Actually I recollect describing Judaism as the rough equivalent of other religions. The problem is the disposition American Jews, in particular, have to back Israel. With the public figures like Douglas Feith, Lieberman, Wolfowitz, Perle, Krauthammer, Abrahams, Pipes and Lewis Libby etc , who would be Jewish? The soul of their evil is affiliation with Israel and this is now polluting American Judaism.
This is not true. Equal standards is the test. Secondly I have not addressed ‘their enemies’, but the clear implication from my statements is likewise: Equal standards.
Thank you, people shoud quote my posts more often:
However, this statement in no way contradicts the later post. At no stage is there any inquiry into whether the looters/settlers are Jewish. It is only the anti-semites who make that inquiry, to exempt their perceived moral defectives from sanction.
Instead you claim my position is:
emphasis added.
From your characterisation what follows regarding Jews living in Canada for example, shot on sight? What about Israeli settlers/looters who are not Jewish, recognised as legitimate titleholders?
No, it is only the anti-semites who inquire into Jewish/Non-Jewish. The rest of us inquire into conduct.
You’re seeing a mistake because you’re fundamentally distorting the terrain. It’s hard to draw a right angle in water.
The first, and the foremost function and characteristic of national sovereignty *is the monopolization on force. * A government that cannot or will not stop those under its power from repeatedly launching terrorist attacks may be a very nice group to have tea with, but they are not partners for peace.
Now, Peace[sup]2[/sup]…
Wrong.
You’d have a point if it was one random Palestinian, once. But you knew that when you decided to create such an outrageously lopsided false analogy.
A better one would be that if a New Yorker who was part of an organized terrorist cell (which is possibly part of the government) blew himself up in a federal building, and he was the 7th this year and the 40th this decade. And he is given a hero’s place of honor in Manattan with posters to his honor. And he blew himself up in furtherance of a political ideology which is shared in whole or in part or slightly modified by many other terrorist groups and which revolves around attacking federal buildings. And the Manhattan police force was unable or unwilling to do anything about it, or they were on the take, or they were picking up arms against federal buildings too.
And even then you wouldn’t see the entire state shut down, but you sure as sunshine might see martial law imposed until things were straightened out.
It’s interesting how “a fairly weak but the only government” is, thus, functionally indistinguishable from “a government unable to actually deliver sustained peace.”
Yes, you got me. These Israeli settlers you want to call looters and have shot on sight all happen to be Jewish, but pointing that out is anti-semitic. Isn’t this exactly what I said with
You were characterizing *my *post. And wrongly. I do not know if the looters/settlers are Jewish and do not care. It is only the anti-semites who make that enquiry.
edit: And Jews in Canada, what does your characterisation say of them?
We’ve managed to build ourselves a beautiful, prosperous country that’s made some amazing achievements in the arts and sciences. Sure, we’ve had some problems, but what country doesn’t? All in all, there’s no other place I’d rather raise my family.
So yeah, it is working pretty well. We complain a lot - it’s our nature - but by and large, we’re happy here. Peace would be nice, but we’re doing just fine without it.
And there are worse alternatives to constant warfare.
They will never love us. The best we can hope is that they eventually realize that they can never beat us, and that we’re here to stay.
Our very existance is the only excuse they’ll ever need.
Yes, I’ve wrongfully wounded you, the poor innocent babe who has no idea if the people he wants to be shot are Jewish. To question you makes one an anti-semite - but hang on, if you are truly clueless about these people who you want murdered, how can you reasonably call me an anti-semite? I mean, you have no idea if these people you want killed are Jewish or not.
Well gosh, I haven’t made any characterization of Jews, Jews in Israel or Jews in Canada. Tell you what, ask for Jews in Canada to be shot on sight and I’ll get back to you. Or wait; poor innocent babe you are, lets have you only ask for people walking out of synagogues in Canada to be shot on sight. I’m sure anyone who dares to ask if they’re Jewish is an anti-semite.
I object vehemently to the comparison of my country to Germany in 1930. The comparison is false and defamatory. Germany in 1930 was a traumatized recent monarchy with no more than a dozen years’ experience of democracy, which had come very close to being the second Communist nation on Earth; and free speech was not protected but rather controlled (and often punished) by whichever thugs had control of the street at the time, be they Reds or Browns.
I do not live in Weimar America. The comparison is ridiculous.
So what? Politics are heated in our country, but the heat seldom turns to any physical manifestation you should be concerned about. If someone wants to accuse you of being more loyal to Israel than America, let them. Or refute them, if you think it’s worth the trouble. However, if any yahoo actually attacked you for being a Jew, 99.99% of all cops in this country would quickly come to your defense. Even a Christian cop who privately believes in converting the Jews would protect you from harm.
And how influential is David Duke anymore?? He exists, sure, but it’s not like he represents any big movement worth worrying about. The Flat Earthers also exist.
The United States is not like any other country. Our civil liberties and respect for equality under law are much stronger than, say, Britain, where libel laws are a constant infringement on free speech, or France or Switzerland, which both limit public displays of religious belief, or Germany, where “cults” are suppressed and “falsifying history” is a crime. (Ironic, isn’t it? By giving freedom of speech to Holocaust deniers, America is ensuring that she will always remain free.)
Unlike Alessan, who does not believe that a country needs a purpose to exist, I definitely believe that my country was founded with a purpose, and continues to have a purpose: to provide the best example possible of freedom and democracy to the world. Not that we have always lived up to that, but the purpose is still there.
And as for Jews ever being in danger in the United States, even in our darkest periods Jews have been among the safest immigrant groups. Go back to the 19th century and you will find, for instance, vile cartoons characterizing the Irish as near-simians, and lots of bigotry and discrimination against Catholic immigrants. Was there ever a sign on a shop reading “No Jews Need Apply”?
If ever a Holocaust was possible in America, the Jews are among the least likely groups to be the victims of it. An American Holocaust would more likely victimize blacks, or undocumented Mexicans, or Mormons, or native Americans (actually, many would say there really was a Holocaust there), or any group which has been massively hated by white Christian people. Hatred of American Jews pales into insignificance compared to the sufferings of the truly oppressed.
OK, so the Klan “has targeted” Jews…I remember reading about one Jew in the South who was lynched on suspicion of raping and killing a young girl. Oh yes, and the discrimination by country clubs. Give me a break!!! How many blacks could even get walk in the door and apply for membership in those clubs, in the same period?? How many Jews were hunted down with dogs, burned with blowtorches and lynched???
In America, more radical labor union organizers than Jews have been violently attacked or lynched. Unless, of course, those same labor organizers were Jews, which seems likely in many cases. But they weren’t lynched for being Jewish. Mickey Schwerner and Andrew Goodman were both Jews and were both murdered in Mississippi next to James Chaney, but they weren’t murdered for their Jewishness. They were murdered for being civil rights workers. If Jewishness had anything to do with it, it was just “icing on the cake” in the minds of their killers.
And most importantly, where is there discrimination in America against Jews TODAY???
(There is still some documented discrimination against blacks and Latinos.)
Rubbish. Neither Jews, nor Christians, nor blacks, nor anyone else is dependent for their safety on the good will of the majority. We have a Bill of Rights in this country which was specifically written to protect everyone from the tyranny of temporary majorities. That’s why the electorate can’t vote away the rights even of groups that they hate. It’s that Bill of Rights, more powerful and more respected in America than anywhere else (including Europe), that has provided some measure of protection to groups that have been hated far more virulently and far longer than American Jews: atheists, communists, blacks, etc.
And that statement you just made, that “Jews will always be insecure” wherever they’re not a majority, is far more limiting and dream-crushing than any anti-Semitic propaganda. Actually, I would characterize that statement as a form of self-anti-Semitism. My Jewish niece, who at age 18 is poised to conquer the world, would probably tell you to slap yourself upside the head.
To the contrary; a cursory and sophistry-based analysis would lead you to believe that these accusations against Jews are common or widely believed. They aren’t. I’ve heard more about Canadians controlling the US media than Jews.
If you’re going to insist on the prevalence of anti-Jewish stereotypes, then just saying “Jews are accused” is not enough. Who is doing the accusing? How many accusers? Provide a cite if you’re serious about this line of argument.
My ignorance??? To me, comparing present-day America to Weimar Germany represents the very height of historical ignorance. Jewish security in America, like everyone else’s security, is dependent on the Bill of Rights and respect for the rule of law. No majority can ever vote that away, unless it were a supermajority capable of changing the Constitution – which will never happen.
No you didn’t, true. Mea culpa. It was a different poster who requested those parameters, and that poster later admitted that his request was insincere.
And I’m the one being accused of dishonesty. Sheesh.
“For now, the official Israeli line is that the driver did not see Rachel through the bulldozer’s thick bullet-proof glass. However, the spokesman acknowledged that the armoured personnel carriers (APCs) that accompany bulldozers are responsible for directing the drivers towards their targets. So why didn’t the APC drivers get the bulldozer to stop? The IDF declined to comment.”
By the way, the Wiki article had 90 citations, so you can’t always count Wiki out.
And by the way, an APC is not exactly a “meatshield,” as you put it. Looks to me like the IDF troops would have enjoyed just as much protection as the bulldozer driver.
You seem to be really free and easy about accusing me of making dishonest arguments, when I’m the only one who’s even attempting to bring evidence to the table. If you want to appear honest and sincere yourself, then stop using attacks on my honesty as your sole argument. It’s a poor substitute for a real argument.
That’s good, because no such comparison was made and people are only trying to clear up your ignorance of history.
I’ll address the rest of your evasions later, but we all know that nobody has said “The US is like Germany right before the Third Reich!” We’ve merely pointed out that seeming stability is not a guarantee of continued safety.
It continues to disturb me that people in this thread are characterizing the Palestinian people in broad strokes, using recent events to make assumptions about the morality and/or competence of all Palestinians. I insist that all people are individuals, no matter what the most powerful or best-armed among them may say or do. People seem to feel free to say things about the Palestinian people that they would never say about black people (for instance).
Just for some perspective: all independence struggles are foul and bloody, pretty much without exception. The Jewish independence struggle in Palestine was definitely no exception: King David Hotel, assassination of Folke Bernadotte, some historically famous massacres of Arab villages, etc.
Even Gandhi’s independence struggle was not free from taint: there were atrocities committed on both sides. There were colonial policemen who were pursued and lynched, reminding one of a similar incident which happened in the West Bank, years later.
And America’s Revolution? There were near-genocidal conditions in the Southern colonies later in the war, with Loyalists and Patriots massacring each other and quarter often denied to prisoners.
Not to mention the Irish. No need to go through that one again.
Most importantly, during independence struggles the oppressed populations are routinely described as incurably violent, bereft of the norms of civilized behavior, and incapable of self-rule. Yes, Jewish radicals were described 100 years ago in some of the same terms that are now applied to Palestinians: as hateful, conspiratorial, violent, sectarian, and forever cartooned as holding bombs with sizzling fuses. That stopped after the Holocaust and the founding of the majority Jewish state. Similarly for other oppressed groups, once independence is reached and peace prevails, the stereotypes lose their basis – for instance, the British no longer view the Irish as violent brutes. If a Palestinian state is successful, 100 years from now Palestinians may be regarded as “model Arabs.”
As an anti-violence advocate, I am not accepting of the violence of independence struggles; but sadly, I regard it as kind of inevitable.
I continue to insist that economic conditions are both the basis for and the solution to the conflict. Once the settlements are gone and the West Bank and Gaza are able to develop in peace, the terrorism will stop.
Yog SoSoth is getting a lot of flak in this thread for suggesting that Israel simply tolerate a low level of continued free-lance terrorism for a while. However, there is a precedent in recent Israeli history for such a policy. During the first Gulf War, Israeli forces did not respond to Iraq’s scud attacks, simply because the United States asked them not to. A nuclear-armed power did not nuke Iraq.
I may be wrong because I was not there, but the impression I got through news reports at the time was that, far from feeling weakened or frightened by the scud attacks, Israelis responded with a kind of “group solidarity,” filling the night clubs in open and contemptuous defiance of the missiles.
If Israel is willing to take this kind of risk for an ally, then why can’t she take the same risk for herself???
Things have changed in the last few years! There are hardly any suicide attacks anymore, and yet people in this thread are acting like it’s still 2002! Come on, how much of a quiet period do you need? Former President GW Bush described a Palestinian state as a goal of his Administration, and just recently former President Clinton said the Palestinians are “ready for self-rule” – but this historic opportunity, this period of relative quiet, is being squandered! Netanyahu’s government is still dragging its feet and playing it cagey with Hillary about the settlements, and that’s unacceptable.
I appreciate that you’re all outraged and offended and such, but while Jews in the U.S. indeed have constitutional protection, there is a non-zero part of the U.S. population that openly (and indeed, proudly) promotes modifying the first amendment and making Christianity the official state religion, and a much larger segment of the population that would probably go along with this because it sounds okay to them, or they don’t much care one way or the other, or they ignorantly assume the U.S. is already officially Christian.
Comparing the modern U.S. to Germany in 1930 is improbable, though. I have to figure the U.S. going full-blown fascist would take perhaps ten years (a decade being enough time for any system of government to go completely to Hell), so perhaps Germany in 1923 would be better.
Even if the economy plunges further and the recession/depression is long-lasting, no far-right “populists” could be elected, and no one will ever hunt for scapegoats.
It seems to be working better for Israel than it is for the Palestinians.
People like you can say this crap because the United States has been willing to support Israel and Israel has built an effective military. If the hadn’t, Israel would have been over run and it’s citizens slaughtered. Then you’d have to deal with the end results of your views.
