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.