In item 60, other states: > Arabs are Semites. The phrase "anti-semitic" applies to both Arabs and > Jews. The term "antisemitic" was coined by Jew-haters around 1879 as a euphemism to create a more scientific sounding description of themselves. Does "antisemitism" mean more than the hatred of Jews? Words do not mean the sum of their parts. We drive on "parkways" yet park on "driveways". Something that is "inflammable" can burn quite well. Beyond that, there is no such thing as "Semitic" people. In modern usage, Semitic refers to a language group. Roughly half the people of Ethiopia speak a Semitic language, does that mean that Ethiopians are Semitic? Or just half? And could any "antisemite" really distinguish between these languages to formulate such a hatred of only those Ethiopians who spoke a Semitic language? In the Bible, Semitic refers to the peoples who were the sons of Shem (one of Noah's sons). But unless you are a fundamentalist believer and also believe other things in the Bible, don't even try to run with this. "Antisemitism" was invented by "antisemites" to mean exactly one thing: the hatred of Jews.89 responses total.
Ok, I can handle being wrong. Thanks for updating my etymological library.
By the way, could you refer me to your sources?
We can start by looking up dictionary definitions. The American Heritage Dictionary (4th Ed. (c) 2000) | One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced | against Jews. Princeton University's WordNet (1.6, (c) 1997) | n: someone who hates and would persecute Jews [syn: Jew-baiter] Merriam-Webster on-line: | n: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, | ethnic or racial group. (1882) There is some controversy over the exact date of origin of the word. I suppose 1882 could be correct, though I've seen it dated to 1879 elsewhere. Seems as if a new book has just been published on this topic, too: http://www.saur.de/index.cfm?content=service/02_press/frameset03.htm&menu=s ervice2 The Berlin Anti-Semitism Dispute of 1879, caused by the historian Heinrich von Treitschke, polarized the entire society of its time. The dispute dealt above all with the recent legal emancipation of German Jews and with the question of whether Jews were part of the German cultural nation. The dispute was important for the development of anti-Semitism. In many of its aspects and arguments it is still current. With the title Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit 1879-1881 (The Berlin Dispute on anti-Semitism 1879-1881), the Zentrum fr Antisemitismusforschung in Berlin publishes a comprehensive source edition, which makes all important texts on this topic both published and unpublished accessible for the first time. http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/holocaust/chronology.htm Anti-Semitism is the political, social, and economic agitation and activities directed against Jews. The term is now used to denote anti-Judaic acts or sentiments based on any grounds, including religious ones. The adjective Semitic originally was applied to all descendants of Shem, the eldest son of the biblical patriarch Noah; in later usage it refers to a group of peoples of southwestern Asia, including both Jews and Arabs. The word anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 to denote hostility only towards Jews. This hostility is supposedly justified by a theory, first developed in Germany, that peoples of the so-called Aryan stock are superior in physique and character to all those of Semitic stock. This racial superiority was used to justify the civil and religious persecution of Jews during Hitler's Holocaust. 1879 - Wilhelm Marr introduces the term anti-Semite into politics while founding the first anti-Semitic party. http://www.remember.org/guide/History.root.modern.html In 1878, the Social Democratic Party was outlawed, and democratic efforts were stifled. In the 1890s, political democracy was blocked by the rising power of German industrialists and diverted by imperialist expansion. This period also coincided with a new cycle of anti-Semitism, with Jews being blamed for manipulating peasants and small businessmen into resisting the traditional social and economic order. Jews were blamed for the severe economic depression of 1873. In the same year, Wilhelm Marr, a journalist who coined the term "anti-Semitism," wrote a pamphlet, "The Victory of Jewry over Germandom." It was very successful, going through twelve editions in six years. Using ideas of race and Vilkisch nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the "first major power in the West" in the 19th century. He accused the Jews of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans "beyond salvation." In 1879, he founded the League for Anti-Semitism. See also: http://astro.temple.edu/~hfreiden/Antisemitism/whatis.htm http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/antisemitism.html http://www.jewishbookmall.com/books_on_anti-semitism.htm
Ahh. So my source for the claim of Arab application was basing it on a fallacious understanding of the origin of the construct. Thanks.
Arabs consider themselves sons of Shem too. It makes them semites.
i considder mysef a SON OF SHEMP
So do we..
i considder you a amoco microwave cheeseburger.
Clees, can you demonstrate for us that the "sons of Shem" were known as "Semites"? (That is, prior to 1879.)
Heh, I doubt if arabs know they are supposed to be sons of Shem. I am serious. I really dont think they even care. Come here and live for sometime and you will know what I am talking about. The arab cares about his car, lots of food and generally a good life. I seriously doubt they bother about all this.
That's not how the vocal ones talk.
Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry. Leeron's bigotry against Arabs, for example, may not make him an anit-Semite, but it is nonetheless an ugly, ugly thing.
Re #11: What impression would you get about the U.S. if you listened to nothing but the nightly news and AM talk radio?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
What if my dad's name is Shekkie?
> The arab cares about his car, lots of food and generally a good life. That reminds me somewhat about Jimmy Carter's cabinet member Earl Butz's "Tight, loose, and warm" comments in 197x.
This response has been erased.
Re #17, I told you, you have to come here and live to understand what I mean. I think you will find that there is not so much hatred here as the media reports.
(Re #17: Earl Butz was Gerald Ford's cabinet member, not Jimmy Carter's.)
My bad - the 70's are all a blur now. :-) At least Jimmy had his brother!
The only thing I know about Arab dislike of Jews was that Jewish products were banned in Kuwait. No Revlon. No Paramount Pictures ( is that Jewish owned? All I know is that it was a big day when Paramount Pictures' movies were finally allowed in Kuwait)
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Is it not true that many jewish americans and many jewish people in Israel are Ashkenazic jews, meaning they descend from slavic peoples in germany, france and elsewhere in europe who centuries ago converted to judaism. Thus could it not be argued that those who are Ashkenazic jews are not semitic at all, being that the defiinition or a definition of semitic is to be of lineal hebrew descent going back to Abraham. If so, then Arabs, who claim to descent from Ishmael, Abraham's oldest son, are true semitics and many jewish people are not
re18: no, an astronaut.
Well, that's the explanation I got. Owned by Jews. Maybe founded by Jews? Don't know
This response has been erased.
Prolly, I was I think 12 or 13. I asked why they were banned, that's the explanation I got. Didn't care either way.
This response has been erased.
Actually, Mr. richard, Ashkenazim are from Eastern Europe. That would generally not include France, would it? klg
> you can't argue with the facts that he presents. Aaron gave up on that long ago, but must think he's accomplishing something with his personal attacks since he continues to toss them out and irregular intervals. MYNXCAT is right. The Arab embargo wasn't just with companies that were Jewish owned, but with companies that conducted business with Israel. Did you have Coke or just Pepsi in Kuwait...? (Part of the embargo was lifted around the first Gulf War and the start of the Oslo Accords.) Poor RICHARD. Did he even read or understand the item text? The argument that [some] Jews aren't really Jews is anti-semitic to the core, and Richard loses no time mixing that myth with the one exposed in the item text. > Is it not true that many jewish americans and many jewish people in Israel > are Ashkenazic jews, meaning they descend from slavic peoples in germany, > france and elsewhere in europe who centuries ago converted to judaism. NO. IT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. As modern genetic research indicates: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/social/14GENE.html The finding suggested that Jewish men... traced their lineage back to the ancestral Mideastern population of 4,000 years.... It pointed to the GENETIC UNITY OF WIDESPREAD JEWISH POPULATIONS and took issue with ideas that most Jewish communities were relatively recent converts like the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that embraced Judaism. http://www.mycweb.com/megillah/jul2000/jewish_genes.html The Human Genome project brought about some very interesting genetic discoveries for Jews. One such discovery was that of the Cohen gene. ...Genetic markers are specific DNA fragments that distinguish chromosomes from each other. Two studies were undertaken in 1997 to see if Cohens have common genetic markers at a higher frequency than the general Jewish population. In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal Nature (January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from Israel, England, and North America were asked to specify whether they were a Cohen, Levi, or Israel, and to identity their ethnic background. A particular genetic marker on the Y-chromosome, identified as YAP-, was detected in 98.5 percent of the Cohens, and in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohens Jews. In a second study, more DNA samples were gathered and the selection of Y chromosome markers was expanded. It was discovered that a particular array of six chromosomal markers were in 92 percent Cohens tested. This collection of markers came to be known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) and is the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family. The chances of these findings happening at random is said to be greater than one in 10,000. This second study solidified the theory of the common ancestry of Cohens. The finding of a common set of genetic markers in both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohens worldwide clearly indicates an origin of the two separate communities pre-dating 1000 CE. See also: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familycohanim.html > Arabs, who claim to descent from Ishmael, Abraham's oldest son, > are true semitics and many jewish people are not To see why this is nonsense at every level, see #0. Education is the light that banishes the darkness of ignorance, but sadly some refuse to partake of it, instead relying upon old chestnuts and their primitive notions.
leeron, you throw out "anti-semitic" accusations every time you hear an argument you don't agree with. Then you throw out one source that happens to be agreeable to you and claim it as definitive. I know that there are studies that say different things. But plenty of people, people who are NOT anti semitic, make the Ashkenazic argument. Here is one, http://slavica.com/linguist/wexler1993.html. It quotes Paul Wexler, a jewish linguistics professor at Yale who also teaches in Tel Aviv. Wexler wrote a book " The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity" This article says in part "In Wexler's view, the Ashkenazic Jews most likely descend from a minority ethnic Palestinian Jewish emigre population that intermarried with a much larger heterogeneous population of converts to Judaism from Asia Minor, the Balkans and the Germano-Sorb lands (the Sorbs are a West Slavic population that still numbers about 70,000 in the former German Democratic Republic). Widespread conversions to Judaism that began in Asia Minor in the Christian era and ended with the institutionalization of Christianity among the Western Slavs in the beginning of the second millennium saved the tiny ethnic Palestinian Jewish population in the diaspora from total extinction. The major non-Jewish contributors to the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews were Slavs, though there was probably also a minor Turkic strain -- both in the Caspian-Black Sea area (the descendants of the Khazars, a mainly Turkic group that converted to Judaism in the eighth century) and in the Balkans and Hungary. In all of these areas, the Turkic population early became submerged with the coterritorial Slavs. In addition to Yiddish terms of Slavic, Greek, Romance and German origin which express aspects of the Jewish religion and folk culture, the book shows that many elements of Ashkenazic folklore and religion themselves were of Slavic origin -- either West (Sorbian and Polabian) or Balkan Slavic. There is a lengthy discussion of the evidence for widespread conversion to Judaism in Asia Minor, southern Europe and the Germano-Sorbian lands up to the twelfth century and the reasons why pagan and Christian Slavs converted to Judaism. While historians have been disputing the extent of conversion to Judaism, Wexler thinks the linguistic and ethnographic evidence make the conversion evidence highly plausible. " This is from a jewish professor. Do you call him anti semitic too? The fact is leeron, that you use the words "anti semitic" to define people with whom you disagree on issues related to Israel, the more you define yourself in the same way. you know who are the people who most often call other people racists? yep, racists.
"In Wexler's view, the Ashkenazic Jews most likely descend from a minority ethnic Palestinian Jewish emigre population that intermarried with a much larger heterogeneous population of converts to Judaism from Asia Minor, the Balkans and the Germano-Sorb lands" Wexler, who now teaches at Tel Aviv University, even says the heterogenous population of slavic converts to judaism was much larger than the ethnic jews. Thus if what he and other experts say is true, only that portion of the much larger slavic group that intermarried with ethnic jews would technically have semitic lineal descent. I don't doubt the surveys lk quoted, but surely the results of those are questionable due to the fact that so many of the european jews, many of whom could have been ashkenazic, were killed in world war II.
from same article-- "Hence, Ashkenazic Judaism is essentially a Judaized form of Slavic pagan and Christian culture and religion (rather than an uninterrupted evolution of Palestinian Judaism) -- and the best repository of pagan Slavic folk culture that survives to our days. Wexler also proposes that the other Jewish diasporas -- e.g. the Sephardic, the Arab, Iranian, Chinese, Indian, Ethiopian and Yemenite -- are also largely of non-Jewish origin."
> This is from a jewish professor. Do you call him anti semitic too?
Richard, you're hardly helping your case. Just because he's Jewish and said
something which disagrees with what I say he must be right or credible? (Is
this any different than the religious right quoting a "cured" homosexual?!)
Spare us.
First, note the publication date of Wexler's work. It predates the genetic
evidence discovered in the studies I mentioned.
Now let's look more closely at what Wexler actually posits:
While historians have been disputing the extent of conversion to
Judaism, Wexler thinks the linguistic and ethnographic evidence
make the conversion evidence highly plausible.
In other words, there is no historic evidence to support the "conversion"
theory. Wexler's work is ENTIRELY THEORETICAL. So why would anyone argue that
this earlier theoretical work trumps more recent impirical scientific genetic
evidence...?
Because they want the facts to fit the model instead of vice versa!
And what is that model? Hmmmm.....
Hence, Ashkenazic Judaism is essentially a Judaized form of
Slavic pagan and Christian culture and religion....
One wonders how Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews came to share so much of this
Slavic culture given that religious differences between these communities are
slim. (Not to mention that it's odd that these alleged Slavs would migrate
throughout Europe following their hypothesized conversion rather than staying
within their lands.)
> I don't doubt the surveys lk quoted, but surely the results of those are
> questionable due to the fact that so many of the european jews, many of
> whom could have been ashkenazic, were killed in world war II.
Does anyone credibly believe that hitler managed to kill most all of the
alleged "Jew converts" but relatively few of the (much smaller, according to
Wexler) "real" Jews?
Not only that, but the vast majority of American Jews immigrated from eastern
Europe. Yet in the aforementioned genetic tests, these subjects uniformly
show genetic markers shared by Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews.
So no, there is no logical reason that the results are "questionable".
Yet another attempt to make the facts fit the model discredited.
Richard, what's your point?!
I agree with Richard. Anyone who doesn't seem to agree with lk 100% is quickly labelled anti-semite.
Re 37. No. I don't always agree with Leeron, but I think you're wrong about this.
sj2: why not comment about #36? Can you explain why Richard would present a THEORETICAL work from 1993 to counter scientific genetic evidence discovered in 1997 and thereafter? Can you explain why, in total disregard to the item text, Richard twists that myth to say that the Arabs (not the Jews) are the real "Semitics" [sic]? Can you explain why anyone would try to deprive Jews even of their very Jewishness?! I asked Richard what his point was. He didn't answer. What do you think it was?
Never having studied linguistics, it seems curious that linguistic training qualifies one to make judgements on a subject such as this. Is that reasonable?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
lk, you cannot just take one study that gives findings to your liking, and claim it as being the truth. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In fact, Dr. Goldstein in that study you quoted, said that in his personal opinion- this is stated in the Times article and elsewhere-- that most jewish conmmunities were formed by unions between jewish men and local women. This fits with descriptions of Khazar conversion in the bible and other historical sources, which seem to say that Khazar men were killed and their women taken as prizes and made to convert. If this is true, and who knows if it is there really haven't been enough studies yet done, then those who are Ashkenazic jews are only PARTIALLY semitic (on the paternal side), whereas Arabs and others are totally semitic. So maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, And if this study is true, then palestinians and israelis are genetic brethren, brothers descended from Abraham. Goldstein specifically says that his studies show Arabs and Jews share common genetics. As a jewish man lk, yassir arafat may be your distant relative!
(So what?)
(Arafat was born in Cairo and is Egyptian.) Richard, you're just digging deeper: > you cannot just take one study I didn't. Multiple scientific genetic studies conducted in the past 6 years come to the same conclusion. The results are and have been repeated. Note that you took ONE older THEORETICAL study, despite a state lack of corroborating historical evidence, and prefer to twist the facts based on it. Why? To what end? > This fits with descriptions of Khazar conversion in the bible and other > historical sources The Khazars post-date the bible by about 1000 years. And aside from the late conversion of the Khazars, there is no historical source for any other conversion. Nor do you understand what Dr. Goldstein said: > jewish conmmunities were formed by unions between jewish men and local > women. These Jewish men were NOT converts as per your one-study theory. This contradicts what you were saying. What Goldstein is discussing is early (pre- 72 AD) communities, formed by Jews who ventured into the Roman empire (for business or other reasons) and took local wives. > Ashkenazic jews are only PARTIALLY semitic (on the paternal side), whereas > Arabs and others are totally semitic. Richard, isn't it time you read #0? There is no such thing as a "Semitic race". The word describes a LANGUAGE group. Hebrew is a Semitic language. Arabic is a southern Semitic language. (Half of Ethiopians speak a Semitic language. Are Ethiopians members of the "Semitic race"? Are American Arabs who don't know Arabic "Semitic"?) Having given up on arguing that Jews aren't really Jews, are you now claiming that Jews aren't racially pure? Again, what's your point? What is the relevance of anything you've stated?!
This response has been erased.
lk you are making arguments based on your own conclusions, such as that semitic only refers to a language group. that may be what some people say but it is clearly not a universal opinion. and you mention multiple jewish genetic studies. I only have read of two, the one you mentioned and the one done by Dr. Michael Hammer in 2000. That isn't great numbers of studies, that is two. And the khazars didn't just show up magically in 740 a.d. Did you read the studies by Arthur Koestler? Khazars date back much further. Koestler was himself an Ashkinazi jew and took great pride in that, and did a lot of research in this area. And you keep asking what point is? my point is that NOBODY is ethnically pure, nobody is special or different. We are all genetic bretheren. Every single human being on this earth is related, is family, and I feel as though your adamant defenses of every single israeli position indicates you feel otherwise. That you may honestly feel that one group of people are the chosen people, the special people, smarter and better than everyone else with the best religion. I think you communicate a definite level of pompousity and arrogance. I do not think you are racist or hateful leeron, but I do think you are elitist, and in your mind you think you are one of the special people. Wake up, there ARE no special people. We are all the same, we are all related, we are all family. You and me and the Palestinians and the Koreans and the Chinese and the Russians and everyone else. If you and Sharon and Arafat would just realize this, the world would be a better place. Hate only breeds more hate. Hate doesn't solve anything.
This response has been erased.
Richard, the sources I've provided reference many more than two studies. Again, you based your opinion on ONE study (theoretical) and attempted to use it to dismiss later studies based on scientific genetic evidence. It's also funny to see that the person who first tried to argue that Jews aren't Jewish and then that Jews aren't "pure" members of a mythical "semitic race" is claiming that I pretend to be "special". Can anyone else explain what Richard is trying to say?
Kumbaya.
Re #39, lk, no reply bcoz you are sooooooo convinced of your hate agenda. Ohhhh oooohhh .... We are soooo hated!!!
oooohhh ohhhh ... look, we got massacred, oooooh ohhhhh, we were wronged, ooooh ohhhhh, no one helped us. Well, so did almost everyone in some age or period in history.
Just because there are a lot of Arabs who are full of hatred and who are anti-semitic or anti-jewish or whatever you want to say, that doesnt justify hating Arabs. Just like because there happens to be a lot of Jews who hate Arabs, that doesnt really make it ok to hate Jews. I have to say that I find myself agreeing with richard on this one. Hate really does breed more hate and hate seldom solves anything. cross, your remarks like "Tell that to the Arabs" show a bit of bigotry on your part. Do you hate Arabs?
leeron, I was making the case that OTHERS have argued those things. You make it sound like if I bring up a theory written by a linguist or a historian, that I am making their arguments as my own. I am PRESENTING their arguments, just as you did with that genetic study (and you only referenced one and only one genetic study) in fact I told you my opinion in my last post, which is that I personally don't think the arguments matter that much. Nobody is pure breed. We are all half breeds, mixed breeds, mutts if you will. The discussion of how semitic or non-semitic the jewish people are is ONLY relevant in terms of this conflict in the middle east, and the irrational, racist, feelings that some people on both sides there seem to have against each other. If the only way to disspell these hard line feelings, and get to peace, is to debunk the myths behind those feelings, then so be it. So lk, what I am saying, is for every argument you make, there are counter arguments made by credible people, historians, linguists, and others who have studied these things intensively. And you want to point to two, and only two, genetic studies, and claim they are 100% accurate and undeniable. That flies in the face of practicality, which tells you that it is very hard to prove anything "absolutely", particularly when you are talking about events that happened so long ago. So stop saying you are "absolutely" right, and anyone who disagrees with you is "absolutely wrong" It is this execessive "righteousness" that prevents peace in the middle east. And if those studies are accurate, what do they really prove? that jewish people are more racially pure than any other race? does that really matter? does it? No, what it really proves is that arabs and jews might be more closely related to each other than they are to any other peoples in the world. That shouldn't make you feel superior, that should make you feel equal to, bretheren to, your arab brothers
Richard:
> for every argument you make, there are counter arguments....
Then why aren't we seeing them? Why the shell game of "there are
arguments" but no such arguments presented?
Again, in the case here, I provided 3 links which discuss multiple
studies showing genetic scientific evidence which supports what I said.
Since you've again repeated the false claim that I only referenced 1
study, allow me to repaste from 1 of the links:
http://www.mycweb.com/megillah/jul2000/jewish_genes.html
In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British
science journal Nature (January 2, 1997)....
In a second study....
Recently at the Jewish Genome Conference in Israel, scientists
that have done Cohen gene research around the world confirmed that
their results are consistent with the original Cohen gene study....
OK, we don't know how many other studies were conducted, but clearly there
were enough to facilitate a scientific conference.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familycohanim.html
Genetic studies....
Again, PBS Nova references a multiplicity of studies, as did the NY Times.
If you need more sources and reference, you can do a web search (for
example, another study was published in Nature on 7-Jul-1998). And
my search also revealed a study that shows that the DNA of Ashkenazi
Jews shows no correspondence to Turks (e.g. the Khazars).
On the other hand, you are guilty of your own accusation. You provided
ONE source, a THEORETICAL linguistic argument (which lacks historical
corroboration) and which PREDATES the scientific evidence I presented.
Can you reference any other "study" (theory) that European Jews were
Slav converts -- and has anyone pushed this line since the revelation
of the genetic evidence I cited?
All this to argue that Jews aren't really Jews.
Why? To what end?
You even attempted to support this assumption with bad science, explaining
that because of the holocaust too few Jews were left for testing (as if
hitler managed to wipe out the "Slav converts"). Yet given that most American
Jews are European Jews (arriving in the US before the rise of the nazis) you
would further have to assume that few "Slav convert" Jews immigrated to the
new world. (Another unscientific and unreasonable assumption.)
Then you twisted multiple myths to conclude that Jews aren't "pure"
members of a non-existent "Semitic race". I started this item with
dictionary definitions of the term "anti-semite". If you look up the
word "Semitic" or "Semite" you'll see that at best this refers to a
member of a group that speaks a Semitic LANGUAGE. Semitic languages
are spoken from the far east to northwest Africa. This does NOT
constitute a "race" of people. It IS a family of languages.
Why argue that Jews are impure "Semites"? To what end?
OK, so now you've taken a step back and explained that this is not what
you believe (not very convincing, but let's run with it) -- but that others
do believe it. Do you think these are legitimate "counter arguments" to
something I said?
If so, what does this argument lead to?
This response has been erased.
Your remark carried a pretty strong implication that it is Arabs who are doing all the hating and that all Arabs are full of hate, etc..etc. Everyone needs to hear that message. Jews who hate Arabs are just as much of a problem as Arabs who hate Jews. Also, it is possible for a person to not care for Israel without hating Jews. Israel as a nation commits all kinds of atrocities. It is possible to point that out without hating Jews. Just like it is possible to point out that groups like Hamas are also committing their share of atrocities without hating Arabs. Do I hate Indians? No of course not but if I have said something that leads you to believe that I do, I am willing to hear it.
> Israel as a nation commits all kinds of atrocities.
Sounds like another one of those assumptions. Atrocities like at Jenin,
which didn't happen? Like the death of 12-year old Mohammed Al Dura (the
intifada poster boy) who it turns out was killed by Arab fire under
circumstances that look like an intentional "sacrifice" in an attempt
to frame Israel?
Yes, Lynne, you can disagree with the Israeli government without hating
Jews. I believe you do -- just as do half of Israelis. But to equate
Israeli "atrocities" with those of Hamas is beyond the pale.
Blacks who hate whites are just as much of a problem as whites who hate
blacks.
Gays who hate straights are just as much of a problem as straights who
hate gays.
Jews who hate Arabs are just as much of a problem as Arabs who hate Jews.
No, they're not. Israel's policies are not driven by hate.
The dozen or so incidents of Jewish terror over the past 3 years are not
"as much of a problem" as the 10,000 Arab acts of terror. Israel has
arrested and jailed the Jewish culprits. The PA funds and harbors the
Arab culprits, as do Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Israeli TV documentaries don't teach hatred of Arabs. Yet in Saudi Arabia
programs taught how Jews use Muslim blood for Passover and in Egypt a
TV series regurgitated the forgery of the "Elders of Zion" (along with
hitler's "Mein Kempf", the book is a top seller in the Arab world).
I'm not going to deny that some Jews hate Arabs, but Jews are not taught
to do so in schools or on official media organs. (As was just discussed
in item 60, see www.edume.org ) And this curriculum of hate even extends
to Muslim schools in America.
Now witness the comments of Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia,
at the opening of the "Organization of Islamic States" 2 days ago:
We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000
years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking,"
Mahathir said. "They invented Socialism, Communism, human
rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear
to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.
In other words, equal/human rights don't apply to Jews. Persecuting
them is OK. Look how crafty they are, inventing these ideas of rights
just to attempt to enjoy them like human beings....
(Ironically, these comments were issued a day after sj2 explained
that Malaysia is just "anti-Israel" and not anti-semitic.)
This response has been erased.
Israels' policies may not be driven by hate, but you'd be dead wrong to argue that there are no Israelis who both hate Arabs and have a lot of influence in national politics. The continual (and occasionally successful) drive toward expansion of settlements in the West Bank and the weak official response to it are more than proof enough. The hate there is thinly veiled at best.
This response has been erased.
I disagree with your take, Eric, for several reasons. First, I don't think they hate the Arabs. They love the land. Second, "settlements" don't displace Arabs. Many "settlers" live in peace with their neighbors. Third, most of the expansion of "settlements" is in areas that would remain part of Israel under most deals that have been discussed (Clinton, the recent Geneva understandings). Fourth, keep in mind who was in charge of dismantling Jewish "settlements" in the Sinai -- Ariel Sharon. Again, I'm not denying that some Jews hate Arabs and that some even want to "transfer" them out of the disputed territories and even Israel. But the champion of this movement was Meir Kahane, and his political party was outlawed as a hate party a decade ago. Contrast that to Arafat's ongoing support of terrorists.... (And Syria's, and Saudi Arabia's, and Iran....)
I agree on one thing with lk. Lots of muslim religious leaders preach hatred for non-muslims. In India too, muslim religious leaders are known to preach jehad or violence against non-muslims. I haven't read the Quran but it is claimed that the Quran calls non- muslims as kafirs or non-believers. And calls for annihilation of non- believers. Pretty easy trap to fall into if you are young, jobless, poor, and see rich non-muslims around you.
This response has been erased.
Your senstivity towards the issue is appreciated. I am sure the muslim youths will turn up in droves to convert from Islam once they hear from prophet tod.
sj2, you also agreed with me that Malaysia isn't just "anti-Israel"
but anti-semitic. Recall the comments Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad,
at the opening of the "Organization of Islamic States" 3 days ago:
We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000
years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking,"
Mahathir said. "They invented Socialism, Communism, human
rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear
to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.
In other words, equal/human rights don't apply to Jews. Persecuting
them is OK. Look how crafty they are, inventing these ideas of rights
just to attempt to enjoy them like human beings....
From today's news:
03:37 Malaysian FM says he is confident that Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad `has no anti-Jewish feeling`
But you are agreeing with me on a very important point. Muslim leaders
are teaching jihad & hate while Jewish leaders do not. So what can be
said of the "cycle of hate" false equivalence?
And what can be said about the "cycle of violence"? Is it right to equate
the cold blooded and intentional murder of innocent civilians with the
attempt to attack these terrorists?
lk, sorry, my memory fails me but where exactly did I agree with you that Malaysia is not just anti-Israel but anti-semitic too?? There are always two things, what the government of a nation says and what the people of the nation think. Ofcourse, the government's stand matters a lot but does not always necessarily represent the thoughts of the people. So I would not agree with you that the people of Malaysia hate jews wholly. Maybe a section of the society that is extremist but not the whole population. PM Mahathir Mahomad's remarks are at the best reckless/inflammatory and at the worst preach hatred. In any case, he should apologise unconditionally for his remarks. Yes, there are a large number of Muslim leaders preaching hatred for non-muslims. And yes, it is definitely not right to equate the cold blooded and intentional murder of innocent civilians with the attempt to attack these terrorists. But as I pointed out earlier, the people attacked by Israeli forces are suspected terrorists. This raises several questions: 1. What was the investigation undertaken prior to identifying the people as terrorists? What are the exact crimes they were investigated for? 2. Was this done by a civil or military tribunal/court? 3. Did the terrorists deserve the death penalty for their crimes? 4. Proof that the identified suspects were the same as the people killed? 5. What about the innocent bystanders who are caught in the line of fire? I know these question piss off people who are affected by terrorism but these have to be answered. Unless we answer them (whether its Israeli forces in Palestine or Indian military in Kashmir or US forces holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay), we will have to face the charges of human rights violations.
Jews have big noses.
re42: tod, i was wondering if anybody else though that was
pretty creepy.
re66: people like mahathir mohamad need to be *taken off the
gameboard*
re67: so in the right light, with the proper camera angle
i might be a jew?
and here i was thinkin i'm just a yooper!
This response has been erased.
I heard a report on the radio today that the Afgani people consider themselves one of the lost tribes of Isreal.
sj2:
> PM Mahathir Mahomad... should apologise unconditionally for his remarks.
He has repeatedly refused to do so, saying there was nothing wrong with them.
> Yes, there are a large number of Muslim leaders preaching hatred for
> non-muslims.
Agreed. (There is no "cycle of hate")
> And yes, it is definitely not right to equate the cold blooded and
> intentional murder of innocent civilians with the attempt to attack
> these terrorists.
Agreed, but note that rcurl, scott, and perhaps other Grexers seem to
disagree. (There is no "cycle of violence")
> 1. What was the investigation undertaken prior....
The individuals and terrorist leaders are known, often through the use of
informants and confessions of captured terrorists. (Consider that Israel's
intelligence even knows where they are at a particular time.)
> 2. Was this done by a civil or military tribunal/court?
I may be mistaken, but I believe that pre-emptive strikes on terrorists must
be approved by the civilian courts. (In essense, the terrorist is tried in
absentina.)
> 3. Did the terrorists deserve the death penalty for their crimes?
I would argue that a terrorist who has blood on his hands and is still engaged
in murderous activities is, first of all, a combatant and that it is not just
Israel's right but responsibility to pre-emptively kill him. (Consider also
that Israel does not have a death penalty. Would a terrorist surrender he
would at worst receive a jail term of life in prison.)
Consider also that if the PA would arrest these terrorists (as it has
repeatedly committed but failed to do), there would be no need for this.
> 4. Proof that the identified suspects.... [were them]
Again, this boils down to intelligence. If the terrorists prefer a trial, they
can surrender....
> 5. What about the innocent bystanders....
Israel does what it can to limit such deaths. It has avoided hits and
undertaken casualties in an effort to protect innocent Arab civilians.
Yet it is the terrorists who hide behind their own civilians who bear
responsibility for their deaths, and the Geneva Conventions allow for
military strikes even if there is potential for civilian casualties.
Dr. Rene Louis Beres, prof. of international law at Purdue university,
writes:
By the standards of contemporary international law, terrorists are
known as hostes humani generis, common enemies of humankind. In the
fashion of pirates, who were "to be hanged by the first persons into
whose hands they fall" (from the distinguished 18th century legal
scholar Emmerich de Vattel), terrorists are international outlaws
who fall within the scope of "universal jurisdiction."
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1997/oct/ber1.htm
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~beres/bass8_01.htm
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~beres/assaspol.html
This response has been erased.
20:15 IDF film of Gaza raids refutes Palestinian claim missiles wounded
bystanders; target areas seen empty of people
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360041&displayTy peCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2 According to a poll "which appeared Monday in the respected Italian daily Corriere della Sera": || More than a sixth of the Italians surveyed said they thought it would || be best if Israel ceased to exist altogether, and fully 22 percent of || respondents said that Italian Jewish citizens "are not real Italians." 100 years ago anti-semitism was such that Europeans were happy to see the establishment of a Jewish homeland, a place to which Jews could go -- away from them. Today's anti-semites aren't even happy with the existence of a Jewish state (though have no difficulty with Arab states, a French state, or touching upon the religious rather than national element, Christian or Islamic states). They don't Israel to exist and Jews should live there... but they sure don't want them in their country. One is sadly reminded that hitler's first choice was to deport Jews from Germany and countries that he had conquered. When no one would take them, in 1942 the "final solution" was devised.
I reckon much of the anti-Semitism in Europe has to due with Israel's conduct in the Palestinian occupation. To many, there's not really much difference between Hitler's treatment of the Jews and sharon's treatment of the Palestinians. Leaving that aside, the conduct of the present Israeli government certainly merits agreat deal of scepticism towards those who would protect Israel at all costs. Remember, Hitler always portrayed his anti-Semitic actions as an attempt to save the German people. It's fashionable to assume he was lying and just wanted rid of them (and equally - perhaps more - plausible than the above explanation). He was still wrong to do, but I don't see why people have to defend the Israelis *for their present racist actions*, such as Building a "Berlin Wall" around Palestine. It is right and proper that they should receive a cedrtain amount of protection given the history of the Holocaust, but to allow them to dominate and attempt to subjugate another ethnic group makes a mockery of the creation of the modern state of Israel. I don't think J*h*v*h would be very impressed. (And yes, many many ordinary Israelis do condemn the treatment of the Palestinians by Sharon et al. Unfortunately, afawk, Sharon was democratically elected by the majority. We;ll have to wait for the next elections to see whether they think he's gone too far in this Knesset.)
So, Mr. tweneex, how does this "explain" European anti-semitism prior to the current situation? (Answer: They'll latch onto any excuse that appears convenient.)
I was pointing out that (a) anti-semitism is only fueled by what i was talking about in #76, and (b) there will always be a minority who are anti-semitic, but the non-anti-semitic majority are *very* careful about (i) criticising Israel, and (ii) being seen to condone anti-semitism. (and if you think i'm doing either, you haven't got to know me as well as you could have through the text interface.)
Perhaps I haven't gotten to know you as well as I should, but I find #76 totally absurd and condoning racist logic. Consider: >I reckon much of the anti-Semitism in Europe has to due with Israel's conduct I reckon much of the anti-black racism in America today has to do with Zimbabwe's conduct.... or I reckon much of the homophobia in America today has to do with those prissy queens' conduct -- always flaunting their sexuality.... or I reckon much of the anti-hispanic racism in America today has to do with Mexico's involvement in the drug trade.... or even I reckon much of the anti-muslim racism in America today has to do with their involvement in terrorism.... Even assuming that Israel is "guilty" of the charges you don't even list, what does that have to do with Italian, German, French or Chinese Jews? I reckon much of the anti-Asian racism in America 20 years ago had to do with Japan out-manufacturing America. [Look up Vincent Chin.] Should I be careful when I walk around town lest anyone know that I'm Jewish and strike at me? Should observant Jews stay indoors after dark lest they get beaten (as has happened in France and Germany)? The PREJUDICE you describe above is WRONG. Yet you not only rationalize it, you justify it!! And it gets worse: > To many, there's not really much difference between Hitler's treatment > of the Jews and sharon's treatment of the Palestinians. Really? In a few years, hitler murdered 6+ million Jews and an equal number of other groups. But only Jews were marked for total eradication and for the first (and hopefully last) time in history a "destruction line" (as opposed to production or assembly line) was created to enable this GENOCIDE. Now here's a little secret. The Palestinian Arabs during their intifada (of their choice -- they were the aggressors who initiated violence and they are the party who has refused to end the violence even whilst pretending that they are its victim) are living as well as (if not better than) German citizens in Germany did during World War II. There were "checkpoints" at which papers had to be shown and often these would need to be traversed to get from home to work. There were food shortages, hunger and poverty. War doees that. So does terrorism. Germans also had to be careful that their enemies didn't use the situation to their advantage. One could easily be accused of being a communist or of hiding Jews (or even being Jewish) -- much as Palestinian Arabs fear being labeled as "collaborators" (note, however, that in this sense it is the terrorist groups who resemble the nazis). I admit that the analogy is far from perfect, but I use it to illustrate three things: 1. War/terrorism cause hardships 2. The hardshps endured by the Palestinian Arabs are typical for any population in the midst of a war or war-like situation. 3. There is NO SEMBLENCE WHATSOEVER between what Jews (and others) suffered at the hands of the nazis and what Palestinian Arabs suffer today. Ironically, the real point of such false comparisons is usually to cast Jews as nazis (not Arabs as Jews). Ponder the psychological motivations behind such a warped comparison and ask if it isn't inherently anti-semitic. And sure enough, you quickly leave the victim end of the equation: > Remember, Hitler always portrayed his anti-Semitic actions as an attempt to > save the German people. See? > It's fashionable to assume he was lying and just wanted rid of them It's not "fashionable". It's FACTUAL. Jews didn't stab Germany in the back in WW I. Jews didn't own a disproportionate amount of wealth or power. And hopefully I needn't discredit nazi concepts of racial purity. > I don't see why people have to defend the Israelis *for their present racist actions*, such as Building a "Berlin Wall" around Palestine. That's your example of "racism"? A FENCE built to keep OUT terrorists? (Not to keep people IN, as in East Berlin.) Of course, no wall is being built "around Palestine". Only on the border between a prospective PA state and Israel. > It is right and proper that they should receive a cedrtain amount of protection given the history of the Holocaust, I disagree. The Holocaust is history. All I ask is that its lessons not be forgotten so quickly and that it not be made a mockery by false attempts to equate its victims with their tormentors. > but to allow them to dominate and attempt to subjugate another ethnic group Who has done so and where? Since 1937, Israel (and the Jewish Agency before it) has accepted the two-state solution formula, such that neither ethnic group would be ruled, "dominated" nor "subjugated" by the other. The Arabs refused then and many still do today. > makes a mockery of the creation of the modern state of Israel. Israel provides equal protection under the law for all its citizens, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. (Arabs were made full citizens in 1951, a decade prior to the civil rights movement in the US.) > Sharon was democratically elected by the majority. And this happened AFTER the start of the intifada and AFTER modern European anti-semitism was in place. Do you know something about the space-time continuum that we don't -- such that causality can be violated and the reaction can be said to produce the cause? > [Sharon]'s gone too far in this Knesset. (That's like saying that "Bush's gone too far in this Congress.") Evidently you believe that Sharon is evil and are attempting to demonize him. Yet you've not shown that his actions are evil (or even go "too far"). Evidently you simply believe that Sharon is evil, and thus anything he does is evil. (A circular reversal of causality. Assume Sharon is evil. Thus what he does is evil. Therefore he's evil....) Why don't you tell us what he's done that's "too far"? Keep in mind that the concept of a security fence predates his Prime Ministership. Such fences already separate Israel from Lebanon (which is why there have not been successfull Hezbollah infiltrations across the border; they're relegated to firing anti-aircraft weapons as artillery) and between Israel and Gaza (which is why no suicide bombers have managed to attack Israel from Gaza).
Just 'cause it NOTES "racist logic", leeron, don't mean it supports it. You should know better than to think it does, and, frankly, I think you should apologise for your libels.
Thankyou, willcome. I'll reply to the much longer response #79 when I have a little more time.
This response has been erased.
I'd blame it on all of 'em.
14:21 French Interior Minister says pre-dawn fire that destroyed part of a
suburban Jewish school was likely anti-Semitic act
11:41 Militant Turkish group Great Eastern Islamic Raiders` Front claims
responsibility for Istanbul car bombs
BOMB ATTACKS AT 2 ISTANBUL SYNAGOGUES
One filled with 400 people attending a bar mitzva
Dozens murdered, hundreds wounded.
20:00 Israeli security forces to depart for Turkey to assist in
investigation of bombings near 2 synagogues in Istanbul
twenex:
> I reckon much of the anti-Semitism in Europe has to due with Israel's conduct
> in the Palestinian occupation. To many, there's not really much difference
> between Hitler's treatment of the Jews and sharon's treatment of the
> Palestinians. Leaving that aside, the conduct of the present Israeli
polytarp:
> Just 'cause it NOTES "racist logic", leeron, don't mean it supports it.
Except that "it" didn't note this "logic" as racist. It was presented as an
explanation, a rationalization and as a justification.
Twenex then proceeds to show that he includes himself in this "many"
when he employs and builds on this "logic" in his next paragraph.
No one in their right mind would dream of employing such logic with respect
to other groups (see my parody in #79).
In #83, Jeff provides another false comparison:
> I'd blame it on all of 'em.
Prior to the intifada, the UNRWA fed 11,000 people, mostly those who couldn't
care for themselves (elderly, orphans, disabled, widows). Today it feeds
715,000. This is the direct result of violence, terrorism and war. Would
twenex equally blame both sides for the destitution that persisted in Europe
throughout WW II? Or was it the doing of the nazis who started the war despite
ostensibly successful attempts to appease hitler?
Arafat's counter-offer to the Clinton compromise was violence.
Today we are all paying the price for that.
05:04 Turkish news website: police arrest two men, one woman in
connection with Istanbul synagogue bombings
Just to emphasize, even under the so-called "occupation", with the horrible
implications that this conjures (but does not imply), only 11,000 people in
Gaza required food hand-outs from UNRWA. Following 3 years of Arafat's
current war, that number skyrocketed by a factor of 65x. These additional
704,000 people didn't need food assistance because of the "occupation" but
because of the violence initiated by Arafat.
Just think. Had Arafat been interested in a negotiated settlement, a
Palestinian Arab state would now be celebrating its 3rd anniversary
rather than 3 years of violence. Just as had the Arab High Command
(as the Palestinian Arab leadership was called back in 1948, before
these Arabs were termed "Palestinians") agreed to the 1947 UN peace
plan there would have been no wars and the Arab state would be
celebrating it's 56th anniversary next year.
anti-religious arab fanatics have a single goal - destruction of everything including themselves, except for their crime-filthy scum of leadership. as soon as arafat has died, peaceful relationships can evolve. one asshole can fsck up a whole culture....
Right, tsty, that's a cogent and complete explanation of how one might operate: With the single goal to destroy e\/erything. I wonder if senility set in after your bizzare typing style did.
before, but dont' let that stop you ... i reppeat : one asshole can fsck up a whole culture! learn from hsitory or be doomed to repeat it. as soon as arafat is dead, peace can progress. if the arabs had started making widgets to sel to the world, instead of making suickde bombs, they would be competing witht eh life style of the israelies AND teh chinese --instead they chose the north korean option - dolts, total dolts! teh arabs in teh u.s. prosper beyound the IMAGINATION of the palistinian murderers.
whore.
You have several choices: