Alien2311, got a problem with pro-Semites?

Except that’s not what Chomsky said. Chomsky said, in part,

Claiming that there are no “anti-Semitic implications” in Holocaust denial is, at the very least, extremely naive.

Really? Ask these people:

http://www.ukar.org/jewsnot1.shtml

mystic: You want to debate the CIA, KGB, Sabra, Shatila, the USS Liberty, Pollard, etc., fine. When you accuse anyone who debates you of being a tool of ZOG, CIA, the CIA controlled ABC, Mossad - or whatever - reaction pretty much like this thread is almost sure to be the result.

You obviously haven’t hung around long enough to see one of december’s Israel threads. Hell, offhanded comments. Accusations of board bias for Israel only make you look uninformed.

But, don’t expect people to jump on the anti-pro-Semitism bandwagon. Not many Dopers defending the Palestinian people or their right to self-determination want to touch that one, I’m guessing.

I disagre, it is actually quite a sophisticated position. Here is something else Chomsky said,

As Noam Chomsky said in defence of his decision to write a foreword in favour of the free speech of French holocaust revisionist Faurisson “It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers”.

http://www.infotrad.clara.co.uk/antiwar/freespeech.htm

Sorry, it’s Faurisson not Bourrisson.

So, you present more evidence that Israel identifies Jewishness according to religious principles (which is where “born to a Jewish mother” originated)–and note that your quote includes converts to the religion–and also provide evidence that ultra Orthodox would deny that membership to the multitude of ethnic Jews living in the U.S. and the world, yet you continue to claim that Israel is basing its citizenship on some imaginary “ethnic” identity when you have already provided a link to the site that shows that their use of the word ethnic is not based on DNA or anything similar.

I can see why you would not want to try to persuade me further, since all your evidence supports my position.

That actually supports my point. I said that you can’t think the State of Israel is legitimate but Zionism is illegitimate. They seem to think, from their signs that both Zionism and the State of Israel are illegitimate. One of them’s even holding a sign that says “Authentic Jews will Never Recognize the State of Isreal”

They are saying that the present state of Israel is illegitimate because it has been hijacked by Zionism. Another state of Israel was possible, one which was not infected with the virus of Zionism which is actually fascism and racism disguised as a religious movement. If the Zionists had decided to go to Uganda instead, we would be hearing about Ugandan suicide bombers and the country of Israel or Palestine would be a peaceful place where Jews and Muslims and Christians live in peace just like they do in Morocco and other places around the world.

BTW, Mystic, we are still waiting to hear your enlightened viewpoint on just who did perpetrate 9/11?

I don’t know and I don’t think anybody really knows. It is foolish to jump to conclusions about who the perpetrators are, unless you just want to be a lynch mob and satisfy your rough sense of justice. I doubt that it matters to most Americans who actually did it, they just want to kill somebody in revenge. We killed about 3000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan, so it’s about even.

I still want to know how you can explain your theory that 19 Arab terrorists carried out the 9-11 attacks given the fact that 7 of them are still alive.

mystic2311:

Most if not all of them probably aren’t. Some might be. It doesn’t matter.

One can be critical of Israel’s policies without being anti-Semitic. As you note, many Jews(as well as other people) are.

You, on the other hand, are a model anti-Semite(in the standard meaning of the word)
Throughout this thread, you keep mentioning individual Jews(IIRC, Kestner, Stern, Haganah leadership), some of them rather morally corrupt, others morally corrupt only in your not-so-humble opinion, and concluding from the actions of these individual Jews that the Jewish state must be morally corrupt as well.
This is anti-Semitism. You are prejudiced against many Jews on the basis of the actions of a few(or, likely, on some other basis that you’d like to keep to yourself).

I’m a Jew, so it is personal. My only appropriate response to your posts is, in fact:
Fuck you, too.

AAGGGGHHH! I have been tarred with the brush of anti-semitism…all I can do now to clear my name is convert to Judaism and join the Jews Against Zionism.

Now you are just being a fuckwad. Do you have cites for any of your bullshit?

Cite that most Americans just want to kill somebody in revenge?

Cite that 3000 innocent civilians were killed in Afghanistan?

Cite that 7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive? WTF? :rolleyes: :mad: :confused: ;j :wally :smack: :dubious:

It is true that oftentimes reasonable people are accused of anti-Semitism without any justification. It’s not the case with you.

If you see a flaw in my logic, be so kind to point it out. Otherwise, I stand by my diagnosis.

I agree, mic84, that our Alien “friend” has an agenda he wants to keep to himself, though he’s not very good at it. Wonder what it could be? Hmm.

“pro semites”? Man, I wasn’t even aware there was a league.

You really want us to believe that is what you meant?

Given that you:

  • confused the Great Britain with the Nazis when you brought up Madagascar,
  • made no mention of any other agents or planners in your original statement,
  • referred back to the Madagascar in the final sentence, so that both of your “British Madagascar” errors flanked the comments about Uganda and Argentina
    and
  • later presented a misleading claim that Britain’s intentions to hold 3,500 refugees in Mauritius was an British plan to send all the Jewish people, there, while you were backpedaling on your Madagascar claims,

I am afraid that I consider it rather more likely that you were originally ascribing all those plans to the British and are now using a grammatical construction to distance yourself from your original error.

This would be consistent with your claims in your comments regarding Hawaii where you simply ignored all the evidence provided by multiple posters that the 1893 revolution (while supported by U.S. troops–a point I acknowledged I had forgotten) was actually a revolution by Hawaiian nationals, although the prime movers were descendants of immigrants from the U.S. I hardly “slithered out” of the thread: once multiple posters had established my facts as true, I simply refrained from returning to goad you into more intemperate (and false) replies.

mystic
You do not understand the positions of the ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist people at all. It’s not that they don’t believe in Zionism, but they don’t accept Zionism as a legitimate secular/nationalistic strategy. They believe that the state of Israel can only be founded once the messiah (moshiach) comes and the Third Temple is built. They focus on hastening the coming of the Messiah, and believe that the current state of Israel is illegitimate because there is no messiah.

You can bet that if you asked those people what would happen to the Muslims in the area once the messiah comes, you would get some pretty strange answers. And none of them would be that there would be a democratic state founded offering full citizenship to Arabs and Jews living peacefully side by side. You would probably get an answer like “G-d would move/kill all of the Arabs to give us the land promised to Abraham” (which includes both sides of the Jordan River). So don’t go pointing to those people as an example of “enlightened Jews” or whatever.

You are better to point to the Jews who are bringing Arafat supplies, or the other Jews behind ultra-left movements throughout the world. But usually these people don’t identify themselves as Jewish, so you are out of luck there too.

There is a flaw in your logic.

In answer to your first question, yes. My mistake is in subscribing to too many threads and not having enough time to be as verbose as I would like. Therefore, I often use words sparsely and concisely and perhaps do not express myself as clearly as I would like. Please accept my profuse apologies for any misunderstandings this has caused, but rest assured I never intended to imply that the British were sending Jews to Madagascar, Uganda, or Argentina.

As far as Hawaii goes, your understanding of Hawaiian history is grossly distorted. I have lived here for 15 years and it has taken me that long to understand the many nuances of Hawaiian history. You may look at it as a revolution of Hawaiian nationals, but it was basically a revolution of economic interests, primarily sugar and pineapple. You may think that sugar and pineapple have rights of political determination, but that would place you in bizarro land. In the real world, human beings, not corporations, have the fundamental right to determine their political destiny. If you ascribe to any other view, well, you are less than human, and should be reincarnated as a pineapple or a sucrose molecule.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But how would your theological position be altered if it turned out that Osama ben Laden was the Messiah? Just wondering.