Yeah… he’s lying about that. Muslims and Christians can and do vote in Israel.
That’s a lie of omission.
Almost nobody in Israel has the right to own the vast majority of property, because it’s state land and can only be leased.
Also a lie, and the Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently ruled against discrimination.
Also a lie.
Your source is a liar whose lies serve to say untrue and nasty things about Jews. You can draw your own conclusion, I assume.
Wow.
I haven’t read the book you reference, but if your paraphrase is accurate I imagine that “apologists for Israeli policy” would, in fact, want this to be read, rather than a serious critique of the undoubted flaws in Israeli policy - since it appears this book is full of glaring, easy to disprove errors. No doubt your true Israeli apologist would truly fear a book based on actual truth (or at least, not on obvious untruth).
This is not to say that there aren’t serious problems with discrimination in Israel (there are), but it is objectively untrue that only Jews can vote, or that non-Jews have a second-class status in legal disputes.
I haven’t participated to date in this thread, but this caught my eye.
This is from the first half or so of this post.
You know how to capitalize, since you can capitalize “Nazi” and “Christian”. Your capital-J key isn’t broken, since you can capitalize the word “Jewish” when you’re quoting the title of a publication.
So…why aren’t you capitalizing the word “Jew”? Does it have something to do with your defense of Chomsky’s defense of Jew-Haters? Is it some sort of a protest? Given that this little…quirk…appears in just about every post you extrude, I’m curious about the statement you’re trying to make.
Actually I didn’t quote any passages from Shahak’s book. Here however is one (note that he is attempting to justify the slaughter of thousands of Jews in 17th century Ukraine on the grounds that their Cossack killers were engaged in a progressive uprising):
“Do decent English historians even when noting the massacres of Englishmen by rebellious Irish peasant rising against their enslavement, condemn the latter as ‘anti-English racists’? What is the attitude of progressive French historians towards the great slave revolution in Santo Domingo, where many French women and children were butchered? To ask the question is to answer it.”
Nice.
Given such comments, as well as libelous nonsense about the Jewish religion, it’s no wonder that Shahak’s writings show up on neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial websites (David Duke dedicated his book “Jewish Supremacism” to Israel Shahak. But maybe that’s “guilt by association” :)).
Possibly the Cossack’s were just being playful? Or maybe they were overwrought, and languishing under the Jewish Jackboots of…
:eek:
I can’t even say that without cringing, sorry. It’s just so ridiculous and also gutwrenchingly nasty that it’s hard to even make a joke about something like that.
Agreed, claiming that the Jews brought the Pogroms on themselves is really only a step above trying to justify the Holocaust.
I was hoping UP would actually explain his reasoning but all he basically said was, “well a guy Chomsky likes says the Jews brought it on themselves so they must have.”
No. No. Actually, it’s not a step, not even a millimeter above that.
Knock it off.
I apologize for interjecting a joke.
The thread may now resume its previous course: a discussion as to whether or not the OP offering up an apologia for one of the massacres during the pogroms is or is not different than trying to justify the holocaust.
Many people in this thread are failing to note the difference between:
Criticizing the way things are reported,
and on the other hand,
Justifying the actions being reported.
A lot of times Chomsky is doing the former, but being misread as doing the latter.
Someone said that Chomsky had a political agenda. Nobody with a fishy agenda would speak mostly at universities and rarely appear on mainstream media. I genuinely adore his mind since he easily recognises the deeply buried facts about the us foreign policy. His opinions are not subject to self-interest, fear, or the mass media. I watched his lecture here and it was the first time I found someone as close to the truth. There are many people who would support a cause blindly, and thogh I support the same cause, I don’t like them because I don’t like blind support on either sides.
No, making sure they only appear before selected audiences and avoiding general audiences where they might face a real debate is exactly the kind of thing people with fishy agendas do.
Well, that’s your opinion.
Seriously, why is he rarely hosted in the mainstream media given his status and the wholly different opinions he holds? Isn’t media’s goal is to be fair and balanced? I used to admire Bill Maher for being of the few who expresses his own views rather than his organisation’s, but when I almost began to love him I discovered that he isn’t religion-phobic as he was islamophobic. Even Maher only hosted Chomsky only once for a few minutes.
I cannot speak to “the media’s” self-defined mission, but the goal of almost every media source in the Western world is to get people to watch ads that sell consumer goods.
Er… There are lots of academics who aren’t “intellectual crooks”(to use a term he was called by a prominent liberal intellectual) who aren’t holocaust deniers or defenders of Holocaust Deniers.
For myself, I generally find him worthless as a source since you have to assume everything he says is at best a great distortion of the truth and at worst a lie.
That said, he’s an excellent businessman and like Ann Coulter probably laughs all the way to the bank.
I also suspect that like Ms. Coulter he has nothing but contempt for his gullible groupies.*
*.So sue me, I’m a fan of alliteration.
