babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » How badly Israel is behaving--how to tell

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How badly Israel is behaving--how to tell
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 28 November 2002 02:56 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just for Mishei:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=2663

quote:
As Alexander Cockburn has noted, "there's a quick way of figuring just how badly Israel is behaving. There's a brisk uptick in the number of articles here by Jews accusing the left of antisemitism."


There's even more good stuff in there. Mishei should be intelligent enough to understand what I am insinuating, because I've done more than insinuate it.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 November 2002 03:31 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gee just for me, Im impressed. Unfortunately your link doesnt work
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 28 November 2002 03:36 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei, I copied the URL line and plopped it into the address bar of my browser and it worked. Strange, that.
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 28 November 2002 03:37 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You have to remove the < P > at the end of the line for it to work.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 28 November 2002 03:41 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I...don't see anything at the end but '2663'

Maybe my coffee's too strong.

Just copy the line and plop 'er into the address bar as is. Works for this one.

edited to add:

Aha. I found the

.

Shows only at the bottom. Gotcha.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 28 November 2002 03:54 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Try this.

Edit: Tested. Works for me.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 28 November 2002 04:12 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Back in 1979, when world pressure on Israel to settle and end its "redemption of the land" by ethnic cleansing was severe, the Israel-based Jonathan Institute organized a meeting in Israel that brought together members of the Western elite -- George Bush, George Will, Senators Henry Jackson and John Danforth, Paul Johnson, Lord Chalfont, Jacques Soustelle, and many others -- to declare the PLO a terrorist organization linked to Moscow, and to declare Israel the victim. The organization met again in Washington in 1984 for another rousing session to make the same points, here with Secretary of State George Shultz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Senator Moynihan, Daniel Schorr and Ted Koppel, among others present. This and many other Israeli-official U.S.-media efforts helped pin the terrorism label on the PLO

Let's give credit where it's due here. The PLO's campaign of hijackings, bombings, and murder did a whole lot more to get them branded as terrorists than some consipracy of US elites.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 28 November 2002 04:14 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei: Fixed. I posted in lynx (my usual browser) which doesn't present double-returns the way UBB (babble's underlying system) likes. So I use HTML paragraph marks to achieve the same thing. I had no idea it had that effect on URLs, up to the point of screwing up UBB's parsing. Such quality.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 November 2002 04:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right this rant from the good professor has been heard before and this magazine is no friend of Israel. However, when he starts his diatribe with:

quote:
Palestinians are "Semites," but the word antisemitism is never applied to prejudice against them, only to Jews. The restriction on the application to Jews, and failure to use it in reference to Palestinians, continues in the face of the fact that prejudice against Jews has sharply diminished in the West from the era of Hitler, and that the Arabs have displaced them as target of anti-"Semite" hostility. Thus the usage itself reflects power and deep-seated bias.

I have to wonder about his scholarship. Anyone purporting to be an academic who does not know and fully comprehend the origions of the word "anti_semitism" leaves many wondering what kind of an academic he really is.

For the record, anti-Semitism was a word coined by 19th century German Jew hater Wilhelm Marr to describe what he believed was a needed phrase to pertain to the hatred of Jews as exemplified by his country men and women.

This "scholar" premises his remarks on a false piece of research why should I believe anything else he claims as research?

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 28 November 2002 04:32 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah, I so expected you to pick on that one. I hardly care about the intentions of those who coined it. If it continues to be used without acknowledgement of its prior roots (the word Semite itself) it's guilty of all that Herman declares it to be guilty of. When and where it was coined is irrelevant--Herman is reclaiming it from being a term now used to conceal abuse of power, as the rest of his article describes. It's very expected of you to pick on the most trivial part (no, the rest of the article is not, anyway, dependent on it) in order to discredit the rest.


And no, I don't expect you to believe anything he says. But he has your number, Mishei, your figurative number.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 November 2002 05:06 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei, you have to wonder about his scholarship, because he prefers the proper meaning of "Semite" to the false one somebody gave it more than 100 years ago?

Semites

quote:
Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians. In a Biblical sense, Semites are peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to Shem, Noah's eldest son.
...
Present day speakers of Semitic languages are as diverse in physical, psychological, cultural, and sociological characteristics as are speakers of Indo European languages. The most prominent Semites today are Arabs and Jews.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 28 November 2002 05:26 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to put my librarian hat on here for a moment.

Words have histories, or pedigrees if you wish.

Any number of encyclopedias in language, history, anthropology and political science in any good library are quite precise on the origins and meaning of the word "anti-semitism".

It was created in 1866 and refers to bigotry or racism towards Jewish people.

Thhere is another thread today on "bigotry" where people have debated Israel, the Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism.

One of my comments there had to do with occasionally sloppy use of language. Using a well-known expression with a long and very precise history such as anti-Semitism to refer to a concept it has never been meant to designate is sloppy. It is also delibrately confusing.

Racism towards Arab is anti-Arab racism, another very precise and well-defined term.

If people wish, I can refer them to documentation from LICRA (the International League against Racim and anti-Semitism) as well as other major sources for explanations of the different terms.

I question people like Herman who argue that the term anti-Semitism applies to the Palestinians because they are Semitic. He is being guilty of using linguistic obfuscation.

I read his text as an attempt to deny or belittle Jewish victimhood.

The fact that pro-Israeli circles have misused accusations of anti-Semitism against various critics of Israeli policy should not detract from the fact that anti-Semitism has existed and continues to exist in various parts the world and that the only recognized use for the word anti-Semitism is the one referring to Jews.

Mandos is wrong from the purely factual point of view.

I find Herman's use of the term to be erroneous.


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 November 2002 05:49 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think this is quibbling over virtually nothing. He correctly used the word "Semites", and the word "antisemitism" (rightly or wrongly) as meaning prejudice against Jews.

quote:
Palestinians are "Semites," but the word antisemitism is never applied to prejudice against them, only to Jews.

I believe that is an accurate statement.

When he contrasts prejudice against Arabs, he uses anti-"Semite" -- with the quotes, and with (I think) the understanding that he is not using the term in its usual way.

You may love or despise his viewpoint, but this is a mere quibble.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 November 2002 05:58 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

You may love or despise his viewpoint, but this is a mere quibble.

Poor and misleading scholarship is not a mere "quibble".

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 November 2002 06:05 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
See my last 2 posts. The term Semites is correctly applied to a diverse group of people, including Jews and Arabs.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 28 November 2002 06:18 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I understand what you are saying albireo.

The main point of Herman's article is quite obviously to criticize the misuse of the accusation of anti-Semitism (meaning anti-Jewish prejudice).

I still think it is important to use words properly.

Words like "democratic" or "socialist" are perhaps different because they are vague and subjct to dispute. For example, we can argue about whether "Ed Broadbent is a socialist", or "Jacques Parizeau is progressive" or "Buzz Hargrove's leadership of the CAW is democratic" because these are ideological concepts with no accepted definition.

Anti-semitism, on the other hand, is a precise concept. There is even a very precise, verifiable history as to why it only ever applied to Jews. So in this case, I think it is important to use precision and to avoid semantic confusion.

By the way, the history why anti-Semitism only applies to Jews:

German anti-Jewish writers around the time of German Reunification under Bismarck wanted something that sounded nicer in German than the proper term "Judenhass" (Jew hatred) and coined "Antisemitismus". They believed there was such a thing as a "Semitic race".

Semites, at the time, were defined as natives of a group of Middle Eastern nations related in ethnicity, culture and language. Under this theory Semites would include: Jews, various Arab groups, and ancient nationalities such as the Assyrians, Canaanites, Carthaginians, Aramaeans and Akkadians.

However, the only Semitic people found in Germany at the time the word was coined were Jews, and because of that, anti-Semitism was considered an indirect and subtle and convenient way to target Jews without mentioning either hatred or Jews.

Historically, it was but as a code word to mean hatred of Jews and everyone understood it as such, and has understood it as such ever since.

Recently, as at the UN Durban conference on racism, there have been attempts to redefine anti-Semitism to encompass bigotry towards Arab people as well but this usage is not widely accepted and is seen as being highly ideological. Hatred of Arabs is more accurately called anti-Arab racism.

Also, the usage of anti-Semitism to refer also to Arabs leads to confusion and misuse as anti-Jewish circles like Hamas can say they are not anti-Semites (meaning anti-Jew) because they are Semites (meaning Arab). This is a deliberate attempt to confuse two separate meanings or submeanings of the expression Semite.

As we all know, Arabs can be anti-Jewish (the same way Jews can be anti-Arab).

We should not allow racists to weasel out of facing up to their bigotry through slippery linguistic tricks. An Arab who hates Jews should not be allowed to argue he's not an anti-Semite because he's a Semite. Today, this broadening of the concept of anti-semitism seems to be most often used by people making that kind of argument


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 28 November 2002 06:31 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It seems like the Jew-hater who coined the term is the guy who didn't do his research.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 28 November 2002 06:48 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or maybe they did their research only too well. The new term was understood by all to mean hatred of Jewish people but the inventors could say they were not at all targeting Jews.

The point is that the expression has a long established history of usage and refers to Jewish people.

The term "Semites" might refer in anthropology or cultural studies to various peoples including Jews, Arabs and others. But the terms "anti-Semite/itic/itism" have a much narrower accepted scope of usage.

I am aware at the moment of no reputable encyclopaedias or dictionaries from credible academic or general publishers that accept the broader meaning Herman was using.


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 28 November 2002 07:09 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The point is he coined a phrase with the intention of having it mean one thing - now generally accepted to mean that thing - hatred of Jews. But as a quick scan of this thread and many others will show it does not in fact mean that, no matter what accepted usage is. Period.

It seems to me people who use the term to vilify Jew-haters have some kind of emotional attachment to it. Its simply a misleading term which does not mean what people want it to mean. If you want to continue using such imprecise language don't be upset if you are misunderstood.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 28 November 2002 07:25 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We should not allow racists to weasel out of facing up to their bigotry through slippery linguistic tricks.

Indeed.

It is difficult for a Jew to deny the humanity of Arabs if they are both recognised as Semites. If the term "Semite" becomes recognised as meaning "Jew" only, Arabs are further silenced and alienated by Western discourse.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 28 November 2002 10:34 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is getting a bit absurd.

quote:
It seems to me people who use the term to vilify Jew-haters have some kind of emotional attachment to it. Its simply a misleading term which does not mean what people want it to mean. If you want to continue using such imprecise language don't be upset if you are misunderstood.

I understand what you're trying to say. But the official, sanctioned, historically recognized definition since 1866 of "anti-semitism" is the prejudice against Jews. It is not misleading or imprecise. That is THE precise definition of the word.

If you care to show me a reputable dictionary or encyclopedia or thesaurus where the accepted or acceptable definition is different, that would be a start.

But one can't say "words mean what I want them to mean". Anti-semitism has a definition, and that definition happens to refer to the Jews because that's how the concept emerged and gelled. Racism against Arabs is called something else.

Since prejudice towards Jews has taken unique forms in various historical periods, there is some logic in reserving a term specifically to describe the phenomenon.

A parallel might be to call everything "prejudice" - but that doesn't adequately describe the specific prejudice towards gays. So we have a term called homophobia. Or prejudice against women - "sexism". Males also have a sex, so why not call negative attitudes towards men "sexism" too? In theory, why not, but we can all see the weakness in that. The term, theoretically, can or should apply to both, but historically, it was coined to describe something very specific.

If you really want, call one Judeophobia and the other Arabophobia. But one can't arbitrarily change the meanings of well-established words of a language.

The emotional element seems to lie with people like Herman, who intensely dislike the current definition, a definition that has nothing to do Israel or organizations like AIPAC.


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 November 2002 10:55 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you care to show me a reputable dictionary or encyclopedia or thesaurus where the accepted or acceptable definition is different, that would be a start.


Mimi don't waste your breath, these people have no interest in dictionaries, encyclopedias or scholarship of any kind. They are looking for excuses to diminish antisemitism and enlarge anti-arab racism.

I don't know why since anti-arab racism is as much a serious phenomena as antisemitism but by trying to muddy the waters maybe they hope it will somehow put Israel in a negative light.

It has to be the only explanation since they don't care about truth, reality or scholarship.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 28 November 2002 11:00 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For the record, anti-Semitism was a word coined by 19th century German Jew hater Wilhelm Marr to describe what he believed was a needed phrase to pertain to the hatred of Jews as exemplified by his country men and women.

Clearly given Mr. Marr's politics, we should be doubtful of his scholarship, speaking of scholarship, on many issues, including lingusitic and semantic ones, no? He may have intended the term to be used exclusively against Jews, but in the world of 19th Century Germany his ignorance of the Arab world was probably nigh on complete. Given this we can hardly know whether Mr. Marr would have included Arabs among semites or not. The debate is ludicrous of course.

In a strict etymological, sense Mr. Marr is clearly wrong. But then language is malleable and common usage is the best guide, in most cases but it should also be noted that meaning and langauage is in a state of constant revision. I applaud the efforts of people to define the term in proper etymological sense. Where this article takes this redfinition strikes to the core of Israeli racism.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 28 November 2002 11:07 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Use of the term garners opposition because nobody but the fringers like to be characterised as anti-semitic.

The solution that mr. Herman seems to be trying is to attack the term, and thus drain its venom.

It's all about emotional involvement. I've invested a lot of my emotional self-energy in not being a racist, and as a result when I find myself even indirectly accused of anti-semitism, I react with the force of that investment.

I think that's not uncommon. And I think that's a lot of what's going on on the other side of the debate, as well. The more personally invested we are with our viewpoints, the less likely we'll be to encompass others' perspectives.

This seems to be my mantra. Sorry for the repetition of the idea.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 November 2002 11:22 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mimi don't waste your breath, these people have no interest in dictionaries, encyclopedias or scholarship of any kind.

I find it pretty rich that you should be accusing other people of "having no interest in dictionaries"...

quote:

I don't know why since anti-arab racism is as much a serious phenomena as antisemitism but by trying to muddy the waters maybe they hope it will somehow put Israel in a negative light.

Huh?

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this paragraph. And...trying to "diminish" anti-Semitism? As in eliminate it, or pretend it doesn't exist?

quote:

It has to be the only explanation since they don't care about truth, reality or scholarship.

From Daoine:

quote:

It's all about emotional involvement. I've invested a lot of my emotional self-energy in not being a racist, and as a result when I find myself even indirectly accused of anti-semitism, I react with the force of that investment.

This, this, Mishei, is the source of my "paranoia." It matters to me whether I'm a racist. Perhaps such implications would not trouble you, but they trouble me.

And for this you call me names. A class act, you are.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 28 November 2002 11:34 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is not misleading or imprecise

This and many other threads on babble would prove you wrong.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2002 11:49 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Semite" is an ethnolinguistic definition.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 29 November 2002 12:58 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the risk of introducing anything resembling scholarship into the discussion, I thought I'd share with everyone this passage from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, written in the 1930s by an Oxford graduate and maker of history. While reflecting on the nature of Islam and the differences between the Muslim and Christian minds, T.E. Lawrence says this:

"Islam, too, had inevitably changed from continent to continent. It had avoided metaphysics, except in the introspective mysticism of Iranian devotees: but in Africa it had taken on colours of fetishism (to express in a loose word the varied animalities of the dark continent), and in India, it had to stoop to the legality and literalism of its converts' minds. In Arabia, however, it had kept a Semitic character, or rather the Semitic character had endured through the phase of Islam (as through all the phases of the creeds with which town-dwellers continually vested the simplicity of faith), expressing the monotheism of open spaces, the pass-through-infinity of pantheism and its everyday usefulness of an all-pervading, household God."

I only cite this particular passage because I read it today. This is but one among many instances in which Lawrence depicts Semites. When he describes the many Semitic peoples of Syria, he portrays the Jews and Arabs as if they were indistinguishable in all but the least important characteristics.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2002 01:09 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, y'know, Mohammed did once refer to Jews and Christians as "people of the Book".
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 29 November 2002 01:22 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wouldn't "lousy Jew-hating bastard" say it better?

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 29 November 2002 01:52 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree, Jimmy, it would.

It's much clearer, and there'd be no weasel room to allow anyone to say "You're crossing the lousy Jew-hating bastard line" only to deny that he meant "You're a lousy Jew-hating bastard".


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 29 November 2002 02:00 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pericles
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3403

posted 29 November 2002 08:46 AM      Profile for pericles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pericles says:

>As Alexander Cockburn has noted, "there's a quick way of figuring just how badly Israel is behaving. There's a brisk As Alexander Cockburn has noted, "there's a quick way of figuring just how badly Israel is behaving. There's a brisk uptick in the number of articles here by Jews accusing the left of antisemitism."

---
This is pretty specious logic.


From: somewhere | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 November 2002 09:06 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This, this, Mishei, is the source of my "paranoia." It matters to me whether I'm a racist. Perhaps such implications would not trouble you, but they trouble me.

And for this you call me names. A class act, you are.


Smith, sadly you seem absolutely obsessed with this issue. Let me see if I can help lessen your paranoia:

Smith, nooooooobody, no one, nada, not one person here to the best of my knowledge and after serching Babble for hours, no one at all has ever called you a racist or antisemite.

There does that help? Maybe now you can stop seeing yourself as an antisemite with each article I post. Good luck.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 November 2002 09:29 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bullshit!

You post articles saying peopel on the left who oppose Israeli policies are anti-semetic and then, finally after long last, you admit you agree with such statements. Smith, being a leftist then, takes offense and rightly so. You are semaring an entire group of which she is part.

Did you take no offense when some organizations attempted to have Zionism labelled racism? No one said you were a racist. Just Zionists. Why should you be offended by that.

Here is one for you: Supporters of Israeli policy in the West Bank are racist against Arabs. Note I didn't say you are a racist. And if you are at all offended then you are just paranoid because I said nothing about you.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 29 November 2002 10:21 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't usually post on boards about the middle east. I read them, but don't comment because peoples reactions are so predictable.

But in this case, for the first 3/4 of the posts anyway, I cannot believe what I'm reading.

For anyone to argue that the term "anti-semitic" does not refer to hatred against jews is either being deliberatly provocative, or, scarier, is completely ignorant.

Linguistic theory and arguments about the etymological origins of terms are all fine and dandy. However, outside the academy most words are commonly accepted to mean what they mean.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 November 2002 10:34 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Um, well ... yes and no, Tommy Shanks.

This is an interesting discussion, the argument about etymology and history, the way that meanings shift through history.

In other contexts, some of us -- eg, feminists -- who thought for a time that our standard analytical terms were set for all time have had to start to wonder whether history might affect us too. And the time-period of that shift is much shorter than the one being discussed here.

As a student of language, I also have conservative tendencies towards change -- ie, I dig my heels in against it until the last possible moment.

But I would be a fool to imagine that certain constructs, specific to one phase of history, don't change radically over time.

Further, it is fascinating to me to read several people here who have elsewhere on babble ridiculed the bogeyman that they know as "postmodernism" making something very like postmodern arguments about unpacking and re-understanding a single epithet. Fascinating.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 29 November 2002 10:44 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With all due respect skdadl, I think your making my point for me. Sure, an acedemic analysis of words and terms and a deconstructive reading of language my give us a different perspective on communication.

Most people, I would hazard to guess the vast majority are not familiar with the constructs and analysis that are necessary to produce this reading.

Therefore for most people not involved with the study of linguistics, they would say, rightly I suggest, "anti-semite" means the hatred of Jews.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 November 2002 12:20 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr Herman's point, as I understand it, is largely ironic, if a trifle ham-handed. The semitics who are the most habitual targets of modern Western state sanctioned racism are Islamic semites. The fact that we don't have a distinct term for this particular strain of racism makes it virtually invisible fro those of us not targetted by it.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 29 November 2002 12:23 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Islamic semites

??

Do you mean "Arabs?"

skdadl; I'm furiously leafing through Zadig, trying to find a witty Voltairean riposte.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Arch Stanton ]


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 November 2002 12:29 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You post articles saying peopel on the left who oppose Israeli policies are anti-semetic and then, finally after long last, you admit you agree with such statements. Smith, being a leftist then, takes offense and rightly so. You are semaring an entire group of which she is part.


Can you show me exactly where these authors have stated thatpeople who oppose Israeli policies are antisemitc. It simply is not true!

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 29 November 2002 12:32 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tommy, Mishei and others: in linguistics, words are symbols that mean what people commonly understand them to mean. Yes, "anti-semitism" does mean the hatred of Jews, for that reason.

On the other hand, "Semitic", by the convention of those who use that word, refers to a broader group of people, both ancient and modern, that includes Arabs and Jews. This is reflected in almost all dictionary definitions: click, click, and click. In linguistics, the languages these people speak (or spoke), including Hebrew and Arabic, form the Semitic family of languages: click, click, and click.

It is precisely the contrast between these two differing meanings that Ed Herman uses as the hook into his one-sided piece.

It is not unusual that two apparently related words, such as "Semitic" and "antisemitic", have different meanings. Look at "awe" and "awful", for example.

Why is this proving so difficult for people to grasp? Probably because it involves "middle-eastern politics", which seems to mean, by convention, "everybody start fighting".

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 November 2002 12:34 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Semitic people who practice Islam, lots of 'em would be called Arab, yes.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 November 2002 12:35 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha ha, Arch: you were my prime exhibit. You gave me such a lovely line there. Don't bother erasing it; I have copied, for future use.

And Tommy Shanks, I think you are as wrong as you can be. Study the etymology of just about any word or phrase. It is users, not scholars, who change meaning, slowly, slowly. The scholars would freeze meaning; change is effected by popular usage.


Edited to add:

This is the line of Arch's that caught my attention. It is an interesting truth, IMHO:

quote:
If the term "Semite" becomes recognised as meaning "Jew" only, Arabs are further silenced and alienated by Western discourse.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 November 2002 12:39 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tommy, Mishei and others: in linguistics, words are symbols that mean what people commonly understand them to mean. Yes, "anti-semitism" does mean the hatred of Jews, for that reason.
On the other hand, "Semitic", by the convention of those who use that word, refers to a broader group of people, ancient and modern, that includes Arabs and Jews. This is reflected in almost all dictionary definitions: click, click, and click.


It is for that very reason I believe the word anti-Semitism should read as antisemitism.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 29 November 2002 01:25 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Semitic people who practice Islam, lots of 'em would be called Arab, yes.

What about Christian Arabs? I'd say they're being lumped in with the Islamists. Even Iranians and south Asians have been subject to anti-Arab attacks.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 01:59 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...I thought I'd share with everyone this passage from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, written in the 1930s by an Oxford graduate and maker of history:

I have a question... does the scene, which is in the movie, where Yassim is retrieved from the desert appear in the book as well, or was that a Hollywood invention?

quote:
If the term "Semite" becomes recognised as meaning "Jew" only, Arabs are further silenced and alienated by Western discourse.

Absolutely the case! In Marr's definiton of semite (the one that is being defended by the Zionists, oddly enough), the original bigot himself does not even bother to include the Arabs.

Why are we depending on a racist for a definiton of race?

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 November 2002 02:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well. To complicate my earlier post, the thing is:

"anti-Semitism," however you spell it, meaning hatred or suspicion or stereotyping of Jews, has a specific history in both Europe and North America, and I think it would be wrong, quite wrong, to claim that it is over -- that that manifestation of irrational hatred of the Other is over.

Patently obviously, it isn't.

For one thing, whether you young whippersnappers like it or not, those of us who grew up with still-effective forms of discrimination against Jews in Canada, well into the sixties, are still among you in our millions, and our lives will never not have been affected by "anti-Semitism" in that sense. Some of us are still quite spry. You are going to have to put up with us and the infections we caught or fought or both for at least the next thirty years or so.

So I don't think it is at all a simple thing for middle-class North Americans to decide that one meaning of this term is now purely historical, and must now be replaced by another that is both more topical and, arguably, more semantically correct.

History doesn't just mean change. It also means accretion, accumulation.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 November 2002 02:56 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What about Christian Arabs? I'd say they're being lumped in with the Islamists. Even Iranians and south Asians have been subject to anti-Arab attacks.

...based on the misapprehension that they are Muslim Arabs, for the most part. While skdadl is absolutely right to remind us that recent Canadian history - much of it in living memory - is steeped antisemitism, still, Muslims in general, and Arabs in particular are our current #1 "other".


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 29 November 2002 11:57 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have a question... does the scene, which is in the movie, where Yassim is retrieved from the desert appear in the book as well, or was that a Hollywood invention?

It's in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, although the circumstances are different. I believe that in the movie, El Aurens had to later shoot the man he had rescued. In the book, however, the shooting of a man took place before the rescue of another man. Although each incident is given much weight in the movie, neither is of much import in the book, the shooting especially.

[ed. Geez, skdadl, I make one little joke about deconstructionists and....]

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Arch Stanton ]


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 November 2002 11:16 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Och, you're a goner, Arch Stanton. I'm still on the trail of the dreaded Mandos and the newly dreaded Sisyphus.

For lovers of the Lawrence story, I highly recommend the critical retelling of his life done by the London Sunday Times Insight team sometime back in the -- sixties? seventies? I'll see if I can't find title and authors' names, but it's around in a Penguin paperback, I think. (Philip Knightley would be one author.)

While they spin the politics, especially the politics back in England, out much further than Lawrence did or could, and correct/fill in several individual episodes of the War in the Desert that he romanticizes or glosses over (especially his torture at the hands of one Turkish commandant), one emerges from their investigation with admiration for the Seven Pillars intact -- or, at least, I did.

And the movie ain't bad, given, well, movies. If only Alec Guinness had really been there at the time. Smiley could have sorted them all out.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Snow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3408

posted 30 November 2002 11:20 AM      Profile for Snow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about a topic, " How badly Islamic terrorists are behaving - how to tell."
From: South Central | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2002 11:23 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How about a topic, " How badly Islamic terrorists are behaving - how to tell."
That just would not be in keeping with Isarel being demonized as the perpetual evil entity

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Snow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3408

posted 30 November 2002 11:35 AM      Profile for Snow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly Mishei. I am in utter disbelief sometimes.
From: South Central | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 30 November 2002 12:23 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok. I can't believe I need to point this out, but in case you haven't noticed, muslims are getting some pretty bad press. From a wide variety of sources. This is taking place to the point that most places I go to chat or discuss on the internet, a frighteningly large percentage of participants have ceased to consider arabs as human beings.

Israel is also receiving some bad press. However, although I haven't actually performed any such survey, I strongly suspect that if you compared the ratio of good press/bad press for Israel against the ratio of good press/bad press for Palestine, you'd see precisely why we don't specifically point out that muslims/arabs/palestinians are behaving badly.

The sun shines, yet I don't see any threads devoted to pointing that out. While this is clearly an extreme example it should still provide your answer.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Daoine ]


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 30 November 2002 01:49 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you think it’s possible -- juuuust maybe -- the reason some muslims are ‘getting some bad press’ is because some muslims are behaving rather badly? That lil’ole WTC thing and all.
From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2002 02:06 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
a frighteningly large percentage of participants have ceased to consider arabs as human beings.
This is a rather extreme statement. Could you give some examples as to this phenomena such that we may judge for ourselves. And I take it you are referring to mainstream boards as opposed to the lunatic right or for that matter the lunatic left.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 30 November 2002 02:40 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
SHH -- It's not only possible, it's blatantly obvious; so obvious, in fact, that it shouldn't need to be pointed out. You seem to have entirely missed the point of my post. You seem to think that we're absolving all muslims of any blame. Not only haven't we said this, we haven't implied it and none of the links anyone has posted even suggest that terrorist atrocities carried out by muslims should be ignored or discounted. The only claim we've made, and we've made it consistently, is that Israel shouldn't be free from scrutiny. That's what this thread is about, after all -- Israel's actions should be subject to scrutiny. The article linked suggests criteria for evaluating Israel's actions; I think the criteria is seriously flawed.

quote:
How about a topic, "How badly Islamic terrorists are behaving - how to tell."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That just would not be in keeping with Isarel being demonized as the perpetual evil entity


I'm often wrong. I may be misreading in this case as well. But it looks pretty clear that the message here is that scrutinizing Israel = demonizing Israel "as the perpetual evil entity".

Now. I really don't know how representative my contacts with other americans are, I'm not sure how easily that can be determined. I certainly don't know how representative my media exposure is. And I haven't done any qualitative or quantitative analyses of either.

I'll assume that you asked because you are willing to grant that I may earnestly be seeking the truth, not just implying that I'm not; so I'll dig up examples of what I'm talking about, and post them.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2002 02:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'll assume that you asked because you are willing to grant that I may earnestly be seeking the truth, not just implying that I'm not; so I'll dig up examples of what I'm talking about, and post them.


Thank you

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 30 November 2002 02:53 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ed Herman is a respected scholar. In fact, Mishei, he is just as respected as the scholars who you have linked to. His hook about the words Semite and antisemitism (however spelled) does not really work, but is not the point of his article anyway. I think this is the key paragrpah:

quote:
For years in the United States, there was a tendency on the part of the hard-line supporters of Israel to conflate criticisms of Israel with "antisemitism." Such criticisms, and even criticism of policies that might not comport with Israeli interests, like a large military budget, were regarded -- in Stalinist lingo and mode -- as "objectively" antisemitic (most notoriously, in Nathan and Ruth Perlmutter's 1982 work on "the real antisemitism in America"). That tendency has become more marked in recent years, as the "friends" have become increasingly aggressive in attacking critics of Israel, and have even mounted attacks on blatantly pro-Israel media institutions like The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN (all besieged with hostile messages and subjected to boycotts). The drive by the "friends" has been toward total closure; they are not satisfied that the NYT, WP and CNN are already hugely biased in favor of Israel (see the citations below), they want inconvenient facts suppressed and alternative viewpoints entirely blacked out.

This is the same point made by Rick Salutin in a number of recent columns, btw: supporters of Israel denounce attempts to present a "balanced" coverage of the Israel-Palestine situation as being one-sided anti-Israel media bias. The only coverage they accept is pro-Israel coverage. (Oh and btw Mishei i don't mean you.)

Herman then goes on to argue that those who are critical of Israel in the US academic world face reprisals for their views. Here the article makes a rebuttal of articles linked by Mishei under titles like Bigotry 101.

The critique then is of the neo-conservative foreign policy elite which has placed Israel at the centre of a Washington-based world view and used the history of massive crimes against the Jewish people as a club to silence dissent. In one way it inverts the argument of some of the writers Mishei has linked to, and in another it adds the consideration of power.

That's how i read Herman, at any rate. But i suppose the rest of you can read in whatever meaning you like, eh?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2002 03:32 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is Ed Herman as well respected as Norman Finklestein? Just because someone is in academia does not make him anything special.

And here is the rub, many of those who feel that Israel is treated unfairly do not come from the right neo-conservative bent at all.

People like, Thomas Friedman, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Stern, Ernie Lichtman, Bernie Farber can hardly be described as neo-conservative.

So what motivates them. Sure a love for Israel but their record on most moral and ethical issues are stalwart. So why are some here so quick to uttelry dismiss their positions?

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 November 2002 04:02 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just because someone is in academia does not make him anything special.

So what does make him "anything special"?

quote:

People like, Thomas Friedman, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Stern, Ernie Lichtman, Bernie Farber can hardly be described as neo-conservative.

Alan Dershowitz...isn't he the one who wrote the book advocating torture?

quote:

So what motivates them. Sure a love for Israel but their record on most moral and ethical issues are stalwart. So why are some here so quick to uttelry dismiss their positions?

Because we think they're wrong.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 30 November 2002 04:52 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, not everyone in academia is automatically special. Some of them are asses. Herman is widely quoted, has written several books and is well-known and well-thought-of by many. Whether he is as well respected as Norman Finklestein i can't say. I imagine more so in some circles, less in others. But the point is, he can't be automatically dismissed as a "scholar."

Nor does Herman say that all people who defend Israel's actions are neo-conservative. There is a powerful and influential group of neo-conservatives who USE this issue to stifle dissent, in much the same way as some antisemites USE the issue of Israeli Defence Force actions to seek support for their vicious anti-Jewish racism. That doesn't mean all people who defend Israel are trying to stifle dissent necessarily, but some powerful people are. They are powerful in a way that a Canadian antisemitic groups are not (which does nto make them worse, merely more powerful).

Why are some quick to dismiss the views of those you mentioned? First, they don't always -- Elie Wiesel's views were discussed with respect on this board, for instance. If others have been dismissed, i imagine it's because while rightly asking for sympathy and understanding, they too often do not extend it to the victims of the state they are apologizing for.

(Oh, and if Dershowitz gets linked, i'll dismiss him out of hand because his views on the necessity of torture are morally repugnant.)


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2002 04:55 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what motivates them. Sure a love for Israel but their record on most moral and ethical issues are stalwart. So why are some here so quick to uttelry dismiss their positions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we think they're wrong.


That's the problem, you "think" they are wrong. But if you would approach some of their ideas with a bit of an open mind maybe some of what they say would resonate.

Smith as smart as you think you may be,like all of us there is still a lot to learn.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 November 2002 05:27 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you show me exactly where these authors have stated thatpeople who oppose Israeli policies are antisemitc. It simply is not true!

Let's see...from the "Bigotry 101" article; well, we can start with the title, can't we? Anti-Zionism, or even excessive (who defines "excessive"?) questioning of Israeli policy, is referred to as "bigotry." In other words, we are bigots.

quote:
And even if a person believes that Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza is illegitimate, immoral and illegal, why is it that Israel is lambasted in sign after sign for the "occupation," when there were no similar signs just decades ago when Jordan and Egypt were in control of these same areas for nearly 20 years? And why are there no signs today lambasting Syria, which occupies Arab land in Lebanon, right next door?

The answer: Bigotry-finder rule 101. Take Jews out of this picture, and different rules apply.


Lie. The answer: Jordan and Egypt were not openly supported by the US and most of the Western world. No one was trying to convince us this was really okay, so there was much less need to protest.

quote:
A large part of the current anti-Israel campaign is based on historical distortion. This is the stock-in-trade of Holocaust deniers, sophisticated white supremacists, and some black supremacists, too.

A large part. Oh, not all, but a large part. Weasel words, but the message applies. Thanks for lumping us in with Holocaust deniers and the KKK. I appreciate that.

quote:
This is not to say that there is not an Arab history in the region too. There is, of course. Some might point out that there was never an Arab government over "Palestine," only a Jewish one before the Roman, Turkish, and English occupations. Some might point to the Palestinian national identity as a recently minted reaction to the organized presence of Jews.

So he gets his little dig in against the Arabs...

quote:

But just as Palestinians have the right to self-determination, so do Jews. Those who assert that Israel doesn't have a right to exist - anti-Zionists - are denying to Jews alone the rights claimed and respected by every other national group on the globe.

That is not denied to Jews alone. Distortion. And if that's not an accusation of anti-Semitism - "anti-Zionists are denying to Jews alone [their] rights" - I don't know what is.

quote:
In 1947 the United Nations divided the remaining 20 percent of the British Mandate into two states: one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted the UN's vote. The Arabs declared war, proclaiming they would "drive the Jews into the sea."

The Jews stood to gain; the Arabs stood to lose. This is never mentioned by Israel's supporters, of course. No, it was just bad bad Arabs.

Quote from Ben-Gurion, 1938: "When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves."

quote:

How many times have you heard "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm just anti-Zionist?" But to be anti-Zionist is by definition to be anti-Semitic.

HELLO? How is this not an accusation of anti-Semitism? HOW? Mishei, you weasel, you are like a child who spray-paints his own name on a wall and then tries to tell us his brother did it.

quote:
To say that Jews alone don't have a right to self-determination in a part of their historic homeland is clearly anti-Semitic, despite the effort to hide the bigotry behind a supposed political term.

Again, it's not "the Jews alone." Distortion. And again, blatant accusations of anti-Semitism.

quote:
And even if some anti-Zionists refuse to recognize either the history or the complexities of the conflict, why do they use the "Nazi" nomenclature to complain only about Israel? Why not use it to describe Rwanda, for example?

Hmm. Let's see. Could it be because what happened in Rwanda was a war and what is happening in Israel/Palestine is an occupation? Could it be because this is a case of a massively funded, well-supported military power achieving domination over a poorly funded, dispossessed people?

quote:
The answer is simple: Jews are in the equation, so a different standard applies. Likewise no one on the left would have the temerity to claim that the worst excesses of corporate America are comparable to the horrors of the Middle Passage.

Don't be so sure.

It's awfully easy to chalk it all up to Jew-hating, isn't it?

quote:
So why the almost gleeful comparison between Israelis and Nazis? Don't know? See Bigotry 101.

Almost gleeful? Huh? Also, let's see, we have in this very article the demonization of the Arabs ("driving the Jews into the sea") without mention of any of their grievances - the massacres at Deir Yassin and elsewhere, the expulsions in the name of a Jewish majority, Ben-Gurion's and others' insistence that only Hebrew labour be used to build the new state of Israel ("If we want Hebrew redemption 100%, then we must have 100% Hebrew settlement, a 100% Hebrew farm, and 100% Hebrew port."), the law forbidding Arabs to buy land that belonged or had belonged to Jews, etc., etc., etc.

quote:
The left has prided itself as a champion of the rights of racial, religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. [quote]But it is willing to support groups that overtly oppress people in exactly these ways because they oppose (and commit acts of violence against) an organized Jewish presence[/b] on one-sixth of one percent of the land in the "Arab world."

Smear - the left doesn't generally support terrorist groups - and direct accusation of anti-Semitism. "Because they oppose an organised Jewish presence." Not for any other reason.

quote:
hatred of the Jewish state is stronger than the left's core human values.

More smears.

quote:
How can it be that the left speaks out loudly and eloquently if a child is forced to work long hours for low pay anywhere in the world, but remains silent (or even applauds) when a Palestinian child is dressed up as, and told to aspire to be, a suicide bomber who will one day kill him or herself along with Jewish men, women, and children?

Another lie.

quote:
But rather than seeing [the Palestinians'] condition as a result of many factors, among them the corruption of the Palestinian Authority and the rejection at Camp David of a settlement that would have resulted in a Palestinian state in over 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of Gaza, 100 percent of the blame is put on the Israelis, all the time.

Bullshit.

quote:

Why can progressives not empathize with Israelis who see their children blown up in a pizzeria in Jerusalem, and then find the event celebrated in art at a Palestinian exhibit? Why can progressives not understand that Israelis have every right to be disturbed when they are regularly demonized in sermons in mosques in Gaza and the West Bank and on Arab television in terms directly plagiarized from Nazi propaganda?

More accusations and bullshit.

quote:
But apparently when it comes to Jews in Israel, there is no such capacity for empathy and imagination. The Jew, then, becomes a complete "other," unlike the rest of humanity in any way. The capacity to imagine what it is like to be a Palestinian, but not an Israeli, is anti-Semitism.

"But apparently when it comes to Jews in Israel, there is NO such capacity for empathy." That is a broad and total accusation. He says the left has no capacity for empathy with the Jews of Israel.

The capacity to imagine what it is like to be a Palestinian, but not an Israeli, is indeed anti-Semitism - but that's not what's going on here. Straw man.

quote:
The most egregious fabrications were the charges in many Arab and Islamic countries that Jews were behind the attacks. Polls showed that 48 percent of Pakistanis, for example, believed in such a Jewish conspiracy.

Where were the voices on the left and on the campus pointing to this clear case of bigotry?


So if we don't respond to every single Arab bigot, even the most ridiculous, we agree with them?

Isn't it possible that that argument was simply considered unworthy of a response? When people in the American press attacked Muslims, we argued - because THOSE people have, or had, some credibility and influence in the West. Anti-Semites, for the most part, have none.

quote:
Could this be because many voices on campus also blame Israel and the Jews for 9/11 (either alone, or in conjunction with "American policies")? Not as secret controllers of the planes or plotters of the crimes, but as morally responsible because of Israeli relations with the Palestinians.

I personally have never heard that charge. Generalisation; smear.

quote:
But why do campus activists and others on the left who would clearly see the bigotry in the example of blacks in the South not see it when it comes to Jews in Israel?

We knew the terrorists were bigots; we knew their supporters were bigots; we didn't think it needed to be explained. Again, those people have no credibility in the West.

quote:
Criticism of Israeli policies is fine if it is made in the same manner as one would criticize the policies of any other country (including Arab countries and the U.S.), and the "remedies" called for are of the same caliber.

That's exactly what 95% of us on this board call for, and yet you keep posting these accusatory articles and whining that we criticise Israel too much and why don't we criticise somebody else for a change (uh, because other countries don't get billions of dollars in American support for their shitty behaviour) and Israel is really good and blah blah friggin' blah.

quote:
Criticism of Israeli policies is fine if it is proportional and not reflective of a double standard.

Praise of Israel, then, should also not reflect a double standard, no?

quote:

Likewise, even if one believes that Israel's human rights record is far from perfect, it is clearly much better than that of the Sudanese, who enslave non-Muslim blacks in the south of the country; the Saudis, who refuse women even the most basic human rights; the Iranians, who suppress the Bahai; the Egyptians, who oppress gays; the Chinese, who repress the Tibetans, etc.

"My neighbour raped three women and I only raped one. Why are you picking on me?"

quote:
Criticism of Israeli policies is fine if it is not accompanied by a marked increase in anti-Semitic activity. Since the beginning of the movement for divestiture, Jews have been called "kike"; a rock was thrown at a student's window that sported an Israeli flag; a Hillel building's glass door was shattered by a cement block; swastikas were drawn on a sukkah; death threats were shouted at a rally of Jewish students; taunts such as "Hitler didn't finish the job" were yelled; graffiti saying "God Hates Jews" and "Burn the Torah" were painted.

Where, and by whom? I don't remember doing anything of the kind.

So it's not okay for me to question Israeli policy because some nutbar in Toronto or the States is painting graffiti on the side of a building? The hell?

quote:
If anti-civil rights protestors in the 1960s claimed that their cause wasn't racist, but similar anti-black actions were associated with their movement, progressives wouldn't have been fooled.

Why do you assume it's "associated with our movement"?

quote:
Many progressives seem so ensconced in anti-Israel venom that fail to remember a basic truth they knew well half a century ago: that anti-Semitism is not only the miner's canary (i.e., the early-warning system) of danger to democracy, but also is a highly combustible fuel...

I think oppression of minorities in general is the miner's canary, would not you say?

quote:
Finally, history is full of examples of times the left in general, and campus progressives in particular, have played an important role in making the world a better, fairer, and more just place. But they cannot do so today if they fail first to confront and reject the anti-Semitism within.

The left has anti-Semitism within, without a doubt, he says. Is that anti-Semitism within each of us? He appears to think so. That is why you asked me, Mishei, if I was "paranoid about being an anti-Semite." Your wording was no accident.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 30 November 2002 05:49 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Arch,

I was asking because I am actually reading a new but surely classic book called the Tournament of Shadows-- The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia by Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac. In it Sven Anders Hedin, the Sweedish explorer (and during the war Nazi sympathizer) is described as going through exactly that experience (retreiving a lost compatiot from the dessert,) while exploring the the Chinese portion of the Silk road, duing the 1890's. The incident is exactly as related in the movie (without the later execution). In both cases the man saved from he dessert is named Yassim.

I was wondering whether or not T. E. Lawrence used the name Yassim for the events described by him, and am considering the possibility that Lawrence lifted the story from one of Hedin's books.

I bring this up because there have been a number of long standing challenges to the veracity of much of what is related by T. E. Lawrence, including, for instance, which army liberated Damascus. The Australians claim it was their Cavalry not Faisal's that entered the city first. Mr. Lawrence is described as entering the city in his Mercedez the next day, not on horse back as is prosaicly depicted on the movie.

There are also challenges to the story about his capture and torture by the Turkish army, some records apparently suggest that he was in Aqaba on the dates when that incident is supposed to have occurred.

It has been said that Lawrence was 'imaginative' when speaking of his adventures. This of course does not detract fom the point you made about Lawrences peceptions about semetic peoples, both Jewish and Muslim Arabs.

As an aside, those who defend the postion that the term anti-semetism applies only to Jews, defend that claim on the basis of the fact that it is the 'universally' (so they say) accepted taditional coloquial understanding of the term. I find it highly ironic that those same people call suicide bombers 'homocide bombers' despite the fact that the universally accepted traditional coloquial term for the act, is the former not the latter.

They seem perfectly happy to change the language around when it suits their political purposes, but raise hell when the tide of change turns against them. But I guess you can't exepect intellectual constistency from idealogues, when politcal brownie points are to be won.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 30 November 2002 05:54 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nice dissection Smith.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 November 2002 06:04 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's the problem, you "think" they are wrong.

Just as you "think" I am wrong, Mishei, and you "think" Noam Chomsky is wrong, and you "think" Gush Shalom and others are wrong...

quote:

But if you would approach some of their ideas with a bit of an open mind maybe some of what they say would resonate.

Some of it definitely does resonate. That doesn't mean I accept their arguments.

And I am the closed-minded one? How much is left of your glass house, Mishei?

Mishei, as smart as you think you may be, as is true for all of us, there is still a lot to learn.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 30 November 2002 06:08 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nasty the way he uses the pseudo-Freudian psych technique of asking you if you are "paranoid about being an anti-semite," as if it is an uncontrolable psychological disorder that you might not even be aware that you have. Any protestation to the contrary from you then becomes invalid, or worse further evidence of the disorder. Only the good doctor can tell, of course as HE is the expert, not you.

Very mAnipUlatIVE.

Mishei are you paranoid about being a sociopath?

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 November 2002 06:14 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed. "People like you have repressed anti-Semitic feelings." "I don't." "People like you do, you just don't realise because they're repressed, and you won't admit it or deal with it." "No, I really don't think I do." "Trust me, you do. Why else would you be denying it? I never said YOU had anti-Semitic feelings. You made that up. Your paranoia outs you as an anti-Semite."

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 30 November 2002 07:35 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Moredreads;

The man Lawrence rescued was named "Gasim." The man he shot was a Moor named Hasam.

I have found the most fascinating aspect of The Seven Pillars to be Lawrence's candid admission that he knows he is betraying the Arabs (he calls them his "dupes") with his every word and deed. He knows the British government has imperial designs (although he seems unaware of the Balfour Declaration)on the Levant, yet he tells the Arab leaders they are fighting for their own freedom.

What makes this doubly fascinating is that Lawrence seems to admire the Arabs and that he genuinely likes them. Nevertheless, his ingrained sense of English (despite his being of Welsh and Irish descent) superiority makes it possible for him to act like any other less enlightened colonizer.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 November 2002 07:44 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The left has anti-Semitism within, without a doubt, he says. Is that anti-Semitism within each of us? He appears to think so. That is why you asked me, Mishei, if I was "paranoid about being an anti-Semite." Your wording was no accident.


Well you will just have to believe me or not. Clearly we have major differences of opinion and there is nothing wrong with that.

What I will not do to you is call you a weasel and all the other childish names you throw around here. Sorry but i will not get into that gutter with you.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 November 2002 11:21 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You don't call me a weasel because unlike you, I'm not a weasel.

Sorry, Mishei, no medals for you.

And no, I don't believe you. Smearing people is what you do.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 12:04 AM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, help me remember never to promise to post links that I hadn't kept track of. It's been simply mind-numbing.

After tracking the sites down and removing the obvious crackpots ("boot to the head", "leftwatch"), we have three sites. All three seem to be involved with Ann Coulter. All of the individuals who support these views are clearly extremists. I've seen similar sentiments to all those expressed here echoed elsewhere, but again, who knows if they are representative, and if so, of what?

The worst of the three in my opinion is the military site, for reasons that should be self-apparent.

Paratrooper.net's Commo Room
Politics Cafe
X-Project Paranormal Forum

It's rather disturbing that a forum for discussion of the paranormal is by far the most rational of the three in their response to these extreme ideas.

This has literally been exhausting, so I'm just posting this and will spend some time not staring at the monitor. I hope I won't be rudely popping into the middle of something.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 December 2002 10:40 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You don't call me a weasel because unlike you, I'm not a weasel.
Sorry, Mishei, no medals for you.


No, I don't call you names because unlike you I outgrew this childish and immature behaviour in highschool. And that was many years ago.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 11:04 AM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei, I really do understand that you're not fully cognizant of the affront that your posts and links present.

But they do. And when the affront is pointed out, when you simply defend them, they seem intentionally insulting. When this is repeated, it looks like you're refusing to consider any viewpoints other than your own. And that is an immature position.

I'm hopeful that this isn't really your position, but I'm not at all sure how this situation can be improved.

Smith isn't immature, she's forthright. She makes efforts to be reasonable; as I've stated before, she's probably not quite as pro-palestinian as I am. At least, she wasn't before this series of threads.

If you appear to be unwilling to accept the possibility that you or your position might not be 100% right, it can have the unfortunate consequence of alienating others from you, and in some cases from your very position.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 December 2002 11:38 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Smith isn't immature, she's forthright
Doaine, I have np problem whatsoever with anyone challenging anything I post. Iam open to opinions and have acknowledged in the past when I was wrong.

As for Smith, being forthright, this does not give one licence to name-call. Such behaviour in debate is immature period.

BTW, my links come from credible sources. They are not meant to offend. They are meant to stimulate discussion. After all isn't that what a discussion board is all about?

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 11:51 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, yes, discussion. "Ernie Lichtman says you're being anti-Semitic." "We don't agree." "Fine, I'll start another thread with an article by someone else who makes exactly the same arguments as Ernie Lichtman. He says you're anti-Semitic." "We don't agree." "Fine. I'll start another thread with another person who makes exactly the same arguments as the last guy who thought you were being anti-Semitic, because heaven knows we don't have enough threads on Israel, started by me, accusing the left of anti-Semitism. And I do this to stimulate debate."
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 12:01 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I recognize that you're in earnest. I know that you're posting links with the intention of stimulating discussion.

You probably aren't reacting so much to the content of the responses people are making to the articles so much as to the tone. The tone of those responses is in turn a reaction to the content of your links, regardless of the author.

Until very recently, there has been very little coverage of the palestinian viewpoint. This is changing. Unfortunately, it appears that this change is being misperceived as a pro-palestinian bias, simply because the coverage in the past was perceived to be fair by the jewish community in general. 56 degrees fahrenheit feels cold if you're coming in from 75; but it's pretty toasty if you're coming in from 30.

Meanwhile, some of us have been cognizant of conditions in palestine for some time, and have been very frustrated, really frustrated, that this wasn't getting broader coverage. And when we start to get that coverage it's inevitable that the outcry against it will appear to be intolerant. The more shrill that outcry, the more alienating it will be.

This outcry is embodied in the links you've posted. They seem to lash out indiscriminately at anyone who isn't outraged by the emergence of the palestinian point of view. This inevitably feels like an attack upon anyone who isn't willing to demonize the palestinians.

Whether or not this is the intent, and whether or not "demonizing" the palestinians is actually an underlying factor, this is the perception and the implication, and it's pretty strong. By appearing to ignore this implication, you seem to be endorsing it. And that isn't conducive to discussion.

So just be aware?


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 12:06 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
'nerstin'
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 12:11 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
nerstin?
From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 December 2002 01:29 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting, i think he means. And it is, a really good analysis Daoine...
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 01:31 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Interesting," I think that means.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 December 2002 02:12 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed. Very elucidating indeed.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 02:42 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah. Sorry

It's amazing what you run across when you're trying to reconstruct undirected rambles through internet links. So much of it was so terribly depressing, but there were some very cogent commentaries as well.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 02:57 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I meant 'nerstin' 'nalysis.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 02 December 2002 01:22 PM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
a Palestinian bystander was shot and killed

quote:
shot dead a Plaestinian youth ... wounded 20 others in a crowded market

click

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 03:18 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like this article. An excerpt:

quote:
The Ashkenazic Jews who shaped Israel in its early years were jumping from the burning buildings of Europe--and when they landed on the backs of Palestinians, unintentionally causing a great deal of pain to the people who already lived there, they were so transfixed with their own (much greater and more acute) pain that they couldn't be bothered to notice that they were displacing and hurting others in the process of creating their own state.

Their insensitivity to the pain that they caused, and their subsequent denial of the fact that in creating Israel they had simultaneously helped create a Palestinian people most of whom were forced to live as refugees (and now, their many descendents still living as exiles and dreaming of "return" just as we Jews did for some 1800 plus years), was aided by the arrogance, stupidity and anti-Semitism of Palestinian leaders and their Arab allies in neighboring states who dreamt of ridding the area of its Jews and who, much like the Herut "revisionists" who eventually came to run Israel in the past twenty years, consistently resorted to violence and intimidation to pursue their maximalist fantasies.

By the time Palestinians had come to their senses and acknowledged the reality of Israel and the necessity of accommodating to that reality if they were ever to find a way to establish even the most minimal self-determination in the land that had once belonged to their parents and grandparents it was too late to undermine the powerful misperception of reality held by most Jews and Israelis that their state was likely to be wiped out any moment if they did not exercise the most powerful vigilance. Drenched in the memories of the Holocaust and in the internalized vision of themselves as inevitably powerless, Jews were unable to recognize that they had become the most powerful state in the region and among the top 20% of powerful countries in the world--and they used this sense of imminent potential doom to justify the continuation of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for over thirty years.


I think this is more compassionate to both sides than most articles we've seen have been.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 December 2002 03:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes. Thanks, Smith.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 December 2002 03:29 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And I really enjoyed this one: Israel, Jews and the left
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 03:31 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Absolutely! Excellent find.
From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 December 2002 03:37 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And here is one critical of the left, in some ways harshly, which is thoughtful, considered and never resorts to a slur:
Cautions for the left on Israel and Palestine

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 03:44 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's not just incendiary to compare Israeli actions to those of Nazi Germany, it's inaccurate and unfair. The Nazis' extermination of millions of Jews and other "undesirables" -- systematic, totalistic, bureaucratic, scientific -- is in many ways unparalleled in human history. The point is not to say Jews have suffered most, because that's a pointless debate: Many groups have a claim on the world's shame and sympathy. Yet calling Israeli atrocities Nazi-like demonstrates either a weak grasp of history or a calculated misuse of it. Certainly, like many governments, Israel has committed unjustifiable acts: occupation, massacre, torture, and more. But calling someone a Nazi implies something further: implementing a comprehensive plan to annihilate an entire class of people. That's why the accusation is so devastating, and untrue.

Ah. Now I understand.

quote:
The position of many who support Israel--that Arab governments enticed most Palestinians to leave--has been thoroughly discredited by historians across the political spectrum; its frequent repetition reminds us that even demonstrably erroneous assumptions persist when they serve other purposes. The claim by many Middle-East Muslims that the Israeli Mossad attacked the World Trade Center last September may attain similar status. Facts are slippery. Myths persist.

A-HEM. DJSparky. Heads up.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 December 2002 05:18 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You should know that many months back there was what turned into a very disturbing discussion on this very matter and many posts to what was written above were posted on Babble.

It never hurts to revisit this such that the point is fully driven home.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 05:25 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which matter?

Sorry, I'm just a bit confused...


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 December 2002 06:13 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This matter:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not just incendiary to compare Israeli actions to those of Nazi Germany, it's inaccurate and unfair. The Nazis' extermination of millions of Jews and other "undesirables" -- systematic, totalistic, bureaucratic, scientific -- is in many ways unparalleled in human history. The point is not to say Jews have suffered most, because that's a pointless debate: Many groups have a claim on the world's shame and sympathy. Yet calling Israeli atrocities Nazi-like demonstrates either a weak grasp of history or a calculated misuse of it. Certainly, like many governments, Israel has committed unjustifiable acts: occupation, massacre, torture, and more. But calling someone a Nazi implies something further: implementing a comprehensive plan to annihilate an entire class of people. That's why the accusation is so devastating, and untrue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah. Now I understand.



From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 06:17 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gotcha. So when we compare the methods, which sometimes are comparable, Israel's supporters think we are comparing the motivation, which is not...so best to leave that one alone.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 December 2002 06:22 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So when we compare the methods,]which sometimes are comparable
You just cannot leave well enough alone. The methods used by the nazis huh? Here is a post from that thread of many months ago. These were the "methods" used by the nazis;

[QUOTE] That said, do you really need that history lesson? Have you never heard of Auschwitz or Treblinka. Have you never heard of the Einsatzgruppen, the Nazi killing units whose job it was to forcibly round up innocent Jews where they were then brought to a field outside of their town.. Mothers were then asked to strip their children , blindfold them, dig their own graves following which the mothers were shot first to make it more horrendous for the children? Have you never heard of Babi Yar where in the space of 24 hours tens of thousands of Jews were shot and buried in a mass grave? Have you never heard of the Mobile gas vans where Jews and Soviet prisoners of war were forced into a van 50 at a time, the exhaust pipe turned inward and the van taken on a journey of death until all the victims were gassed ? Have you never heard of Adoph Eichmann the coldly efficient Nazi civil servant who ensured that the Jews wwere properly packed into boxcars (2000 per car) no food, water and those that survived the train , well Mr. Eichman delivered them to Daeth camps. Yes I mentioned the death camps earlier. Perhaps you never heard what occured at theses camps. How women, the elderly and children under 12 were sent to the "left". That line was marched to a huge room with hooks on the wall. They were told they would be deloused. The women helped the children off with their clothes. The young ones were frightened they were wailing, crying...2500 at a time were forced into the "shower" stalls where instead of water came Zyklon B a deadly gas used to kill termites and Jews. The stronger ones climbed over the weaker ones too get to the top of the room near the ceiling for that last precious breath of air. But it really didnt matter because all were eventually gassed to death. In all in the gas chambers abour 2.5 million.
Jon there are many books detailing the unspeakable crimes of Nazism. I have but scratched the surface. I honestly did not mean to go on like this. But your challenge Jon...can you begin to get even an inkling of understanding as to why people like me and 007 and others rail at those who make these Nazi comparisions to Israel and the IDF?
I have said it before and I will say it again, such comparisions are not only shameful they humiliate the survivors of Nazism by belittling their experience. And saddest of all it trivializes the most brutal and murderous regime in the annals of history. Indeed it trivializes the murders of the poor Jewish souls, all 6 million of them that were murdered by Nazism.
[/QUOTE

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 06:37 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You have made your point; nonetheless, when one reads about the shooting of children for sport, or about certain massacres and forced evacuations, one cannot deny the existence of some similarities in methods.

Perhaps none of these stories is true, in which case I apologise.

Strangely, I don't hear complaints when the actions of the Palestinians are thus compared.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 06:57 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
lol Ok, can somebody leave it alone? It is incendiary, after all, whoever is making the comparison and whoever they're comparing.

I think the bottom line of the thread must be that if killing civilians is wrong, regardless of who's doing the killing, regardless of their stated or true intent, and regardless of their justification (or lack thereof). Insisting that killing some civilians is justifiable, or more justifiable, than killing others is I think the root of the problem, or one of them.

That claim, that it's more "ok" to kill some civilians than others, particularly when there's a religious, cultural or ethnic divide involved, smacks of the same basic phenomenon that underlies so many problems worldwide: racism. However unfair, unjust, or just plain wrong any specific comparison based on this may be, if there is evidence for racism, then there should at least be some understanding for why the comparison might have been made. Well, other than, in this case, anti-semitism, anyway.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 December 2002 07:11 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We, by this I mean, the west have made a veritable sport of killing civilians over the last undreds years. During WW2 we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians as part of the war effort. These actions were deemed necessary in the war environment of the 'total war' imposed on us by the Axis powers.

In that light we felt completely justified in killing innocents as part of an all out campaign to demoralize the enemy and bring an end to he war as soon as possible. In this light is the killing of civilians, always wrong?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 02 December 2002 07:14 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That claim, that it's more "ok" to kill some civilians than others ...

Terrorists <> Civilians

From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 07:44 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
moredreads: yes. It's always wrong to kill civilians. I've always felt (and have been very much alone in this) that the closest comparison with 9/11 wasn't the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nagasaki was at least a known naval shipyard; but the loss of civilian life in both cases was monstrous. I understand that the cost in american lives would have been much higher had we been forced to tackle Japan without them, but I can't balance the two.

CyberNomad: I'll grant you that. But I won't accept that because terrorists don't have flashing neon signs proclaiming this fact, we should consider all of any given population terrorists.

?terrorists <> !terrorists
?terrorists = civilians

To assume otherwise is to state, unequivocally, that what we would do to terrorists, we should do to all palestinians, or all muslims, or all non-jewish semites.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 09:07 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That claim, that it's more "ok" to kill some civilians than others, particularly when there's a religious, cultural or ethnic divide involved, smacks of the same basic phenomenon that underlies so many problems worldwide: racism. However unfair, unjust, or just plain wrong any specific comparison based on this may be, if there is evidence for racism, then there should at least be some understanding for why the comparison might have been made. Well, other than, in this case, anti-semitism, anyway.

Thank you.

The point I intended to make by "not letting it go" is that such comparisons, wrong though they may be, do not come out of nowhere. Because if they come out of nowhere, then the people making them must of necessity be doing it out of madness or evil, and I don't believe that's true. The similarities may be misleading, they may be superficial, they may not be worth discussing - but they are there.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 09:33 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 December 2002 09:59 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The point I intended to make by "not letting it go" is that such comparisons, wrong though they may be, do not come out of nowhere. Because if they come out of nowhere, then the people making them must of necessity be doing it out of madness or evil, and I don't believe that's true. The similarities may be misleading, they may be superficial, they may not be worth discussing - but they are there.


Sometimes people just say stupid things. They may not realize what they say is hurtful or even racist. When it is pointed out the expectation is that it be dropped.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 10:05 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...and another window breaks in Mishei's glass house.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 02 December 2002 10:30 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
CyberNomad: I'll grant you that. But I won't accept that because terrorists don't have flashing neon signs proclaiming this fact, we should consider all of any given population terrorists.

?terrorists <> !terrorists
?terrorists = civilians

To assume otherwise is to state, unequivocally, that what we would do to terrorists, we should do to all palestinians, or all muslims, or all non-jewish semites.



What a load of refined crap! Shit, nonetheless.

From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 10:44 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Huh?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 11:21 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, this is really scary. It probably could be a topic by itself, but I don't want to start another of these threads myself.

quote:
A mega-terror attack against Israel, like downing a civilian aircraft, would "create an international dynamic that would open options that up to now were unacceptable to public opinion," Halevy said.

Halevy did not spell out the type of action Israel would take, but implied that retaliation would be far harsher than anything that has been done up to now. Even so, he said, "it can be assumed that the international community would understand, accept and internalize the changes in the rules of the game and fields of activity."



From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 11:29 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bet he'd just love that to happen. Gawd. Solve the little Palestinian problem once and for all.

quote:
Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Monday that the world must take concerted action against world terrorist groups and the regimes that support them, and it must also cooperate in fitting civilian aircraft with defensive capabilities.

Because the devices are expensive, Netanyahu said in a CNN interview, "if they are organized, manufactured and distributed by a consortium of countries, you can bring down the cost significantly. Some of it could be passed to the passengers." Netanyahu said this must be done urgently, because "once planes start falling from the sky, we're going to live in a very different world."


Nukes - Buy 10, Get One Free!


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 03 December 2002 09:47 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who's talking about nukes?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 03 December 2002 01:01 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Och, you're a goner, Arch Stanton. I'm still on the trail of the dreaded Mandos and the newly dreaded Sisyphus.

I haven't forgotten you either, gentle skdadl. M. Derrida and I have been spending a few stolen moments together . I shall return...

Edited to add: Although I am a great fan of Prof. Herman, I am disappointed that he would begin an essay that addresses the real danger of suppression of free speech by Israel's apologists with such a cheap and puerile debating technique. This business of trying to wrestle the term anti-Semitism (or any of its variants) from the Jewish victims of historical prejudice is at best pedantry or at worst, a vindication of the views of mishei, mandrake, DJStealth and CyberNomad that the leftist critique of Israeli imperialism is, in fact, thinly-veiled antisemitism (used in the connotative, rather than the denotative sense ).

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 03 December 2002 03:02 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I'm kinda curious as to exactly what those defensive measures would entail. Machine-gun turrets by the pilot access door? Tear-gas nozzles throughout the plane? Leg manacles for the passengers that only flight attendants can unlock? Those little electrical stun-thingies in every seat?

I hope I'm being faecetious.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca