babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
To get back on the topic of why Attias should be arrested.
http://www.gregfelton.com/satire/2009_01_24_Terrorist.gif
The decontextualizing is all on your part.
It never occurred to me that "dirty Zionist war criminal" (to give the phrase its proper context) was code for "dirty Jew war criminal" until someone here decided to superimpose on that phrase the wrong-headed and anti-semitic notion that Zionist = Jewish.
In addition, Zionist is an adjective in the impugned phrase, whereas Jew is a noun. So the imagined equivalence to the words "dirty Jew" is grammatically false, besides being wrong-headed and anti-semitic.
If the original phrase had been "dirty imperialist war criminal" (which is essentially the same thing) nobody would have any pretext to object. Why? for the simple reason that nobody equates "imperialist" to "Jewish". But apparently we're supposed to accept that its perfectly reasonable to equate "Zionist" with "Jewish". The moderators' decision serves to validate and reinforce that wrong-headed and anti-semitic notion.
Who is being protected by this censorship? Who benefits from the wrongful acknowledgment that Zionism = Jewish? Answer: Not the Jews, but the Zionists.
I don't believe NDPP is an anti-semite nor do I believe that he/she ever was implying 'dirty jew'.
I find the epithets have been flying out of control at babble lately.
And I agree with Spector,this sensitivity and censorship plays into the hands of Zionists...Remember,they are the same people who want to criminalize all those who dare criticize Israel.
This is not a Jewish issue,it's all about the state of Israel, the war criminals who run it and all their accomplices who are mostly NOT Jewish.
But I can respect babble policy even if it's a tad hypocritical at times.
And so on.
Wow. At least they restrained themselves from drawying the Jewish kid with a giant nose, dollar signs for eyes and using the blood of gentiles to bake matzah. What a disgusting anti-Semitic piece of shit cartoon.
Oh, oh. Another offended babbler!
Looks like we'll have to delete the cartoon out of sensitivity to cultural and racial history.
Paging Rebecca!
Ken, I truly thought and still do, that the word 'dirty' is a simple, accurate way to describe such people as can make airplanes to do what Israel's did to Gaza. Or 'Butcher' Bouchard's to Libya. (or a political entity that enables or legitimizes such actions: Con, Lib, NDP, Dem, Rep. Zio, Nazi, etc etc) As Hitler's to Guernica or Coventry. Churchill's to Dresden, Suharto's to East Timor etc etc. Or America's to an ever lengthening list.. To me there is no more obvious or fundamental description, and a rather muted term at that, given the effects that these dirty ones' actions have, and are having. If that is not 'effective' or 'revolutionary' so be it. It is the truth as I see it. You have your own. Others have theirs.
But if you are truly and honestly telling me, that some here cannot possibly conceive of any reason save anti-semitism, for referring to this dirty and obedient garden variety butcher of which there are so many and the ideological operating system responsible for making his actions permissable, necessary or legitimate as I would suggest Zionism is in the case at issue - this I cannot accept. Even if I truly believed that somebody's mind made this dirty -Zionist-war-criminal =dirty Jew identification automatically, I would not accommodate or legitimize such a bizarre formulation in any case. Especially not here. I try to be an equal opportunity 'dirty' war criminal accuser as these are a species that is truly international at this point in history, so although I appreciate why some may focus solely on Israel, my intention is to seek them out and expose their dirty war criminal kind widely whoever they are and wherever they may be. So many dirty warcriminals, so little time.
I said 'dirty Zionist Gaza war criminal' because that's what he is. I didn't say 'dirty Jew' because I don't think or intend such a thing. I have never met one of those and I have known several. All of my direct personal experiences with Jews happen to have been very positive ones as it happens. Leftists mostly and very humane, accomplished, impressive human beings in every way. This is not about his religion or ethnicity, or race or anything except his dirty deeds and accomplishments in Gaza and the system that makes it all possible and 'necessary'.
Bouchard and Natynczyk are also dirty - Canadian war criminals because 'Canada' is the operating system that makes their crimes similarly permissable and 'legitimate'. And all the ethnic cleansing of Indigenous in this settler state. I have often stated that Canada has achieved what Israel can only dream of - in that regard. I submit all of these are entitled by their deeds to be called 'dirty' . And will be by me. If this isn't 'effective' or 'persuasive' or 'convincing' or 'revolutionary' thanks for your advice and feedback
And if the reader is determined to read something not there that's their business not mine.
I will not be spending a great deal more time on this as there's lots of other things going on and this is only one of many 'dirty's. And why should the dirty war criminals get more care and attention than their victims eh?
(on edit)just so that you know, NDPP, the post of mine that you just quoted was actually in response to a post from M. Spector. It wasn't addressed to you at all. My apologies if it sounded like that post was aimed at you...I should have found a way to specify that it wasn't.
It was never my intent to imply that you meant "dirty Jew" when you wrote "dirty Zionist"-only that the phraseology inadvertently sounded similar and that, without meaning to, you might be giving your opponents the means to attack and discredit what you are calling for.
This is particularly important in the Israel/Palestine discussion, where apologists for Israel have become experts at using innocent, yet ambiguously worded, rhetoric from anti-Zionists to imply that anti-Zionists believe things that they DON'T believe.
I was trying to say that you need to be careful not to give Israel apologists anything they can EASILY distort into the service of a false victimhood narrative, or to create doubts about the motivations of anti-Zionists among those that might otherwise be potential allies.
It's the idea of not giving your enemies the rope to hang you with, that's all.
I fully expect you to do the same if you ever feel that I have strayed into the area of objectionable or offensive rhetoric.
The whole concept of anti-oppression language is that intent isn't necessarily the point. And because of that, all of us, when we speak on any issue, have to constantly be conscious of how our words can be read and interpreted. Such consciousness is also just part of the discipline needed in any work for radical political change. A number of years ago, I was involved in a far more lengthy exchange with another poster(now banned)who insisted on using the image of a swastika superimposed on a Star of David to make his points about the occupation. Unlike that poster, you have responded thoughtfully to the points some of us have made and I respect the fact that you've been willing to examine all of this.
I TRULY don't believe you're an antisemite...all I was trying to do was to make sure that you didn't use terminology that would have the effect of self-sabotaging your objective. You are right to call for General Attias' arrest AND to hold Zionism as a project accountable for what he did. Sorry if anything I posted in this exchange sounded like I was either opposing the call to arrest this butcher OR to let Zionism as an ideology avoid responsibility for what occured in Gaza and what continues to be done in the Territories.
And you're right...the others you mentioned are responsible for a huge amount of suffering and deserve whatever terms you might hurl at them. No one here, I suspect, would have objected if you had just called Attias a "Zionist war criminal"-and calling him that would have been saying everything you actually meant to say.
But you're right, it's time we let this exchange end. Good night and be well.
and you...
So, your motivation is to protect us all from the Israel apologists! So kind of you. So thoughtful! After all, who of us wants to have our words falsely twisted and distorted into imaginary anti-semitic meanings? And then have people claim that they are offended by our words, in order to silence us? And then have our words censored - for our own protection, of course?
Thank you so much for saving us from having to endure that.
Oh, one more thing before you go... Could you please give kropotkin a stern lecture about posting cartoons that give Israel apologists an opportunity to take offence? I think he's due for a rigorous self-criticism session and a lesson in cultural and historical sensitivity.
http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/input-thread-title-appropriateness-rabble-2
Oh, good. Caissa is here. Now we can get rid of that blasted offensive cartoon pronto!
M.Spector, what progressive cause is being forwarded through your advocacy of the right to use the phrase "Dirty Zionist" on Babble? I'm listening.
No, you're not listening. You never do.
I'm listening.
If you were listening you would have already recognized that NDPP's post #68 is a complete answer to your question.
I must be slow because I still don't understand what progressive cause this is forwarding when some here have stated the phrase is a trigger for them.
The proper place for discussing correct language for thread titles is in the thread you linked to. Please stop derailing this thread.
Right now we have a much more serious issue to deal with. A babbler has posted a cartoon in this thread that seriously offended another babbler. You might even say it was a "trigger" that reminded Mr Tea of all the anti-semitic abuse he has ever had to endure. How are we to deal with this?
Surely someone needs a stern talking-to and the offending cartoon must be expunged.
What progressive cause, I wonder rhetorically, is advanced by the posting of such a cartoon? (Please, nobody answer that question: No arguments may be permitted that justify posting such an offensive message because it only compounds the offence.)
This is fukkin hilarious.
serious question
What person or agency in Canada would be able to hold Eden Attias and/or arrest him for war crimes?
I'm not laughing.
This is a serious issue: Does "progressive" discourse exclude anything that offends? Caissa seems to think so.
As for me, I think if your progressive discourse offends no one, then you're not doing it right.
Any peace officer. In theory, at least, even a citizen's arrest would be legal.
Anyways, it's been the case that while actions of the Israeli state against the Palestinian population have no doubt constituted an endless procession of dirty, filthy outrages; the perpetrators themselves have always come out of it clean as a whistle, no worse for the wear of inflicting misery, smelling like roses, completely unaccountable for anything they've ordered up.
M. Spector, your hectoring of Caissa and Rebecca West has to stop. And your mocking of "triggering" is despicable. Absolutely disgusting.
I don't see anything wrong with the cartoon. I stand to be corrected, however. But please send me a PM if you'd like to continue that discussion.
Clearly my attempts to channel this "dirty" conversation toward the thread in which it is directly addressed have failed, so I'll address it here, since even those who are worried that this conversation is "blunting" criticism of Zionism seem most interested in its perpetuation and flourishing.
First, I have no doubt that NDPP is in earnest in his description of using "dirty" at post 68. But every utterance has a listener, so the belief that you can just ben words to your desired meaning by will alone is a false one. Many babblers, including those with about as strong a stance against Zionism as can be found on babble, felt offended by the usage because it was too closely associated with a common anti-Semitic epithet. This association was easily understood by all, even if you disagreed with its validity in this case.
Indeed, NDPP's deliberate and pronounced non-discriminiatory usage of "dirty" with "Zionist" is itself political, since it performs a refusal of the wide-spread equation in the MSM of Judaism and Zionism. So the claim that the usage of the phrase is innocuous, or has no connection with Judaism, is demonstrably false.
No moderator has censured the usage of the phrase, or drawn up a list of nouns or adjectives "dirty" can be used in conjunction with. The main issue here is one of respecting a group of allies who have communicated unease, even offence, at a usage that the speaker did not see. It doesn't matter what the intent was, because communication isn't about intent; it's about practice. You can either respect the requests of your allies and friends on babble, or you cannot. But you can't continue to mock and hector and bully those who have asked for a discourse which includes and respects them.
So guess the cartoon stays.
I guess I'm a bit suprised that you could take a non citizen into any police station in Canada and arrest them for international war crimes.
Ok, I tried to keep this private through my message, but too late for that.
The cartoon properly portrays the Palestinian child, IMHO. But it portrays the Israeli child wearing a yarmulke and earlocks. Do you know of any Israeli Zionist war criminals and mass murderers that look like that? No, of course you don't. They look like Netanyahu and Peres and Barak and Ariel Sharon and all the others. We could add their allies and enablers: Bush, Harper, Blair, Obama... Secular, western, thugs. But the cartoonist wanted to make sure everyone knew that this kid is a JEW. Otherwise, the Israeli flag and the pocket pistol and the dialogue would have been more than sufficient to get the message across.
Think of a cartoon about the 9/11 bombers which protrays them as imams, if that helps.
The cartoon is anti-Semitic. Please refer back to the warnings of aka Mycroft and Lord Palmerston (who specifically warned about Greg Felton). When anti-Zionists tell you something is anti-Semitic, I think people should pay as much attention as they should be cynical and skeptical when Zionists tell you something is anti-Semitic.
Having said this, I don't believe kropotkin for one instant intended any anti-Semitic message by posting this.
Those are all quite good points, Unionist.
Yes, I thought Der Sturmer went out of print a number of decades ago as well. Thanks to Unionist for the context. The yarmulke and earlocks are designating religous symbols, while we may assume the other kid to be agnostic as there are no indicators to the contrary.
Thanks for that patient explanation, Unionist. That's a fair point. I didn't get any private message, though. Or was that a joke?
I'll leave it to kropotkin to remove the cartoon if he wishes.