Just how do you Jews "hold America hostage"? It's really quite admirable.

[David Zephyr]

If it wasn't so disconcerting, it would be funny and pathetic that here in 2007 at an uber-liberal website one can read idiotic posts like the one that appeared here today and, mercifully was finally locked, yet only after hundreds of posts and, unbelievably, countless "recommendations". "The Jewish lobby holds America hostage." Wow! That really took the cake.

Now, mind you, I'm just a dumb homo who grew up in the South, who not only didn't get the "orientation manual" as a child, but I also didn't get the "cultural manual" about how good christian boys like me were to behave. I quickly discovered that I was a complete failure. So I really can't pretend to know much because, after all, I couldn't even convince my own family to love me and I wound up on the streets as a teen turning tricks just to survive. I mean how dumb is that? How many kids lose their parents' christian love?


And just so you know, at 19 I wound up hitch-hiking into Manhattan all alone, right into the Kingdom of the Jews, where I was "picked up" by the sweetest Jewish boy, Brian, who took me in, fed me, loved me, and opened my heart and mind to books, classical music, and most of all, tolerance and acceptance. By that point, I was essentially a stray animal that someone treated like a human being. Now, I may not know much, but I know who saved me. And I will never forget it. And for what it's worth, if New York City was "held hostage" by the Jews, then it sure was a lovely thing to me and I sure wish that Texas would have been so "held hostage" back when I was growing up taking abuse as a child.

To all my Jewish sisters and brothers, you can take me hostage anytime and anywhere. After all, my name isn't David for nothing!

Peace & Love.

[villager]

1. Thanks, David. Yeah, that thread was astonishing for several reasons

--including the fact that mods -- touchy over the slightest offense -- let it linger and linger with its "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" theme, and the fact it got over 30 recs!

Jesus Christ! (so to speak, and I am half-Anglican, too! ;-) )

[David Zephyr]

2. Astonishing indeed.

:)

[rockymountaindem]

3. We've got a secret weapon

Thanks for your kind words. That thread was insane. But, since I'm always fascinated by anti-Semitism, I couldn't look away. Seems that sometimes I don't have to go too far to get a dose of it up close and personal. It's a shame.

[David Zephyr]

7. Oh, my goodness. That's the same weapon Woody Allen used in "Sleeper"

[Behind the Aegis]

4. It was a train wreck.

I still don't know what was worse, the original post or that so many were trying to justify the OP. Some went to great lengths to make a tie and that was even worse. However, this is not new to many of us. It was nice to see those who understood the 'creepiness' of the post and jumped into the fray. It is frightening to many of us how many will adopt anti-Semitic stances, often without knowing, but when it is pointed out, they go to great lengths to defend their positions rather than step back and examine the issue.

BTW, gay Southern boy here too! :hi:

[David Zephyr]

8. I always enjoy reading your posts, Behind the Aegis.

Gay, Southern Jewish boy, hmmm.

Tony Kushner and you have a lot in common. He is amazing, simply amazing. I'd cut off an arm to be able to write the way he does.

:hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Thank you!

"Gay, Southern Jewish boy, hmmm." My partner of 5 years thinks the same! :) We are such an interesting breed of people. :rofl:

No need to cut your arm off, just start writing. Who knows, you may be the next big gay, Jewish Southern boy to be read all over the world!

:hi:

[leftynyc]

10. That's an interesting question - which was worse?

I thought about it and I think it was those trying to defend - I can't help but feel these people have always had unkind feelings about Jews and have found what they feel is justification. I feel very fortunate to have grown up in New York where being Jewish is very easy.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. I still am sitting on the fence.

In my mind, those who are upfront about their biases and bigotry, are easier to "work with," in some respects. It is those who make excuses they may or may not be hiding something deeper, therefore, you are left up to guessing the "true" intentions of the person. The "known" is easier to deal with, but that doesn't always mean the "unknown" is worse...so I still sit on the fence.

[auntAgonist]

5. Please take note that the OP

in that "idiotic post" was referencing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3153131


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/09/pro...

Pro-Israel Lobbyists Push to Eliminate Anti-Iran War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill

By M.J. Rosenberg

As everyone knows, House and Senate Democrats are trying to put together an Iraq war spending bill that will pressure the President to bring the troops home sooner rather than later. There is a general consensus on most issues relating to Iraq. However, the authoritative Congressional Quarterly daily report reveals today that some Democrats are fighting Speaker Pelosi's language which would prevent the President from going to war in Iran without the approval of Congress. Simply put, Pelosi wants to avoid a repeat of the Iraq experience in Iran. For Dems, this is a no-brainer, or so one would think.

But, according to CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war in Iran. The hypocrisy is astounding. It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another.

This battle over the Pelosi language is part of the overall Iran effort.

And you thought it couldn't happen again!

Content of CQ report follows.

more...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's SO easy to jump people over word usage here isn't it? :sarcasm:

aA

[rockymountaindem]

6. Indeed

Someone says "they don't want to stop the Iran invasion because the AIPAC conference is next week" and all of a sudden the Jewz are ruining our country. Yep... it's that tricky word usage :sarcasm:

[leftynyc]

9. Oy Vey - I just read the thread.

I'm surprised it went so long without being locked. It was depressing. Anti-Semitism on the left is becomming a real problem for me. I foolishly thought I'd never see the day,.

By the way, I'm not sure how New Yorkers got the rep of being rude and unfeeling. I'm glad you saw the real us.

[Robson]

11. May I offer an opinion

My friends you may not agree, but it isn't anti-Semitism.

It is a building resentment against US policies that have somehow become totally skewed and unilateral in favor of Israel's interests, instead of balanced and benefiting the USA, which allows our country to become an objective arbiter. Certainly influential conservative groups such as AIPAC have been influential in both our policies, and the building resentment against such policies.

Unless such undue and disproportionate pro-Israeli influence is tempered I suspect it will only get worse. You can claim it is not so, but it is so, as that thread illustrated. The best thing that could happen for US-Jewish relations would be for AIPAC to be registered as the foreign lobbying organization that it is.

The OP told a very touching story and I agree that most of my Jewish friends are very intelligent, compassionate people that contribute more than their share to the USA. Most of them are progressive, they favor policies that support the USA, and do not have strong feelings about Israel. I should qualify it and say their feelings about Israel are not that much different than the feelings of most Americans about their ancestral homelands and that is how it should be.

[leftynyc]

12. It's the venom that makes it different

So many groups have considerable ifluence on US policy. I see people who say it's because of all the money we give Israel. We give the same amount to Egypt and nobody seems to talk about the human rights abuses in that country. Nobody speaks of how life is for women in many of the Muslim countries. Honor killings, genital mutiliation, arranged marriages, no education. Look at our supposed "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The treatment of women is abyssmal. Beatings and stonings for the crime of looking at a man. The same treatment for homosexuals for being who they are. Where is the outcry for these people? But it's Israel that gets the lions share of the heat. Although an imperfect country, in my opinion, it's head and shoulders above it's neighbors. The demonization on progressive boards on this issue is way out of proportion. I suppose anti-Semitism is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really think Israel is held to the same standard as all these other countries?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. My response.

Perhaps you could define anti-Semitism for us. Since you think this is not an example of anti-Semitism, then perhaps you should explain what anti-Semitism is and why that thread was not anti-Semitic.

From one of your statements, it makes me think you are not Jewish. Is this true?

[Robson]

16. My 2 cents....but it costs you nothing

My thoughts on this are I believe its resentment and opposition to actions, not anti-Semitism.

I'm a member of the Temple/Church of the Golden Rule. I attempt to treat others as I would like to be treated. Religion isn't a big deal to me. If I criticize someone it is because of their actions, not their religion.

The anti-Semite term has wrongly been expanded by some to include any "criticism" of Israel or the actions of those who support Israel.

Anti-Semitism is defaming and attacking Jews because of only their religion. For example vandalizing a synagogue, or marching or discriminating against Jews, not hiring someone only because he's a Jew, or favoring a less qualified person over a Jew, etc.

Criticism of a Jew or Israel because of actions is neither racist nor anti-Semitic. Do you agree?

That referenced thread rightfully criticized those that want Bush to have unilateral power to attack Iran. Bush needs put on a very short leash. If those who foolishly lobby Congress to give Bush this power are members of AIPAC, these members should have both their loyalties and their mental competence questioned. If they happen to be Jews they might want to reconsider and reevaluate where their loyalties lie. But that's not anti-Semitism, that's anti-stupidity and anti-anyone that would seek to put the USA into another self-destructive war based upon a perceived benefit to another country.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. and your change...

I would be inclined to agree with you that it was about "resentment and opposition to actions" if the OP of the other thread had said "pro-Israeli" lobby, not "Jewish" lobby!

Let me explain why I asked if you were a Jew. I find it very offensive when someone who is not Jewish tries to tell me, a Jew, what anti-Semitism isn't. I have grown up with that particular brand of hatred and I do not need someone, who has not being a victim of it, mainly because they are not Jewish, to dictate to me what anti-Semitism really is. Do not misunderstand what I have just written, as I did ask you what you thought it was, but I was pretty sure what your response was going to be; however, rather than make that assumption, I asked for clarification. It is no different than when whites tell black people what racism is and isn't. Of course, one doesn't have to be a member of said group to understand what a particular brand of bigotry is. Yet, there are forms of bigotry that are more subtle and those who haven't been exposed to it for years are not going to readily understand it, more often than not. This is not to say some people overreact or look for discrimination where there is none, because we know that happens as well.

Criticism of a Jew or Israel because of actions is neither racist nor anti-Semitic. Do you agree?

I agree, in part. To criticize an Israeli because of actions is not anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, for the most part. However, to criticize an Israeli because s/he is an Israeli is bigoted, and may or may not be anti-Semitic, depending on context and the Israeli's religion. The same holds true with Jews. Criticism of Joe Lieberman's position on the Iraq, for instance, is not anti-Semitic. What is anti-Semitic is to criticize him for that position because he is a Jew or to imply or state outright that he is more loyal to Israel than the US!

It is anti-Semitic to imply that the Jews have a lobby that controls or greatly influences the US. It is not anti-Semitic to point out that AIPAC consists of Jews, but to jump to the conclusion that they represent all Jews is anti-Semitic and, incidentally, one of the oldest forms of anti-Semitic behavior.

That referenced thread rightfully criticized those that want Bush to have unilateral power to attack Iran. Bush needs put on a very short leash. If those who foolishly lobby Congress to give Bush this power are members of AIPAC, these members should have both their loyalties and their mental competence questioned.

That thread should have said "pro-Israeli!" To say AIPAC should question "both their loyalties and their mental competence" is fine. It is a group.

If they happen to be Jews they might want to reconsider and reevaluate where their loyalties lie. But that's not anti-Semitism, that's anti-stupidity and anti-anyone that would seek to put the USA into another self-destructive war based upon a perceived benefit to another country.

The first statement IS anti-Semitism! To imply, because they are Jews, they have dual or divided loyalties because they are Jewish is ANTI-SEMITIC! Do the non-Jews also need to "reconsider and reevaluate where their loyalties lie?" If so, then why aren't they mentioned? Why is the assumption that only the Jewish members of AIPAC need to "reconsider and reevaluate where their loyalties lie?"

I am a Jew and I am well aware of what anti-Semitism and isn't. While I will listen to what others have to say, I will not excuse ignorance where bigotry is concerned, which is why I replied to that thread, as did others.

[David Zephyr]

20. Thank you.

Yeah! :yourock:

[Robson]

21. OK ....Change your hat

Interesting analysis and we agree and disagree which is fairly normal...I guess.

The common succinct web definition of Israel is a "Jewish State" or "Jewish Republic". At least that’s what Princeton and some other definition sites say. Do we agree on that?

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=israel

OK so let's change perspective to something more neutral. Roman Catholics coincidentally have a similar country devoted primarily to Catholic interests. They call it the Sovereign State of the Vatican City. It may not be a large multi-million republic that encourages Catholics to immigrate, but it is a sovereign state, as is Israel. Obviously the Vatican City doesn't have nukes or a major standing army, but they have security and they have interests, and not necessarily in alignment with US interests.

For the sake of discussion let's say that SOME Roman Catholics in the USA formed a very influential lobbying group AVCPAC ("America’s Pro-Vatican City Lobby") for the purpose of ensuring that US support for the Vatican City remains strong and so that it remains secure. The AVCPAC group actively works to influence US elections to the benefit of the Vatican with massive donations and lobbying effort. They've been known to work for the defeat of candidates that did not fully support VC. Hypothetically let’s say that some of the lobbying efforts put forth by this group for aid, etc will end up being very costly to the USA, and some will put the USA at risk, financially and militarily.

I can assure you unequivocally that most non-Catholics, many Roman Catholics, and Jews, etc. would soon be questioning why such a lobby is allowed to exist without being registered as a foreign agent, when it is in place to influence elections to the benefit of a sovereign foreign entity. Furthermore every American I know would be asking those Catholics that support this lobby that costs Americans and puts them at risk, where do their loyalties stand? Do they stand with the USA or the Vatican City?

Sorry my friend, but in no stretch of anyone’s imagination should we Americans who would question those Roman Catholics that would support such policies, ever accept an accusation of racism or anti-Catholic. So yes…I would go back to my original post and question the loyalty of any person of any religion, of any ethnicity, who would support policies and lobbies that could be beneficial to another nation at the expense of our own nation.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Huh?!

The common succinct web definition of Israel is a "Jewish State" or "Jewish Republic". At least that’s what Princeton and some other definition sites say. Do we agree on that?

Israel is a Jewish state, the same way Iran is an Islamic one. I fail to see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

As for your hypothetical, you just changed from "supporting" anti-Semitism, to supporting anti-Catholicism. So rather than jaunt down some hypothetical path, I am sticking to the subject at hand. The members of AIPAC are American citizens, and as such are ensured the right to petition their government as they see fit. They are no different than the PACs that are made up of Americans who lobby on behalf of another country.

Questioning Jews because you think there is some mythical "Jewish lobby" is nothing more than an exercise in anti-Semitism. Questioning members of AIPAC about their allegiances is not anti-Semitic, unless its only the Jews you question. "Dual loyalty" is an ancient anti-Semitic canard. I will say that, while you understand the definition of anti-Semitism, you really do not understand how it works in the everyday world. Anti-Semitism is not just calling someone a "kike!" When you (general) make broad assumptions about a group, it leads to bigotry and discrimination.

[rockymountaindem]

23. I think you need to draw a better distinction between Israel and Iran

Israel is a "Jewish state" because it's designed to be majority Jewish. Iran is an "Islamic state" because it's run by Islamic clergy. Israel, OTOH, is not run by Jewish clergy. I'd say Israel is the Jewish state the way that Japan is the Japanese state.

[David Zephyr]

17. "US-Jewish relations"? What on earth is that?

I wish you would not have posted in my thread this way.

Your very choice of words says a lot. If the intent of your post or point about what you called "resentment" was in reference to some of the government of Israel's policies then you would have or should have said "U.S. - Israeli relations". Rather you chose to say "U.S.-Jewish relations".

Are you aware of how many prominent American Jews opposed Bush's war in Iraq? Senator Paul Wellstone, Senator Barbara Boxer, and well...it's not my job to inform you of something I would hope you would already know. It was a loudly-professed Christian President that took us to war in Iraq and is threatening Iran now. And, unfortunately, he had the popular support of a great majority of Americans when he started that war...the great majority of whom are all Christians, not Jews.

In many ways, threads like the one that was eventually locked do some good, because they are almost like bait for underwater prejudices that exist. I see the same thing with threads regarding homosexuals, blacks, latinos, asians, and, sadly, about women, too, where underlying bigotries bite at the bait before them.

Many times, I look at such threads and look not just for those that make stupid comments, but for me, personally, I also look for those missing in action when our brothers and sisters are being maligned. It's the names that aren't there that should be in threads that saddens me the most.

[Robson]

18. It means the same as US - Islamic relations, etc.

I apologize if those words offend or don't make sense. No offense intended. We use that hyphenated terminology all the time when it comes to religions and countries and cultures to show a relationship.

As an example. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/news/20030604sabanfellows.htm

Again, please don't read something into it that isn't there, or hasn't been freely used with religions or ethnicities and the USA at large.