the mods! So if you are referring to me

not being agressive about those who blur jew and israelis, it is not true.

[Flying_Pig]

37. Your take, Classical, is 100% on target. This is why I rail on these

Dems who continue to support Israel, and by doing so, are supporting PNAC, Sharon, and Bush. They think they are responding to the desires of their voters, and perhaps PACs like AIPAC, but in reality, they are betraying THIS country!

I'll say it again; any Dem who, at this point in time, supports the current government of Israel, is supporting PNAC and Bush, and their plans for world domination, ME subjugation, and more war. In addition, by supporting these things, they are also helping support Bush's "re-election" plans. Why would Democrats do such a thing?

[ex_jew]

48. Is every generalization a fallacy ?

Or are these observations the only way one can deal with reality ? I look for tendencies and try to make sense of them. Would you be happier
if we only talked about "pro-Israeli Jews" or "Jews under 40 who have professional degrees" ? Meybe you'd rather not hear the "J-word" at all ?

[rudeboy666]

22. Yes

But Jews are also regular people. They change just like any other group. Moreover, they have diversity of opinion just like any other group.

I find it equally disturbing that some feel free to label a whole group under a single political label i.e. 'Jews are liberal'.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. For The Sake Of Argument I'll Make The Assumption

that it is in the interest of folks in the higher income brackets to vote Republican...

Why did 78% of Jews vote for Clinton in 96 and Gore in 00 if they have become conservative as you suggest...

It seems that many Jews have climbed up the income ladder without surrendering their progressive principles....



* I don't believe it's in the interest of anybody to vote Republican if economic self interest is a motive since history demonstates the Democrats are better stewards of the economy...

[ex_jew]

65. Who said anything about anybody's best interests ?

You are absolutely right a vote for the Republican party (or the Lunatics, as I like to call them) is counter-productive for the economy and the country as a whole. The fact is, however, that richer people do tend to vote Republican. Particularly since the Republicans have now apparently embraced the cause of Israel with unbelievable fervor, I would be very surprised if they do not get a larger part of the Jewish vote. Doctors and lawyers are not generally Socialists (much as we would like them to be).

[sangh0]

25. Jews got richer?

Since the 1960's the real income (that is, adjusted for inflation) of Jews in America went down, not up.

An irrational disregard for the facts is one possible indicator of bigotry.

[ex_jew]

53. My grandfather was a furrier

My brother-in-law is the president of a company. Forgive me if I drew the wrong conclusion from all those Lincolns and Mercedes at my temple.
Or perhaps it was the $20,000 Bar Mitzvahs ?

Everyone's income has gone down adjusted for inflation. If all those years of medical school, law school and dental school have still left American Jews in a bad way, I would still imagine the population as a whole is even worse off.

Since we're "on the alert" for possible bigotry, perhaps you could point me at the source for the real income statistics ?

[sangh0]

72. Breaking News!!

Your grandfather and the congregation at his temple are not the only Jews in America

[Loyal]

54. Good point

nt

[LeahMira]

34. Thans, Joel

Yes, there are bad Jews. Just like there's bad Arabs, bad Scotsmen, bad Mongolians, etc. Why do the rest of us need to be punished, humiliated or walk on eggshells because of the actions or statements of a few bad apples?

Joel, that's exactly right.

I am grieved by what I see as Sharon and Bush bouncing bad policy off one another. Bush pre-emptively attacks Iraq, so it's OK for Israel to pre-emptively attack Syria. Israel thumbs its nose at the U.N. and now it's OK if the U.S. thumbs its nose at the U.N. The religious right pulls the strings in Israel and the religious right pulls the strings in the U.S. Just a couple of examples.

But did you go to synagogue over the High Holy Days? I did, and the Rabbis are four-square behind Israel. Who is going to stand up on Yom Kippur and accuse the Jewish community of the sin of indifference to the sufferings of Palestinians? Not I. Give me the wimp award if you will, but I know there are at least five more people sitting in the congregation who think as I do. I just don't know who they are.

Just recently, a couple of students on campus wanted to meet with anyone who would be interested in forming a group of Jewish students against the occupation. Only those two students showed up for the meeting.

Please don't tell me that there aren't liberal Jews out there. Look over the tikkun.org website. There are others also. But the American Jewish community is generally afraid to be critical of Israel, probably for the same kinds of reasons that we don't permit others to be critical of family (although we may have our own thoughts on these matters).

We're about 2% of the population of the U.S., yet because of our values and our training we seem to be able to take leadership roles in the political arena. Unfortunately, we have good and bad in our numbers. Like any other situation, all it takes for evil to triumph is for the good people to be silent.

We aren't self-hating Jews and we aren't anti-Semites. We are all Jews. There is a place for each of us. I might disagree with someone else, but we are all wanting the best for Israel. We simply disagree on how to get there.

So maybe I can't stand up in shul and say how I feel, but it's nice to know that I can say it here.

Thanks for starting off on the topic, Joel. Brave fella! People need to know that we are here and we need to know that we are here.

[Tinoire]

111. Can I kiss your feet please?

And will you please start speaking up more here? Will people like you please, please, please start speaking out here in the I/P forum and giving people like Indiana Green and Darranar a little support.

They are just like the two students who showed up for the meeting but there's a very vocal minority making a hell of a lot of noise and then there are all the silent people.

Please, please, please speak up because the level of frustration on the other side grows when faced with either vile noise or deafening silence.

I had hope up until about 9 months ago last year- now I have little to absolutely NONE. Only when people like you begin to stand up will people like me be able to have hope again and once again believe that there isn't a conspiracy of silence or tacit consent.

PLEASE help combat and eliminate "Sharon's Best Weapon"

Sharon's best weapon

Anti-semitism sustains Israel's brutal leader - the fight against it must be reclaimed

Naomi Klein
Thursday April 25, 2002
The Guardian

<snip>
For Ariel Sharon, it is the fear of anti-semitism, both real and imagined, that is the weapon. Mr Sharon likes to say that he stands up to terrorists to show he is not afraid. In fact, his policies are driven by fear. His great talent is that he fully understands the depths of Jewish fear of another Holocaust. He knows how to draw parallels between Jewish anxieties about anti-semitism and American fears of terrorism, and he is an expert at harnessing all of it for his political ends.

The primary and familiar fear that Sharon draws on, the one that allows him to disguise all aggressive actions as defensive ones, is the fear that Israel's neighbours want to drive the Jews into the sea. The secondary fear Sharon manipulates is the fear among Jews in the diaspora that they will eventually be driven to seek a safe haven in Israel. This leads millions of Jews around the world, many of them sickened by Israeli aggression, to shut up and send their cheques, a down-payment on future sanctuary.

<snip>

Jews outside Israel now find themselves in a tightening vice: the actions of the country that was supposed to ensure their future safety are making them less safe right now. Sharon is deliberately erasing distinctions between the terms "Jew" and "Israeli", claiming he is fighting not for Israeli territory but for the survival of the Jewish people. When anti-semitism rises at least partly as a result of his actions, it is Sharon who is positioned once again to collect the political dividends.

It works. Most Jews are so frightened that they are now willing to do anything to defend Israeli policies. So at my neighbourhood synagogue, where the humble facade was badly scarred by a suspicious fire recently, the sign on the door doesn't say, "Thanks for nothing, Sharon." It says, "Support Israel - now more than ever."

<snip>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,690226,00.html

[Flying_Pig]

140. Some of us do try to speak out Tinoire, but we are attacked by ....

jackals too. After seeing several of my threads about Israel and political influence, attacked, and intentionally turned into flame-fests (whereupon, my threads were either locked, moved, or both), I am not as eager to wade into the viper pit.

Typically, I don't spend much time in I/P. because of the small amount of people (on both sides) that actually participate there, and, the fact it seems like the two groups always do the same thing; square off, and then conduct attacks on one another. It's like chasing tails, and after awhile, is actually quite boring.

I much prefer to work in GD or LBN, where some of these issues (like Israeli influence on our political machinery, and parties) can be discussed as part of a larger issues, without having to deal with the rabid ideologues.

[Darranar]

168. Flying Pig...

when I saw that thread a while ago, I reacted in the wrong way, taking your post the wrong way.

I think we disagree on a few points, but the main idea I do agree with.

If you post it again in any shape or form, I can promise you that the unfair accusations I made will not be repeated.

[Tinoire]

222. Yes I know and I've tried to make that point repeatedly

I'm sorry if my post made it seem as if almost nobody is speaking out- I didn't mean that because I personally know several of the ones who are- those in I/P as well as those who are valiantly speaking out in GD and LBN.

I've observed all of this for 3 years at DU and seen Progressive Jews post about this in Ask the Administrator, complaining about the rabid ideologues.

I've also been as disheartened as you to see excellent threads and articles intentionally turned into flame-fests and/or derailed by the same people intent on clamping down discussion. Derailed and flame-fested until they were locked.

What upsets me though is that things are spiralling out of control in the world and that a vital piece of the puzzle is automatically either disallowed or shunted off into that viper pit you speak of where most people won't even venture.

I've appreciated all of your posts- more than you can imagine! I read everyone of them with a big thank you! A thank you because it's another small step towards peace and justice and understanding which when combined, with the steps of others here, make for some huge steps and weaken the grip, the illusion that everyone is supportive of hard-line policies and that to question Israel is to threaten the existence of the Jewish People.

I've seen the attacks and don't know how to get them stopped. I think it's time for this subject to be brought out in the open and addressed because my impression is that it's a small group doing all the hand-wringing and wailing here to better control the flow and direction of the discussion.

I really appreciate your efforts as well as those of my valiant friends who speak out constantly and won't allow that small group to pretend the support is monolothic. What I hate though is that with everyone like you driven out of I/P where most of the important stories get shunted, there are few voices left to silence the ideologues who taunt, ridicule, insult and brazenly repeat the same myths.

Thanks a million. Thanks for speaking up!

[CWebster]

265. Thanks for posting that Naomi Klein piece

I had reached such an angry frustrated place- but her words helped to give it ALL greater perspective. A really worthwhile thread for many of the insights into the Jewish experience.

[a_random_joel]

136. I understand

Again, the point of my argument was to stop the blanket statements that equate Likud policy with ALL JEWS.

For the record, I support the 2 state solution, and do believe the Palestinians deserve to be treated equitably.

But as someone who is VERY familiar with history, including persecution by and from Arabs, I will protest the idea that the Palestinians and the Arab states that support them by proxy are completely innocent.

There is good and bad on both sides, and when both sides, including the Liberals who champion the Palestinian cause recognize this, then and only then, progress can be achieved.

[Darranar]

170. I agree...

though my Rabbi actually did a good job of giving leftist sermons on the High Holidays.

He made a few remarks about the sins of both right-wing and left-wing Jews on the issue; he called for the right-wing Jews to acknowledge Palestinian suffering, and the left-wing ones to stop justifying suicide bombings.

But as a whole, I completely understand and agree with your sentiment.

[tex46]

35. This is one of the first threads here I've seen along these lines

One point I try to make to people on both sides of the fence is that being Anti-Israel, or more specifically, Anti-Likud is not the same as being Anti-Semitic. Someone who criticizes Israeli tactics need not blame it on the Jews. To the same extent, a defender of Israeli policy should not label his country's detractors as anti-Semites. But on that note, the latter tactic has been used by the AIPAC lobby for decades. Routinely, congressmen who have questioned or disagreed with the disproportionate amount of aid that America gives to Israel have come home to find their constituents mailboxes filled with smear tactics labeling them a racist or an anti-Semite. Former congressman Paul Findley painstakingly details these antics in his controversial books.
On the other side, however, several Arab friends have shared with me, in all seriousness, that they think the Jews were covertly behind 9-11.
Those of us not directly affected by the atrocities in the Middle East would do well to not contribute to the race-baiting. No doubt we should be impassioned in our views and fight for what we think is right. But at the same time we must remain objective and calm and try to understand all relavent points of view in this family feud.

[a_random_joel]

142. I am not talking about

Anti-Israel or Anti-Likud criticism, and I clearly stated as such in my opening statement. I am talking very SPECIFICALLY about the use of the word JEW. As in JEWS who rule the world, JEWS who run PNAC, etc.

Are all Catholics pedophiles because of a few bad priests?

[rudeboy666]

45. Left anti-Semitism

As some have mentioned, the fact that many in the Left are rooting for the underdog in the Middle East places them in the company of repulsive elements i.e. Middle Eastern reactionaries and fundamentalists who are anti-semitic. You could call this guilt by association. Still, you have to admit that many in the Left have not been very vocal in distancing themselves from some of the rethoric that spews from some of their new allies.

This is something that makes it easy for reactionaries like David Horowitz to label the Left as anti-semitic.

[mmonk]

56. I heard a little of an exchange

on CNN I believe (I was passing through the room not watching) last week where someone critical of another one talking in support of the Bush administration mentioned the neocons, the one supporting the Bush policies lashed back, "by saying neocons, you mean Jews in the administration?" thereby painting the person who mentioned neocons as being antisemitic. I was wondering if this is a new strategy to shut people up?

[rudeboy666]

77. It's a counter-attack by the neo-cons

They were rightly 'outed'(or put in the spotlight) by the mainstream press. The public at large suddenly became aware of a movement within conservatism that advocated disturbing foreign policies for America. Thus, they are striking back by trying to stifle the debate.

The neo-con phenomena has always been a point of contention within the Right(years before it reached the mainstream press). The fact that the founders of neo-conservatism were mainly Jewish intellectuals(former libs and lefties) further enraged the reactionaries on the Right. Thus, the neo-cons(including the present ones which are not Jewish) are very prepared to use the charge of anti-semitism against their opponents.

Remember, many of their opponents on the Right WERE anti-semitic.

[bpilgrim]

60. the 'left' is NOT against jews

i hope you don't feel that way.

the israeli oppression of palestinians certainly invites justified scorn and with the current state in the ME including the extreme rw policy of sharon and bush certainly makes it a hot-button topic for sure.

peace

[Mairead]

84. I don't follow your reasoning here

But when people clearly use the words JEW, as in the "Jews in PNAC", the "Jews in the Admin", the "Jews who run the world", the "Jews who oppress the Palestinians" - that is clearly Anti-Semitic.

Exactly how should people refer to, e.g., the Jews in PNAC then? 'The members of PNAC who belong to a group I'm not allowed to identify'?

If someone says they're in PNAC/SmirkCo/SharonCo/etc because they're Jews, that looks anti-Jewish to me, and saying something like 'the Jews in PNAC are worse than the goyim because of their closer ties to Israel' wants to be demonstrated, if an anti-Jewish charge is to be avoided...but just talking about 'the Jews in/of x' as a group somewhere? I don't see how that's anti-Jewish any more than saying 'the Jews of Borough Park' is. If they're an identifiable group, then they're an identifiable group!

[sangh0]

128. I have a question that might help you understand

Why would you want to refer specifically to the Jews in the PNAC? The objectionable thing about them is their policies. Those policies are just as objectionable coming from a Jew as they are coming from a Christian. So why would you want to refer to the Jews in PNAC, and only the Jews in PNAC?

And the difference between "the Jews of PNAC" and "the Jews of Borough Park" is that "Borough Park" isn't known for promoting militaristic and oppresive philosophy.

[Mairead]

179. Sorry, that doesn't make sense

That's saying we're only allowed to say nice or neutral things about Jews. So we can talk about 'Jewish philanthropists' and 'Jewish jewellers' (or can we?) but not 'Jewish gangsters'. That's rubbish!

[Darranar]

185. "The Jews behind PNAC..."

is a very inflammatory statement, because it implies that the Jews are behind PNAC.

[Mairead]

199. Possibly you should lower your filter sensitivity?

Does saying 'the paedophile priests' mean all priests are paedophiles?
Or 'the red-headed Irish' mean all Irish have red hair?
Or 'the drunken Glaswegians' mean all folk in Glasgow are Scots sots?
Or 'the Norwegian lefse-eaters' mean all Norwegians are eating lefse?

No. Of course not.

(edit) Let me do an exact surface-structure parallel, just for the record:

'The Glaswegians behind the paedophile ring'.

There, how about that? Would any person in their right mind think all Glaswegians were kingpins of a paedophile ring? No, of course not. Nor is it possible without committing a logical error to conclude that there are only Glaswegians behind the ring, because we can still talk about the Glaswegian subset even if they are only a tiny fraction of all people behind the ring.

Same with 'the Jews behind PNAC'. All that says is that there are some Jews behind PNAC. Everything else is unknown.

[Darranar]

212. It can be taken two ways...

but let me ask you this: why is it neccesary to single out anyone in PNAC because of their religion?

[Mairead]

215. No, it can't be taken two ways except by an exercise in illogic

It really can't! It is absolutely a violation of reason and logic to assume 'the Xs behind Y' means anything more than a claim that there is at least 2 Xs behind Y.

As to why someone might want to call out some subset? For the same reason someone might want to call out some OTHER subset: to talk about them particularly!

If I want to talk about Glaswegian drunkards, then it's nothing but neo-Victorian prudery to dance around it ('I only mean the drunks of a certain city, but I can't actually mention which one because then you'll think I'm maligning the city and that would be unfair'). If I'm stupid enough to make the claim by assertion or implication that the only sots are from Glasgow, then there's no easier refutation than to point out the existence of a drunk from somewhere else.

(edit) Let's try a different example: 'the cats behind the house' tells you what? How many cats does it claim are behind the house? How many dogs? How many humans?

[Darranar]

224. And why, exactly, would you want to talk about them particularly?

Aside from, of course, trying to expose a great Jewish/Zionist/Israeli conspiracy behind PNAC and the war?

And logic, frankly, doesn't matter; what matters is what thought goes through people's heads when the statement is read.

I could say, for istance, that Wesley Clark didn't vote for the Iraq war resolution. That, of course, is true, but the implication is that he actually could have voted for it had he wanted to; as we both know, he couldn't have.

Bias, distortions, and half-truths often muddle up thoughts, and the statement in question could indeed be regarded as such in the right context.

[Mairead]

230. For the same reason I'd want to talk about any other particular subject

And logic, frankly, doesn't matter; what matters is what thought goes through people's heads when the statement is read.

Don't go there. Really.

The moment you say logic doesn't matter, then you open the box. Then the fundy Xian nutter can come up to you and scream that all Jews are Christ-killers and you've no response, because logic doesn't matter--if he believes that all Jews are Christ-killers, then you have to accept that you, too, are a Christ-killer. It's nuts. Reason and logic are your only sure defences against that kind of madness.

Yes, if you say that Clark didn't vote etc, then the implication is as you say. And the refutation is equally simple and sure: I point out that he had no power to vote. And if you say Well he would have, I say Where's your evidence.

[Darranar]

241. No, that's not at all what I mean...

logic and reason do matter, but not in this situation.

When sifting through mindless propaganda, it is often hard to find a lie. This is because propaganda pieces are generally made up of opinions that state nothing and statements that seem to indicate something that they don't. Logic is both your defense against that junk (to avoid being swayed by it) and the author's defense against accusations (because logic leaves him a way out.)

Statements that are propaganda, therefore, whether true or not, should be regarded as such.

Please give me an example situation where you would feel obligated to use the phrase "the jews behind PNAC" without challenging or spreading anti-semitism.

[CWebster]

258. What if there are Jews behind the PNAC

that are driven by an Likud agenda related to that fact. Are we not allowed to say it because Jews are so sensitive to the repercussions of negative characterizations---even when they are true, that any revelation is feared to provoke antisemitism?

[Darranar]

264. You shouldn't say it...

because it's a load of junk.

Was it a Jew who called Sharon a "man of peace"?

Was it a Jew who gave a speech to the Knesset that completely backed their oppression of the Palestinians?

Was it only Jews who voted for the constant Israeli solidarity resolutions?

Support for the Likud runs through both Jews and non-Jews.

[CWebster]

267. okay

we are allowed to mention the non-Jews who support the Likud agenda?

It is sort of viewing it without acknowledging the motivating agenda, don't you think?

The problem starts when opposing that agenda becomes branded as anti-semitism.

[Darranar]

269. You're allowed to mention...

all of those who support the Likud agenda, Jews or not.

Simply don't single out the jews, as if they were the only ones.

[CWebster]

279. Should the dynamics

of the Likud agenda be acknowledged that include on the part of Jewish supporters, a militant Zionist agenda whereas the support of non-Jews may have other political (power), economic (oil), or religious (Christian fundamentalism awaiting the rapture)ambitions?

[Mairead]

278. "Please give me an example situation"

"The soi-disant Christians behind PNAC are Joe Blow, Frank Fratz,.... And the Jews are.... There are no {some other group}, that we know of."

"The Jews behind PNAC hold these positions in the US government..., whereas the Christians hold..."

"The fundy Christians behind PNAC are pushing for an invasion of X next, while the Jews want to invade Y"


When you claim logic doesn't matter, I think you're giving in to the nutters. Because making a subject tabu is the quintessentially despotic thing to do. If we can't talk about something, then we can't separate fact from lie, and we become powerless and fearful.

[sangha]

270. Mairead, but it's not just any subject

I'd like to get back to the idea of why you would want to distinguish the Jewish PNACers from the non-Jewish PNACers. I think understanding why the distinction is made is critical in understanding why some find it objectionable. Earlier, you compared it to some other comparison, the (implied?) logic being that those distinctions are similar in some way to the distinction of Jewish PNAC'ers. You said:

Does saying 'the paedophile priests' mean all priests are paedophiles?
Or 'the red-headed Irish' mean all Irish have red hair?
Or 'the drunken Glaswegians' mean all folk in Glasgow are Scots sots?
Or 'the Norwegian lefse-eaters' mean all Norwegians are eating lefse?

Would it be unreasonable for me to suggest that some of those distinctions have a moral tone to them? Would I be out of line to think that in each of those cases, the moral implications of those distinctions are qualitatively different than distinguishing between the Jewish and non-Jewish PNACers?

Your first example distinction seperates the immoral group (the pedophiles) from the larger, more moral group.

The 2nd has no moral overtones at all. There no connotations of immorality in being either Irish or red headed, or both.

The 3rd example, like the first, seperates the immoral group (the drunks) from the more moral group (the people of Glasgow)

And the last, as far as I know, is like the 2nd. There is no stigma to being Norwegian or lefse-eaters, whatever that is, and if there's something wrong with lefse-eating (I didn't get that memo!) then it looks like the first group. It seperates the noble Norwegians from those no good lefse-eaters.

The difference with the PNAC distinction is that it seperates one immoral group, from the other immoral group, for no purpose that I can see. Since PNAC has a negative connotation, and since this distinction is never made to somehow convey a more sympathetic view of the Jewish PNACers relative to the non-Jewish ones, it raises the issue of "Why is this distinction being made in the first place?"

Your response to this question, and I'm paraphrasing here, was something like "For the same reason I do it for other things" makes me wonder if this is just a creature of habit. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

We all our particular strong points, and we all have a tendency to rely on those mental tools which have served us well in the past. However, "For the same reason...." does, to my ears, sound a lot like "It's always worked in the past". At the least, it doesn't actually take into account the circumstances relating to the specific topic. I would argue that not all distinctions are the same. I would argue that some distinctions are done for the purpose of assigning certain characteristics, good and bad, and though it certainly wasn't your intent, the PNACer distinction does carry a certain implication.

[Mairead]

277. "some of those distinctions have a moral tone to them"

One of the biggest crimes against reason --maybe the biggest-- is to make some subject tabu. If paedophile priests exist, then why should we be prevented from talking about them? Because it'll excite loonies into anti-Catholic frenzies? That doesn't work, it's in the nature of loonies to get excited and be ugly and crazy--they'll do it with or without us.

What people keeping silent about it will do, though, is allow the paedophile priests to carry on undisturbed. It's great for them! As we've seen.

Your response to this question, and I'm paraphrasing here, was something like "For the same reason I do it for other things" makes me wonder if this is just a creature of habit.

When you talk about ducks, why do you talk about ducks? Because you have something to say about them, no? When you talk about airplanes, why do you talk about airplanes? Again, because you have something to say about them. That's why I do it too. And it's the same with Jewish PNACers or Jewish Nobel laureates or Jewish fundies or Jewish war criminals or Jewish doctors or Jewish any-other-damn-thing. Or Black, or Scots, or left-handed people with achondroplasia, ad infinitum. We talk about them when we have something to say. If what's being said is unfair, then we have a legitimate reason to lodge an objection, but it's anti-rational to make a whole subject tabu.

[sangh0]

320. I think you may have missed my point

I'm not saying that anything should be taboo. My point is that whether a distinction (or anything else) is morally justified or not is dependant on the purpose for making the distinction. Inflicting pain on someone for the purpose of forcing them to do something they don't want to do is considered immoral. On the other hand, inflicting pain on someone as part of a medical procedure meant to cure them of a medical condition is not considered immoral. While both involve the infliction of pain, it's the motive that helps us determine the morality (or lack thereof) of the action.

So as far as I can see, it's morally commendable to distinguish between those priests who molest children and those that don't because it's serves a moral purpose, protecting our children. However, I don't see any moral purpose in distinguishing between the Jewish PNACer's and the non-Jewish ones.

When you talk about ducks, why do you talk about ducks? Because you have something to say about them, no? When you talk about airplanes, why do you talk about airplanes? Again, because you have something to say about them. That's why I do it too. And it's the same with Jewish PNACers or Jewish Nobel laureates or Jewish fundies or Jewish war criminals or Jewish doctors or Jewish any-other-damn-thing. Or Black, or Scots, or left-handed people with achondroplasia, ad infinitum. We talk about them when we have something to say. If what's being said is unfair, then we have a legitimate reason to lodge an objection, but it's anti-rational to make a whole subject tabu.

I agree with most of that, but I would add that what's important here (in determining whether or not making a particular distinction is moral or not) is not just that you have something to say about it, but WHAT you have to say, and WHY you want to say it. And I just don't see WHY anyone would want to distinguish between the Jewish PNACer's and the non-Jewish ones. I don't any moral purpose being served by doing that.

IOW, I'm not making trying to make any subject taboo. I'm willing to consider the possibility that there is some moral purpose for making this distinction, and that my objections to this particular distinction results from my not knowing about this moral purpose. However, until someone educates as to what that moral purpose is, I have no reason to believe that a moral purpose for this distinction exists.

[Mairead]

341. erm

So as far as I can see, it's morally commendable to distinguish between those priests who molest children and those that don't because it's serves a moral purpose, protecting our children. However, I don't see any moral purpose in distinguishing between the Jewish PNACer's and the non-Jewish ones.

Well, do you really think it's accidental that PNAC is focussing on taking over the Semitic Region with a right-wing Israel meant to be the only permitted regional power? Do you think that's unconnected with right-wing Jews having been founding members of PNAC? Don't you think it's important to understand, in the same way it's important to understand that some priests can be paedophiles, that some American Jews can be vicious imperialist nutjobs?

I do. I also think the more we know, the better off we are in general; that ignorance is hardly ever bliss, and that, while knowing there are Jews behind PNAC might not help us thwart PNAC's ambitions, remaining ignorant is guaranteed not to help.

If it's ugly and shameful that there are Jews behind PNAC, maybe the right thing to do is to denounce them as betrayers of Torah instead of trying to suppress any mention of them?

[a_random_joel]

334. Furthermore, it is typically not just the Jews IN pnac

My thread was responding to several times, including yesterday, in which I have seen the "Jews BEHIND PNAC". That suggests a completely different meaning than just pointing out that some of PNAC happens to have members who happen to be Jewish.

So Mairead's point is moot in the context of my discussion.

[Mairead]

340. What, you think the Jews in PNAC just wandered in off the street?

They saw the door open, thought it was a place they could get a bagel with a shmeer, and then got shanghaied?

[_Jumper_]

211. That is standard protocal for all groups

"So we can talk about 'Jewish philanthropists' and 'Jewish jewellers' (or can we?) but not 'Jewish gangsters'."

Yes. I disagree with chest-beating by some based on the race, religion, or ethnicity of a person but it is acceptable to mention someone's race, ethnicity, or religion in positive cases. However, it is not acceptable to mention it in a negative light because that fuels prejudice.

Would you mention a group of black criminals by their race? I doubt it. Just apply the same reasoning to referring to PNAC as "run by the Jews."

[Mairead]

223. "Would you mention a group of black criminals by their race?"

If it were germane to the discussion, I would! 'The Black men who took part in robbing that slumlord got 10 years apiece while the White guys went free! Is that racism or what?'

[a_random_joel]

144. It's relatively easy

Considering that PNAC is a policy institute, not a religion.
Considering that the majority of those listed are NOT Jews.
Yet, still, the complaint I hear often, is the Jews behind PNAC.
If you are befuddled, welcome to the club. That's how I feel when I hear such nonsense.

There, hope that clears it up.

[Mairead]

181. Nope, still doesn't make sense

Presumably it's okay to talk about 'Jewish philanthropists' even though most philanthropists aren't Jews, 'Jewish police' even though most cops aren't Jewish, and so forth. But I can't talk about 'the Jews behind PNAC'? How about 'the evangelical-Xian nutters behind PNAC'?

[a_random_joel]

189. How about Jewish baby eaters

That has a better ring to it, don't you think?

[Mairead]

197. Are there any?

[Classical_Liberal]

192. I don't think people who use such language last long here

. I don't actually see it that often.

[Sesquipedalian]

109. What you said is fine..

That you went on later to try and browbeat people down over Israeli/Palestinian issues isn't.

It's that sort of complete horseshit that makes no one pay the slightest attention to real anti-semitism anymore. You hear it and roll your eyes before you even stop to think that someone might have a point and not Uncle Leo crying anti-semitism over a cup of cold coffee.

[a_random_joel]

145. Browbeating, horseshit, and cold coffee in the same thought.

Pot.


Kettle.


Black.

Have a nice day.

[Lexingtonian]

125. right on, joel

Unfortunately, the many paranoid schizophrenic and manic depressive and PTSD conditions are presently ideologically formulated stances in all things I/P, reflecting all the historical and present damage inflicted on the various sides.

The accomplishments of the faith communities involved for mankind is what really matters, but the abuses inflicted on them and between them are great.

[a_random_joel]

146. I agree

Thanks for your input.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

150. As a JEW, I am clear this conversation works both ways

I am NOT a Likudnik nor are ANY of my other Jewish relatives.

There are STEREOTYPES made of ALL races. religions and creeds on DU and when the GENERALIZATIONS of ANY of them are used as a BASIS for the conversation, it usually goes south (and I am referencing something AKIN to HELL not Alabama just to be clear of any generalizations myself)

The only coment I will make is that it is at least easier to get an anti-semitic remark (or anything that SMACKS of it) deleted, the thread moved or locked or BOTH, if it contains the word JEW rather than BITCHSLAPPED. I find that rather sad since if the word was prefaced by JEW rather than BITCH it would NOT be acceptable.

At the core of THIS conversation is that people on BOTH sides have grave difficulties separating POLICY from PREJUDICE.

We discuss AIPIC and it is a secret cabal out to conquer US policy rather than an INTEREST group akin to the NAACP.

I guess that I expect people to consider what they are saying and pay attention to the manner in which they language themselves so that they may confront their prejudices but after nearly two years on DU...I am clear that
having that expectation only leaves me upset, unfulfilled and disappointed...so now when the thoughtlessness inherent in such conversations rears its ugly head...I shrug and say...that's life, that's people and that's their resistance to considering the degree that LANGUAGE shapes reality.

[Classical_Liberal]

160. AIPAC represents Israel, not jews, so it isn't like the naacp at all

. It is out to influence US foriegn policy and is successful at doing so, because it threatens Democrats with the loss of Jewish voters.

[John_H]

178. Many pro-israel people are liberal but

when it comes to the question of dealing w/ the palistinians too many condone israeli tactics that are about as right wing as you can get.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a_random_joel]

205. Wrong

The fact is that Israel is a racist, apartheid state

That is not a fact.

And many of my posts here point out the hypocrisy on the other side. Read 'em and weep. I've exposed enough double standards for one day.

[Classical_Liberal]

210. You've showed other states to be guilty of apartied policies

You haven't shown Israel not to be practicing Jim Crow policies.

[mitchtv]

266. joel , I don't carewhat you call it

but buldozing missles on city streets and landstealing is just as bad as aparthied- No I don't hate Jews, but maybe the word zionism has validity here . I haven't heard it used in this thread. Maybe someone could tell me when to use it. I don't want to be accuse of anything untoward

[a_random_joel]

299. Mitch, I don't care what you call it

But suicide bombs, sniping, assassination attempts on foreign leaders, and kidnapping are worse than aparthied.

Tit for tat.

[Classical_Liberal]

209. Most Jews don't support the state of Israel unconditionally

but those who don't sure aren't as organized or outspoken as those who do. Many also believe certain hawkish mythologies that make progress very difficult, even though they don't support Israel unconditionally. Hezbolla for instance is thought by many to be one of the groups doing bus bombings against civilians, and this is patently untrue, yet Israel constantly lists them as the number one terrorist threat to the Israelis state. They are a threat to israels supremecy in Lebanon, not a threat to Israelis bus passengers. this is proof positive that the Israelis security establishment values its military power more than its people, but hardly anybody sees it. Thus we have the syrian sanctions vote today in congress. This vote makes a PNAC war much more likely yet many antipnac jews support it, and are unwilling to speak out, and they end up enabling policies they claim they don't approve of. It's maddening.

[a_random_joel]

204. ATTENTION ALL

This thread has degenerated into another round of us vs. them I/P nonsense.

That was not my intention. I wanted to say that I am sick of being called a Palestinian oppressor, because I happen to have a Jewish father and mother. Yes, I support Israel. Yes, I support the Palestinian right to self-determination. THis is a complex issues, and there are no easy answers.

My main point, again, is that I will not tolerate anti-semitism, or its suggestion, just as I will not tolerate misogeny, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Irish, or whatever else. Nor do I expect anyone else here to do so. If any of these other groups detected even a smidgeon of bias against them based on ethicity/gender/ etc. they would be up in arms.

I get it, only one underdog at a time...

[Mairead]

232. The problem is in your definitions

If you want everyone to accept your particular definition of what's anti-Jewish, you're going to be disappointed unless you can defend it in some way more rational than snide remarks.

[a_random_joel]

290. My definitions were clear.

Read the original post. You came in here popping off on the I/P issue. I did not start that, nor was that my intent. Once it devolved into that though, I will not idly sit by and let remarks go undefended.

Notice, many of the responses to this thread were critical of Israel, and I did not call anyone Anti-Semitic, unless they clearly demonstrated it - which thankfully was minimal.

Read the original post. And leave your personal agenda out of it.

[Mairead]

301. Sorry, Joel, I'm not going to bite

You are trying to get a biased definition accepted.

[a_random_joel]

315. What biased definition?

That not all Jews are oppressors?

[Mairead]

326. That the meaning of 'Jews' is 'all Jews'

When you hear 'Jews oppress Palestinians' you automatically assume that means 'all Jews oppress all Palestinians'. But anyone who actually does mean that is either bone-ignorant or dishonest, so why should you believe them?

You have a problem with honesty of your own. Of course, on some level I understand it and, in a way, don't blame you. I mean, who would want to admit that some of the people with whom they identify, descendents of people who've been scapegoated through the centuries and suffered the most horrible injustices, would turn around and do the same goddamned thing to other innocent victims? Especially when part of what's made all the misery bearable is the consciousness of centuries of Jewish scholarship, generosity, and probity. It can be very difficult, I guess, to disown those who've thrown drek on the reputation that millions of other Jews have paid for with blood and great sacrifice. To say that they're mamzers and gonifs, and that they're no more sheyne yiden than the criminals who fed on the miseries of Apartheid or the camps. But that's what's needed, and it's an abscess that's only going to get worse til someone has the courage to lance it, or the victim dies.

[a_random_joel]

331. It is still fallacious

The threads I was referring to, which started this one, was defending the statement by Marathir, that said Jews run the world. In that thread, someone else pointed out the Jews behind PNAC.

This thread actually had very little to do with I/P conflict(I only brought it upto pre-emptively negate those who would say I was just being over-sensitive because of the I/P issue). That is until you and some of the others INVADED it.

For the record, I've stated numerous times, that I am not a supported of Sharon/Likud policy. But I object to your baseless classification that the Palestinians are the only victims here, and innocent ones at that. I do not want to continue this becuase it is flogging a very dead horse. I have my opinions and you have yours. It still does not have any relevancy to the MAIN point of my thread, which still stands, and will continue to do so despite the multiple attempts to turn this into the F/A forum.

[CWebster]

228. wow---this thread is still here?

[GOPBasher]

236. I agree and it's been scaring me.

I don't like the hard right wing Israelis, just like I don't like the hard right wing Americans. I love most Israelis and most Americans, however.

The anti-semitism is horrible, firstly because predjudice against any ethnic or religious group is horrible; one of humankinds' serious blackmarks. It also scares me to think that maybe Jews in America will start voting for Repugs more often, because the left is getting the image of being anti-Israel. That's an image that's not true at all, except in very few cases. But those few cases may make us all look bad.

[_Jumper_]

245. The Muslim population is roughly equal to the Jewish population...

in America. If we are too pro-Israel we lose one, if we are too pro-Palestinian we lose the other. Why place a premium on one of these two groups?

[Classical_Liberal]

274. Arab Muslims trended republican over family values

Jews on average do have more views that are easier to fit in the democratic party. Though that may flipflop on this one issue. I happen to think in the next electiom more muslims will defect from Bush than Jews will defect from Democrats.

[David Zephyr]

247. I Appreciate Your Thread, A_Random_Joel .

And the spirit and humility in which it was written.

I have no use for Ariel Sharon, but he hardly represents even all the citizens of Israel, much less Jews around the entire world. I am sorry that you feel you even need to post this, but apparently it is needed and so I respect that.

I posted here just the other night that it was "California Jews" who took the polls and voted nearly 70% against the Republican, Mormon and Catholic anti-gay initiative here in California a few years back. Indeed, the only higher demographic group than Jews here in California who made the effort to vote against this hateful initiative was the gbl&t community itself.

That speaks louder than all the rest of the noise on the radar against Jews, doesn't it?

And, sadly, there are those who refuse to confront the truth at how many Jews in the U.S. Congress voted AGAINST the war in Iraq and how many prominent Jews in our own country also spoke out against the war preferring to hang onto bigotry and hatred.

I'm with you, A_Random_Joel!

[_Jumper_]

252. Jews and the Iraq War

The vast majority of Jews opposed it. The only the other group that opposed it more than Jewish-Americans was Muslim-Americans. To blame American Jews for the Iraq War because PNAC is mostly Jewish is absurd IMO.

[a_random_joel]

294. Thanks

I appreciate the positive feedback.

[mrgorth]

255. Holy cow this got big!

For what it's worth I agree with you and it's ashame. Right now Israel is being run by a madman and all jews are taking some of the blame. I wish we could just get Sharon and Shrub-on out in one fell swoop.

[blkgrl]

259. Seriously, I think this is a problem of differing perspectives

Honestly, I really don't recall seeing anything anti-semetic on these boards, although I see the anti-semite accusation thrown around frequently. Being black, however, I know how it is to sense racism and then be told that I'm simply "playing the race card." I do feel that some members on this site are "racists in denial," although I doubt I could find several people who would agree with me since I'm looking at things from a different viewpoint.

[a_random_joel]

296. Hey

I have seen anti-semitic statements, 2 of them yesterday, which is why I started this thread. I totally appreciate your comments here. I know I've never faced extreme racism, as have many blacks, but it is still something that I will not tolerate, even if people think I'm just being "sensitive".

[Swede]

302. Think of Israel as Delaware

and the rest of the USA as the Arab League. It may help give a perspective as to why Israelis feel threatened.

[Mairead]

306. I wasn't aware that Delaware had nukes or the world's only superpower

in its pocket. Live and learn.

[Selwynn]

312. Delaware's military is not engaged in state-sanctioned terroism...

human rights abuses, violation of international law and decades of UN resolutions either.

[Swede]

335. But it is tiny and surrounded by much larger states

that is the only context to their fears I was comparing them to.

[mbartko]

316. By the way...

Since this thread has already taken several million turns and I don't know how anyone can possibly follow it without a complex schematic...

I noticed your Bears avatar, and, on behalf of Pittsburgh, I'd like to apologize for Kordell. We should have warned you.

[a_random_joel]

317. LOL!

That's OK, turn several million and one!

I was so happy when we got Kordell.
I shoulda known.
BTW, the Bears are my fav team, but I've always liked Pittsburgh as well. The way Maddox has been playing, you may have been better off sticking with Kordell.

[mbartko]

319. Maddox will do great this week.

No interceptions. It's our bye week.

At least we got to see some Pirates in the NLCS as Cubs. That's the only way we're going to see Pirates in the NLCS for a VERY long time.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

332. i hear you and sympathize I feel the same way about being Catholic on DU

[rman]

342. "jews" in that context is equivalent to "zionists"

Only the extreme right uses the issue of zionism to demonize all jews.

I think most people who are critical of zionism/likud are very well aware of the fact that many if not most jews are in fact not zionist.

Also most people are aware that the Israeli opposition to Likud/zionism is the political Left.

Though i'd agree that it is more proper to address zionists as zionists, and not generically as jews.

[eauclaireliberal]

344. a_random_joel:

a_random_joel:

I haven't witnessed the anti-Jewish bigotry on this forum that you mention-I'm not calling you a liar, just that I personally haven't seen it.

My POV as a liberal-libertarian is that the Zionist state-under the control of the Sharonites-are bloody murderers. Both sides of the Israeli/Arab conflict have blood on their hands, but in the arena of human rights, Israel has not been a shining example of it.

You do realize that the Sharon Zionists have allied themselves with the same people who used to call up blowhards like Limbaugh and whine about how the Holocaust "...never happened." Strange that the neo-con BFEE has changed their tune since Sharon has taken power. Either the Israelis are too fucking stupid to know this, or they are shameless for using nazi atrocities like a baseball bat to beat who they deem as "Anit-Semites" when someone calls them on their bullshit. It is a lot like
this horseshit statement Rice made RE: U.S. policy in the Middle-East.

Zionism rejects the teachings of Judaism, including the Divinely-ordained Decree of Exile from the Holy Land some 2,000 years ago and the prohibition of creating a Jewish State, according to which Jews are instructed to live among other peoples in peace, friendship and harmony. Any violation of this decree, such as the establishment of a Zionist state, is a grave sin, and as history has proven, provides no lasting benefit for any Jews whatsoever, and in fact has been a relentless assault on everything Judaism holds dear and on their very existence physically and spiritually.
Neturei Karta International statement

The last person who wanted peace in Israel was Benjamin Netenyahu (sp?). Look what happened to him. This isin't Golda's Israel were talking about. An Arab may have shot him, but that and America's 9-11 outrage seems to be just the incidents that Zionists like Sharon needed to activate the agenda to wipe-out Palestinians-by any means neccesary.

When I say "Zionist" I'm not talking about Jewish people who, like you said, "...are overwhelmingly Liberal and Democratic." Dave Berkman is a good example of an anti-Zioinst Jew who approaches the subject occasionally and guess what: those right wingers I mentioned send hate-letters to him, claiming that he must be a "...Jew-hater" "liberal", "Faggot" and a "...terrorist sympathizer", etc. etc.

A Failed Israeli Society Collapses While Its Leaders Remain Silent

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel