The no true Scotsman thing is a fallacy because it assumes that all true Scotsman do X, for no reason at all, and then it uses the doing of X to define a Scotsman.
When I describe a truely British person, I am drawing upon thousands of years of history, and furthermore I am of course using approximations as naturally one can find people within any subgroup who do almost anything.
My definition of a British person is pretty simple: Someone who has either lived here all their life, or who has lived here a considerable portion of their life and calls themself British, and who tries to fit in with what they believe to be British culture (albeit with their own take on it). There are small exceptions on the margins which are unimportant.
If I say that very few true Scotsmen are voodoo-adhering limbo dancers, it is no fallacy. It is fact.
This seems to be a strawman. Opposing people’s policies, if those people happen to be Jews, isn’t cast as anti-Semitism by any folks but nutters. On the other hand, if you happened not to think that everybody who shares Liberman’s policies “is willing to vote against the best interests of the US to help Israel”, and only focused on people with Jewish sounding names? Then yah… There are folks who’ll go through the US government looking for names that sound Jewish to them, and suggest that all those people need to be investigated for potential Jewish treachery.
To use your term, anyone who would do that is a nutter. And as proof, that sounds pretty close to what Michele Bachmann, R-Nutterville, is doing with respect to Muslims.
I’ve not met many Thais who think one way or the other about Jews per se. They probably think they’re just another Protestant denomination. But Israelis, that’s another story. In many East Asian cities, they are known to run the “street-vendor mafia,” and I’ve seen this personally in Osaka, Japan. They don’t run it in Thailand, but here in Bangkok many backpacker guesthouses flat-out refuse to accept any guest carrying an Israeli passport. No politics or religion involved, just bad past experiences with Israeli guests. Heated arguments over the bill is a common theme mentioned. (Conversely, there are certain guesthouses in the Khao San Road area that advertise specifically to Israelis, who flock to them, which I hope al-Qaeda never finds out about. They would make a good target )
And putting up with obnoxious Israelis was one reason a Thai couple I was friends with back in the 1980s up North gave for finally shutting their restaurant and moving on to other endeavors. Not all were obnoxious – Lak, the lady of the couple, even put a few Middle East dishes on her menu that Israeli travelers had taught her to cook. But finally they partially blamed obnoxious Israelis for their burnout, although I don’t recall any specifics.
FWIW, I’ve never been to Israel myself, but the wife has twice, for weeks at a time, for work on a project she was in charge of that was receiving assistance from Hebrew University, and she never had any bad experiences with Israelis there.
Apart from Thai Muslims, I meant. After all, they were chanting “Death to Zionism” and such outside the US Embassy the other day, as I reported elsewhere.
Er…yes, if you claim that blacks are dumber than whites, that whites have smaller penises than blacks and that Asians are smarter than both then yes, you are being racist.
And no, it doesn’t mean you’re being a bad person or even a stupid person.
Similarly, if you say, “I love blacks, they make great basketball players” or “I love Jews, they make great lawyers” you’re being racist/anti-Semitic.
Er…yes, if you’re paranoid about Joe Lieberman being more supportive of Israel than the US because he’s Jewish then you are being anti-Semitic.
Similarly, those who insist that Barack Obama cares more about black people than white people because he’s black are being racist.
Also, to bring up a recent example, when Michelle Bachman and other Republicans accused Huma Abedin of being an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood they were guilty of Islamaphobia.
Beyond that, for someone who seems to be trying to argue that ideas shouldn’t be considered anti-Semitic unless it requires extreme hatred of the Jewish people it was a rather unwise choice of you to decide to label “Holocaust deniers” as beyond the pale anti-Semites that it would be offensive to lump you in with.
Lots of Holocaust Deniers insist that they’re not anti-Semites and they’ve had plenty of people defending them. To give an obvious example, the fame leftist academic Noam Chomsky has repeatedly defended them, declaring “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of the gas chambers or the Holocaust” and spent quite a bit of time defending and praising the French Holocaust Denier Robert Faurisson.
Beyond that, amongst the Palestinians, whom you apparently seem to have such immense sympathy and have made a point of being their defender, I assume you’re aware just how common belief in Holocaust Denial is. Amongst Arab Israelis it’s around 60%(and I genuinely think they should be congratulated for it not being higher) and it’s almost certainly far higher in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. I assume you’re also familiar with Abu Mazen and how his Ph.D. thesis in college was about how the Holocaust was hoax.
FTR, while I’m not a fan of Holocaust Denial, no, I don’t think being a Holocaust Denier makes you a bad person or even stupid, and that’s especially true regarding Middle Easterners.
Personal insults from people I don’t know and have never met mean little to me, nor for that matter do the opinions of strangers on the internet. That said, I suspect Tom will be more than a little shocked at being lumped in with myself.
Well, that’s quite amusing. For those who don’t want to go through the link. In one thread I commented that anyone who thought that there was a significant number of Palestinians in the Occupied territories who wanted to be part of Israel with Jews as their fellow citizens and who didn’t view the Israelis as alien invaders, then they knew nothing about the Palestinians.
Tony apparently thinks I was making a “ridiculous generalization”. I will happily stand by my statement and say that anyone who’s spent a significant amount of time would agree with that as would activist for both Al-Fatah and Hamas. Moreover, anyone familiar with the situation would be aware that around 70,000 Palestinians(specifically the residents of East Jerusalem) have repeatedly been offered citizenship and, almost without a single exception they’ve refused.
In fact, they’ve even held demonstrations where they made this clear proclaiming “Palestine is our Land! The Jews are our dogs!”
For the record, I strongly sympathize with them and agree with their decision, though obviously I’m uncomfortable with their chosen slogan and wish they’d chosen another, but just as I’ll give Black South Africans who proclaimed “One settler, one bullet!” a pass, I’ll give them a pass as well.
Beyond that, the Palestinians have unanimously agreed that if there’s an independent Palestinian state, all the Jews within it must be expelled and the PA has passed laws prohibiting Jews(not Israelis, Jews) from purchasing property in the West Bank.
Finally, yes, I’ll stand by my statement that virtually all Palestinians view the Israeli Jews as alien invaders and anyone who’s spent time there would agree. Considering the fact that South African Blacks regularly referred to White South Africans who’d been living in South Africa for 14 generations(long predating the existence of not just Israel but Germany, Italy as well) then is it surprising that Israelis, most of whom are immigrants or the children of immigrants rather having lived there for centuries.
And yes, I think anyone who’s spent time amongst the Palestinians would agree. They don’t want to be citizens of Israel. They want their land back and they want the Jews gone. And no, they don’t see the Jews as neighbors. They see them as aliens.
Palestine is presumably a significant factor with Muslim communities, although there seems to have been issues right back to the time of Muhammed. Also, old fashioned ethnic competition for resources with peopleconcerned jews are internationalists, and tend to have disproportionate influence due to high intelligence.
There are huge numbers of gentile politicians who’ve been at least as vociferous defenders of Israel as Lieberman.
To give some obvious examples, Al Gore(Martin Peretz’s favorite politician) and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
So, did you refuse to vote for Al Gore, because he was such an ardent Zionist in 2000?
Ok, I nearly spit water all over my monitor based on this statement. I don’t know what Al Franken has ever said on Israel, but I suspect if you were to look over his voting record on Israel-related subjects since he took office it wouldn’t be dramatically different than Joe Lieberman.
As for Bernie Sanders. I like Bernie Sanders. My grandparents campaigned for him, and one of my cousins was an intern for him in the 90s. He spent quite a bit of time living in Israel after he got out of college, loved to regale people with stories of his time on a Kibbutz, has regularly praised Israel, receives massive amounts of money from Israel, has happily let it be known he’s an ardent defender of Israel, has had his defenders regularly champion his support of Israel, and had been a loyal supporter on just about all issues related to Israel including both supporting Israel’s recent Lebanon War(house resolution 921), HR4681, imposing sanctions on the PA with the aim of removing Hamas from it’s democratically elected position, and of course the infamous Iran Freedom Support Act stipulating the US impose sanctions on Iran to prevent them from developing WMD which was opposed by many progressives.
Hell, Sanders bragged to my cousin “There’s no one in Congress who will defend Israel more than me” and had employed former AIPAC staffers David Sirota and Joel Barkin(his former communications director).
Please don’t tell me you just heard Sanders was a socialist and decided “hmm…he must oppose Israel and he can’t possibly be one of the most ardent Zionists in Congress, I’ll list him so people think I’m not anti-Semitic.”
Er… yes, Michelle Bachmann is an Islamophobe as are people paranoid of Jewish Americans being more loyal to Israel than America and as are people who insist Joe Lieberman is more loyal to Israel than the US.
You know, I feel a need both to apologize for this and explain it (which in and of itself is very Israeli of me).
Israeli kids see Thailand the same way American college students see Cancun and other such places - a place to cut lose and let off some steam, a place where they think everything is allowed. Unfortunately, instead of coming during spring break, they come after their mandatory military service, which means that they often have a LOT more steam to let off (and also why they stick around longer). Add that to the fact that Israelis tend to come across as blunt, pushy and informal - especially compared to some Asian cultures - and I can see how some of them would make a very bad impression.
(Myself, I went to Europe after I got out of the army. I like museums).
Going back to Ancient History, there have been many wars between the Jews ans Gentiles, Jews consider themselves as favorites of God, others resent it. Going back to Joshua( the Jewish ancestor) they believed God wanted them to kill all the people in the town so they could(with God’s help) get the land. I would imagine there has been a hatred passed down through the ages.
When Rabine had the country near a compramise between the Jews and Palestineians, the party of the Israeli leader now, had him assinated.There are people on both sides that do not want peace with the others, and as I see it, until they can agree that people are more important than buildings, or place, there will never be peace
.One would think that after 5,000 years plus, they would be war weary and could compromise. Doesn’t the death of one child be more important to them, than a piece of land or a building? Isn’t it humans who decided what is sacred? The same ideas carry on to other near eastern countries.
No, this is an age old anti-Semitic slander.
“The Chosen People” means that we were chosen to bear a burden. Jewish theology holds that any gentile can be just as beloved in the eyes of God as the most observant Jew on the planet if the gentile simply follows the Noahide Laws.
One thing to remember about Europe is that they have a long, outstanding tradition of hating each other, not just the Jews. The disadvantage the Jews had over the past several thousand years (prior to modern Israel) is that they didn’t have a country of their own. They just sort of dispersed among the populations of the other countries. Sort of like the Gypsies (who were also persecuted during the Holocaust).
No. The “no true scotsman” fallacy is one in which a preconcieved generalization is then stated as defining the group - thus reinforcing the validity of the generalization in the face of contrary evidence.
The traditional account of the fallacy goes something like this:
“All Scotsmen like haggis”
“Not so. My uncle McGregor is a Scotsman, and he hates haggis.”
“Well, all true Scotsman like haggis, because liking haggis is part of the very definition of Scottishness - the Scotland of the culture of Robbie Burns. Your uncle may live in Scotland, and have the name of a Scot, but he is not a true Scotsman.”
The similarity to your reaction to anti-Semitic Englishmen is apparent. What you are saying is that the very definition of an Englishman is someone who, albeit they may have foreign ancestry, has internalized “true” English culture - which precludes being anti-Semitic. Either that or they are fringe skinheads (who presumably are also not “true” Englishmen).
The stories of the behaviour of Joshua and the like in the Book of Genesis have about as much relevance to understanding modern Jews as the story of Beowulf has in understanding modern Englishmen, or the Iliad in understanding modern Greeks (and both of those are more “modern”). You do realize that these events, assuming they are not entirely mythical, happened more than 3 thousand years ago, right?
The notion that the Jews of today can be classified (or condemned) on the basis of Biblical events is, sadly, a cornerstone of certain forms of (mainly Christian) anti-Semitism.
I am 100% sure that you are correct in saying that this is the way modern Jews interpret the passage in question. However, it’s not exactly right to call the “chosen people” thing a “slander.”
Here’s the original passage, in context, as translated via the King James Version of the Bible:
I don’t see how you can interpret that passage any other way than “God has chosen you! You’re number 1!” It seems to me that the “special burden” interpretation is something of a gloss on the original language.
Again, I am not saying modern Jews regard themselves as God’s best pals. Just saying that such understanding by some non-Jews may be a misunderstanding of how modern Jews think, but it’s hard to call it a “slander” when it is based on some pretty clear scriptural language.