Discussing Antisemitism on Babble

92 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2010-06-12 15:09

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Cytizen H wrote:

Next...
Frustrated Mess wrote:

You say you can't blame the Jewishness of Israelis for their behavior because to do so would be anti-semitic, but Hamas is anti-semetic to want to resist their occupers and their oppressors because now the Jewishness of the Israelis is a factor.

I don't think there is anything antisemitic in Hamas wanting to resist their oppressors. I think they are absolutely, 100% justified in resisting their oppressors. I think there is something antisemitic in them wanting to kill jews.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

So in fact, by your own definition, Zionism exploits and perpetuates anti-semitism and to tremendous effect.

I absolutely agree that right wing Zionism exploits and perpetuates anti-semitism to tremendous effect. And I fight it when I see it. And I haven't seen that film, but I will certainly check it out. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Come back and talk to me when you have watched the video.

Sat, 2010-06-12 17:01

#53

Cueball

Stargazer wrote:

Just because there are some FNs in the USMC certainly does NOT make it a good thing. Why stand with the oppressor?

Cause its the best deal they got?

Sat, 2010-06-12 17:06

#54

Stargazer

Unionist wrote:

Remind, please read his post again. He said "kill Jews", not Israelis.

The longer this thread goes, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling proposition.

I agree. I think Cytizen H has explained himself rather beautifully in this thread.

Cue - there is that.

Sat, 2010-06-12 17:18

#55

Cytizen H

Thank you, Stargazer. That really means a lot.

I wanted to share this with you folk as well, as a sort of aside to this thread. It is a new blog by a young activist I know. It is her reflection on being a Jew who supports Palestine. She is a fierce young warrior and I have mad respect for her.

Sat, 2010-06-12 17:49

#56

Unionist

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufG-s1yOxXQ]Here's another young Jewish activist.[/url]

Sat, 2010-06-12 18:02

#57

kropotkin1951

The Israeli Refusniks are people I have a lot of respect for. I understand perfectly the difference between saying fight against the Israeli oppressors and fight against the jews. However I do not live in the Israel or Palestine or Jordan where the Israeli leadership self identifies constantly as jewish and a jewish state. I think it is a deliberate tactic to be able to tar their opponents as anti-Semites so I think that progressive people in North America just need to leave the issue out of discussions. The Palestinians are no more murderous than the Irish and they hate the British just as much. During their struggle the Irish often used Protestant instead of British and the British Orangemen mostly used Catholic instead of Irish. I see Hamas in exactly the same light as the IRA. Talk to an IRA fighter and they would I am sure talked about killing the damn Protestants but that ended when the peace came.

Looking at the Gaza flotilla it is apparent that the IDF deliberately targeted only semite looking men and left the European people alive. Hows that for murderous anti-Semitism.

Sat, 2010-06-12 19:27

#58

Stargazer

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/06/flotilla-massacre-historical.html

Steve Lendman on the Flotilla massacre

Sun, 2010-06-13 10:07

#59

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
...perhaps I might offer an exceedingly minor piece of unsolicited and doubtless unwanted advice to many of those who regularly defend Israel's systematic State terrorism, extended entirely free of charge and only because I'm a hell of a sweet guy:

You don't need to work at making yourselves stupid. Seriously.

A friendly note to many of Israel's defenders

Sun, 2010-06-13 10:54

#60

E.Tamaran

New-style anti-Semitism

Some critics of Israel's policies reveal darker agenda

About a year before I deactivated my Facebook account, I accepted a "friend" request from a guy I've known for about 20 years.

When I clicked on his profile, I was embarrassed to see a sophomoric status message suggesting every member of the Israeli Knesset was a criminal and a murderer.

People are entitled to their opinions. But since I didn't know the guy too well, I deleted him as a friend and sent him a short message explaining why I wouldn't want to be associated with him online.

Minutes later, he sent me an email at my work address urging me to reconsider.

"I know a lot of Israeli sympathizers," he wrote, sending a horrible chill up my spine.

A lot of people don't like Israel, for valid and invalid reasons. But up until that evening, I had never seen a seemingly rational person equate Israelis with Nazis in one short anti-Semitic turn of a phrase.

I'll be the first to concede there are North American Jews who find anti-Semitism where none exists. I've often made fun of these people, joking they see Jew-haters under every bed, the same way McCarthyites imagined Communists lurked beneath the mattresses of Americans during the 1950s.

But over the past decade, as the once-promising Middle East peace process descended into another quagmire of intractability, I've noticed a disturbing trend: a subtle mainstreaming of anti-Semitic sentiment in the guise of anti-Israel sentiment.

It's more than legitimate to criticize the Israeli government, the Israeli military, Israeli policies and even Israeli society. Israelis of all political, ethnic and religious stripes do it all the time, utilizing one of the most robust free presses on the planet.

But the notion all Israelis are people to be reviled can not be defended on the basis of this criticism. Call me wacky, but I have a problem when someone issues a blanket statement suggesting my Israeli-born mother, whose parents fled the Nazis, is somehow the moral equivalent of the architects of one of the worst genocides of the20th century.

I feel the same sense of indignity about my sister and teenage nephew, who reside in a Tel Aviv suburb. Dehumanizing ordinary Israelis under the guise of criticizing state policies is intellectually dishonest -- and no better a practice than Jews who dehumanize the Palestinians in Gaza merely because they endure the indignity of living under Hamas rule.

And here lies a source of the confusion: Israelis elected the government that authorized the raid on the Turkish flotilla. Palestinians also elected Hamas, which turns a blind eye to missile launches on Israeli soil and other terrorist attacks.

So it is fair to argue both Israelis and Palestinians deserve some responsibility for the actions of their leaders. But it is not fair to dehumanize entire populations -- unless the goal of the statement is to foment hate against a particular group.

Emboldened by a growing dissatisfaction with Israel, Jew-haters are back in business in North America. And this is making some Jewish leaders trigger-happy.

I have no doubt singer-songwriter Chantal Kreviazuk, who has travelled through the Middle East and worked on behalf of war-affected children, is not a card-carrying member of the Benjamin Netanyahu fan club. But tarring her with the brush of anti-Semitism, as B'nai Brith Canada did last week, is not just ridiculous, but counterproductive.

The B'nai Brith's heavy-handed action emboldens those who believe North American Jews dismiss all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. I would argue the B'nai Brith has slimier fish to fry: the neo-racists who go far beyond the sophomoric scribbling of my short-lived Facebook "friend."

As an Israeli-Canadian Jew, I'm OK conceding Israel deserves criticism -- and just as comfortable calling out bigots who use legitimate criticism as a pretext for trotting out old anti-Semitic canards.

Chief among them is the notion the state of Israel has no right to exist.

Let's put this in plain language: Israel does exist. Millions of people --Jews, Muslims, Christians among them -- live there.

Ergo, claiming Israel should not exist, in the present tense, amounts to an endorsement of any entity that wants to wipe the country and the people who live there off the face of the Earth. And those entities are real, in the form of the Iranian and Syrian governments and their allies in Hamas and Hezbollah.

Israelis are paranoid because they ought to be. Palestinians in Gaza are angry because they ought to be. It may take another generation before mutual enmities subside and the peace process can get back on track.

In North America, where we enjoy the luxury of settling our differences with words, it is incumbent upon us to resist the temptation to demonize. And I shouldn't have had to write a column saying that.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition June 13, 2010 A4

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/new-style-anti-semitism-96239659....

Sun, 2010-06-13 11:11

#61

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Yet another army of strawmen is set up to be mown down by an israeli apologist in the MSM, and somehow this is required reading here at babble?

Granted, the pseudo-sympathetic approach is somewhat unique, but really - do you think said-article stands on its own? Don't you think the equivalencies are far too convenient?

Don't you have anything to say about it?

Sun, 2010-06-13 11:18

#62

E.Tamaran

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Don't you have anything to say about it?

He sounds reasonable. Like when he says this: "I have no doubt singer-songwriter Chantal Kreviazuk, who has travelled through the Middle East and worked on behalf of war-affected children, is not a card-carrying member of the Benjamin Netanyahu fan club. But tarring her with the brush of anti-Semitism, as B'nai Brith Canada did last week, is not just ridiculous, but counterproductive."

I think that's a very good statement actually. Don't you agree?

Sun, 2010-06-13 11:20

#63

Unionist

As I said:

Quote:
The longer this thread goes, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling proposition.

As a progressive person and as a Jew, I have no interest in reading:

1. Pro-Israel frenzied lying propaganda of the sort that was re-printed without comment just above;

2. Libellous and nonsensical accusations of "anti-semitism" on babble.

Ergo, could we please close this thread?

Sun, 2010-06-13 11:26

#64

E.Tamaran

Unionist wrote:

As I said:

Quote:
The longer this thread goes, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling proposition.

As a progressive person and as a Jew, I have no interest in reading:

1. Pro-Israel frenzied lying propaganda of the sort that was re-printed without comment just above;

OR

2. Libellous and nonsensical accusations of "anti-semitism" on babble.

Ergo, could we please close this thread?

"re-printed without comment just above" ?????

Sun, 2010-06-13 11:34

#65

Cytizen H

I agree that perhaps this thread has run its course. I don't think it has been without value. Between the accusations and baiting there has been productive discussion. I've learned a bunch. And, I hope, I've clarified my point of view on all this. I see fully how counterproductive and irrational it is to point to victims and call out their "discrimination" against their oppressors. But here in the West I do still think there has to be a reasonable way to call each other on language that is counterproductive. Clearly the way I did it was not that way. But I think we should be able to say "hey, friend, i think you might be crossing a line there, let's stay on point here". It's one thing to nitpick about language when the IDF is at your door. Obviously that would be ridiculous. But here, on a discussion board, where language is all we have, I think it is worth showing signs of awareness about the language we use and the way we express ourselves. Above Kropotkin wrote: I think it is a deliberate tactic to be able to tar their opponents as anti-Semites so I think that progressive people in North America just need to leave the issue out of discussions. I totally agree with this. My bringing up Hamas was, perhaps, erroneous. As I said, bringing up the language of people who are being systematically and perpetually victimized is beside the point. But that doesn't necessarily give us a pass either.

Sun, 2010-06-13 12:36

#66

Cytizen H

Oh, but I missed this before!!!

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Come back and talk to me when you have watched the video.

Hahahaha. Awesome. Okay. Deal. But you're not allowed to talk to me till you watch "In Bruges". Seriously. That movie is wicked.

Sun, 2010-06-13 14:00

#67

Cytizen H

No Yards wrote:

When you claim Hamas wants to kill Jews ... are we to believe that Hamas wants to kill Jews on Toronto?

Hi, No Yards. Welcome to the discussion. I think you could probably read up through some of my other responses above and figure out what my response to you might be.

But I'll add that I didn't qualify the word "Jews" in my refering to the Hamas charter because it is not qualified in that document.

Sun, 2010-06-13 14:27

#68

No Yards

Cytizen H wrote:

I don't think there is anything antisemitic in Hamas wanting to resist their oppressors. I think they are absolutely, 100% justified in resisting their oppressors. I think there is something antisemitic in them wanting to kill jews.

OK, let's apply a little bit of a non double standard to this statement shall we?

Why are you not held to the same standard you would apply to others when using the term "Jews".

When you claim Hamas wants to kill Jews ... are we to believe that Hamas wants to kill Jews in Toronto?

See how easy it is to misuse the word, even when you are trying to argue that its use should be more closely considered before using it?

Sun, 2010-06-13 14:52

#69

No Yards

I understand what you meant ... as you should understand what others on this board probably meant when they used the word "Jew".

Here we are discussing the proper definition of the word "Jew", yet even if we are successful at doing so it will still only apply to the people reading this thread ... others who have not read this thread may not use it in accordance with "our standards" ... not to mention that when Hamas uses it, or even a member of the Israeli Parliament uses it, that they are not held to our own "official" definition.

When Hamas uses the term "Jew" there is never a lot of through given to how maybe their use of the word might not explicitly mean "all Jews, everywhere".

I just don't like creating our own "definitions" to things like this because I know that in the end it will end up being applied to others who have no requirement to live by babble definitions of the usage of specific terms.

We get tricked into building a specific definition, and then the "apologists" get one more "tool" to demonize Palestinians when they don't use our "definitions".

Sun, 2010-06-13 15:35

#70

Cytizen H

No Yards,

I'm not toally sure I understand your point, but from what I can gather it would appear that I don't disagree with you on any of this. But this issue of defining the word "jew" is a bit of a straw man. This thread was started as a response to a very specific article that was posted on another thread and the poster of that article's response to my complaint about it. None of that had to do with defining the word "jew" or "jewish" or "jewishness" or "jewiocity" or "jewtastic". I think this came up to some degree in the discussions about Hamas, which was a bit of a digression from the original conversation. And in regards to THAT whole thing, I have done a bit more research, and talked to some of the people in my life who know much more about these things than I, and it is clear to me now that I need to learn more about Hamas before I start making comments about them. In that regard, I would welcome some suggestions on books or articles about Hamas so that I might better inform myself

Sun, 2010-06-13 15:37

#71

Cytizen H

Double post...

Sun, 2010-06-13 20:10

#72

No Yards

C.H. my point is that we need to be careful when we start building guidelines on how we talk about the Israeli/Palestinian issue ... also, the title of this thread is "Discussing Antisemitism on babble" ... "discussing" involves language, so I don't think limiting the discussion to one particular posting is very useful.

Some people use "Jew" to mean a religion; Some use it as a "racial" designation; Some other as a designation of a "nation" (similar in intent as "First Nations" ... not so much a "physical" nation but as a designation of a group of people with something in common); Some people use it to mean a cluture; Some people use it to mean Israel; And I'm sure I haven't included all the possible definitions.

The problem arises when we make thoughtless judgements on people who use the term based on our own definition.

Israel can call itself "Jews" without care as to which specific definition they are talking about, Palestinians rightfully then claim that their enemies are the "Jews" ... suddenly we get the "language police" creating a new definition of "Jew" so that the Israel's usage is unexamined but the Palestinians usage is subject to having the worst definition possible applied.

When we here on this board try and come up with specific definitions for our own use, which is not bad in and of itself, what usually happens is that our definitions gets twisted and some people come by and attempt to use our own definitions against rabble/babble causes.

For instance, Hamas may make mention of "Jews" in some of their statements ... when they use that word no one bothers to open up the "Hamas dictionary" to determine if they are referring to "everyone in the Jewish the religion", or just the Israeli military and leadership (or something in between.)

What then happens is that some apologist comes along and points out that the proper meaning of "Jew" refers to all people of the Jewish culture or some such babble definition ... which if Hamas were a member of babble might be applicable, but really doesn't apply very well in the real world.

Think of it this way .. suppose some "hamburger apologists" posts an article from Australia making a valid Australian economic argument that burgers should sell for $10 each, and then argues that Canadians should have no problem if McDonald raises its price to $10 ... obviously since the Australia dollar is worth 20% less than the Canadian dollar, that argument makes no sense ... but because we fail to examine the application of "$10", the argument is given credibility ... same goes for the argument about Antisemitism: we make some rules for this board, but then Israeli apologists come along and try to uncritically apply forum rules to the real world ... it doesn't make sense, but for some reason we seem to allow this kind of trickery to slip by us on a regular basis.

Mon, 2010-06-14 01:30

#73

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

As I said:

Quote:
The longer this thread goes, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling proposition.

As a progressive person and as a Jew, I have no interest in reading:

1. Pro-Israel frenzied lying propaganda of the sort that was re-printed without comment just above;

OR

2. Libellous and nonsensical accusations of "anti-semitism" on babble.

Ergo, could we please close this thread?

If you are talking about the Free Press article I don't think your description is fair or accurate.

It was one person's perspective and I don't agree with everything he said, but I think he raised some interesting and relevant points, many of which I do agree with - specifically about blaming people for the actions of others, or of their government.

Also, this thread is a worthwhile discussion, IMO. Wondering if racist language on the part of Israelis makes it permissible for us to do the same, or if a call for self defense can be equated with a call to kill jews are questions that I think are well-worth hashing out peacefully (better than the alternative, no?). Likewise the semantics of race, cultural and national labels (like "jew") and how they relate to the real issue - hating people because of who they are or who we think they are.

I'm not afraid to deal with a bit of nonsense, and I'm not afraid of dealing with those honest questions either. So no, I don't agree with shutting down a discussion so long as it is of interest to someone, and hasn't broken down into chaos or a shouting match.

Me... not even a little bit Jew. And progressive ...well that's a fairly relative term. You'd have to ask my friends.

I do know that even though I couldn't give you an educated opinion if you tried to grill me on the relevance of the St Andrews Agreement to Northern Irish politics, I'd probably recognize someone making derogatory comments about Irish people.

And really we are supposed to take a charge of discrimination seriously because the aggrieved person is going to see it a lot more clearly than we are. If you think it's baseless, or an attempt at apologism, say so. But I can't imagine there would be a call to shut down an honest talk about discrimination against any other group (except maybe Christians. And no.... I am not one of them either).

Mon, 2010-06-14 01:42

#74

Erik Redburn

Disingenous as the article. Please show us where "racist" comments about Israeli Jews were made here.

Mon, 2010-06-14 01:55

#75

6079_Smith_W

Also... with respect to the charge of apologism, I think Cytizen H said pretty clearly that he started this thread for a specific discussion about antisemitism, and because he wanted the original thread to stay on topic and not be distracted by this issue. Hardly the actions of an obstructionist.

Although discussion of antisemitism might certainly touch on Israeli-Palestinian politics, I think discussion of the broader political issue has followed him here for some reason. If people aren't interested in a topic the easy solution is to ignore it and it will go away.

Mon, 2010-06-14 02:22

#76

6079_Smith_W

@ Erik Redburn

Are you talking to me? If so the point was raised by several posters that the Israeli state started the racist use of the term "jew" in connection with itself and its policies, with the inferred question of whether this might not make it alright for us to do the same.

As I already said, I don't think others' racism absolves our actions at all.

Plus, I don't think the question was restricted to comments about Israeli Jews.

And I'm not sure what you are refering to as disingenuous.

Mon, 2010-06-14 04:14

#77

Cueball

E.Tamaran wrote:

New-style anti-Semitism

Some critics of Israel's policies reveal darker agenda

About a year before I deactivated my Facebook account, I accepted a "friend" request from a guy I've known for about 20 years.

When I clicked on his profile, I was embarrassed to see a sophomoric status message suggesting every member of the Israeli Knesset was a criminal and a murderer.

I see. Someone is having a dispute with someone else in their facebook account. As we see there is not a single footnote to any verifiable facts to be assessed and evaluated on their own merit in terms of how they underlay the argument put forth. Assertions layered upon presunptions, starting with paraphrased non-quotes, such as: "I was embarrassed to see a sophomoric status message suggesting every member of the Israeli Knesset was a criminal and a murderer."

The ensuing polemic based on summaries of purported statements of unknown and unidentfied persons on internet chat forums is worth about as much as the napkins they were doubtlessly scribled on prior to publication. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions, and to have juvenile spats on the internet, but should they be published and disseminated at large by major media outlets?

Next... some serious commentary?

Mon, 2010-06-14 07:15

#78

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Erik Redburn

Are you talking to me? If so the point was raised by several posters that the Israeli state started the racist use of the term "jew" in connection with itself and its policies, with the inferred question of whether this might not make it alright for us to do the same.

As I already said, I don't think others' racism absolves our actions at all.

Plus, I don't think the question was restricted to comments about Israeli Jews.

And I'm not sure what you are refering to as disingenuous.

Yeah, Erik, I agree. This one learned skating from the best. Can't even read the thread title.

Mon, 2010-06-14 07:20

#79

Unionist

Cueball wrote:

Next... some serious commentary?

You're right, Cueball - and there will be no serious commentary in this thread, because "antisemitism on babble" exists only in the imagination. Occasionally some babbler posts a link, inadvertently, to a site which contains some antisemitic article on it. That's it. Whenever some new troll introduces themselves and starts up about Jewish control of the media or the like, they are banned. Pretty antisemitic discussion board, eh?

As for Hamas killing Jews, I'll worry about that when they start launching campaigns against non-Israeli Jews. Until then, we see the obscene phenomenon of Palestinians being blamed for their words, while their families are killed by Israeli deeds.

Mon, 2010-06-14 09:12

#80

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Hard to believe this is actually necessary, but for E.Tamaran's sake....

They are strawman arguments, every one, starting with the unknown and unprovided facebook message:

Quote:
I was embarrassed to see a sophomoric status message suggesting every member of the Israeli Knesset was a criminal and a murderer.

He goes on...

Quote:
A lot of people don't like Israel, for valid and invalid reasons. But up until that evening, I had never seen a seemingly rational person equate Israelis with Nazis in one short anti-Semitic turn of a phrase.

Which reasons are valid, and which invalid? And where did this equating of Israelis and Nazis take place? Seemingly not in the described Facebook post.

Quote:
But over the past decade, as the once-promising Middle East peace process descended into another quagmire of intractability, I've noticed a disturbing trend: a subtle mainstreaming of anti-Semitic sentiment in the guise of anti-Israel sentiment.

If this is a 'trend', at least a couple of examples are warranted.

Quote:
...the notion all Israelis are people to be reviled can not be defended on the basis of this criticism. Call me wacky, but I have a problem when someone issues a blanket statement suggesting my Israeli-born mother, whose parents fled the Nazis, is somehow the moral equivalent of the architects of one of the worst genocides of the20th century.

Who has suggested anything of the sort?

Quote:
Dehumanizing ordinary Israelis under the guise of criticizing state policies is intellectually dishonest -- and no better a practice than Jews who dehumanize the Palestinians in Gaza merely because they endure the indignity of living under Hamas rule.

I'm sure we can all agree. Good thing that he can't show us that anyone has actually been "intellectually dishonest" in this manner.

And on to his own "equivalencies"...

Quote:
And here lies a source of the confusion: Israelis elected the government that authorized the raid on the Turkish flotilla. Palestinians also elected Hamas, which turns a blind eye to missile launches on Israeli soil and other terrorist attacks.

So it is fair to argue both Israelis and Palestinians deserve some responsibility for the actions of their leaders. But it is not fair to dehumanize entire populations -- unless the goal of the statement is to foment hate against a particular group.

So compare the Israeli government, in control of overwhelming military might, and willing to use it to retaliate against the slightest of insults, historically taking their retribution on innocent Palestinian women and children, and now on any international activists who might try to aid them. Compare them to the Palestinian Hamas, bereft of resources and unable to control the angry activists amongst them. Just the same, aren't they?

...perhaps so long as you never compare the body counts. One should never speak of the 70-odd mostly civilian Palestinians that die for each one (as often as not military) Israeli death.

Quote:
Emboldened by a growing dissatisfaction with Israel, Jew-haters are back in business in North America.

Really? Show us.

Quote:
As an Israeli-Canadian Jew, I'm OK conceding Israel deserves criticism -- and just as comfortable calling out bigots who use legitimate criticism as a pretext for trotting out old anti-Semitic canards.

Too bad you can't find any to call out for us.

Quote:
Chief among them is the notion the state of Israel has no right to exist.

Back to gnaw on this stale old bagel? No one has said this in decades.

To wrap up: There was nothing of value in this editorial outside of the admission that B'nai Brith are a bunch of McCarthyist wankers.

Mon, 2010-06-14 12:25

#81

Cytizen H

I honestly don't remember exactly what my meaning of the title of this thread was supposed to be. I suppose I see how it could come across as a broad accusation of rampant antisemitism on babble, but I would think it'd be clear from the content here that this was never inteded to be that. Perhaps then we can agree to look at is 'babble as a forum for discussing anti-semitism', as opposed to 'discussing the anti-semitism on babble'

and then...

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Hard to believe this is actually necessary, but for E.Tamaran's sake....

They are strawman arguments, every one, starting with the unknown and unprovided facebook message:

LTJ> Certainly not going to argue that this article is problematic. But are we not, perhaps, applying a double standard??

Here is a quote from the article you posted above without any qualification or commentary:

Quote:

In their efforts to prove beyond all dispute that Thomas is a vicious anti-Semite who loathes every Jew who has ever lived and longs for the day when every single one of them is dead, these defenders of notably horrifying and murderous State terrorism gleefully spit out: "It's just like saying, 'Hey, all you Black Americans! Go back to Africa!' And we all know what it would mean if someone said that!"

Oh, but where is the evidence? Provide us with examples! Who said this? When? The rest of the article goes on to demolish this "straw man".

Mon, 2010-06-14 12:27

#82

No Yards

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Also... with respect to the charge of apologism, I think Cytizen H said pretty clearly that he started this thread for a specific discussion about antisemitism, and because he wanted the original thread to stay on topic and not be distracted by this issue. Hardly the actions of an obstructionist.

The "charge of apologism" was not directed at C.H. per say, unless that is what he is, then by all means it would apply ... the "charge of apologism" was directed at the general population of Israeli apologists that pop up to defend Israel in any and all cases of Israeli criminal activity.

Your charge is a great example of how apologists twist words.

As for C.H.'s desire to keep the thread on the topic of "Antisemitism", that too IMO is a trick (intentional or not on the part of C.H.) to keep the subject to "Left wingers who criticize Israel are all Antisemites, let's discuss how we can come up with new rules so that left wingers can no longer use language Antisemetic language (ie: by apologist definition language critical of Israel.")

I reject the premise ... the language that C.H. or you consider Antisemitic is NOT ... I REPEAT NOT .... Antisemitic. It is critical of Israel for policies and actions that should be criticized.

Quote:

Although discussion of antisemitism might certainly touch on Israeli-Palestinian politics, I think discussion of the broader political issue has followed him here for some reason. If people aren't interested in a topic the easy solution is to ignore it and it will go away.

Might touch on Israel-Palestinian politics???? For fuck sake, please to tell what other issue might we be talking about here on rabble/babble? I am not aware of a single post where any left wing babbler has called for firebombing the nearest Synagogue because "Jews control all the banks and Hollywood".

If I were a mod I'd take your statement as the equivalent of putting rabble/babble in the same catagory as a stormfront website, and kick your ass as far as I possibly could.

Mon, 2010-06-14 12:29

#83

Cueball

In anycase, if anyone is interested the quote borrowed from the Qu'ran that found its way into the Hamas charter, is later followed in the same book with lots of quotes about not killing Jews, and co-existing with them after the war with the Jewish tribes are over. A fact that I am sure the people who penned the Hamas charter were aware of when they wrote it. There is plenty of theological evidence that would contextualize the "killing Jews" idea to the war itself, not a general principle.

That quote about "killing Jews" has been lying around in the Qu'ran since it was written, and if any testament could be considered at the heart of Hamas thinking it is not the Charter, but indeed the Qu'ran itself. Notwithstanding the quotes existance, the Muslim societies were renowned for their tollerance to Jews, at least in comparison to Christians, and maybe that had something to do with what is in the rest of the book. Indeed, the expelled Jews of Europe were welcomed with open arms on many occassions.

Nuances of the religion eh?

Many Hamas spokespeople have spoken at length about co-existing with Jews, once the struggle for Palestine has succeeded. These persons making such moderating statements are as far as I know, usually set up for targeted assassination, and done away with as soon as possible.

Maybe sometime in the future I will unearth these statements again, but it is difficult, burried as surely as are their authors, not with missiles but under the shear weight of western ignorance, and a well oiled Israeli propaganda machine, that finds only the worst, and never the best when vilifying those who stand against them.

Frankly, I don't know why I am always belaboured with having to do other people's research for them.

Mon, 2010-06-14 12:42

#84

6079_Smith_W

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Back to gnaw on this stale old bagel? No one has said this in decades.

Using a cultural reference to belittle someone is usually considered discriminatory. If I were to tell a woman to put down her rolling pin, a Native person to relax and smoke a peace pipe, or make racial references to watermelon, tacos, chop suey or sauerkraut, I would expect someone might call me on it.

And not to get off-topic, but it has not been decades since that sentiment has been expressed. There are people who believe it right now.

Unionist wrote:

As for Hamas killing Jews, I'll worry about that when they start launching campaigns against non-Israeli Jews.

I disagree with you here, because I don't think it is okay to kill - period. Although it is reasonable to expect that people will defend themselves if attacked, murder should never be considered right and it is not what will ultimately end the conflict over there.

But on topic, I am troubled by the notion that we shouldn't worry about some people being killed because of their race or nationality. For that matter do the Jews have to be of voting age before it is okay to kill them? Does it matter which party they voted for or if they agree with their government's actions? Of course it is a moot point because they don't make bombs that read peoples' passports before they explode.

Regarding the article, most newspaper stories don't run with footnotes and attached affadavits (mine don't anyway), but the experience he related sounds true to me because I have had people come back at me simply because I do not support everything they do. I think he was reaching with the Nazi reference, but that aside his core thesis - using a political grievance as an excuse for discrimination is not right - is sound. Racism on the part of our opponents doesn't justify it; the fact that one party is stronger, or the aggressor doesn't justify it.

And yes, I can read. I'm talking about antisemitism.

Mon, 2010-06-14 12:44

#85

No Yards

Cytizen H wrote:

I honestly don't remember exactly what my meaning of the title of this thread was supposed to be. I suppose I see how it could come across as a broad accusation of rampant antisemitism on babble, but I would think it'd be clear from the content here that this was never inteded to be that. Perhaps then we can agree to look at is 'babble as a forum for discussing anti-semitism', as opposed to 'discussing the anti-semitism on babble'

A distinction without a difference.

It still amounts to a trick to try and get babble to come up with a set of rules and laws for deciding what can and cannot be said about Israel ...which then leads to apologists coming along and attempting to turn babble rules against non babble players.

Suppose you win and somehow babble decides that the only acceptable way to criticize Israel is to use the word "Israel", and the word "Jew" should never be used ... now whenever some other group uses the word "Jew" and the comment is quoted on babble, the apologists automatically get the advantage and a chance to take the first shot claiming that we've already decided here that "Jew" was unacceptable in criticizing Israel ... we now have to fight a battle to protect against applying babble standards to Palestinian commentators and those babblers that quote them.

I think rabble/babble can make a much better decision on what is Antisemitism and what is not Antisemitism by looking at the context of what is being posted and/or quoted, and who is doing the posting and/or quoting.

As I said, I reject the premise that babble needs any discussion of Antisemitism beyond discussing actual incidents of real Antisemitism ... which rabble/babble is more than able to recognize without the "help" of people who might be invested in restricting any critical talk of Israel.

I'm not going to make a judgement as to whether you are taking this route on purpose or not, I'm just saying that the route you are attempting to take has been tried (with varying degrees of success) before and I am not going to just sit by while Israeli apologists (purposeful or not) try to trick us into creating self defeating rules.

Mon, 2010-06-14 12:50

#86

Catchfire

No Yards wrote:
If I were a mod I'd take your statement as the equivalent of putting rabble/babble in the same catagory as a stormfront website, and kick your ass as far as I possibly could.

Could we tone down the rhetoric in this thread please and trust that at least most of the posters in this thread are arguing in good faith? While some babblers might have hardened a line on this issue not all people operate with that kind of mindset, nor have they nailed down a position on the matter. Indeed, a discussion forum is meant for precisely that purpose. So instead of threatening to kick their ass or commenting on their skating ability, respond respectfully or, you know, not at all.

And if you see something worth censuring, then notify a mod. So far, this thread falls within acceptable discourse and clearly several babblers are finding it fruitful.

Mon, 2010-06-14 12:54

#87

Cytizen H

No Yards>

That you believe strongly in the case you're arguing for I do not doubt. But you are barking up the wrong tree and I find your tone offensive. If antisemitism is the one form of discrimination that is not allowed to be discussed here then I vehemently disagree with that decision for reasons that I think should be quite obvious. You talk of tricks and and, what, 'accidental Israeli apologism'? I can't even imagine what that is. There has been zero attempt to "restrict any critical talk of Israel". I repeat ZERO ATTEMPT. Show me where that happened. Show me where any of what you're talking about has happened. I've pointed several times to the "actual incident" of antisemitism that spawned this thread. Up till now the only attempt to counter my charge of antisemitism was the statement that antisemitism doesn't exist.

Mon, 2010-06-14 13:14

#88

6079_Smith_W

@ No Yards

Look. I'm not sure why you think I am an apologist because I have said almost nothing about Israel itself, and I have never said that it should not be criticized for its crimes. For the record, I don't support their oppressive actions, and as I said I am neither Jewish, nor do I belong to a religious or political group that blindly supports the State of Israel.

I did not say there should be no mention whatsoever of the political situation in this thread, but it would be very easy for this specific topic to be overshadowed by discussions that are taking place elsewhere. Indeed, CH started this thread so as to not cloud those discussions. I don't see a problem with a bit of reciprocal discretion to keep on topic.

As well, I am not trying to "win", play tricks or get this site to do anything at all. I am just talking about what I see as discriminatory language and ideas.

Mon, 2010-06-14 13:50

#89

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But on topic, I am troubled by the notion that we shouldn't worry about some people being killed because of their race or nationality.

You are "troubled by the notion", are you now? Who exactly is being killed because of their race or nationality? Got any examples?

Quote:
For that matter do the Jews have to be of voting age before it is okay to kill them?

Whom is this question addressed to? Who said "it is okay to kill" Jews? Someone on this discussion board? Someone in the news media? Are you addressing this question to [b][i]Hamas[/i][/b]? Think they have some representatives signed up as babblers?

Mon, 2010-06-14 14:35

#90

Cueball

If anyone is being killed because of their race and nationality it seems to be mostly Arabs and Muslims.

IDF Operation Cast Lead commemorative T's

IDF "Operation Cast Lead" commemorative T's

Mon, 2010-06-14 14:38

#91

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I think both No Yards' and Unionist's observations on 6079_Smith_W are spot-on. And I would suggest that since he sits here with two strikes against him, he should be given a warning about the consequences of a third.

BTW 6079, the whole "I have no interest here except fairness" schtick is wearing very thin at this point. People without a stake don't show up out of the blue and repeatedly post long diatribes on a single subject.

Mon, 2010-06-14 14:39

#92

Catchfire

Well that didn't get any better. Close enough. I'm closing for length.

Quote:
You are "troubled by the notion", are you now? Who exactly is being killed because of their race or nationality? Got any examples?

Unionist, you are being very aggressive. I've asked you to dial it back. You have no reason to speak to 6079 Smith like this. It needlessly escalates the antagonism on this thread.

Pages

Topic locked