Actual forums user "RedFury" does not like Jews

[not_alice]

@Kimstu

Wow, not_alice. It looks like Finn’s posting style may be contagious.

Yes, I too am inclined to insist on rationality and ask questions that might be uncomfortable, and find myself subject to the same kind of attacks that FinnAgain gets. Neither in the scale in which he lives, but yeah, rationality and logic rules with me, and I wonder if it doesn’t rule with you.

This outburst has little or nothing to do with what I actually said. My point was that it’s legitimate to raise the issue of whether various INDIVIDUAL, EXPLICITLY radical pro-Israel-hawk politicians (whether Jewish themselves or not) are in fact currently exerting too much pro-Israel influence in the US government.

But magically, all the ones you want to discuss are Jewish. And you raise no such concerns for any other aspect of our government. By subtly expanding on RedFury’s view, so far uncontested by him AFICT, that only Jews are subject to this loyalty test, and then only on one topic, by expanding it to include Jews and whoever else happens by (no one!), you are giving his horrendous views cover, even if you don’t share them yourself.

Our government already has vetting processes of all sorts to decide who has what role and influence. If you can point to a specific PROCESS that is corrupt, then by all means go for it. But to accuse a class of Jews of TREASON, as RedFury did, or to insinuate that we should make it part of the national discussion to look at Jews (and others) to see if they are treasonous when the topic is Israel, that is beyond the pale. Do you worry about the loyalty of Catholics to the Vatican as well? Ought it part of the national debate to see if a man’s Church habits are a measure of his loyalty?

Trying to twist that into an alleged suggestion that Jews in general “have to prove their loyalty to be considered fro high level government positions” is absurd to the level of paranoia.

See above - the twisting was yours, not of what I said, but of what RedFury said. That you, as a representative of the broader US public, don’t see the issue with your plan, let alone RedFury’s, is beyond disturbing.

Once again: I’m not casting any aspersions whatever about the fitness of Jews in general for any level of government service or any other role in American society, and your suggesting that I am is simply ridiculous.

Except that rather than describe a possibly corrupt process you are concerned about, you stuck with Red’s list of Jews (and people he thought were Jewish) , and in your what I assume was representative of yoru tgrue beliefs, mentioned only religion, and in particular one religion vty name, which just happened to match Red’s list, as to be considered as the reason for looking into whether or not a man or woman is TREASONOUS, a very serious charge and IIRC the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and rarely applied one - look up just how many trials for treason we have had in the last 220 years.

To toss around possible treason as a reason to look into a person because of his or her religion , in the face of the First Amendment is so absurd, I have to ask with all sincerity: Are you an American citizen? Are you naturalized? I can’t see anyone growing up here really not getting this or even having to stop and think about it.

(To take an individual example, I’m very proud of my own late father’s service as an employee of the US government, and I certainly don’t think that the fact of his being Jewish was a detriment to his service in any way.)

Me thinks if finnagain arrives, he will have something to say about that. Me, I will just ask, if it was not a detriment for your father, why would it be a detriment to anyone else?

Political “views”, however, are not the same thing as “religion”, even though you sloppily tried to slide them together in your argument.

No, I am not the one making lists of Jews and suggested they be examined for treasonous behavior, nor am I the one suggesting that religion is a criteria that we ought to debate as a nation when selecting foreign policy advisors regarding Israel, but no place else.

In a political discussion of the political views held by politicians, there’s nothing anti-Semitic about criticizing a particular view or complaining that a particular view may be too influential in government policy.

So building a list like RedFury did of only people he thought were Jewish, and refusing to avail himself of ample opportunity to make the explanation you now proffer, doesn’t look suspicious to you, especially when confrointed that one on the list is NOT Jewish (George Tenet), suddenly his politics were OK, and he was willing to drop him from the list? Perhaps you didn’t know that happened. If you did know, would it change your thinking about Red’s motivation for making the list at all?

And that brings me back to my point: namely, it’s legitimate to address the issue of whether specific individual Jewish politicians (or non-Jewish Israeli-hawk politicians, for that matter) are biasing US government policy towards Israel’s interests beyond what is in the US’s own best interests.

As your proposal, tied wtih RedFury’s “idea” stands now, your solution would be to make it part of the national discussion to wonder if a man nominated for a job is treasonous, and you would base that solely on if the job regarded Israel, and at least in part the fact that he was Jewish, or perceived to be Jewish, is fair game in determining his culpability of treason. No other jobs would be subjet to this national discussion, and no other religions or suspicions of religions are specifically curious enough to be associated with TREASON to bother mentioning in an outline of this proposed national discussion. And as an example of how it is not about being Jewish, you are standing by a list of only people who RedFury thought were Jewish.

Is that your position so far?

Your and Finn’s hysteria at the very mention of this issue, and your insistence on distorting it into imaginary recommendations of Jewish “quotas” and other anti-Semitic measures, merely suggests that you’re afraid to confront that question on its own merits.

If you want to start a thread that makes your proposal on its own merit, fine, but RedFury hasn’t done that, and you have only jumped in to try to rationalize his anti-Semitism by suggesting we subject a very specific class of people, who all happen to be Jewish or perceived to be Jewish, subject to tests to prove their loyalty beyond whatever else has already happened, and to make this a matter of general national discussion.

While your (you and RedFury together) approach is clever, it is its specificity to Jews that gives it away. If you think a specific process in vetting advisors is corrupt, then point out the corruption and we will fix it. But the US is most pointedly designed to NOT be ruled by the tyranny of the majority, and to insinuate a man’s faith is any grounds whatsoever for public discussion as to his loyalty to his country is reprehensible in the extreme in the United States.

Let me ask you, not_alice: Is there any possible way that anybody could bring up the question of whether some American Jewish politicians are too biased towards Israel on foreign-policy matters that you would be willing to address as a serious debate?

Honestly I don’t follow the issues of foreign policy wrt Israel closely enough to associate individuals with their recommendations. I honestly have no horse in that race.

But regardless of if you stick by Israel as a special case for some reason, or even if you replace it by some generic placeholder x, I don’t know what you mean by “too biased”. If I think a little what you might mean, you are suggesting that the process for selecting advisors (and other government officials, including military officers) is broken/and or corrupt to the point of actually letting through people who are, in fact and not just by insinuation, treasonous by virtue of loyalty to other than the US.

If you want to identify that process, and show that it is broken to the point that everyone ever vetted by it (and still in the government I suppose) needs to be re-vetted, than go for it. Good luck with that.

But if you want to suggest that as a nation, we should look askance at Jews real or perceived in the government if they don’t have “the right politics”,and by extension that all Jews are suspect should they share those wrong politics, or if they would ever have a government role in foreign policy regarding Israel, and that the President or others should not be free to pick their advisors as they see fit, well, I am just saying you shouldn’t be surprised if those ideas are labeled for what they are.

If it makes you uncomfortable to be associated with the so-labeled proposal, then it is to your heart I suggest you look for relief, not to the veracity of the label.

[not_alice]

@Kimstu

It would certainly be outrageous to question the trustworthiness of any Catholic individuals in such a situation solely on the grounds that they are Catholic.

So can you find us cases where this has happened? Is it important enough to make part of the national discussion?

Was Reichauer too in tune with Japan to be loyal to the US? He grew up there after all, and he had a Japanese wife of very high political stock. He was very influential as ambassador to Japan at a critical time in Japan’s rebuilding. Was he a traitor? Is it a fair question to raise to you?

And while we are on the subject of Japanese, you do know that the very same questions about loyalty ended up being applied to ordinary US citizens of Japanese descent, who ended up being rounded up and sent to wait out WWII in concentration camps, right? You see where this kind of talk can lead, not only in theory, but in practice, recent practice, in the US, within our lifetimes or our parent’s lifetimes?

You don’t see the danger?

However, if the Catholic individuals in question explicitly professed political views that were radically biased in favor of the Vatican’s political agenda, whatever that is, you can bet your booties that I would question whether it might not be in the US’s best interests for such individuals to exert strong influence on policy decisions involving the Vatican. I don’t see anything outrageous about that at all.

You would personally question it, fine, that is your right. To suggest it be a matter of “national discussion” is a matter of insinuation. And I have to say, your sense that the US’s foreign policy must be looked at closely if it is closely aligned with (what I presume to be) any other nation on earth is somewhat odd. Are you of an isolationist bent in general?

Why would it concern you that advisors that the President chooses are suspect, but only if their educated view for which they were selected aligns (in your opinion) “to closely” (how to measure?) with the government in question (again, how to measure what the other government’s “views” are?

Similarly, I can’t accept that it’s automatically unspeakably outrageous to question whether certain extreme hard-line pro-Israeli-right hawks in US administrations may be over-influencing US policy decisions in favor of Israel. (And I don’t assume that such hard-liners are necessarily Jewish, either: I would be way more concerned about the influence of a super-hawk like, say, Mike Huckabee on US Middle East policy if he were running things than about that of most Jewish hawks.)

Notably no people like Huckabee made RedFury’s list. Perhaps you can offer and alternative list for us to consider that you think is more representative of the nature of the problem you perceive?

If, God forbid, Huckabee would become President, would you be on here saying it is fair to have a national discussion about the loyalty of advisors to the President’s Israeli policies, be they Evangelical Christians, or not? You did that for the current situation with Jews, would you do it for those whose faith is closer to President Huckabee’s? Are you prepared for the reaction when you label such a large block of people as presumed- traitorous as you did so nonchalantly with Jews?

I understand what you’re saying about the well having been poisoned by previous bigotry and the consequent sensitivity about raising any such issues for debate. But if somebody is so focused on the possible connotations of bigotry in any such discussion that they refuse to pay any attention at all to any substantive issue that might be addressed in such a discussion, then I can’t take them seriously in their criticism of opposing views.

Speaking of which, have you read the non-Pit threads that led to this thread? This is the Pit after all, and the discussions earlier were more rational, yet RedFury offered literally noting bu silence in his own defense.

To flip a SDMB trope, Why don’t you take it out of the pit if you are prepared to make a rational proposal and defend it thusly?

While I can’t speak for RedFury (and in fact, my earlier post explicitly criticized the bigoted implications of RedFury’s original remark), I can speak for myself. Personally, I don’t like anti-Semitism at all and don’t want to be guilty of it in any way. I consider myself to be “half Jewish” by cultural and ethnic heritage and am very proud to associate myself with that heritage. But I personally don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with the question of whether certain strongly pro-Israel hard-liners, most of them Jewish, may have the effect of over-influencing US foreign policy in Israel’s favor.

All well and good, but that is not the matter before us. You raised an explicitly loyalty test as a requirement for advising a President regarding Israel, without showing that anyone has ever committed the sort of treason you would presume of them because of their politics in part and their presumed religion in part.

You might not like anti-semtism as you have learned it exists, but are you open to learning other ways in which it manifests itself historically? If yes, and you learned that what you said falls into a list of those ways, would you be prepared to change?

I do not think that such a question should be automatically closed to discussion in all forms to everybody under all circumstances. Nor do I think that categorically refusing to treat such a question under any circumstances as anything but ipso facto an instance of anti-Semitic bigotry is at all helpful either to the struggle against anti-Semitism or the fight against ignorance.

If you think the process of vetting advosors is broken, then explain how it is broken and fix the process. That would be fine. I don’t personally see how you are going to jump through the hoops of showing the process is OK for all matters exxcept for Jews and perceived Jews who happen to be hawkish on Israel, but I suspect it will be very entertaining to see your explanation unfold.

What is not fine is standing in support of RedFury’s anti-semitic claims by rationalizing them.

Let me ask you, which is really a healthier solution to the problem you perceive: Fixing tghe vetting process if it is broken, or questioning the loyalty of every Jew who would advise the President, thus affecting the perception that all Jews are potentially disloyal, and having not gone through any proof of loyalty process, ought to be treated with kid gloves at best, and blackballed at worst? Even Jewish children, who as a group, grow up to be among the most innovative and productive people in the US in many highly valued industries, would learn that they are second class citizens by insinuation. Maybe even half-Jewish children such as yourself were, would be ostracized as potentially a traitor and forced to hide their heritage in order to participate fully in society.

It happened in the US to Japanese recently, and Jews have thousands of years of well known and not-so-well-known history in many many countries of relative prosperity and acceptance being undercut and freedoms restricted (to put it mildly), some of the most horrific examples also in our or our parent’s lifetime.

So which seems more appropriate to you? A narrow solution to a (allegedly) narrow problem, or a broad solution that calls into question the loyalty of some of Jewish citizens of the US?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

There are some topics which, like it or not, appear as shibboleths of certain forms of bigotry. This makes any “rational discussion” of those topics difficult, and something to be undertaken with sensitivity if at all, because they are seen as a signal of an unwelcome agenda.

This is by no means unique to Jews. There are innumerable threads where someone is “Just Asking Questions” about whether:

• Science demostrates Blacks are genetically inferior, in terms of intelligence, to Whites;

In my experience, this has always been a prelude to: Blacks are poor because they’re stupid and no amount of affirmative action is going to “level the playing field” unless you hobble whites.

You have to stretch just a little bit to totally dismiss the very large differences in IQ.

• Obama is not constitutionally fitted to be President, as he is was not born an American citizen;

This has been factually disproven and you would have to assume a decades long conspiracy with lots and lots of conspirators to prove otherwise.

• The 9/11 attack was facilitated by the US gov’t;

Once again, it would take a very large conspiracy hiding in plain sight to explain this one.

• Jews, as a group, tend to have “dual loyalties” and cannot be trusted in positions of importance. They are potential traitors.

This is simply bigotry, HOWEVER, saying that Doug Feith has dual loyalties is not.

[not_alice]

@RedFury

FTR, my “post to infamy” was done in haste and indeed it’s poorly constructed.

So noted, thanks for that.

Would you be so kind as to construct an alternate version that more thoughtfully reflects your views on the topic? How do you regard the loyalty or influence of the people you mentioned? What thought processes led to them being on the list other than haste, and what thought processes might get them off a revised version?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

According to the Washington insider newsletter, The Nelson Report, [National Security Advisor Condoleezza] Rice said, ‘Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we’ll invite the ambassador’."

A lot of Neocons seemed to advocate the Israeli position. Perhaps this is why we see antizionist criticism coming from the left rather than the right where anti-semitism historically comes from.

[Claverhouse]

@Damuri_Ajashi

A lot of Neocons seemed to advocate the Israeli position. Perhaps this is why we see antizionist criticism coming from the left rather than the right where anti-semitism historically comes from.

Or returned there: anti-semitism was a more a staple of the left — including redoubtable old Karl himself ( who though the grandson of a rabbi, was actually born, baptised and brought up lutheran christian by his stoutly monarchist father, and later atheist, so cannot be described as jewish in any rational way [ as is common amongst right-wing hysterics ] ) — until the later 19th century when grasped by Russian & German ( etc. ) nationalists. Even then it continued as a respectable stream in the left as well: pogroms were mob movements, not all directed, if at all, by Tsarist bureaucrats…

By the 1930s it was identified with the popularist nazi/facisti movements so the left was opposed, not least because it identified with the USSR where anti-semitism was outlawed ( excepting when Josef Vissarionovich felt like indulging ); however, I imagine that most modern left anti-semitism is solely down to Israel’s place both as American client state and persecutor of Palestinians rather than due to inchoate anti-jewish feeling. In other words, provided jewish people are poor and suffering, the left will applaud and pity them; if they have a defensible state of their own — however got — then they are oppressors.
I don’t think the Israelis have treated the Palestinians as they would wish to be treated; but they’d be damned fools to give up the security of a homeland in order to be loved.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Claverhouse

Or returned there: anti-semitism was a more a staple of the left — including redoubtable old Karl himself

Not so much in the United States. The left is generally less racist here. But perhaps I should say liberal rather than left.

I imagine that most modern left anti-semitism is solely down to Israel’s place both as American client state and persecutor of Palestinians rather than due to inchoate anti-jewish feeling. In other words, provided jewish people are poor and suffering, the left will applaud and pity them; if they have a defensible state of their own — however got — then they are oppressors.

We treat Israel like oppressors because they are oppressing people.

And we don’t applaud and pity Jews when they are being oppressed, we stand with them against their oppressors.

I don’t think the Israelis have treated the Palestinians as they would wish to be treated; but they’d be damned fools to give up the security of a homeland in order to be loved.

In the end, they may end up with neither if they are not willing to treat the Palestinians the way the Israelis would wish to be treated if the roles were reversed (I assume that’s what you mean by “the way they would wish to be treated”).

[RedFury]

@not_alice

So noted, thanks for that.

No need. Reasons below.

Would you be so kind as to construct an alternate version that more thoughtfully reflects your views on the topic? How do you regard the loyalty or influence of the people you mentioned? What thought processes led to them being on the list other than haste, and what thought processes might get them off a revised version?

Briefly, as I neither have the time nor inclination to write a Mid-East thesis on-line or elsewhere for that matter.

Thought process leading to post: Neocons/PNAC/AIPAC → US Foreign Policy → Iraq War → shaping the Middle East to whose benefit? Point of fact, seeing the blowback of said policies (tipping point, Iraq, though I’d say hard-core support, Mubarak’s Egypt included, goes back to '79 w/Iran situation) as I type: Tunesia, Egypt up in arms, Lebanon and Syria stronger than ever, Shi’a forces in Iraq closer to Iran.

Add in the End Of Times nutters that 'luc mentions & you have, IMHO, a far from balanced FP which is counter-intuitive to American interests in the region.

Names? Adelman, Wolfowitz, Feith stay. Fucked-up the rest. Hyperbole plus haste do not good friends make…even for a throw-away Pit post.

Lesson learned. Ideas remain same.

[not_alice]

@Damuri_Ajashi

In the end, they may end up with neither if they are not willing to treat the Palestinians the way the Israelis would wish to be treated if the roles were reversed (I assume that’s what you mean by “the way they would wish to be treated”).

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians will push the Israelis into the sea after all? Can you be less obliques?

[not_alice]

@RedFury

No need. Reasons below.

Briefly, as I neither have the time nor inclination to write a Mid-East thesis on-line or elsewhere for that matter.

Thought process leading to post: Neocons/PNAC/AIPAC → US Foreign Policy → Iraq War → shaping the Middle East to whose benefit? Point of fact, seeing the blowback of said policies (tipping point, Iraq, though I’d say hard-core support, Mubarak’s Egypt included, goes back to '79 w/Iran situation) as I type: Tunesia, Egypt up in arms, Lebanon and Syria stronger than ever, Shi’a forces in Iraq closer to Iran.

Add in the End Of Times nutters that 'luc mentions & you have, IMHO, a far from balanced FP which is counter-intuitive to American interests in the region.

Names? Adelman, Wolfowitz, Feith stay. Fucked-up the rest. Hyperbole plus haste do not good friends make…even for a throw-away Pit post.

Lesson learned. Ideas remain same.

I will leave it to others to parse all that (for now) but was it really that hard to do? I didn’t ask you anything that Finnagain didn’t - what was yor thought process, yet you were silent for him but not for me.

Actually I will parse it a bit - was it hyperbole before when you suggested that the three remaining on the list ought be evaluated for dual loyalites, iow insinuating independent of their religion or not) that they are treasonous traitors? Or is that something you still stand by, jut for a shorter list?

Do you concur with Kimstu that for appointments as Presidential advisors to Israel, a part of the national discussion ought to include a person’s religion as among his qualifications?

To Malthus and others who have pointed out the “just asking…” method of raising hateful rhetoric,. be it anti-semitic or otherwse, how would you say it makes you feel to see the level that Kimstu has raised your (now hastily scrawled and at least somewhat retreated from) “just asking…”? thoughts to? Are his/her comments anti-Semitic to you and an appalling misinterpretation of what you meant, or are they in keeping with what you hoped might happen, calling for a national debate abotu the qualifications of Jewish men to advise the President if their poltics don’t suit you?

Is there something broken or corrupt about the process by which a President acquires these advisors that you would identify and fix? If so, is it blind to a man or woman’s religion?

Would you tell, with a straight face, a class of Jewish kids that they can grow up to advise the president if the President so desires regardless of what the issue is? Or would you discourage them from dreaming that future?

Under what circumstances, if any can you envision a Jewish president? Would you vote for a Jewish man or woman for President, and if so how would you vet their loyalty? Or would you not vote for them because you could never be sure of their loyalty?

[elucidator]

Your questions carry a tone of accusatory interrogation rather than a request for clarification.

[not_alice]

@elucidator

Your questions carry a tone of accusatory interrogation rather than a request for clarification.

You mean accusatory in the same way that suggesting that a man’s religion is grounds to place his loyalty to his country under suspicion would be accusatory?

[elucidator]

No.

[not_alice]

@elucidator

No.

Well in whatever sense you think they are accusatory, you are reading it wrong. But if the potential answers, either from RedFury, or perhaps yourself in your heart of hearts make you uncomfortable, there is not much I can do about that.

[Lobohan]

@not_alice

Well in whatever sense you think they are accusatory, you are reading it wrong. But if the potential answers, either from RedFury, or perhaps yourself in your heart of hearts make you uncomfortable, there is not much I can do about that.

Wouldn’t the other option be you sound kinda bitchy?

[not_alice]

@Lobohan

Wouldn’t the other option be you sound kinda bitchy?

Sorry if sounding bitchy in the pit overrides your sense of being affronted when people would question the loyalty to the US of Jews that are in or advise the government, solely on the basis of their religion. Maybe turning a blind eye to antisemitism is ok with you, I dunno, or maybe it is just tyranny of the majority you are cool with.

Why don’t you explain what your sense would be if people questioned the loyalty of Jews in government instead of being the Greek Chorus?

[Lobohan]

@not_alice

Sorry if sounding bitchy in the pit overrides your sense of being affronted when people would question the loyalty to the US of Jews that are in or advise the government, solely on the basis of their religion. Maybe turning a blind eye to antisemitism is ok with you, I dunno, or maybe it is just tyranny of the majority you are cool with.

Why don’t you explain what your sense would be if people questioned the loyalty of Jews in government instead of being the Greek Chorus?

Are you of the opinion that everyone who thinks you’re acting like a bitch is antisemitic?

I’m sure plenty of Jews think you’re an asshole.

[not_alice]

@Lobohan

Are you of the opinion that everyone who thinks you’re acting like a bitch is antisemitic?

Of course not. But I heed them no mind, because they are just playing in the pit, and not really interested in the underlying and interspersed discussion in any way significant enough to actually participate in it. It is just a jeer from the crowd, who cares?

I’m sure plenty of Jews think you’re an asshole.

I am sure you can make up definitions to suit pretty much any opinion of that nature, for anyone, anytime, anywhere, but like I said, jeers from the crowd, and in the form of sour grapes no less.

[Lobohan]

@not_alice

I am sure you can make up definitions to suit pretty much any opinion of that nature, for anyone, anytime, anywhere, but like I said, jeers from the crowd, and in the form of sour grapes no less.

Sour grapes? I don’t think you understand that term.

[Tamerlane]

@not_alice

Do you concur with Kimstu that for appointments as Presidential advisors to Israel, a part of the national discussion ought to include a person’s religion as among his qualifications?

Could you please point out exactly where Kimstu said that? Because I’m not seeing it.