The cite you linked to, to back up your own arguement, was the “Duh The Jews” website. Can’t get much more prejudiced than that.
**
Translation: Hank is the only one here, out of 31,000 posters, who will publically support your obvious anti-Semitism. Kudos to you, :wally:
Utter nonsense. Who said anything about being pro-white?
**
Oh yeah? Ask the Episcopalian parents of an adorable one-year old if she is a member of the church.
**
That’s only one criteria (out of two).
Why not use it? It’s a valid argument. If you can convert to the group, then they don’t use bloodlines exclusively as a criteria for membership. As others have pointed out, many groups (including the US) use bloodlines for membership in their groups. So what if the Jews use it as well?
Zev Steinhardt
anti-Semite n., anti-Semitic a., (a person) hostile to Jews [L19]. anti-Semitism n. hostility or opposition to Jews [L19].
Page 88 of The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.
Since when is the opposite of hatred something negative?
An anti-semite is someone who hates Jews. A pro-semite is the opposite of an anti semite; the opposite of hatred is love.
Love is a good thing. Therefore, being a pro-semite is good thing, and thus is not an insult, but rather something to be proud of.
I allow you to call me a pro-semite.
Humpty your great-granddad, Hank?
Yes they use bloodlines as one of the criteria. Now tell Tom that. I am not making an argument for the rightful / wrongfulness of the criteria. I am only arguing that it exist and is an important part of any discussion of Israel. You listening to all this Tom ?
As long as you don’t cross the line of racism, which has nothing to do with hate but with the valuing of one group over all others, you will probably be OK. And by the definition of anti-semitism posted below, it doesn’t say anything about hate. It says hostility or oppostion to Jews. While hostility is not a good thing towards anyone, mere oppositon to beliefs and values is not out of the ordinary and the negative sense that comes with anti-semitism seems a bit unfair for someone in that position.
So your saying that anti-semitism can be justified? That in certain situations, you’d define yourself as an anti-semite?
Nope. But if ethnicity has nothing to do with Israel, you might be a monkeys uncle.
Not sure if it can be “justified”. If I am oppossed to the use of religious law and bloodlines as the policy of a nation that recieves billions in support from my country that demands seperation of church and state, I don’t see that as an irrational position. If you would consider that anti-semitic then, yeah, I guess I could justify anti-semitism in the same way you would justify pro-semitism.
But anti-semitism is opposition to Jews, not the State of Israel and its government. Which do you oppose?
OK. So now you are weaseling away from your claim of “utmost importance” (with a non-standard definition of “ethnicity”) to a position of some importance. Humpty is proud, I’m sure.
I don’t oppose either on the wholesale notion you elude to. I oppose the occupation, I oppose the settlements in the occupied territories, I oppose the exclusion of Palestinians from the right to return to their home, I oppose the use of military force on civilians, I oppose bulldozing of homes and communities, I oppose the oppression of an entire ethnic group of people to the point that they are willing to become suicide bombers, I oppose the virtual caste system that is used to exclude ethnic groups from services offered by the government of the country to which they belong, I oppose the expulsion of political dissidents from a supposed democracy, I oppose the denial of citizens right to vote in Jerusalem, I oppose the billions in aid sent until the violations of human rights and international law are rectified and sanctioned.
I do not oppose Jews as an ethnic group. I don’t oppose any group on ethnic basis. I do not oppose Israels right to exist. I, in fact, support the state of Israel in its right to exist as a peaceful nation.
Oh no. Ethnicity is of utmost importance. The only weaseling I see is from your contention that ethnicity has no part in the state of Israel.
Why don’t you make that statement again for yourself Tomand try to back it up.
Hank, what’s your point?
People can emigrate to Israel with or without being jewish.
If they are descended from someone who is jewish, they get in automatically.
If they are not descended from someone who is jewish, but decide to convert themselves, they also get in automatically.
If their mother or maternal grandparents, etc, are not ethnically jewish, but converted, they also get in automatically.
So… uh… what was the point here?
Hank, you are weaseling and you have failed to prove your assertions.
Israel has no rule that says you may be a citizen if you have x grandparents, or y great-grandparents of “Jewish” blood (whatever that might be), in the way that various North American Indian nations determine recognition of membership. (In fact, you can have three Jewish grandparents and still not meet the automatic inclusion rule if your mother’s mother was not Jewish. and your mother never converted.) It says that if your mother practices the religion of Judaism, you are admitted. You have provided no reason to believe that that is an ethnic (by “generally accepted” definitions of ethnic) rule.
hell, I’d settle for seeing it said by him a first time. (IOW, please provide the direct quote where he made that claim).
what I see is him attempting to get you to back up your claim that ethnicity is of utmost importance.
I never linked to the “Duh the Jews” website, you liar. You are the one who linked to that cite, so you are the prejudiced one.
The analogy to being pro-white was meant to show that you are the bigot. It appears that analogical reasoning is beyond the scope of your intelligence.
That is like defining anti-Caucasian as someone who hates Americans. The dictionary definition of anti-Semite ignores Semitic people who are not Jews. The term to be accurate should be anti-Jew. This just proves my point, that the term anti-Semite has been hijacked. Somebody should write a letter to the Oxford people and get them to make this correction. BTW, dictionary definitions merely state the way words are commonly used, it doesn’t mean that the current usage is correct or logical.
To have been hijacked, it would have to have meant something other than anti-Jew to begin with. But as Edwino pointed out, it was in fact specifically coined to mean anti-Jew. That the term creates some etymological confusion is besides the point. There was no hijack.
On the other hand, using the term anti-Semitic in a broader sense to apply to all speakers of Semitic languages is in fact a hijack, though perhaps a perfectly appropriate and logical one.
Quite true. Strict dictionary definitions are often flawed for a number of reasons.
I have no problem with someone using anti-Semitic in a broader context. Perhaps the definition should be changed. However it should be acknowledged that historically, and I believe in the public consciousness today, it specifically refers to being anti-Jew.
Exactly the point I was trying to make.