Considering everyone including Clarke admits that he meant Jews when he said “New York money people” this is an extraordinarily stupid question.
Well, did Clarke specifically means Jews who are New York money people, or did he mean all Jews (or even all American Jews)?
In any case, it’s a statement that might be falsifiable, if one is willing to define the terms and specify criteria for pass or fail. I suspect that once this is done, though, any reasonable test will come back “fail.” If one insists on retaining and stating the belief anyway then… yes, in this case, I’d be okay with calling them an anti-Semite, for what it’s worth.
It is truly unfair that it’s gotten so hard to use veiled ethnic slurs without people realizing what you are talking about. You know who I blame? Those oversensitive big-nosed Ivy League lawyers who sue everybody who says anything bad about them. (OK, I admit that’s cheating - it’s not quite subtle enough.) If Clark wanted to make a point that some people wrongheadedly supporting war against Iran, he could’ve just said why he disagreed. Singling out “New York money people” turned it into a shot against Jews. It’s no wonder Clark’s campaign was a total failure.
I blame the melanin-abusers.
Clark (no e) was asked why he felt the Bush administration was heading for war against Iran, and said"You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." Now that I see the whole comment I see Ibn Warraq has managed to misunderstand it. It does read as a Jewish conspiracy theory comment - he says the Bush administration was pushing for war because that’s what Jewish political donors in New York want - but not because Clark was describing all Jews as “New York money people.”
I guess there’s a first time for everything.
Seems odd to me for Bush to yield to the political demands of any New Yorkers. It’s not like that state is gonna get less blue anytime soon.
Playing along with Florida Jews, though…
So, you think it’s not anti-Semitic to claim that “New York money people” were pushing for war with Iran?
BTW, you have yet to provide evidence for your asinine claim that a common understanding of anti-semitism is criticizing Netanyahu.
Please show some courage and either produce a prominent person making such a claim or admit you made a stupid claim you can’t back up.
Thanks.
I think it’s despicable that you provided your own context to make it seem that he was throwing up a slimy smokescreen by using code words for Jews, when the actual context shows that he was clearly and openly referring to Jews, and used “NY money people” as an identifiable subset of Jews.
You are only enhancing your reputation as someone who consistently misunderstands almost everything he reads by harping on this.
Er… Yes, he was making an anti-Semitic comment. Jewish conspiracy theories such as the idea that Jews control the media or about the Elders of Zion.
Now, I understand you claim to be confused by the term anti-Semitism and not know what it means, but surely you’re familiar enough with the history of anti-Semitism to know that.
Er…in post #27, when you were engaging in your pedantic nitpicking about the term anti-Semitism and claimed you were confused by the term and didn’t know what it meant you implicitly said you thought a common understanding of it was anyone who criticized Netanyahu.
So please, have the guts and the decency to produce someone saying that or admit you were wrong.
More evidence that you have a comprehension problem.
You further embarrass yourself by incessantly implying that it takes huge balls to respond to you. This has to be the third or fourth time in this thread alone, in responses to me alone, you’ve used terms like courage, or guts, or accused me of fleeing, etc.
OK, you got me. You see right through me. I just don’t have the courage to make anonymous posts to a message board when there is a huge stud like you around.
Errrr… How did I misinterpret what you said?
In response to the question “who is confused by the term anti-Semitism” you said
So how was I wrong to interpret you as being confused by the term “anti-Semitism” when you admit that you are confused by it?
When you said “it causes confusion to me” did you mean something other than “it causes confusion to me”?
Now, once more, for the fourth time please tell us who has ever claimed its anti-Semitic to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu.
If you were telling the truth it should be easy to prove.
Admittedly, if you were thread shitting as before when you were arguing pedantically over the definition of “anti-Semitism” then you probably won’t be able to.
Thanks
Sadly, you’re the one displaying reading comprehension problems. I meant that it takes guts to admit when you’re wrong.
That said, I suppose it’s not too surprising since by your own admission you’re confused by the term “anti-Semitism”.
Anyway, sorry for the confusion I caused.
Beats the hell out of me. You are the only adult I’ve ever met who can’t tell a hypothetical example from an assertion of a universal principle.
And as someone pointed earlier you are among the 1% of people in the world genuinely confused by the term “anti-Semitism”.
Anyone, thank you for conceding that no serious person believes any criticism of Netanyahu is anti-Semitism.
It’s big of you to admit you were wrong.
Probably because they have money.
Well, when a similar question is posed of you,
So there’s that.
Come to think of it, I suppose that the polls mentioned by the OP probably over-represent “people willing to even answer those questions”.
yes, it is.
Yes, the Jews are God’s chosen people,
and he says he will bless those who
bless the Jews and curse those who
curse the Jews. That’s why the U.S. of
A. has been so blessed, for we have blessed
the Jews.
s/Hardy Parkerson, J.D.
Lake Charles, LA
Or other hypenated identities, like Irish American, Mexican American, etc. (although Muslims and various Asian groups have all also had to deal with it … and Catholics used to).
Along those lines … there are many circumstances in which my “loyalty” to the United States might be questioned as my judgement is not always based exclusively on what is best for my country. Sometimes it is based on what I think is just or best for the world, even if it marginally is not “best” for America (at least in a short term). Maybe I am too loyal to the world?
In any case, the op is long answered, isn’t it? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck … these are the tropes of the anti-Semite.
But what do you do about it?
One cannot reasonably deny that there are Jews with influence (in pretty much every area of politics from right to left, progressive to regressive), or that there are Jews with money. And some might indeed be less jingoistic than their neighbors (some more so but maybe on average a bit less so, 'tis possible and would not shock). The claim that major thought leaders of Communism, or capitalism, of NeoCons, of Socialism, of the American Left, and Right, of whatever, are Jewish is rarely without some truth. So how do you fight against the claim that such is “too much” influence, “too much” money? The implication that the only way a minority is represented beyond their percentages in that way is by cheating somehow and/or that an “over-represented” group represents a threat of some kind? That you can blame Communism, NeoConservatism, Capitalism, the decline of moral values, what ever, on Jews?