BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:03 PM

I speak the way I speak (and write), Nerd. None of us is understood one hundred percent of the time by one hundred percent of those who hear/read us. Not even you. I just do the best I can and hope for the best.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: podman
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:59 AM

I don't think we owe the Native Americans anything. This land had NO freeways, NO Walmarts, and a lot of gamey tasting Buffalo when we got it.

(And never even a word of THANKS)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:54 AM

I'm not arguing about your feelings, I'm arguing about your statements. You like to say that "If you can't see the difference between these two things, it's your problem." But it's not my problem, it's yours. I am generally good at understanding people's English-language statements. If you make statements and then claim that they mean something other than they appear to mean, you will be misleading, confusing and annoying to many people. Given the reactions you seem always to provoke from a good many catters, I think this is a problem you really do have.

So here is the problem. Either you make whatever statements are convenient rhetorically, and then claim they don't correspond to your feelings, or, you actually say things like "I would do X" and then really believe you did not advocate doing X. Either way, if you continue, many people will be scratching their heads in perplexity at your behavior, and it will be your problem, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:36 PM

I think, in order to see where I'm coming from on this subject, Nerd, you need to try to understand that from my perspective, it is possible for me to have feelings about something, and being aware of those feelings, that are not consistant with my sense of what is practical and logical. Practically and logically speaking, it does not make any sense to try to give the US back to the Indians. So I do not advocate for doing that, because it wouldn't make any practical or logical sense. Not because of the way I feel about it, but because of the way many millions of other people would feel about it.

However, my feeling is that if this was the Indians' land, and I was living amongst them, I would be very comfortable with that. It wouldn't bother me to find myself in that situation.

Again, it's the difference between "I", and "we". And considering how many people live in this country, that's a hell of a big difference.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:15 PM

Nerd, they may be hairs to you, but they are chasms to me.

I do not advocate for giving the US back to the Indians. I do not advocate for doing anything drastic to change the way things are right now in the US. I do not suggest that the US do either of these things. I will not suggest to anyone that the US should do either of these things. That is my position on that. It is my position. You don't get to tell me what my position is on this. This is my position about what should be done with regard to giving the US back to the Indians. My position is that we should not do it.

I would like to see the Indians get a hell of a lot more justice than they do get, however. But that does not include giving the US back to them.

If it somehow happened that the US were to be given back to the Indians, that would not bother me at all. That is how I feel about it. I will not do anything to try to make it happen, and I don't suggest that anyone else should either, but if it happened, it wouldn't bother me.

If you can't see the difference between these two things, that is your problem. These are my positions and my feelings... not yours. I don't have to apologise to you for them, nor do I have to justify them to you.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:08 PM

I think you're splitting hairs a bit thin there, CarolC. If one says "I would open talks with the Russians," I think it's understood as advocating that as a course of action. And it's definitely NOT, as you tried to claim, the same as saying "If for some reason talks with the Russians were to be opened, I wouldn't personally have a problem with that."

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:07 PM

The immediately preceding post, GUEST 12:28 was me.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

I was going to make the suggestion that the Indian issue be taken to its own thread, then I read enough of it to see that how the issue related indeed to the subject.

I think it can be argued however that the Jewish people are at once the Indians AND the settlers in this long long scenario. Not for nothing did the phrase "Next Year in Jerusalem" reverberate through the centuries.

For myself and Little Hawk, the non-obligatory Star Trek reference: In The Omega Glory it is the Americans who have been displaced for generations, not by the Indians, but by the Reds (Communists) and who reclaim the land for the Yanks on a parallel world. But they take to the hills and live like the Indians and come to resemble Indians until their day of reckoning, conveniently when Capt. Kirk is available to read for them the words to their ancient document, The Constitution.

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

"Who Is A Jew?"

In an unrelated development, but apropos of the thread, I heard this morning the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the non-Orthodox conversions of several petitioners to the Court should be recognized as valid toward allowing them Israeli citizenship as Jews. Most if not all of the people involved obtained their conversions overseas (from Israel). Until this era, the legal definition of who is a Jew has been under the purview of Orthodox rabbis. this has led to a severe dichotomy between those who hew to the Orthodox approach, and - everybody else. On the one hand, Orthodox law allows anyone with a Jewish mother to claim Jewish-ness. So all sorts of otherwise secular Jews have been and are allowed into the country, including Russians (and plenty others) who eat pork and celebrate some sort of Christmas. On the other hand, conversion to Judaism only along Orthodox lines is a tough row to hoe, because the formal strictures of the faith as defined by Orthodoxy require adherence to customs and lifestyles that few secular Jews adhere to.

There are enough repercussions from this event as to make 'interpreting' it worthy of an encyclopedia, but if Guest, Allen is still around, I'd appreciate if he would weigh in with his take on this. And in fact, if he's going to be around for a while I'd invite him to sign up permanently with Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:56 AM

Sorry Nerd. I didn't see the post where you identified yourself until after I posted my reply to GUEST. So my last post was for you.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:53 AM

Notice this bit, GUEST:

"I would gladly give this country back to the indigenous people."

Not, "I think we should give this country back to the indigenous people."

That little bit there... that's important. Because it makes all the difference in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:31 AM

Oops. Guest 10:26 AM was me...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:26 AM

CarolC, why do you bother to prevaricate when your own words are here in this very thread?

To wit:

what you did not say:

"If the land ever happened to be given back to the Indians, that wouldn't bother me, personally."

What you did say:

"I would gladly give this country back to the indigenous people."

As you say, two different things.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:57 PM

Hey, The Indians are cleaning up with their damn casinos.

Tonto is a good blackjack dealer.

Give up, Nerd. Go do something constructive. I'm going to play my guitar for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:29 PM

I am merely saying that Native Americans have many of the same attributes and foibles of all people.

I agree with this.

They think their community is special and chosen.

I don't know where you get this idea. That certainly hasn't been my experience based on the people of American Indian ancestry I've known. What I have observed is that they like their way, and they prefer it for themselves, but I've never seen or heard any of them try to suggest that their way is any better than anybody else's.

They think they deserve to eat the buffalo rather than having the buffalo eat them. They are human, and suffer from the same shortfalls that make Europeans and euro-americans the flawed people we are.

Yes, they have flaws. Some of them may be the same, and some of them may be different. But my point is that I feel more at home with the way their philosophy works than I am with what is considered the norm in European thinking. Just as you may feel more at home in some cultural contexts than in others. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is my right to decide for myself which cultures I feel the most at home with. You don't get to decide that for me.

So you advocate it when it makes a rhetorical point for you, but you don't advocate it when it makes a rhetorical point for someone else. Good trick, CarolC!

You're twisting my words, Nerd. I have never said I think we should give the land that is now the United States back to the Indians. What I have said is that if it were to ever happen, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The fact that you cannot see the difference between these two things is not my fault. But they are entirely different thing nevertheless.

What I did not say: Give the land back to the Indians.

What I did say: if the land ever happened to be given back to the Indians, that wouldn't bother me, personally.

Two different things.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:01 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Wesley S.

Here's hoping God keeps you off of drugs. I will pray for you.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:58 PM

No, CarolC. I am merely saying that Native Americans have many of the same attributes and foibles of all people. They think their community is special and chosen. They think they deserve to eat the buffalo rather than having the buffalo eat them. They are human, and suffer from the same shortfalls that make Europeans and euro-americans the flawed people we are.

And as to your other assertion, that you don't advocate giving this country back to the Native Americans, that that's just a worn-out old debate trick, what do you call this quote from you?

"I would gladly give this country back to the indigenous people. I don't own any land here, so I don't think my situation would significantly change if the ownership of this country were to be given back to it's earlier inhabitants. And my own thoughts are that they would probably to a hell of a lot better job of running things that the folks we've got doing that now."

So you advocate it when it makes a rhetorical point for you, but you don't advocate it when it makes a rhetorical point for someone else. Good trick, CarolC!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:21 AM

And most Native American communities thought they were intrisically more valuable than other communities, whom they warred against, and other animals, whom they ate...after they thanked them politely, of course! A lot of the new age mumbo-jumbo that gets passed off as native American philosophy is so much wishful thinking. And, of course, it's good PR, so Indian groups will tell you it themselves!

This is a very inacurate depiction of their traditions and spiritual philosophies. And it sounds very patronizing and dismissive as well. You talk about Indians as if they are naughty children. You wouldn't appreciate people stereotyping all Jews as being exotic but cute people who spend all of their time dancing the hora, but that's how you sound when talking about American Indian culture.

While many American Indian tribes did engage in warfare, they saw it as an important part of the process of making them stronger and better as people and as a people. And yes, they did have great respect and regard for their opponents, if they thought their opponents were worthy. And they were also keenly aware of the interconnectedness of all things in nature. They had to be... their survival depended on it. So when they took a life, they did it with respect, and with gratitude for the life given. And they didn't trash that life by treating it as if it didn't matter, as is so often the case with the European mentality. And I say this from my experiences of spending quite a lot of time with and around people from those cultures, reading what they write, and listening to what they have to say amongst themselves, and not for the consumption of the "New Age" community.

On the subject of your main point, I would like to point out to you the fact that I have repeatedly stated that I do not advocate giving land back to the American Indians. That is an illogical and worn out old debate tactic that people keep using against anyone who has anything at all critical to say about the Israeli government. They are trying to make it look like I am suggesting giving all of Israel back to the Palestinians (WHICH I AM NOT, AND NEVER HAVE). If you have a problem with this type of stealth argumentum ad hominem, take it up with the ones who use it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:41 AM

And most Native American communities thought they were intrisically more valuable than other communities, whom they warred against, and other animals, whom they ate...after they thanked them politely, of course! A lot of the new age mumbo-jumbo that gets passed off as native American philosophy is so much wishful thinking. And, of course, it's good PR, so Indian groups will tell you it themselves!

Interestingly, the idea of the noble savage--the unspoiled, pure, closer-to-nature morality of the Indian--goes back to Europeans who never met Indians. They needed a cultural "other" to fill a space in their philosophical, religious and political ideologies. At the same time, the idea of the demonic Indian, the murderous Indian, the only good Indian being the dead Indian, was created by another set of white people to fill THEIR philosophical, religious and political needs. REAL native Americans have not been so easy to define.

Any time you take a "group" that has to include Maya, Clackamas, Navajo, Cherokee, MiqMaq, Apache, etc., and you start saying "they believe this and that," you're in trouble. Then when you buy into a seventeenth-century commonplace such as "To them, the earth and all of the things found in it (including weather phenomena) are their own flesh and blood," you're in double trouble. And when you don't stop to consider how vacuous even that commonplace is (since it is true of Western scientific belief systems too, in which on one level we and the earth are made of the detritus left over from the formation of stars, and on another we are literally genetically related to all other life on earth), you're in triple trouble.

My original point: we live in the world as it is now, and no one else is expected to give their country back to the people that had it before. No one except Israel. Meanwhile, it's well and good for CarolC to say that she wouldn't mind the US going back to Indians because it has exactly no chance of happening, so it's a real safe thing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:24 PM

Yes, and for the same reason as the Jews going back to Israel: It would be returning to their ancient home! "Right of return" and all that!

Are we suggesting now that everyone should be given the right to return to their ancestral home?


You're right, robomatic. I should have chosen my words more carefully. I think what I should have said, in onder to more accurately convey my meaning is this:

The evolutionary model is commonly understood to suggest that humans are the pinnacle of development and that our place on the evolutionary ladder makes us of intrinsically greater value than the rest of creation, and that is the attitude that predominates in western thought.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:56 PM

Here's hoping God blesses all of Martin's children sevenfold.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:50 PM

I think he has already done that.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:49 PM

Martin- are you getting this? In order to be the evolutionary pinnacle of the thread, however, you must breed successfully.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM

Ha! You assume that there will BE a last ever Mudcat post. That is like assuming that the MOABS thread will end someday, because no one is left who wants to post to it.

Forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:37 PM

Thanks, Robo, you're exactly right. Carol has completely misunderstood the theory of evolution, which does not suggest that anyone is the pinnacle of anything. All evolutionary biology suggests is that those beings more adapted to their ecological niche will survive, while those less adapted will tend not to. So one could say that all creatures currently not extinct represent the ones most adapted to ecological niches that exist in today's world. That's as close as anyone comes to being the pinnacle of anything by evolutionary standards.

Martin Gibson, by the way, is the pinnacle of Mudcat evolution. He will never get bothered enough by anything to leave, yet he tends to drive away the weak-willed. Consequently, I predict that the last ever Mudcat post will be Martin saying "F you" to an empty forum!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:34 PM

Lesbos is no longer big enough to hold all the lesbians. I say, give 'em New Zealand instead. Or Illinois. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:56 PM

This sure got boring.

Hey! Nothing has changed because of it!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

Carol:

I'm not sure how you meant your paragraph as copied from above:

Big difference there, Nerd. The evolutionary model suggests that humans are the pinnacle of development and that our place on the evolutionary ladder makes us of intrinsically greater value than the rest of creation. And the biblical philosophies that have been the engine of our current way of life are that humankind is the pinnacle and that we have a right to do whatever we wish with all of the rest of creation.

If you meant it satirically, well and good, but it's not clear to me. The evolutionary 'model' currently in vogue, derived from Darwin, called "theory of natural selection" suggest no such thing. There is a noticeable trend for the development of complexity but at the same time there is no devolution of simplicity. The idea of 'improvement' 'advancement' 'pinnacle' of evolution is a value judgment which is better left untried. It results in the damaging theories such as 'social Darwinism' which is just as much a perversion of science as is extremism a perversion of religion.

Theory of Natural Selection simply states that the constant motor driving the bus of nature is powered by genetic mutation, that which survives and reproduces the most dominates the next generation and here we are.

But I know you are a thinking person, Carol, so possibly that is what you meant all along.

'Slo' Robo

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Uncle DaveO
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:57 PM

Yes, and for the same reason as the Jews going back to Israel: It would be returning to their ancient home! "Right of return" and all that!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:39 PM

We could create a place for lesbians, too. Maybe a place in the Mediterranean. (Dianavan)

The obvious place is the Mediterranean isle named Lesbos.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

Well this is very interesting. I did a search on Baruch Kimmerling, one of the co-authors of the book you referenced, Allen, and I turned up this article by him. I don't know if I have ever read anything by this author before, but in this article he is saying pretty much exactly the same things I have been saying about the agenda of the Israeli government. And he also addresses what I was saying about the Israeli government destroying the Palestinian civil infrastructure...

The Politicide of Palestinian People

"Because Ariel Sharon's latest, more moderate incarnation has been so warmly received by the Bush administration, the US media, and the American public, it is crucial to understand both the context of his transformation and the actual behavior of the Israeli government toward the Palestinian people. The general context is that the primary goal of the present government is the destruction of the Palestinian Authority and the dismantling of the Oslo Accords. This can only be defined as the politicide of the Palestinian people, a gradual but systematic attempt to cause their annihilation as an independent political and social entity.

For this reason, Ariel Sharon has skillfully used the brutal and indiscriminant forms of Palestinian resistance - especially the suicide bombers - to create a chain of mutually escalating responses in order to induce both the Israeli and international community to accept his goal. Using the fight against terrorism as a pretext, he aims to divide the Gaza Strip and West Bank into tiny enclaves rules by local strongmen while claiming he is supporting the "reformation" and "democratization" of the Palestinian authority.

The final aim is to continue the Jewish colonization of the so-called "Greater Land of Israel" until Israel's exclusive and non-reversible control of the territories has been attained. Some analysts suspect or hope that one outcome of this project is to make daily life so miserable for Palestinians that large numbers will emigrate from the territories' something that has, in fact, occurred during the last few years.

Sharon learned from the Lebanon fiasco that, while such policies must be implemented militarily, they must cause minimal casualties. Otherwise, both international agencies and public opinion could turn against them. To minimize Jewish casualties, it is necessary to deploy large, heavily armed forces and to use cruel techniques like razing whole neighborhoods. Resistance is met with heavy fire power, as was the case in Jenin.

The immediate aim of "Operation Defensive Shield" was to disarm "bases of terrorism" by capturing weapons and explosives and to "liquidate" or capture those involved in Palestinian armed resistance. In other words, the goal was to dismantle any Palestinian security forces, not only to hamper their ability to fight Israel, but to dissolve the internal authority of Arafat's regime as well. For the same reason, Israel security forces also assaulted most of the national and public infrastructure and institutions and even destroyed databases like the one used by the Palestinian Bureau of Statistic.

Additional goals of the incursions, sieges, and extra-judicial executions were to demonstrate Israeli military might and its willingness to use it and to prove to the Palestinians that there were defenseless against any wanton action. The Arab states barely paid lip service to the Palestinian cause, denouncing Israeli actions just enough to avoid internal unrest, apparently because they feared Israel was looking for a regional war. Such a war could distract the Israeli public from the severe economic and social crisis within Israel ( such as a high unemployment rate and the beginnings of hyperinflation) and serve as a cover for uprooting large numbers of Palestinians from the land, as happened during the 1948 war.

However, the international community, including the United States, will soon recognize that in an era during which every nation (including the Jewish and Palestinian nations) has the right to self-determination, politicide is a crime against humanity that is very close in its severity to genocide."

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 11:46 AM

Its nearly food time you two dont forget to eat.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 11:33 AM

It's the extremists I'm talking about! As long as they have free reign there will never be peace only more hate.

When the majority of Palestinians have hope, they have something to protect from the extremists among them. They have an incentive to work together and with Israel to rid themselves of these extremists. When they do not have any hope, or anything of their own to protect, not only do they not have this incentive, but increasing numbers of them tend to see the extremists as their saviors. If you want to get rid of the extremists, you need to give the rest of the Palestinians something to want to protect. You can't kill all of the extremists because killing Palestinians just creates more extremists. You can't get rid of the extremists by withholding freedom from the Palestinians, because this very lack of freedom is a big part of what creates extremists in the first place.

Not human beings in the eyes of the IDF and the government? First of all that's baloney. Yes, some of them, not everyone, and you want to talk inhuman look at how the Arab governments put down unrest. This is a war, people are getting sick of it, these things will happen. You try being 19 and sent to Jenin or Hebron and see if you act with any loftier morals. No human rights is ridiculous and untrue. Is there room for improvement? Of course but things will get worse as long as there is this constant terror.

Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem do not have the status of human beings from the perspective of the government of Israel and the IDF. The people in these places do not have ANY legal rights whatever. I repeat, the people in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem do not have any human rights whatever. You can try to make other countries look worse, but that just isn't true. No human rights is no human rights. Zero is zero. The Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem do not have ANY RIGHTS.

Semantics and BS. Absolute and uttter cr*p. This from Meretz members?

Semantics, perhaps. But they are not my semantics. It's how things are being done. I am not familiar with Meretz.

I do understand, but that's the majority of Palestinians. The terrorists couldn't care less. They will not stop till all Israelis are gone then Christians, Druze and when that's done probably themselves. They are dragging everyone down.

So give the majority of Palestinians something to fight FOR instead of only giving them something to fight against. That will stop the extremists. You can't kill all of the extremists, because in trying to do that, you only create more extremists.

Weighing blood for blood we are never going to get anywhere. Why can't you just accept that terrorist attacks should cease?

I accept that they should cease. But I also can see that the way the Israeli government has set things up, they never will.

Is land more important than life?

I would ask of you the same question. However, the Palestinians are not just fighting for land. They are also fighting for freedom.

If they want to keep acting against the army that's legitimate, but the terrorist attacks ARE NOT. This is monstrous and incredible to hear someone who is obviously involved with human rights using such logic.

It looks like you are suggesting that I have condoned such behavior. That is a distortion of what I have said. And I believe you know that. I do not condone the killing of innocents. But I recognise that far more Palestinians civilians have been killed than Israeli civilians. By a ratio of several Palestinians to every one Israeli. And I am saying that the approach that the government of Israel is using is making the problem worse. And it will continue to make the problem worse as long as it continues to use this approach. And while you and the others in your country are clinging to this approach, more and more innocent people are going to be killed, both Israeli and Palestinian alike, until the day comes when either all of the Palestinians are gone, or Israelis decide that enough of you have died.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM

Actually, most Europeans subscribe to a belief system in which all nature is our relative too; and certainly one in which Native Americans are our relatives. It's called evolutionary biology. But many of those same Europeans and Euro-Americans have no problem killing, raping and murdering their relatives.

Big difference there, Nerd. The evolutionary model suggests that humans are the pinnacle of development and that our place on the evolutionary ladder makes us of intrinsically greater value than the rest of creation. And the biblical philosophies that have been the engine of our current way of life are that humankind is the pinnacle and that we have a right to do whatever we wish with all of the rest of creation.

The same has always been true of Native Americans, as previous posters on this thread have pointed out. Slavery, war, and exploitation--including one people driving out or politically dominating another--were not unknown among the native peoples of the US and Canada. There's no reason to assume they'd be unknown or even uncommon if natives were in charge today, either.

I didn't say none of those things ever happened. But if I am going to be dominated by someone (and make no mistake, I am being dominated by some people even now), the philosophy I articulated before is the one I would be more comfortable with than that of the ones who are doing it now.

You also have neglected the southern half of North America (Mexico and points south), where large empires grew up based on the exploitation of land, slave labor, and human sacrifice.

If we're going to go back that far in time, we would also need to be comparing those practices to the ones that were being practiced in the "old world" at the same time. If we do that, it seems to me, I think we probably come out about equal. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:55 AM

The way Native Americans view the land is a way of adapting to any land they are on. Part of it grew out of nomadic patterns of life and displacement by war, famine, etc. One reason they tended to shy away from major fights was because every loss could be the difference between life and death. If they felt that they were strong enough or their numbers increased, they would try and force someone else off their land. This along with raids for slaves and goods.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:42 AM

I pulled most of the 1834 information from a book called "Palestinians; The making of a People" by Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal. You could always try and find more information on Ibrahim Pasha and his Muhamad Ali (that's where Clay took the name from) but there isn't much available.

Carol this will be my last post on subject we are arguing around in circles. Getting nowhere.

"No, I was talking about the rest of the country. They have no desire to be under Moslem or PA control.

If by "the rest of the country", you mean Israel proper, excluding the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, I don't really think that is relevant to this discussion. At least not relevant to any points I have made in this discussion "

I had pointed this out so you can see another POV. Not even all Palestinians want to live in the PA not to mention Druze and Circassians.

"There was a general cessation of PALESTINIAN POLICE terrorist attacks (I think there were several). The terrorist organisations did kill people, and there were numerous attempts foiled daily. The Palestinian Police were supposed to nip the Hamas and Jihad in the bud, but didn't.

My understanding, based on quotes I've read from former Israeli government officials (including at least one former prime minister), among other people, is that some of the more extremist organizations did continue to try to disrupt the peace process, but that there was a pause in the kind of violence you are seeing at this time, during the period when the Palestinians had some hope for the outcome of the Oslo process. When Palestinians have hope, the majority of them just want to get on with their lives. When they have none, they are much more willing to resort to desperate measures."

It's the extremists I'm talking about! As long as they have free reign there will never be peace only more hate.

"So's rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens with far less justification.

Rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens are wrong. But you are wrong about there being far less justification. The people in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have no human rights whatever. They are not even human beings in the eyes of the Israeli government and the IDF. If you were living under those conditions, I bet you'd be fighting just as hard, if not harder, to change that situation"

Not human beings in the eyes of the IDF and the government? First of all that's baloney. Yes, some of them, not everyone, and you want to talk inhuman look at how the Arab governments put down unrest. This is a war, people are getting sick of it, these things will happen. You try being 19 and sent to Jenin or Hebron and see if you act with any loftier morals. No human rights is ridiculous and untrue. Is there room for improvement? Of course but things will get worse as long as there is this constant terror.

"We have no intentions of forcing them to leave, I don't know where you got that from.

I didn't say "forcing" them to leave. I said "persuading" them to leave. Basically, that means making their lives so bloody miserable that they won't be able to justify staying. It's been the strategy all along. I got this information from quite a few Israeli Jews. "

Semantics and BS. Absolute and uttter cr*p. This from Meretz members?

"Things are alos more complicated than they may appear

Yes, I am very aware of that. However, I tend to think I am more aware of what goes on within the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem than you are. "

Trust me I know probably just as much.

"How does firing a rocket on Shderot or blowing up a bus defend their homes and livelihoods? That is not a justified defence, in fact it's not defence at all. It's murder. That's the violence I meant.

I can't justify it. But I can help you try to understand it. They want their freedom. They want Israel to leave them alone so they can get on with their lives. They have tried everything, and nothing has worked. My guess is that they are trying to make it too expensive for Israel (in terms of human costs) to continue to keep the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem captive any longer. "

I do understand, but that's the majority of Palestinians. The terrorists couldn't care less. They will not stop till all Israelis are gone then Christians, Druze and when that's done probably themselves. They are dragging everyone down.

"We are not perfect, they are not perfect, it's a very complex situation that is breeding more and more evil. The first step should be cessation of terrorism against civilians. That should come before all else.

That won't work. That plan sets everyone up to fail. The Israeli government first has to give the Palestinians something to hope for. And then it has to give them a good faith reason to believe that they can rely on the Israeli government to deliver on its promises."

Weighing blood for blood we are never going to get anywhere. Why can't you just accept that terrorist attacks should cease? Is land more important than life? If they want to keep acting against the army that's legitimate, but the terrorist attacks ARE NOT. This is monstrous and incredible to hear someone who is obviously involved with human rights using such logic.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:25 AM

Actually, most Europeans subscribe to a belief system in which all nature is our relative too; and certainly one in which Native Americans are our relatives. It's called evolutionary biology. But many of those same Europeans and Euro-Americans have no problem killing, raping and murdering their relatives.

The same has always been true of Native Americans, as previous posters on this thread have pointed out. Slavery, war, and exploitation--including one people driving out or politically dominating another--were not unknown among the native peoples of the US and Canada. There's no reason to assume they'd be unknown or even uncommon if natives were in charge today, either.

You also have neglected the southern half of North America (Mexico and points south), where large empires grew up based on the exploitation of land, slave labor, and human sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:18 AM

Finally, some interesting dialogue. I'd had enough of the tee-shirt airbrusher and his 30 year old ( 31 on June 16th) fake middle aged jewish man. I wish he'd get another cat.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:12 AM

I was working on my post for you when you posted, Nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:11 AM

From robomatic -

Regarding both your comments. Thank you. I'm suggesting that if Israel is going to have to accept reality, so are the Jordanians and those calling themselves Palestinians.

What "reality" are you suggesting Israel is going to accept?

I have a book prepared by an Israeli covering several of the local wars. In its preface is the statement: The wars between the Arabs and the Jews are not a matter of right against wrong, they are a matter of right against right.

There are times when fairness is beyond us. The next best thing is to balance the unfairness with a minimum of overall suffering.

I agree with this. Time to end the occupation. That will be a good start.

From Nerd -

The very fact that you talk about "the way native Americans view justice" and "the way Native Americans conduct business" shows that you are dealing in stereotypes, not reality. Some Native Americans will be scrupulously fair, some will not. Many view white people with suspicion, some with hostility. The idea that the entire system of government and the ownership of all the land in the country could switch hands at once without your life being affected is pretty crazy. You may be self-employed, but presumably you need a system of laws within which to do business, and that would all change overnight.

I don't think I have given you enough information for you to be able to say I am stereotyping. I have not said that Native Americans are paragons of virtue and that they are all the same. But the underlying philosophies that most of their traditions are based on is not the same as that of the Europeans who have spread empire around the world. That is why the Europeans have been so successful in wiping out so many peoples around the world, and subjugating so many others.

One thing that can be said about the traditions of pretty much all of the indegenous peoples of North America... they are based on the concept of all of nature being their relatives. Just like your parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. To them, the earth and all of the things found in it (including weather phenomena) are their own flesh and blood. And for that reason, their tradition is diametrically the opposite of that of the Europeans who came here with the philosophy that land that hasn't been conquered isn't productive. And of course, that makes me their relative as well. I can live with that. That is a philosophy I feel much more at home with than the philosophy of those who hold power now.

It may surprise you to know that I do not really have a people I consider to be my own. My ethnic heritage is too mixed up to mean much of anything to me. My spiritual philosophy is unique to me, and so I am a complete minority of one, wherever I go, and whomever I am with. And for a number of different reasons, even though I fit many of the criteria of groups who have been the dominent ones, I have never had the experience of really being a part of any of them. So for me, all of humanity will have to serve as my people. It's all I've got.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:07 AM

I don't buy it, LH. It's easy to say lots of things without stereotyping, and if you don't do it people won't accuse you of it. CarolC alluded to "the way Native Americans view justice" and "the way Native Americans do business" as if

1) there was a homogeneous "Native American community"

and

2) all people within that community had the same ethics, morals, and business practices; and these practices were just and fair.

This is a stereotype, albeit a positive one. Many people now believe that Native Americans have special spiritual gifts and are always just, fair, close to nature and all that complex of stuff. It is a well-known sterotype, often commented on in popular culture. I am not making it up. They did a great send-up of it, for example, in South Park in an episode where people were following the kooky medical advice of two people they thought were Native American. When they found out the people were actually Mexican, they were horrified. (Never mind that Mexicans look like they do because they are descended from native Americans).

If CarolC had said, "in all the business I have had with Native Americans, they have been fair," this would not have been stereotyping. But to say "if you think Native Americans might be unjust, then you just don't know Native Americans" is pretty obviously a stereotype.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:48 PM

I would like to see some sources for the information in your 27 Mar 05 - 07:28 PM post, Allen.

No, I was talking about the rest of the country. They have no desire to be under Moslem or PA control.

If by "the rest of the country", you mean Israel proper, excluding the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, I don't really think that is relevant to this discussion. At least not relevant to any points I have made in this discussion.

There was a general cessation of PALESTINIAN POLICE terrorist attacks (I think there were several). The terrorist organisations did kill people, and there were numerous attempts foiled daily. The Palestinian Police were supposed to nip the Hamas and Jihad in the bud, but didn't.

My understanding, based on quotes I've read from former Israeli government officials (including at least one former prime minister), among other people, is that some of the more extremist organizations did continue to try to disrupt the peace process, but that there was a pause in the kind of violence you are seeing at this time, during the period when the Palestinians had some hope for the outcome of the Oslo process. When Palestinians have hope, the majority of them just want to get on with their lives. When they have none, they are much more willing to resort to desperate measures.

BS. That's a ridiculous load of rubbish.

No it's not.

We have no intentions of forcing them to leave, I don't know where you got that from.

I didn't say "forcing" them to leave. I said "persuading" them to leave. Basically, that means making their lives so bloody miserable that they won't be able to justify staying. It's been the strategy all along. I got this information from quite a few Israeli Jews.

Anyway the shooting goes with what I was saying. If there was no need to sit in the West bank and Gaza, things like this would not occur.

The reason the IDF are in the territories is basically to protect the settlers, and to disrupt the lives of the Palestinians. Their presence does not in any way make Israel (the part not including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) more secure. In fact, it makes Israel a lot less secure. People still find ways of committing terrorist acts in Israel, and they have much more incentive to want to do so with the IDF and settler presence in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, making their lives such a hell.

Things are alos more complicated than they may appear

Yes, I am very aware of that. However, I tend to think I am more aware of what goes on within the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem than you are.

It was a savage affair as all fights in built-up areas are. They would not have needed to be in there in the first place if it weren't for the terrorists using it as a base. Just for the record which place are you talking about.

Are you refering to the incursions of 2002? I don't remember the name of the town in that particular case, but that case was hardly an isolated incident.

So's rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens with far less justification.

Rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens are wrong. But you are wrong about there being far less justification. The people in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have no human rights whatever. They are not even human beings in the eyes of the Israeli government and the IDF. If you were living under those conditions, I bet you'd be fighting just as hard, if not harder, to change that situation.

How does firing a rocket on Shderot or blowing up a bus defend their homes and livelihoods? That is not a justified defence, in fact it's not defence at all. It's murder. That's the violence I meant.

I can't justify it. But I can help you try to understand it. They want their freedom. They want Israel to leave them alone so they can get on with their lives. They have tried everything, and nothing has worked. My guess is that they are trying to make it too expensive for Israel (in terms of human costs) to continue to keep the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem captive any longer.

We are not perfect, they are not perfect, it's a very complex situation that is breeding more and more evil. The first step should be cessation of terrorism against civilians. That should come before all else.

That won't work. That plan sets everyone up to fail. The Israeli government first has to give the Palestinians something to hope for. And then it has to give them a good faith reason to believe that they can rely on the Israeli government to deliver on its promises.

If you could send me those documents, I'll be glad to read. Only when it suits you though. No rush.

Probably not this coming week. I have quite a lot of work to do this coming week. But I will get to it when I can.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:28 PM

Well, it's a bit difficult to make a statement about anything without getting accused of stereotyping by somebody...unless you add about 5 paragraphs of further qualifying statements to it to cover every possible angle imaginable. Anybody else noticed that?

Or am I just engaging in stereotyping? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:30 PM

Carol,

The very fact that you talk about "the way native Americans view justice" and "the way Native Americans conduct business" shows that you are dealing in stereotypes, not reality. Some Native Americans will be scrupulously fair, some will not. Many view white people with suspicion, some with hostility. The idea that the entire system of government and the ownership of all the land in the country could switch hands at once without your life being affected is pretty crazy. You may be self-employed, but presumably you need a system of laws within which to do business, and that would all change overnight.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM

Man, have you got a lot of time on your hands.

Israel has commerce and a society that has progressed along with a democracy.

Jews in America will do whatever it takes to support Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM

Yeah, robomatic, good post.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,1/4 jewboy on my mothers side
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM

.. maybe this is one weekend in the year

when jews should just stop to think what magnitude of crimes against humanity

have and are being committed to preserve the security

of their 'chosen' little land and people..

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:11 PM

Robomatic I loved your last post. You put it in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:07 PM

Carol, I'll respond more fully tommorow, but in the meantime:

"I can't. This isn't something I found in books, it's what I've learned from my friends and from people I've talked to.

I tend to doubt that any of them were Christians who live in the West Bank, Gaza, and/or East Jerusalem."

No, I was talking about the rest of the country. They have no desire to be under Moslem or PA control.

"The moment they cease deliberately murdering our people the need for military action will go away.

This is not true. There was a period of about two years when there were no Israeli deaths as a result of PLO terrorism because the Palestinians (after the signing of the Oslo Accords) thought that they would be getting their own independent state. But the settlements continued to grow, and the occupation never ended. It was only when the Palestinians lost all hope that they would ever have their own state that the violence resumed."

There was a general cessation of PALESTINIAN POLICE terrorist attacks (I think there were several). The terrorist organisations did kill people, and there were numerous attempts foiled daily. The Palestinian Police were supposed to nip the Hamas and Jihad in the bud, but didn't.

"The violence against the Palestinians occurs as a result of trying to stop their terrorist actions.

This is not true. The violence against the Palestinians occurs in order to persuade the ones who are still there to want to leave. I saw with my own eyes, IDF snipers shooting at old ladies who were walking down the street in order to get medical care during the spring 2002 incursions into the West Bank and Gaza, and this was during one of the temporary lifts of the curfew. Those old women were no threat to anyone. They were just trying to get help, and there was no-one nearby who could have in any way been placed in any kind of danger by what they were doing. "

BS. That's a ridiculous load of rubbish. We have no intentions of forcing them to leave, I don't know where you got that from.
Anyway the shooting goes with what I was saying. If there was no need to sit in the West bank and Gaza, things like this would not occur. Things are alos more complicated than they may appear, and without all the facts I (and you for that matter) can't say why they were shooting. It was a savage affair as all fights in built-up areas are. They would not have needed to be in there in the first place if it weren't for the terrorists using it as a base. Just for the record which place are you talking about.

" Oh yes our hobby is to blow Palestinians up.

Whether or not you choose to call it a hobby, it is, nevertheless, being done. Quite regularly, in fact."

So's rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens with far less justification.

"But whether or not the considerations are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact is they are motivated by security and they will cease to be an issue once violence has stopped.

That approach is one that is designed so that any goals toward accomplishing peace will fail. Why should the Palestinians unilaterally stop defending themselves, their land, and their livlihoods? Why are the Israelis the only ones who are allowed to defend themselves? You can't expect the Palestinians to have to live up to standards that Israel is not, itself, willing to live up to. "

How does firing a rocket on Shderot or blowing up a bus defend their homes and livelihoods? That is not a justified defence, in fact it's not defence at all. It's murder. That's the violence I meant.

"By the same token they should give us some of the money they get from international donations. It's crazy.

Why should they do that? Israel gets many billions of dollars in aid every year, while the Palestinians only get a few millions. The Palestinians do far less damage to Israeli property than the Israelis do to Palestinian property. "

I was applying the same logic. As I said, it's crazy.

If you could send me those documents, I'll be glad to read. Only when it suits you though. No rush.

We are not perfect, they are not perfect, it's a very complex situation that is breeding more and more evil. The first step should be cessation of terrorism against civilians. That should come before all else.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:07 PM

"the paradox is that under the current situation nobody can experience an improvement"

Yup. That's the problem all right, Allen. However, that used to be the problem in Ireland too. And it used to be the problem at the Berlin Wall. Eventually a solution can be found, if people decide to stop fighting and try something else.

As someone said earlier in this discussion: like the Europeans, the Middle Easterners may eventually try getting along with one another...AFTER they have tried absolutely everthing else! :-)

That seems to be the usual way.

Gorbachev managed to end the Cold War without sliding into a 3rd World War as the Soviet Union unraveled piece by piece. That takes great imagination and flexibility. It takes a will to avoid bloodshed. A less imaginative Russian administration would probably have fought rather than change...and a couple of hundred million people would have died.

I am hoping for similar flexibility on the part of Israelis and Muslims in the Middle East. Part of the problem, though, is that the Muslims are so fragmented into so many different groups. That makes it very hard to get all of them to listen to a new proposition at any given time.

The North American Indians had exactly the same problem when dealing with the whites...and with each other. They were too divided. Israel is a single political entity. Its opponents are many entities. That makes for an unpredictable situation.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:46 PM

Carol:

Regarding both your comments. Thank you. I'm suggesting that if Israel is going to have to accept reality, so are the Jordanians and those calling themselves Palestinians.

I have a book prepared by an Israeli covering several of the local wars. In its preface is the statement: The wars between the Arabs and the Jews are not a matter of right against wrong, they are a matter of right against right.

There are times when fairness is beyond us. The next best thing is to balance the unfairness with a minimum of overall suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:28 PM

There is contention over water sources between all the nations in the area. Linking the West Bank (what an anachronism nowadays!) and Gaza is problematic, because it would sever the south of israel from the rest of the country.


The origins of the modern Palestinian nation are found in the brutal repressions of an 1834 of a Fellahin and Bedouin revolt againt Ibrahim Ali, the Egyptian general. After conquering the land, and Syria, in 1831, he introduced siginificant new reforms. By forming a strong, centralized authority, he made the lands safe from bandits and marauders. Then he brought in his experts to improve the lands and agriculture methods, followed by trade. In order to speed the proccess up, he allowed the Christians to trade in livestock and fodder, something which they were forbidden by the Ottomans. He intended to turn Palestine into the Egyptian bread basket, in anticipation of conflict with the Ottomans. The Bedouins and the village Sheikhs were unhappy becuase they were forbidden to extort a toll from passer-by's, and that he was trying to make them settle down. The straw that broke the camel's back was conscription. At the time it amounted to a death sentence. The first signs of revolt where when Ibrahim Pasha was informed by some of the Sheikhs that they could not provide the quota of recruits. They claimed the Fellahin had fled into the eastern wilderness. This was an old excuse, he had already heard it in Syria and east of the Jordan, so he decided to drop the quotas but harden the enforcement of the new policies. Soon riots broke out in Hebron where several of his soldiers were killed and it soon spread to Sschem, where his enemies whipped up the people in a general revolt against Egypt and her supporters. It spread to Jerusalem, the coast, and the northern towns of Tiberias and Safed. When they captured Tiberias they massacred the Jewish community. After a protracted and difficult campaign, Ibrahim succeeded in putting down the revolt. They razed hebron, butchered the populace, forced the surviving men into the army, raped the women, and handed a 120 youths over to his officers, to do with them as they pleased. This was repeated throughout the land, ravaging villages, and destroying entire quarters in various towns. The population was murdered or deported. Finaly, they disarmed the populace, a harsh blow to their pride, not to mention their own safety. Basicaly he declared a new order, where only the government could use violence. So although Egyptian rule only lasted till 1840, it cause a dramatic change in the pattern of living. It was a new but broken society.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM

I've also felt that Palestinian nationality was not an issue of race or religion

Palestinian nationality is an aspiration of people whose families and ancestors have been living on the land that came to be known as Palestine for more than a thousand years, for self-determination. This is really all it has ever been.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:53 PM

robomatic, Jordan is not a Palestinian state. It is a Hashemite Jordanian state with a lot of Palestinian refugees in it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:49 PM

I can't. This isn't something I found in books, it's what I've learned from my friends and from people I've talked to.

I tend to doubt that any of them were Christians who live in the West Bank, Gaza, and/or East Jerusalem.

Please define what you consider the Occupation.

Israeli military control of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Israeli governmental control over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Check points within the territories themselves, rather than just around the perimeters. Ever expanding Jewish only settlements that are accessed by Jewish only roads and that are protected by the IDF, that cut deeply into the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and cutting Palestinian towns and villages off from one another, separating farmers from their land, and bringing everyday life to an almost complete standstill.

The violence against the Palestinians occurs as a result of trying to stop their terrorist actions.

This is not true. The violence against the Palestinians occurs in order to persuade the ones who are still there to want to leave. I saw with my own eyes, IDF snipers shooting at old ladies who were walking down the street in order to get medical care during the spring 2002 incursions into the West Bank and Gaza, and this was during one of the temporary lifts of the curfew. Those old women were no threat to anyone. They were just trying to get help, and there was no-one nearby who could have in any way been placed in any kind of danger by what they were doing.

They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot...

...They were run to the ground by Arafat and his corrupt cronies. There were plenty of demonstrations against this and official investigations by the organizations providing the donations. Unemployment did rise significantly since this Intifada, but that's because most of them worked in Israel. It was stopped when this was increasingly abuised by smuggling terrorists in.

Arafat may have taken some money (although no-one has yet proven that this is the case). However, there was a civil infrastructure, including police departments, education departments, schools, hospitals, etc. Most of these were destroyed by the IDF. And not only did the IDF destroy much of the physical infrastructure of these agencies, they also took with them many of the records, computer hard drives, and other things that these agencies needed in order to operate. They said that it was in order to look for terrorist activity, but none was found. And there is no reason to confiscate a hospital's records to look for terrorist activity. The only reason to do this is to prevent any possibility for the Palestinians to ever have an independant state.

And I have to tell you, it pisses me off that the Israeli government did that to civil infrastructure that I helped to pay for, using weapons that I also helped to pay for, when children right here in my own country are not getting adequate education, or adequate medical and dental care. I can back up my assertions with documentation if I need to. I'd rather not have to take my time away from other things that I need to do, but I will if you require it.

The moment they cease deliberately murdering our people the need for military action will go away.

This is not true. There was a period of about two years when there were no Israeli deaths as a result of PLO terrorism because the Palestinians (after the signing of the Oslo Accords) thought that they would be getting their own independent state. But the settlements continued to grow, and the occupation never ended. It was only when the Palestinians lost all hope that they would ever have their own state that the violence resumed.

But whether or not the considerations are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact is they are motivated by security and they will cease to be an issue once violence has stopped.

That approach is one that is designed so that any goals toward accomplishing peace will fail. Why should the Palestinians unilaterally stop defending themselves, their land, and their livlihoods? Why are the Israelis the only ones who are allowed to defend themselves? You can't expect the Palestinians to have to live up to standards that Israel is not, itself, willing to live up to.

Oh yes our hobby is to blow Palestinians up.

Whether or not you choose to call it a hobby, it is, nevertheless, being done. Quite regularly, in fact.

The financial difficulties of the US are minor compared to ours. We have no industry to speak, no reserves. We can barely keep ourselves up let alone another country.

And I submit to you that these problems would go away to a very significant degree if Israel would end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to have a viable, independent, and secure state of their own, on their side of the Green Line. The occupation is killing Israel, and it is dragging many other countries down with it, including my own country.

By the same token they should give us some of the money they get from international donations. It's crazy.

Why should they do that? Israel gets many billions of dollars in aid every year, while the Palestinians only get a few millions. The Palestinians do far less damage to Israeli property than the Israelis do to Palestinian property.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:08 PM

I have always had a problem with the 1948 borders. After the six day war I naturally expected Israel to annex the West Bank. To me this put secure borders and natural boundries around the State of Israel. At this time I don't think Israel wants to do this because of the population bomb. Nevertheless there already exists what is effectively a Palestinian State in the population of Jordan. Creating a new Palestinian state in the West Bank with no sea access and inherent contentions over water resources to me is asking for trouble. I'm interested in the Israeli viewpoint on this issue.

I've also felt that Palestinian nationality was not an issue of race or religion, but a mostly manufactured method for Israel's Arab neighbors to maintain pressure on the State Of Israel by providing a natural group of 'victims' with which to harass Israel whereas most of the Palestinian refugees could have been resettled by Egypt and Lebanon, Jordan and Syria after the 1948 war.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM

"Palestinian suzereignity. They don't want to live under it trust me.

Please provide some documentation for this assertion. "

I can't. This isn't something I found in books, it's what I've learned from my friends and from people I've talked to.

"Never mind it's an idiocy in practical terms.

I thought we were going to have a civil discussion."

It's still a civilised conversation, I wasn't calling you or anyone else an idiot. That's my view, that it's an idiocy to divide a city in half.

"The civil infrastructure was not destroyed by Sharon's government that's pure moonshine.

It was indeed destroyed by the government of Israel under Sharon. Blown to smithereens along with quite a few Palestinian civilians, I might add.

They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot.

This is pure moonshine. "

They were run to the ground by Arafat and his corrupt cronies. There were plenty of demonstrations against this and official investigations by the organizations providing the donations. Unemployment did rise significantly since this Intifada, but that's because most of them worked in Israel. It was stopped when this was increasingly abuised by smuggling terrorists in.

"Requiring the legitimate leaders to stop the violence against Israelis should be the first step.

The first step should be to end the illegal occupation. And the next step should be for the government of Israel to stop the violence against Palestinians. When this is done, the majority of Palestinians will no longer see themselves as having a need to commit violence against Israelis, and most Palestinians will support any moderate leaders in their efforts to eliminate the violence committed by extremist Palestinian groups. The reason they will do this will be because they will have a country of their own to protect against violent extremists. As things are right now, they have nothing. "

Please define what you consider the Occupation. The violence against the Palestinians occurs as a result of trying to stop their terrorist actions. The moment they cease deliberately murdering our people the need for military action will go away. The rest of that paragraph shows you don't know the extremists's mentality.
Besides, for all the violence you attribute to israelis, we don't have dates in the year in which we do massive riots and violent outbursts. The government interfers as little as possible, to prevent further friction.

"Most of the occupation comes from security considerations.

This is not true. Even some former members of Shin Bet (sp?) and the IDF maintain that not only does the occupation not help Israeli security, but that it severely compromises Israeli security."

And some hold the other view. But whether or not the considerations are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact is they are motivated by security and they will cease to be an issue once violence has stopped.

"Israel is having it's own financial difficulties you expect us to subsidize them? Isn't collecting their taxes enough?

We are having our own financial difficulties here in the US, too. Many millions of us don't have any access to any medical care at all. And yet we send you billions of dollars every year of our hard earned tax money so you can blow up Palestinians. You can take some of that money and give it to the ones who are left "

Oh yes our hobby is to blow Palestinians up.
The financial difficulties of the US are minor compared to ours. We have no industry to speak, no reserves. We can barely keep ourselves up let alone another country.
By the same token they should give us some of the money they get from international donations. It's crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:23 PM

Palestinian suzereignity. They don't want to live under it trust me.

Please provide some documentation for this assertion.

By your own logic East Jerusalem shouldn't be part of a Palestiunian state.

How so? Please see the following part of my 27 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM post.

"Ending the occupation would be a good start. Allowing international observers into the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem to help with the handover of power would also help."

Never mind it's an idiocy in practical terms.

I thought we were going to have a civil discussion.

The civil infrastructure was not destroyed by Sharon's government that's pure moonshine.

It was indeed destroyed by the government of Israel under Sharon. Blown to smithereens along with quite a few Palestinian civilians, I might add.

They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot.

This is pure moonshine.

Requiring the legitimate leaders to stop the violence against Israelis should be the first step.

The first step should be to end the illegal occupation. And the next step should be for the government of Israel to stop the violence against Palestinians. When this is done, the majority of Palestinians will no longer see themselves as having a need to commit violence against Israelis, and most Palestinians will support any moderate leaders in their efforts to eliminate the violence committed by extremist Palestinian groups. The reason they will do this will be because they will have a country of their own to protect against violent extremists. As things are right now, they have nothing.

Most of the occupation comes from security considerations.

This is not true. Even some former members of Shin Bet (sp?) and the IDF maintain that not only does the occupation not help Israeli security, but that it severely compromises Israeli security.

Israel is having it's own financial difficulties you expect us to subsidize them? Isn't collecting their taxes enough?

We are having our own financial difficulties here in the US, too. Many millions of us don't have any access to any medical care at all. And yet we send you billions of dollars every year of our hard earned tax money so you can blow up Palestinians. You can take some of that money and give it to the ones who are left.

You know it doesn't matter how Native Americans conduct their businesses but if they take over from the US Gvt they will inherit the structure and things will go on like they do today.

This is just as I have figured it. Except that I don't think the American Indians would be anywhere near as tempted by the idea of global domination that drives the people we have in power here in the US today.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM

Little Hawk the paradox is that under the current situation nobody can experience an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:03 PM

Martin Gibson is a third grade yoga doctor and likes Nick Cave. Thus, he is misinformed.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:01 PM

Dianavan (inter alia) said:

Seems to me that the Kurds are having a similar problem. Maybe we should give them a part of Iraq or Turkey

Just exactly what they want, and deserve!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:57 PM

No, Allen, I don't think the united World I propose is the least bit unrealistic, it's just not going to happen in one day or one year, that's all. It has been gradually happening for the last few thousands of years as we have progressed slowly from wandering families, to wandering little tribes, to larger tribes, to nations, to trade alliances, to literacy, to universal education, to international laws, and so on...

Impulses toward larger and more harmonious associations of people are wise and inevitable. Impulses toward greater division and segregation of people are unwise and counterproductive.

It's that simple. But it doesn't all happen in one glorious instant solution.

The best way to unite the many diverse factions you describe in the Middle East, Allen, is to ensure that they all experience improvements in health, economic well-being, education, legal protections, and safety from violence. That can be done bit by bit. in stages. No society can fix everything overnight.

I am simply suggesting constructive efforts, as opposed to efforts that produce more conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:37 PM

Palestinian suzereignity. They don't want to live under it trust me. The Druze are their own ethnic and religious group, they know what will happen to them if they become weak. Circassians are Muslims (but only since 1860) but totally alien in language, race and culture. They are from the Western Caucasus and were settled by the Ottomans to form a sort of loyal buffer against the marauding Bedouins.
By your own logic East Jerusalem shouldn't be part of a Palestiunian state. Never mind it's an idiocy in practical terms.
The civil infrastructure was not destroyed by Sharon's government that's pure moonshine. They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot. Requiring the legitimate leaders to stop the violence against Israelis should be the first step. There is no reason or excuse for it. Most of the occupation comes from security considerations. Israel is having it's own financial difficulties you expect us to subsidize them? Isn't collecting their taxes enough?

You know it doesn't matter how Native Americans conduct their businesses but if they take over from the US Gvt they will inherit the structure and things will go on like they do today.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:11 PM

Carolc, your statement that your life wouldn't change much if the United States were ceded to Indian nations because you don't own land is very naive. You would suddenly be subject to a whole different set of laws which disenfranchise you. You might even have to go live on a "reservation," and have crappy schools and no social services.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Nerd, but as far as I can see, it's pure speculation. You don't know much about the way Native Americans view justice, do you?

You might think that no-one would mind your rent money, but if all the suddenly Indian-owned businesses were to decide you shouldn't have a job, you'd come to be seen as an undesirable tenant. Your life would change immensely because of this.

I am self-employed. My husband is self-employed. Again, you don't know very much about the way Native Americans conduct their business, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM

Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews.

God said so. And we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM

Carol, you mean 67 don't you.

Yes.

You know who want to be under Palestinian suzereignity the least? The Druze and Circassians, followed by the majority of Christians.

Are suggesting that the Christians are not Palestinians? They certainly see themselves as Palestinians. I don't know about the Druce and the Circassians. I'll have to look into that.

Which partition plan do you mean?

I'll get back to you on that.

It would be lovely to give them assistance, but a bit hard when the terrorists rule the streets.

Not really. Ending the occupation would be a good start. Allowing international observers into the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem to help with the handover of power would also help. Giving them financial assistance to help rebuild the civil infrastructure that was destroyed by the Sharon government would go a long way toward helping. Not undermining the legitimacy of the elected Palestinian leaders by requiring them to appear to their own people as appeasers and as servants of their occupiers, and by forcing them to provide security for their occupiers would go a long way toward helping the Palestinians build their country.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:58 PM

Carolc, your statement that your life wouldn't change much if the United States were ceded to Indian nations because you don't own land is very naive. You would suddenly be subject to a whole different set of laws which disenfranchise you. You might even have to go live on a "reservation," and have crappy schools and no social services.

You might think that no-one would mind your rent money, but if all the suddenly Indian-owned businesses were to decide you shouldn't have a job, you'd come to be seen as an undesirable tenant. Your life would change immensely because of this.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:45 PM

Carol, you mean 67 don't you. You know who want to be under Palestinian suzereignity the least? The Druze and Circassians, followed by the majority of Christians. Which partition plan do you mean? It would be lovely to give them assistance, but a bit hard when the terrorists rule the streets.

You could Little Hawk and I would join gladly, but it's day-dreaming. Big Rock Candy Mountainish.

If Native Americans were able to take over other countries at the same time the Europeans were arriving, do people think they wouldn't?
Anyway, it's too late to talk about giving the US back now. Most Americans have been there as long as many of the Tribes were on their lands.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM

One other point, GUEST. Your backhanded references addressed to me about giving land back is quite the red herring, since I have never advocated (nor do I now advocate) Israel giving any land back that was given to it in the partition plan, nor any of the land it took in the 1948 war.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:31 PM

...although returning to my ancestral home would be a bit tricky, since my ancestral homes are in many places. But I figure, if the people who originally inhabited the area in which I now live wanted it back, they probably wouldn't mind the income they would get from the rent I pay to live on this land.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:28 PM

Are you willfully ignoring this part of my post, GUEST, just to score points?

we didn't arrive here until the early part of the 20th century, but we have benefited from a horrendous crime. I would gladly give this country back to the indigenous people.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:26 PM

Or, we could just declare that we have a World Society, establish an equal Bill of Rights and Charter of Freedoms everywhere, make everyone a World Citizen with the right to travel where they please, establish the same minimum wage law everywhere, establish medicare everywhere, set about eliminating poverty and developing the undeveloped areas, and live in peace together...instead of dividing up into armed enclaves and fighting.

How about that for a change?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,All the Native peoples of North America
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

I'm relieved to know that none of CarolC's family was involved in stealing North America from the Native peoples. That she's happy to live on stolen land and not return to her own ancestral home says volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

Here's my thoughts on the whole issue, Allan. There were crimes committed by both sides. Both sides have legitimate grievances. The Palestinians were screwed by a lot of people, not just the European Jews who settled in what is now Israel. It's time to let the Palestinians have self-determination in the land that was given to them in the partition plan (minus the part that was incorporated into Israel prior to the 1969 war), and let's give them a some assistance while they go about the business of building their country, just as Israel was given assistance while the Israelis were going about the business of building their country.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

I believe that white folks like you and CarolC should be free to practice your religions and your traditions without discrimination but I do not believe you have the right to displace others. Seems to me your countries were founded on genocide and imperialism and you should give back your countries to the Natives.

You are absolutely right, GUEST. The people who did this had no right to do it. My family wasn't here when it happened... we didn't arrive here until the early part of the 20th century, but we have benefited from a horrendous crime. I would gladly give this country back to the indigenous people. I don't own any land here, so I don't think my situation would significantly change if the ownership of this country were to be given back to it's earlier inhabitants. And my own thoughts are that they would probably to a hell of a lot better job of running things that the folks we've got doing that now.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:03 PM

To say that one regards historical Zionism as a bad idea, Nerd, is not equivalent to denying Isrealis the right to live in Isreal now.

It was a bad idea when the Vikings raided and pillaged other people's land. It was a bad idea when the Mongols swept across Europe. It was a bad idea when Iroquois massacred Hurons. And so on, and so on...

Surely we could get to a point in our historical development as a human race where this sort of thing was not put up with any longer?

I mean, we have outlawed burning at the stake, for example. Everyone seems agreed on it. Could we not also outlaw invading and occupying other people's land, and make it stick, through effective international law?

My objections to Zionism do not mean that I oppose the present continuance of the state of Isreal. I just oppose the further expansion of Israeli settlements beyond the 1948 borders.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

Yeah, but he saw Haj Amin as a powerful figure, an agitator, and wanted to win him over. I never said Samuel wasn't misguided! Rioting was the customary way of venting anger and Jews were always cordially disliked on the whole. Hostility was always simmering below the surface between the various ethnic and religious groups. Bedouins, Fellahin, Druse, Christians and Circassians were usualy one step away from slaughtering each other. In fact the average Palestinian probably hated the Bidawi far more than he did the Jew.


Dianavan, how could the Zionists carve up Germany and Russia, two of the world superpowers. The problem was in Russia and Germany anyway.
The Jews are a separate ethnic and religious group, who have been yearning to return to their homeland for centuries. It wasn't just a whim. What you say about the blacks, that's why Sierra-Leone and Liberia exist. A part (large part) of Iraq and Turkey IS Kurdistan. Iraq is a modern creation drawn up on a map with little consideration for the actual reality. Turkey is what remains of the Ottoman Empire.
Homosexuals are not a minority in the sense that Jews and Roma are. You can be a homosexual regardless of race or religion.
Zionism did not just march in and displace the locals. The first settlements were in vacant, inhospitable land they made work by sheer will.

Just to stir the pot, Native Americans did much the same thing to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Tom
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:53 PM

Yeah? You stupid Ojibways stole that land. You stole it from the Mohicans or somebody like that. There aren't any Mohicans around now, so we might as well have it, right? We didn't steal it, we recovered it from the Ojibways who stole it. I can't stand it when a thief calls somebody else a thief, and that's what you are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,An angry Chippewa
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM

As far as that goes, the damned Mohawks and other Six Nations should give us back the land they took by war and pillage from us! To say nothing of the blasted Cree. I can't stand them. A bunch of red apples, that's what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:48 PM

Thank you, Native Peoples. Americans and Canadians and, for that matter, "Anglo-Saxons" (who invaded Britain from the continent) and "Scots" (who invaded Britain from Ireland) telling people that Israel is absurd because it is based on the displacement of others is, well, absurd. Every country everywhere is based on the displacement of some people by others, whether it's San by Bantu, Black by White, Indian by Anglo, Aboriginal by Colonial, Muslim by Jew, or Jew by Muslim. To say that the Jews shouldn't have Israel is like saying the Anglo-Saxons shouldn't have Canada...it's fine in theory but in practice it's, well, absurd. (It's also like the children of immigrants who now say that we need to curb immigration: I got mine a generation or two ago, so y'all can go to Hell!)

The fact is, Israel IS a country, and has as much right to be one as the US or Canada (in other words, every right or no right at all depending on your point of view), so there isn't that much point debating whether Zionism was a good idea in principle.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM

Damn, I was going to wade in with a few fine ascerbic comments of my own, but they were taken. I'll just say thank you thank you thank you for making this thread interesting again.
Chongo, isn't there a tourist you should be commiting felonious mayhem on?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,All the Native peoples of North America
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:23 PM

Zion was a wonderful idea before it became political. I believe that Jews should be free to practice their religion and their traditions without discrimination but I do not believe they should have the right to displace others. Seems to me it is a country founded on guilt and anger.


Ya know Dianavan, Canada and the United States were also wonderful ideas before they became political. I believe that white folks like you and CarolC should be free to practice your religions and your traditions without discrimination but I do not believe you have the right to displace others. Seems to me your countries were founded on genocide and imperialism and you should give back your countries to the Natives.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:21 PM

AWright! Well said, Dianavan. You hit the coconut dead on that time. Funny how nobody wants to move to uncontested vacant land like Antarctica or Death Valley, ain't it?

If the lesbians was to get a place of their own, I say, give 'em the French Riviera. They could make a lot of money off tourism after they got to take the place over.

If we apes was to get a place to run, it would have to be either the Greater Chicago area or New Orleans. Man, I can see it now...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:13 PM

Prior to the the establishment of Israel, how did the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine get along?

Why didn't the Zionists give the Jews of Europe, a homeland carved out of Germany and/or Russia.

I know that this is an oversimplification but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

I think we should give Chicago to the descendents of all Africans who were brought to the U.S. as slaves so they can have a homeland. (Perhaps Georgia would be more fitting but I was thinking of Martin.)

Maybe we could give Northern Ireland to the Travellers in the British Isles.

India is a big country, we could give all speakers of Rom a bit of it.

Maybe Canada has a province they'd like to give the displaced natives of North America.

Seems to me that the Kurds are having a similar problem. Maybe we should give them a part of Iraq or Turkey.

Oh, I forgot the most persecuted minorities of all - homosexuals. We could create a place for lesbians, too. Maybe a place in the Mediterranean.

Zion was a wonderful idea before it became political. I believe that Jews should be free to practice their religion and their traditions without discrimination but I do not believe they should have the right to displace others. Seems to me it is a country founded on guilt and anger.

...or we could set up little Vatican-like countries all over the world and then the public would just have to live in secular states surrounding their places of worship.

I know this is absurd - thats why I wrote it. I think the State of Israel, the Vatican and rule by Mullahs are all absurd and do nothing to advance freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM

Oops. I said Samuel Herbert when I meant to say Herbert Samuel.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:24 PM

Haj Amin is not the only one at blame

Yes, that is true.

and I didn't blame the Palestinians for him.

My mistake.

You know he was intriguing and whipping up trouble long before becoming Mufti.

Yes, he was in jail at the time that Samuel Herbert had him released and then installed him as Mufti. The Palestinian leadership said they didn't want him as Mufti because they thought he was a thug. I guess they were right.

you can't say that he forced them to riot can you. The violent outbursts of 1929 were even worse.

No. Economic considerations and fears of displacement were the reason they rioted. It was not a good thing to do. But had Haj Amin not been their leader, they might have been led to do something much more constructive as a way of addressing their very real concerns.

Herbert Samuel was acting according to official policy, which was to mollify the Palestinians as much as possible.

Actually, this is not the case. The majority of Palestinians did not want Haj Amin to be their Mufti. They were not mollified by his appointment because they did not want him. There were elections held and Haj Amin lost the elections. Had Samuel wanted to mollify the Palestinians, he would have honored the results of the elections and not defied them, installing instead, a candidate that the Palestinians did not want.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:11 PM

Haj Amin is not the only one at blame, and I didn't blame the Palestinians for him. You know he was intriguing and whipping up trouble long before becoming Mufti. As a delegate to the Syrian Congress he helped pushed through a resolution stating that Palestine was the southern and indivisible part of Syria. He also demanded a complete rejection of Zionism and whipped up riots against the Jews in Jerusalem, you can't say that he forced them to riot can you. The violent outbursts of 1929 were even worse.
Herbert Samuel was acting according to official policy, which was to mollify the Palestinians as much as possible. He thought that by making him Mufti, Haj Amin would mellow. Until him, Jersualem was a backwater among Muslim holy sites, despite being the site of Muhamad's Ascension according to tradition. He used all his power and influence to change this.
Husseini's family was powerful and had much influence, they were among the Palestinian elite for generations the Palestinians were pretty much resigned to them. There wasn't much protest over the apointment.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:32 AM

I'm sure you're right Allen. But the fact that he was Jewish ought to at least give you and any other Jews who want to put the blame for Haj Amin al-Husseini's actions only on the Palestinians some reason for reflection.

You said:

The Palestinians brought a lot of the troubles on their own heads

To blame "the Palestinians" for the action of Haj Amin al-Husseini, over whom they had no control and whom they did not even want as their leader, makes about as much sense as blaming all Jews for the fact that one Jew put him in power in the first place. Which is to say that it makes no sense at all.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:18 AM

Like yourself, Dog Genes?

I'm laughing my ass off how seriously you take this whole thing.

Why don't you go and enjoy a gyros plate or something?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:57 AM

Yes, I certainly agree about Haj Amin al-Husseini. But the Commisioner's being Jewish really had nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:54 PM

"You just don't get how funny this whole thing is to me."

Doesn't take much to amuse an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:24 PM

The Palestinians brought a lot of the troubles on their own heads because they were led by cynical, self-serving leaders who had their own interests chiefly in mind, not those of their people.

In defence of the Palestinians, Allen, it should be pointed out that in some very important cases, their leaders were selected and put into power for them and not by them. Perhaps the most troublesome of these was installed in power by an Englishman who was also Jewish, against the wishes of the majority of Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:06 PM

Tucson, AZ (Sports Network) - Clint Barmes smacked a three-run homer to help lead Colorado past the Chicago Cubs, 7-6, in spring training action from Hi Corbett Field.

Dustan Mohr added a solo homer in the win, while J.D. Closser collected two hits and scored a pair of runs.

Ryan Speier earned the win in relief after starter Shawn Chacon tossed four shutout innings, allowing one hit and one walk.

Todd Hollandsworth and Michael Barrett each had two hits in the losing effort.

Jermaine Van Buren was dealt the loss after allowing the winning run in the bottom of the ninth. Cubs starter Greg Maddux went six innings, yielding six runs -- five earned -- on six hits. He struck out seven in the loss.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:51 PM

Ha! Bill H. is so fucking bent out of shape I couldn't help but blurt out laughing at his last post above.

You just don't get how funny this whole thing is to me.

You remind me of some fat old lady who snorts "hmmph" at everything as so easily offended.

You, sir are about as intellectual as a used rubber in a whorehouse.

You are a riot. Go cry to your mommy about your hi-jacked threads that apparently a so important in your life. While you're watching the news, how did the Cubs do today?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:28 PM

Something else that is little known is that during the same time waves of Jewish immigrants were arriving, there was also an influx of Muslims, from North Africa and places like Turkey.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:56 PM

Allen - Your point is well taken about the Palestinians being misled by cynical, self-serving leaders. No question about that. I was not really aware of the postwar pogroms against Jews in Poland, at least I don't remember hearing about it before. To be fair, I can readily understand why many Jews wanted to form a homeland in what is now Israel...just as I can readily understand the Arabs and Palestinians not being very happy about it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:31 PM

Well, Martin GIBBON, I will be checking the 11 PM news for the day when your venom finally reaches the boiling point and the neighbors say--"...my my he was such a quiet man"--..."so nice---he helped me with my groceries".   That was after you exploded in your usual homophobic, obscene, anti-intellectual rage so poorly expressed on Mudcat. Somewhat like the tragic events I described earlier---from people like yourself that have only the internet to vent their frustration. What's the matter some of your chips didn't work and turned into Buffalo chips?

Too bad the thread was hi-jacked by a know nothing person who wants attention---that is why filters for scum are needed.

my name---not my alias--though yours may not be either---and who the hell cares

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:13 PM

Yeah, but how long could it last? I mean it's ok until something DOES happen. What then?
Anyway it's not as if they randomly decided on Israel. it's been the focal point of Jewish heritage, a beacon of hope. The Palestinians brought a lot of the troubles on their own heads because they were led by cynical, self-serving leaders who had their own interests chiefly in mind, not those of their people. That has always been their misfortune, since the 1840s.
Jews were at the mercy of everyone, like the Roma still are.
Life is not a bowl of cherries, but having a home helps a great deal.
And you do know there were pogroms in early Post-War Poland.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:53 PM

Allen - It's hard to say. I understand how the Jews felt, given all the persecution they had suffered. I do think, however, that at the conclusion of World War II they were in a whole new position where people had generally been made very aware that it was no longer socially acceptable to launch pogroms of any kind against Jews. They could have used that to their great advantage in the postwar World without attempting to occupy Palestine or some other place, and they would not then have lost the goodwill they had gained in the wake of the Holocaust. The Middle Eastern conflict has lost them a great deal of goodwill since 1945.

I think they would have been wiser to remain, like Gypsies, a community of people living in many places among a larger community of other people.

But...I can see how their own previous experiences had led them to the conclusion that that was not the way to go.

All this is damned unfortunate from the point of view of Palestinians.

What would happen if Afro-Americans decided to go and carve out a piece of Mexico or Africa or some place, having concluded that they would never get a fair deal living among whites? Nothing good, I can tell you that... :-)

Nope, I think it's wiser to continue living among other people than to go off and establish a new tribal enclave at someone else's expense. One thing for sure, anyway, no matter WHAT you decide to do or not do, it's not going to make everything perfect for everybody in your own community from then on. There's no way of making life totally safe.

By being a visible minority in many European (and other) societies for many centuries, Jews were vulnerable to attack by unscrupulous politicians. By forming a highly organized Jewish military power in the midst of a predominantly Muslim cultural area since 1948, Israelis are now...vulnerable to attack.

Life just is not a bowl of cherries. I figure Woody Allen could do a great monologue on the whole thing...and he probably has. :-)

The fact is, I'm not ethnocentric. I don't care much what my ethnicity is (white, Anglo-Canadian). It's just not that important. Who cares, really? I don't feel very comfortable around people who ARE strongly ethnocentric. It worries me, because it makes them have a chip on their shoulders, and they tend to see things mainly through one set of lenses, so to speak. That can make them hard to communicate with sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM

Of course Zionism was ethnocentric (though Herzl envisioned it as becoming a place where other unfortunates in the world could find a shelter). It was trying to find a solution for a problem which did exist and nothing else worked. They tried assimilating which just led to modern Anti-Semitism. The problem existed and just pretending it didn't would help no one. That's sheer naivete. Part of Herzl's reasoning was that wherever Jews went Anti-Semitism would follow. So no use emigrating. You needed a place to call your own. Of course it would be wonderful if we could live without boundaries, but realisticaly it won't happen. You would feel differently if you were homeless. Is it better to just drift between one flat to another, or to own your own house?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:48 PM

Professional pig wrasslers are going to be quite hurt by what you just said there, Guest...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:32 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Who cares?

Go preach to someone else, moron.

I don't give a crap about pigs. Your Easter ham ain't having such a good time.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM

Well, no, I wouldn't normally use the term to describe prejudice against non-Jews, Allen. I was just philosophizing a bit about it being a kind of odd word in some respects.

You're right that children often show prejudice against anything that's noticeably different from what they're used to. Kids are great conformists, because they are often scared of things they're not familiar with. The thing is, though, a little kid doesn't know that certain other people are specifically defined AS Jews or Muslims or anything else like that until he's made to know it by things his parents say about those other people. He has then been primed to look upon all those other people as "different from us" and "all the same" (which they are NOT), when he might not otherwise have noticed it in the first place. :-) That's where I see the problem of unthinking prejudice arising.

What if the most important thing about another person was not that he/she is Jewish, or Russian, or Oriental, or Christian, but that he/she is human? That would be a good start, I think. Anyone who gets too hung up over his own or someone else's specific ethnic group identity tends to get unreasonable about it.

That's why I don't think Zionism was intrinsically a good idea in the first place. It's ethnocentric. Naziism was ethnocentric...to the point of utter madness. I wouldn't think it was a good idea if Gypsies or Six Nations Iroquois or some other people who have suffered in some way in the past decided to reclaim some extensive land area that has many other people already living on it now, and take it over by force as their inheritence, and call it a new "country". No one at the receiving end of that move would appreciate it, I assure you.

Ethnocentricity is not a good idea. It disregards and gets in the way of the much more important matter of human unity on this planet.

I shudder every time I see a self-consciously "persecuted" group of people attempting to divide themselves off from the rest of humanity and establish exclusive jurisdiction over some multi-cultural piece of national territory. It's the natural impulse of fascism, and it leads to war and disaster for all concerned.

I don't in the least mind, however, when groups of people like the Amish, for example, peacefully settle a privately-owned area of land within the context of a greater society, and exist harmoniously in that society, but in their own unique fashion. That's fine with me. That is not a threat to other people.

It's when it becomes an aggressively expanding military-national agenda that I consider it destructive.

Imagine what would happen if half the Gypsies in the World decided to go and take over, let's say, part of southern France or part of Spain...and establish a new Gypsy nation for themselves there, called "Roma". Bloody war, that's what would happen. It's a really, really dumb idea, no matter what happened in the Nazi death camps or in Palestine 3,500 years ago. Gypsies could nevertheless have decided it was a good idea, in the wake of their suffering at the hand of the Nazis in WWII. Let's all be glad that they didn't. We'd have another Middle East conflict going, only somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM

You guys are on your own little egos and none of you so witty as to make worth departing from thread title.

you should remember not to wrestle with pig. you get muddy and pig has good time. please think it over.

you know who you are.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Please bathe, Ata.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Ata Noshekh Kariot
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

Oh and you are enlightened.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

Arabs enter the picture of terrorists.

The Arab world is still in the middle ages.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

I'm Jewish and Israeli you prick and have never been pro-terrorirsts, you decided that I was. Best thing you can do for us is SHUT UP or talk like a human being.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:18 PM

Little Hawk that's what it has always ment. It was coined by Marr to mean anything against Jews. Applying it to any other group is the wrong usage. Find a different one. Marr was a believer in the psuedo-scientific Darwinistic theories of race that were popular in the 19th century (and ever since). Ethnic Jews, were classified as the lowest, most insidious kind of Semites. Arabs didn't enter the picture.
Children can be very prejudicial against people who are different, unless they are exposed to it over time.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:08 PM

Guest, Allen
[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)
The fact is that I am Jewish, am a practicing Jew, am proud of my Jewish religion and heritage and could give a flying fuck what you or anyone here thinks.

Yes, I do a lot here because I can and so do many others it seems.

Get off your pompous ass high horse and don't read my posts, observations, and comments if you don't like them.

But you will anyway. Everyone else does.

Thanks Mudcat for the occasional entertainment you provide.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:35 PM

"Hatred, discrimination or abuse of Jews BECAUSE they are Jews."

Yes, that is exactly what "antisemitism" has come to mean in the present social context, even though it's a rather odd term, given that a lot of Semites are not Jews and some Jews are not Semites. Anyway, that's what it has come to mean in common usage.

It should be obvious to any rational person that hating people merely because of who they are is a pointless, destructive, and foolish thing to do. I guess that indicates that many people are just not all that rational. :-) Children would not even think to hate other people on such a basis, did not parents and society around them plant the notion steadily into their minds while they were young and impressionable. By the time they "grow up" the learned pattern of prejudice has usually been set as if in stone.

I think that similar patterns of anti-Muslim prejudice are now being foisted on many children as well (as has happened before, historically). (This, ironically, could also be called "antisemitism", because many Muslims ARE semites.)

Just depends on which chidren one is talking about, doesn't it? The basic problem is the same on both sides of the fence when it comes to this dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:39 AM

Or you could just not read it how's that?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:15 AM

It must be time to close/delete this garbage now, and just remind me you are all adults aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:02 AM

Anti-Semitism is really simple to explain. Hatred, discrimination or abuse of Jews BECAUSE they are Jews. The thread seems to have move a bit beyond just this.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:17 AM

The title of the thread is:

A discussion - What is antisemitism?

How about mature posters check their post before they hit send and ask themselves if their post has anything to do with the title? if it doesn't, don't press 'send'.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:46 AM

"I'm having a blast here and could care less about any attention. You just don't get it. There is no Martin Gibson except on Mudcat."

What it means is that he is a sad coward and wouldn't dare say half of it to your face. Either that or he gets ignored everywhere else this is the only place he can get his rocks off. You do more disservice to Jews and Israel than a pack of Neo-Nazis and cross-burning Klansmen could ever do. He's the kind that makes the Jewish world so fragmented. If he is indeed Jewish. If so, shame on the mohel for not helping himself to some more of the arak.

British English rules. It's got style when it seems American is limited to 'fuck' and 'cocksucker'.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:51 PM

No physical threats, Martin. I can keep you bouncing from thread to thread just by poking you verbally.

I'll leave you in peace for awhile. I'm bored with you for now. But as Arnie says, "I'll be back!"

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)I'm not squealing, but your threats of phyisical harm will be reported.

Who I am here has nothing to do with real life by design.

Who's over the line now, douche bag? Threaten to hurt people with bodily harm in real life Dog-Genes? Can't tell the difference any more.

Tell your greek butt buddies to lay off until your hemmorroids heal.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:42 PM

Funny. But that wasn't me. I'm still here, and I'll be popping in from time to time to poke Martin and keep him squealing.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:40 PM

I am out of control on this. I hate this guy and want to kill him.

I am quitting Mudcat. I can't take it any more.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:37 PM

Wrong, dung heap! Whoever you are in the 3D world is the fictional character. Martin Gibson, the local Mudcat slime-ball, is your real personality. You're too much of a coward to let it out where people might react by bouncing one off your snot-locker.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:30 PM

Deal with it Dog Genes.

I love to tell you are are full of shit because you are.

You are what's wrong with Mudcat and so is Bill H. Pompous assholes who must have it their way or no way.

Don't like it, leave, buddy.

If you opened your chest, one would find dog insides, not a human.

Except maybe a bleeding heart of a whining liberal.

I'm having a blast here and could care less about any attention. You just don't get it. There is no Martin Gibson except on Mudcat.

And Bill H. comparing this place and what goes on here to someone who shoots up a school shows that your intelligence is definately that of a moron and a complete idiot. You have no perception of reality, obviously. No swearing is necessaary to tell you that.

Sorry, bud, you are about as intellectual as a cold pile of Dog Gene's dog shit.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:20 PM

"Pustule." Aptly put. Obviously Mr. F. is quite capable of taking care of himself.

In my perambulations in the old days, I occasionally encountered tribes who were given to the practice of cannibalism. Martin, I'm sure, would be relatively safe in their midst. He would be much too difficult to clean, and that would be left after the offal was removed would be a stringy bit of sinew and a gelatinous blob of suet. And should the cannibal chef crack open Martin's skull, all he would find therein would be inadequate to adorn a Ritz cracker.

Of what use, then, is this creature?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:17 PM

And now he has the attention he so richly wanted ---just like the kids who shoot up schools---for attention

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:16 PM

English slang is crap.

I'm not impressed by it and never insulted by it.

It's like watching Monty Python. English guys talking like they got a mouth full of marbles. Can't take it seriously.

Much more effective is:

"Oh fuck off, you stupid cocksucker."

If you are going to use slang, it might as well have impact.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:16 PM

SO---Little Hawk---any thoughts about the GIBBON?    Slang or otherwise?

How about something on the line of---excommunicating a non communicator to a community of common pieces of compost on a compost website discussion group since he knows of compost being a large part of a pile of rotting compost crap. I give him more credit here than he deserves----probably some more lime to neutralize the smell is really what he deserves.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:10 PM

It's English slang...as in "Shut yer bleedin' gob, you fecking twit!" :-) I love English slang, and I have gotten to know a great deal of it from 2 sources...Britcoms and the Mudcat Cafe. With a reasonable masterly of British slang one can easily give the impression that one is from the UK.

As in: "Oh, sod off, you stupid git!"

Parrots sound even funnier than usual when they curse with a British accent.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 09:13 PM

Hi Bill H.

Just took a dump and thought of you on Mudcat.

I'm not going anywhere.

I like some opinions on Mudcat, but not the pompous ass kinds like yours.

Bridge, been to any lawyer orgies lately? And the anti-semites just love the fuel and react, don't they?

If I fan the flames enough, perhaps they will just burn out. Gob is not slang in America I can assure you. That's why it is irrelevant.

Gee where's all of that famous liberal tolerance?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 09:01 PM

Well---time has passed---looks like you finally left for the sewer you abide in GIBBON.


Farewell----find a nice sewer hole on the internet for your conversations and lack of interest in other opinions.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 08:53 PM

I am curious---like George. Why do so many of you---and I am said to say I have been guilty too, but no more, to a GIBBON like Martin.

OK ===he admits to being in chips (computer---or horse--who knows) or something. Who cares.   

His input into any kind of conversation is of no value ---truthfully---best thing. Ignore such inane and coarse idiots and let the discussion continue---and, know what, he will disappear like a bad wind---or as Martin GIBBON would say---a fart in the wind. Which, is probably, the best way to describe him.   

Sorry for the coarse analogy---last time that GIBBON shall drag me into a comment at his level---or any comment---below the level of the curbstone.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:54 PM

You seem too stupid to get the point again Gobson.

Gob - a slang term for mouth, usually indicating excessive size or excessive use for uncontrolled oral utterance; hence well fitted to describe you in denigratory (but justified) terms.

Maybe all the lawyers you know double or triple bill their time, but I am not of your circle.

For someone who complains incessantly about antisemitism you do seem to go out of your way to provide fodder for antisemites.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:11 PM

Great quote that cockroach one.

Mahane Shmonim (80) when a bus was blown up. So fuck off. Or better yet tokhal zain batakhat.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:10 PM

Be not concerned on my behalf, O Father of All Cynics.

My physical disability is bloody inconvenient, but contrary to what Marty seems to think, except for my legs, all of my bodily functions are perfectly normal and my general health is excellent. The disability is obviously more important to Marty than it is to me.

The oozings of our resident pustule don't bother me at all. I just consider the pitiful nature of the source.

Don Firth

[And now, back to our regular broadcast.]

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:48 PM

"Zealots preach hatred and no matter how shrouded it is in platitudes it is still the preaching of the superiority of a race, gender, a religion or an idea. ... In my book, zealots and cockroaches are interchangeable." Elizabeth Schuett

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM

Blow me.

I know.

You were in a whorehouse in the Gaza Strip banging an Arab whore who was mutiliated in the name of Allah.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM

Ok, Martin. Why don't you see if you can recollect a certain event that happened in Israel during October 2002. I'll tell you where I was and what my feelings about it were and you can judge for yourself what a jaded ass you come across as.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:08 PM

Who cares?

I sure don't care at all about your politics.

Don't underestimate what I know about the real world.

Posting as a guest on a folk music web forum only proves you have a computer.

Here's a real world "get fucked" for you.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:59 PM

Martin you're an ass. You haven't a clue about the real world nor what my beliefs, convictions and politics are.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:51 PM

Thanks for agreeing with me, CarolC that this is indeed a cheeseburger and an order of fries.

I knew you would see it my way.

Once.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:46 PM

It is, indeed, Allen. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

Guest, Allan c. you have been warned.

and no, this is not a discussion.

It's a cheeseburger and and order of fries.

Everyone knows that.

BTW, AllanC, what do you think of Palestinians who blow themselves up in buses in Tel Aviv? Don't you agree with CarolC that this action is justified?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,concerned citizen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:32 PM

The thought of CarolC and MartinG in a room.........

I don't see a downside.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:29 PM

Who's listening to him? I have eyes I can read. So far I've seen nothing to make me want to pay him any heed. So google and post away, this is a discussion isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:25 PM

I wouldn't get a room with this broad.

I would be afraid for my life.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM

podman, I don't see any reason why I should not give my input about Allen and robomatic's posts to this thread. And I don't see any reason why you should have a problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: podman
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:37 PM

get a room, you two.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM

I'm warning ya, Guest Allan.

She's suckering you in.

This broad has nothing but time on her hands to tell you how wrong you are on everything. She will spend hours doing google searches and force everything down your throat with no credibility.

Many know this here.

She's sponging off the government for some acted out disability and just loves to bite the hand that feeds her.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

In case Martin's post will cause you to misconstrue my previous post, Allen, I was saying that I am enjoying your input. If find it interesting and also well articulated. I don't at this time know whether or not I agree with it because I have not looked into the matter at any length, but I do appreciate you taking the trouble to respond to my questions and I also appreciate your input about the historical perspective that you have gained from your reading on these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

Watch out guest, allen.

Carol C. will chew you up and spit you out!

she is renowned for being one of the most idiotic and narrow minded posters here.

Also one of the biggest haters of Israel and democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

Seconding robomatic's sentiments: I'm finding your input to be very interesting, Allen, along with robomatics questions and responses to your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:36 PM

Glad you were offended Dog-Genes. Thanks for reading my posts. You seem so obbsessed with them. Why don't you get serious about the rash you have.

Again, your chain has been yanked.

When I get hit, I will hit back harder. Turning the other cheek will allow one to get hit on both sides.

Everyone brings their baggage to Mudcat, even you. Why aren't you ranting about some of the open anti-semitism that goes on here?

Or the disrespect for many others, especially those who aren't in a drug-induced far left wing frame of mind.

Deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:22 PM

Martin, I am a cynic and my stock in trade is wry, humorous barbs. But now I'm serious. Sometimes you make me gag.

You've already been called for using people's disabilities or health problems as fodder for your abuse. But here you go again. A few days ago you made a crack about someone you know had to have a hysterectomy that it's a good thing she can't have any more children. Now you tell someone you know uses a wheelchair to "please cross your legs (try!)."

You are a sad, small-minded, mean-spirited, totally contemptible excuse for a human being.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:18 PM

Damn! Another typo! The "tw" should have been an "sh."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:14 PM

Guest,Allen: A pleasure to have you around. Have a great weekend!

Robo

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:33 PM

I don't remeber the exact source, think it was more than one and also from people whose family were victims that they did call it the Shoa and before that the devastation of the Rhineland communities in 1096 was so termed. So it's now the "HaShoa HaKtana" and what the Nazis did "HaShoa HaGdola". Little and Big Holocausts respectively.

The bit about most of European Jews being converts from the Khazars was me quoting LittleHawk.

I do try and read as many sources as possible, in English and Hebrew.
Will try and find you a bibliography on Arab nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries so you can see for yourself how much the use of Arab has changed. Start with Fromkin's "A Peace to End all Peace". Most histories of Egypt and of early Muslim era will confirm what I was saying about the Copts. Lewis and Glubb spring to mind. For a good look at them and the rest of the Christian minories in the Mid-East today, try Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain".

Robert Kaplan is a rotten source for all things Balkan.

BTW Martin can you read this Ya khara katan lo samim aleikha katzutz. No? Titbayesh mi ata khoshev sheata maakhil et kulam khara ve lo yodea mila beIvrit lekh lekh tekhapes ta khaverim shkha, im yesh kaele bikhlal ki ata lo shave zain.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:04 PM

They are copts? helicopters? copt a bag?

Oh, my don called me a twit! How will I ever sleep. That is such a terrible thing to be called! Don, calling a Jew a twit is like the worse thing you can call a Jew. Nazis are very well known to call Jews twits.

Speaking of breath, please cross your legs (try!) Your breath has got a serious problem of lack of attention.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:04 PM

Guest, Allen:

A post from GUeST (23 Mar 05 - 05:45 AM ) said in part the following:

Yes, Dave, I am saying that most European Jews are descendants of converts to Judaism, going back to the conversion of a king to Judaism, and through him, his whole nation. That nation was called the Kazars, and they were located in southern Russia. They were not Semites. The nation converted en masse to the Jewish faith because the king did. That's how it worked in those days. The Kazars were later scattered by one of the periodic invasions of Mongols, and they scattered into many European nations, and became the source of the modern European Jew...not a Semite at all.

In your following named post you said in response to a challenge from me to "unnamed GUEST" that it was your post, so that is where I got the impression that you were giving more credence to the Khazar theory then I've ever heard. As far as I know, European Jews are mainly semites. (Whether this matters or not is a separate question).

I thought your last post was much better, giving more background and defending your position (although you still haven't verified your earlier statement: massive progroms in Russia which were then termed the Holocaust).

My information such as it is, (I'm not any kind of expert, i just care to know what is true or not) comes from texts such as Abba Eban's book, The Sachar books, and for modern times such books as Balkan Ghosts by Robert Kaplan, From Beirut To Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman, Thomas Friedman articles in the NYT, and some careful web reading with my bullsh*t filter set on high. In college I took a course in Greek history re: The Pelopennesian War, and another on The English Revolution.

Some television histories I quite liked were "The World At War" series from the 80's which I saw when quite young, and a rather recent very good broadcast on World War I. I believe it was called "The Great War".

And of course, literary references from the likes of Dickens, Thackeray, A Conan Doyle, and Willie the Shake. They tried to be acurate, didn't they? ;-)

Good to hear from ya.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:12 PM

Blicky didn't work but here goes: http://www.khazaria.com
The Wikipedia article has been reworked so it's a good place for an introduction.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:06 PM

They aren't. The Slavic features come from the local populace who in Poland and eastwards are Slavs.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:44 AM

GUEST, Allen said, in part:

I will say now that there were local converts and inter-marriage throughout the ages. Even rape left it's mark. How else do you account for the Slavic features of many Eatern European Jews?

Do we even know that the Khazars were a Slavic people? Maybe someone can shed light on that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:37 AM

They are Copts, except nowadays it has been relegated to mean the Christians, followers of the Coptic Church. Egypt is the Greek form of Copt. So historically, before the 9th century at the earliest, it would be mistaken to call them Arabs. Definitely if we are talking ancient Egypt, like Gigson.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:24 AM

I did not assert that they are mostly from a tribe of converts at all! The Khazars existed and most of the Royalty converted along with the Kagan, and quite possibly a large number of others, no one knows for a certainty. When the Empire was destroyed many would have mixed with the existing Jeiwsh communities which later were absorbed into the Ashkenazi culture. I will say now that there were local converts and inter-marriage throughout the ages. Even rape left it's mark. How else do you account for the Slavic features of many Eatern European Jews? For Khazars see Kevin brooke's book on Khazaria.
I said what spurred Zionism as a movement were the pogroms. Specificaly the ones at Kishinev May 1903 drove Herzl to try and find a temporary solution for those Jews. It was one of the reasons he was trying out the Uganda Plan. However the Russian Jews rejected the idea out of hand. They refused to agree to temporary solutions and wanted to focus the efforts on Palestine. After Herzl's death the following year that was the course the Congress took.
And what I ment when reffering to Germany during the Crusade was it being the FIRST HOLOCAUST. You can find that in practicaly any decent history of the Crusades or Germanic Jewry. besides, you are wrong about Germany. As a state it did not exist, but that was the name of the region.
Having just moved house most of the books are still in boxes. When I finish unpacking I'll be glad to tell you which. None of this comes from the internet. Web lore? Hardly.
Now why don't you be so kind as to tell me what sources you've been reading.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 08:12 AM

Guest, Allen:

Your version of history is swiss-cheese like, holy and unreliable (unless you bring in some reputable sources. While I tend to agree with the thrust of your comments, your assertions seem to me to be web-myths, viz:

Your earlier assertion that European Jews are descended mostly from an earlier tribe or tribes of converts. This is unproven and undocumented in any historical sense.

Your assertion that Egyptians were all copts which you later corrected to Coptic Christians. Well done.

The term Holocaust as applied to Russian pogroms. That's a new one for me. Bring a citation. The term Holocaust dates from the 1960s as far as I know.

Your inadequate recitation of history as to promoting the migrations of Jews to Israel. There were several waves of Jewish immigrants to the Holy Land, possibly the earlier ones spurred by pogroms, but the waves increased in size and the big ones followed WWI which had something even worse than pogroms, the Russian Civil War, where both sides (the Reds and the Whites) tended to kill a lot of Jewish civilians.

When you make the comment: "Beforehand it was the devastation wrought on the Jews of Germany during the Crusades." you are leaving the subject of Zionism, since Zionism dates from the late 19th century. You are also neglecting much persecution suffered due to peasant uprisings such as Chmielnitski, the Catholic Church sponsored Inquisition, etc. And you are also a bit wrong in that there was no such thing as Germany in the era you are talking about.

Again, your heart seems to be in the right place. But you seem to have few facts and a poor choice in telling fact from 'information'.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:18 AM

What really spurred Zionism were the massive progroms in Russia which were then termed the Holocaust. Beforehand it was the devastation wrought on the Jews of Germany during the Crusades. I hope there will never be a fourth.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:02 PM

Little Hawk:

Without (meaning to be) rude, I don't see the value of discussing your opinion of Zionism once we are all well beyond that. Zionism has a fascinating history all its own and developed, as theories are wont to do, in a way that Theodore Herzl did not expect. For the record, had I existed in the relevant era, I'd've probably been on the fence about Zionism until the Holocaust. The Holocaust made Zionism a necessity for Jews whether Europe liked it or not.

As for living in peace and harmony, people are inherently mostly unlikeable even and sometimes especially within established groups. I think Abba Eban was onto something when he said that Arabs and Jews will live together in peace once they have tried everything else.

In other words, Arabs and Jews are a lot like Europeans.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:38 PM

Typo, Marty. I missed the "have." But you never make typos, right Marty? Right? (Nudge nudge) RIGHT??

I drank a cup of Irish breakfast tea this morning. I just brewed a cup of Earl Gray a few minutes ago. That's it. I'm not much of a drinker. Last alcoholic beverage I had was a glass of Charles Shaw Shiraz a week ago Sunday when we had guests in for dinner. But I gather from glancing at some of your posts today that you've been hitting the Mogen David pretty hard. That stuff will pickle your brain and rot your teeth. Judging from your meandering thought processes, your own admission, and your breath. . . .

Twit!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:14 PM

Bridge, for a moron limey lawyer, you ought to learn to spell.

How much double and triple billing did you do today?


Don, your grammar above looks like you've been drunk all day as usual.

You are such an old idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:49 PM

Okay, Diogenes, I the answer I was waiting for.

It's back. Have at him!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:27 PM

I thought the greek literation of diogenes was
delta
iota
omicron
gamma
epsilon
nu
eta
sigma

which would make the "o" sound short, but thinking again I can't think offhand of a true short "o" in American, where almost all "o"s are sounded "ah".

Gobson, you seem to be getting madder and madder. I recommend treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM

Yeah, cool it Dog Genes. go lick your dog dick.

You know greek so well your hemmoroids hurt.

You're a schmuck.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:46 PM

Why do you think it's without merit? Try being without a homeland at the mercy of one and all.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

Amen, Little Hawk (with the minor proviso that you're really talking about the vocal minorities, not the too-passive majorities who just want to get on with being human & living...)!

As far as the original thread goes, anti-semitism appears to be whatever Martin Gibbering can find an excuse to swear at.

So pretty much everything under the sun then...

(Except Martin Gibbering, & possibly its nearest & dearest. Martin the pseudo-educated, who can call everyone else stupid & ignorant, yet can't manage to find a reliable spell-checker... How sad!)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:07 PM

Okay, Allen, that's fairly much what I thought it was, but I thought it had some add-ons since the 6-Day War...like gradually expanding the "living area" of Isrealis farther out into other people's bordering land areas...through maintaining military supremacy.

In any case, I think the original notion of carving out such a homeland for Jews by force in Palestine was a very bad one, and not justifiable on any rationale. However, it happened. Given that it did happen, and that many Jews have since been born on that land, I am in favour of them continuing to live there in peace, without interference, as long as they return to the 1948 borders and resolve to not attack their neighbours. They should also compensate and assist Palestinians to at least some extent, and they should attempt to live in brotherhood, rather as mutual foes. This is equally contingent upon their neighbours not attacking them. :-) It seems to be darned near impossible to get both sides to agree to get along together simultaneously, but some friendlier attitudes at the top leadership levels (on either side) would help tremendously.

I am opposed to the original cause of Zionism, as a theory. I think it was a theory without merit.

I am not opposed to the present existence of Israel nor am I opposed to Israel's right to defend itself. I am opposed to the encroachment of Jewish settlers onto Arab and Palestinian land outside the 1948 borders of Israel. I am opposed to Israel secretly maintaining a very large nuclear deterrent capability, and pretending it isn't there. I am opposed to suicide bombers. I am in favour of mutual peace and equality between the warring parties, who should have the sense to reach an accomodation and live side by side in peace.

I am capable of living in peace with people I don't like. It's not comfortable, but it can be done, and in time one may even get to like them if one gets to understand them a bit better.

I consider both sides to blame for the Middle Eastern impasse, and for very similar reasons. They each see only themselves as victims of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:24 PM

Zionism in a nutshell is a home for the Jewish people, prefferably in Israel/Palestine AKA Zion. There have been many forms and schools of thought but what it boils down to is a place for Jews to be able to call their home. Strictly speaking it has fulfilled it's goal.
I'd like to hear what other people's definition is.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM

Cool it for a bit, will you, Diogenes? I'm interested in the answer to Little Hawk's question.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

And he says MY chain is easy to yank. Then why is it that he feels compelled to respond to my jibes every time?

I'm just passing through and having a little fun with this ninnyhammer. I have no investment in this other that to spit in his eye when he gets particularly abusive, and being the foul-minded bully that he is, he gives me plenty of opportunity for that. I can disappear into the ether any time I get bored. Soon, now. He's not really much sport. Too easy to send into a dithering screech-fit.

Like I said on another thread, bunky, watch your blood pressure. You're getting downright apoplectic.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM

Good question, Allen. Okay, I'll bite...what does Zionism mean, in your opinion?

Perhaps we would all be better off if we defined ourselves not as anti-something, but for something. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:31 AM

BTW I'm curious. From a purely semantical POV, when people say they are Anti-Zionism do they actualy understand what the term Zionism means?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:06 AM

I know this link was posted, but I'll post it again.
Kevin Brooke's Khazar Page is about the only trustworthy and academic site on the Khazars. Buy the book, it is an excellent read and will put to rest much of the myths about them. That said, Khazar studies are still a fairly recent field, and it's ever developing.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:30 AM

I don't have my books to hand, but I'll try and explain better.
Arab (a word first apearing in the 9th c. BC) originaly reffered to the Bedouins and the language of the Arabian Peninsula. In the first few decades after the Conquest it ment the ruling elite, who were Muslims from Arabia. Non-Muslims were Dhimmi and those who converted- and supposedly enjoyed equal status with the Arabs- Mawali.
Due to economic and cultural changes, the reign of Turkish dynasties, the widspread use of Arabic in the towns, and scores of demobilised Arabs who mingled with the locals, the Arab tribal castes lost their predominace and the word Arab reverted back to the sense of a nomad. The rest called themselves Muslims, or to differentiate from Turk and Persian, Children of the Arabs. The Mawalis to all intents and purposes became equal.
By the end of the 19th Century, the European idea of a nation being characterised by a common homeland, langauge, character and political aspirations was adopted by the intellectual movements in the Mid-East and that sense has come down to today.
Egyptians are Arabs in the modern, nationalist sense of the word, while Copt is now restricted to the Chrisitan minority.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:10 AM

Hardly, Martin. The first "PC" (micro computer) was the 4004, a 4 bit Intel processor ( about 1972), followed by the far more useful 8008 (1974?) , then the 8080 (1975-6?). The 8086 (1982?) was a 16 bit, with the 8088 as the 8 bit version ( same machine code), but when IBM decided to use the 8088 in their machine, IBM defined it as a 16 bit machine...

Chips earlier than the 8086 were the 65xx and 68xx motorola families, and the above intell machines. Even the Z-80 was before the 8086.

( There were computrs before these chips- but the entire CPU was not on a single chip substrate)

Some of us remember 512 byte memory chips.....

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:12 PM

Ah yes. The chips that Intel started with.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:00 PM

So, it's a question of discovering what they react to best, eh, Martin? :-)

I used to be in semiconductor chips too, in the early '80's. I was building PC's at the time...with 8086 and 8088 processors. The best we had was 256K Ram.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:52 PM

Dog-Shit Genes

I'm not obsessed with fecal odors. But you are obsessed with dog-style self-fellatio. Your chain is so easy to yank.

BTW, I like semiconductor chips. That's the business I'm in.

Little Hawk, you can call someone a dummy or a cocksucker. It's easy to pick and choose who can take what.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:54 PM

And I wear a toga and sandals.

Martin wears a buffalo chip on either shoulder, like epaulets. That's why he's obsessed with fecal odors.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:54 PM

Birkenstocks! HA! I knew it! I was just suckering you in... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM

Sorry, LH,

I wear cheap Kmart sneakers, and Clarkes that I get at the outlet stores...


But I can dig out my Birkenstocks if that will impress you...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Im Atah Yakhol Likro Et Ze Ata Ochel MeAchor
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:34 PM

What chip are you carrying on your shoulder Martin?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:23 PM

Why would anyone get all bent out of shape over bizarre sexual insults, Martin??? :-) It has always puzzled me that people react so strongly to that sort of thing. God knows, though, it seems to goad most males into a frenzy of resentment for some reason. Maybe they are insecure about something?

Seems to me that an insult to someone's intelligence would be a far more significant matter.

Or...you could criticize their taste in shoes! That would really cut to the quick.

My guess is that Bearded Bruce, for instance, wears those stupid sneakers that cost $150 a pair, and have little lights in the heels that blink when he walks around.

And Spaw...Spaw wears ratty old Indian mocassins that have been chewed on by his weimaraners and should have been thrown out five years ago.

Amos wears polished brown leather shoes and spats! He's a real goody-two-shoes.

Bobert wears no shoes at all, 'cept when he goes out huntin' possum.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:03 PM

Guest, allen or alien

go suck an Eqyptian/Arab cock. I'm sure you will enjoy it as much as a Syrian one.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:28 PM

Allen, your analogy doesn't work. Lowland Scots are not "English" but they are Anglo-Saxons. "English" denotes a country as well as a language, "Anglo-Saxon" an ethnolinguistic heritage but not a specific country.

"Arab" is much closer to "Anglo-Saxon" than to "English," since Syrians, Palestinians, Saudis, Iraqis, people from Qatr and the Emirates, many Libyans, many Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians, and for that matter some Americans, Australians, etc, are all Arabs.

The connection between Khazars and Cossacks was not made by me, but by Little Hawk. I was merely noting that it was inconsistent with the rest of his theory.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:57 PM

Yeah, Guest Allen:

You seem much surer of your self on both what constitutes Jews in Europe and Arabs and Copts in Egypt than any facts I've been apprised of. So thanks for the name but please also provide some references or citations to back up your assertions.

YOS

Robo

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:34 PM

You are some piece of work aren't you Gibson. They aren't Arabs, they speak the language but it's not the same thing. Are Scots English for using that language?
They speak Arabic, are Muslim and share some of the culture, but strictly speaking they are Copts. That's what I ment. When Gibson was using the Egyptian example to say that Jewish-Arab animosity is ancient, he was wrong.

In English Diogenes is like Little Hawk said, but really should be Deeohghehness. Greek's phonetic.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:16 PM

Correct on the pronunciation, Little Hawk.

Martin gets it wrong the first time around, and even after it's pointed out to him, he insists on continuing to get it wrong. As far as better educated is concerned, he more than amply display his level of education and intellectual development with every post.

Poor ignorant sod still hasn't figured out which one is the Shinola.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:00 PM

Dog Genes.

I know who the original was. I also know that I am probably more educated than you are. You are an idiot and you don't need a nursury school degree to realize that. any one who calls himself Dog Genes on a web forum should be and probably is taking medication for a mental disorder.

Guest, Allen, that's right, Egyptions aren't Arabs. They are Africans. African Arabs. Or maybe you think they are French, you weirdo. Last I looked, they were just as much Arab as the rest of the camel jockeys are. Only they seem more civilized and don't seem to have a big problem with Israel existing.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM

dunno what you've been told, but Egyptians aren't Arabs (Allen)

Interesting. President Nasser of Egypt always spoke about Arabs when referring to Egypts in English. Later he founded the United Arab Republic with Egypt being part of it and for some years even Egypt alone was called officially the United Arab Republic. He must have been bad in history.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:04 AM

I accidently forgot to add my name.
What flight of fancy are you reffering to?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:41 AM

Dear GUEST noname.



You should be able to hover after that flight of fancy.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:54 AM

Okay, Guest, thanks for the update on that.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:45 AM

If the Khazars all became Jewish when their king converted, and the name "Cossacks" is a later form of "Khazars," then why weren't the Cossacks Jewish? That part's a bit confusing, no?

Nerd,
We don't know the extent of conversion among the Khazars, but Cossack has nothing to do with them. The word is actualy Kazak and is Turkish for adventurer, or free-booter. They came into being several centuries after the fall of Khazaria.

Yes, Dave, I am saying that most European Jews are descendants of converts to Judaism, going back to the conversion of a king to Judaism, and through him, his whole nation. That nation was called the Kazars, and they were located in southern Russia. They were not Semites. The nation converted en masse to the Jewish faith because the king did. That's how it worked in those days. The Kazars were later scattered by one of the periodic invasions of Mongols, and they scattered into many European nations, and became the source of the modern European Jew...not a Semite at all.

LittleHawk,
The Kagan converted and many Khazars as well, we do not know how many, but it was not obligatory! There were still lots of Christians, Muslims and Pagans. The Empire was destroyed by Prince Sviatoslav of Kiev in 969. They were dispersed throughout Europe, and the Jews mixed with the existing populations.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:18 AM

The truth is not black and white but shades of grey. I'm not classifying the rulers as Anti-Semites- though most undoubtedly were personally- they were just unsentimental, pragmatic. Cynical if you like. It was not out of any love for the Jews or Christians that they protected them. It's not a question of being against or for, but of statesmanship. They protected minorities when it suited them.
The Islamic countries, the Ottoman Empire in particular, were more than happy to take in the Jews because of their wealth, diplomatic/trade links and business acumen. Don Josef Nasi was an influential figure in the Ottoman court during the 1570s, soon there was an influential Jewish lobby, Jewish doctors were employed by the Sultan and Jewish women were favorite companions of the harem ladies. The Empire was probably the most tolerant place in the world at the time.
The common people OTOH would often mistreat the Jews to the best of their ability. There was not much love lost between different groups.
Another reason for the occasional outbursts of violence, was if the ruler thought the Jews were getting too uppitty, he would withdraw his protection and allow violence against them, sort of an "we'll see who's boss here" thing. Happened to Armenians and Greeks too.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:55 PM

So, the real truth is probably more like...at certain times Muslims have gotten along pretty well with Jews, and at other times not. On the whole, the Muslim world has probably fought less with Jews than the Christian world has, but there have been frequent clashes, nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:52 PM

When the Jews were driven out of Spain, the Islamic countries were really rather hospitable in taking them in, and allowing them to practic their religion openly.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:43 PM

I thought it was pronounced more like "Die-awe-gin-ease"...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM

So are you classifying the attitudes of the Muslim rulers as an example of antisemitism? Or just as an example of institutional discrimination that was practiced against all non-Muslims?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:22 PM

I was saying that anyone who was not Muslim was discriminated against in the form of various fines, and as I forgot to add, types of clothing. Jews as People of the Book supposedly were exempt from some things, like forced conversion I beleive, but I can't remember offhand and it's late. BTW there were very rich and powerful Jewish clans in Pre-Islamic Arabia, so the discrimination was usualy when one of the three major religions, Christianity, Zoroastrism, and later, Islam, increased their power.

For anyone who doesn't know Diogenes is Dee-oh-gheh-ness.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:16 PM

Allen, I'm having difficulty figuring out if, in your 22 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM post, you are saying that Muslim rulers, historically speaking, were specifically against Jews, or if they were against anyone who was not a Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:09 PM

Notice how this specimen (you do know what a specimen is, don't you, Martin? If not, ask your doctor) who attacks people right, left, and center, always likes to characterise himself as one of the victims?

Judging from his feeble comebacks at me, he seems to think the last syllable of my pseudonym is pronounced like "jeans." He doesn't know how to pronounce it because he has no idea of who the historical Diogenes is. Ignorant sod!   Ill educated. Probably a nursery school dropout.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:09 PM

Umm, dunno what you've been told, but Egyptians aren't Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:45 PM

"The animosity between Jews and Muslims is a recent thing, brought on by the Israel-Palistinian conflict--for the most part, it is a political animosity, not a personal one--"

That's completely ridiculous. Before they were Muslims they were Arabs and they had a problem with Jews as far back as 4000 years ago.

"We were slaves unto Egypt...................."

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM

"Anti-Jewish prejudice does prevail but historically Islam has been more tolerant of Judaism than Christianity."

I think that it important to understand this, and unfortunately, most people don't. The animosity between Jews and Muslims is a recent thing, brought on by the Israel-Palistinian conflict--for the most part, it is a political animosity, not a personal one--

Muslims regard Jews as "people of the book", and generally have good relations with them--I knew a Syrian family who had several small restaurants where many of the customers were Israeli Jews--In Philly, there was a very well known restaurant that was owned jointly by Palestinians and Israeli Jews--A lot of very interesting conversation--but among friends--Unfortunately, as the conflict goes on, new generations are raised knowing only the animosity, and this is creating the kind of prejudice and bigotry that is so ingrained into the Western culture-- "

This is an over-simplification. Relations have been worsening for centuries, and every so often there has been a major outbreak against Jews, like the Damascus Blood-Libel, the Conversos of Meshed or the North-African riots of the previous century. Useful as a pressure valve for the Muslim rulers, they would occasionally allow such violence against Jews, who otherwise enjoyed the protection of the crown in return for taxes and services rendered. The way Islam treated non-muslims was institutionalised discrimination. You want to keep on living as an infidel? Ok, but pay the taxes. But there has always been an undercurrent of emotions against non-Muslims and (depending where) non-Arabs, which sometimes rises violently to the surface.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:46 PM

Anti-Semitism the term was coined specificaly about Jews by a 19th century German philosopher whose name eludes me.
Judophobia was coined by Herzl to explain why wherever Jews live among other nations there will be Anti-Semetism.
Broadly speaking, there are two forms of it, classic and modern Anti-Semitism. Classic Anti-Semetism, such as was found in Europe until the 18th C, was based on religion primarily. The modern variety is based on race and nation, IE the Jew cannot do a thing to change his Jeiwhsness, while in the classic kind you could theoreticay change this by converting. The Arab world is taking a backwards slide, from having the most enlightened treatment of Jews (mostly) during the Medieval era, where all you had to do was pay taxes if a non-Muslim and it was an instituitonalised discrimination, to today's situation where it gets worse daily.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM

Gee, Bill H. That's pretty lame. I'm disappointed in you.

Kind of like a nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM

Well---Martin GIBBON---your last note answers my question. There I was at the Bronx Zoo today and, lo and behold, the Monkey house was missing one of its samples---no one knew where this creature went. Now we know---found a keyboard and is sending missives to Mudcat---and, as the legend goes, with enough keystrokes any monkey will eventually come up with a Shakeperean Sonnet. Soon Martin Soon. Keep trying---you are not getting close yet.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:00 PM

Bill H. you see your problem is that you need to de/master bate yourself on this board to get the recognition you need as you try to carry yourself through life as a SOO-DOH intellectual.

Me, I laugh at pubic/public forums like this and just try to have a lot of fun, which I am doing. I can't help it if it puts you into hand-wringing mode.

eagle wing, you are fuckin' wrong.

The anti-semitism that spews from many at Mudcat, probably from the pretend Indians like yourself are best served by my constant reminders of what goes on here. You can try to cover it up, but it doesn't work. why don't you just go off in your loin-cloth and go trap a bear or something?

Dog-genes knows about monkey and baboon butts and tails. He even sniffs Chongo's.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:48 PM

Actually, Bill, gibbons are tailless apes. Martin Gibbon repeatedly TRIES to swing by his tail, but hurtles to the ground from a great height time after time. He invariably lands on his head.

That accounts for a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: EagleWing
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:01 AM

Gibson says "Again, I don't come here to debate."

Never has truer word come from his keyboard!!

He comes here to give Jews the worst possible name he possibly can, to insult, to foul the discussion board and to call anyone who dares to disagree, even fellow Jews, antisemitic. He is a blot on the landscape and the antithesis of all that could be thought of as holy.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:37 AM

Thank you for that, Carol.

The last line was just another of my little jokes. That's why the smiley face. My concert days be done.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:13 AM

Your first two paragraphs, Art... very nicely stated.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:09 AM

It does seem to me that when a government is taken to task for heinous actions perpetrated by that government, there is no way a fair-minded person can say with any validity that a condemnation of the entire nation's preferred spiritual leanings is what is going down.

As a thoroughly secular and non-religious Jew, and proud of it, I reserve the right to see political things as I see them--and to say that, if that is my inclination, without being profanely mugged in this forum. Please believe me, I am as aware of the pain and suffering from the Holocaust years as any other Jew. I truly do not wish to be stuck in anyone's ovens.

My joke was just that, a joke. Nothing more. I reserve the right to tell it and to see and take note of the humor in it.

If I sound a little discommoded, it's because I am. If I'm angering someone out there, just don't come to my next concert!! ;-)

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:41 PM

I did read the whole thread, Robomatic. I guess there was one comment of Little Hawk's that touched on the same issue. The story as related to me wasn't in the form of a folk tale, as far as I could tell. Having taught in college, I was aware of the potential danger of being blackmailed by students on all of the levels that I referred to. I saw a teacher's life nearly destroyed in my son's High School because one of his female students charged that he had touched her in a lewd. I could give his name, as he was one of my son's teachers, but I wouldn't see any sense in it. I don't know whether the charge was true, or not. I think it would be hard to be sure unless you'd been there, or the teacher or student had a history of similar actions.

I'm not denying antisemitism, or racial prejudice, or any kind of prejudice. The fact that some people use it to their advantage doesn't in any way diminish the ugliness of prejudice of any kind.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM

Ah, Martin GIBBON, one has to ask who has the life and who does not know how to act civil in a public forum.

I, for on, know the answer----now, tell me do you use your tail for anything besides swinging from trees and screeching?


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:29 PM

It's called gaming the system. Jerry, I think if you'd read the thread you might have seen that the subject has already come up and spared us a third hand recitation of what you were told by a friend about someone they had heard of or 'knew'. I've heard this story more than once and have yet to hear real names or the name of the university.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Azizi
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:21 PM

Jerry,

I agree with you that no one should use his or her race, sex, religion or nationality as a weapon in an irresponsible, manipulative way.

Yet I have to say that it is possible for someone of one race or ethnicity or religious background to be prejudical and to act in prejudicial ways toward persons belonging to his or her group.

Unfortunately, I believe that this is not at all uncommon.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:14 PM

How true. But the race card is pulled every day. Just ask Jesse Jackson. He sure knows how to use that ol' ace of spades approach.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:06 PM

This is not a joke. I didn't really want to weigh in here, but a friend of mine who is Jewish told me about this, many, many years ago. My friend was in graduate school at U.C.L.A. at the time. There was a Jewish student who tried to use the accusation of antisemitism to bully his professors, with some success. He apparently was able to get a couple of professors to raise his final grade because he claimed that they were antisemetic and would report them to the Dean. Unfortunately, he tried this strategy on one of his professors who would not knuckle under, and he filed a formal complaint with the Dean, charging the professor with antisemitism.
Imagine his surprise when he found out that the professor was Jewish.

This is the story as it was told to me, and I didn't take it to be about Jews, as such. It was a good lesson for anyone who tries to use their race, sex, religion or nationality as a weapon in an irresponsible, manipulative way.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:01 PM

Love it. Love it Love it.

The same old douche bags are coinstantly so easily offended!

Dog Genes, you aren't missing much, except perhaps your balls when you were neutered.


Again, I don't come here to debate.

Bill H., you live for debate here, because it is your life and you need people here to agree with you and make you feel good.

I just have fun giving my opinions and comments and laughing about it. It's the true idiot who comes here every day and takes it all so seriously.

Not me, honey.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:54 PM

The average gorilla or baboon will do ANYTHING for money. Or fresh fruit.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

That said, ethnic jokes should be told by a person of the same ethnicity to keep it in good taste---think about this--- Richard Pryor doing a "black" sketch or joke--funny. Not, however, when done by, say Jackie Mason (who's taste resides somewhere a few inches below curb level in any case).

Perhaps all jokes should always be viewed as attempts at humour - even though you may not find them funny? Not as yet more things for us to be judgmental about.

Perhaps it is better if we do not judge the worth of contributors to our forum - just read their posts and move on..........?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:22 PM

"Why is Gibbon still allowed to abuse people as he sees fit, or am I missing something?"

The people of Mudcatville are a kind, indulgent group in general, and they are tolerant of the ravings of the village idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:50 PM

ART: It is funny---have heard it years ago=--actually when I heard it the story involved an Israeli and just a "traveler" or "tourist" Either way it is a funny joke.

    That said, ethnic jokes should be told by a person of the same ethnicity to keep it in good taste---think about this--- Richard Pryor doing a "black" sketch or joke--funny. Not, however, when done by, say Jackie Mason (who's taste resides somewhere a few inches below curb level in any case).

    Now--as to Martin GIBBON---his idea of a debate or a discussion is more than just the few inches below curb level that is Mason's humor level.   Probably ---as the song says---down in the mines where the sun never shines.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM

A whole lot of people in most cultural groups will do almost anything for money, won't they? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:09 PM

A suggestion: whenever Martin(or someone like him) gets you upset, just put so paper money in a big jar--when the jar gets full--give it to your favorite Jewish/Palestinian reconcilliation group--

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:53 PM

Oops, I posted prematurely. Here's the full version:

I think the people offended by Art's joke are being a little thin-skinned. Like many jokes, the messages sent by this one are complex. The point of the joke is that, while it does make fun of the Taliban who needs water, it also makes fun of the Jews. In fact, it's the Jewish guy who is stereotyped: he dislikes Arabs, and he'll do anything for money. It's not an anti-Arab joke, since the Arab doesn't do anything mean or evil or even stereotypical.

At the same time, the joke is only mildly anti-Jewish. The Jewish guy doesn't want the Arab to die; if he did, he wouldn't send him to the restaurant but out in the wrong direction. He just wants to increase the guy's discomfort and make some money out of it.

It is typical of Jewish humor to be mildly self-deprecating and also mildly self-congratulatory, and this is an example. On the one hand, it shows how Jews cleverly put one over on a non group-member. On the other hand, it also shows Jews engaged in behavior that is obviously morally wrong. And to top it off, it reinforces a stereotype of Jews ("Jews will do anything for money").

One of the qualities I like in a joke is that you can think about it for a while and find new wrinkles (it's the folklorist in me). By that standard, I like Art's joke--even if it is Anti-Semitic in the broadest sense, making fun of Jews AND Arabs!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:36 PM

I think the people offended by Art's joke are being a little thin-skinned. is that, while it does make fun of the Taliban who needs water, it also makes fun of the Jews. In fact, it's the Jewish guy who is stereotyped: he dislikes Arabs, and he'll do anything for money. It's not an anti-Arab joke, since the Arab doesn't do anything mean or evil or even stereotypical.

At the same time, the joke is only mildly anti-Jewish. The Jewish guy doesn't want the Arab to die; if he did, he wouldn't send him to the restaurant. He just wants to increase his discomfort and make some money out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:38 AM

After William Shatner - now Elvis?

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2000/050400/music1.html

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: MAG
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:17 AM

Ah, I just stopped by this thread to see how much disservice Martin was doing to his cause.

Of course everyone who thinks he is a schizoid jerk must hate Jews ...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,bean three dun chat
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:48 AM

Y'know that movie that said: "If you build it, they will come?"
This is a case of: If you ignore it, they won't come
Not to defend nasty posts, but if you know what you're up against, and continue to feed it, you are a contributor.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:57 AM

Why is Gibbon still allowed to abuse people as he sees fit, or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:20 AM

Ah, Martin, what a profoundly unlikable person you seemingly are.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 10:27 PM

Ah.   Another voice of experience. *G*

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:52 PM

Especially your tongue under the foreskin, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:46 PM

I do like uncircumsided.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:41 PM

Art Thieme, you are about as Jewish as an uncircumsided penis.

You haven't practiced anything Jewish for years and you know it.

that's funnier than your stupid joke.

You fucking goys that rip Israel and embrace your downtrodden murderous Palestines are some of the biggest anti-semites known to exist.

Read the Jewish press. I do.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:59 PM

Art:

Have you checked out The Daily Show It's closest analog is a show from 40 years ago called That Was The Week That Was.

Robo

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:24 PM

How very condescending of you. Not having the same sense of humor as yours Art is not the same as being void of one.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM

The first letter of the word president, used in a sentence like this, is not capitalized.

Speaking about President Kennedy, or Lincoln etc, the "P" is upper case.

As I've told Dianaven before, "If you don't have a sense of humor, it isn't funny." I do feel sorry for her though. There is humor in everything, albeit, on an ironic sliding scale, if one is lucky enough to be able to see most things that way.

But -- another huge joke, and also a trmendous tragedy, is President Bush. Where are Weil and Brecht and Mort Sahl and their ilk when we really need them?

Art

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:35 PM

Frankham:
While I don't want to dwell on Art's joke, for the record, I didn't say that the joke was offensive. I said that I didn't find it funny.

The depiction of any person dying for water in the desert, and then being turned away..I guess I'm too literal.

And yes, I suppose any group of people have to laugh at themselves..But I'll leave that for others to do. It's just not my thing.

Robomatic: I appreciate your comments.
Perhaps it needs to be noted for some who may not be aware, the referent "People of color" is a generic term that refers to everyone who is "non-White" and not just to people of African descent.

And "Coloured people" and "Black" used in the nation of
South Africa doesn't mean the same thing as what "Colored people" meant in the USA and what "Black" means in the USA now..

Sorry for this digression.

Back to the topic of antisemitism!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Frankham
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:08 PM

Actually, I didn't find the joke offensive. I thought it was ironic.
It's point is that ethnicity can sometimes contain intolerance.
I believe that was the point. People tend toward tribalism and support of their own. This is a double-edged sword. The joke could have been about any ethnic people and it wouldn't have made any difference.

I am proud of my Jewish heritage but at the same time recognize that cultural prejudices exist and don't need to be sweeped under the carpet.

At the same time, I think it's important that any ethnic group gets a chance to laugh at themselves once in a while as long as it's not vicious. I think that this joke did not cross that line.

Just my view.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:04 PM

Azizi:
Thank you for your comments. I've never given capitalization much thought. My parents were brought up to use the word 'colored' as the proper adjective for what I've been calling 'black' people for the past 30 years. They were the least prejudiced folks I've known and brought us up that way. And of course the word lives on if you expand out the initials of the NAACP. Negro isn't objectively pejorative, but people would certainly look at you funny if you used it. I lived in a black dormitory in college and we didn't capitalize 'black' unless it was used in a title such as "Black Student Union". I think it is humorous that one of the PC ways to refer to minorities is now "People Of Color". It's now just about run a complete circle.

M Ted:
I think what you say is true, over the ages I think Jews have reason to feel they have suffered comparatively more at the hands of Christians, in particular the Medievel RC Church and its spin-off the Inquisition. It's also important to say that for all intents and purposes, those days are over and since Vatican II and with the support of Pope John-Paul II a far improved relationship exists between Jews and the RC Church. I would also go so far as to say that in the United States there was a de-facto betterment of relations between Catholics and Jews over Europe for a variety of factors.
Muslims have significant beliefs that run along with Christians and counter to Jews, and other beliefs that run along with Jews but counter to Christians. A lot of the Qu'ran involves references to the Holy Scriptures offering 'corrections' to them. And of course, Muslims and Jews have a common ancestor in Abrahim AKA Ibrahim. Nevertheless the Muslim Holy Book has significant accusations to make against Jews (and Christians) and the Hadith include some very disturbing stories, including the prediction that Muslims and Jews will have a 'final war' wherein the Jews are exterminated.

Richard Bridge:
I've wanted to post a reaction to your ms. but I find your language a bit convoluted compared to the way I express myself, so I haven't liked anything I've put together to respond to you. This is a self criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Azizi
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:31 PM

Auggie,

Thanks for your response.

Let me clarify. I am concerned about people be consistent about the use of capitol letters for racial and ethnic group names.

That being said, I am aware that it is standard practice NOT to capitolize "Black" when using it as a referent for people of African descent {and not to captitolize "White" either} . However, since I like to be consistent, I capitolize both the group referents "Black" and "White". Frankly, if those two referents were not capitolized, it wouldn't matter much to me.

I recognize that as my unique practice [almost like my coined word "UnitedStaters" since I have this thing about people in the United States thinking we are the only ones who are Americans].

In my post I had written that using a small 'n' for Negro was viewed as a put-down and worse. Notice that I didn't say that about using a small "b" for Black. However, I can see how you could have thought that I meant that "put down or worse" comment referred to all the examples that I gave.

I do believe that a capitol letter should be used for Negro and Arab.

Taht being said, I DO think that a small letter was used for "negro", or "arab" in the above post either because they were typos, or because the posters grew up doing so [habit/custom]. I have seen a small 'n' used for Negro on the African American Spirituals Permathread for instance when the poster was quoting historical sources-since [for whatever reason] it was the norm to use a small letter for that referent.

My reason for posting my comment was that I wanted to take the opportunity to share information on the ways that writing group references have changed. I also wanted to take that opportunity to point out that some people of African and Arabian descent could view the use of the small letters as a put down or worse {an example of conscious or unconcious racism}.

I suppose "put down" does mean "insult". But I wasn't really insulted, since I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I believe that alot of multicultural misunderstandings happen because people just don't know..

In the 1990s there was an African American slogan that was placed on tee shirts and ads in Black magazines that said:

"It's a Black thang-You wouldn't understand".

I would like non-Black people to understand.

If there were other acknowledged Black people here, I'd give this 'mission' more of a rest {since I am interested in many more things than race and ethnicity}. However, the only other person who I know on Mudcat who has publicly acknowledged her Black descent is Hilda Fish and she is from Australia. Consequently, when comments are posted about African Americans or information could be shared about African American culture, I feel compelled to do so.

There have been so many Mudcat threads lately about race and racism, most specifically talking about Black/White issues. I would not be true to myself if I didn't post my comments AND seize those teaching moments to share cultural information.

Furthermore, I believe that it is historically and sociologically important to document demographical information about customs and use of words etc. So when I post on a Mudcat thread such as "English to English" and "Children's Street Songs", I usually will make reference to the race/ethnicity of the people using those words or performing those songs. In that sense I am adding details to the historical record..

But if someone started a thread on astrology or dream interpretation-two of my other interest-I would not be referring to race, because it would not be relevant.

I hope that these remarks are taken in the spirit that I intended them.

I believe that music can make the whole world kin. Yet families who have been seperated for a long time often have spend some time getting to know each other.

I'm trying to strike the right balance here. I take care not to be to heavy handed and preachy regarding my 'teaching moments' since that is not necessarily what folks came to Mudcat for.

I came to Mudcat for information about folk music-specifically children's rhymes and secular slave songs. But as a result of my being here, not only am I learning more about those topics, I am also learning about other music genres. And-even better-I have met some many interesting people from different parts of the world.

And I didn't mean to insult any of them. Please forgive me if you thought that I did.


Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:14 PM

"Anti-Jewish prejudice does prevail but historically Islam has been more tolerant of Judaism than Christianity."

I think that it important to understand this, and unfortunately, most people don't. The animosity between Jews and Muslims is a recent thing, brought on by the Israel-Palistinian conflict--for the most part, it is a political animosity, not a personal one--

Muslims regard Jews as "people of the book", and generally have good relations with them--I knew a Syrian family who had several small restaurants where many of the customers were Israeli Jews--In Philly, there was a very well known restaurant that was owned jointly by Palestinians and Israeli Jews--A lot of very interesting conversation--but among friends--Unfortunately, as the conflict goes on, new generations are raised knowing only the animosity, and this is creating the kind of prejudice and bigotry that is so ingrained into the Western culture--

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 11:59 AM

Art - I don't know if the the joke is antisemitic but it certainly laughs at the man dying of thirst. The fact that the joke depicts specific ethnic groups makes it distasteful. Would the joke have been as funny if all three characters were from the same ethnic group? So what is so funny about the power imbalance emphasized by choosing an insensitive Jew and a dying Arab? Taliban was obviously inserted to make the joke more palatable.

Ethnic jokes stink of stereotypes.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Auggie
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 11:14 AM

Good Morning Azizi-

We all know the word Jewish, just like the words Islamic, Hindu, Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist etc., is spelled with a capital letter because it is regarded as a proper noun. I have never spelled "black" when referring to an individual within an ethnic group with a capital, nor have I ever capitalized white. I guess because I regarded them as merely descriptive rather than definitive, and, though none of the recent posts you refer to are mine, I would never in a million years have considered my use of a small b as an insult, yet to you it obviously is.

It's just one example of how easy it is for us to misunderstand each other's motives and messages when we're living in a society so tinged with the residue of racism. Thanks for pointing out something I have surely been doing, something that needs to be changed.

As an aside, I noticed my Webster's Dictionary capitalizes Arab, Negro, Jew, Caucasion and Oriental, but not Black. Time for webster to change too.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Frankham
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:39 AM

I don't believe that antisemitism means criticism of Zionist policy. I believe you can still be a good Jew and not like everything Israel does. In fact, there are groups within Israel today such as Gush Shalom that criticize Israeli policy who are just as Jewish as the Likud.

One of the problems is that Israel is coming to terms with whether or not it remains or becomes more of a theocracy. There is a tendency for it to be less theocratic today. I believe that this is a healthy trend. I would hate for the US to take a position that it is a Christian nation, which fortunately, it is not, although I've heard some Israelis make that incorrect assertion.

Anti-Jewish prejudice does prevail but historically Islam has been more tolerant of Judaism than Christianity. This is why it's difficult to understand the "unholy" alliance between Christo-fascist Evangelists and Israel.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:21 AM

As an aside, maybe they are typos, but I'm wondering why 'negro' and 'arab' and 'black' are all spelled with small letters in the recent posts upthread..

I've never seen 'jewish' spelled with small letters. Have you?
What's the difference?

When I was growing up in the 1950s, "Negro" was the referent that was officially used by African Americans. I remember the efforts that were made in my Northern community to have the newspapers cease using a small 'n' for Negro as it was viewed as a put-down and worse.
My memories of those times still cause me to cringe when I see that word spelled with a small 'n'. It's not as severe as my reaction to
"N-g" [irregardless of whether a Black person or a White person uses it], but it still causes a gut reaction.

And for the record, Art- I don't think that joke was at all funny.
But to each his own.


Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:56 AM

Soooo, is that antisemitic ---- or just anti-semantic??!!?? ;-)

It is a joke and perhaps should always be best seen as a joke. It probably also depends on who is telling the joke.

But consider if your chap had been set-upon in his journey by a young black mugger - it would be thought by some to be reinforcing racial stereotypes and portraying young blacks in a negative fashion and be thought racist........

Unless the chap telling the joke was a young black mugger/comedian/rapper etc - then it may be OK.

It is very complicated.............

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:32 AM

If we can not laugh WITH ourselves at religion we have lost the plot.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:44 PM

Guest 11:33 = me again. In through the back door again.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:26 PM

This week I sent a funny story by e-mail to some friends.

It went:

A very thirsty arab Taliban is crawling across the desert and comes to a lone card table tended by a Jewish man -- selling ties--for $150.00 each. The arab wants, and begs for, water. The tie salesman says, "I have no water, but if you go 8 miles north, there is a restaurant there where you'll find all the water you can drink."

Later---the same Talaban man comes crawling back. The sun is setting. The old Jewish man at the card table tells him, "I told you, I have no water. Go to the restaurant I told you about. Why have you come back to me???" The man answered, "Your brother at the restaurant wouldn't let me in without a tie!!!"

Soooo, is that antisemitic ---- or just anti-semantic??!!?? ;-)

Personally, I think that it is just very FUNNY. (And I'm Jewish.)

Love and peace,

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:57 PM

I do not think that the versions of definition on this thread do really get to grips with meaning and usage.

Is it antisemitic to assert that Jews tend to have certain characteristics? cf MG's statement "I am certainly glad I am not like most men". It calls to mind the biblical quote "I thank thee Lord that I am not as other men are". I wonder if that was intentional. I knew a TV interviewer who got into very hot water by asking Robert Maxwell "How come you are so good with money? Is it because you are Jewish?" Oddly Maxwell did not take umbrage, but others did on his behalf. Odder still we later found out that Maxwell's companies were all smoke and mirrors so he was not so good with money after all.

This week one of the BBC channels has been running programs on Jews in the Entertainment Industry. I have not seen the programs. Is the fact of their intitulation antisemitic in that it invites prejudice (which I think is perhaps a more accurate term than "bigotry" in context). I am concerned to express any view, in that I have been a lawyer for quite a number of years, and indeed a lawyer in the film and TV (and occasionally music) business too.

Is it only antisemitic if you express concern at the prevalance (if it be the case) of Jews in certain fields, or is it antisemitic even to establish the facts?

If it is antisemitic for a non-Jew to evaluate whether another is Jewish or not, what is the word for the Jew who plays "Jew or non-Jew".

Surely an opposition to what Israel does is not antisemitic unless on the ground that Isreal is Jewish or because the perception of what Israel does is tainted by the fact that it is Israel.

Surely an opposition to Judaism is not antisemitic unless on the ground that it is Jewish or because the perception of what Judaism does is tainted by the fact that it is Judaism.

In everyday life surely, antisemitism lies in the attribution without evidence of characteristics to a person because he is Jewish. If there is evidence that a person actually has characteristics it is not prejudiced to say so. And indeed since we know that inherited abilities of offspring are (in many cases, ignoring complicated things like recessive genes) normally distributed about the mean of the parents' scores, it must be consistent to expect people to have some of the characteristics of their parents (if you know their parents), and so on - but expectation is not wholly the same as prejudgment. One may expect someone (on the basis of evidence) to be such-and-so, but still take that person as you actually find them.

It is expectation without evidence that is prejudice.

A judgment or view made on the basis of fact cannot therefore be racist or antisemitic. Many people jumped on me when I suggested that Lloyd's assertion that shanties were only sung in harmony on negro ships might have been tending towards racist. The majority view was that if it was so, then it was right to say so. The same measure must be applied or there is discrimination one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Frankham
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 12:52 PM

The answer is simple. It's hatred for Judaism and Islam since they are both Semitic peoples.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:33 AM

Eagle Wing, I have a Martin. I love my Martin. Martin makes great guitars. MG is no Martin. *G*

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: EagleWing
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:46 AM

Martin (who's Marvin, Ebbie?) Gibson, says:

"Unless you are a Jew, you can only think you know what anti-semitism is."

Equally, if you were not a Jew you might be able to see that antagonism towards yourself has nothing to do with anti-semitism. People read the foul postings with your name attached and cannot help but be antagonistic. It's not anti-semitism but anti-gibsonism, Martin.

Your foul language, cheap sexism and general vileness, while appearing to represent Jewishness would turn people to anti-semitism were it not for the balanced posts of people like Robomatic. Thank God (or perhaps I should say baruch ha Shem) for those others who enable us to realise that you do not represent anything or anyone other than yourself.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:27 PM

Perhaps - if certain prayers are not answered and this thread does not get closed or deleted and posters to the thread manage not to respond to obvious provocation - we may all become a little bit better informed about this subject than we are now?

This has largely been the case - so far at least....

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

I am certainly glad I am not like most men

So are the rest of us men, Martin. Most of the rest of us can manage to hold a conversation without resorting to vitriol, bigotry, & cheap sexist insults. Oh, what a shining beacon you are! Or should that be a shitting beacon?

I hope to meet you one day, Martin, because I'd like to know whether you're really as extraordinarily unpleasant in person as you are on the internet. I suspect, though, that you're just an anonymous, trolling, windbag coward hiding behind his keyboard.

Serious answer. go fuck yourself.

How moronic. How predictably, boringly Martin... And it was a serious question. How silly of me to think that you'd recognise that, even if it was spelt out in terms a 5 year old couldn't miss...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:30 AM

I made some errors in my reference to the "Abu Yudaya". They are from Uganda, and their history is more interesting than I realized. There are alternate spellings, one of which is "Abayudaya"

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM

I am certainly glad I am not like most men.

How would you know what "most men" think and do?

Unless you have had sex with "most men" and they have revealed their innermost feelings to you right after ejaculating.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:38 PM

"Ebbie, so sorry you don't like my behavior. How many men have you castrated in your lifetime?" Marvin Gibson

Marvin, trust me- it is NOT your testicles that make you feel and act that way. Most men wouldn't dream of acting like that.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 09:31 PM

And so what?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 06:47 PM

Last night, along with a few of what I think were neo-Nazi or likeminded sites, I found that site that Freda Hill gave a link to.

I TEND to credit that there was probably a mass conversion of the Khazars. But so what? It's a far jump from that fact (if it be a fact) to the idea that most European Jews are descended therefrom, and I didn't find anything that seemed persuasive to that effect.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 06:18 PM

Ebbie, so sorry you don't like my behavior.

How many men have you castrated in your lifetime?



I'll say it again.

Unless you are a Jew, you can only think you know what anti-semitism is.

and if you you have a problem with Israel, you have a problem with Jews. the majority of them, for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM

That's very kind of you, LH. When I accidentally bump into something good, I try to put it in my old kit bag. No one expects wisdom sourced out o' me .

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 12:44 PM

Good comments, people. :-) Yes, I know that Jews look like every kind of person imaginable. I myself may well have some traces of Jewish blood. It seems probable, according to my father's family history. It was why my grandmother was particularly intent on getting her family members out of Czechoslovakia before the Nazis took over in '38, and she succeeded (just). But I wouldn't call myself a Semite.

Anyway, whatever the case was, I would sure not try to carve out a new country in some distant place where other people of a different culture were already living and repopulate it with "my people" (whoever the heck that would be?). It's a recipe for endless strife. Not a good idea. But it happened after 1945, so we all have to learn to live with it now, and find a peaceful solution as best we can.

robomatic said - "Jews tend to believe that it's not what you know or who you know that gets you to God, but being true to your best self and how you treat your fellow humans. It is not necessary to be Jewish to attain your ultimate reward."

Right on. That sounds like spiritual wisdom to me.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 12:15 PM

Also, isn't Khazar the commander of a Klingon Battle Cruiser?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 12:14 PM

yes, as Tevye said to God when about to flee the imminent pogroms: "I know we are the Chosen People, but every once in a while, couldn't you choose someone else?"

Orthodox Jews, and especially Rabbis, would know Nimoy was Jewish because the Vulcan hand gesture is derived from a gesture the Kohainim make when blessing the congregation; essentially, that gesture is both arms outstretched toward the congregation at about ninety degrees to each other, both hands in the Vulcan salute. The congregants are supposed to close their eyes when being blessed in this way, but when Nimoy was a child he peeked.

I think the script originally called for a normal handshake between him and Sarek, and he said, "but shouldn't the Vulcans do something else?" "What did you have in mind?" asked Roddenberry. "Maybe this..."

The rest is history.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:59 AM

I am distrustful of the Khazar story because I would like to believe it.

As for what people look like, it takes very very little genetic drift to substantially change how people look. There was a 60 Minutes article about a group of black South Africans who claimed to be descended from Jewish immigrants of Solomonic times. Some genetic testing was done on them that tended to verify this. (Most of them are now practising Christians).

As to conversions, there is a tribe of Sudanese whose chief led them in converting to Judaism early in the 20th Century. They are known as the Abu Yudaya and some of their descendants still exist. I believe they have set some of the Hebrew liturgy into African chants and maybe there's enough material there to start a thread above the line.

I don't think the case for Khazars having any modern descendents has been made. But it's a great story.

Jews tend to believe that it's not what you know or who you know that gets you to God, but being true to your best self and how you treat your fellow humans. It is not necessary to be Jewish to attain your ultimate reward.
And if you want to be Jewish, you should have your head examined!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:47 AM

Little Hawk and others. Jews look Semitic, Jews look Nordic, Jews look Indian, Jews look Chinese, Jews look Ethiopean. The fact that Jews don't look Semitic doesn't mean they aren't...at least in part. The Jewish populations often intermarried with the local inhabitants, still observing Judaism to the extent possible. Their progeny took on the racial characteristics of the indigenous population [dominent & recessive gene thing]. But in their DNA is that bugaboo Semite. As to converts, true they may not be Semitic, but they take unto themselves the burden of others anti-Semitic attitudes. What does it matter which musicians, actors, dancers, doctors, baseball players, folk singers, or bootleggers are Jewish? Do we ask which are Mormon or Lutheran? Of course we do suspect all Italians as being Mafia, right?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 09:24 AM

Well, I figured I was gonna quit burning up my further time on this, but I guess I should respond to a couple of things...

The source that sparked my interest in the Khazars was not (sadly for Guest) a Neo-Nazi site, it was a friend of mine, in whom I place great trust and respect. She is a Jew, proud of it, and she's had a lifetime career of great accomplishment in the medical profession. She's also one of the most trustworthy and exemplary persons in character that I have ever known, and she has experienced anti-Jewish prejudice firsthand most of her life, mainly from upscale members of the monied Anglo-Saxon establishment in Canada. She's told me plenty of stories about the virulent anti-Jewish undercurrents in this town, let me tell you...there are some wealthy neighborhoods here where you are NOT going to buy a house if you are Jewish...not it the bigwigs in charge can help it. They pull strings to see that it doesn't happen. And they spread malicious gossip against anyone who is Jewish. As far as I'm concerned they (the anti-Jews) can rot in their own bile. Who the hell would want to live next to them anyway?

In spite of this, she is vehemently opposed to the expansionist policies of Israel that have been going down in the Middle East and regards Sharon's leadership as misguided and not in the interests of either Israelis or their Palestinian and Arab neighbours.

Evidently, for her as for me, being anti-Zionist is not equivalent to being either "anti-semitic" (the old misnomer) or "anti-Jewish".

The thing about the Khazars remains intriguing, but hard to verify beyond doubt, because it happened so long ago. A quick look on the Net shows me that, yes, there are a lot of weird sites that refer to it...both pro and con on the issue. People are using it to beat their own drum, whatever drum that may be. If Neo-Nazis use it...well, should that be any surprise? That doesn't prove anything one way or another about the Khazars, because Neo-Nazis would be happy to use any information that embarrassed Israel or Zionism or the Jews, wouldn't they? They certainly would not hesitate to use it if it WERE true. People with wrongful intentions are just as happy to use truthful info to fuel their arguments as anyone else is... :-)

My friend is a descendant of European Jews. She doesn't look even vaguely like most Middle Easterners today, nor do most European Jews, so I don't find it so incredible that they might have descended from different racial routes in ancient times, and not from the original twelve tribes that migrated out of Egypt. That doesn't say anything bad about them as people, it just says that they are not necessarily descendants of the same people who formed those original 12 tribes. And therefore, they may in fact not be Semites, although they ARE most certainly Jews.

Hell, Sammy Davis Junior is a Jew, isn't he? Anyone can become a Jew if they want to. Not anyone can become a Semite.

As for Shatner, that was a real surprise. I always figured Leonard Nimoy had to be Jewish, but I never saw a hint in the last 45 years that Shatner was. He certainly never made a point of it. I wonder who else is Jewish? About half the musicians I really like are, as far as I know. Maybe it's more than half... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 07:51 AM

Jewish sources that preserve knowledge of the Khazars' conversion to Judaism

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 07:38 AM

correction of fact:

Hatred against Jews remained nameless up until 1897 Shambles has quoted a site correctly, but the information on that site is wrong:

Wilhelm Marr has founded the League of Antisemites in 1879. The word 'antisemitic' he has used before in his writings.

BTW, he was an anarchist when he was young.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 06:45 AM

There is an old thread with the same title:

What is Anti-Semitism?

You can see from that thread how such a discussion goes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:29 AM

But, Martin, the thread isn't about anti-Jewish or anti-Israel sentiments. It's asking what anti-semitism means? (Raedwulf)

Raedwulf, if you have really read the article as you claim and have read some of the other posts, then you should know that what you say is nonsense. Like with your ahistoric definition of 'anti-semitism' you play 'let's disregard the content and the meaning and take the thread title verbatim.'

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:02 AM

I basically get fed up with any special interest group that develops an overly large case of "holier-than-thou" syndrome, and uses it to trample all over people. I've seen Jews do it, I've seen blacks do it, I've seen Christians do it, I've seen Native Americans do it, I've seen feminists do it, I've even seen gays do it. And I'm not against any of them in any intrinsic sense, in fact I'm FOR all of them in a lot of respects...I'd just like them to be fair and equitable toward other people, and not go way overboard on their "victimhood" complex to the point of victimizing other people.

I and probably most of us would agree with LH in this? If like me you value all people exactly BECAUSE of their differences and admire the creativity that springs from these differences and which has the ability to inspire us all - it is sad to see this ever being limited.

It is very sad to see the product of a minority group being limited by being excluded by the majority but it is probably just as bad when it is the minorirty grouping themselves that is doing the limiting, which seems more and more to be the case.

The idea that I will have more interests in common with ANY white heterosexual woman and that a CULTURE based on this sexual preference and limited to only this - would be one that has no validity for me. I can see the illusion of comfort of this concept for those minority groupings that have suffered - but there really is no such (long-term) thing as an exclusive gay,black,white,Jewish,Arab,female or male culture etc.

There is only human culture.........

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 01:42 AM

Nerd: I remember I used to sort of play that J not a J game. One day I found out Billy Joel was Jewish and for some reason I thought that was cool. Later the same day I found out Roseanne Barr was, too and i decided it was a stupid game (although later I grew to appreciate Roseanne). But the coolest thing was one of my all time favorite people in the movies was James Cagney. Well, he lived out the last part of his life on Martha's Vineyard (in Massachusetts) and in his 80's he was interviewed locally (probably one of his last appearances) and he was alert and able to recite one of his first vaudeville acts - in Yiddish!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 01:22 AM

We have been through this discussion several times before. I will leave you to rehash it. My only comment is that the term anti-Semite has specifically meant anti-Jewish since the 19th century. Anybody who uses it in any other way has their own agenda...an anti-Semitic agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 12:53 AM

If the Khazars all became Jewish when their king converted, and the name "Cossacks" is a later form of "Khazars," then why weren't the Cossacks Jewish? That part's a bit confusing, no?

Interesting, by the way. I always knew Shatner was Jewish; I think Jews tend to play "Jew, not a Jew" so we find these things out. Leonard Nimoy is a much more observant Jew than Shatner, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:23 PM

Yeah, the Khazar theory I don't believe is rooted in anti-semitism. I don't know its origins, but it was popularized in a book by Koestler, more well known from his book "Darkness at Noon" (which I really liked). In the 70's he wrote a book called "The Thirteenth Tribe" about the Khazars, whose leader supposedly made his ?Turkic? tribe convert to Judaism to differentiate them from Christians and Muslims, but subsequent research seems to indicate that it is more myth than reality. Neo nazis have glommed on to it because they have a real need to believe all sorts of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:45 PM

I did a search on the Khazar theory and found it's mostly neo-Nazi sites propagating it. Kind of makes me wonder where Little Hawk does his research.

And BTW, Shatner is Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:26 PM

Just to keep the record straight: Marvin Gibson is not attacked because he is a Jew but because of his behavior.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:14 PM

I'll look into it, Dave. In a bit. In the meantime, can you try a Google search on it too? I'm sure there's info out there about it. Try a search on "Kazaria", which was the name of the kingdom. It was located north of Turkey, more or less. The people were called Kazars or Khazars...from which later came: cossacks. They seem to have played a major role in Poland at a later date, and in some other parts of Europe too.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:08 PM

Little Hawk said, in part:

most European Jews are descendants of converts to Judaism, going back to the conversion of a king to Judaism, and through him, his whole nation. That nation was called the Kazars, and they were located in southern Russia. They were not Semites. The nation converted en masse to the Jewish faith because the king did. That's how it worked in those days. The Kazars were later scattered by one of the periodic invasions of Mongols, and they scattered into many European nations, and became the source of the modern European Jew...not a Semite at all.

That's interesting, if true. Can you give me one or more independent citations as a matter of history, LH? Not just as to the conversion of the Kazars, but that most European Jews are their descendants?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:05 PM

WHAT??? Shatner is Jewish???? You gotta be kidding. Wait....

(off to Google)

Hmmm. Well, you may be right, but I'm still not sure. He has some relatives with the surnames Rutenberg and Cohen, so you probably are right. Born in Montreal. Gosh, I wonder if he's related to Leonard Cohen! If so, Leonard has not admitted to it.

I have lived in Canada most of my life, known of William Shatner most of my life and have NEVER heard anyone mention that he was, or was not Jewish. Not once. Evidently, it's a non-issue...as it should be. :-)

But really, man, you caught me napping me on that one! LOL!

Look, if it was a POWER thing...according to your theory...I would just have to HATE Shatner! The man is Power personified. He oozes authority and command status. Women throw themselves at his feet heedlessly. Men watch in mute frustration, knowing they cannot possibly match his charisma, his talent, and his panache.

But I love the guy. This disproves your theory decisively. :-)

On that note, I think I shall leave this fine thread to meander along on its merry way, because I only have so much time to spare in my rapidly passing lifespan, and I've basically said about all I really should have to say on the matter anyway.

(Good 3 part definition of antisemitism, by the way...)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:38 PM

Dear LH: Again you write very well. I hope you realize that while I still disagree with you on some points your erudite responses are a pleasure to read. (And of course that whole Shatner thing, I was wondering why you wouldn't bring up that well known Jewish Canadian along with Bob Dylan - is he more of a 'power' player? ;-))

Let's see if there is general agreeement on this much:

1) Anti-semitism is a relatively recent word invented to particularize sentiment against the semites then most numerous in Europe: Jews.

2) The term itself specifies a group of 'races'-for want of a better word not actually limited to Jews.

3) Usage of the term typically is taken to mean Jews to this day, but its use has expanded and its connotation shifted greatly due to the wave of anti-Jewish feeling in Europe throughout the 20th century, a counter-reaction to this sentiment in the light of the Holocaust, and a counter-counter-reaction to this sentiment in the light of the founding of Israel and the wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:56 PM

Even "anti-Israel" could be misleading, Bill, because there are some very different factions and opinions in Israel. I think anti-Zionist is about the only term that fits the shoe in this case, if you mean oppostion to recent Israeli government policies.

If you mean, on the other hand, "hatred of Jews", then anti-Jewish would definitely be the correct term....as you said.

Antisemitism clearly means whatever people think it means these days...and it must frustrate the hell out of Semites who happen to be Palestinians!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:42 PM

Hmmm. No, I am not referring to all Jews or all Israelis. I am referring specifically to only those Jews or Israelis who support certain aggressive political attitudes and policies normally referred to as Zionism...particularly those who issue the orders. Those policies involve displacing various other Semites off their ancestral lands by force and occupying those lands, and expanding further upon those occupations by settling those lands.

The reason I pick on Israel particularly is because I think Israel has gotten more of a free ride in the USA media than they deserve for several decades now, because if anyone questions their free ride that person is usually accused of "anti-semitism". It pisses me off when people get a free ride merely because they have suffered greatly in the past, and because people are scared to get called "Anti-Semite" for stating the obvious.

This is why I am also quick to point out knee-jerk political opportunism by self-consciously "victim" groups like Afro-Americans or Native Americans as well...when they use the injustices of the past as a coverup for their own virulent bigotry against a whole people (in that case..whites). It disgusts me, because I fought hard FOR Black and Native American rights in whatever way I could, and then I have to see them behaving in as blind and hateful a way as the society that persecuted them when I was a youngster. Plus, in the case of Native Americans, I felt literally like one of them, and adored their culture and religion as if it were my own. Still do, in fact.

I basically get fed up with any special interest group that develops an overly large case of "holier-than-thou" syndrome, and uses it to trample all over people. I've seen Jews do it, I've seen blacks do it, I've seen Christians do it, I've seen Native Americans do it, I've seen feminists do it, I've even seen gays do it. And I'm not against any of them in any intrinsic sense, in fact I'm FOR all of them in a lot of respects...I'd just like them to be fair and equitable toward other people, and not go way overboard on their "victimhood" complex to the point of victimizing other people.

There's plenty of violence and wrongdoing in this world, but why would I go on and on about how bad Arab terrorists are, for example...when everybody knows it already, and everybody says it, and it's totally friggin' obvious??? Nobody really NEEDS me to say what is already said constantly all over the media and what everyone knows anyway. Will it help for me to say yet again how bad the Nazis were? Or how evil Jim Jones was? Don't we already know???

I'd rather expose what is glossed over, swept under the carpet, and denied by a whole lot of people. I'd rather point out that the emperor is walking around naked. I'm trying to simply balance the scales of perception here.

I've seen a ton of prejudice against Jews all my life, here and there. I've heard the nasty jokes, and I've seen the envy (in some cases) of the success achieved by Jews in various professions and industries. Yeah, I can understand that being Jewish can feel insecure under those conditions. Perfectly understandable.

But I will not allow it to terrorize me into silence if I think it's being used as an excuse for justifying expansionist Zionist policies in Palestine.

Do I think that some Jews see themselves as superior to other people? Yes...I get that impression with some Jews. I couldn't exactly say how many. I get that impression with some whites, some blacks, some Native Americans, and some Japanese too. I have really no idea what proportion it would be in either case.

I guess part of the problem here is that if I say something negative about an Israeli policy, then I am interpreted as being negative toward ALL Jews. Well, that is just not the case. And why would it be? Jews are like other people, after all...they come in all types of personalities.

I find the Jewish holy books (Old Testament, in Christian terms) a bit worrisome in philosophy, because they DO set apart one race of people as the Chosen People, and that concept sounds pretty scary to me. It's a good theoretical justification for genocide or lesser crimes. I don't know of any other major religion that is as exclusively racially based in its oldest religious texts as the Jewish faith was. I don't see how such a notion could help but encourage people to believe they are superior to others.

But then, what major religion's majority of adherents do not tend to feel, inside, that they are superior to others, even if they don't say it out loud? :-) It's a common problem, that's for sure.

No, robomatic, it doesn't matter in the least where European Jews came from, since all people are equal in value...but it does render a political cause launched IN modern Europe by those people to "reclaim" lands that their supposed ancestors lived on (but really didn't) a bit ridiculous, wouldn't you say? And it renders the very term "antisemitism" misleading, which is the subject that kicked off this whole thread in the first place.

And I know...any time the word comes up... get ready for a shitstorm!

I should forget about all this unending squabble (which will not be solved by me, that's for sure), and just spend my time doing things that are a whole lot more fun and more productive, I suppose...but I'm a sucker for stating my mind and communicating with people.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:04 PM

Ah, Martin---always taking the high road.   You will probably win a debating prize in the hereafter---surely not in this world.

I was going to add to this by making a few points about the historical signifigance of the years after WW2 / creation of Israel/ Arab hositlity/ Palestinian opportunities to remain in Israel (1948)/ but that would have been a digression from the main topic. That is just semantics---sure---semites are what everyone claims---Anti-Semitism, however, is directed against Jews and should be more properly termed Anti-Jewish. Not Anti- Israel (totally different issue). Anti Israel, by that token, is not Anti Jewish---except for those who do not know better.

Last evening I saw an interview of Kissinger by Charlie Rose--a whole different thread could be started on that fiasco--Kissinger's views on Israel are, to me, fairly honest and proper. Unlike his views on most of the other things he had to say. Those, basically, makes him the chief hawk of all the hawks. Example: " I agree with all wars that the U S is or has been in---we do what we have to do". That was when he was asked how it was that he wants everyone to settle things peacefully and we do aggression unilaterely. Lots of applause for HK--strange.

Some of the audience questions in the Q&A were rather antagonostic to dear Henry---but, strangely, for NYC, most of the audience seemd to side with HK.

Less said about Charlie Rose and his softball questions--the better.   I enjoyed it when everyone (as always) is told to turn of cell phones---so who's rings in the middle of everything---Charlie Rose.    He said he is embarassed---doesn;t know how the damn thing works. Brilliant---Kissinger---to his credit--replied---"...ahh Charlie it rings only when I am making a brilliant statement".   

I think Tom Lehrer had it right---When they gave Kissinger the Peace Prize nothing seemed funny anymore. Or the comic who said---Kissinger's best dinner conversation is when he is dining alone in the Hall of Mirrors

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM

Will the term racism not suffice to describe those who are prejudiced against Jews?

Is such a specific term now and still thought to be required for this - because racism is generally (wrongly) and specifically thought to be confined to black racial issues?

Or is because those who are specifically prejudiced against Jewish people are unsure whether this prejudice should be on racial or a religous grounds? .......Or is it on both?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 06:32 PM

Serious answer. go fuck yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM

But, Martin, the thread isn't about anti-Jewish or anti-Israel sentiments. It's asking what anti-semitism means? Do you take the linguistically correct definition (anti Semitic races, which includes not only non-Jews, but races that Israel/the Jews of Israel currently appear (to many non-Jews) to be persecuting), or the populist understanding (anti Jewish)?

Serious question.

R

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 06:11 PM

I am a Jew who has faced hatred because of that fact.

both to my face and even here by many. Yes, Mudcat is a haven for anti-Jewish sentiment, believe me!

Please read Alan Deshowtiz book The Case for Israel.

Israel is the one shining light of democracy in the middle east and yes, Little Hawk we do give a major flying fuck about what happened 55 years ago. Please deal with the fact that the well-educated American Jewish dollar will continue to help support Israel's cause.

I have no problem with Israel and I have told many Jews about the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments found on Mudcat to which they cannot help but be appalled.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 05:53 PM

I didn't actually mean to say that I thought LH WAS an anti-Semite, just that his love of Bob Dylan doesn't prove anything! It is the oldest spurious argument in the world about race: some of my best friends (or some public figures I admire) are X. Big deal!

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM

Whose political behavior do you object to, Little Hawk - the behavior of ALL Jews, or ALL Israelis, or what?
A generalization like that leads to bigotry. Specificity is necessary for intelligent discussion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 05:01 PM

LH:

You asked a question and I answered it. I appreciate your response, well written as always, but I think it gives away your perception that Jews think of theselves as superior or deserving of more than equality. I do not share that perception. And if I may be so bold as to mention other threads, you seem to be very willing to launch highly critical barbs at Israel when there are several other hot issues going in the world. And we have also gone over your highly original interpretation of what constitutes terror versus what constitutes war.

In short, you are making statements that don't always mean what people using different definitions from you think they mean.

As to the story of Khazars, I'm familiar with it but I'm not familiar with it being factual. This seems to be more of your highly original take on various subjects. If people are all equal, what does it matter where European Jews come from?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:31 PM

I don't hate them...I simply object to their political behaviour (Little Hawk)

Their? That's how anti-semitism has started. (I know you don't mean what you say in that sentence)

"I hate Jews" did sound so ugly and plebeian in the Germany of the late 19th century, "I am an anti-semit" just sounded so much nicer and academic. That's how that term started and that was exactly what was meant. To understand 'anti-semitic' from the meaning of 'semite' was a rhetoric trick (I think) from Sadat: How can I be anti-semitic when I'm a semite myself?

All that discussion from that angle is wrong and completely ahistoric.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

Thank you, Raedwulf. Exactly as you say. Neither because of power, race, or any other outer feature of identity, but simply because of what they do with their power.

And I don't hate them...I simply object to their political behaviour and disapprove of it. I've come to the conclusion that it's not healthful or wise to hate people, and when I feel the tendency rising in me to do so I try to get over it as quickly as possible by remembering that they are no doubt doing what they think is best at the time. I don't hate George Bush, for instance, I just disagree with most of his policies strenuously. :-)

I decided as an adult, after an early family life in which I was afraid to speak out, to be forthright and speak out whenever I see injustice. That usually results in offending somebody, because there are probably no people on this Earth who have not practiced injustice upon someone else at some time, and tried to pretend otherwise. A major crime against one group is quite often followed by a major crime being committed BY them on someone else. It's emotional reaction-counter-reaction. Man kicks dog...dog bites neighbour...neighbour has road rage, makes cop angry...cop gets drunk and yells at his wife...wife bitches at her kids...etc...and the hate goes round and round. It's a cycle that can only be broken at some point by forgiveness, in my opinion. And forgiveness can only be accomplished by admitting to one's own dark side and surrendering a bit of prideful ego defence in the process. It takes far more actual courage than vengeance does...and it achieves far more useful result. Vengeance achieves no useful result whatsoever, but it's so appealing to the adolescent mind that it has fostered an entire ongoing movie industry.

The World can't really afford to be run by the adolescent mind much longer.

That last Hollywood movie "Million Dollar Baby" was surprisingly good and realistic for a change...because it did not attempt to emotionally resolve a tragedy with the usual trite and predictably hyped-up "vengeance" solution (in which the crippled female boxer would have miraculously gotten back on her feet somehow after months in the hospital, gruelingly re-trained herself into topform against all odds, and then have massacred the woman who had treacherously crippled her in the ring, in a bone-crunching and bloody finale for the world championship, suitable to fully satisfying everyone's bloodlust and desire to get even...)

Nope. They didn't do that. It was surprising. I know it certainly surprised the audience in the showing that I saw. They don't write stories like that on TV, do they?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

Guest, Robomatic's point is baseless. He's been around here for long enough to know LH's usual line of reasoning. He doesn't have to agree with LH, but his line of rebuttal makes no sense, neither does yours.

LH possibly does love all of those people in your "quote". Or possibly he hates all of them (I mean, Amos! Do you know what Amos is like... ;-) ). But he loves or hates them because of what they do with the power that they have. Neither because of the power that they have, however great or small; nor because of the race that they are.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:30 PM

I think it is foolhardy to attempt to redefine "anti-semitism" to include Arabs, or to question use of the word because Arabs are also considered to be "Semites." The term was coined in the late 19th century, to describe anti-Jewish prejudice that was rampant in Europe and the U.S. at the time, and the term has become part of our language. Arabs were not part of the equation at all at the time the phrase was coined. You'll find an intertesting (and contentious) discussion of the meaning of the word "anti-semitism" here (click).

Still, it has become difficult to determine what is objectionably anti-semitic, what what is a legitimate political statement against Israeli policy. I think that some anti-semites try to legitimize their prejudice by masking it under an objection to Israeli policy. Some pro-Israelis do the opposite, labeling all objections to Israel as anti-semitic.

There HAS been some nasty anti-semitism posted here at Mudcat, and we don't want to cater to that sort of bigotry in any way - so, we generally delete it as soon as we see it. We don't want to interfere with legitimate discussion of legitimate issues, but sometimes it's difficult to distinguish what's bigotry and what's discussion - especially when threads get long and contentious. Sometimes, we may make mistakes in what we close or delete, but we try to do the best we can. I do think it would be helpful if people where more careful in how they express their ideas on the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that their opinions are not perceived as racisim. I also think it would be helpful if people would give other people the benefit of the doubt. Most of the truly racist statements made here are made anonymously, not by our regular participants.

The "anti-semitism" thread that was closed (click) had very little to do with a discussion of anti-semitism. It was just another personal squabble that got out of hand, and the time came for it to be closed. It was closed because of personal attacks, not because of anti-semitism. If you wish to discuss personal-attack censorship at Mudcat, perhaps it would be more appropriate to discuss it in the Censorship thread.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:28 PM

I agree with you, GUEST, that there are people who do that. But when talking about power figures, if someone dislikes, or is critical of power figures who abuse their power, and they include in their criticism, powerful Jews along with the many other kinds of people who abuse power as Little Hawk does with great regularity, I think you have to be making assumptions about Little Hawk not based on the evidence in order to make such an accusation against him.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

Robomatic's point is that LH's comment is equivalent to saying: "How can I be a racist? I love Amos and Andy, Aunt Jemima and Sambo, too!"

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 01:48 PM

The answer is: you have no trouble with Jews in positions that are essentially powerless. You have no problems with 'court Jews'. You have problems with Jews in power positions. You have trouble seeing Jews as anything other than occasional equals or frequent subordinates. Power positions bring with them power problems. Every state regardless of ethnicity has power problems. But you find it easier to pick on the one Jewish state that has power problems tied essentially into its existence.

Robomatic, this from you makes no sense when applied to Little Hawk. If he only criticized power figures who are Jewish, or powerful entities and/or countries that are Jewish, you would probably be right about him. But he does not. He regularly criticizes all powerful people, entities, and countries whom he sees as abusing their power.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 01:26 PM

In contrast to one or two of you, I thought it was an extremely well written & thought provoking article (one or two bits that struck me as spurious or false, naturally), & yes, I read the whole thing. Whatever Shambles' motivation (& Mick, I'm not exactly a fan of Roger's!), I think accusing him of trolling is unfair. I found it well worth the effort to read it.

Other than that, I shall say only that, for the most part I agree with both the author & with Little Hawk (why can't you all be more like LH, eh? Apart from the Shatner fixation, obviously... ;-) ). Anything more than that, & I shall probably get past voluble accusations of Nazism & anti-semitism (on the basis that I abhor any attempt at genocide & refuse to distinguish one in particular as being "worse") resurrected.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 01:00 PM

Whatever the dark designs determined by some - we do seem to be having an interesting and developing discussion on anti-semitism. Which is good, as this is what I thought the closed thread was about when I opened it. I was about to make an attempt to pose the same question there and hopefully steer that thread into a more positive direction - when that thread was closed.

It is sadly only too obvious that positivly intended threads can be turned into less positive ones and I still believe that less than positivly intended one can develop into more positive areas.

However this cannot happen if they have judgement imposed upon them by anonymous volunteers and these threads are closed or deleted .


Words mean what people think they mean. "Antisemitism" was evidently coined to mean any and all kinds of animosity against Jews as distinguished from Arabs or anyone else.

The following from the link that Robomatic provided.

Hatred against Jews remained nameless up until 1897 despite the destruction it had wrecked to hundreds of communities and thousands of lives. In that year the term anti-Semitism was coined in Hamburg by Wilhelm Marr, whose aim was to disassociate his hatred from any religious stance such as that utilized by Christian Judeophobes. Marr's pamphlet soon numbered many editions. The religious component was replaced by racism, and the words Jews and Judaism by Semite and Semitism.

It goes on to explain the problems with this term....

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 12:29 PM

robomatic, I have to ask..are you Jewish? If so, what does it mean in your estimation of your place in the human race?

I mean, I'm English-Scottish-Czech in background, with probably a trace of European Jewish ancestry on the Czech side...but I don't think of myself as any of those, really. I was born Canadian, but I don't place a huge amount of importance on that either, though I do love Canada. My religion is totally unique to myself, and has no name.

The point is, I belong in my mind to NO pre-arranged tribal identity or group. I'm just human. That leaves me free in a certain sense to seek equality, wouldn't you say? It makes me no real threat to anyone. I would recommend to other people to follow this course, and they will avoid such foolish things as wars and endless racial conflicts with one another.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 12:16 PM

Yes, Dave, I am saying that most European Jews are descendants of converts to Judaism, going back to the conversion of a king to Judaism, and through him, his whole nation. That nation was called the Kazars, and they were located in southern Russia. They were not Semites. The nation converted en masse to the Jewish faith because the king did. That's how it worked in those days. The Kazars were later scattered by one of the periodic invasions of Mongols, and they scattered into many European nations, and became the source of the modern European Jew...not a Semite at all.

In a rather similar fashion, the Roman nation converted en masse to Christianity when their emperor Constantine became a Christian, for example. That sort of thing happened in ancient times, when religion was tied in directly with political authority.

robomatic - I regard your explanation of my position as spurious and completely beside the point, but I suppose you had to come up with something, right? :-) I don't regard Bob Dylan as "powerless". Seems to me that he is more powerful musically at this point in history than any of us on this forum are. And he's way richer. Money is power, isn't it? I only object to people being in power when they badly misuse their power...as Sharon has done. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not people in power are Jewish...nor do I require "court Jews" to assauge my conscience. I treat Jews as I do other people...if I like a Jewish singer, it's because I like his MUSIC and the way he presents it! I would happily vote for a Jew as the political leader of my nation any old time if I liked his policies and philosophy well enough...not because he WAS a Jew, but because of what he stood for. But no political party would risk running a Jew for the top spot in the USA, would they? So who is prejudiced against Jews, robomatic?

I have trouble seeing anyone else as anything BUT an equal, robomatic, and that's why you and I don't agree on Israel. I want no subordinates. I want no superiors. I want no Master Race. I want no Promised Land set aside for a Chosen Few in their ancient holy book. I want no One True Faith and no One Messiah. I want no one God that categorically denies the Gods of other people. I want equality and tolerance of cultural differences, sharing of cultural understandings, celebration of differences, in fact. Our differences serve to show how much we really have in common.

I choose not to regard Israelis as more special, more valuable, or more martyred than any other people on Earth, and I do not regard their actions against Palestinians as being above criticism because of something the Nazis did to their parents or grandparents over 55 years ago! I think the policies of Israel are an absolute disgrace to freedom-loving Jews everywhere, and I am joined in that opinion by many Jews, including Jews in Israel. Those who can see beyond their own parochial community identity to a greater brotherhood of humanity will grasp what I am saying. Those who can't, may not.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:54 AM

Slight thread drift {but not really]

Since one of the Biblical Noah's sons was mentioned, I decided to see what I could find on the Internet about another son of Noah-Ham and Hamites.

Imagine my surprise when I read a number of entries that said that Hamites were "African people of caucasoid descent who occupy the Horn of Africa (chiefly Somalia and Ethiopia), the western Sahara, and parts of Algeria"..

Beware of what you read on the Internet! That is TOTALLY contrary to what is usually given as the meaning of that referent.

However, the Catholic Encylopedia website had the following information:

"I. CHAM
(A.V. Ham). Son of Noe and progenitor of one of the three great races of men whose ethnographical table is given by Genesis 10. Wherever the three sons of Noe are enumerated in the Bible, Cham is placed between Sem and Japhet. We may gather, however, from Genesis 9:24 that this enumeration is not based on their age, since Cham is there spoken of as the "younger son" of Noe, as compared, apparently, with both his brothers. The only incident of the life of Cham after the deluge, which is recorded in the Bible, is that related in Genesis 9:21-24. Cham sees his father under the influence of wine lying naked in his tent. He tells his brothers, who respectfully cover the patriarch. The sequel makes it plain that Cham was, on this occasion, guilty of great irreverence. For when Noe hears of the conduct of his sons he blesses Shem and Japhet, with their posterity, and he pronounces a curse, not on Cham, but on his son Chanaan and his descendants, predicting that they will be the servants of their bretheren. (For a fuller treatment of this point see Chanaan, Chanaanites.)

II. THE CHAMITES
The natives and tribes which descent from Cham are enumerated in Genesis 10:6-20. They are divided into four great families: Chus, Mesram, Phuth, and Chanaan. The Cushites are found in the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, in Arabia, and also in Africa. Mesram is Egypt. Phuth, less known, seems to have occupied regions west of Egypt, particularly Libya. Chanaan comprised the numerous tribes whose country was subsequently occupied by Israel. The Chamites were, consequently, spread over an immense extent of territory. They founded the greatest empires of antiquity, Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Phoenicia. In Asia they were early replaced or subjugated by Semites. In Africa they have been likewise overcome, in the course of time, by the races of Sem and Japhet."

-snip-

That passage end with this highly debatable, highly inflammatory statement:
"This subjection has meant, in general, the triumph of a higher civilization, purer morals, and a more spirtual religion.
(See Lenormant, "Hist. ancienne de l'Orient", I, 96 sq.) "

end of quote

IMO, such a "my way is the best way" world view is one of the main reasons why the world is in such a terrible fix now...

See this link for more information:
Hamites

If interested, googling Punt, Cush, and Cushites can also provide further information that Hamites historically refers to black skinned people.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Uncle DaveO
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:45 AM

Little Hawk said, in passing:

European Jews are for the most part not semites, although they are Jews

I don't understand what is meant here. Are you saying that European Jews for the most part are converts to Judaism, or that their ancestors were?

The main stream of Judaism (as a group-membership matter) flows through descent. "For the most part" that is how you become a Jew. Yes, there are and have been converts here and there, but not to amount to any appreciable percentage of the Jewish population. That being the case, it follows that European Jews "for the most part", along with Sephardic Jews "for the most part" and Ethiopian Jews "for the most part" and American Jews too, "for the most part" are going to be descended from the ancient people described as the descendants of Shem.

Of course there are and have been converts the other way, Judaism to Christianity (in fact a whole lot more than Christianity to Judaism) many by coercion in some historical periods, some by actual conviction, and some for economic or social reasons. Such a convert, though no longer professing Judaism, is still a Semite.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:39 AM

I sure am glad I was working and/or distracted when that other thread was born & died so that I missed it entirely. I am grateful that most folks here are aware of my personal attitude about discussion and controversy, but I still regret misjudging the appropriateness and timing of some of my remarks.

And in that regard, Shambles, I wish you had hesitated before starting THIS thread. Even if your intent is honest and driven by sincere curiosity, feelings about the subject are pretty tender right now, and references which lead back to those other awkward threads just tend to stir up animosity. It is not a matter of 'right' to post or censorship, but simply a plea for taste, restraint and allowing a cooling down before fanning those flames once more.

That's all I will say about it publicly.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM

LH: You wrote:

"I mean, if I was anti-Jewish then how could I possibly like Bob Dylan and Chuck Brodsky so much? I'm not anti-Jewish. I'm anti-Likud, anti-Zionist, anti-Sharon. So are many Jews. "

The answer is: you have no trouble with Jews in positions that are essentially powerless. You have no problems with 'court Jews'. You have problems with Jews in power positions. You have trouble seeing Jews as anything other than occasional equals or frequent subordinates. Power positions bring with them power problems. Every state regardless of ethnicity has power problems. But you find it easier to pick on the one Jewish state that has power problems tied essentially into its existence.

You are not alone. Possibly that ties in with Patrick Buchanon's issue as I mentioned above.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:34 AM

But what outsider would be accepted by both sides and what would be the chances of either side agreeing to any solution put forward?

As long as people see themselves as belonging to a specific group, be it ethnic, religious or whatever, with different views on the way life should be lived and the rights of others, I can't see any real solution.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:34 AM

Well-stated, Mick. So you figure that's what Shambles is up to? Hmmm. Well, we shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:20 AM

Shambles, you have set up a false premise. What you are really doing is trolling for a response that you can then use to advance your pathologic need for validation as a martyr. I say this because your stated intention (which is one worthy of discussion, IMO), is not reflected in the article you present as the basis for the discussion. When the reaction comes, you will use it to advance the same old bullshit ideas you have been trying to advance.

Just thought I would let you know how transparent you are.

There is some reason to believe, based on the posts so far, that we might get a legitimate discussion here, in spite of the fella behind the screen, so let's see where it heads.

I agree with with contention that antisemitism is used in a much narrower context than what it means. To my way of interpretation, it is not possible for Palestinians, and other Arabs, to be antisemites. They themselves are Semitic. What they are is opposed to the Israelis to the point of obsession. I believe the same can be said of the Israeli attitude towards the Arab States. It seems to me that when the circumstance occurs that both sides in a conflict make legitimate claims that cannot be refuted by a reasonable person, then outside interests must step into the negotiations.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:04 AM

Good point. So if someone criticizes an aggressive Isreali political policy and land theft, would it not be more useful to say that they are anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist or anti-Likud, for example?

I mean, if I was anti-Jewish then how could I possibly like Bob Dylan and Chuck Brodsky so much? I'm not anti-Jewish. I'm anti-Likud, anti-Zionist, anti-Sharon. So are many Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:51 AM

Words mean what people think they mean. "Antisemitism" was evidently coined to mean any and all kinds of animosity against Jews as distinguished from Arabs or anyone else.

Historically. Arabs and Jews are both "Semites" in anthropological and especially linguistic terms. But that doesn't matter. As someone already pointed out, the literal etymology of a word has nothing to do with its ordinary common usage.

However, since the concept of "Semitism" in general is much more widely known in the West than it used to be, many people, Arabs especially, have begun to feel that the English word is misleading.
Since this is becoming an important, if perhaps erroneous perception, the suggestion that "Judeophobia" be brought into wider use in place of "antisemitism" is a useful one.

But since the entire complicated subject of Arabs, Palestinians, Jews, Israel, Palestine, religion, sociology, ethnicity, and race is politically and emotionally contentious, one can see that "Judeophobia" will in turn be rejected by persons claiming that "phobia" originally meant "fear," and "fear" is not necessarily the issue.

All you can do is say what you mean as pecisely as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:42 AM

I just saw a terrific show by Chuck Brodsky, a Jewish folksinger. He talked a lot about Jewishness and had some songs that touched on Jewish issues, as well as many other great subjects. I loved it. I loved him.

I detest Israel's political and military policies of the last five decades and regard Israel as a fascist state which is engaging in a form of subtle genocide on Palestinians.

"Anti-Semitic" is the most abused and manipulative hateword in history at this point. It is used to muzzle legitimate comment on Israel's destructive policies. It is used to intimate people and to destroy their careers. It is used to blackmail people and silence them. It is the tool of those who are themselves guilty of the very thing they accuse others of...blanket hatred of others based upon a narrow tribal/cultural/group identity.

The article is a good one, and it was written by a Jew. He is a Jew with the courage to address this issue, and he will no doubt be roundly condemned by various other Jews for daring to shed light upon this sacred cow of modern Zionism...called "Anti-Semitism".

It's a misnomer anyway. Sephardic Jews are Semites. Palestinians are also Semites. European Jews are for the most part not semites, although they are Jews. To be a Jew can be seen as a religious trait, a cultural trait, a question of who one's parents were, etc... To be a semite is simpler. It just means you are descended from a specific group of tribal people from the ancient Middle East. And that applies to the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians and various other Middle Easterners.

The ridiculous sitation we have in the World now is a political group of largely non-Semitic Jews persecuting various actual real Semites in the Middle East, while accusing anyone who criticizes their aggressive actions of being "Anti-Semitic"!

That's doubletalk. It's the great big phony lie, used to cover over the landgrabbing policies of Zionism. And it's so bad that almost no one except someone born and raised a Jew dares to openly challenge it in the media, for fear of being labelled an "Anti-Semite" of all things. Shades of Joe McCarthy and Josef Goebbels.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:37 AM

Essentially, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:04 AM

If you really are interested in discussing antisemitism as a historical entity, then it's best to leave Israel out of the discussion, at least to start with, since antisemitism has its roots in the Middle Ages or earlier. But then, of course, you wouldn't get to bash Israel.

Mark it is not my object to bash anyone - simply for us all to be able to discuss the subject and be better informed as a result. The historical aspect of anti-semitism is of great interest - as looking back should help in this understanding but more importantly may help us all in the future.

Does the term actually mean the same as being 'anti-Jewish'?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:11 AM

The dictionary definition of a semite is

1. a person regarded as descended from Shem.

2. a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians etc.

3. same as Jew: a loose usage

Maybe if the term was 'anti-Jewish', which is what is being talked about here, people might think a little more carefully before discussing this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 05:48 AM

I agree with Mark that the article linked by Shambles is not suitable as a topic as stated in the thread title. And BB (if he is talking about the article posted by Shambles). That article is a sort of self-righteous and slightly weird article espousing the author's Israel agenda and has eff-all to do with anti-semitism. It sounds as if he /she started to write one thing "I propose we have fun with it" and ended up with another.

This thread may be polluted at inception. Nevertheless I'll make the obvious observation that while not every anti-Israeli opinion is anti-semitic, a hell of a lot of Anti-Israeli invective is. Typically, you can tell the difference because somewhere the promulgator will say: "I'm not anti-semitic, but...."

At the risk of starting thread drift, I'll say from personal observation, there really IS sexual harassment. And there really exist cases of folks claiming sexual harassment as a way of gaming the system. This is not a dig at sexual harassment laws, this is an observation that there are people who will game ANY system.

Similarly with anti-semitism. There are folks who will simply substitute zionism for Judaism as a way of advancing their agenda. There are also folks who will respond with any jibe they do not like as 'antisemitism'. There was a cute Seinfeld scene where he tried to convince his uncle that his uncle's girlfriend was an antisemite, mainly because Seinfeld was trying to manipulate his uncle. When it didn't work out, Seinfeld inveigled his uncle to take her back. "But she's an anti-semite" says the uncle. "Can you blame her?" says Seinfeld.

The latest case in the world of televised talking heads was over whether Patrick Buchanon was anti-semitic based on comments he made over Israel and the Israel lobby "amen corner".

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 05:08 AM

I doubt very much if many will read to the end of the posted article.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:25 AM

Was this thread started because someone started a thread a couple days ago mis-labeled anti-semitism but really about his lack of success in an even "previouser" thread?

Here's a link to another article which I'm not sure I agree with, but it has something to say:

anti-semitism

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:33 AM

Shambles, the article is not about antisemitism at all, and should not be used as the springboard of a discussion about antisemitism. The article says that Israel is evil and the Palestinians are good. Other articles say that the Palestinians are evil and Israel is good. So what else is new?

If you really are interested in discussing antisemitism as a historical entity, then it's best to leave Israel out of the discussion, at least to start with, since antisemitism has its roots in the Middle Ages or earlier. But then, of course, you wouldn't get to bash Israel.

By the way, I am Jewish and I abhor much of what the present Israeli government has done recently and is doing, as well as much of what the Palestinians and other Arab states have done and are doing. I am also American, and I abhor much of what the present American government has done recently and is doing, as well as much of what our current "enemies" have done and are doing.   

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:02 AM

The following introduction from the site linked to above.

I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don't think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:56 AM

This thread was recently closed Anti-semitism

Subject: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:54 AM

What exactly is antisemitism? The following article has a stab at explaining what it is and what it is not. Perhaps - if certain prayers are not answered and this thread does not get closed or deleted and posters to the thread manage not to respond to obvious provocation - we may all become a little bit better informed about this subject than we are now? That is the object anyway.

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html