Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 10:32 PM

Alan Dershowitz may be an excellent attorney, but he is a very poor historical scholar (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is not any sort of historical scholar). His book uses (or plagiarizes, as the case may be) as it's main source of historical evidence a book that is widely acknowleged by historians, including Israeli historians, as a fraud:

"In 1984, Joan Peters published From Time Immemorial, which claimed that Palestine was virtually empty on the eve of Zionist colonization, and that Palestinians are in fact foreigners who surreptitiously entered Palestine after the Zionists "made the desert bloom." The book is now widely recognized as a fraud. Baruch Kimmerling (of the Hebrew University) and Joel S. Migdal, in their authoritative study, Palestinians: The Making of a People, published by Harvard University Press, observe that Peters's book is "based on materials out of context, and on distorted evidence," and, citing my own conclusion that the book "is the most spectacular fraud ever published on the Arab-Israeli conflict," report that "similar evaluations were expressed by notable historians" in Israel and Europe.

Dershowitz states that he uses only a "few sources" cited in the Peters hoax. In fact, fully 22 of the 52 endnotes in chapters 1-2 are lifted straight from her without any form of attribution. In his defense, Dershowitz claims that no foul play is involved because he checked Peters's original sources before citing them, a laughable argument were an undergraduate to make it before a plagiarism committee. Dershowitz focuses on a lengthy citation from Mark Twain to argue this point. Yet, although Dershowitz reproduces Peters's page references to Twain's book in his own endnote, the relevant quotes do not appear on these pages in the edition of Twain's book that Dershowitz cites. Furthermore, Dershowitz cites two paragraphs from Twain as continuous text, just as Peters cites them as continuous text, but in Twain's book the two paragraphs are separated by 87 pages. It would be impossible for anyone who checked the original source to make this error."

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id142.htm

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:13 PM

Bobert, apples and oranges.

I'm not talking about Bush here like you and your butt buddy Amos are so obsessed with. I am talking about Israel and Jews, which you have exhibited that you know very little about.

Carol C. Norman Finkelstein has no creditionals and is the type of Jew I mentioned previously who has a major problem with his own identity. The link and article you frantically did a search for is complete bullshit. This moron obviously hates that he has a Jewish mother.

I also believe Carol C. that you know nothing at all about Israel and the Jewish experience.

Listen to top Jewish radio talk show hosts like Michael Praqer and Michael Medved. You will hear some true intellectuals who like Dershowitz, have some insightful thoughts.

Not Normie-baby Finkelstein. Man you'll post any link and say it's credible. You got your education obviously from the Internet and know very little about real life. That was a great example.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:26 PM

He's a self-hating Jew, Martin?

Are you also disputing the Israeli historians who have discredited Peters' book?

There is one thing I do know. There are many Jews who believe that what's best for Israel is not necessarily the same thing as what you believe is best for Israel, and what the government of Israel believes is best for Israel. It is possible to be a supporter of Israel, while disagreeing with the policies and practices of the Israeli government. I consider myself to be one such person.

And I also know that it is possible to be a suppporter of Israel while at the same time being honest about the real history of that region. In fact, there are many people, Jews as well as others, who believe that is the only way to accomplish real peace with Justice there.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:34 PM

Lies, Carol. The Jews who do not support Israel are in a small minority. Tell your story to Hamas. The Hamas mentality will not go away until it is extinquished. Get rid of the Hamas mentality and there will be a chance for peace.

Whatever it takes to do that. The Hamas mentality will not be happy until there is no longer an Israel. So, it's us or them. Deal with that.

You honestly do not know what you are talking about, as you have never been a Jew who has been persecuted and hated for that very reason.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:55 PM

They're not lies, Martin.

And where people like you and I disagree is that you believe that you have to kill all of your enemies in order to survive, while I believe that it is not possible to kill all of one's enemies, because killing people creates more enemies.

Hamas would have very little power amongst the Palestinians if they (the majority of Palestinians) had something to hope for and to want to protect from extremists like Hamas. This is proven by the direct correlation between the rise in violence committed against Palestinians by the government of Israel, and concurrent rise in support for Hamas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:20 AM

Martin, you do not represent the opinion of all Jews. You are not the voice of Israel. Obviously, not all Jews think alike and most Jews have stopped using persecution and hatred as an excuse for spewing hatred and violence toward others. Most Jews are able think logically and are not driven by paranoid delusions.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 05:25 AM

As a matter of interest
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 07:41 AM

hey, wasnt this thread about Muslim intolerance? now its morphed into israel/palestine.

back to the original theme - i respect Carole, Kevin and others who are strongly standing up against people who make generalisations about a particular race/religion.

but on the other hand, i also have to acknowledge Giok, Ooh AAh and Wolfgang for confronting some hard realities. when i visited england last year, it was a shock to walk down the street and have men of a particular culture make obscene comments as i walked past.

its interesting, in consideration of the comments made about germans here and there on this thread, that Germany has taken in a huge number of refugees, more than any other country in europe i think. and the clash of lifestyles and beliefs is playing out there and all over the world now.

yes, the rights and freedoms we have are hard won, and very fragile. we must do everything to uphold civil liberties.

just this week (here in australia i think), a professor of maths at a university conference said that he believed that men were genetically better at maths than women. Under his control, the number of women employed in his faculty had dropped considerably.

and you all know what they found out when alfred einstein and his first wife's letters were studied after their death - there is now a bunch of people who reckon SHE developed the theories. They certaionly referred to them as "our" theories in their letters to each other. and she had come top in her class at university from the start, whereas he performed dismally until he got together with her.

so maybe women CAN be good at maths (i'm not

freda

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Schizoid
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:00 AM

If you are desperate to be able to talk to an imaginary friend without the fear of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital - find religion! - any!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:12 AM

There has been so much thread drift here that I'm tempted to just say whatever the hell I want to say right now, but I'm satisfied with my current recipe for French bread and I'll keep this tight:

Freda: I've heard some of that talk about Al-BERT Einstein and his first wife Mileva. It seems to come from a bigoted website attributed to a noxiously anti-semitic Serb. Einstein's theories were incontrovertibly Einstein's. That doesn't make him the world's best husband and father, he was not! He owed a great deal to alot of people, as did Sir Isaac Newton, whose famous phrase, "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." would be equally appropriate to Einstein. Einstein seemed to be quite willing to share credit where appropriate. There are fine female scientists and mathematicians. There's a guy at Harvard (Massachusetts, USA) who is in trouble for comments he made about women in the sciences.

Islam: Islam is like any other religion, one of the basic things that any starting cult has to do is creat a separation between it and the outside world, counteracted by the ability to resist internal cleavages. Some religions (and sects) do this better than others. Religions go through stages, initial organization and definition, rooting out of heretics, growth through reproduction, invasion, conversion, and adaptation to the changing world.

Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not. Islam is six hundred years younger than Christianity. The Book "A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush" mentions the last holy war of conversion, taken against tribes of bandits in the mountains of Afghanistan int he late 19th century. It was convert or be beheaded. Are we going to have to wait six hundred years for Islam to come around? No, that would be a culturally pigheaded thing to believe. Islam will come around a bit faster than that, but not easilly. In the meantime we're gonna have to pay some attention to the religious blowhards of all pursuasions who believe it's alright to kill in the name of (insert deity here).

Christianity has only been a halfway decent religion with a certain amount of open-mindedness, for what, forty years, tops. And there are whole states in the US where Charles Darwin (Saint Chuck) couldn't get elected dog catcher.

There's plenty of intolerance to go around. And intolerance breeds intolerance. In fact, the toughtest position to maintain is that of tolerance beset by intolerance. It is by no means an automatic winner.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:51 AM

Germany too has its' problems, they actively recruited train loads of Turks to work in the car factories etc. then when there was an economic downturn they couldn't encourage them to leave fast enough. I did hear that resettlement grants were offered to immigrants to make going back more attractive. One way they got round the problem of these incomers causing problems was to refuse them full German citizenship which meant they had no vote and no civic right. I think this has now changed. You still see Moslems spreading their prayer mats every where, even by the roadside, and passers-by seem not to notice, whether this means they are fully integrated I don't know, I only know that of the few German cities I've been in most of them seem to have an immigrant quarter/ghetto.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 09:38 AM

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (While only 10 percent of the population is non-Dutch, this group accounts for more than 60 percent of abortions, "because the Muslim girls are kept ignorant," she said.)

has taken again her place in the Dutch parliament after a two months break despite the four pages long death threat letter fixed to the breast of the murdered film maker Van Gogh. If she would know the punishment waiting for her she'd wish to be dead already the letter said.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 10:56 AM

We have a lot of problems in Germany with Non-German and with German foreigners (you'll understand that later). For a fairly big part of that problem our own politics is to blame. We did close the eyes to that growing problem for more than thirty years. We lived in the illusion that we are not an immigration country and that the foreign workers and their children and grandchildren (knowing no other home than Germany) would eventually go back where they came from.

Therefore, there was no offer at all for integration: no language courses (why should they learn German when they go back anyway?), no courses about cultural background (German law and all that). Left and Right, for differing reasons, made the same error. For the Right, only the blood line determined who was German and not the place of birth and therefore any help for integration would be the wrong path. Incentives to go back was their way. For the Left, a multi-cultural Germany was a dream and therefore any help for (or, heavens beware, pressure to) integration would would only level loveable differences. Money to support cultural differences was their way and they close their eyes and ears (well, nobody understood them anyway) to preachers of hate financed by German multi-cultural monies.

Slowly, it dawns upon the Right that a third generation kid from Turkish workers with no knowledge of any language except German and a bit of English but a passport from Turkey could safely been regarded as an immigrant. They even start to realise that the idea of blood line determining the 'Germanship' instead of who has grown up here is a relict from dark times and should be eliminated from our laws.

Slowly, it dawns upon my Left that, for instance, bad treatment of women, forced marriages, honour killings of sisters by brothers, violence in families cannot be excused on the long run by a cultural difference. They start realising that a mild pressure to learn German and to cultural integration, not on the level of food, folklore, and all that, but on the level of liberal values and fairly liberal laws is a good thing.

No, I don't want to give up our liberal ideas on personal (and not familial) choices, on sexual orientation, on freedom to criticise any belief system to preachers of hate (of whatever religion, but in our present situation most of them are Muslim) who only wait for the day when they can impose their illiberal ideas upon us.

There will always be fanatical preachers from different faiths, but one reason that the few Christians of that ilk we have are laughed about and that's it but that the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

That's how we helped making that problem we now deplore.

In addition to that we have fanatical Neonazis prone to physical violence (in particular in the former GDR), German foreigners ('blood-line' Germans with one German great-grandparent coming over mostly from Russia) with a German passport and no knowledge of German who have grown up in a climate of physical violence (who clash violently with German speaking Turks without German passport) and Ghettos.

In too many schools the German speaking kids are a minority. Imagine teaching a first class in which you can't communicate with two third of the pupils (that's about the highest percentage in my town, but there are higher percentages in other towns) whether they have a German passport or not. The Europeans may know about the PISA-study and which countries' pupils were better (Finland, for instance) or worse (Luxemburg, for instance). By far the best predictor how good one's country's pupils were was the percentage of foreigners in that country. If it was low, the pupils were good, if it was high, the pupils were bad. Two notable exception (I won't go into the reasons for that): Britain was better than it's percentage of foreigners let expect and Greece was worse. Within the country (in Germany, I don't know about others) the same picture: the higher the percentage of pupils who were not native speakers of German the lower the performance. And that was true even for the German speaking pupils. Those with many non-German speaking peers were worse than German speaking pupils in other courses. In my town, even some Turkish parents now send their kids to schools in other (German) districts in a private attempt to integration.

Most of that mess is due to a failure of politics. The mixture of problems is dangerous but there is still a lot of hope that a politic pushing (and financing) integration may isolate the extremists. Whether the extremists themselves or our reaction to them would make our country less liberal, it would be a loss.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 12:25 PM

when i visited england last year, it was a shock to walk down the street and have men of a particular culture make obscene comments as i walked past

Freda, I've had that same experience, or similar ones with men of many different cultures (the most shocking for me, because of cultural stereotypes I held at that time, came from a man who was Amish).

Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not.

This is not true. Islam has the same kind of stratification that we see in pretty much all religions. There are progressive Muslims and there are fundamentalist Muslims. The progressive Muslims have brought Islam just as far into the present cultural paradigm as progressives of all of the other religions. It's the fundamentalists of all religions who are stuck in the past, including the fundamentalists in the Muslim religion. You're painting all Muslims with the same broad brush, while ignoring the presence (and influence) of backward fundamentalists in the other religions.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 12:42 PM

We have similar problems in the UK regarding British born children starting school unable to speak English. Surely one of the responsibilities of a parent, is to present their child at school in a fit condition to be taught. The end result is that teachers end up teaching some pupils the language while other pupils languish, falling behind the national curriculum, while their classmates are brought up to speed. The end result is that all pupils get behind schedule. When I was an employer it was frightening to read written job applications, kids should not be leaving school unable to communicate either verbally or in writing.
Many kids don't think they need an education anyway, as they're soon going to make it big as a pop star, a sports superstar, win the lottery, or maybe even as a drug dealer, all with a big car,lots of jewellery, and all the pretty girls they want!
If only :~(
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 12:55 PM

when i visited england last year, it was a shock to walk down the street and have men of a particular culture make obscene comments as i walked past

...I forgot to also mention Martin Gibson's almost daily practice of making obscene comments to me or about me right here in the Mudcat. In fact there is at least one right here in this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:01 PM

Ah but would he do it to your face Carol?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:12 PM

That doesn't really matter, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. The effect on me is the same either way.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:55 PM

Refugees who have fled their country to find peace in UK are not well equipped to teach their children english before starting school. But they are very good at survivng in war torn lands and protecting their children.

UK schools recieve extra funding for each child who's first language is not english. These extra coppers in the pot lead to misrepresentation by some schools. A child with one parent who may be english and another parent not being english, is more often than not put on the 'english as a second language' list, especially if their surname is foreign sounding, regardless of the fact that their mother is UK born and bred.

Yes it is manipulation of the true figures, but the schools benefit.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 02:43 PM

Oh boo hoo Carol C.    Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
The effect on you? How about the effect on ME, with all of your lopsided bull-head anti-Israel ANTI-JEWISH crap you spew here.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


dianavan you have no clue as to what "most" Jews think or want.

You perhaps know a couple, tops. I belong to the largest Jewish organization in North America, the Union for Reformed Judiasm and attend their regional meetings.

believe me, you continue to be amazingly clueless and uninformed.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 03:29 PM

Martin, you need to reform yourself.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 03:55 PM

I'm already there.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM

Robomatic:
Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not.

Carol:
This is not true. Islam has the same kind of stratification that we see in pretty much all religions. There are progressive Muslims and there are fundamentalist Muslims. The progressive Muslims have brought Islam just as far into the present cultural paradigm as progressives of all of the other religions. It's the fundamentalists of all religions who are stuck in the past, including the fundamentalists in the Muslim religion. You're painting all Muslims with the same broad brush, while ignoring the presence (and influence) of backward fundamentalists in the other religions.

No, Carol, I'm stating an opinion supported by history. Europe went through more than one extremely bloody phase of religious warfare, but got past that by the sixteenth century (and went on to bloody stages of political and nationalistic warfare). The Middle East is dominated by top-down regimes in which religiously codified leaders exert dominance through a religiously dominated political, and educational system. There are significant departures but they are very recent compared to the Western world. The progressive Muslims to which you refer definitely exist, they have been influenced by their openness to the outside world. Similarly, the interaction with the economies of the West has introduced new modes of thought, but the Islamic world of the Middle East is not in the same place with the rest of the world, viz. a lot of our current problems.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 04:48 PM

And the Progressive Muslims are obviously scared shitless of the fundamentalist Muslims. and I believe greatly outnumbered.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:33 PM

Robomatic, you did not say the "Islamic world of the Middle East" in your post that I quoted. You said precisely this:

Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not.

There s a vast difference between the "Islamic world of the Middle East" and "Islam".

Martin, there is a world of difference between criticizing the policies and practices of the government of Israel and "anti-Israel ANTI-JEWISH" anything. Anyone who fails to understand or acknowelege the difference between these two things is a BIGOT.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 10:36 PM

Addendum to my last post...

You, person who posts in the Mudcat under the screen name of "Martin Gibson", you use the terms "anti-Israel", "anti-Jewish", and "anti-Semite" as tools of power, as weapons, and as tools of revenge. You use them against anyone who says anything you don't like, whether or not there is any legitimacy to the charges. You use them like a petty little dictator who needs to control everyone's behavior and to punish anyone who displeases you.

These are illigitimate uses of those terms. Those uses do not serve the interests of freedom, tolerance, equality of peoples, or of any of the higher principles that they are meant to be used in service of. On the contrary... the only interests your uses of those terms serve are your selfish little ego massaging, self-aggrandizing, temper tantrums... your only buffer between your massive insecurity and self-loathing, and the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 11:39 PM

Actually, Martin -

In America, the conservative Jews outnumber the reformists.

It is my understanding that the reform group in Israel (Ashkenazi), are the most willing to make concessions to the demands of the Palestinians.

The information I have may not be current, but its the best I have. If you disagree, please let me know.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Bah humbug
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 03:39 AM

Religion = The go-ahead to talk to your invisible friend without fear of being branded a nutter.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 04:24 AM

Religion isn't the problem here, and probably never was. The cause of all the death and misery commonly attributed to religion is, in point of fact, Fundamentalism. Not the prerogative of any religion, but present in all, this insidious process is concerned with the narrowest interpretation of the message, whatever that may be, and is the cause of the belief that "My view of God's wishes for the human race is the only true one, and he who does not agree does not deserve to live". Fundamentalists are dangerous precisely because of their belief that they are right, and they are present in every religion, great or small, as a poisonous minority capable of outrageous acts of violence. So we should not blame the vast majority of any religious movement, for the actions of a small group of extremists.

BTW. Anyone who knows a little of the history of the Romans (bless 'em) will confirm that they did incorporate the Gods of other faiths into their own rituals, probably on the basis that, in a tough world, it's wiser not to make more enemies than you already have.

Perhaps some of todays religious leaders might consider following a rather good example, but even that won't clean out the extremists. Like all vermin, I fear they may be indestructible.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:27 AM

dianavan I thought the difference between Ashkenazim and Sephardim was geographical and not doctrinal, so using it as a label for reform Judaism could be misleading.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:01 AM

"It is much easier to claim the entire world is against us than to admit that the State of Israel, which rose as a refuge and a source of pride for Jews...has become a genuine source of danger and a source of shameful embarrassment to Jews who choose to live outside its borders." Akiva Eldar, in Ha'aretz

"When every civilian death is a war crime, that concept loses its significance. When every expulsion from a village is genocide, we no longer know how to recognize genocide. When Auschwitz is everywhere, it is nowhere." Peter Pulzer

"But equally, when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance." excerpt from The Myth of the New Antisemitism by Brian Klug

BTW, some people call Alan Dershowitz the Professor of Torture

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:17 AM

when considering those ideas i just posted, to criticise Israel is not to be antisemitic. Criticising a government's policy is different from criticising the people who live in that country.

however, when a statement like this is made..
"The problem before the Arab countries is not whether the port of Eilat should be blockaded or how to blockade it — but how totally to exterminate the State of Israel for all time". President Gamal Abdel Nasser

or this..

On March 3, 1977, the head of the PLO Military Operations Department, Zuhair Muhsin, told the Netherlands paper Trouw that there are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese:

"We are one people. Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. For it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians against Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestine identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."…

the motivations of these people are anti Israel BECAUSE they are antisemitic.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:34 AM

and going back to the original theme, its about rights - who's rights?

Individuals have rights

do groups have rights

does a country have a right to impose a culture?

does a minority culture have a right to to keep aspects of that culture (eg child wives to middle aged men) based on tradition?

please consider..

individual rights and robust group rights

or Pitcairn sex abuse trial

these Islamic women have made a A Declaration of Women's Rights in Islamic Societies

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:55 AM

Martin Gibson said: "I belong to the largest Jewish organization in North America, the Union for Reformed Judiasm and attend their regional meetings."

I've often noticed you referring to "Reformed Judaism." The correct term is "Reform Judaism" and the name of the organiztion that serves as the umbrella for Reform congregations is the "Union for Reform Judaism." A small point, perhaps, but something that a Reform Jew would know.

Also, Reform Jews *tend* to be the most left-leaning of the major Jewish denominations. Yet your postings here consistently express a hard-right tilt. That's somewhat unusual for a Reform Jew.

Dianavan said: "In America, the conservative Jews outnumber the reformists. It is my understanding that the reform group in Israel (Ashkenazi), are the most willing to make concessions to the demands of the Palestinians."

No, you are wrong on several counts. Reform Judaism is, by far, the largest denomination, in North America. Conservative Judaism is the second biggest, Orthodox the third. Reconstructionist Judaism, to which I belong, is the smallest.

Your use of the term "Ashkenazi" is completely incorrect. Ashkenazic Jews (descendants of Jews exiled to Northern Europe in the post-Temple era) reflect the entire spectrum of denominations. For a basic primer on what differentiates Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, you can visit this site.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:50 AM

Thank you Zilch. Reform vs. Reformed is a minor technicality. The URJ is the largest group. I've heard it referred both ways and there is no sense nitpicking.

Actually, I had heard that the Conservative movement was the fastest dwindling group.

What it boils down to is goyishe shiksas like dianavan and CarolC know very little about Judiasm, it's history, it's culture, it's mindset as a whole, and American Jews' relationship with Israel and their automatic birthright as citizens of that country.

however, not all of Reform Judiasm is left in it's thinking. There is a sizable and measurable independent and right leaning faction especially when it comes to support of current American politics. I would suggest that you read anything you can by Dennis Prager or listen to his syndicated radio show. He is openly a reform conservative Jew and judging from his popularity and common sense approach, has a following that sizably supports those views.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:20 AM

What it boils down to is goyishe shiksas like dianavan and CarolC know very little about Judiasm, it's history, it's culture, it's mindset as a whole, and American Jews' relationship with Israel and their automatic birthright as citizens of that country.

You are incorrect in this supposition, Martin. I know enough about Jewish culture to know that the term "goyishe shiksa" is a bigoted (possibly racist), and certainly misogynistic perjorative, very much along the same lines as calling a Black woman a "Nigger ho'"

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 03:42 PM

Just come back to this thread - can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up (fat chance I know). Do me one favour - travel as a solo woman in a Muslim country and then see if your attitudes don't change. My mother, a very unbigoted 58 year old woman who has been to India 15 times, including long spells as a nurse, was completely disgusted by the behaviour - violent, sexual, disrespectful - she encountered in Turkey, a very moderate Muslim country. She had no such problems in Greece, another nation of similar status in the same region noted for its machismo.

On the other hand I support Carol against that raving lunatic Gibson re Israel. I used to be passionately pro Israel out of sympathy over the holocaust and a visceral hatred of the Hamas-type Muslim loonies who would like to kill every person in the country, but now I regard it with deep disgust, despite not being in the least anti-Jewish - indeed I've met very few Jews. When young educated women start blowing up other women and children on buses something really stinks - they have been turned into monsters, and it was Israel's appalling repression and land-stealing that did it. Too bad that the macho Muslim culture can't bring itself to put away its guns and bombs and practise Gandhi-style civil disobedience - if these young Palestinian men are brave enough to blow themselves up you'd think they would be brave enough to sit in front of tanks - a few wet crunches on the TV, and the world would be firmly on their side. As it is Israeli aggression and colonisation by stealth can hide under the smoke-screen of a response to Muslim fanaticism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM

ooh aah: Re the last para: Carol shares your opinions, but at least she put together some references to back her up. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but if I'm understanding what you've written correctly, you are blaming the bombing victims for the horrors perpetrated on them. Are you making the same argument for the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the school in Beslan? Are you willing to give some of the blame to the intransigence of the Arab governments who could have resettled every Palestinian since 1948 as Israel has resettled the Jews from Arab countries, Ethiopia, and the USSR?

The focus of the Arabs has not been to resettle Palestinians, it has been to get rid of the State of Israel. They Palestinians have been victimized by the Arabs much more than by Israel.

I consider this strictly a response to ooh aah. I'm not interested in turning this thread into an Arab-Israel thread. There are plenty of those elsewhere and you can start a new one any time you want.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:09 PM

CarolC, I still insist you know very little about Jews and their religion and culture. And goyishe shicksa is in no way like nigger ho. It just merely is Yiddish for a gentile girl.

Your interpretation and remarks border on laughable. No wait. They don't border on it. They are!

There isn't a Jew within 100 miles of your trailer court CarolC and I believe, for very good reason.

I am very very sure that my landsmen on this forum, if they read your interpretation of this Yiddish phrase, would be laughing themselves silly over your completely idiotic and desparate accusation.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:59 PM

Alomzo - Thanks for the update. The information I had was at least 10 years old. Its entirely possible that the conservative numbers have declined.

From your link above: "In Israel, a little more than half of all Jews are Mizrachim, descended from Jews who have been in the land since ancient times or who were forced out of Arab countries after Israel was founded. Most of the rest are Ashkenazic, descended from Jews who came to the Holy Land (then controlled by the Ottoman Turks) instead of the United States in the late 1800s, or from Holocaust survivors, or from other immigrants who came at various times. About 1% of the Israeli population are the black Ethiopian Jews who fled during the brutal Ethiopian famine in the late 1980s and early 1990s."

If I said the Ashkenazic Reform Jews of Israel are the most willing to make concessions to the demands of the Palestinians, would that be closer to the truth?

I wasn't raised in the Jewish culture so I'm just trying to figure this out. I do not, however, take anything Martin says as fact.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:11 PM

dianavan,

as you mention above- "or who were forced out of Arab countries after Israel was founded"

Approx 820,000 Jews were forced out of Arab countries- and settled in Israel. And how many Jews remain in Arab territories?

Approx 640,000 Arabs left the area that became Israel- NOT all of the Arab population, as can be seen by the existing Israeli Arab population. How many were allowed to settle in any Arab country as citizens?

So, the conclusion is that Israel has to give up land to the Arabs to make up for... What?

And what did happen to the Jewish population of the West bank, between 1948 and 1967 when it was under Arab control?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:15 PM

You are amazingly ignorant of your own culture then, Martin. While goyishe may literally mean "non-Jew", you and I both know that in common usage, "goyishe" always indicates inferiority of whatever is being called "goyishe" in comparison to its Jewish counterpart. And we also both know that "shiksa" is a very special word that is used commonly on non-Jewish women who marry or become involved with Jewish men. But here's it's actual meaning:

"Shiksa and Shaygetz are the Yiddish derivative of the respective
feminine and masculine Hebrew words for something unclean, dirty.

Theappellations are customarily applied to gentiles who do things
inimical to Jewish interests, such as vandalizing Jewish buildings,
robbing Jewish kids of their lunch money, or becoming romantically
involved with Jews :-). The root is "sheketz", which refers to house
rodents and lizards. They impart ritual impurity, and therefore the
term lends itself to the same kind of idea. Some have taken to using
the term to refer to Christian women in general. If Christians were
using the term against Jews in English, they would be saying "Filthy
Jews" or "Dirty Jews", and we Jews would rightly be offended. Hence,
use of these terms should really be avoided; it is insulting and
inappropriate, even if no bad intent was behind the usage. It is
always better to use neutral, less pejorative (judgemental) terms,
such as non-Jew or Christian."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/11-Miscellaneous/section-7.html

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:16 PM

I'll reply to your equally ignorant post later, Ooh-Aah2.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:22 PM

So, the conclusion is that Israel has to give up land to the Arabs to make up for... What?

No. Israel doesn't have to give up any land. It just needs to stop taking it away from other people.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:24 PM

CarolC, the problem is that who is going to give back the land that the Arabs took from the 800,000+ Jews? Or don't THEY have any rights?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:27 PM

beardedbruce, do you think you should be punished for something that people in other countries have done that you have had no control over? Of course not. But what you are suggesting is that the people who have been living on and working on the land in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem should be punished for the actions of the governments of countries over which thay have absolutely no control. This is collective punishment... one of the favorite tactics of the Nazis. It wasn't right when they did it, and it's not right for you to advocate it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:29 PM

But what you are suggesting is that the people who have been living on and working on the land in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem

This part should read like this:

But what you are suggesting is that the people whose families have been living on and working on the land in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem for more than a thousand years...

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:30 PM

Or perhaps Israel should treat the West Bank the same way as the Arabs did when they had control? At least now they are just putting in some settlements- If they acted as the Arabs did, there would be wholesale removal of ALL Arabs from the region. And not allow ANY access to Jeruselum.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:33 PM

So, Israel should be punished because the other Arab countries did not show the same humanity to the Palestinians thet the Israelis showed to the ( larger number of) Jews that the Arabs kicked out?

Is that what YOU are sugesting?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:35 PM

So now you're saying that the people whose families have been living on and working that land for more than a thousand years should be punished for something that was done by Hashemite Jordanians? The Jordanians cheated the Palestinians far more than they cheated the Arabic Jews. At least the Arabic Jews have Israel. The Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have absolutely no rights whatever.