What really gripes me is how them Jews are not only clannish, but pushy, always trying to get involved in things where they’re not wanted (seriously, these are long-running simultaneous stereotypes, spread by people who are apparently immune to irony).
And the exact same charges could be (and have been) leveled against a gazillion ethnic groups and religions. A common denominator in whatever truth exists in these stereotypes is that persecuted groups naturally have some tendency to stick together for protection. And oddly, while I’d never heard of “Jewish phone books”, I’ve heard about and seen Christian business directories (for those Christians who only want to patronize their version of “chosen people”).
Oooo, an open secret? Could the super-clandestine spider’s web of Jewish intrigue have sprung a leak*?
Do you actually believe that Jews are far more inclined towards “tribal” preferences than other ethnic and religious groups?
I find these sorts of “swaps” disturbing, because they encourage kidnappings in order to get terrorists freed, not because Israelis value their citizens’ lives.
The “clannishness” bit is an absolutely classic anti-Semitic charge, and you’d do well to disassociate yourself from it.
Why should the parade of absolutely classic anti-Jewish tropes not be treated as de facto evidence of anti-semitism?
The fact that Jews have maintained their identity = proof of “clannishness”? That’s rather absurd; by those criteria, every single identifiable ethnic group is equally “clannish”.
I for one have yet to benefit from this alleged “favoritism”; nor for that matter have I extended it to others.
The fact that first world nations value the lives of their soldiers says nothing about what Jews, as an ethnic group, feel about non-Jews (though the deliberate conflation of “Jew” and “Israeli” is I think rather telling!).
No. In fact if someone were to ask me which ethnic/religious groups were the most insular, the most destructive to those they didn’t share their identity with, then Jews would be near the bottom of the list. While they’ve maintained their tribal identity, the rubber meets the road effect of this is very minor compared to fundamentalist Christianity/Islam, Militant Hutus/Serbs/Nazis, or any number of other self-identified sects. A Jew’s reaction to hearing that you’re not Jewish is generally a shrug of the shoulders, as opposed to a swing of a machete or the sound of a gunshot.
It’s kind of like how one can acknowledge the general trend towards liberalism/libertarianism on the SDMB but still not give much of a shit unless someone starts acting like it doesn’t exist. And then acknowledging it becomes a simple point of fact instead of the cornerstone of an agenda.
I really don’t know what to make of this particular prisoner swap. It sounds so messed up on many levels. On one hand the Israelis absolutely have an obligation to try to get their citizen, especially a soldier, back safe. On the other hand, if they’ve arrested 1000+ people, I would hope they had damn good reason to do so and letting a thousand criminals, some with the express desire to attack again, loose just makes no sense to me. The only way I can parse this is that they had a bunch of people detained on minor charges, which is problematic, or that they value the safety of this soldier more than the safety of all the others which will be put in harm’s way when this flood of terrorists hits the streets again. I’m sure the situation is more complicated, and the fact that there’s a exchange process happening at all, as opposed to giving no quarter on either side, is hopeful IMHO. So I choose to hope it will work out, but my expectations are low.
I used that term because that’s what FinnAgain used. I tend to think of situations more anthropologically and the tribe is a social unit which has served humanity well in many instances, so who am I to judge? But when a tribe starts saying it’s not a tribe, that’s when I may speak out. Because it is clear that many Jews have made conscious effort to maintain and strengthen ties with other Jews in preference to non-Jews, and saying so is not necessarily indicative of an anti-semitic agenda. I can understand that it has been many times in the past, so I get why people look askance at it. But if we’re going to learn to get along on this planet, we have to give each other the benefit of the doubt and be honest about the state of the world as it is.
Then perhaps you should try some?
The claim was that “The Chosen People” is deliberately misused to create a fictional concept of Jewish Supremicism that is tied to a religious sanction from God. That claim is true, as “The Chosen People” refers solely to the burdens and obligations that Jews must carry and which gentiles can much more easily fulfill while being 100% as righteous and beloved of God.
You have, at best, just used a strawman and at worst pulled a bait and switch.
Even if there were “some”, you’d be committing the Fallacy of Composition, which lies at the heart of a good deal of racism, bigotry and prejudice. Further, you have proven no such thing. Jewish dating sites, campus Jewish groups, Jewish clubs, etc… show no evidence, at all, of being “clannish” and “caring about other Jews above all other people.”
That’s a rather disgusting claim, and seeing as how virtually any group to which one can self-identify has such groups, you’re either forced to claim that they are all equally " clannish and care about others of their own kind above all other people." and if they all fit the bill equally than the charge means nothing… or you’ve created a truly disturbing double standard.
Yes yes, I’m sure you can find this “open secret” proudly discussed on such vibrant communities such as st-rm-frnt and their ilk. Of course it’s a nasty and vile fiction, but you can believe it if you really want.
~gasp!!!~
Shit, I guess the Hmong, Irish, Texas-Germans, WASP’s, etc… are all just as bad. It’s a well known open secret that you just can’t trust any white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, as they look out for each other first of all and favoritism is expected and shown all the time.
Generally when one says “by definition” they mean that it is true via denotation, not wildly inaccurate connotation. Just to clear up your ignorance, Jewish tradition says that to save one single human life is the same as saving the entire world, and destroying one single human life is the same as destroying the entire world. That Tikun Olam is at the heart of our purpose here on this planet. Which, in fact, often places other above self. Let alone “tribe”. Which was the whole point of asking “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?”
So any random IDF soldier = Judaism/Jewishness/Jews now, eh?
No, just like “by definition” and “truth” not meaning whatever you want, “fact” has a denotation too. It indicates that Israel would rather get their soldiers back at almost any cost. It shows nothing about Israeli lives being “worth” more. But of course that too is a common slur with no backing at all.
No, just vile and dangerous ignorance.
How someone acts on such fiction determines what label you should apply to them.
None of that makes it ‘ghoulish’, but I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I can’t see any permutation of “let life saving organs rot, it’s what he would have wanted.” that’s more moral, or savory, or honorable than saving lives with them. Yes, just like taxes, you owe a debt to society. Consider it an “organ tax” if you prefer. Heck, we’ve already had politicians invent a “death tax”, we can just rename it.
That being said:
I’ve agreed to this several times, and I see no purpose why you’d bring it up.
And just as many times I’ve pointed out that we are not dealing with people, we are dealing with meat that used to be a person.
It’s more like someone dredging up a nasty stereotype about liberals - let’s say the one about how they hate America and want us weakened militarily and economically, and cherry-picking some opinion pieces and factoids to “prove” it, followed by acknowledgements that far-right conservatives are worse, and protestations of how one is simply being honest about the state of the world so liberals shouldn’t get all excited, you know. :rolleyes:
Except where the simile falls down is that liberals have not been consistently discriminated against and been targets of mass murder repeatedly in recent history. It is important to avoid casual references to liberals as defeatists and traitors if you want to avoid poisoning debate and be taken seriously. It’s essential to avoid falling into classic anti-Semitic stereotypes if you don’t want to be mistaken for a bigot.
Speaking of tribes and such, I just saw an interesting if somewhat incoherent opinion piece by Garrison Keillor, in which he rants about the ruination of Xmas songs (he’s ticked off at Unitarians for supposedly adulterating “Silent Night”, but seems especially pissed at Jews for having had the temerity to write many of the most popular Xmas songs):
Christmas is a Christian holiday – if you’re not in the club, then buzz off.
Well darn - after I spent all that time in the cold putting Xmas lights on the trees, helping Mrs. J. decorate our own indoor specimen and running around buying gifts! I’ll have to tell Mrs. J. (a lapsed Methodist) to put away her impressive collection of Santa ornaments (currently gracing the dining room). We’re not in the club, after all. Those chosen people have all the fun.
My problem with society making the decision that I should donate my organs is that they may decide I’m probably not going to come of a coma, and they really, really need a liver, even mine.
The morality is in respecting a person’s right to make choices, even when they are incorrect.
I think you need to support the notion that people owe this particular debt. Taxes make sense in principle because they pay for services everyone, or at least a large majority, uses. I don’t see that extending to organs.
Because it’s an issue here. You’re acting without the person’s consent and without the consent of people who can make decisions for them. The person no longer exists after dying, but if he’s expressed a preference or made a choice, that preference still exists and I think basic decency indicates that it should be respected.
Yeah, it is pretty much unthnkable that a group that has been isolated and ostracized, (when they were not outright persecuted), would wish to establish internal support networks or refuges from the larger, persecuting society.
You tone contradicts your words.
Actually, they tend to deliberately maintain their religion and the “tribal identity” tends to be forced upon them by those who do not share their beliefs. In those lands and those eras when persecution has faded, Jews have demonstrated a typical human tendency toward assimilation. When persecution has been more prevalent, they have tended to follow the human traits of either apostasy or tribalism. They have just done a better job of employing tribalism than some other groups.
Regardless, the issue of the “Chosen People” is not one of Jews setting themselves up as better than their neighbors, but one of them perceiving that God chose them to hold them accountable to a stricter standard of behavior and folks who employ the phrase to claim (or imply) that they claim to be better are displaying ignorance of the phrase as well as misusing it as a slur.
I do not and can not agree. There is a world of difference between taking no-longer-needed bits from a corpse and murdering someone in a coma in order to harvest their organs.
You can have no possible use for them once ‘you’ is a thing of the past and all that’s left is a corpse. And at that point, your corpse can be used to give back to society and do some real good for potentially quite a few people with no actual downsides for anybody.
The real travesty is that organs that could go to give people back quality of life, or even save lives go into the ground to rot instead. So yes, for a lifetime of participation in the social contract, when you’re dead that which you no longer need and which your family can no longer use should be treated in a manner that gives back to society and leaves the world in a bit better a situation than you found it in.
I realize that the discussion regarding the need for consent to harvest tissue or organs arose as an organic hijack to the thread, but it IS a hijack. Anyone who needs to continue that discussion should open a new thread.
**
[ /Moderating ]**
Back to the OP I suppose that I’d place myself in the second half of the Venn Diagram and point out that this story (which was in the news roughly a decade ago.) has nothing to do with the Blood Libel allegations made recently about the IDF killing Palestinians in order to steal their organs, and its conflation is worrisome as is the timing (and its reception).
Hiss’ behavior is no more an indictment of Israel as a whole than it is some sort of reason to credit baseless claims of deliberate murder and organ harvesting of Palestinians.
Man, this was turning into a long thread, too.
EDIT: I wrote this post at about 9:55 and didn’t hit submit until just now. I agree a new thread is called for, and I could move some of these posts to a new thread if anyone is interested.
Few people disagree with that - Rastafarians, maybe, some very orthodox Jews, and maybe the ancient Egyptians. Nobody who is debating here, as far as I know.
Right. The question is whether or not that good means people are entitled to the organs.
That’s it? I think you’ve reversed the social contract here: you’ve participated in the social contract (giving up some liberty for security), therefore someone else can take your organs? Like I said, the participation logic might work for taxes, but society didn’t make or maintain your organs for you.
I’d like to know more about what was reported a decade ago, to see if the re-release is moving the story forward or just reviving it for shock value. The Swedish tabloid story definitely helped revive this but I don’t know if there is a reason it came back at this particular moment.
I’m curious to see if there’s a public reaction in the U.S. because I wonder if some outlets will just stay away from this, for fear it will touch off antisemitism. Outside of the West I’m sure it’s going to get out there in a bigger way, and it’s a disastrous story because it can be summed up as “Israel took organs from Palestinians” and that’s not totally wrong, even if it omits a lot of details and is misleading. As if the ethical questions weren’t enough reason not to do this kind of thing…
As for a new thread, I suppose you can move the posts if you want but I really did mean what I said to you in my last post, I think we’d just have to agree to disagree. It’s not like either of us can marshal facts either, as it’s all opinion and subjective value judgments. Still, I have no objection to you removing my posts from this thread and putting them into another as long as you make clear that I probably won’t be participating in that thread and I’m not ducking responses or anything.
Now, I’ll grant that INN is more than a little bit of a fringe paper. My google fu is weak and the moment (and I’m pretty exhausted) and I haven’t tracked down all that much more at present.
I got the links from this blog. Perhaps one of our Hebrew speaking Dopers want to track down “The most important articles on this affair, by Ronen Bergman and Gai Gavra in the hebrew daily Yediot Achronot” and translate them for us.
Okay - so this didn’t get picked up in the West but it sounds like it was covered somewhat extensively in Israel.
Stories involving real or perceived defiling or corpses, particularly for profit, is always going to get attention even if Israel isn’t involved. Here is another recent example - organs being taken from corpses and then sold. Then there was the UCLA thing, and there was that recent, well-covered money laundering/organ trafficking arrest that involved some rabbis.
