BS: The New Anti-semitism

Subject: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 04:36 PM

I first saw this article in the Jewish periodicle that the JUF puts out.

It is so right on the money.

I apologize for my blue clicky handicap"

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000498.html

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 05:41 PM

In what way is this year old article so "right on the money"?

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM

I think I'd agree that anti-semitism seems to have become fashionable again. People use Israeli politics as an excuse to blame all Jews for everything but the kitchen sink. Martin, what are your views on the subject?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 06:28 PM

What's changed in a year?

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM

These ARE very complicated issues. This article illustrates that point quite well, as do many, many, many other articles. The big question before everyone is how to solve the problems and find peace for all involved!?

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:35 PM

Here are the words of a few other Jews on the subject:

Living with the Holocaust: The Journey of a Child of Holocaust Survivors

Seven Pillars of Jewish Denial

The Diaspora and the Intifada: The responsibility of American Jews. by Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold

Our foppish self-righteousness By Shulamit Aloni

Manufacturing Anti-Semites by Uri Avnery

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM

Joe, thanks for asking.

This article true is a year old, but it was just run in an important Jewish periodical put out by the JUF which is the Jewish United Fund. I hope that it's run in many others for a long time. The author, has been doing seminars on the subject.

I believe the left, in all it's anti-establishment, protect the downtrodden ways is so far removed from the left-wing element of the recent past. Quite frankly, it has lost it's way in what is good and what is evil and what is common sense.

I didn't expect a lot of discussion here on this and I really don't care. The article addresses and reveals the issues clearly and intelligently. What I do hope is that the radical left will read this and I thank those that made a proper link out it. I hope that you will see how the radical left is more and more being perceived by Jews who are part of the organized world of Judaism.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:45 PM

CarolC, your on-going anti-semitsm is well known on this forum.

Your dislike of all things Jewish and Israel are also well known on this forum.

Your articles and your attitude are not the reflection of the Jewish people and are not presented by you as a Jew because you are not one.

You are exactly the type of person the Philips article I posted is singling out and Jews all over are reading this and agreeing that it is you and your ilk that promote today's anti-semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:06 PM

A very good article but I wonder if this is true or if its over exagerrated.

"...in which respectable British people say openly that they sympathise with the mass murder of Jews by Palestinians because they are 'fighting for their freedom'; and in which Israel is being systematically delegitimised and dehumanised."

I wouldn't know because I do not live in Britain. I've never heard anything about the mass murder of Jews or people who would sympathise with mass murder in Canada.

I also wonder about the wisdom of a nation (any nation) who relies on military superiority to quell dissent and attack innocent civilians.

Although I think the formation of the State of Israel was not well thought out, I certainly don't think the destruction of Israel is the answer. I also do not think it is up to the rest of the world to solve Israel's problems.

I also do not believe that Jews are the only people who have been oppressed or subjected to genocide. What would happen if we gave Natives their homeland and pushed all others into the desert regions? What if we gave African Americans a homeland in Georgia to call their own? What if we gave Romania to the Roms? How about we give back Ireland to the Irish?

I just don't understand why Jews are so special.

Could it be that they have a powerful lobby in Washington and Washington has a great deal to gain?

Its not about anti-semitism as much as it is about what is fair. I do not hate Jews but I do not like the power of the Israeli/American alliance and the double standards that are applied world-wide.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:10 PM

Those are some good articles Carol linked to there. I think the response made by a subsequent poster reflects and confirms that.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:16 PM

Well, I hate to beat the dead horse but we have a very polorizing adminstration and one of the very sad and painfull byproducts is hatred... This adminsration has been more devisive than any I can remember. It goes out of its way in pitting groups against other groups. It doesn't have the faintest idea about the concepts of compromise or negotiation... So, yeah, it is no wonder that there would be a lot of folks purdt danged pissed off at other folks... It has been their intent and they stategey to stay in power... It is 180 degrees opposite the Clinton who bent over backwards to accomodate the oppostion party...

And, again unfortunately, the world seem to be very much influenced by these same diversionary tactics...

When Bush came into office he turned his back on the Middle East becuase he didn't want to appear to agree with anything that Clinton did and, bang, things escalated horribly and now every night we were seeing suuicide bombers on one side and tanks and bulldozers carving up Palestian neigborhoods on the other...

After awile these scenes, which I might add were aired by Bush's coroprate buddies, on the nightly news took the *desired* toll on folks and so, as a consequence, yeah, I think there is a higher level of *homemade* anti-semitism... But there a lot more of intolerance accross the board... Things are so hostile that a guy could find a cure for cancer tomorrow and half the people would hate him fir some reason or another...

But waht the Bushites here don't get is that this is all be orchestrated by Karl Rove with one single purpose in mind: colsolidation of power... And it's working just the way they drew it up... Where-ever you look Karl Rove is manipulating the people...Hate to say it again but just as Hitler did in the 30's...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 09:38 PM

Martin:

Anti-Semitism is wrong.

Using the charge of anti-Semitism as way of stifling legitimate discussion on the subject of Israel, which is what you do, is also wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:22 PM

Bullshit, Carol C.

Find me one article on the internet that states I, Martin Gibson is wrong. It's not wrong, just because you say so.

I don't care about discussion on this and most everything else here.

I have posted an article that I believe has a strong opinion on how anti-semitism is promoted by the left. I posted it so those here who this article hits home to can howl all they want. You can read it and agree or not. You can also find a top hat and cane and dance around on how the article makes you feel for all I care.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:23 PM

I haven't exercised my British contacts to get their take on things. I think of the British as institutionally anti-semitic but not bloodthirsty (any more). It is not hard to understand why arabists and those who hope for a Palestinian 'victory' utilize anti-semitism disguised as anti-Zionism in any venue in which they can find traction. I've seen it in Alaska. This tactic will work if it succeeds in instilling fear, but if opposed boldly and directly, it usually loses, because it is a tactic of cowards.

The English Playwright David Hare touched on some of these issues in his one man play "Via Dolorosa".

I've seen and heard enough of the rationalization of Antisemitism so that I classify it as a religion in itself. I am not aware of any other race/religious/class hatred that is as insistent and insidious. This in itself can cause some few Jews to leave the fold and join the opposition in an inevitably vain attempt to feel unpersecuted. It's a weakness.

I think Clinton tried to achieve some long term good in the Mideast but peace was quashed by the ill-will of Yassir Arafat. I think Bush means well but he and his friends are operating on their own reality set which will prove to be not too enduring. I think Ariel Sharon has been driven to take matters into his own hands by the lack of progress due to intransigence on both sides. I think he is well aware of the long view but must get a solid durable majority on his side in his own country. I think a stable consistent Israeli plan has a chance of drawing out the majority of Palestinians who want the same thing.

It would be most helpful if Palestinian society could free up to allow open dialogue to the same extent that it exists in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:27 PM

And I have countered on how anti-semitism is being promoted by yer hero, Martin...

Other than references to body parts how about coming out from behind yer shield and discussing those?...

Scared?...

You oughtta be 'cause Karl Rove don't care one ratt's butt about you or any other Jew... All he cares about is cenralizy power... As a Jew you oughtta have some level of disgust for what happenes when that is dome...

If you don't then youn are not a Jew but a friggin' moron...

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:36 PM

Hah, bobert!

I ain't scared of your little yellow belly pinko ass.

You idiot! See how rationale your discussion has become when the truth is revealed about you and you have nothing left to say. You resort to name calling and ranting just like the geek you are.

Learn how to spell and write like an educated person before you try to come here and push your bullshit on everyone, goon.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:45 PM

Find me one article on the internet that states I, Martin Gibson is wrong. It's not wrong, just because you say so.

You could begin by reading what I've already posted links to right here in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:52 PM

They do not say that I am wrong. These article were written by renegades and are far from credible. They are crap and you can find crap on the Internet that says murder is OK, also.

You are not a Jew, CarolC. Please do not fucking tell me what me or my people have to believe just to pacify you. We know who our and Israel's enemies are. The article I am showing you was published in one of the most well known and most respected Jewish organizations periodicals. They wouldn't touch your propaganda (and that is all it is) with a 10 foot pole.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:53 PM

And please deal with the fact that I insist that you are one of the most anti-semetic Israel/Jew haters here.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:54 PM

I bet you didn't even read them.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 10:58 PM

I did. They suck. So do you.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 11:00 PM

Martin, I know what you have been calling me. But that doesn't mean much considering what you call everyone else who disagrees with you on any subject whatever. I know what is in my heart. You do not.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 11:08 PM

No, so do you, Martin...

You wouldn't know Hitler if he knocked on yer friggin' door...

But you go on rantin' against me 'cause you say you don't liike my spellin'...BS... waht you don't like is I see thru you like a friggin' window...

You ain't no Jew... Yer a friggin' Bush worshipper... Get yer religions straight, pal...

You are about the most ignorant person I have ever met...

You are nuthin' bu8t a puppet in Karl Rove's puppet show...

I expected more of you and I am disappointed...

Ain't nuthin' that you can say here that can possibly offend me. You offend yourself and Jews everywhere with yer Bush worshipping!!!

Thou shalth have no other Gods before Me...

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 11:35 PM

dianavan, you wrote:

Although I think the formation of the State of Israel was not well thought out, I certainly don't think the destruction of Israel is the answer. I also do not think it is up to the rest of the world to solve Israel's problems.

The Zionist movement which resulted in the formation of Israel was proceeding by stages up to World War II. It is worthy of its own research or thread, but the formation of the State of Israel had little to do with 'thinking things out' due to the massive changes iin the World wrought by World Wars I and II. Until the First World War, the Middle East was under the purview of the Turkish Empire. Turkey allied with the Germans during WWI and post war Turkey pretty much lost her empire and England assumed the Mandate over Palestine, having made a commitment to a Jewish State partly as a response to a Jewish chemist who enabled wartime production of vital chemicals through an early use of industrial bioengineering. The United Nations approved of a division of the territories between Jewish and Arab, and the Arabs tried to forestall this by armed action on the part of the neighbor states, (Iraq included). So Israel was formed by the fortunes of war, as are many nations.

I also do not believe that Jews are the only people who have been oppressed or subjected to genocide. What would happen if we gave Natives their homeland and pushed all others into the desert regions? What if we gave African Americans a homeland in Georgia to call their own? What if we gave Romania to the Roms? How about we give back Ireland to the Irish?

I don't see anything in that sentence to either disagree with or to take seriously. There have been many oppressions and genocides through history. Jews have made an attempt to end their particular victimhood by resorting to a well defended Jewish State. As to Natives, if you mean Native Americans, there are Native homelands in the United States. I've been to several of them. I'm not aware of a significant number of African Americans at present requiring a homeland but you may be interested to know that the nation of Liberia in Africa was founded precisely for that reason, and was initially settled by African Americans.
There are plenty of Irish who think they already live in Ireland:-)

I just don't understand why Jews are so special.

Well, Jews aren't so special. They are human beings who wish to maintain a culture and religion and lifestyle as Jews. What makes YOU think THEY think they are so special?

Could it be that they have a powerful lobby in Washington and Washington has a great deal to gain?

Could definitely be that through sometimes bitter experience Jews have learned to be forthright about Jewish interests in the United States and the world. There are some other powerful lobbies in Washington, quite a few of them in fact that have nothing to do with Jews. There has long been a powerful petroleum lobby which has advocated Arab interests against Israel.

Its not about anti-semitism as much as it is about what is fair. I do not hate Jews but I do not like the power of the Israeli/American alliance and the double standards that are applied world-wide.

I am not clear what you mean. I don't know what you consider anti-semitism or a false use of the term. And I think the concept of fairness is a red herring. There is no fair solution to this problem. I can't help it if you think there is a powerful Israeli/ American alliance, but consider that during the cold war, the Soviets tried to establish influence in India, Africa and parts of the Arab world, the United States allied with Pakistan, Israel, and other parts of the Arab world. In this post cold war era, Israel remains the only country in the area with electoral politics and civil and social rights among its women (of all religions).

I think the double standard is quite objectionable and I have witnessed it used against Israel more than for her in requiring Israel to make sacrifices that are not required of her neighbors, and her neighbors are not required to make similar guarantees of safeguarding Israelis from violence, nor indeed establishing democratic reforms and due process of law for their own citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 11:49 PM

Martin, as a Jew with an opinion, I say what I feel. Hopefully I can do that without having other Jews who might be so politically correct where Israel is concerned that they cannot see clearly that the country that is Israel HAS done some truly horrendous things. I was not anti-Catholic or anti-Lutheran when, during World War 2, I felt many negative things about Germany. I do suspect you could find words enough in your dictionary to make it seem that I and others here could be anti those 2 religions.

But this is not semantics. It is war over there in the Middle East. -----

---- Still your semantic machinations manipulate our valid difference of opinion, and amazingly, morph it into intimating I have exhibited antisemitic feelings in these threads. All you are doing, though, is illustrating graphically how sadly true it is when pundits say that all is fair in war and love.

In another thread you pretty much said, "this is only a forum" and not a place real enough to form actual community bonds between participants. Why, then, is it a place that's real enough for you to vent your venom and denigrate and slander real people who simply have different ways of seeing these sad events than you do?? Or are you just "having fun" in this thread too??
No, I/we are not questioning Israel's right to exist. I do insist on having the right to call a spade a spade when I see it, and also say when Sharon isn't wearing any clothes.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:11 AM

robomatic - I appreciate your attempt to clarify my thinking about the subject.

Its this part that makes me feel a bit uneasy about the formation of Israel:

"and England assumed the Mandate over Palestine, having made a commitment to a Jewish State partly as a response to a Jewish chemist who enabled wartime production of vital chemicals through an early use of industrial bioengineering. The United Nations approved of a division of the territories between Jewish and Arab, and the Arabs tried to forestall this by armed action on the part of the neighbor states, (Iraq included)."

Wasn't this a rather cruel thing to do to the Arabs who claimed it was their holy land? Or did the world think that Arabs didn't matter and that they had no means of resistance?

What really bothers me is that it was partial payment to a Jewish chemist. Whaaaat?????????????

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:31 AM

This isn't the place to explain the fine detail of world history to someone who thinks that Romania is the lost homeland of the Romany. That kind of ignorance needs serious work.

Even if it were, that explanation wouldn't be very convincing coming from somebody who seems to think that there is an English government. There isn't, and hasn't been for centuries. British, or UK if you prefer. If you don't understand the distinction, how can we trust you to be accurate on other matters?

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:56 AM

The article I am showing you was published in one of the most well known and most respected Jewish organizations periodicals. They wouldn't touch your propaganda (and that is all it is) with a 10 foot pole.

You can't have read any of the contents of the links I posted then, Martin, because this one...

Our foppish self-righteousness

...was published in Haaretz, which, if I'm not mistaken, is a major Israeli news publication.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:21 AM

Guest - I don't really think Romania is the lost homeland of the Roms. In fact I think they came from somewhere near Pakistan. I also do not believe there is an English govt. I know it is British.

I wouldn't doubt if you are one of the many who mistakenly call citizens of the U.S., Americans. Of course citizens of Canada and Mexico also come from North America and the U.S. really doesn't have exclusive rights to the name. But thats just more B.S. just like the B.S. you posted in an effort to start an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Tohe
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 04:12 AM

Wiat, Dianavan, let me understand, so Israel is *not* the Holy Land of Jews, a place they've been yearning for for 2000 years?

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 04:13 AM

Shulamit Aloni belongs to the extreme left, in fact is a mirror image of the extreme right. So just like you would take thing they say with a grain of salt, do the same with her.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 04:30 AM

Using examples like Rom in Romania you display a profound ignorance of Jews and Zionism.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 05:03 AM

So martin you feel discriminated against? Tough.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 05:05 AM

I can only assume that the article is correct when it says that attacks on Jews and Jewish property have incereased. What people outside the UK may fail to realise though is that this seems to be part of an unfortunate general increase in racism and xenophobia. Not only are Jews being targeted but so are Gypsies, Moslems, Blacks and anyone else who doesn't fit the 'WASP' definition. Sends shudders down my spine to see it but I don't think I can deny it is happening in my own country:-( When the major opposition party has based part of it's election campaign on targeting Gypsies and Immigration and playing to the fears of those who do believe it is a major issue I wonder if it is time to leave.

I agree that it is a very serious business but I feel that to show the full picture we to retitle the article 'The new racism'. I can see why, being Jewish, the writer has chosen that angle but it does give the misleading picture that UK Jews have the exclusivity on racial attacks and abuse. While I also agree that the left is using the Sharron and Israel as a scapegoat for all the ills of the Middle East it is also true that other factions are using fear of other races and religions for their own ends.

Having said all that I don't want to detract from the fact that anti-semitism is a dreadful thing. By saying that it is only part of a much bigger sickness spreading through our society I only wish to make sure that people are aware of the other issues.

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 05:10 AM

By saying that it is only part of a much bigger sickness spreading through our society

How very true. And martin is as guilty of bigotry as those he despises. If he can't learn tolerance why should he expect it.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 06:05 AM

Dianavan wrote:
robomatic - I appreciate your attempt to clarify my thinking about the subject.

Its this part that makes me feel a bit uneasy about the formation of Israel:

"and England assumed the Mandate over Palestine, having made a commitment to a Jewish State partly as a response to a Jewish chemist who enabled wartime production of vital chemicals through an early use of industrial bioengineering. The United Nations approved of a division of the territories between Jewish and Arab, and the Arabs tried to forestall this by armed action on the part of the neighbor states, (Iraq included)."


Wasn't this a rather cruel thing to do to the Arabs who claimed it was their holy land? Or did the world think that Arabs didn't matter and that they had no means of resistance?

What really bothers me is that it was partial payment to a Jewish chemist. Whaaaat?????????????

Dianavan:

I appreciate your efforts to ask genuine questions in the midst of mere "I know you are but what am I" cross-postings! Meanwhile, and this may be me more than you, you give (me) the impression of someone who doesn't find quality reading materials on their own and load up on some genuine facts (i.e. legitimate history books with footnotes and all). Whether it is me or CarolC or Martin Gilbert, all you are going to find in a thread (at best) is opinions and links to other opinions. I tossed out that business of the Jewish chemist* because I found it personally intriguing and I was hoping to stimulate that among the threadfolk. It is an interesting story, but obviously not the only reason His Majesty's government issued the Balfour doctrine. The Balfour doctrine in the main simply means that Zionist organizations in the early 20th Century weren't whistling Dixie by themselves. Jews were being persecuted especially in Tsarist Russia and what was known as "The Pale of Settlement". There were objective reasons for a government to desire a solution to the "Jewish Problem". I don't think HM Government ever issued a Declaration that it didn't perceive to be in its own interest. (And for the most part British behavior in the early part of the 20th Century favored Arabs over Jews, to the extent of inhibiting refugees from the Reich from finding safety in Palestine.

In fact the British government had used Arab nationalism as a successful tool to fight the Turks in WW I. And it resulted in blessing several Arab nations in formation. So why not a Jewish nation? The Balfour Declaration basically indicates that HM Government understood that such a question existed and that it was legitimate.

The fight for nationhood is always just that, a fight. There are many more nations in waiting than space for them. The Confederate States had a powerful will to nationhood. The Basque separatists claim they want to be a nation. The Kurds are well known for the same. There is an Alaska Independence party, there have been Texas separatists. Of the bunch, I personally have the most sympathy for the Kurds, and the least for the Texans, Alaskans, and Basque.

What we have in the Mideast is both Jewish and Arab aspirations for the same piece of territory. Both have been to an extent rewarded. There is effectively a Palestinian state already in existence if you consider that the majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian origin.

There was an objective need for a Jewish state which remains to this day. Just last night I heard a National Public Radio story about a group of people in India who consider themselves decendants of one of the 'Lost Tribes'. Out of an ethnic population of 300,000 mostly Christian, about 5,000 have made efforts to convert to Judaism and many of them want to migrate to Israel. This of course is worth a story in itself and is just the sort of hazy thread information that deserves to be checked out but shouldn't be taken as gospel on first look-see.

By the way, one of my current info sources is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, whose book "From Beirut To Jerusalem" has a lot of interesting details of the issues of the 80's. He is Jewish, probably a Zionist, but he has been quite critical of Israel at times. He would be my example of somebody who can be critical of Israel without in any way being considered an anti-semite. I am less critical of Israel than he is by a long shot, though I've had my moments. But for the most part he is very clear in his writing, he usually considers a background of facts that many of us are not aware of, and he knows most if not all of the major players on sight, and they know him. These days he has transferred his major concerns to issues of Globalizations. His more recent booksa are: "The Lexus And The Olive Tree" and "The World Is Flat".

*Chaim Weizman masterminded the production of large quantities of acetone which was necessary for the British war effort (WW I). He apparently requested his payment in the form of political support for Jewish National homeland in Palestine. He played an important role in the creation of the Jewish state.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM

There's quite a bit more to it than Weizmann, but he's definitely an important player. Barbara Tuchman's "Bible and Sword" would make an excellent starting point. David Fromkin's "Peace to End all Peace" is a very good book about the diplomatic and political history of the region.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 11:06 AM

Possibly so Allen. But argumentum ad hominem is not a real response. It is certainly true that there is anti-Semitism in the world. And anti-Semitism is always a bad thing. However, to attribute any criticism of the government of Israel as being either anti-Semitic (in the case of criticism by people who are not Jewish) or products of being a "self-hating Jew" (Martin has used this one), or of being a "leftist", all of these things are attacks on the messenger rather than a thoughtful discussion on the merits or the lack of merits of the argument itself.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 11:07 AM

My last was in response to your 18 Apr 05 - 04:13 AM post.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 11:12 AM

Guest, Allen: I was going to mention Tuchman's "Bible And Sword"! Couldn't remember the name of the author at the time so put it off.

I've gone back in the thread and can't see where you said anything meriting CarolC's argument above, which doesn't really say anything new.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 11:17 AM

robomatic, you have just proved my point. You don't have a legitimate response to my post, so you have made a personal attack on me instead.

My post was in response to this from Allen:

Shulamit Aloni belongs to the extreme left, in fact is a mirror image of the extreme right. So just like you would take thing they say with a grain of salt, do the same with her.

Maybe she is a leftist. But calling her a "leftist" is not a legitimate rebuttal of her arguements. It's an argumentum ad hominem.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 11:42 AM

Aloni is a woman of very extreme views and opinions who doesn't compromise. I already know what to expect in advance, and it isn't balanced. So like I would do with any extreme I excersize caution.
Consider the source as they say.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:24 PM

Carol:
Number one: You didn't particularize which of Guest,Allen's post you were attacking.
Number two: Guest,Allen didn't negate your argument, he made reference to possible bias on the part of the source in question, and in the latest post he has reinforced this notion of bias.
Number three: Biased sources may or may not be the only kind of sources one can find on the web. I've noticed you have a propensity for same. You are entitled to cite any source you wish, and Guest,Allen or I or anybody can indicate when he/she/it feels that source is biased and the nature of that bias. This need not call for you to suggest an ad hominem attack. Rather, you would better illustrate your or your source's argument via explaining the logic or reasoning or facts of the position.

I am sorry that you interpret my words as a personal attack. Such was not my intention. Rather your words appeared to be an attack and it was not clear on what or whom. Now that you have clarified the nature of your words, I repectfully disagree as noted above.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:25 PM

Yes, I can understand that you would find yourself wanting to do that, Allen. In my own experience, I have seen Thomas Friedman repeat lies on television, so I tend to disbelieve anything he says until I have checked it out for myself. But I can't use that as a legitimate rebuttal of robomatic's post in which he recommends a book by Mr. Friedman and expect to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:29 PM

Number one: You didn't particularize which of Guest,Allen's post you were attacking.

Yes I did, robomatic. In the post just above yours, at 18 Apr 05 - 11:07 AM. But I wasn't attacking it. Just responding to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:39 PM

I wonder what label would be used if the US or Canada or the UK, for that matter, were the settlers in the land that is now Israel? Would any verbal attack on the settlers be construed as anti-Americanism or anti-Britishism? Why does being against or questioning the wisdom of its tactics and goals of Israel equate with anti-Israelism? Surely it has to do with government, not with characteristics of a people?

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:41 PM

On the whole I respected the view of Rabbi Gold, but he does bring up the falsehood of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount sparking the uprising. Bit hard to do that when it had started a day or two before.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:52 PM

"Why does being against or questioning the wisdom of its tactics and goals of Israel equate with anti-Israelism? Surely it has to do with government, not with characteristics of a people?" (Ebbie 12:39

Sorry, I meant to say anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM

Which means that while perhaps not actually striking the match, he quite deliberately poured gasoline on the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: The New Anti-semitism
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 01:04 PM

LOL
In my own experience, I have seen Thomas Friedman repeat lies on television, so I tend to disbelieve anything he says until I have checked it out for myself. But I can't use that as a legitimate rebuttal of robomatic's post in which he recommends a book by Mr. Friedman and expect to be taken seriously.

That's right Carol because then you'd be accused of making an ad hominem attack!