when I figure out how to multi-quote, I’ll answer your statements, kombatminipig. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to do it manually. I truly don’t understand your points, but I think I’ve helped hijack this thread from its original point, which was to discuss Sevestopol. Still, I’m curious as to what you mean in a few of your comments, so if I can figure out why I can’t multi-quote, I will be happy to respond.
I haven’t had time to peruse all his posts, but this claim, for instance, is not evidence of anti-Semitism. He’s prone to hyperbole, as he has admitted, but the basic idea of doling out severe punishment to the settlers is not one I find particularly controversial. Suffice it to say that whatever punishment one believes ought to be inflicted on other terrorists should be delivered unto the settlers.
Anyway, none of this is anti-Semitic since it is critical of the actions of certain Jews for doing certain things, not all Jews just for being Jewish.
So, to answer the thread title, this Jew finds Sev’s posting style somewhat irritating, but detects no anti-Semitism from him.
Well this thread is doing absolutely nothing to counter the view of some that there are plenty of Jewish people out there that will happily denounce any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism.
In fact, it is acting as quite a good example as to why some have this view.
For those paying attention (and checking out the thread that resulted in this pitting), this stereotype has in fact been further debunked.
Read the linked thread and you’ll find multiple harsh critics of Israeli policy. The only one who has been called an anti-Semite is the one who’s wallowing in blatant bigotry.
It’d be highly appropriate for defenders of the Palestinians to make it abundantly clear to Sevastopol that his tactics are embarassing, unwelcome and damaging to the cause. But I’m losing hope that anyone will step up and be heard.
The notion that all Jews everywhere think in lock-step is exactly “… the classic stereotype used in a manner to denigrate a whole people” - what is “a soul of evil” if not blatant denigration? How on earth can you possibly justify it?
Your “suspicions” are blinding you to the obvious.
No, he’s critical of all Jews for allegedly all doing the same things. according to him, all Jews (or at least, all American Jews) support Israel without exception and are thus tarred by his hateful brush.
Read the quotes in the OP. Judaism is “corrupted” as it “require[s] unqualified backing of Israel”; American Jews have a “soul of evil”; Judaism should be replaced by “alternatives”.
How can anyone claim with a straight face that they detect “no anti-semitism” from this? What does it take - someone visibly goose-stepping, giving Hitler salutes, and chanting ‘death to Jews’?
The use of the magic I-word seems to be a “say whatever you want and not be a bigot” card for some.
Yeah, because being tarred as “corrupt”, having a “soul of evil” and worthy of being replaced by “alternatives” is exactly the same as “…any criticism of Israel”. :dubious:
Quite. As has been discussed, many of us Jews are plenty critical of Israel’s policies and actions, too.
Wow. The only severe punishment for the settlers that I’ve commonly heard (and personally agree with) is forcing them to move. Out of curiosity, what is more severe punishment than shooting all of them? Having their dead bodies drawn and quartered and the heads placed on pikes?
I hear you. You know, all these black criminals taking up space in jails should be shot. The only reason the government doesn’t do this is because they know they can’t expect any better from these degenerate, subhuman, savages. None if this is racist, since it is critical of the actions of certain blacks for doing certain things, not all black people just for being black.
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
Exactly. I personally dislike the settler movement intensely and believe that Israeli officials have made some rather inexcusable foreign policy decisions. I think the Palestinians have a point.
But how about reassuring the Jews of the world that anti-Semitism – especially when quite blatently obvious will in fact be denounced? Wouldn’t that be nice?
FYI, my husband (who is NOT Jewish, not overly fond of Israel and has not converted to my Reform Judaism and does not post here) wrote this me after I asked his opinion of Sev’s comments:
Um, who said anything about a punishment more severe than shooting? I merely chose that wording because I’m not a fan of capital punishment. However, since the death penalty is not being debated here, I decided to simply say that they deserve the same fate that, say, the 9/11 terrorists deserve. IMHO, of course.
Like I said, I do not necessarily endorse shooting anyone. But where the ascription of guilt is in question, I don’t think your (sarcastic) analogy is suitable. See, ethnicity is at the center of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli right of return law allows any Jew, regardless of past history, to attain Israeli citizenship. By the same token, population dynamics play a role in Israeli offers and rejections of peace settlements; Zionists regularly cite the differential growth rates of Palestinians and Israelis as an argument against any deal that would lead to an influx of Palestinians into Israel. The appeal is explicitly to a state that is either purely Jewish or majority Jewish.
Now, the settlers, aside from living on landing stolen from the Palestinians (and often being involved in said theft, much as the historical circumstance of the American colonists and the Amerindians), have engaged in wanton terrorism against the Ps. They have destroyed olive trees and other vegetation which constitutes the livelihood of the Ps, seized an amount of water channels that is vastly disproportional to their population vis a vis the Ps, and physically attacked the Ps. (The Ps have, of course, responded in kind, but the settlements are well-defended, so their assaults pose much less of a threat–though that’s not to excuse acts of murder.)
Given this context of a vastly unequal power structure, I do not think it is out of line to use such condemnatory language against the settlers.
Your example of blacks being in U.S. prisons does not work because blacks are the victims of white racism. So the power dynamic is completely different. (I assume I do not need to also elaborate on the comparison being further inchoate due to the various differences in morality between burglars, protestors, murderers, etc.)
Say what you wish, but as an Eastern European Jew who has spent considerable time studying Jewish history (including seminar-level university courses), I like to think I know of what I speak. So, I don’t pay much heed to such loosely sprayed aphorisms or Abe Foxman’s nebulous warnings of a second Holocaust.
I’m still wondering how bigoted remarks (or “loosely sprayed aphorisms”, a charming bit of terminology) directed against all Jews serve a constructive purpose, either in encouraging dialogue or in aiding the cause of the “Ps”.
Did any of your seminar courses clarify how bigotry of any sort is conducive towards establishing peace in the Mideast?
The “loosely sprayed aphorisms” are in reference to your admonishment that
Like I said, I don’t find his remarks to be motivated by prejudice, or directed at all Jews. If he’s assailing the settlers, they do not comprise “all Jews.”
And whether his statements “encourag[e] dialogue” or aid the Palestinians is irrelevant in this discussion. You might see them as detrimental to peace; others might disagree. But that has nothing to do with whether they’re actually anti-Semitic.
I certainly don’t mean to hold my education over your head. I feel that I’m adequately qualified to speak on this issue, but I’m not an expert (i.e., this is not the focus of my career or course of study). But I don’t like the insinuation that I’m somehow naive.
Bigotry is obviously not conducive to effecting peace. But you’re conflating combative language with hateful language, and this is not helpful either. I agree that Sev can be an abrasive prick at times, and this is certainly not in keeping with constructive debate. But he’s no racist.
Meyer Lansky would like a word with you…
Funny, Sev chose the wording of shot on sight and their lives are forfeit quite deliberately. Seeing as you feel they are worthy of severe punishment and he wants them all to be shot - what’s more severe than killing every man, woman and child? Salting the land afterwards?
That’s good to know.:rolleyes: For being against capital punishment (which I happen to be as well), you seem rather loose about endorsing the murder of entire villages. As long as you don’t *necessarily * endorse having them shot.
Well seeing as Sevvy wants to see all the settlers killed and that presumably includes their children, grandchildren, etc - would you find someone saying the lives of every American aside from those with Native blood is forfeit to be loony tunes?
Are you sure on this - I thought you weren’t *necessarily * against murdering them.
Oh I see. If there are unequal power structures, there’s no bigotry involved in calling those with the upper hand sub-human degenerates and part of an evil cult. I guess there’s no racism or bigotry involved in Farrakhan calling the white man the devil or Judaism a gutter religion. (I assume I also don’t have to elaborate to you on the various moral culpability of shooting first generation settlers, their children and their grandchildren).
I’m sorry, but good fuck. If calling for shooting entire populations and calling them subhuman degenerates is just combative language, what does it take to rise to the level of hate speech for you? See again: does it take drawing and quartering the corpses and displaying heads on pikes?
To avoid you assigning loosely sprayed aphorisms to the wrong poster, Jackmannii didn’t use the aphorism you object to, I did.
A number of quite humbling posts here.
Conversely Malthus and Dissonance are posting in delerium. Pay them no mind.
Lavenderblue has called in her husband to adjudicate? Somewhat upset by this whole business then. Sorry about that.
I am not sure of where the spouse stands as a reliable adjudicator. As to the names : “Douglas Feith, Lieberman, Wolfowitz, Perle, Krauthammer, … Pipes”- they have, after all, given their adult lives to fouling the earth. Is no-one to call them out? Their motivations and purpose?
Leaving the maudlin behind us a vision or 2.
Mind you, when this was my screensaver an attractive colleague asked if it was my family.
I think:
a) This is a catastrophic assemblage of verbiage by someone who thinks he has mastered the English language, but has not* done so* .
b) It is constructed by a person who hates Israel, delete ‘and’ is inclined to hate Jews, but has enough conscious awareness to know he shouldn’t hate Jews, or at least not say outright he hates Jews. So he wants to toe the common anti-Israel line of delete comma* ;*‘it’s just SOME Jews who are the problem, those insidious Jews who are Zionists and control everything and put the state of Israel above America.’
c) delete ‘But’ Yet he can’t even pull that off, delete ‘and’ blithely declares the entire religion corrupted delete ‘comma’ * and states* they delete ‘SEEM like’ “APPEAR an evil cult.”
Basically, I would say anyone whose argument is to rattle off a long list of Jewish names, delete ‘and assume’ on the assumption we will see them as self-evidently evil, delete ‘you’re’ * is* pretty much confessing to being an anti-Semite. delete colon
Shame they don’t seem to have worked.
Typical **Sev **behaviour. Dancing around because he’s too chickenshit to say what he actually belives.
But then, his type are always cowards.