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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Is Israel "bad for the Jews"?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is Israel "bad for the Jews"?
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 November 2003 02:23 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Anti-Semitism is not the main
reason behind the increased criticism of Israel
among liberal circles in Europe. Indeed, there
are today more incidents of anti-Semitism in
Europe, and clearly the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict contributes to that. It should be
noted that the support for Jews (and Israel) in
the 1950s and 1960s, which was born of feelings
of guilt, has dropped considerably in a
generation that no longer remembers the
Holocaust. However, the proper comparison to
make when assessing anti-Semitism is not
between 2003 and 1963, but between 2003 and
1933, when Europe was calm and prior to
Hitler's rise to power. Even that comparison
will highlight the political and social changes
for the better in the Jews' situation.

Constant emphasis on the "perpetual presence" of
anti-Semitism achieves the opposite results. It
is both despairing and may also weaken the hand
of those combating anti-Semitism. The fact that
Islam (even non-fundamentalist Islam, as
evidenced by outgoing Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohammad's remarks) disseminates
images borrowed from Christian-European
anti-Semitism does not contradict the vast
differences that still exist between the two
forms of anti-Semitism. Christian anti-Semitism
grew out of religious grounds and later adopted
political and racist attributes and objectives.
The other anti-Semitism, contemporary Muslim,
was born out of political reasons and is now
taking on racist attributes. Associating
contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism with classic
Western anti-Semitism is very convenient for
extremists, both European and Israeli."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/357713.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 November 2003 02:42 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I posted this long article by Joel Kovel on another thread, but I think it is also relevant here, looking at this matter from an ethical standpoint: www.joelkovel.org/zionism.html

In general your Ha'aretz writer is correct about the improved status of Jews in the world - certainly if we look back at the oppressed and impoverished Jewish masses in Eastern Europe, but actually in Germany the Jews had generally attained middle-class status and an important role in many professions, before the Nazi rise to power.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 November 2003 10:14 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Finally got around to reading the article that started this thread. It is excellent. Have you read it, Mishei, or are you too busy telling everyone on babble that we don't listen to enough Jewish left-wing writers' opinions?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 November 2003 01:53 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What else do you expect here in Wonderland?

So far I've read on babble that:

1) Muslims are evil
2) Leftists are evil
3) Europeans are evil
4) Chinese are evil
5) Nazis are the worst-ever evil
6) Italian fascists and Likudniks are cool

If anyone can explain this, please do so.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 07 November 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
a democracy that is only to be for a certain people cannot exist, for the elementary reason that the modern democratic state is defined by its claims of universality

I think this is the nub of it. And it is sad, but I think it is true.

quote:
As we well know, there are many states in the modern world that proclaim themselves for a given people and are in many respects more unpleasant places than Israel, including some of the Islamic states, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. But none of these assert extravagant claims for embodying the benefits of democratic modernity as does Israel. Thus one expects nothing from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia in the way of democratic right, and gets it; whereas Israel groans under the contradictions imposed by incorporating features of Western liberal democracy within a fundamentally pre-modern, tribalist mission.

Why does no one on the right accept this answer?

quote:
The bad conscience of Zionism cannot distinguish between authentic criticism and the mirrored delusions of anti-Semitism lying ready-made in the swamps of our civilization and awakened by the current crisis. Both are threats, though the progressive critique is more telling, as it contests the concrete reality of Israel and points toward self-transformation by differentiating Jewishness from Zionism; while anti-Semitism regards the Jew abstractly and in a demonic form, as "Jewish money" or "Jewish conspiracies," and misses the real mark. Indeed, Zionism makes instrumental use of anti-Semitism, as a garbage pail into which all opposition can be thrown, and a germinator of fearfulness around which to rally Jews. This is not to discount the menace posed by anti-Semitism nor the need to struggle vigorously against it. But the greater need is to develop a genuinely critical perspective, and not be bullied into confusing critique of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Thank you. Excellent article.

[ 07 November 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 07 November 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Finally got around to reading the article that started this thread. It is excellent. Have you read it, Mishei, or are you too busy telling everyone on babble that we don't listen to enough Jewish left-wing writers' opinions?
I have seen the article and will have to take some time this week end to go over it thoroughly.

Your sarcasm and tactlessness is BTW, unbecoming a person I considered to be sensitive and intelligent.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 07 November 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You talk about evil like it is a bad thing.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 07 November 2003 05:50 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

1) Muslims are evil
2) Leftists are evil
3) Europeans are evil
4) Chinese are evil
5) Nazis are the worst-ever evil
6) Italian fascists and Likudniks are cool
If anyone can explain this, please do so.

1-4 are uninformed statements based on twisted and distorted facts. Number 5 is true, and the first part of number 6 is troll dung. The second part of 6 is anti-Zionist speak for supporting Israel.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 07 November 2003 05:53 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On reflection, I think the problem is not Zionism itself but the direction it has taken.

This was provoked by outside factors, too, and perhaps Zionism should have received more support when it was younger and less militaristic. Certainly it would have mitigated the effects of the Holocaust if the British had not put a cap on the number of Jews allowed to seek refuge in Palestine in the '30s (and if other governments, including our own, had been more compassionate).

I see nothing wrong with Zionism in and of itself. What is bad about it at this point is the exclusivity and the means by which this exclusion was achieved. I'm not sure that it could have been done differently, but it could sure be dealt with better today.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 November 2003 06:59 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Gir, at least you're picking up on the jargon around here.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 07 November 2003 07:44 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Number 5 is true.

I'll take that bait...to another thread. Please, Gir, if you are really behind this statment, start a thread on it. I'd love to see how you come to this conclusion. It should be interesting....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 13 November 2003 11:08 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wanted to do a commentary on Tony Judt’s suggestion that Israel is bad for the Jews, but Leon Wieseltier beat me to the punch. His is truly the penultimate response to each of Judt’s arguments. Here is my favorite passage, the entire story is linked below.

Israel is not bad for the Jews

quote:
"[Judt's] third reason for wishing to wake up in a world without a Jewish state is the most embarrassing, because it is embarrassment. I mean that Judt is embarrassed by Israel. And so Israel must be gone. What follows is a passage of the sort that I never thought I would read in my time, at this late date in the modernity of the Jewish people. I squirm and type:

"‘Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn't do. But this time it is a Jewish state, not a Christian one, which is holding them hostage for its own actions. Diaspora Jews cannot influence Israeli policies, but they are implicitly identified with them, not least by Israel's own insistent claims upon their allegiance. The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews. The increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere is primarily attributable to misdirected efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel. ... The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.’

"Bad for the Jews! This is the parodic formula for a ludicrous degree of Jewish insecurity, an almost comical inner infirmity, and Judt is offering it, without irony, as a serious measure of the predicament of the Jews. The New York Review of Books: Is it bad for the Jews? I expect that Judt would recoil from such a vulgar question. But these are the terms of his own reflection.Judt does not like that he is caught in a web of implication. The behavior of the self-described Jewish state seems to have affected the way everyone else looks at him. I detect the scars of dinners and conferences. He does not wish to be held accountable for things that he has not himself done, or to be regarded as the representative of anyone but himself. It is disagreeable to be falsely represented by others. These are old anxieties. But there is a new source of relief, as Judt himself reports. There is the saving elasticity of contemporary identity. Why doesn't he simply delete his Zionism or his support for Israel from his inventory of multiple elective identities? Why must Israel pay for his uneasiness with its life?

"The reason, I fear, is that Judt has misinterpreted the nature of the hostility that vexes him. Consider his predicament again. He finds himself "implicitly identified" with Israel's actions in, say, Jenin. But he was nowhere near Jenin. He killed nobody. Indeed, he is ferociously opposed to the killings, and to the policies of the Sharon government in the territories generally. All he has to do, then, is to say so, and then to express his anger at the suggestion that he is in any way responsible for what he, too, deplores. For the notion that all Jews are responsible for whatever any Jews do, that every deed that a Jew does is a Jewish deed, is not a Zionist notion. It is an anti-Semitic notion. But Judt prefers to regard it as an onerous corollary of Zionism ("not least by Israel's own insistent claims upon their allegiance"). He refuses to place the blame for this unwarranted judgment of himself upon those who make it. Instead he accepts the premise of the prejudice, and turns on Israel. He makes a similar mistake in his evaluation of "the increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe." He knows that they are "misdirected," but still he describes them as "efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel." In what way, exactly, is the burning of a synagogue a method for getting back at Israel? In the anti-Semitic way, plainly. It is the essence of anti-Semitism, as it is the essence of all prejudice, to call its object its cause. But if you explain anti-Semitism as a response to Jews, and racism as a response to blacks, and misogyny as a response to women, then you have not understood it. You have reproduced it."



From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 November 2003 11:13 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
His is truly the penultimate response

And now that we've heard from Mish we can move on....


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 14 November 2003 08:04 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

And now that we've heard from Mish we can move on....



Yes especially when Judt's anti-Israel piece has been so solidly dealt with

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 November 2003 10:14 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you say.

The legitimate criticism he makes is that Judt didn't define the contours of the state. But that wasn't the purpose of his piece; besides, as Wieseltier acknowledges, others have done so. However, Wieseltier makes the usual mistake of equating Judaism with Zionism, and of describing Israel as a run of the mill "nation-state," when it is in fact a religious state. As for his point regarding Pakistan and India, the problem is that unlike Israel and Palestine, they are two separate states that have been functioning for over 50 years. It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle; it is not too late in the case of Israel/Palestine.

The portion you cite is typical psychobabble; attack the messenger for being somehow a self-hating Jew. Finally, as Wieseltier I'm sure knows well, the phrase "bad for the Jews" is a play on the common refrain "good for the Jews." Such as Netanyahoo's supporters in the '96 election slogan, "Netanyahu. Good for the Jews."


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 November 2003 10:35 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wieseltier's criticism of Judt reminds me of the right-wing criticisms often directed at left positions on, eg, Canada's First Nations, or on Canadian foreign policy generally.

If I say, for instance, that I feel some responsibility to compensate First Nations people and to negotiate a new kind of justice for them in Canada, inevitably some neo-con is going to come along and mock me for running on "guilt" -- the neo-con translation of my word, responsibility.

Yet to me, I clearly am responsible. No, I am not my great-grandparents (whom I am not disowning, either, btw: nice people, actually), but I know things they didn't; I have benefitted from privileges and prosperity that they had and yet other oppressed groups didn't; I didn't inherit a level playing-ground, so I would like to contribute to creating such. That's not "guilt": it's an adult feeling called responsibility.

Similarly, I know more than most of my forebears did about how much all Canadians have benefitted from the rape of other lands. I don't feel "guilty" or "embarrassed" for my forebears or myself: they lived in another time, by their best lights (well, most of them tried, anyway). But the light of my time is better and brighter, and it would be irresponsible of me not to seek a more level playing-ground internationally as well.

That probably should mean some apologies, some compensation, some self-criticism and reflection.

I don't see that Judt is saying anything worse or more than that.


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

posted 14 November 2003 11:12 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While i never expect the usual crowd to ever agree with any cogent analysis that somehow favours the state of Israel, it would be welcome at times to show some thought and admit that the Wiesleter piece is an excellent rebuttal to Judt.

Wiesleter is amongst the west's top intellectuals and while his politics (centre to centre left) may not be to your liking his positions are solid.

That all stated, I attach the following from today's Ha'aretz and must say that I find these arguments also very telling especially coming from Israeli Shin bet leaders of the past.

A warning


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

posted 14 November 2003 11:15 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will read your link, Mishei, but I just had to ask/say:

What the hell is a "top intellectual"?

And who do you think you're going to convince of anything by committing one of the basic logical fallacies, with such a blatant "appeal to authority"?

An argument is good or it isn't: who makes it doesn't matter a damn, except to the terminally pretentious or obsequious.


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

posted 14 November 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I will read your link, Mishei, but I just had to ask/say:

What the hell is a "top intellectual"?

And who do you think you're going to convince of anything by committing one of the basic logical fallacies, with such a blatant "appeal to authority"?

An argument is good or it isn't: who makes it doesn't matter a damn, except to the terminally pretentious or obsequious.



Skdadl you have a point only to a degree. People, yes, can make fallatious arguments even if they are brilliant. However, even in doing so it does not take away the fact that on an overall continuum the person is still brilliant. Indeed we have to be able to measure these things in some manner.

Was Sir Issac Newton brilliant? Marshall McLuhan, Galbraith...top thinkers and intellectuals even if you dont always agree with them, no?


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

posted 14 November 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, when I referred to someone committing a fallacy, I was referring to you, not to Wieseltier.

The appeal to authority is a fallacy. You committed that one.

Yes, I like to refer to people I think are strong thinkers -- but when I do, I cite precisely the arguments they made that I find strong, and I explain why.

It's called showing your work, Mishei.

If all you are saying is, "Look! McLuhan said so, so it must be right!" then you are definitely not doing McLuhan any honour, Mishei, and you're not convincing anyone else capable of critical thought. You're just dropping names, Mishei.

That said, I read your link, and that reads like real progress to me. It reads like serious self-criticism. All honour to those guys.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 November 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wieseltier is a bright guy, at least when it comes to literary criticism. But he writes for a magazine which does not tolerate any criticism of Israel, so it didn't take much intellectual courage for him to write what he did. In fact, I would have fallen out of my chair had he wrote any praise for Judt's piece.

And I didn't dismiss the piece out of hand. I noted where I thought his criticism was legitimate, and where I thought it was unconvincing.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 14 November 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

1) Muslims are evil
2) Leftists are evil
3) Europeans are evil
4) Chinese are evil
5) Nazis are the worst-ever evil
6) Italian fascists and Likudniks are cool
If anyone can explain this, please do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I realize that this list was put here to describe general themes and attitudes that have been heard here on babble. None of them are actually true.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 14 November 2003 05:59 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know if anyone's pointed to this article from
The Nation. It's actually a review of five recent books, but in the process it covers a number of vital issues and gives some important insights. For instance:

quote:
Yet Jewish opinion may not be as rock-solid in support of a Jewish state as Hertzberg thinks, if Marc Ellis's new book is any indication. Ellis, who heads the Center for American and Jewish Studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, argues in Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes that Jews are torn between two poles: Judaism's traditional concern for ethics, and a Jewish state that makes a mockery of the very concept. Where the Nazis never succeeded in destroying "the very essence of what it means to be Jewish," Israel has undercut it "at a fundamental level" through its relentless assault on Palestinian rights. As a result, he says, the fault line in international Jewish politics now runs between tribalists who believe in smiting the Philistines harder and harder, and universalists who believe that it is in the Jews' best interests to support equal rights for Jews and non-Jews alike. "Instead of splitting apart around issues of geography and culture, a civil war of conscience has begun," Ellis writes--which, judging from the vicious arguments erupting nowadays at seders and bar mitzvahs, may very well be the case.

From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 25 November 2003 06:11 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 'new' anti-semitism: is Europe in grip of worst bout of hatred since the Holocaust?
quote:

Deborah Lipstadt, the academic who won a libel victory after describing the rightwing historian David Irving as a Holocaust denier, this month described the "new" anti-semitism as directed at the "Rambo Jew, the Jew who is the aggressor".

"What we have seen in these attacks is an obsession with the vilification of Israel; a use of Nazi and Holocaust images to describe Israel and its politics, and a focus on Israel's failures regarding human rights, while totally ignoring the Arab world's failures of human rights," she told a conference in Jerusalem. Some Israeli critics say a country that claims to be at the forefront of defending western civilisation cannot then demand to be judged by the standards of the states it portrays as terrorist regimes.

But Robert Wistrich, director of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's international centre for the study of anti-semitism, says human rights is merely a cover.

"On the left we see a trend to believing there is a worldwide conspiracy in which Jews and Zionists are implicated," he said. "You have a link of money, Jews, America, world domination, globalisation.

"The notion that the Jews are a superpower that controls America is both a classic and revamped form of anti-semitism.

"The most interesting phenomenon is the singling out and demonisation of the state of Israel, that brands it as a Nazi-like state or accuses it of genocide.

"This kind of discourse is often put forward under the banner of human rights. This is new."

Many on the Israeli left are sceptical.

"We should bear in mind that during the time of the peace process, when Rabin and Peres were leading, Israel was the favourite of the west," said Yaron Ezrahi, an Israeli political scientist.

"There was so much support from Europe and its public. Why was anti-semitism so limited during the time Rabin and Peres led the peace process and gave the world the message that Israel was prepared to abandon the occupied territories?

"Sharon has a long record of calling Israeli critics of his policies traitors, and foreign critics anti-semites. The left is concerned that Sharon's policies are endangering Israel's future by fuelling virulent and violent anti-semitism."


[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 November 2003 11:04 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally, I don't have much use for Rambo types whatever their ethnic origin ...
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 12:54 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While i never expect the usual crowd to ever agree with any cogent analysis that somehow favours the state of Israel, it would be welcome at times to show some thought and admit that the Wiesleter piece is an excellent rebuttal to Judt.

Oh, goody, more condescension from Mishei.

Wiesleter's rebuttal is good but it's not complete. He claims that Judt can simply disavow connections to Israel; yes, he can. He claims that the assumption that what one Jew does, they all do, is an anti-Semitic notion; yes, it is.

But he claims that Zionists do not claim the allegiance of Jews worldwide, and that is not true.

Mishei himself has repeatedly claimed that attacking Israel's identity as a Jewish state (a term he never defines, but it seems to be reliant on the Jewish majority, which must be maintained artificially) is anti-Semitic; how can this be so if all Jews are not identified with Israel? Would you call me anti-Muslim if I told you I wanted Iran to secularize and give up its identity as an Islamic state? You would not, because clearly there my issue is with the state, not with Shi'a Islam as such. But if I say I want Israel to secularize, I am advocating the "Final Solution." Why? Because all Jews are, from the mainstream Zionist point of view, potential Israelis.

Wiesleter does not address this; he claims that Zionism does not do this, but Mishei's own behaviour belies that claim, and so it is disingenuous of him to put it forward as an effective rebuttal to Judt.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 November 2003 01:30 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mishei himself has repeatedly claimed that attacking Israel's identity as a Jewish state (a term he never defines, but it seems to be reliant on the Jewish majority, which must be maintained artificially) is anti-Semitic...

"When I use a word," Mishei said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more or less."

"The question is," said Smith, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Mishei, "which is to be master—that’s all."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 November 2003 07:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Smith, when do you start law school? Seriously, that was excellent, Smith.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 November 2003 08:48 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
So Smith, when do you start law school? Seriously, that was excellent, Smith.
Only problem is that I did present to you my position on Israel as a Jewish state. Smith may not have liked the answer so that is why I presume she just ignored it.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Smith:

So if all Israeli citizens are equal before the law, as you claim, what makes the state "Jewish," and how is it kept that way?


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


I was unable to get the link for this piece so I am producing it here. It comes from the Zionist education council and helps to answer this important question
------------------------------------------------
“A State For Jews Or A Jewish State”.

From the outset of Zionism as a political movement it was clear that the subject on the agenda was a Jewish state. Herzl called his famous pamphlet of 1896, which formed the basis for his entire activity and hence the establishment of the Zionist movement, The Jewish State. There were those in the movement who chose, mainly for tactical reasons, to downplay the political side of the program; they talked more in terms of a Jewish society than a state. Nevertheless, it was clear to everyone that the goal was to attain an autonomic entity in which Jews would completely control their own lives. Soon enough, it became clear to all in the movement that such an entity was only conceivable in Eretz Israel. That much was agreed upon.

It was much less clear, however, what exactly was meant by the term ‘Jewish state.’ The problem was that, as we have already seen, there was little or no agreement in the Jewish world as to what being Jewish actually implied. Even more fundamentally, there was little agreement about how the Jews should be defined as a collective. Should they be seen as a religion, like Christianity or Islam? There were those, especially in the West, that said yes.

Others saw them as a nation. What did this mean, however: a secular framework such as the French or Italian nations? Many in the Zionist movement insisted that this indeed was the case. They saw Zionism as the national movement of liberation of the Jewish people, rather like the Italian national liberation movement of the mid-19th century. Others within and outside of the movement were appalled: how was it possible to compare the Jewish nation to secular national movements of any kind? The Jews were a nation of a totally different kind; a religious nation, a holy nation whose whole culture and way of life was religious by definition.

These differences of opinion were anything but theoretical. It was clear to all that they would have very important practical consequences for the forthcoming Jewish state that was the aim of the Zionist movement. The issue was no less than the way of life that would be followed within any future autonomic society or state that Zionism might attain. What would the law of the state be? What would its constitution be? What would the character of its education system be? Would it be a state where all would keep kashrut? All of these were key questions that would have to be answered in the most concrete of terms.

For those (the majority of the Zionists) who saw the Jewish state as ultimately constituting the almost exclusive framework for the Jewish people, the question was deeper still: what would be the future of the Jewish people? What kind of a people would the Jews be? Would there be any future for Judaism?

At first, the Zionist movement served as the framework for the arguments on all of these issues. Within the movement, religious and non- religious Jews were organized into separate factions. Could they work together towards a common cause? At a certain point, as the Yishuv developed inside Palestine, the center of gravity of the movement increasingly shifted to within Eretz Israel, where the arguments between the various groupings were played out among the political parties and groups of the Jewish community. From 1948 onwards, those same arguments would be moved to a new arena: the institutions of the State of Israel.

At least three main opinions regarding the character of the Jewish state were voiced in the Zionist movement, and the institutions of the Yishuv and the early state.

A Jewish state is a neutral framework whose task is to provide a general background in which all Jews can decide for themselves how to lead a Jewish life. The state must provide the means for different groups to live their life. The state must be democratic. Groups that wish to do so are free to conduct their lives according to Jewish law without affecting the lives of others who want something else.
A Jewish state is a religious framework. The law of the land must be guided by Halacha. Individuals can do what they want within their own private spheres but all aspects of public life must be run in accordance with halachic norms. It is unthinkable, in a Jewish state, that people will be able to break Halacha publicly.
A Jewish state is a secular framework. It will be run according to democratic lines. However, certain spheres of public life which are of particular importance to religious groups will, by agreements, be given over to their supervision. In these spheres of life, life and law will be determined by Halacha rather than by democratic choices that may vary according to the make-up of the population. These spheres will be above the normal democratic process, according to prior agreement of all the groups in the polity.
Very early on within the Zionist movement, it became clear to most Zionists, including the religious faction, that the second suggestion was a non-starter since the clear majority within the Zionist movement from its earliest years belonged to the secular faction. Thus the third option was basically the best that could be hoped for, from the standpoint of the religious Zionists. Most of the non-religious Zionist majority had no wish to force a split within the movement. Ultimately, in order to avoid such an occurrence, the last option was chosen.

The question now was: which aspects of life should be given over to religious control or be brought under the principles of Halacha (Jewish religious law)? Here many years of struggle within the different groups resulted in a de facto agreement that was acceptable to all the main players. It selected a number of spheres of activity and public life where Orthodox religious norms would govern the way of life of the state-in-the-making and the state-to-be.

These were formally put to paper in June 1947 in a letter sent by David Ben Gurion, at that time the Chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive and the accepted political leader of the Yishuv. The recipient was Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon, the leader of the non-Zionist Agudat Israel party. The letter had no actual legal status, but was to become the basis of the division of power and the definition of spheres of influence in the future Jewish state. It has become known in history and in Israeli mythology as the ‘Status Quo agreement,’ since it basically formalized existing agreements and practice as they had evolved within the Zionist movement and inside Mandatory Palestine.

The letter made promises regarding four aspects of public life that were vital to the Orthodox:

1. Shabbat would be the national day of rest. However, the state would recognize the Christians’ and Moslems’ respective days of rest.

2. Kashrut would be observed in all kitchens under state auspices.

3. Religious courts would maintain exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of personal status. The principal aspects of this would relate to birth, marriage and divorce.

4. Existing autonomous religious educational systems would be recognized by the future state. This applied to the two religious systems operative at the time: the national religious system of the religious Zionists and the independent Haredi system.

A few other agreements would subsequently be made in the spirit of the status quo agreement. Some, like Ben Gurions’s acquiescence for the few hundred full-time yeshiva students to be granted exemption from army service, would become extremely controversial when the numbers of such students swelled to the tens of thousands. Other aspects of the agreements, such as the implications of the Shabbat agreement, would become problematic as the state developed and pressures among the non-religious public developed for entertainment and commercial activities on that day. Nevertheless, the spirit of the ‘status quo’ is still invoked today. There are arguments over its interpretation, but it has long been accepted by most as a general framework for trying to settle disputes over issues of religion and state.

[



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

posted 27 November 2003 10:52 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes. I shall bold the parts I find problematic:

quote:
A Jewish state is a secular framework. It will be run according to democratic lines. However, certain spheres of public life which are of particular importance to religious groups will, by agreements, be given over to their supervision. In these spheres of life, life and law will be determined by Halacha rather than by democratic choices that may vary according to the make-up of the population.These spheres will be above the normal democratic process, according to prior agreement of all the groups in the polity.

"All the groups in the polity" is presumably taken to mean all the groups in the Jewish or majority-Jewish polity that existed at the time of the (non-reviewable) agreement. The article goes on to say that this "third option" is the one that was chosen.

quote:
The letter had no actual legal status, but was to become the basis of the division of power and the definition of spheres of influence in the future Jewish state. It has become known in history and in Israeli mythology as the ‘Status Quo agreement,’ since it basically formalized existing agreements and practice as they had evolved within the Zionist movement and inside Mandatory Palestine.

The letter made promises regarding four aspects of public life that were vital to the Orthodox:

1. Shabbat would be the national day of rest. However, the state would recognize the Christians’ and Moslems’ respective days of rest.

2. Kashrut would be observed in all kitchens under state auspices.

3. Religious courts would maintain exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of personal status. The principal aspects of this would relate to birth, marriage and divorce.


This is, in essence, a partial theocracy; I do not approve of theocratic government. Yet Mishei has informed us that if we do not believe that these aspects of the law should be left to religious courts (which by his definition apparently is what makes the state Jewish, even if a majority of its citizens are Muslim...no?), we are being anti-Semitic. Again, people who object to the imposition of Sharia law in Nigeria, Iran or Pakistan are not accused of being anti-Muslim; the understanding is that our problem is with the application of the religion, not with the religion itself, and not with every person who practises it.

There is no reason to suppose that a person who objects to certain states running according to Muslim religious law would have a problem with individual families observing Muslim tradition within those states, or in other states. However, if I object to the imposition of religious law in Israel, Mishei apparently sees this as an objection to the existence of Jews as such. It is a double standard.

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 27 November 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record, religipous law applies through Israel's religious entities. Therefore on issues of marriage, death etc, Jewish authorities deal with Jews, Christian authorities Christians and Muslim authorities Muslims.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 11:58 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So if only a minority of the citizens of the state are Jews dealing with Jewish authorities, what makes the state Jewish?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 November 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
So if only a minority of the citizens of the state are Jews dealing with Jewish authorities, what makes the state Jewish?
But that is not the case!

As well, back to Judt for a moment, I thought this would be of interest to Babblers.

Attacks on Judt, Soros Reveal Blind Spots

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 27 November 2003 02:41 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But that is not the case!

But how do you know it will never be the case?


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

posted 27 November 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

But how do you know it will never be the case?



I don't but how do you know that the world wont end tomorrow either? Let's not engage in speculation. Let's deal with what is here and now.

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

posted 27 November 2003 03:28 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let's not engage in speculation. Let's deal with what is here and now.

Okay, what's here and now:

There are ~5 million Jews in Israel; several hundred million Muslims in the surrounding area. The Muslim birthrate in Israel and outside of it is much higher than the Jewish one. In addition, there are the occupied territories, where Muslims outnumber Jews, but so far Sharon seems entirely unwilling to relinquish control of those areas.

But even within Israel proper, the Jewish majority is under threat; it may be gone in fifty years.

This is not an apocalyptic vision; it is not mere speculation; it is a very clear possibility. This is the here and now. How can a state with a non-Jewish majority be considered Jewish?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 November 2003 03:36 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How can a state with a non-Jewish majority be considered Jewish?

I think the question is this: What do supporters of a Jewish state in Israel advocate to preserve a Jewish majority, given the demographics Smith cites?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 November 2003 04:33 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, I was getting to that, but see, if Mishei doesn't believe a Jewish majority is necessary to a Jewish state, then that's one thing; the demographics are not a problem for him. If (as I suspect) he does believe the majority is necessary, then the issue of enforcement of the majority comes up, because the demographics do indicate pretty clearly that that majority is unlikely to maintain itself without some sort of intervention.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 November 2003 05:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This possibility has been raised before on a previous babble thread. Back then, Mish said something to the effect that the Israelis will handle it in whatever way seems necessary at the time.

He didn't say, "by any means of their own choosing" though.

He didn't.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 November 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
Ah, I was getting to that, but see, if Mishei doesn't believe a Jewish majority is necessary to a Jewish state, then that's one thing; the demographics are not a problem for him. If (as I suspect) he does believe the majority is necessary, then the issue of enforcement of the majority comes up, because the demographics do indicate pretty clearly that that majority is unlikely to maintain itself without some sort of intervention.
Quite and as far as Israel is concerned it has a jewish majority HERE AND NOW.

It is therefore necessary to ensure a viable two-state solution as the only means by which to maintain a majority Jewish state. I believe it is achievable . I believe that speculating the worst is a doomsday scenario not what is likely at all.


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

posted 27 November 2003 05:58 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is therefore necessary to ensure a viable two-state solution as the only means by which to maintain a majority Jewish state.

But will that work in the long term? Again, even the statistics from within Israel proper are hardly an assurance of a continued Jewish majority.

quote:

I believe it is achievable . I believe that speculating the worst is a doomsday scenario not what is likely at all.

A non-Jewish majority is a "doomsday scenario," eh?


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

posted 27 November 2003 09:55 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

A non-Jewish majority is a "doomsday scenario," eh?



Yes it is for Israel. Most Jews have a visceral and strongly held connectedness to the Jewish state. You may not understand it or agree with it but there you have it. Most Jews could not accept a non-democratic Jewish state of Israel. It is anathama to Jewish belief and contrary to modern day Jewish ethical values.

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

posted 27 November 2003 09:58 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry to hear that because lat I heard, antisemites that they are, it was right wing and religious Jews saying there will be no Palestinian state in response to the Geneva plan.

So, no Palestinian state leaves Plaestinians a majority in a "Jewish" state. Again I ask: how can a state that practices repression and oppression and founded on the principles of race, be Jewish?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 November 2003 10:18 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I'm sorry to hear that because lat I heard, antisemites that they are, it was right wing and religious Jews saying there will be no Palestinian state in response to the Geneva plan.

So, no Palestinian state leaves Plaestinians a majority in a "Jewish" state. Again I ask: how can a state that practices repression and oppression and founded on the principles of race, be Jewish?


And since when do they make policy in Israel?

Even Sharon has come to accept the need for a two-state solution. We may not like his vision of what comprises a Palestinian state but he accepts the inevitability of it. So stop pointing at a few extremists who negate a two-state solution as speaking for all Israelis. It is just a further attempt at demonizing Israelis in general.

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 27 November 2003 11:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And since when do they make policy in Israel?



They are in government. In Sharon's cabinet. So they do make policy. And no serious observer believes Sharon is sincere. He is on a campaign to undermine the Geneva proposal.

So stop trying to downplay the facts. And I am not demonizing Israel. I have no purpose to do so. I would argue, however, the ghettos and walls do that job rather nicely.

Rather than accuse me of an agenda that doesn't exist why don't you acknowledge your own agenda and work for positive change?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 November 2003 12:16 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

They are in government. In Sharon's cabinet. So they do make policy. And no serious observer believes Sharon is sincere. He is on a campaign to undermine the Geneva proposal.

So stop trying to downplay the facts. And I am not demonizing Israel. I have no purpose to do so. I would argue, however, the ghettos and walls do that job rather nicely.

Rather than accuse me of an agenda that doesn't exist why don't you acknowledge your own agenda and work for positive change?


Yes just keep on being dark, forboding and negative. It suits your agenda just fine.

Once again Sharon has reiterated the need for a two-state solution but with your attitude you will of course just dismiss this because it appears to me that you have little interest in a solution to this crisis.

Sharon: painful land consessions will be necessary.


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

posted 28 November 2003 12:32 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Talk about agendas. Mishei has become an apologist for the butcher Sharon.

From the article: "Sharon also confirmed that Israel would not remove some West Bank settlement outposts, which conflicts with a requirement of the U.S.-backed “road map” peace plan."

Also reported today, Sharon says building of the apartheid wall will continue. He also warned Palestinians to accept now, whatever they are offered or get nothing ever.

More from your new hero Mishei: "Mr Sharon breached his undertaking to Mr Bush and Israel's commitment under the US-led road map to dismantle illegal outposts by saying that those established "to provoke the government" would be removed, but that others were crucial to the security of bigger settlements and would remain.

Hours earlier, Israel's deputy defence minister, Ze'ev Boim, went further and said the government was close to legalising some of the outposts it is committed to dismantling. Some "unauthorised outposts" were now towns, he said, and "the process of legalising them is near the end"."

Bush's man of peace says "fuck you" to peace hopes

[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 November 2003 12:48 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Talk about agendas. Mishei has become an apologist for the butcher Sharon.

From the article: "Sharon also confirmed that Israel would not remove some West Bank settlement outposts, which conflicts with a requirement of the U.S.-backed “road map” peace plan."

Also reported today, Sharon says building of the apartheid wall will continue. He also warned Palestinians to acceptm now, whatever they are offered or get nothing ever.

MIshei, you are showing your true colors as a supporter of an apartheid racist state when you begin apologizing for Sharon. He does not want peace and never has. You are either a tool or a true believe and either case it is shameful and sad.

When you were in Israel did you lift any blocks into the wall? You appear to be doing so now.


Why must you always act like this? My position was clear it is you who muddies it up for your own childish purposes.

I said that Sharon has accepted the idea of a two-state solution. I have also CLEARLY (but you choose to be wilfully blind) said that I do not like his proposals. However unlike you I am willing to at least see improvement. You choose to see despair because you have no interest in the Palestinian people who crave peace and a state of their own. No you want to prolong conflict because without it people like you would have little else to do.

[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 28 November 2003 03:16 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel may be bad for the Jews but it's worse for the Palestinians.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 November 2003 10:15 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Smith:

A non-Jewish majority is a "doomsday scenario," eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes it is for Israel. Most Jews have a visceral and strongly held connectedness to the Jewish state. You may not understand it or agree with it but there you have it.


And if they have to share this land they feel connected to with too many non-Jews, it is...what, polluted?

quote:

Most Jews could not accept a non-democratic Jewish state of Israel. It is anathama to Jewish belief and contrary to modern day Jewish ethical values.

That's nice. Has nothing to do with my question, and I'm not sure how ethnic quotas and illegal settlements fit into a democratic vision, but as long as we're living in Happy-Land with Sharon The Man Of Peace, it's nice.

[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 29 November 2003 10:14 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quite and as far as Israel is concerned it has a jewish majority HERE AND NOW.
It is therefore necessary to ensure a viable two-state solution as the only means by which to maintain a majority Jewish state. I believe it is achievable . I believe that speculating the worst is a doomsday scenario not what is likely at all.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
dadaclown
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4669

posted 05 December 2003 02:10 AM      Profile for dadaclown     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei,

When will you stop using the Holocaust as a way to justify stealing Palestinian land? Everyone is tired of it, even the guy next to me, in the internet cafe who saw what I was posting. I dont know him, he just saw what I read and agreed. You are discrediting the honour of those murdered by Hitler for the sake of your own politcal agenda.

It harms the credibility of Jews, while the obvious double standard fans the flames of anti-semetism because even the most ignorant person can see that the occupation is a crime.

Your are still, and always will be a creep.

GGINT

Edited by Michelle to prevent yet another attempt at "outing".

[ 05 December 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: over dere | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 05 December 2003 03:03 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If so, outting is bad form, if not it's still bad form. And I am not a memeber of the fan club.

Someone is gonna get so spanked.

(Sorry, Scout, had to edit your message slightly too, I'm sure you understand. Thanks for the heads up.) - Michelle

[ 05 December 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 December 2003 06:14 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is getting deep-sixed unless it gets back on topic, btw.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ice Foot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2531

posted 08 December 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for Ice Foot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Source

The following article is an open letter written by a group calling itself Jewish Friends of Palestine. I often read the comments of Israel's supporters who say that being opposed to Israel is the equivalent to being against Jewish people, and I wanted to post this article because it makes it clear that there are Jewish people who are opposed to Israel's policies and continued treatment of the Palestinian people as well.

Personally, I can't imagine a world without the timeless wisdom of Judaism and the rich Jewish culture, but to make a country that is exclusive to one religion or race is ridiculous. The world has become multinational and Israel has to be that way too. Murdering or banishing everyone who is not Jewish is not the answer.

quote:
Jewish Friends
of Palestine
An Online Initiative of Jewish Activists for a Free Palestine www.jewishfriendspalestine.org

The Privilege of being a Jew
An open letter submitted by the author*

We can tell the truth; we can condemn injustice, nationalism and racism – of the old and the new breed – without running the risk of being branded anti-Semitic in front of the grandchildren of the very people who, back then in Europe, had known nothing and said nothing. We don’t want our grandchildren to ask us one day: "Where were you when the Israeli army massacred the Palestinian people?"

With pain and rage we recognize that, after centuries in which we were the victims of terrible oppression and persecution, the majority of the Israeli Jews are now treating the Palestinian people according to the same all-too familiar patterns of the very worst nationalism.

We are especially horrified by the cynicism of those in Germany who justify their solidarity with murderers à la Sharon through their alleged solidarity with the victims of Nazi persecution. In point of fact, the majority of these gentlemen are the legitimate successors to a political class that – then as now – stands on the side of the powers that be for opportunistic reasons. If the solidarity with the Jews were genuine and not dictated by servility toward the U.S., then Gypsies, Communists and all the other victims of Nazism would be on the receiving end of the same solidarity but, as everyone knows, that simply isn’t the case. We refuse to serve diligently as an alibi for the policies perpetrated by the West.

We accuse those who are responsible for the drama that is currently unfolding in Palestine:

a) The European racists and fascists. Only in light of the Nazis’ crimes is it possible to explain how Zionism could become a mass movement. Thanks to the founding of the state of Israel, the "good" Europeans were able to both free themselves of our "troublesome" presence and create, support and arm a powerful western bridgehead to defend their own economic and strategic interests, which they saw as being threatened by a growing Arab nationalism.

Overnight, the "evil" Jews became the "good" Israelis, and there was a demand for "reparations" for the victims of Nazi atrocities, at the Palestinians’ cost. Thus, a new additional injustice was linked to the injustices and atrocities of the past. Later, the Europeans were "unfortunately" supplanted in their hegemonic role by the U.S.A.

b) The Israeli neocolonialists, who shamefully try to conceal their criminal collusion with the American "golden calf" and their supposedly new European "friends" behind the fig leaf of the sacred divine promise to entrust the people of Israel with the land between the "Nile and Euphrates rivers". It is due to these promises that they arrogate to themselves the right to deny the independence of the Palestinian state – a state that would shrink to 22% of the area of the historic Palestine. They threaten to drive out every last Palestinian, thus completing the job of shameless ethnic cleansing that started 50 years ago. We are merely seeing a repetition in the worst possible taste of the unfortunately well known slogan “God with us”!

From the Bible, The Prophet Micah warns:

Micah 2, 1-5

Woe to those who devise iniquity And work evil on their beds! When the morning is light, they practice it, Because it is in the power of their hand. They covet fields, and seize them; And houses, and take them away: And they oppress a man and his house, Even a man and his heritage.
Therefore thus says Yahweh: "Behold, I am planning against these people a disaster, From which you will not remove your necks, Neither will you walk haughtily; For it is an evil time. In that day they will take up a parable against you, And lament with a doleful lamentation, saying, 'We are utterly ruined! My people's possession is divided up. Indeed he takes it from me and assigns our fields to traitors!'" Therefore you will have no one who divides the land by lot in the assembly of Yahweh.

Micah 3, 9-12

Please listen to this, you heads of the house of Jacob, And rulers of the house of Israel, Who abhor justice, And pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood, And Jerusalem with iniquity. Her leaders judge for bribes, And her priests teach for a price, And her prophets of it tell fortunes for money: Yet they lean on Yahweh, and say, Isn't Yahweh in the midst of us? No disaster will come on us. Therefore Zion for your sake will be plowed like a field, And Jerusalem will become heaps of rubble, And the mountain of the temple like the high places of a forest.

Would anyone have the courage to call Micah an anti-Semite?

We believe that we know and understand the motivation of people who, in the course of history from Samson up to the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto, have sacrificed their own lives in order to claim their right to a life worth living.

Exactly because we have ourselves experienced discrimination, persecution and extermination in the past, while we are presently in a position to condemn the so-called suicide attacks by Palestinians against unarmed civilians, we can also understand their motivation: the same rage, the same desperation, the same lack of prospects that our people felt back when our present "friends" had forced us into ghettos and put us into camps.

On the other hand, we condemn most decisively the other murderer - those who, in order to impose their order put down the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto with flame throwers; - those who dropped tons of napalm on the huts of Vietnamese peasants in the liberated areas with a simple push of a button from their cockpit seats.

It is not qualitatively different when the Israeli military today bombs the Jenin and Gaza camps from the land, sea and air.

We therefore consider it our duty to condemn the current Israeli policies as inhuman, and ultimately also as anti-Semitic, and not only because the Arabs are also Semites, as is well-known, but also:

a) Because the Zionist, anti-Arab policies openly and drastically conflict with the tradition of a people and the principles of a religion which – over many centuries – has provided unceasing evidence of love and respect for every human being, and thus are destroying the essence of Judaism.

b) Because Israel, in persisting in its repressive policies, is betraying our history and violating the memory of the Shoah which taught us to condemn any and all violence against the weak and to cherish the nobility of those few who understood us and tried to help and rescue us. Never in a million years could we have imagined that, within a single generation, our people would manage to bring such a repressive state into being. We have now lost our innocence; we have changed from victims into victimizers. We no longer have the right to invoke the Holocaust without opening ourselves up to an accusation of opportunism.

c) Even the Israeli people’s right to exist is jeopardized in the long run, and not by a degraded and martyred Palestinian people, but by its own policies. The Arabs aren’t the only victims of these policies. All over the world when imperialism chooses not to intervene on behalf of a corrupt clique, some murderous generals or an unscrupulous gang of racists, it sends its auxiliary forces such as Israel, which do the dirty work eagerly and efficiently: "aid" is delivered, weapons are sold, police are trained, they work with the secret services, such as the agents of the former racist South Africa, the Congo of Mobutu or the worst Caribbean dictatorships. Why should anyone help Israel in the future if the economic, political and military protection of the U.S., the new "master of the world", were to be cut off at some point in the future, now that Israel has persistently and consistently sowed so much hatred and spilled so much blood all over the world?

But there is a light in the darkness: the very few Israelis who have remained upright: Felicia Langer, Uri Avneri and many others, such as the 500 reservists of the Israeli armed forces who, despite threats and reprisals courageously proclaimed: "We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people".

They are unfortunately only a minority, but they are gaining in strength today, which gives us all hope that a peaceful coexistence between peoples, religions and all people will be possible in Israel/Palestine one day.



From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 December 2003 12:38 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ice Foot:
Source

The following article is an open letter written by a group calling itself Jewish Friends of Palestine. I often read the comments of Israel's supporters who say that being opposed to Israel is the equivalent to being against Jewish people, and I wanted to post this article because it makes it clear that there are Jewish people who are opposed to Israel's policies and continued treatment of the Palestinian people as well.

Personally, I can't imagine a world without the timeless wisdom of Judaism and the rich Jewish culture, but to make a country that is exclusive to one religion or race is ridiculous. The world has become multinational and Israel has to be that way too. Murdering or banishing everyone who is not Jewish is not the answer.



Can anyone here point to a post here in which I have claimed that opposing Israeli "policy" is antisemitic. Just one will do.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 December 2003 01:43 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Was IceFoot's post addressed to anyone in particular? Not everything is about you, Mish.

Checkpoint Syndrome

quote:
"The company commander informed us over the radio that we had to bring him to the base. `Good work, tigers,' he said, teasing us. All the other soldiers were waiting there to see what we'd caught. When we came in with the Jeep, they whistled and applauded wildly. We put the Arab next to the guard. He didn't stop crying and someone who understood Arabic said that his hands were hurting from the handcuffs. One of the soldiers went up to him and kicked him in the stomach. The Arab doubled over and grunted, and we all laughed. It was funny ... I kicked him really hard in the ass and he flew forward just as I'd expected. They shouted that I was a totally crazy, and they laughed ... and I felt happy. Our Arab was just a 16-year-old mentally retarded boy."

[ 08 December 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 December 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Was IceFoot's post addressed to anyone in particular? Not everything is about you, Mish.

Checkpoint Syndrome
Nice try Al, OK point to any post here that suggests the criticism of Israeli policy is defacto antisemitism.

[ 08 December 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]



From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 08 December 2003 05:17 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If answered, Mishei's challenge will turn this argument into one over a sliding definition of 'policy'. He will provide an utterly flaccid and unconvincing argument about how maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel is not 'a policy' but some kind of unquestionable (divine?) fiat. Then the slow march around the mulberry bush with the professional mouthpiece will begin again...

Main Entry: pol·i·cy
Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English policie government, policy, from Middle French, government, regulation, from Late Latin politia
Date: 15th century
1 a : prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs b : management or procedure based primarily on material interest
2 a : a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b : a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body


pol·i·cy1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-s)
n. pl. pol·i·cies

1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy.
2.
1. A course of action, guiding principle, or procedure considered expedient, prudent, or advantageous: Honesty is the best policy.
2. Prudence, shrewdness, or sagacity in practical matters.


policy

\Pol"i*cy\, n.; pl. Policies. [L. politia, Gr. ?; cf. F. police, Of. police. See Police, n.] 1. Civil polity. [Obs.]

2. The settled method by which the government and affairs of a nation are, or may be, administered; a system of public or official administration, as designed to promote the external or internal prosperity of a state.

3. The method by which any institution is administered; system of management; course.

4. Management or administration based on temporal or material interest, rather than on principles of equity or honor; hence, worldly wisdom; dexterity of management; cunning; stratagem.

5. Prudence or wisdom in the management of public and private affairs; wisdom; sagacity; wit.


policy

n 1: a line of argument rationalizing the course of action of a government; "they debated the policy or impolicy of the proposed legislation" 2: a plan of action adopted by an individual or social group; "it was a policy of retribution"; "a politician keeps changing his policies" 3: written contract or certificate of insurance; "you should have read the small print on your policy" [syn: insurance policy, insurance]

[ 08 December 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 08 December 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 08 December 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Glad to see you're getting some use out of that University degree after all Courage!
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 December 2003 06:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Was IceFoot's post addressed to anyone in particular? Not everything is about you, Mish.

Checkpoint Syndrome
Nice try Al, OK point to any post here that suggests the criticism of Israeli policy is defacto antisemitism.

[ 08 December 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


Never mind that your post in unintelligible, why do you include the added mishinformation of making it seem that I am editing your comments?

Your post makes it seem as if I am arguing against myself. You'll be saying I'm a Hamas operative next.

So how about that checkpoint syndrome?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 December 2003 06:20 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Never mind that your post in unintelligible, why do you include the added mishinformation of making it seem that I am editing your comments?

Your post makes it seem as if I am arguing against myself. You'll be saying I'm a Hamas operative next.

So how about that checkpoint syndrome?



I have no idea why the post turned out that way. I am not surprised however that you would ascribe a conspiratorial flavour to it. Must be the Mossad

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 08 December 2003 06:22 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Glad to see you're getting some use out of that University degree after all Courage!

You don't really need one to understand how shills and conjurers do their thing.

It's pretty simple stuff, in fact, especially in the case of a novice like the professional moutpiece, Mishei.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well, you know the rest...

[ 08 December 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 December 2003 07:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Glad to see you're getting some use out of that University degree after all Courage!

That line gets boring after the first 10 or 15 times, relogged/007.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 December 2003 10:19 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have no idea why the post turned out that way. I am not surprised however that you would ascribe a conspiratorial flavour to it. Must be the Mossad

How dense can you be?

Reading you is like reading those old 70s lite beer ads, Mish.

"More obtuse...less prickly."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 December 2003 10:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

How dense can you be?

Reading you is like reading those old 70s lite beer ads, Mish.

"More obtuse...less prickly."


Al I see that more and more you must now rely on personal attacks. Speaks volumes if you ask me.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 December 2003 11:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, you do have this rather annoying tendency to act like a brick wall at times.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 December 2003 11:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure Doc, a brick wall yet...foamy.....

quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
You are an ASSHOLE......ASSHOLE

Volumes....

[Ed. Anyway, what do we make of the checkpoint syndrome? I realize many folks like to ignore phenomena like this, but where Jewish people were once universally renowned for their contributions to mankind through philosophy, science and the arts, the image of the jackbooted thug is taking over. Shouldn't this be troubling?]

[ 09 December 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 09 December 2003 12:13 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if anyone ever considered the possibillity of a federation ('RealPals' if you like). Preverably disarmed and patroled by London Bobbies. You could have a few Jewish states and a few Palistinian states, and Jeruzalem as the federal Capital. It would be democratic and yet allow differences in cultural and religious practices. Bantustans of equals , if problems arise they can always blame the Feds in Jerusalem, CDN style.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ice Foot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2531

posted 09 December 2003 11:00 AM      Profile for Ice Foot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
[Ed. Anyway, what do we make of the checkpoint syndrome? I realize many folks like to ignore phenomena like this, but where Jewish people were once universally renowned for their contributions to mankind through philosophy, science and the arts, the image of the jackbooted thug is taking over. Shouldn't this be troubling?]

Personally, I think this is more than troubling. The cruel and brutal treatment of this boy by Israeli troops is dispicable and should be noted by the world. I would like to know what worker drone or Mishei have to say about it, although they've managed to avoid the question for this long, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

Either way, I don't need to know what anyone else thinks to have my own opinion that is deplorable and very telling of what is going on in Israel these days. It is very troubling to me that along with the scholars, scientists and otherwise great Jewish minds, the jackbooted thug has also risen to his full glory in Israel.


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 09 December 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Checkpoint Syndrome, eh!"
quote:
It's a game for him and he can pass a whole shift this way"; how they humiliated a dwarf who came to the checkpoint every day on his wagon: "They forced him to have his picture taken on the horse, hit him and degraded him for a good half hour and let him go only when cars arrived at the checkpoint.

If you were the mentioned dwarf, would you ride up to that checkpoint every day ... knowing full well what awaits you? Dwarfs too, have fully functioning brains (unlike some of the illuminati of babble whose brain-cells have been puffed up by hatred-of-Israel).

Checkpoint Syndrome? It's fiction. (Of course, stated with due respect to that bastion of journalistic integrity, Haaretz.)


From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 December 2003 12:04 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you were the mentioned dwarf, would you ride up to that checkpoint every day ... knowing full well what awaits you?

Like other Palestinians who cannot survive unless they use the roads in the territories -to go to work, or to markets - the dwarf probably had no choice but to go through a checkpoint.

Talk about blaming the victims!


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 09 December 2003 12:18 PM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the dwarf probably had no choice

Probably? As I said, it's fiction.

From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 December 2003 01:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh. Now I know how Catalina and Verres must have felt.

By closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and repeating "it's not true" you certainly make a compelling argument.

I know when I'm licked. You win.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2003 01:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidB-D:
Dwarfs too, have fully functioning brains (unlike some of the illuminati of babble whose brain-cells have been puffed up by hatred-of-Israel).

Quit trolling.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 09 December 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Probably? As I said, it's fiction.

What makes you say that? Are you saying the former IDF soldier is lying in his novel?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 December 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the issue of the Geneva Accord. I was wondering what the Arab and Palestinian reaction was to it. This article tells us that both the Israeli Right and much of the PA leadership as well as most Arab nations reject it outright:

quote:
A day after the Champagne and caviar ceremony in Geneva, thousands of Palestinians marched in Gaza to denounce what they saw as a "sell-out" by Abd-Rabbo. A more official condemnation came from the Palestinian Dar al-Fatwa (House of Edicts) which declared the accord to be "haraam" (forbidden) and a violation of "the sacred principles of Islamic justice."

The pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat branded the accord "a fruit of illusions." Arab News welcomed it as a means of weakening Ariel Sharon's hold on power. Egypt's state-owned media lashed out at the "betrayal" of the "right of return" to Israel for an estimated 5.5 million Palestinians.

Syria's state-owned media adopted a similar position. But they also saw the accord as a sign of Israel's weakening resolve. The newspaper Tishrin, the ruling Baath party's mouthpiece, claims that the accord shows that the Intifada is forcing the "Zionist enemy" to look for a way out of its "quagmire."

The Lebanese media, always looking over their shoulder to Damascus, have come out with much the same analysis. They see a "growing mood of desperation" in Israel and insist that the continuation of the intifada will eventually break the Jewish state. Readers are reminded of what is presented as Hezbollah's "historic victory" to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon during Ehud Barak's premiership.

In Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states, mosque preachers have denounced the accord as "a conspiracy to end the Intifada." One typical theme in these sermons is that just as Britain was obliged to hand Hong Kong over to China after 100 years, the Jews will end up returning the whole of Palestine to the Arabs.


National Post

[ 09 December 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 December 2003 03:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For an alleged "progressive", Mishei, you sure love to use the National Pisspot for a source.

Couldn't be anything to do with its owner's openly proclaimed pro-Israeli stance, would it?

This sort of thing is what people keep trying to hammer into your head, Mishei. In your zeal to defend Israel from all enemies, real or imagined, you are potentially allying yourself with people whose interests don't even resemble your own.

For example, the National Pisspot is obviously a right-wing newspaper and as such has been endorsing politicians who aren't really that interested in strengthening hate propaganda legislation, or in enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

What will you do when the National Pisspot endorses a CA politician that claims that Jews don't need protection in anti-discrimination laws?

What will you do if the ADL's own boy Berlusconi starts shooting his mouth off about Jews controlling the banks, or some idiocy thereof?

[ 09 December 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 December 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, you notice the Israeli government, the extremist Jews, the extremist Palestinians, undemocratic Arab governments and the United States are all in agreement on this?

What? Real peace? Traitors and heretics all!!!


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   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