Hollywood Jews and Israel
Fiona
with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
Hollywood's endangered species list.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
Extracts:
--------------------------
So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming raw.
The screenwriter, Dan Gordon, summed up the Jewish community´s puzzlement
most eloquently when he observed that "in an industry where Jews take a
stand on everything, there´s been a disturbing silence on Israel. I´d love
to see the indignation about homicide bombers that is reserved for smokers."
Many seem to agree that there is more protest in Hollywood against potential
threats to endangered birds than there are against the Palestinian plans for
Israeli extinction..........
....I came across Braveheart, winner of the 1995 Academy Award for best
picture, a movie that I had neglected to see when it appeared. For its two
and half hours, a mostly blood-spattered and blue-faced Mel Gibson portrays
William Wallace, a 13th Century Scottish brigand who capably harasses the
English army in a struggle for Scottish independence. The movie has all the
decapitated heads and crushed skulls one would expect of a medieval epic. It
also has the standard distinction between good guys (Wallace and his band of
adventurers) and bad guys (King Edward I- nicknamed Longshanks - and his
generals). No effort is spared to enlist our sympathy for the hero - his
more intemperate moments carefully explained away. His merciless rages are
driven, for instance, by his lust for freedom; his barbarism is a result of
emotional loss - he has suffered....
....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little
make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat - the
selfless revolutionary battling for the liberation of his people. King
Edward, the cynical, repressive warlord determined to wipe out resistance to
his rule, would fit neatly into the shoes of Ariel Sharon. As for a love
interest, the Princess of Wales character would find a receptive vehicle in
Chava Alberstein, the Israeli singer whose far-left views and recent
performances have transformed her into an apologist for Palestinian
terror.....
...In the great conformist world of Hollywood, savagery can always find a
justification, genocidal mania a patronizing nod and brutality the
imprimatur of respectability. That is the legacy of Hollywood liberalism.
And that, sadly, is why Israelis may never quite make it onto its vaunted
endangered species list.
------------------------
Fiona
Susan Cohen
Fiona wrote:
> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
> Extracts:
> --------------------------
>
> So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
> condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming raw.
Because they're damned if they do & damned if they don't.
Of course, this is the *charitable* view.
Susan
Dan Kimmel
"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>
Yes, I can see how someone completely ignorant on the subject might be
impressed by an article written by someone similarly uninformed.
BlackMonk
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>
> Extracts:
> --------------------------
>
This is really forcing an analogy. Remember, this is a film made for
American audiences. We're naturally sympathetic to revolutionaries (from a
safe distance, anyway), Washington and Jefferson loom large in our legend.
What is this person's point? That the film was an alegory for the situation
in Israel? That it really does parallel the current situation?
GAN EDEN WINES
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
BS"D
You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews. There are very few movie
personalities who live in either area. The movie companies and TV companies
have largely moved elsewhere. These days, Hollywood Jews are not actors and
actresses. Instead they're hard working Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews with
large families, large mortgages and high yeshiva bills. Hancock Park, the
major black hat Jewish area, is the heart of Hollywood. Some of my best
friends are Hollywood Jews.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
Fiona
"GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o5AH9.5208$hM3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
> impressed
> > with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of
Hollywood
>
> BS"D
>
> You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
> populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews.
Talk about pedantic. Of course, by Jews of Hollywood, and Hollywood Jews, I,
in deference to the author of the article quoted, was referring to Jews in
the Film Industry (or Movie Business if you like), not Jews who happen to
live in the geographical area called Hollywood. I would have thought that
was obvious from the context, but they you go...
Fiona
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
>with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
>the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
>Hollywood's endangered species list.
>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>
>Extracts:
>--------------------------
>
>So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
>condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming raw.
>The screenwriter, Dan Gordon, summed up the Jewish community´s puzzlement
>most eloquently when he observed that "in an industry where Jews take a
>stand on everything, there´s been a disturbing silence on Israel. I´d love
>to see the indignation about homicide bombers that is reserved for smokers."
Who is Dan Gordon and why is this particular screenwriter deemed an
effective spokesperson for Industry Jews?
>Many seem to agree that there is more protest in Hollywood against potential
>threats to endangered birds than there are against the Palestinian plans for
>Israeli extinction..........
Note the quantity and quality of weasel words that open the above
assertion "many" "seem" "agree". Hard to believe that material like
this passes scrunity--what happened to the art and science of editing?
Though I don't agree with every Hollywood-based cause I'd like to see
numbers before I agree to the above.
How much money has gone to Israel from Industry types recently?
Over its history?
>....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
>language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
>Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little
>make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat - the
>selfless revolutionary battling for the liberation of his people. King
>Edward, the cynical, repressive warlord determined to wipe out resistance to
>his rule, would fit neatly into the shoes of Ariel Sharon. As for a love
>interest, the Princess of Wales character would find a receptive vehicle in
>Chava Alberstein, the Israeli singer whose far-left views and recent
>performances have transformed her into an apologist for Palestinian
>terror.....
The above could be said about any cause. As I've been pointing out,
the left tends to side with the underdog.
>...In the great conformist world of Hollywood, savagery can always find a
>justification, genocidal mania a patronizing nod and brutality the
>imprimatur of respectability. That is the legacy of Hollywood liberalism.
>And that, sadly, is why Israelis may never quite make it onto its vaunted
>endangered species list.
I get the idea, Fiona, that Avi Davis doesn't watch movies or TV
anymore than you do.
Israelis never make it to the endangered species list?
Cast A Giant Shadow: lionizing Col Mickey Marcus, an American (very
secular;-) Jew who fought and died for Israeli liberation.
The Exodus: Newman, Eva Marie Saint, remember? Somewhat sympathetic to
Israelis imvho.
Judith: Sophia Loren portrays a Jewess who survives the war and
fights in the wars of liberation.
Schindler's List: doubtless even Mr. Davis has seen this one.
These films were all very big budget, major productions (along with a
few others the titles of which I can't remember right now). The first
three portrayed Jews as brave, plucky and worthy, and, with the
exception of an allied character or two, Arabs as barking hyneas.
So I don't know what would satisfy Mr. Davis--a constant stream of
CaGS remakes--recasting the title role from Kirk Douglas to Warren
Beatty to Arnold Schwartznegger to Brad Pitt?
Then Hollywood would be demonstrating it's self-hatred by the more
passive-aggressive mode of creative stagnation, right?
Sympathy for the perceived underdog aside it just isn't that easy to
come up with new story ideas to celebrate the founding of Israel or
its day to day survival. Whether certain people wish to acknowledge it
or not, Hollywood *has* been there, *has* done that.
This piece, unfortunately, is about as perceptive and relevant as yet
another gentile complaining about what the Talmud *really* says. It
stems from pure cussed ignorance, and reads more like standard issue
left-bashing with an anti-semetic veneer tossed in to please the
consumer.
Andy Katz
______________________________________
I sentence you to kmit!
The Simpsons
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
GAN EDEN WINES
>
> "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o5AH9.5208$hM3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
> > impressed
> > > with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of
> Hollywood
> >
> > BS"D
> >
> > You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
> > populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews.
>
> Talk about pedantic. Of course, by Jews of Hollywood, and Hollywood Jews,
I,
> in deference to the author of the article quoted, was referring to Jews in
> the Film Industry (or Movie Business if you like), not Jews who happen to
> live in the geographical area called Hollywood. I would have thought that
> was obvious from the context, but they you go...
Gee, can't a guy have fun? Of course that's what you meant.
John W. Leys
> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
> Extracts:
> --------------------------
<snip>
>
> ....I came across Braveheart, winner of the 1995 Academy Award for best
> picture, a movie that I had neglected to see when it appeared. For its two
> and half hours, a mostly blood-spattered and blue-faced Mel Gibson portrays
> William Wallace, a 13th Century Scottish brigand who capably harasses the
> English army in a struggle for Scottish independence. The movie has all the
> decapitated heads and crushed skulls one would expect of a medieval epic. It
> also has the standard distinction between good guys (Wallace and his band of
> adventurers) and bad guys (King Edward I- nicknamed Longshanks - and his
> generals). No effort is spared to enlist our sympathy for the hero - his
> more intemperate moments carefully explained away. His merciless rages are
> driven, for instance, by his lust for freedom; his barbarism is a result of
> emotional loss - he has suffered....
>
> ....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
> language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
> Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little
> make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat - the
> selfless revolutionary battling for the liberation of his people. King
> Edward, the cynical, repressive warlord determined to wipe out resistance to
> his rule, would fit neatly into the shoes of Ariel Sharon. As for a love
> interest, the Princess of Wales character would find a receptive vehicle in
> Chava Alberstein, the Israeli singer whose far-left views and recent
> performances have transformed her into an apologist for Palestinian
> terror.....
<snip>
I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I see the
movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient Israel and
the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of Antiouchus.
In fact, seeing the effect Braveheart had on Scottish nationalism I've often
thought a quality film interpretaion of the life of Judah Maccabee could do
wonders to drum up support for the modern state of Israel.
Just my 2 sheckles worth..
--
Shalom!
John W. Leys
"Come on, then, back to Creation. I mustn't waste any more time.
They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution."
- The Supreme Being
from 'Time Bandits'
John W. Leys
>
> I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I see the
> movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient Israel and
> the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of Antiouchus.
>
Oi.. one too many revolts in that sentence!! And this is why I should proofread my
posts before sending them *L*
Eliyahu Rooff
"John W. Leys" <le...@helios.acomp.usf.edu> wrote in message
news:3DEF76D2...@helios.acomp.usf.edu...
> "John W. Leys" wrote:
>
> >
> > I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I see
the
> > movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient
Israel and
> > the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of
Antiouchus.
> >
>
> Oi.. one too many revolts in that sentence!! And this is why I should
proofread my
> posts before sending them *L*
>
Eliyahu
SRubin5190
from what I have seen recently on TV and movies etc.
Hollywood (meaning tv and the movies) has produced over the last decade or so:
Schindler's list. Steven Spielburg is well know for donating to Jewish causes
and is involved, I believe, in a huge Holocaust remembrance project.
Last year or the year before, a beautifully done movie about Anne Frank
appeared on network television.
recently, movies appeared on various tv channels about the Danish rescue of
Jews during WWII and a movie about the holocaust starring the same actress who
played the mother on the newer Parent Trap (can't remember her name)
the show on WB, Seventh Heaven, which I personally can't stand, but my kids
like has received numerous awards and last year featured a marriage between the
son of a minister and the daughter of a rabbi.Now I am sure some of you would
really disapprove of this, but some of us don't and it was handled very nicely,
from what I heard.
a very nice kids sitcom is now on tv called the State of Grace. takes place in
the south in the mid sixties. A Jewish family moves down there and opens a
furniture factory. their 12 year old daughter makes friends with another girl.
The children's cartoon series "Hey Arnold" featured a well-done story about a
Bar Mitzvah. The voice of the Rabbi was done by Elliiot Gould.
Rugrats has done a passover and a chanukah story. Not sure I really liked
them, but at least there was exposure.
the sci-fi program Babylon 5 featured a woman officer who was second in command
and was Jewish on the program.
I am sure there are other examples.
What I am trying to say is that I don't believe there is an anti-Jewish bias
right now in Hollywood and these programs expose the rest of the world to our
religion and culture. I also really think that most of the people in the U.S.
vehemently disagree with the suicide bombers.
Sue in PA
Fiona
"SRubin5190" <srubi...@aol.com> wrote
> thought I would put in my 2 cents about Hollywood Jews. Just my
observations
> from what I have seen recently on TV and movies etc.
>
> Hollywood (meaning tv and the movies) has produced over the last decade or
so:
> Schindler's list. Steven Spielburg is well know for donating to Jewish
causes
> and is involved, I believe, in a huge Holocaust remembrance project.
Nothing to do with Israel.
> Last year or the year before, a beautifully done movie about Anne Frank
> appeared on network television.
Again, Shoah not Israel.
> recently, movies appeared on various tv channels about the Danish rescue
of
> Jews during WWII and a movie about the holocaust starring the same actress
who
> played the mother on the newer Parent Trap (can't remember her name)
WWII not Israel.
> the show on WB, Seventh Heaven, which I personally can't stand, but my
kids
> like has received numerous awards and last year featured a marriage
between the
> son of a minister and the daughter of a rabbi.Now I am sure some of you
would
> really disapprove of this, but some of us don't and it was handled very
nicely,
> from what I heard.
Intermarriage, sheesh not "Jewish" let alone Israel.
> a very nice kids sitcom is now on tv called the State of Grace. takes
place in
> the south in the mid sixties. A Jewish family moves down there and opens
a
> furniture factory. their 12 year old daughter makes friends with another
girl.
Israel?
> The children's cartoon series "Hey Arnold" featured a well-done story
about a
> Bar Mitzvah. The voice of the Rabbi was done by Elliiot Gould.
Israel?
> Rugrats has done a passover and a chanukah story. Not sure I really liked
> them, but at least there was exposure.
Israel?
> the sci-fi program Babylon 5 featured a woman officer who was second in
command
> and was Jewish on the program.
<sigh>
> I am sure there are other examples.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I don't believe there is an anti-Jewish
bias
> right now in Hollywood and these programs expose the rest of the world to
our
> religion and culture. I also really think that most of the people in the
U.S.
> vehemently disagree with the suicide bombers.
Sue, I think you missed the point of the article completely.
The bottomline is that we are fast approaching another a situation similar
to Europe in the 30s (but this it is global), and it is happening in part
because Arafat is being cast as Churchill, Hamas as the French Resistance,
Sharon as Hitler, when in reality Arafat is pursuing the policies of Hitler
(a Jew free state, expulsion and distruction of the Jews) etc. The world has
moved on a long way since the Shoah, and while certainly we should never
forget, unless we want a replay of old footage, we have learn the lessons of
history. The Palestinians are being cast as the underdogs because they are
being taken out of context and seen in isolation from the rest of the
Arab/Islamic world of they are merely the spearhead.
Polar
Katz) wrote:
[...]
>Who is Dan Gordon and why is this particular screenwriter deemed an
>effective spokesperson for Industry Jews?
Dan Gordon has done some excellent reporting for the L.A. Jewish
Journal. Here is the URL for one of his best articles, about the
Palestinian terrorists' refusal to accept "Jewish blood" for their
wounded, during the Jenin crisis, and how the IDF handled it.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=8646
--
Polar
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Nothing to do with Israel.
This is beginning to remind me of the old protest comment Catholics
made about the Pope and the Church's teaching on sex: you no playa da
game, you no maka da rules!
This ng isn't the place to go over Hollywood films frame by frame
seeking pro or anti-Israel content. You say you don't watch movies,
okay, then why insist on interpreting these movies you haven't seen?
I wish I had a nickel for every time an observant Jew has told
another, less observant one, to study before s/he speaks on some issue
in halacha, or practice. They're correct. One should know one's
subject before speaking out, and while I know you're citing Davis's
article, Fiona, it's really not well developed. His comments about
Braveheart could apply to any cause at all.
The founding of Israel has been treated very sympathetically by
Hollywood filmmakers; they put big bucks and major stars into telling
the story.
>The bottomline is that we are fast approaching another a situation similar
>to Europe in the 30s (but this it is global), and it is happening in part
Did Jews own the tanks and the fighter planes and the nukes in pre-war
Europe? No, I'm not comparing Israel to Germany or even to France
(thank goodness!), but neither is it another shtetl.
I don't know, honestly, how virulent anti-semetism in Europe is right
now (particularly as this thread is about Hollywood!), but I know many
people in the post WW1 era believed that French anti-semetism was the
most ubiquitous and potentially destructive, that if any power engaged
in a genocide against the Jews, it would be France, not Germany. So
appearances can mislead.
>because Arafat is being cast as Churchill, Hamas as the French Resistance,
>Sharon as Hitler, when in reality Arafat is pursuing the policies of Hitler
Naturally those who sympathize with Arafat will compare him to people
they admire. I do know many Arabs, incidentally, who despise Israel
and Israeli policies but who also despise Arafat & the PA. Some also
oppose Hamas while others support armed struggle.
Isn't it odd that three Jews can form four political parties, but all
Arabs think and feel exactly alike?
The issue is far more complex than the above makes it seem. Otherwise
problems in the ME would have been solved decades ago.
>(a Jew free state, expulsion and distruction of the Jews) etc. The world has
>moved on a long way since the Shoah, and while certainly we should never
>forget, unless we want a replay of old footage, we have learn the lessons of
>history. The Palestinians are being cast as the underdogs because they are
>being taken out of context and seen in isolation from the rest of the
>Arab/Islamic world of they are merely the spearhead.
The notion that the Arab/Muslim world is as monolithic as communism
and similarly seeks to conquer the "West" has been presented here
often, but it's never been documented beyond bald assertion and taking
religious writings out of context. Naturally some agree with it
because they're predisposed to do so; it obviates the necessity to
regard the Palestinians as individuals with needs and an agenda that's
unique. Instead they're merely an extension of a malignant hive
mentality that doesn't seek autonomy or a restoration of their
ancestral lands, but rather the destruction of the Jewish people. To
negotiate with such people, therefore, is not only ill-advised, it's
morally bereft.
But just because an idea is useful doesn't mean it's correct.
Fred Rosenblatt
Yes and no. Some of the people most sympathetic to the American Revolution,
i.e., conservatives, are also the most sympathetic to Israel and condemningf
of the "Palestinians" despite their claims to be revolutionary.
> What is this person's point? That the film was an alegory for the situation
> in Israel?
I don't think that that was the point.
> That it really does parallel the current situation?
That there is a tendency among a segment of Americans to rationalize and
explain away evil by those in certain categories that can lay claim to their
sensibilities - some minorities, those of disadvantaged background, etc.
It's more sympathy for so-called "underdogs" than for revolutionaries
per se. And we do tend to filter complex situations through the lens of
a very few simplistic paradigms. Thus the Arabs are said to be acting out
of their extreme poverty and sense of hopelessness, a standard scenario of
mid-2oth century socialist politics, rather than recognizing the obvious
fact that their economic situation is the outgrowth, rather than the cause,
of their rebellion. I don't think that "Brave Heart" was necessarily
intended to address the situation in the Middle East, but certainly some
of the same attitudes come in to play.
Fred Rosenblatt
Do you disagree with the initial premise (that prominent Jews in the
So. Cal. film industry are not speaking out against terror) or with
the proposed reasons? If the latter, what do you think is the cause?
Andy Katz
Rosenblatt) wrote:
>I don't think that "Brave Heart" was necessarily
>intended to address the situation in the Middle East, but certainly some
>of the same attitudes come in to play.
This is far too weak a disclaimer, Fred.
There is nothing in Braveheart, a fairly silly but visually striking
effort, that remotely parallels the contemporary mid-East. Davis
offered it as a hypothetical, but likely he's never actually seen it,
and is relying on second-hand descriptions.
While Scottish history isn't my forte, Edward 1 *was* pretty ruthless
in suppressing rebellions in Scotland and Wales and consolidating his
kingdom; an additional nickname for him was "Hammer of the Scots."
Wallace et al fought against him, and ultimately the Scots prevailed.
How else would one portray these events?
Why doesn't Davis insist that since the characters in Exodus or Cast A
Giant Shadow or Schindler's List could also be reversed, those movies
are also clear examples of morally relativistic liberal Hollywood
antisemetic allegories?
Could it be that acknowledgment of these films would undercut his
point?
Susan Cohen
"John W. Leys" wrote:
> Fiona wrote:
>
> > As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
> > with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> > the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
> >
> > Hollywood's endangered species list.
> > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
> >
> > Extracts:
> > --------------------------
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > ....I came across Braveheart, winner of the 1995 Academy Award for best
> > picture, a movie that I had neglected to see when it appeared. [SNIP] No
> effort is spared to enlist our sympathy for the hero - his
> > more intemperate moments carefully explained away. His merciless rages are
> > driven, for instance, by his lust for freedom; his barbarism is a result of
> > emotional loss - he has suffered....
> >
> > ....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
> > language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
> > Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little
> > make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat [snip]
>
> I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart.
It's certainly politer than my own, ME politics aside....
> When I see the
> movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient Israel and
> the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of Antiouchus.
> In fact, seeing the effect Braveheart had on Scottish nationalism
making me embarrassed to be part Scots - my husband couldn't even have me in the
same room w/him while hewas watching it....
> I've often
> thought a quality film interpretaion of the life of Judah Maccabee could do
> wonders to drum up support for the modern state of Israel.
It would be interesting to see if anyone could actually get it made!
How many movies about Jewish religio-historical figures/times have been made w/out
dragging Xianity into it? Not "The 10 Commandments," for sure.
There were two Solomon & Shebas, two David movies, one Esther, one Ruth, one
Samson - did we ever "decide" about the Jewishness of Victure Mature & Hedy
Lamarr?
Susan, rambling on a cold snowy day.
John W. Leys
*groan* I heard that one coming a mile away *L*
Andy Katz
wrote:
>Dan Gordon has done some excellent reporting for the L.A. Jewish
>Journal. Here is the URL for one of his best articles, about the
>Palestinian terrorists' refusal to accept "Jewish blood" for their
>wounded, during the Jenin crisis, and how the IDF handled it.
>
>http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=8646
Interesting piece.
Thanks for posting it, Polar;-)
John W. Leys
Well, there was a series of Biblical movies on cable several years ago (it may have
been TNT but I don't recall) based on the stories of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and
David (I think there may have been others in the series. To my recollection they were
all fairly well done & didn't seem to drag Xianity into it. I can dig up some more
info on these if anyone is interested. I know a few of them are on VHS, but I don't
think they've made it to DVD yet.
Dan Kimmel
>
> The bottomline is that we are fast approaching another a situation similar
> to Europe in the 30s (but this it is global), and it is happening in part
> because Arafat is being cast as Churchill, Hamas as the French Resistance,
> Sharon as Hitler, when in reality Arafat is pursuing the policies of
Hitler
> (a Jew free state, expulsion and distruction of the Jews) etc. The world
has
> moved on a long way since the Shoah, and while certainly we should never
> forget, unless we want a replay of old footage, we have learn the lessons
of
> history. The Palestinians are being cast as the underdogs because they
are
> being taken out of context and seen in isolation from the rest of the
> Arab/Islamic world of they are merely the spearhead.
Insofar as she is talking about Hollywood, Fiona is merely revealing she
doesn't have the slightest notion what she is talking about.
Dan Kimmel
"Fred Rosenblatt" <fre...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:61cb6731.02120...@posting.google.com...
I think it's interesting that those on the right are constantly whining
about Hollywood actors and directors speaking out on politics and now
they're whining when they don't speak out.
I think Susan got this exactly right: they're damned if they do and damned
if they don't.
BlackMonk
That's my point. Forcing the analogy to Israel/Palestine is a mistake. The
movie was made that way because Americans think of the American revolution
as heroic and sympathize with analagous situations. If they don't sympatize
with Arafat, then they don't see his situation as fitting that mold. (Pun
intended. Not that it means anything, I just couldn't resist)
BlackMonk
"SRubin5190" <srubi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021205105347...@mb-fv.aol.com...
> the show on WB, Seventh Heaven, which I personally can't stand, but my
kids
> like has received numerous awards and last year featured a marriage
between the
> son of a minister and the daughter of a rabbi.Now I am sure some of you
would
> really disapprove of this, but some of us don't and it was handled very
nicely,
> from what I heard.
>
It was done fairly well. There were a lot of things they got wrong or
glossed over, but I chalk that up to the necessities of doing a TV series.
The daughter and mother-in-law come off well. The rabbi is a bit of a
characture, but how can you have Richard Lewis on the show and not have him
do schtick?
I started watching the show to see how they'd handle the intermarriage arc,
but I have to admit I still watch it every now and then. They're trying to
tell a fairly dark story this year, but this is not a show that does dark
well.
Technically, it's not an intermarriage because the son plans to convert.
(things glossed over: it's going to be a reform conversion, so half the
brides family won't accept it; converting to Judaism would mean repudiating
the divinity of Jesus, which was never addressed. probably because it would
have alienated a lot of their audience, though it would have made for some
interesting television)
BlackMonk
> Eliyahu Rooff wrote:
>
> > "John W. Leys" <le...@helios.acomp.usf.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3DEF76D2...@helios.acomp.usf.edu...
> > > "John W. Leys" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I
see
> > the
> > > > movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient
> > Israel and
> > > > the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of
> > Antiouchus.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oi.. one too many revolts in that sentence!! And this is why I should
> > proofread my
> > > posts before sending them *L*
> > >
> > Oy! What a revolting development... :-)
> >
>
> *groan* I heard that one coming a mile away *L*
>
"You said it, they stink on ice."
Polar
<gan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
>impressed
>> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
>
>BS"D
>
>You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
>populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews. There are very few movie
>personalities who live in either area. The movie companies and TV companies
>have largely moved elsewhere. These days, Hollywood Jews are not actors and
>actresses. Instead they're hard working Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews with
>large families, large mortgages and high yeshiva bills. Hancock Park, the
>major black hat Jewish area, is the heart of Hollywood. Some of my best
>friends are Hollywood Jews.
It should have been obvious that the thread was about the big machers
in the motion picture and television industries, not the folks you are
talking about.
--
Polar
SRubin5190
I think that what I was trying to prove here with my examples, is that there
are probably many Jews in Hollywood that are sympathetic to Jews everywhere as
well as Israel. As an American, I have not seen an enormous amount of sympathy
given to Arafat or the suicide bombers by the public at large. Most people I
have spoken with are disgusted with the violence on both sides and are
adamantly against the tactics used by the Palestinians.
Sue in PA
John W. Leys
That last point--the divinity of Jesus--was a point I had hoped they would have
broached, since in the real world it is the one that often causes the most
friction in such a situation. Especially given that the father on the program
is a Protestant minister. But I suppose you can only expect so much from TV,
eh?
Fred Rosenblatt
No, I think they're damned if they do *and* don't. If most actors took the
position that acting didn't qualify them to speak on political and social
issues, and kept quiet, they would be respected for that. If they spoke
out on injustice, as they saw it, wherever they saw it, they would also
have a defensible position. But when the single issue of Israel's fight
for survival is ignored, one can legitimately wonder why, especially when
many of the industry's Jews are quite vocal about other issues. Are
they not sympathetic to Israel because that view is more in line with
their general views on other issues? Are they afraid to speak out due
to fear of retaliation from others whose world view does not include
sympathy to Israel? Is there another reason? I'm sure that there are
defensible positions in all these cases, but we are certainly entitled to
wonder. We the common public have no legal claim on the private lives
of so-called celebrities, but when they use that celebrity to push causes
they of interest to them, they have to a certain extent invited us in.
Fred Rosenblatt
What you say is true as far as it goes, but not confined to the right,
as the vilification of Charleton Heston vividly shows.
Fred Rosenblatt
> How much money has gone to Israel from Industry types recently?
Counting illegal contributions from Haim Saban to the Barak campaign?
Andy Katz
Rosenblatt) wrote:
>But when the single issue of Israel's fight
>for survival is ignored, one can legitimately wonder why, especially when
>many of the industry's Jews are quite vocal about other issues. Are
>they not sympathetic to Israel because that view is more in line with
>their general views on other issues?
Or is it possible that they don't perceive current events as an actual
fight for survival on Israel's part?
Hollywood has, as I've already shown, lionized Israel's actual fight
for survival--ie. the wars of liberation--far more often and
vigorously than they did Scotland's.
Of course, Israel at the that time was perceived as being largely, if
not entirely, secular, filled with people who, from the remove, seemed
more similar to Hollywood Jews. Kirk Douglas's Mickey Marcus explains
to the Brit trying to recruit him in NYC that his Jewishness consisted
of a Bar Mitzvah and dozens of fountain pens as gifts.
Beyond the actual movie realm, I think Hollywood types are
uncomfortable speaking out against the underdog, which at this time is
the Palestinians--that doesn't make them right or deserving, al Qaeda
is also the underdog vis a viz the US--but it does create a dearth of
points of leverage for Industry types to insert their rhetorical
wedges.
Dan Kimmel
The vilification of Charlton Heston is justified for reasons that are
decidedly off-topic here. Other right wing actors (Clint Eastwood, Bruce
Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris) have not been greeted with the
same sort of opposition.
Getting back to the matter of Israel, *Jewish* Hollywood has a history of
avoiding Jewish causes as a matter of in your face advocacy because of
wanting to avoid the charge that the people running the studios had an
"agenda." Nonetheless, Hollywood celebrities have also, traditionally,
donated big money to Jewish (and Israeli) causes.\\
Given the criticism in some quarters to the way Hollywood (correctly, in my
view) links some streams of terrorism with Arab/Islamic fundamentalism, one
can hardly claim that the industry is biased *against* Israel.
Polar
elsewhere. ]
Can't think of a better nutcase to "vilify". Anybody catch "Bowling
for Columbine", Michael Moore's latest (on America's gun culture)?
The interview with Heston is priceless! Also, earlier in the film,
a clip of him hosting an NRA meeting in close proximity to Columbine,
only a few days after the shsooting, and proclaiming "...out of my
cold dead hand!..."
--
Polar
Fiona
I <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote
> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>
> --------------------------
>
> So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
> condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming
raw.
> The screenwriter, Dan Gordon, summed up the Jewish community´s puzzlement
> most eloquently when he observed that "in an industry where Jews take a
> stand on everything, there´s been a disturbing silence on Israel. I´d love
> to see the indignation about homicide bombers that is reserved for
smokers."
> Many seem to agree that there is more protest in Hollywood against
potential
> threats to endangered birds than there are against the Palestinian plans
for
> Israeli extinction..........
It seems that most people chose to miss the point completely, and of there
were the diehard liberals who claimed that you have to understand how to
make films in order to comment of the politics of those who make them.
Well since I posted Avi Davis's opinion piece an article was published in
the Jerusalem Report discussing the other side of the media coin, the Arab
TV/Film media campaign against, not Israel but the Jews, all of us. Of
course the Kimmel's of this world will always prefer to bury their heads in
the sand than take the bull by the horns. But the reality is that we have a
situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews becuase
Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions of
influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where the
underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are. If the liberal
mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling towards
genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14818
Excepts:
----------------------------------------------------------
"Horseman without a horse," the Egyptian TV hit series being broadcast by 14
Arab TV networks, is not the only anti-Semitic production to be galloping
across the screens each evening this Ramadan. For viewers looking for more
than the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" can offer, there's no shortage of
alternatives. Anti-Semitism has become the last word in the Arab
entertainment industry....
...Syrian TV is running the dramatic locally produced series, "The Collapse
of
Legends." Its central premise is that there is no archeological evidence to
support the stories of the Old Testament; that the Torah we hold holy is
nothing but one big forgery made up by rabbis; that it has no connection
with the Ten Commandments, but is rather a fabrication of history designed
to give the Jews a claim to the Land of Israel. So in the dramatized serial,
a group of Syrian archeologists sets out on a campaign to expose a group of
Zionists who have infiltrated their party with the aim of tampering with the
ancient antiquities at the famous archeological site of Ebla, in order to
give some scientific basis to the forged scripture....
...And in case you were worrying, Arafat is not being left behind.
Palestinian
TV is broadcasting a series of documentaries with one single objective: to
disprove the "myth" that any Jewish Temple ever stood in Jerusalem, and to
present any historical reference to that claim as an act of deception. The
message is that the Jews have no business in the Holy City....
....For some time now I, along with a few colleagues who lend their ears day
by
day to the voices coming from the other side, have been asking ourselves:
Where is this campaign leading? After all, this is not about withdrawing
from the territories or granting Palestinian refugees the "right of return."
Rather, it is a far-reaching, dangerous rationale laying the ground for the
justification of a mass exile of Jews from Israel -- "ethnic cleansing" in
contemporary terms -- and even beyond that, it is gradually building a case
for justifying genocide!
----------------------------------------------------------
Fiona
Dan Kimmel
For someone who claims never to read my posts, Fiona certainly seems
obsessed with what I think.
Here she pretends to know what I think about the antisemitic miniseries that
has been running in the Arab world for the last month.
>But the reality is that we have a
> situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews becuase
> Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions
of
> influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
> Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where
the
> underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are. If the liberal
> mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling towards
> genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
> question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"
This is truly ignorant. She knows nothing of *Western* media (she claims
not to see movies or TV) yet claims to be an expert on it. The laughable
notion that Hollywood "paint[s] Arabs as the underdogs" shows just out of
touch this woman is.
She also pretends that there has been no Western reaction to the Egyptian
miniseries when, if she had only read a little further in the magazine,
she'd note that Congressmen are now talking about cutting back (or cutting
off) aid to nations that foment such racist tripe, starting with Egypt.
Since she will not see this message, could someone please inform her just
how disconnected from reality she is?
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It seems that most people chose to miss the point completely, and of there
>were the diehard liberals who claimed that you have to understand how to
>make films in order to comment of the politics of those who make them.
Miss what? That the creation of Braveheart and substitution of vague
phrases in place of documented facts signifies a pro-Arab, pro-Arab
genocide of the Jews on the part of American Jews?
That's not a point. It's mere rambling incoherence on Davis's part.
>Well since I posted Avi Davis's opinion piece an article was published in
>the Jerusalem Report discussing the other side of the media coin, the Arab
>TV/Film media campaign against, not Israel but the Jews, all of us. Of
>course the Kimmel's of this world will always prefer to bury their heads in
>the sand than take the bull by the horns. But the reality is that we have a
>situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews becuase
>Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions of
Western media is not the same as Hollywood, and in general Jews aren't
as influential in overall media (ie news) as we are in film and tv
entertainment.
>influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
>Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where the
>underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are.
Viewing the *Palestinians* as underdogs is not the same as viewing all
Arabs as underdogs, nor even all Muslims (since the reference to Allah
commanding the destruction of the Jews). Denying diversity among
Arab/Muslim peoples is also a form of burying one's head from reality.
And to say that liberals are uncomfortable in taking on the underdog
isn't the same as insisting that the underdog is always right.
> If the liberal
>mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling towards
>genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
>question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"
Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes going back well beyond any
current intifada. There would be no protocol-style conspiracy theme
directed against Arabs simply because we don't credit them with
sufficient intelligence or organization.
Does this mean that the west is also plotting genocide against Arabs?
Do decades of anti-Russian anti-communist entertainments signify a
desire to eradicate all Russians?
Israel has been engaged in a war with one Islamic/Arab people for
decades now. Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
surprise or even disconcert us unduly? The sympathies of the average
Egyptian on the street lie, I'm told, firmly with the Palestinians.
But since Egypt is both not a democracy and has a peace treaty with
Israel I think Israel has done its best in securing that particular
border.
To insist that all Arab/Muslim people desire the eradication of the
Jewish people is also a form of burying one's head in the sand, denial
of the necessity to negotiate and meet one's opponent halfway.
Doesn't this assertion *also* build the case for ethnic cleansing and
genocide?
News Admin
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u779vu0iob04nvncd...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:34:53 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >It seems that most people chose to miss the point completely, and of
there
> >were the diehard liberals who claimed that you have to understand how to
> >make films in order to comment of the politics of those who make them.
>
> Miss what? That the creation of Braveheart
Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of Hollywood
to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because they
were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
Arafat was the misplaced romantism, and the fact that it was only a small
step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day Braveheart.
> and substitution of vague
> phrases in place of documented facts signifies a pro-Arab, pro-Arab
> genocide of the Jews on the part of American Jews?
>
> That's not a point. It's mere rambling incoherence on Davis's part.
>
> >Well since I posted Avi Davis's opinion piece an article was published in
> >the Jerusalem Report discussing the other side of the media coin, the
Arab
> >TV/Film media campaign against, not Israel but the Jews, all of us. Of
> >course the Kimmel's of this world will always prefer to bury their heads
in
> >the sand than take the bull by the horns. But the reality is that we have
a
> >situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews
becuase
> >Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions
of
>
> Western media is not the same as Hollywood, and in general Jews aren't
> as influential in overall media (ie news) as we are in film and tv
> entertainment.
Just as this article didn't discuss Arab news programs, but entertainment,
so that is the context I used 'media' in the above quote.
> >influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
> >Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where
the
> >underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are.
>
> Viewing the *Palestinians* as underdogs is not the same as viewing all
> Arabs as underdogs, nor even all Muslims (since the reference to Allah
> commanding the destruction of the Jews). Denying diversity among
> Arab/Muslim peoples is also a form of burying one's head from reality.
Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those who
don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there are
those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew haters,
the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you also
have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters, and
the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
complaining about anti-Semitism.
> And to say that liberals are uncomfortable in taking on the underdog
> isn't the same as insisting that the underdog is always right.
>
> > If the liberal
> >mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling
towards
> >genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
> >question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"
>
> Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
> presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes
No, I am not aware of such things. And it has nothing to do with the point.
Omar Sharriff, he played evil, violent, cartoonish apes? No, I thought not.
> going back well beyond any
> current intifada. There would be no protocol-style conspiracy theme
> directed against Arabs simply because we don't credit them with
> sufficient intelligence or organization.
Which they themselves then play on and come up with stuff like "I cannot
still believe that 19 youths, including 15 Saudis, carried out the September
11attacks with the support of bin Laden and his Al-Qa'ida organization. It's
impossible. I will not believe that these people have the power to do so
horrendous an attack." Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz.
(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14769)
> Does this mean that the west is also plotting genocide against Arabs?
I am beginning to feel really sorry for you, you're really out there Andy...
There ain't nothing anti-Arab being shown anywhere in the western-world
comparable to the Jew-hate material being shown constantly in the Arab
world.
So, come on, where do you thing the unchallenged Arab "Kill a Jew today"
propoganda will lead the world? To another Holocaust (God forbid) or Peace
in our Time?
> Do decades of anti-Russian anti-communist entertainments signify a
> desire to eradicate all Russians?
>
> Israel has been engaged in a war with one Islamic/Arab people for
> decades now.
The Arabs have been at war with the Jews for 1400 years!
> Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
> Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
> surprise or even disconcert us unduly?
Yes! Particularly when we are outnumbered by such overwhelming odds.
> The sympathies of the average
> Egyptian on the street lie, I'm told, firmly with the Palestinians.
> But since Egypt is both not a democracy and has a peace treaty with
> Israel I think Israel has done its best in securing that particular
> border.
Israel's best is not good enough, when the Egyptian side has done nothing to
secure the border and turn a deliberately blind eye to gun running.
> To insist that all Arab/Muslim people desire the eradication of the
> Jewish people is also a form of burying one's head in the sand, denial
> of the necessity to negotiate and meet one's opponent halfway.
Face reality Andy, you cannot negotiate with someone who wants to kill you.
Life is an all or nothing commodity, half-dead is not an option.
Fiona
Andy Katz
<ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of Hollywood
>to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
>focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because they
>were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
actually seen. There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
make George Washington Osama bin Laden.
>Arafat was the misplaced romantism, and the fact that it was only a small
>step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day Braveheart.
In Ramallah perhaps. In Hollywood that would be a very large step.
>Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those who
>don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there are
>those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
>the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
>then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew haters,
>the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
>haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you also
>have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
>Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
>Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters, and
>the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
>bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
>complaining about anti-Semitism.
And might these same people make exactly the same claims about
Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
so forth?
Those who hold another people in contempt are usually not the best
sources for a nuanced view of said people.
>> Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
>> presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes
>
>No, I am not aware of such things.
That's right. I forgot. You did mention that you don't watch movies or
tv, and so it's understandable that you wouldn't be aware.
>And it has nothing to do with the point.
It has everything to do with the point. If Arab media's negative
portrayal of Jews indicates a tendency towards genocide, then doesn't
western media's negative portrayal of Arabs indicate the same?
>Omar Sharriff, he played evil, violent, cartoonish apes? No, I thought not.
And with one exception, he never played Arab characters.
>> going back well beyond any
>> current intifada. There would be no protocol-style conspiracy theme
>> directed against Arabs simply because we don't credit them with
>> sufficient intelligence or organization.
>
>Which they themselves then play on and come up with stuff like "I cannot
>still believe that 19 youths, including 15 Saudis, carried out the September
>11attacks with the support of bin Laden and his Al-Qa'ida organization. It's
>impossible. I will not believe that these people have the power to do so
>horrendous an attack." Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz.
>(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14769)
Bad example. Because I'm not going to argue that the Saudis aren't
full of crap here;-)
>> Does this mean that the west is also plotting genocide against Arabs?
>
>I am beginning to feel really sorry for you, you're really out there Andy...
How about instead of that we just keep focused on the issue at
hand:-)?
>There ain't nothing anti-Arab being shown anywhere in the western-world
>comparable to the Jew-hate material being shown constantly in the Arab
>world.
Again, if you haven't actually seen the material, on either side, how
can you make that assertion?
>So, come on, where do you thing the unchallenged Arab "Kill a Jew today"
>propoganda will lead the world? To another Holocaust (God forbid) or Peace
>in our Time?
Funny, but further down you insist that the Arab world has been at war
with the Jews, all the Jews, for 14 centuries, now, and while there
certainly has been violence on their part, they haven't accomplished
anything like the slaughters our good friends the Christians have
managed. Often without even really trying, such as the Rhineland
Pogroms, or the Russian Civil War.
If they're planning another Holocaust, they're sure taking their sweet
time about it.
>> Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
>> Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
>> surprise or even disconcert us unduly?
>
>Yes! Particularly when we are outnumbered by such overwhelming odds.
Israel has made real progress with Egypt. Does that mean that the
average Egyptian loves Jews, anymore than the average Jew loves
Egyptians?
>> The sympathies of the average
>> Egyptian on the street lie, I'm told, firmly with the Palestinians.
>> But since Egypt is both not a democracy and has a peace treaty with
>> Israel I think Israel has done its best in securing that particular
>> border.
>
>Israel's best is not good enough, when the Egyptian side has done nothing to
>secure the border and turn a deliberately blind eye to gun running.
Gun running isn't good, but it beats having Egyptian T-34s cross the
border.
Naturally Arabs sympathize with the Palestinians, just as
Irish-Americans funded the IRA for decades. Does that mean that the US
and Great Britain ought to go to war?
Israel needs to settle its problems with the Palestinians.
>> To insist that all Arab/Muslim people desire the eradication of the
>> Jewish people is also a form of burying one's head in the sand, denial
>> of the necessity to negotiate and meet one's opponent halfway.
>
>Face reality Andy, you cannot negotiate with someone who wants to kill you.
Since you declare all Muslims to be Jew-haters you have no choice but
to negotiate. You can't wipe out one billion people.
>Life is an all or nothing commodity, half-dead is not an option.
How does "half-dead" come into play here?
Yitzchak Goodman
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC), "News Admin"
> <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>
> >to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
> >focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because they
> >were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
>
> actually seen. There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.
>
> >step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day Braveheart.
>
>
> >don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there are
> >those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
> >the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
> >then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew haters,
> >the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
> >haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you also
> >have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
> >Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
> >Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters, and
> >the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
> >bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
> >complaining about anti-Semitism.
>
> Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
> Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
> so forth?
Here is perhaps a more interesting way of framing this issue:
During WWII there were Germans who had no ill-will at all
towards Jews. However, national groups do function in certain
obvious ways as collective entities. Many modern
nation-states are associated with a particular nationality.
Sometimes they declare war on other nation-states.
In Germany during WWII the segment of the population that
bore ill-will towards Jews prevailed among the population
generally. The German people as a collective entity then became
a danger to the Jewish people. It should be born in
mind that Germany was also, in some ways, the most advanced
Western country militarily and scientifically.
It seems to me that now some Muslim national groups and political
groups hate Jews more than the Germans did in WWII.
The average Muslim is not as educated as the average German
was. It seems obvious that they are more susceptible
to conspiracism. Despotic governments tend to feed
their people a steady diet of conspiracy theories, etc.
After the recent riots, I think I read that Nigerian
Muslims were telling interviewers that they thought that
80 percent of Americans are Jews. Most Saudis don't believe
that Saudis were involved in the 9/11, etc. It is hard
to gauge the danger, however, because none of these groups
have the potential for conquest and domination that Germany
did before WWII. Students of Nazism sometimes use the term
"Judenkoller." It means an fit of intense anti-Semitic rage.
People who actually felt this were probably in a minority
among Germans, but it's hard to say--anti-Semites with murderous
intent gained control after all among the Germans.
How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
for a long time now among Muslims.
Yitz
Dan Kimmel
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC), "News Admin"
> <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>
> >Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of
Hollywood
> >to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
> >focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because
they
> >were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
>
> In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
> actually seen. There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.
Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
instigate an argument.
There's a name for people who do that on the Internet.
Andy Katz
Goodman) wrote:
>Here is perhaps a more interesting way of framing this issue:
>During WWII there were Germans who had no ill-will at all
>towards Jews. However, national groups do function in certain
>obvious ways as collective entities. Many modern
>nation-states are associated with a particular nationality.
>Sometimes they declare war on other nation-states.
>In Germany during WWII the segment of the population that
>bore ill-will towards Jews prevailed among the population
>generally. The German people as a collective entity then became
>a danger to the Jewish people. It should be born in
>mind that Germany was also, in some ways, the most advanced
>Western country militarily and scientifically.
>It seems to me that now some Muslim national groups and political
>groups hate Jews more than the Germans did in WWII.
I think you can find many examples throughout history where Jew-hatred
was more acute and widespread and had deeper historical roots than in
Germany. What created the Holocaust was a combination of Hitler's
total control of the apparatuses of state, his own obsessive hatred of
Jews and German efficiency.
Were, by comparison, the Rhenish Ashkenazi hated by the very European
nobility that they had financed prior to the Rhineland pogroms? Who
knows? What matters is that circumstances--organized military sorties
& indebtedness--combined to provide motive and opportunity.
>The average Muslim is not as educated as the average German
>was. It seems obvious that they are more susceptible
>to conspiracism. Despotic governments tend to feed
>their people a steady diet of conspiracy theories, etc.
>After the recent riots, I think I read that Nigerian
>Muslims were telling interviewers that they thought that
>80 percent of Americans are Jews. Most Saudis don't believe
>that Saudis were involved in the 9/11, etc. It is hard
>to gauge the danger, however, because none of these groups
>have the potential for conquest and domination that Germany
>did before WWII. Students of Nazism sometimes use the term
>"Judenkoller." It means an fit of intense anti-Semitic rage.
>People who actually felt this were probably in a minority
>among Germans, but it's hard to say--anti-Semites with murderous
>intent gained control after all among the Germans.
>How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
>has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
>for a long time now among Muslims.
Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.
To me, the point isn't whether Jews are loved or hated. International
cooperation, treaties, alliances, are based on national interest. How
many people in the world, by comparison, like Americans or the USA?
Not many, by all accounts, but because we have or develop congruent
interests, we get along, for the most part.
Certainly the Intifada has heightened tension and raised feelings
against Israel. That's probably its main purpose, and that's why it's
in Israel's best interests to find peace.
Some here have suggested that the Palestinians be expelled from the
territories at "bayonet point" if necessary, knowing full well that
such an attempt would entail a massacre, and knowing that even those
states that honor their treaties would be forced to act or possibly
face revolution. Then they can turn around and say, See, the Arabs
can't be trusted and it's all the fault of Hollywood!
Andy Katz
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
>clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
>instigate an argument.
It goes to the very heart of so many discussions here, Dan, namely by
what process or series of events do hard-liners envision peace in the
ME?
After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
people?
Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ... Israel has peace
treaties with two former Arab enemies, but they don't matter because
Egyptians and Jordanians probably don't love Israelis, and so on.
So what's the next step here, and where are they leading?
I wonder if that isn't why people like Davis babble over the alleged
content of Hollywood films and HonestReporting frets over People
magazine's designation for Israel of twenty centuries past ... because
the accumulated logic of their oft-stated positions leads inexorably
into the abyss.
>There's a name for people who do that on the Internet.
;-)
Yisroel Markov
Katz) said:
[snip]
>Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
>have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
>showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.
True. Speaking of which, I posted the following to another group I
frequent, alt.fan.heinlein, under subject "Off-T: Should I Be
Afraid?":
--------------------------------------------
As you know, I am an observant Jew (often called Orthodox Jew). As
such, I greatly appreciate the religious freedom and protection of the
law I and my coreligionists enjoy in the USA.
However, some of my coreligionists believe that the protection is
insufficient. They're trying to scare me into believing that the
so-called Christian Right is actively planning a takeover of the
government (through the Republican party) in order to Christianize the
country and advance Armageddon. This last is allegedly the reason many
devout Christians support the state of Israel. They further say that
if their plans are frustrated, they're likely to try to bring on
Armageddon all by themselves, by killing and/or forcefully converting
Jews.
I don't know whether we have any "Christian Right" on this ng, but
AFAIK we do have devout Christians; it is them I primarily address.
What do you think of all this? Is there danger? I'm sure there are
people in USA and elsewhere who do aspire to this goal, but are they
any more of a clear and present danger than, say, neo-nazis or
communists? If the end of days comes as you expect it, will you offer
me and mine an option of conversion or death?
--------------------------------------------
The first-level replies (before thread drift set in) were quite
interesting, IMHO. Some excerpts:
"The religious people I know support Israel because the Bible says it
was given to the Jews, so they believe that Jews have a right to it.
In the same way, they believe that Jews are the Chosen People and have
a special status. That doesn't necessarily mean they'd want their
daughter to marry one, but overt anti-semitism is right out. No-one I
know of plans to take over the country using the Republican Party. A
lot of the people there still vote Democrat from habit.
"I think the danger is in the mind of the beholder. I believe that
you'd find that the usual suspects are involved- Klan, Aryan Bro's,
etc. Those folks usually claim to be religious Christians, although
they don't follow Christian tenets. If the end of days comes, I'll
probably be way too busy to worry about trying to convert anyone. :)"
"Yisroel, it isn't that the folks who are truly devout Christians will
offer you such a choice. According to the New Testament (I don't know
if you're familiar with it or not), during the end times, the Jews,
who are regarded in the same NT as the chosen of God, will be led by
evangelistic Jews to embrace the concept of Jesus as the Son of God
and the path to salvation. This is not to be forced upon anyone by
humans, according to the NT, but by acts of God. Of course, in any
religion there are always those who think they are important enough to
be qualified to give God a hand when He has trouble convincing folks
on His own. Those are the ones you might want to watch carefully..."
"Just because a person is paranoid, doesn't mean there isn't anyone
out to get him. But in this case, I think the folks that brought this
up to you are trying to scare you into voting their way by trying to
sell you a steaming truckload of bovine fertilizer. My political views
are very much to the right (but at least a little bit to the left of
Genghis Khan ;-) ), and I consider myself Christian, and, no, I
think we in this country have much more important things to do. I like
to be left alone, and see no reason why I should stick my nose in your
affairs, so long as we both remain more or less law-abiding. I support
Israel because it is the decent thing to do."
"Yisroel, my background is Roman Catholic before learning of the
Baha'i Faith. I also have relatives who are Christians, Mormon, and
Jewish. I also have worked Night-Shift many years. Never once have I
ever heard of anyone contemplating any forced religious conversions.
As for the idea of Armagedon there are elements of the very far right,
very "fundamental " Christians who believe that this shall be a
physical event, and anticipate such. Now, whether or not such persons
have any power, or can exert any influence is something that I do not
know. I suspect not. That particular mind-set is not one that
appears to enable the individual to often function well in society...
With all due respect, but I believe that your friends, your
associates, may well have taken a small element of reality here and
decided to construct a mountain..."
"Two words: Hyperbolic paranoia. There are certainly some people like
this ("Reconstructionists" come to mind) but they are a tiny, fringe
group, nowhere near any sort of power outside of maybe small towns in
the wilds of Idaho. Bush is certainly not one of these. Neither is
Ashcroft. These people are *way* off in the fringes. Ashcroft is
mainstream compared to them. If these sorts of people were to somehow
take power, you'd find the vast majority of what is generally
considerd "the Christian Right" opposing them."
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Fred Rosenblatt
> Andy Katz wrote:
> >
"News Admin" wrote:
> > >Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those
> > >who don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there
> > >are those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there
> > >are the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew
> > >haters, then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew
> > >haters, the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite
> > >Jew haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you
> > >also have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters,
> > >the Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the
> > >German-Muslim Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim
> > >Jew haters, and the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a
> > >real diverse bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers
> > >of the Jews complaining about anti-Semitism.
> >
> > And might these same people make exactly the same claims about
> > Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
> > Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
> > so forth?
No, one might not. Enough of the motal equivalence, Andy. I am
probably one of the most vocal on this group for calling on people
to see the truth, and not what they would like to see. As such I
believe that the relationship between Islam and the troubles in
Indonesia, the Phillipines, India, Nigeria, etc., etc., should not
be ignored because we force ourselves to believe that all "major
religions" are inherently peaceful.
But I don't hate Arabs nor do I want a single Arab expelled from a
home in which he is willing to live at peace with the rest of the
world. If you are truly seeking moral equivalence, find me one
Arab who is willing to say that he believes that Jews should be able
to live at peace in theire homes in Israel.
> How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
> has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
> for a long time now among Muslims.
The picture of the nursery school girl raising hands covered
in red paint in celebration of the Ramallah lynching says
everything that needs to be said about that.
Fiona
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC), "News Admin"
> <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>
> >Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of
Hollywood
> >to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
> >focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because
they
> >were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
>
> In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
> actually seen.
Where is your evidence that he has never seen it?
> There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.
George Washington killed innocent civilians? (I can believe it, but I've
never heard it said.)
> >Arafat was the misplaced romantism, and the fact that it was only a small
> >step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day
Braveheart.
>
> In Ramallah perhaps. In Hollywood that would be a very large step.
CNN do a pretty good job of it.
> >Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those
who
> >don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there
are
> >those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
> >the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
> >then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew
haters,
> >the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
> >haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you
also
> >have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
> >Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
> >Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters,
and
> >the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
> >bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
> >complaining about anti-Semitism.
>
> And might these same people make exactly the same claims about
> Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
> Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
> so forth?
I am sure they make the claim already, in fact they always have done it is
one of their classic excuses for hating the Jews. There is even a verse in
the Koran to support it.
> Those who hold another people in contempt are usually not the best
> sources for a nuanced view of said people.
You accusing me of hating Arabs? I don't hate Arabs, some of my best friends
are Arabs (or married to them) :-), but I do hold Islam in contempt. But
then you seem to know nothing of Islam, so it's kind of difficult to discuss
the Jewish-Arab reality with you.
> >> Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
> >> presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes
> >
> >No, I am not aware of such things.
>
> That's right. I forgot. You did mention that you don't watch movies or
> tv, and so it's understandable that you wouldn't be aware.
Just 'cos I choose not to go to the movies, or own a TV does not mean I
never see them, or have never seen them, nor have never studies Media
Studies or made films, video, or been involved in TV production.
> >And it has nothing to do with the point.
>
> It has everything to do with the point. If Arab media's negative
> portrayal of Jews indicates a tendency towards genocide, then doesn't
> western media's negative portrayal of Arabs indicate the same?
You want to claim that there is equivalence between the western media's
portrayal of Arabs and the Arab media's portrayal of Jews? Name one western
program/movie that portrays Arabs as using Jewish or Christian blood for
ritual purposes.
[snip]
> >There ain't nothing anti-Arab being shown anywhere in the western-world
> >comparable to the Jew-hate material being shown constantly in the Arab
> >world.
>
> Again, if you haven't actually seen the material, on either side, how
> can you make that assertion?
Who says I haven't any of the material? On either side.
> >So, come on, where do you thing the unchallenged Arab "Kill a Jew today"
> >propoganda will lead the world? To another Holocaust (God forbid) or
Peace
> >in our Time?
>
> Funny, but further down you insist that the Arab world has been at war
> with the Jews, all the Jews, for 14 centuries, now, and while there
> certainly has been violence on their part, they haven't accomplished
> anything like the slaughters our good friends the Christians have
> managed. Often without even really trying, such as the Rhineland
> Pogroms, or the Russian Civil War.
Just shows how little you know about Jewish-Arab history.
> If they're planning another Holocaust, they're sure taking their sweet
> time about it.
What do you expect, German efficiency?
Are you going to actually answer the question?
> >> Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
> >> Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
> >> surprise or even disconcert us unduly?
> >
> >Yes! Particularly when we are outnumbered by such overwhelming odds.
>
> Israel has made real progress with Egypt.
In case you forgot, Egypt closed it's embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Egyptian
media if full of anti-semitic crap. We have at best a 'cold' peace with
Egypt.
Who wants to wipe out anyone?
> >Life is an all or nothing commodity, half-dead is not an option.
>
> How does "half-dead" come into play here?
You proposed to give away have of what you have in negotiations, when
someone to kill you, what is halfway?
Fiona
Fiona
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
> >clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
> >instigate an argument.
Wrong again Kimmel, I know exactly what I am talking about. Just because I
choose not watch films, or own a sh*t spewing box in my home (other than the
internet). Does not mean I have never watched films or television, or
studied media studies. Anyway, the whole argument actually very little to do
with Hollywood, it is about media politics, and although you don't want to
face it we (Israeli Jews) are at war. Now as far as I am concerned you (pl)
liberal media sc*m in the USA are a danger to us, and it is about time you
came clean about who's side you are on. As your lovely president said: you
are either with us or you are against us.
> It goes to the very heart of so many discussions here, Dan, namely by
> what process or series of events do hard-liners envision peace in the
> ME?
>
> After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
> plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
> not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
> people?
Nice try, but as you well know the law of 'first strike' only applies where
there is actual knowledge of an attack. It is Islam that says you can wipe
out anyone you *think* is going to attack you, this is based on the Sunna of
Mohamed, where he massacred the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) because he got
paranoid and thought they were going to attack him. You are getting your
religions mixed up, go study your Qoran and Hadith.
> Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
> about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
> can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ...
Can you provide some evidence, hard evidence, not your fantasy that everyone
can be bought for the right price, that the Arabs *can* be reasoned and
bargained with, and *can* be trusted. Such as an agreement that the
Palestinians have ever kept.
> Israel has peace
> treaties with two former Arab enemies, but they don't matter because
> Egyptians and Jordanians probably don't love Israelis, and so on.
Israel only has 'peace' agreements with Egypt and Jordan because we whipped
'em in the last war. Israel had wiped out the Egyptian Airforce and
surrounded the Egyptian Army in Sinai, we were on the verge of taking Cairo.
Course they signed a peace agreement, have they ever made any real attempt
to foster a peaceful neighbourly spirit?
> So what's the next step here, and where are they leading?
Defence of the Jews. Where are you heading? And back to the original
question that you continue to avoid, and try to spin back, where is the Arab
anti-semitism of a billion muslims leading?
> I wonder if that isn't why people like Davis babble over the alleged
> content of Hollywood films and HonestReporting frets over People
> magazine's designation for Israel of twenty centuries past ... because
> the accumulated logic of their oft-stated positions leads inexorably
> into the abyss.
>
> >There's a name for people who do that on the Internet.
A Kimmel?
Fiona
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:02:30 +0000 (UTC), yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak
> Goodman) wrote:
>
> >Here is perhaps a more interesting way of framing this issue:
> >During WWII there were Germans who had no ill-will at all
> >towards Jews. However, national groups do function in certain
> >obvious ways as collective entities. Many modern
> >nation-states are associated with a particular nationality.
> >Sometimes they declare war on other nation-states.
> >In Germany during WWII the segment of the population that
> >bore ill-will towards Jews prevailed among the population
> >generally. The German people as a collective entity then became
> >a danger to the Jewish people. It should be born in
> >mind that Germany was also, in some ways, the most advanced
> >Western country militarily and scientifically.
> >It seems to me that now some Muslim national groups and political
> >groups hate Jews more than the Germans did in WWII.
>
> I think you can find many examples throughout history where Jew-hatred
> was more acute and widespread and had deeper historical roots than in
> Germany. What created the Holocaust was a combination of Hitler's
> total control of the apparatuses of state, his own obsessive hatred of
> Jews and German efficiency.
But he could not use any of those to achieve anything until he had granted
license to the general populous to let them do the that was in their hearts.
He granted them license through propoganda and incitment, in return they
elected him and followed through his designs.
> >The average Muslim is not as educated as the average German
> >was. It seems obvious that they are more susceptible
> >to conspiracism. Despotic governments tend to feed
> >their people a steady diet of conspiracy theories, etc.
> >After the recent riots, I think I read that Nigerian
> >Muslims were telling interviewers that they thought that
> >80 percent of Americans are Jews. Most Saudis don't believe
> >that Saudis were involved in the 9/11, etc. It is hard
> >to gauge the danger, however, because none of these groups
> >have the potential for conquest and domination that Germany
> >did before WWII. Students of Nazism sometimes use the term
> >"Judenkoller." It means an fit of intense anti-Semitic rage.
> >People who actually felt this were probably in a minority
> >among Germans, but it's hard to say--anti-Semites with murderous
> >intent gained control after all among the Germans.
> >How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
> >has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
> >for a long time now among Muslims.
>
> Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
> have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
> showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.
Pointless comparison, Muslim culture is not Christian culture, Muslim
methodology is not Christian methodology. Considering the once mighty
Eastern communities were reduced to shadows of their former selves by the
time they fled to Israel in the 50s, the Arabs did a pretty good job. Where
do you think all those Jews went? Europe? Why would they go there if
conditions were so bad?
> To me, the point isn't whether Jews are loved or hated. International
> cooperation, treaties, alliances, are based on national interest.
Name one Arab state that has an national interest compatable with Israel
(other than Jordon, where only 20% of the population is non-Palestinian, or
Christian Lebanon, which we already sold down the river anyway)?
> How
> many people in the world, by comparison, like Americans or the USA?
> Not many, by all accounts, but because we have or develop congruent
> interests, we get along, for the most part.
>
> Certainly the Intifada has heightened tension and raised feelings
> against Israel. That's probably its main purpose, and that's why it's
> in Israel's best interests to find peace.
>
> Some here have suggested that the Palestinians be expelled from the
> territories at "bayonet point" if necessary, knowing full well that
> such an attempt would entail a massacre, and knowing that even those
> states that honor their treaties would be forced to act or possibly
> face revolution. Then they can turn around and say, See, the Arabs
> can't be trusted and it's all the fault of Hollywood!
Those of us who know that the Arabs cannot be trusted know it because of
history and culture, that, we are not going to blame on Hollywood and nobody
has even suggested such a thing. What we will blame on Hollywood is their
promotion of the Palestinian "big lie," that they are the defenceless
underdog who has to resort to murdeing pensioners, women, and children in
order to 'defend' themselves.
Fiona
Yisroel Markov
Katz) said:
>On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
><dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
>>clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
>>instigate an argument.
>
>It goes to the very heart of so many discussions here, Dan, namely by
>what process or series of events do hard-liners envision peace in the
>ME?
>
>After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
>plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
>not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
>people?
You're over-reaching, IMHO. I don't believe anyone advocates killing
all Jew-haters - just the ones who are a clear and present danger.
That's probably less than a thousand people, all told.
>Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
>about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
>can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ... Israel has peace
>treaties with two former Arab enemies, but they don't matter because
>Egyptians and Jordanians probably don't love Israelis, and so on.
Hardly. What I see is that the hard-liners insist on negotiating from
a position of strength, with real consequences for violations - not
that negotiations are impossible. Haven't you seen appeals from the
-right to the Palestinians to get themselves more reasonable leaders
who will actually negotiate in good faith?
[snip]
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
>> actually seen.
>
>Where is your evidence that he has never seen it?
His own comments.
>> There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
>> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
>> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
>> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
>> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.
>
>George Washington killed innocent civilians? (I can believe it, but I've
>never heard it said.)
Neither did Wallace, according to the film Davis cited.
>You accusing me of hating Arabs? I don't hate Arabs, some of my best friends
>are Arabs (or married to them) :-), but I do hold Islam in contempt.
Yes. And this is exactly why I take your analyses of Islam with a
hefty grain of salt. After all, we would hardly accept the "truth"
about Judaism from someone who doesn't hate Jews but does avowedly
hold Judaism in contempt, right?
>But then you seem to know nothing of Islam,
Then that makes two of us;-)
>so it's kind of difficult to discuss the Jewish-Arab reality with you.
Au contraire. If you honestly believe that I know nothing about Islam,
then I'm exactly the person you need to discuss this reality with.
Who better? Someone who already agrees with everything you have to say
and thus validates your comments without the need for further thought?
>Just 'cos I choose not to go to the movies, or own a TV does not mean I
>never see them, or have never seen them, nor have never studies Media
>Studies or made films, video, or been involved in TV production.
Be that as it may, citing Davis's article creates understandable
grounds for skepticism.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Hollywood,
American media and prominent Jews, but the Davis article missed all of
them.
>You want to claim that there is equivalence between the western media's
>portrayal of Arabs and the Arab media's portrayal of Jews? Name one western
>program/movie that portrays Arabs as using Jewish or Christian blood for
>ritual purposes.
Ethnic groups have their own, usually unique stereotypes. To accuse
Christians or Muslims of blood libel would be meaningless, like a
small child hurling accusations back at his parents simply to mirror
what he's heard.
>> Funny, but further down you insist that the Arab world has been at war
>> with the Jews, all the Jews, for 14 centuries, now, and while there
>> certainly has been violence on their part, they haven't accomplished
>> anything like the slaughters our good friends the Christians have
>> managed. Often without even really trying, such as the Rhineland
>> Pogroms, or the Russian Civil War.
>
>Just shows how little you know about Jewish-Arab history.
You're right, Fiona, I'm not an expert on Arab-Jewish history. But I
do read scjm, and I've noticed that people cite, for example, a
massacre in Medina prompted by Muhammad that took the lives of about
six hundred. Now it would be cold comfort if you were one of the six
hundred, but six hundred corpses would scarcely get our Christian pals
warmed up. During the Russian Civil War one hundred times as many Jews
were massacred in one city alone, in one action, by the Whites,
incidentally.
I'm sure there have been other examples of violence against Jews. But
if Moslems slew as many Jews as Christians I'm equally certain we'd
have seen the figures posted here.
And as for treating Jews as equals?
Please . . . how many European nations offered Jews full citizenship
prior to the French Revolution? In many instances we were lucky if
they allowed us in at all.
>> If they're planning another Holocaust, they're sure taking their sweet
>> time about it.
>
>What do you expect, German efficiency?
Islam under the Caliphs enjoyed a hegemony and duration in Asia Minor
and the Mediterranean that Hitler could only have dreamed of. They had
plenty of opportunity.
>Are you going to actually answer the question?
What question?
>In case you forgot, Egypt closed it's embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Egyptian
>media if full of anti-semitic crap. We have at best a 'cold' peace with
>Egypt.
Sure. And it's liable to get colder as the Intifada continues. But no
one says peace has to be based on warmth, just a recognition of mutual
interest.
>> Since you declare all Muslims to be Jew-haters you have no choice but
>> to negotiate. You can't wipe out one billion people.
>
>Who wants to wipe out anyone?
I certainly don't. But I wonder whether hard-liners are painting
themselves into a corner here.
Dan Kimmel
> I wonder if that isn't why people like Davis babble over the alleged
> content of Hollywood films and HonestReporting frets over People
> magazine's designation for Israel of twenty centuries past ... because
> the accumulated logic of their oft-stated positions leads inexorably
> into the abyss.
Have to disagree on this point. The Hollywood angle was just plain nuts
since it involved a willful misinterpretation/misunderstanding of movies
having nothing whatsoever to do with the Middle East.
But when People magazine claims there was an ancient land of "Palestine" but
"Israel" is purely a modern invention, they are rewriting history and they
are doing so in a way that works to the disadvantage of Israel. That
*ought* to be challenged.
Dan Kimmel
>
> "Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
> > <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have
a
> > >clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
> > >instigate an argument.
>
> Wrong again Kimmel, I know exactly what I am talking about. Just because I
> choose not watch films, or own a sh*t spewing box in my home (other than
the
> internet). Does not mean I have never watched films or television, or
> studied media studies. Anyway, the whole argument actually very little to
do
> with Hollywood, it is about media politics, and although you don't want to
> face it we (Israeli Jews) are at war. Now as far as I am concerned you
(pl)
> liberal media sc*m in the USA are a danger to us, and it is about time you
> came clean about who's side you are on. As your lovely president said: you
> are either with us or you are against us.
Fiona once again declares that she can analyze contemporary films without
actually have to watch them. No doubt she also davens without actually
reading the prayers and studies Torah without examining the text. Her
hysterical screed is empty of facts, now claiming that because she doesn't
understand a movie like "Braveheart" that proves she understands the
completely unrelated issue of how the Middle East is covered in the news
media.
And -- for the record -- our president is not "lovely." He's a warmongering
idiot who may destroy the world to prove how "tough" he is against
terrorism.
Oh, and let's not forget, Fiona pontificates and presumes to instruct me,
but she's not actually interested in a discussion because she has me
killfiled. That's because she knows what I think without actually having to
read my posts. Maybe we can convince her to leave SCJM altogether, allowing
her non-participation to be "proof" that she has "won" the debate.
> > I wonder if that isn't why people like Davis babble over the alleged
> > content of Hollywood films and HonestReporting frets over People
> > magazine's designation for Israel of twenty centuries past ... because
> > the accumulated logic of their oft-stated positions leads inexorably
> > into the abyss.
> >
> > >There's a name for people who do that on the Internet.
>
> A Kimmel?
Moderators: why are you allowing Fiona free reign to engage in personal
attacks utterly devoid of on-topic content?
Yitzchak Goodman
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:02:30 +0000 (UTC), yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak
> Goodman) wrote:
>
> >Here is perhaps a more interesting way of framing this issue:
> >During WWII there were Germans who had no ill-will at all
> >towards Jews. However, national groups do function in certain
> >obvious ways as collective entities. Many modern
> >nation-states are associated with a particular nationality.
> >Sometimes they declare war on other nation-states.
> >In Germany during WWII the segment of the population that
> >bore ill-will towards Jews prevailed among the population
> >generally. The German people as a collective entity then became
> >a danger to the Jewish people. It should be born in
> >mind that Germany was also, in some ways, the most advanced
> >Western country militarily and scientifically.
> >It seems to me that now some Muslim national groups and political
> >groups hate Jews more than the Germans did in WWII.
>
> I think you can find many examples throughout history where Jew-hatred
> was more acute and widespread and had deeper historical roots than in
> Germany.
I'm not sure what you mean by "deeper historical roots."
Nazi anti-Semitism had its roots in Christian anti-Semitism
although it certainly contained other elements.
What created the Holocaust was a combination of Hitler's
> total control of the apparatuses of state, his own obsessive hatred of
> Jews and German efficiency.
And anti-Semitism among the German populace.
> Were, by comparison, the Rhenish Ashkenazi hated by the very European
> nobility that they had financed prior to the Rhineland pogroms? Who
> knows? What matters is that circumstances--organized military sorties
> & indebtedness--combined to provide motive and opportunity.
I suppose every actual outbreak of anti-Semitic violence
has its own circumstances. It doesn't seem to alter
what I am saying, unless you are arguing that anti-Semitism
itself was irrelvant to these incidents.
> >The average Muslim is not as educated as the average German
> >was. It seems obvious that they are more susceptible
> >to conspiracism. Despotic governments tend to feed
> >their people a steady diet of conspiracy theories, etc.
> >After the recent riots, I think I read that Nigerian
> >Muslims were telling interviewers that they thought that
> >80 percent of Americans are Jews. Most Saudis don't believe
> >that Saudis were involved in the 9/11, etc. It is hard
> >to gauge the danger, however, because none of these groups
> >have the potential for conquest and domination that Germany
> >did before WWII. Students of Nazism sometimes use the term
> >"Judenkoller." It means an fit of intense anti-Semitic rage.
> >People who actually felt this were probably in a minority
> >among Germans, but it's hard to say--anti-Semites with murderous
> >intent gained control after all among the Germans.
> >How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
> >has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
> >for a long time now among Muslims.
>
> Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
> have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
> showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.
I don't think that the anti-Semitism that exists now
among the Muslims has existed for 14 centuries.
I think we live in a unique time in which many
of the world's Muslims believe the same sorts
of things that were believed in the days when entire
Jewish communities were wiped out because some
blood-colored mold appeared on communion wafers.
Arafat's wife blamed Arab fertility problems
on a Jewish plot to put things in the water.
Palestinians were told that Israel drops
poisoned toys out of airplanes.
> To me, the point isn't whether Jews are loved or hated. International
> cooperation, treaties, alliances, are based on national interest. How
> many people in the world, by comparison, like Americans or the USA?
> Not many, by all accounts, but because we have or develop congruent
> interests, we get along, for the most part.
And what about the exceptions? I think that we
would agree that getting along is not really an option
where Al Quaeda is concerned. It seems possible,
on the other hand, to get along with Jordan.
The discussion gets more interesting if we
turn to Iraq and the Palestinians. The major political
parties among Americans are the Democrats
and the Republicans. The major political
parties among the Palestinians are Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, and factions of the PLO
such as Fatah and the PFLP. Even Fatah
often takes credit for terrorist acts.
> Certainly the Intifada has heightened tension and raised feelings
> against Israel. That's probably its main purpose, and that's why it's
> in Israel's best interests to find peace.
>
> Some here have suggested that the Palestinians be expelled from the
> territories at "bayonet point" if necessary, knowing full well that
> such an attempt would entail a massacre, and knowing that even those
> states that honor their treaties would be forced to act or possibly
> face revolution. Then they can turn around and say, See, the Arabs
> can't be trusted and it's all the fault of Hollywood!
I have never supported Meir Kahane's argument that Arabs should
be transferred out because of their high birthrate. If that
is the threat, then let us convince more Israelis to
have large families or let us make aliyah
in larger numbers. However, I do think that any action
that is necessary to end the suicide attacks is justified.
The Palestinains must be made to feel that the
consequences of further attacks are just too
terrible to contemplate. If that does not require
transfer, fine, and fine if it does.
Yitz
Robert
to post something that is ON-topic for a change. The following information
comes from the public domain encyclopedia, Wikipedia.Org
The Quran preaches that the founders of Judaism were not Jews, but rather
Muslims. Jews consider this denial of their forefathers to be anti-Semitic;
Muslims do not.
"No, Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a
Muslim and one pure of faith; certainly he was never of the idolaters."
(III - The house of Imran 60)
The religion of Islam mandates a great level of tolerance for both Jews and
Christians. Early verses in the Koran limit religious disputations with them
to those occurring in a fair manner.
"Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner, except
for those of them that do wrong; and say, 'We believe in what has been sent
down to us, and what has been sent down to you: Our God and your God is One,
and to Him we have surrendered." ( XXIX: The Spider: 45 )
After Muhammed's program to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed,
he that "The unbelievers of the people of the Book and the idolaters shall
be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of
creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best
of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
However, the constitution of Medina, one of the earliest documents of the
Muslim community in Medina, which was transmitted by Ibn Hisham states: "The
Jews of Banu Awf [phrases are repeated for the different Jewish communities]
are a community along with the believers. To the Jews their religion and to
the Muslim their religion."
Jewish tribes which had treaties with the Muslim umma, the constitution of
Medina states: "A Jew who follows us has a right to the same help and
support as the believers, so long they are not wronged by him and he does
not help others against them."
When Muslim armies conquered nations, they felt no special need to force
Jews (or Christians) to convert to Islam. Instead of forcing conversion on
Jews and Christians, Islam imposed an official second-class citizenship,
known as dhimmi (protected), which provided them a restricted set of rights.
As dhimmi, Jews faced a greater level of tolerance under Muslim rule than
Jews under Christian rule (or Muslims under Christian rule.) They were
provided with limited autonomy, and full rights to practice their religion.
However, a broad series of restrictions were imposed on their behavior, and
in some locales they were forced to wear clothes with certain colors
signifying their dhimmi status. In all locales, Jewish men had to pay the
Jizya, or dhimmi tax, though they were exempted from the Zakat, or Muslim
tax.
Based on verses from the Quran, many Muslims hold that a Muslim should never
be friends with Jews or Christians. This view is still held by many Muslims
today, especially those within, but not limited to, the Islamist movement.
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the
Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and
as a sport" (V: The Table: 60); and "O believers take not Jews and
Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes
them his friends is one of them " ( V. The Table: 55 )
Muhammed teaches that Muslims have the right to wage war against Jews (and
Christians).
"And he brought down those of the People of the Book who supported them
from their fortresses and cast terror in their hearts; some you slew, some
you made captive. And He bequeathed upon you their lands, their habitations,
and their possessions, and a land you never trod. God is powerful over
everything." (XXXIII - The Confederates: 25)
These verses refer not to rhetoric, but to actual historical events,
specifically Mohammed's attack on the Jewish community of Khyber, and the
attacks then waged on the Christian Arab tribes in the region.
For Jewish tribes which had treaties with the Muslim umma, the constitution
of Medina states: "A Jew who follows us has a right to the same help and
support as the believers, so long they are not wronged by him and he does
not help others against them
Anti-Semitism in Islam has developed over time; some hold that it's roots do
not stretch back to Muhammad himself. The forms of Anti-Semitism extant in
Islam today come from a number of causes, including the assimilation of
anti-Semitism from neighboring Christian civilizations, the resurgence of
Islamic fundamentalism; the need for the secular Arab nationalist to have a
clearly identified enemy, and the extremely wide self-perception that all
Arabs are being victimized by some Jewish conspiracy to control the
middle-east.
Andy Katz
<judai...@yahoo.com.spammenot> wrote:
>The Quran preaches that the founders of Judaism were not Jews, but rather
>Muslims. Jews consider this denial of their forefathers to be anti-Semitic;
>Muslims do not.
Interesting point. I can see an Islamic version of Lisa shrugging and
saying, "Hey, don't get bent out of shape. It' just the truth."
>When Muslim armies conquered nations, they felt no special need to force
>Jews (or Christians) to convert to Islam. Instead of forcing conversion on
>Jews and Christians, Islam imposed an official second-class citizenship,
>known as dhimmi (protected), which provided them a restricted set of rights.
As did much of Europe (well, except for the protected part) until the
French Revolution.
>As dhimmi, Jews faced a greater level of tolerance under Muslim rule than
>Jews under Christian rule (or Muslims under Christian rule.) They were
>provided with limited autonomy, and full rights to practice their religion.
>However, a broad series of restrictions were imposed on their behavior, and
>in some locales they were forced to wear clothes with certain colors
>signifying their dhimmi status. In all locales, Jewish men had to pay the
>Jizya, or dhimmi tax, though they were exempted from the Zakat, or Muslim
>tax.
Some try to argue that less than full enfranchisement amounts to
treatment similar to that during the Nazi era.
>Based on verses from the Quran, many Muslims hold that a Muslim should never
>be friends with Jews or Christians. This view is still held by many Muslims
>today, especially those within, but not limited to, the Islamist movement.
Sorry, but define "friends". I know from reading scjm that some frum
Jews avoid close relationships with gentiles in order to avoid the
possibility of intermarraige. I know some might argue that they're
still "friends," just not *close* friends with said gentiles.
Fiona
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:17:27 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
> <judai...@yahoo.com.spammenot> wrote:
>
> >The Quran preaches that the founders of Judaism were not Jews, but rather
> >Muslims. Jews consider this denial of their forefathers to be
anti-Semitic;
> >Muslims do not.
>
> Interesting point. I can see an Islamic version of Lisa shrugging and
> saying, "Hey, don't get bent out of shape. It' just the truth."
Except that the Madman came along 2000 years after the fact and used this
line with intent to deliberate disenfranchise the Jews.
> >When Muslim armies conquered nations, they felt no special need to force
> >Jews (or Christians) to convert to Islam. Instead of forcing conversion
on
> >Jews and Christians, Islam imposed an official second-class citizenship,
> >known as dhimmi (protected), which provided them a restricted set of
rights.
>
> As did much of Europe (well, except for the protected part) until the
> French Revolution.
>
> >As dhimmi, Jews faced a greater level of tolerance under Muslim rule than
> >Jews under Christian rule (or Muslims under Christian rule.) They were
> >provided with limited autonomy, and full rights to practice their
religion.
> >However, a broad series of restrictions were imposed on their behavior,
and
> >in some locales they were forced to wear clothes with certain colors
> >signifying their dhimmi status. In all locales, Jewish men had to pay the
> >Jizya, or dhimmi tax, though they were exempted from the Zakat, or Muslim
> >tax.
>
> Some try to argue that less than full enfranchisement amounts to
> treatment similar to that during the Nazi era.
Do they, got an example for that, a quote or something?
> >Based on verses from the Quran, many Muslims hold that a Muslim should
never
> >be friends with Jews or Christians. This view is still held by many
Muslims
> >today, especially those within, but not limited to, the Islamist
movement.
>
> Sorry, but define "friends". I know from reading scjm that some frum
> Jews avoid close relationships with gentiles in order to avoid the
> possibility of intermarraige. I know some might argue that they're
> still "friends," just not *close* friends with said gentiles.
Good God, how far will you bend over backwards to invent equivalence to
defend your "buddies".
Here, spin this, from their own mouths:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14886
Fiona
Andy Katz
Goodman) wrote:
>I'm not sure what you mean by "deeper historical roots."
Well, I would argue that anti-semitism has deeper roots in England or
France to offer just two examples.
>Nazi anti-Semitism had its roots in Christian anti-Semitism
>although it certainly contained other elements.
Yes. I agree. And hence my point that while we fret over the alleged
sentiments of the world's Muslims, historically it's Christian
anti-semitism that has caused us greater woe.
> What created the Holocaust was a combination of Hitler's
>> total control of the apparatuses of state, his own obsessive hatred of
>> Jews and German efficiency.
>
>And anti-Semitism among the German populace.
Again, sure, but many historians argue the French, British and even US
anti-semitism was stronger in the 20s and early 30s than the German
variety. I don't know if these comparisons are entirely valid but that
they would even be offered suggests that Germany's plunge into
barbaric Jew-hatred wasn't only the result of a visible progression.
>I suppose every actual outbreak of anti-Semitic violence
>has its own circumstances. It doesn't seem to alter
>what I am saying, unless you are arguing that anti-Semitism
>itself was irrelvant to these incidents.
Here you get into defintions. Anti-semitism can be defined, I suppose,
as racism often is, not as hatred per se, but as the outcome of a
systematized process of exclusion. Possibly--and this is very
hypothetical, I know--the Crusaders didn't feel hatred for Jews, but
rather an opportunity to cleanse their own souls and erase a debt, an
opportunity derived from the Jews' own status as heathens.
After all, I seriously doubt the Crusaders were anti-Christian, but
that didn't stop them from slaughtering their Orthodox brethren in
Constantinople.
>I don't think that the anti-Semitism that exists now
>among the Muslims has existed for 14 centuries.
>I think we live in a unique time in which many
>of the world's Muslims believe the same sorts
>of things that were believed in the days when entire
>Jewish communities were wiped out because some
>blood-colored mold appeared on communion wafers.
>Arafat's wife blamed Arab fertility problems
>on a Jewish plot to put things in the water.
>Palestinians were told that Israel drops
>poisoned toys out of airplanes.
Yes, certainly. I would never argue that anti-Jewish sentiment is on
the rise in Arab and Muslim lands. The longer the intifada lasts, the
stronger this sentiment will grow, the more fantastic tales will be
spread.
Recall the crucified Canadian seargeant of WWI? A persistant
anti-German legend (I'm sure the Germans had their own) told by their
own highly-educated co-religionists who happened to fight for the
other side.
Conflict certainly obscures truth and banishes common sense.
What I'm arguing here is against the assumption that Arab/Muslim
anti-semitism hasn't changed, is mere business as usual, and thus
Israeli policies vis a viz the Palestinians bears no responsibility
for it.
>And what about the exceptions? I think that we
>would agree that getting along is not really an option
>where Al Quaeda is concerned. It seems possible,
Right. Anymore than cooperation was possible with Japan of the
thirties.
The argument has been made that treaties don't matter because the
nations in question are still anti-semetic. I'm arguing that their
anti-semitism doesn't matter because of their treaties.
>I have never supported Meir Kahane's argument that Arabs should
>be transferred out because of their high birthrate. If that
>is the threat, then let us convince more Israelis to
>have large families or let us make aliyah
>in larger numbers. However, I do think that any action
>that is necessary to end the suicide attacks is justified.
>The Palestinains must be made to feel that the
>consequences of further attacks are just too
>terrible to contemplate. If that does not require
>transfer, fine, and fine if it does.
If this could done with a definite start and finite conclusion (unlike
GWB's vaunted "war" on terror) I might agree. Israel's position in the
international community deteriorates, and calling it business as usual
among Muslims, Hollywood and CNN (I'm not saying that's your position,
incidentally, just one I've read here quite often) seems like burying
one's head in the sand every bit as much liberals are accused of
doing.
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
>> have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
>> showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.
>
>Pointless comparison, Muslim culture is not Christian culture, Muslim
>methodology is not Christian methodology. Considering the once mighty
You've cited the conditions of Jews living under dhimmi and they don't
sound ideal, but were these Jews really any worse off than their
European counterparts?
>Eastern communities were reduced to shadows of their former selves by the
>time they fled to Israel in the 50s, the Arabs did a pretty good job. Where
>do you think all those Jews went? Europe? Why would they go there if
>conditions were so bad?
Again, without justifying such treatment, at least they were *able* to
flee, in sharp contrast to their German, Polish, Lithuanian, Russian
etc., counterparts.
And how many fled vs made aliyah to the first Jewish state in 2,000
years?
>Name one Arab state that has an national interest compatable with Israel
>(other than Jordon, where only 20% of the population is non-Palestinian, or
>Christian Lebanon, which we already sold down the river anyway)?
You've already named two;-)
That's real progress considering how things stood just a few decades
ago.
>Those of us who know that the Arabs cannot be trusted know it because of
>history and culture, that, we are not going to blame on Hollywood and nobody
>has even suggested such a thing. What we will blame on Hollywood is their
>promotion of the Palestinian "big lie," that they are the defenceless
>underdog who has to resort to murdeing pensioners, women, and children in
>order to 'defend' themselves.
I still don't see any indication that Hollywood has promoted even so
much as sympathy for the Palestinian cause, much less promoted PA
propaganda.
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
>> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
>> plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
>> not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
>> people?
>
>Nice try, but as you well know the law of 'first strike' only applies where
>there is actual knowledge of an attack. It is Islam that says you can wipe
>out anyone you *think* is going to attack you, this is based on the Sunna of
>Mohamed, where he massacred the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) because he got
>paranoid and thought they were going to attack him. You are getting your
>religions mixed up, go study your Qoran and Hadith.
Yet I've seen readers here suggest that very thing.
>> Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
>> about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
>> can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ...
>
>Can you provide some evidence, hard evidence, not your fantasy that everyone
>can be bought for the right price,
Bought?
>that the Arabs *can* be reasoned and
>bargained with, and *can* be trusted. Such as an agreement that the
>Palestinians have ever kept.
Reasonableness is an assumption. But even without it, so what? The
Arabs aren't going anywhere, so ultimately they have to be reasoned
with.
>Israel only has 'peace' agreements with Egypt and Jordan because we whipped
>'em in the last war. Israel had wiped out the Egyptian Airforce and
>surrounded the Egyptian Army in Sinai, we were on the verge of taking Cairo.
I thought the actual treaties were signed in the early 80s, around the
time of Sadat's visit to Tel Aviv. Nearly a decade after the last war.
>Course they signed a peace agreement, have they ever made any real attempt
>to foster a peaceful neighbourly spirit?
Has Israel?
>> So what's the next step here, and where are they leading?
>
>Defence of the Jews. Where are you heading? And back to the original
>question that you continue to avoid, and try to spin back, where is the Arab
>anti-semitism of a billion muslims leading?
I can't answer a question that begs a question, namely the assumption
that one billion Muslims are anti-semetic.
But, taking it as a hypothetical, how does one defend against one
billion enemies?
Andy Katz
Markov) wrote:
>You're over-reaching, IMHO. I don't believe anyone advocates killing
>all Jew-haters - just the ones who are a clear and present danger.
>That's probably less than a thousand people, all told.
No. Not all Jew-haters, certainly. But I have read the comment about
self-defense, specifically about killing him who comes to kill you, in
reference to the Palestinians here before.
>Hardly. What I see is that the hard-liners insist on negotiating from
>a position of strength, with real consequences for violations - not
>that negotiations are impossible. Haven't you seen appeals from the
>-right to the Palestinians to get themselves more reasonable leaders
>who will actually negotiate in good faith?
Even if they do, suppose a Palestinian Gandhi arrives on the scene,
how many wildcat bombings have to take place because this leader is
also discredited?
There certainly are elements among the Palestinians who do not wish
peace at all--they believe, I'm told, that what drove Israeli forces
out of Lebanon will work for all of Israel. They know, too, that they
need only a handful of dedicated personnel to disrupt any peace
process.
Paul
The situation of Jews in Arab countries was not as bad as the situation in
Christian Europe. However incidents did occur.
I don't have the exact cites in front of me, so I'm working from memory.
Arabia - 620-630 CE - Jewish tribes in Arabia totally wiped out by Mohammed
Arab Caliphate - 637 - Pact of Omar determined the place of Jews in Moslem
society. Jews were not allowed to build new synagogues, had to pray quietly
and were forbidden from preventing other Jews from converting. They were
also forbidden to ride horses or hold judicial or civil posts. In order to
be easily distinguished from Moslems, they were eventually forced to wear a
yellow patch (850), a practice the Christians later adopted. They were also
banished from "Holy Arabia". In many Moslem countries (Saudi Arabia) some of
aspects of the pact are still in effect today.
Syria - 640-740 Umayyad Calipahte - Repression of Jews (and Christians).
Many forced conversions.
Morocco - around 700 CE, Jews and Jewish Berber tribes forcibly converted to
Islam in Arab conquest of North Africa.
Spain - around 970 CE Jews in Barcelona were massacred by local Muslims and
their property expropriated.
Egypt - around 1000 CE pogroms in Egypt resulting in the death of many
Jews.
Spain, around 1000 CE, the Almohades control Spain. Many Jews were killed,
some converted, some fled (Maimonides flees to Egypt)
Fez Moroco - 1050 CE, Jewish community destroyed around 6,000 Jews killed.
Granada Spain - 1066 CE Jewish community destroyed.
this is only the first 350 years of Jewish/Muslim relations and I've
probably left out many incidents. These are the highlights that I can
recall.
The upshot is:
Yes, conditons for the Jews under Muslim rule may not have been has harsh as
those in Christian Europe, but Jews did not have it easy. The apologists for
Muslims who claim that Jews and Arabs have a history of peace need to read
some real history.
PS: Using quotes from the Koran, by people who have never really studied
Islam, is as specious as people, who have never studied Judaism quoting
from the Torah or the Talmud. In other words, it is easy to spread
ignorance.
Polar
<judai...@yahoo.com.spammenot> wrote:
>Considering the title of this thread, I thought that it might be interesting
>to post something that is ON-topic for a change. The following information
>comes from the public domain encyclopedia, Wikipedia.Org
Thank you for drawing attention to that marvelous site.
I went to their article on Henry Kissinger as a test case.
They passed!
[...Koran verses concerning Judaism, with commentary...]
--
Polar
Dan Kimmel
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:17:27 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
> <judai...@yahoo.com.spammenot> wrote:
>
> >The Quran preaches that the founders of Judaism were not Jews, but rather
> >Muslims. Jews consider this denial of their forefathers to be
anti-Semitic;
> >Muslims do not.
>
> Interesting point. I can see an Islamic version of Lisa shrugging and
> saying, "Hey, don't get bent out of shape. It' just the truth."
We have a winner! :)
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Except that the Madman came along 2000 years after the fact and used this
>line with intent to deliberate disenfranchise the Jews.
Jews were not fully enfranchised in any culture in which we were not
dominant until the 18th century. Why single out Islam?
>> Some try to argue that less than full enfranchisement amounts to
>> treatment similar to that during the Nazi era.
>
>Do they, got an example for that, a quote or something?
No. But I'm thinking about the instances where posters here complained
about dhimmi as though it were uniquely awful, when it was really
closer to typical, in fact fairly benign compared to European
disenfranchisement.
>> Sorry, but define "friends". I know from reading scjm that some frum
>> Jews avoid close relationships with gentiles in order to avoid the
>> possibility of intermarraige. I know some might argue that they're
>> still "friends," just not *close* friends with said gentiles.
>
>Good God, how far will you bend over backwards to invent equivalence to
>defend your "buddies".
Am I wrong? Do frum Jews willingly break bread with gentiles? Or
embrace them as close friends?
How often have we heard--from Voltaire in fact quite recently--that
Jews feel superior, or are standoffish because some prefer not to
closely associate with gentiles or gentile society?
>Here, spin this, from their own mouths:
>http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14886
I already *know* the Palestinians are angry and some of their
spokesmen engage in the most virulent of rhetoric. But they, the
Palestinians, are a distinct minority among both Arabs and among all
Muslims. They do not speak for all Muslims anymore than Michael Lerner
speaks for all Jews.
Polar
(SRubin5190) wrote:
>>Nothing to do with Israel.
>
>I think that what I was trying to prove here with my examples, is that there
>are probably many Jews in Hollywood that are sympathetic to Jews everywhere as
>well as Israel. As an American, I have not seen an enormous amount of sympathy
>given to Arafat or the suicide bombers by the public at large. Most people I
>have spoken with are disgusted with the violence on both sides and are
>adamantly against the tactics used by the Palestinians.
>Sue in PA
Thanks, Sue.
Too bad world Islam is not equally disgusted. Their silence has been
deafening.
--
Polar
Fiona
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:19:57 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
> >> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
> >> plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
> >> not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
> >> people?
> >
> >Nice try, but as you well know the law of 'first strike' only applies
where
> >there is actual knowledge of an attack. It is Islam that says you can
wipe
> >out anyone you *think* is going to attack you, this is based on the Sunna
of
> >Mohamed, where he massacred the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) because he got
> >paranoid and thought they were going to attack him. You are getting your
> >religions mixed up, go study your Qoran and Hadith.
>
> Yet I've seen readers here suggest that very thing.
Care to post a reference?
> >> Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
> >> about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
> >> can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ...
> >
> >Can you provide some evidence, hard evidence, not your fantasy that
everyone
> >can be bought for the right price,
>
> Bought?
You keep talking about negotiating, what do you think negotiation *is*?
> >that the Arabs *can* be reasoned and
> >bargained with, and *can* be trusted. Such as an agreement that the
> >Palestinians have ever kept.
>
> Reasonableness is an assumption.
Firstly. Never assume anything, especially in negotiations.
Secondly. Reasonableness is a western concept, when dealing with
non-Westerners don't expect Western minds.
Thirdly. As Charles Handy (a business guru, and writer) points out in his
book the Age of Unreason, it is the unreasonable who invariably get the most
out of negotiated deals.
> But even without it, so what?
Ever worked in credit finance? Heard of credit checks? Whenever anyone
approaches a credit institution asking to borrow money (and even for other
things renting a house, or leasing business equipment), the company wil run
a credit check to find out how borrower has performed in the past, have they
been declared bankrupt, how often have they defaulted, do they have court
judgements against for failure to hold to an agreement. Insurance companies
follow very similar processes, to evaluate the risk of a particular venture
or client, history has to be assessed. You want big ticket cover for an oil
tanker? How many oil tankers have you owned previously? Had any loses at
sea?
The maths are very simple, that's why Hashem gave us brains, and the ability
to assess history. If your high street bank will not give an overdraft to
someone who has not previous agreements to repay loans, how can you expect
Israel to make more agreements with someone who has not kept a single clause
of all the previous agreements he has made. If that is the way you treat
defaulters, don't expect to be in business very long.
> The
> Arabs aren't going anywhere, so ultimately they have to be reasoned
> with.
Make up your mind, reasoning with someone and negotiating with them are two
completely different things.
> >Israel only has 'peace' agreements with Egypt and Jordan because we
whipped
> >'em in the last war. Israel had wiped out the Egyptian Airforce and
> >surrounded the Egyptian Army in Sinai, we were on the verge of taking
Cairo.
>
> I thought the actual treaties were signed in the early 80s, around the
> time of Sadat's visit to Tel Aviv. Nearly a decade after the last war.
Yes, the peace treaties were signed afterwards (Egypt in March 26, 1979
although the Camp David accords were Sept 17, '78, Jordan as late as Oct 26,
94), but they were signed because of the Israeli successes, in 67 and 73.
Although they both signed at very different time, they ultimately signed for
the same reason - funds and arms from the USA.
> >Course they signed a peace agreement, have they ever made any real
attempt
> >to foster a peaceful neighbourly spirit?
>
> Has Israel?
Yes.
> >> So what's the next step here, and where are they leading?
> >
> >Defence of the Jews. Where are you heading? And back to the original
> >question that you continue to avoid, and try to spin back, where is the
Arab
> >anti-semitism of a billion muslims leading?
>
> I can't answer a question that begs a question, namely the assumption
> that one billion Muslims are anti-semetic.
Islam, like Christianity is built on a foundation of Jew-hatred, but it is
far more blatant. And while Islam, like many other religions, is most
frequently observed in the breach, the bottom line of who is a Muslim or not
is the recognition of the Qoran, and that book is black and white about
commanding Muslims to "fight against the Jews" who are "the sons of monkeys
and pigs." As the Syrian foreign minister said, Islam's hatred of Jews is
"a sacred hatred."
> But, taking it as a hypothetical, how does one defend against one
> billion enemies?
With patience, stamina, and faith in the God who has already brought us
through a few thousand years of persicution.
Fiona
Yisroel Markov
Katz) said:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:18:35 +0000 (UTC), ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel
>Markov) wrote:
>
>>You're over-reaching, IMHO. I don't believe anyone advocates killing
>>all Jew-haters - just the ones who are a clear and present danger.
>>That's probably less than a thousand people, all told.
>
>No. Not all Jew-haters, certainly. But I have read the comment about
>self-defense, specifically about killing him who comes to kill you, in
>reference to the Palestinians here before.
Again, which and how many Palestinians? You make it sound as if there
are people advocating extermination of all Palestinians. You started
with "all Moslems," now it seems to be "all Palestinians" - I suppose
that's progress, but could you please make your position clear?
>>Hardly. What I see is that the hard-liners insist on negotiating from
>>a position of strength, with real consequences for violations - not
>>that negotiations are impossible. Haven't you seen appeals from the
>>-right to the Palestinians to get themselves more reasonable leaders
>>who will actually negotiate in good faith?
>
>Even if they do, suppose a Palestinian Gandhi arrives on the scene,
>how many wildcat bombings have to take place because this leader is
>also discredited?
Sorry, I don't understand the above sentence. Why do bombings "have"
to take place? Discredited by whom?
>There certainly are elements among the Palestinians who do not wish
>peace at all--they believe, I'm told, that what drove Israeli forces
>out of Lebanon will work for all of Israel. They know, too, that they
>need only a handful of dedicated personnel to disrupt any peace
>process.
What, in your opinion, is the appropriate way of dealing with such
elements?
Polar
Katz) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:18:35 +0000 (UTC), ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel
>Markov) wrote:
>
>>You're over-reaching, IMHO. I don't believe anyone advocates killing
>>all Jew-haters - just the ones who are a clear and present danger.
>>That's probably less than a thousand people, all told.
>
>No. Not all Jew-haters, certainly. But I have read the comment about
>self-defense, specifically about killing him who comes to kill you, in
>reference to the Palestinians here before.
>
>>Hardly. What I see is that the hard-liners insist on negotiating from
>>a position of strength, with real consequences for violations - not
>>that negotiations are impossible. Haven't you seen appeals from the
>>-right to the Palestinians to get themselves more reasonable leaders
>>who will actually negotiate in good faith?
>
>Even if they do, suppose a Palestinian Gandhi arrives on the scene,
>how many wildcat bombings have to take place because this leader is
>also discredited?
>
>There certainly are elements among the Palestinians who do not wish
>peace at all--they believe, I'm told, that what drove Israeli forces
>out of Lebanon will work for all of Israel. They know, too, that they
>need only a handful of dedicated personnel to disrupt any peace
>process.
>
That last is a fairly accurate, if somewhat too mild, summary of the
reasons why there is no peace.
The Palestinian "elements" you refer to have the guns. the terror, and
the money from the EU, the US, Iran and Saudi, with which to keep
their wretched people [1] in line, just in case anyone tries to work
for peace with Israel. The result is death, and not always by just a
merciful bullet; sometimes by "necklacing".
[1] Who have seen their standard of living go into the toilet since
the intifada. Under Israeli administration, all indices improved:
health, education, employment, etc. Now...
The Arab mentality (except for the emancipated and cosmopolitan
elements who long ago emigrated from Palestine) understands only
force; therefore what you say about their reaction to Israel's
unilateral withdrawal is quite accurate, and can easily be documented
by researching the Arabic language media.
--
Polar
Yitzchak Goodman
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:13:30 +0000 (UTC), yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak
> Goodman) wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure what you mean by "deeper historical roots."
>
> Well, I would argue that anti-semitism has deeper roots in England or
> France to offer just two examples.
I'm not sure what you mean here. All European anti-Semitism has common
roots to some extent, the writings of the "Church Fathers," for
instance. The Jews of England (unlike those of France and Germany) got
through the first two crusades relatively unscathed, but then England
had the first blood libel. Of course, Germany didn't exist in the
modern sense. I think the fact that its national consciousness was
achieved later partially explains why German anti-Semitism was
so virulent.
> >Nazi anti-Semitism had its roots in Christian anti-Semitism
> >although it certainly contained other elements.
>
> Yes. I agree. And hence my point that while we fret over the alleged
> sentiments of the world's Muslims, historically it's Christian
> anti-semitism that has caused us greater woe.
>
> > What created the Holocaust was a combination of Hitler's
> >> total control of the apparatuses of state, his own obsessive hatred of
> >> Jews and German efficiency.
> >
> >And anti-Semitism among the German populace.
>
> Again, sure, but many historians argue the French, British and even US
> anti-semitism was stronger in the 20s and early 30s than the German
> variety. I don't know if these comparisons are entirely valid but that
> they would even be offered suggests that Germany's plunge into
> barbaric Jew-hatred wasn't only the result of a visible progression.
But the "visible progression" seems to be there. Martin Luther, who
was a vicious anti-Semite, played a very large part in forming
German national consciousness. Wagner's anti-Semitic ideas were
associated with ideas of Teutonic grandeur, etc.
> >I suppose every actual outbreak of anti-Semitic violence
> >has its own circumstances. It doesn't seem to alter
> >what I am saying, unless you are arguing that anti-Semitism
> >itself was irrelvant to these incidents.
>
> Here you get into defintions. Anti-semitism can be defined, I suppose,
> as racism often is, not as hatred per se, but as the outcome of a
> systematized process of exclusion. Possibly--and this is very
> hypothetical, I know--the Crusaders didn't feel hatred for Jews, but
> rather an opportunity to cleanse their own souls and erase a debt, an
> opportunity derived from the Jews' own status as heathens.
>
> After all, I seriously doubt the Crusaders were anti-Christian, but
> that didn't stop them from slaughtering their Orthodox brethren in
> Constantinople.
Did they exactly consider them to be co-religionists?
Perhaps they regarded them as heretics.
> >I don't think that the anti-Semitism that exists now
> >among the Muslims has existed for 14 centuries.
> >I think we live in a unique time in which many
> >of the world's Muslims believe the same sorts
> >of things that were believed in the days when entire
> >Jewish communities were wiped out because some
> >blood-colored mold appeared on communion wafers.
> >Arafat's wife blamed Arab fertility problems
> >on a Jewish plot to put things in the water.
> >Palestinians were told that Israel drops
> >poisoned toys out of airplanes.
>
> Yes, certainly. I would never argue that anti-Jewish sentiment is on
> the rise in Arab and Muslim lands. The longer the intifada lasts, the
> stronger this sentiment will grow, the more fantastic tales will be
> spread.
But it isn't merely something that results from the intifada.
Arabs were already influenced by Western anti-Semitism
at the time of the Damascus blood libel. (Speaking of "roots," you
should like this point: Current Arab anti-Semitism is partially
rooted in Christian anti-Semitism.) The whole history of
Zionist immigration to Israel and the establishment of the
modern State of Israel has been marked, I think, by increasing
Arab interest in, and acceptance of, Western anti-Semitism.
This resonated with elements of Islam that perhaps were dormant
for a long time, but which we see strongly now. The Communist bloc,
with whom the Arabs were allied for a long time, also promoted
the idea of Zionist conspiracies.
> Recall the crucified Canadian seargeant of WWI? A persistant
> anti-German legend (I'm sure the Germans had their own) told by their
> own highly-educated co-religionists who happened to fight for the
> other side.
>
> Conflict certainly obscures truth and banishes common sense.
>
> What I'm arguing here is against the assumption that Arab/Muslim
> anti-semitism hasn't changed, is mere business as usual, and thus
> Israeli policies vis a viz the Palestinians bears no responsibility
> for it.
Your term "visible progression" fits here perhaps,
and, as I have been saying, it starts long before
the Intifada. Israeli policies towards the Palestinians
are part of the dynamic, but I wouldn't apply the word
"responsibility." Israel has been much more restrained then
America ever would have been. All other things being equal,
Israelis are very liberal. In fact, perhaps Israeli reluctance
to defend itself more vigorously has given the Arabs time
to perfect their propaganda.
> >And what about the exceptions? I think that we
> >would agree that getting along is not really an option
> >where Al Quaeda is concerned. It seems possible,
>
> Right. Anymore than cooperation was possible with Japan of the
> thirties.
>
> The argument has been made that treaties don't matter because the
> nations in question are still anti-semetic. I'm arguing that their
> anti-semitism doesn't matter because of their treaties.
Does Iran honor any treaties signed from
before the overthrow of the Shah?
What if Egypt falls to Islamic radicalism?
> >I have never supported Meir Kahane's argument that Arabs should
> >be transferred out because of their high birthrate. If that
> >is the threat, then let us convince more Israelis to
> >have large families or let us make aliyah
> >in larger numbers. However, I do think that any action
> >that is necessary to end the suicide attacks is justified.
> >The Palestinains must be made to feel that the
> >consequences of further attacks are just too
> >terrible to contemplate. If that does not require
> >transfer, fine, and fine if it does.
>
> If this could done with a definite start and finite conclusion (unlike
> GWB's vaunted "war" on terror) I might agree. Israel's position in the
> international community deteriorates, and calling it business as usual
> among Muslims, Hollywood and CNN (I'm not saying that's your position,
> incidentally, just one I've read here quite often) seems like burying
> one's head in the sand every bit as much liberals are accused of
> doing.
It depends on what you mean by "business as usual." There is
considerable
background to what we are seeing now. One book which comes to mind
is a collection of articles from 1990 called "Anti-zionism and
Antisemitism in the Contemporary World," edited by Robert Wistrich.
Yitz
Susan S
amk...@earthlink.net (Andy Katz):
So what, how do we know Hitler spoke for all Germans? They did,
for the greatest part, follow him. Or did nothing to stop him. I
apply that same standard to "all Muslims."
Susan Silberstein
Member, University of Ediacara Howler Monkeys SETI Team
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_60063.html
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Care to post a reference?
I prefer not to cite other scjm readers in this context.
>> Bought?
>
>You keep talking about negotiating, what do you think negotiation *is*?
A melding of common interests, compromise, adaptation, and yes,
*buying* is one aspect.
[...snip...]
>The maths are very simple, that's why Hashem gave us brains, and the ability
>to assess history. If your high street bank will not give an overdraft to
>someone who has not previous agreements to repay loans, how can you expect
>Israel to make more agreements with someone who has not kept a single clause
>of all the previous agreements he has made. If that is the way you treat
>defaulters, don't expect to be in business very long.
Okay. But Israel has no other alternative. Sooner or later a
negotiated peace will, some sort of compromise, will have to occur.
The Palestinians don't seem willing to walk peaceably out of this
particular bank.
>Make up your mind, reasoning with someone and negotiating with them are two
>completely different things.
Why not both?
>> I thought the actual treaties were signed in the early 80s, around the
>> time of Sadat's visit to Tel Aviv. Nearly a decade after the last war.
>
>Yes, the peace treaties were signed afterwards (Egypt in March 26, 1979
>although the Camp David accords were Sept 17, '78, Jordan as late as Oct 26,
>94), but they were signed because of the Israeli successes, in 67 and 73.
>Although they both signed at very different time, they ultimately signed for
>the same reason - funds and arms from the USA.
Sure. Two countries fight wars, the first step is that they stop
fighting--ceasefire/armistice--then they sign treaties--perhaps both
sides holding their noses at the time ... the love comes later, often
much, much later.
>Islam, like Christianity is built on a foundation of Jew-hatred, but it is
>far more blatant. And while Islam, like many other religions, is most
>frequently observed in the breach, the bottom line of who is a Muslim or not
>is the recognition of the Qoran, and that book is black and white about
I always thought it was more basic, there is not God but Allah, and
Mohammad was His last prophet.
>commanding Muslims to "fight against the Jews" who are "the sons of monkeys
>and pigs." As the Syrian foreign minister said, Islam's hatred of Jews is
>"a sacred hatred."
And yet many Muslims will say that while there is anger at the Jews in
the Muslim world, Muslims also recognize Jews, and Christians, as
fellow Peoples of the Book.
Who to believe? The Muslim or the non-Muslim?
>> But, taking it as a hypothetical, how does one defend against one
>> billion enemies?
>
>With patience, stamina,
Here we agree, both qualities will be required in abundance;-)
> and faith in the God who has already brought us
>through a few thousand years of persicution.
Hmmm . . . I'm going to leave this one alone.
Andy Katz
Markov) wrote:
>Again, which and how many Palestinians? You make it sound as if there
>are people advocating extermination of all Palestinians. You started
>with "all Moslems," now it seems to be "all Palestinians" - I suppose
>that's progress, but could you please make your position clear?
I apologize for not being clearer, Yisroel. The discussion segues from
Palestinians, to Arabs, to Muslims. For the record I disagree that all
Muslims (or even all Arabs) hate Jews (even if they're angry at
Israel's policies re the Palestinians) or that Islam is built on a
foundation of Jew-hatred, anymore than permitting gentiles to drown is
Judaism's primary mitzvah.
>>Even if they do, suppose a Palestinian Gandhi arrives on the scene,
>>how many wildcat bombings have to take place because this leader is
>>also discredited?
>
>Sorry, I don't understand the above sentence. Why do bombings "have"
>to take place? Discredited by whom?
They don't have to. I just don't see any single Palestinian leader
bringing Hamas and the other radicals around. It takes only a handful
of radicals to disrupt any peace process by terror attacks.
>>There certainly are elements among the Palestinians who do not wish
>>peace at all--they believe, I'm told, that what drove Israeli forces
>>out of Lebanon will work for all of Israel. They know, too, that they
>>need only a handful of dedicated personnel to disrupt any peace
>>process.
>
>What, in your opinion, is the appropriate way of dealing with such
>elements?
I think Israel has been acting effectively against some leaders
through assassination and imprisonment. I think they're going to have
wait Arafat out, until a new leader arrives on the scene, and the
support that leader. Rather than Hitler, I think Arafat's position is
more closely analogous to the Kaiser's. Once he's gone, new
possibilities may emerge.
Israel is also going to have to deal with some of the settlements,
remove them by force if necessary, much as the idea appalls.
I find it ironic that some here have justified assaults by frum Jews
against other Jews for praying in mixed minyans at the Kotel or
permitting women to appear there in immodest attire, yet the notion of
possibly using force against frum Jews whose presence in settlements
endangers the entire nation is so unthinkable.
Andy Katz
wrote:
>So what, how do we know Hitler spoke for all Germans? They did,
>for the greatest part, follow him. Or did nothing to stop him. I
>apply that same standard to "all Muslims."
All Muslims do not inhabit a single nation as did Hitler's followers.
Fiona
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:03:58 +0000 (UTC), Susan S <ot...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So what, how do we know Hitler spoke for all Germans? They did,
> >for the greatest part, follow him. Or did nothing to stop him. I
> >apply that same standard to "all Muslims."
>
> All Muslims do not inhabit a single nation as did Hitler's followers.
Amazing, you think only Germans followed Hitler? What about the Austrians,
the Poles, the Ukrainians, Rumanians, etc. etc...
Fiona
Fiona
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Care to post a reference?
>
> I prefer not to cite other scjm readers in this context.
So I dismiss you accusation.
> >> Bought?
> >
> >You keep talking about negotiating, what do you think negotiation *is*?
>
> A melding of common interests, compromise, adaptation, and yes,
> *buying* is one aspect.
The root of the word is Negotium, Latin for Business. The bottomline of
negotiation is that each party has something that the other party wants. The
Palestinians don't actually have anything we want, that's why they attack
us, to create the illusion that there is something to negotiate for. It's
the payground mentality of the bully, "I'll stop hitting you, if you give me
your sweets." So there is actually nothing to negotiate with the
Palestinians, their air-like promise to stop hitting us if we give them our
physical reality is valueless.
> [...snip...]
>
> >The maths are very simple, that's why Hashem gave us brains, and the
ability
> >to assess history. If your high street bank will not give an overdraft to
> >someone who has not previous agreements to repay loans, how can you
expect
> >Israel to make more agreements with someone who has not kept a single
clause
> >of all the previous agreements he has made. If that is the way you treat
> >defaulters, don't expect to be in business very long.
>
> Okay. But Israel has no other alternative. Sooner or later a
> negotiated peace will, some sort of compromise, will have to occur.
What is there left to compromise on? I find it strange that a country so
obsessed with competition and winning, gives up on that idea when it comes
to Israel, and demands that Israel surrenders and compromises all the time.
> The Palestinians don't seem willing to walk peaceably out of this
> particular bank.
If it weren't for the US demands on Israel and the constant supply of funds
and armaments to the PLO from the US, the EU, and the Arab Dictatorships,
not to mention the unwavering support of the UN, Israel would have been able
to sue for peace a long time ago.
> >Make up your mind, reasoning with someone and negotiating with them are
two
> >completely different things.
>
> Why not both?
Why not neither, they declared war on us, let them pay the price.
> >> I thought the actual treaties were signed in the early 80s, around the
> >> time of Sadat's visit to Tel Aviv. Nearly a decade after the last war.
> >
> >Yes, the peace treaties were signed afterwards (Egypt in March 26, 1979
> >although the Camp David accords were Sept 17, '78, Jordan as late as Oct
26,
> >94), but they were signed because of the Israeli successes, in 67 and 73.
> >Although they both signed at very different time, they ultimately signed
for
> >the same reason - funds and arms from the USA.
>
> Sure. Two countries fight wars, the first step is that they stop
> fighting--ceasefire/armistice--then they sign treaties--perhaps both
In '73 the ceasefire was forced upon Israel by evil piece of US Jewry with
Jewish blood on his hands, Henry Kissinger. Israel could have taken both
Cairo and Damascus, but Kissinger blackmailed them into stopping the advance
by treatening to stop supplies, just like he delayed delivering supplies for
the first eight days of the war to "let Israel bleed a little."
> sides holding their noses at the time ... the love comes later, often
> much, much later.
The cold peace with Mitzraim is getting colder by the day, and their
anti-Semitic incitement grows and grows.
> >Islam, like Christianity is built on a foundation of Jew-hatred, but it
is
> >far more blatant. And while Islam, like many other religions, is most
> >frequently observed in the breach, the bottom line of who is a Muslim or
not
> >is the recognition of the Qoran, and that book is black and white about
>
> I always thought it was more basic, there is not God but Allah, and
> Mohammad was His last prophet.
And where is that written?
> >commanding Muslims to "fight against the Jews" who are "the sons of
monkeys
> >and pigs." As the Syrian foreign minister said, Islam's hatred of Jews
is
> >"a sacred hatred."
>
> And yet many Muslims will say that while there is anger at the Jews in
> the Muslim world, Muslims also recognize Jews, and Christians, as
> fellow Peoples of the Book.
And what do you think that means? The only difference between being a Person
of the Book, and being an idolator is that an idolator can be killed for
refusing to accept Islam. But don't worry there are plenty of other reasons
in Islamic law to kill Jews and Christians, like insulting the "prophet," so
therefore it is quite easy to spin a refusal to embrace Islam into an
insult.
> Who to believe? The Muslim or the non-Muslim?
The non-Muslim, goes without saying. The Muslims say Muhammed was a prophet,
the Jews say he wasn't. Who to believe? The Muslim or the non-Muslim?
> >> But, taking it as a hypothetical, how does one defend against one
> >> billion enemies?
> >
> >With patience, stamina,
>
> Here we agree, both qualities will be required in abundance;-)
>
> > and faith in the God who has already brought us
> >through a few thousand years of persicution.
>
> Hmmm . . . I'm going to leave this one alone.
Chicken :-)
Fiona
Polar
Thanks, Fiona! That needed saying.
While the Germans have bent over backwards to atone, insofar as that
is possible, for the Shoah, the Austrians have never done squat. In
fact, one of their "best" Nazis was Sec'y-General of the United
Nations -- unser Kurt Waldheim.
In addition to the other nationalities you listed, the Baltic nations
were right up there, particularly the Lithuanians, and some still are.
Remember, the French were the only (?) country that used their own
police to cooperate with the Gestapo in delivering up Jews to the
transports. And there is still a deep streak of Jew-hatred among the
old Royalist/Catholic "aristoracy" of France, not to mention the
nouveau Jew-haters like the followers of Le Pen.
And if one wants to go into who "did anything to stop" Hitler/Nazis,
that throws the field wi-i-i-i-i-i-i-de open. In fact it brings it
right to our (US/UK) doorstep.
--
Polar
Eliyahu
>
> "Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nb0nvucfkp57tcu2e...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> > <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Care to post a reference?
> >
> > I prefer not to cite other scjm readers in this context.
>
> So I dismiss you accusation.
>
> > >> Bought?
> > >
> > >You keep talking about negotiating, what do you think negotiation *is*?
> >
> > A melding of common interests, compromise, adaptation, and yes,
> > *buying* is one aspect.
>
> The root of the word is Negotium, Latin for Business. The bottomline of
> negotiation is that each party has something that the other party wants.
The
> Palestinians don't actually have anything we want, that's why they attack
> us, to create the illusion that there is something to negotiate for.
The things for which people negotiate don't have to be physical property or
even capable of description. In the case of Israel, what they want is to
live in peace with its neighbors, and that is something that the
Palestinians and others are quite capable of providing. The problem isn't
one of a lack of subject matter for negotiation but, rather, that the other
party refuses to negotiate in good faith.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
Andy Katz
<sme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Thanks, Fiona! That needed saying.
[...snip...]
>And if one wants to go into who "did anything to stop" Hitler/Nazis,
>that throws the field wi-i-i-i-i-i-i-de open. In fact it brings it
>right to our (US/UK) doorstep.
Everything you write is correct--though in their defense, I understand
the French have more of a mixed record wrt the Jews; they deported
alien Jews, but at least made some effort to protect those that were
French citizens--but the context is comparing Islam to Nazism, and
even without Teutonic efficiency, 1,700 years ought to be enough if
you really hold a eliminationist anti-semetic philosophy.
I *know* Christians killed far more Jews than Muslims. Now I wonder
how many were killed by Muslims compared to fundamentalist
co-religionists like our old pals, the Hasmoneans.
Fiona
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote> > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:07:57 ? (UTC), "Fiona"
> > > <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Care to post a reference?
> > >
> > > I prefer not to cite other scjm readers in this context.
> >
> > So I dismiss you accusation.
> >
> > > >> Bought?
> > > >
> > > >You keep talking about negotiating, what do you think negotiation
*is*?
> > >
> > > A melding of common interests, compromise, adaptation, and yes,
> > > *buying* is one aspect.
> >
> > The root of the word is Negotium, Latin for Business. The bottomline of
> > negotiation is that each party has something that the other party wants.
> The
> > Palestinians don't actually have anything we want, that's why they
attack
> > us, to create the illusion that there is something to negotiate for.
>
> The things for which people negotiate don't have to be physical property
or
> even capable of description. In the case of Israel, what they want is to
> live in peace with its neighbors, and that is something that the
> Palestinians and others are quite capable of providing.
Unfortunately there is asolutely no evidence to support that claim. On the
contrary there is ample evidence that shows exactly the opposite. They do
not have in their hearts, in their minds, or in their books the concept of
peace that we yearn for. The Arab concept of peace requires Arabs to be in a
dominant position and Jews to be inferior, they have no other idea of peace
and we don't want to buy that one. So there is nothing to negotiate for.
> The problem isn't
> one of a lack of subject matter for negotiation but, rather, that the
other
> party refuses to negotiate in good faith.
Not so, their lack of good faith is indicative of the lack of subject
matter.
Fiona
Dan Kimmel
> news:nb0nvucfkp57tcu2e...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> > <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Care to post a reference?
> >
> > I prefer not to cite other scjm readers in this context.
>
> So I dismiss you accusation.
>
> > >> Bought?
> > >
> > >You keep talking about negotiating, what do you think negotiation *is*?
> >
> > A melding of common interests, compromise, adaptation, and yes,
> > *buying* is one aspect.
>
> The root of the word is Negotium, Latin for Business. The bottomline of
> negotiation is that each party has something that the other party wants.
The
> Palestinians don't actually have anything we want, that's why they attack
> us, to create the illusion that there is something to negotiate for. It's
> the payground mentality of the bully, "I'll stop hitting you, if you give
me
> your sweets." So there is actually nothing to negotiate with the
> Palestinians, their air-like promise to stop hitting us if we give them
our
> physical reality is valueless.
>
They have a claim to at least some of the disputed territory Israel
currently administers that is recognized by virtually the entire world. And
this claim goes back to at least 1948 and is based on the same UN partition
that created the modern state of Israel.
You can despise them all you want, but they're there and they have to be
dealt with.
If Fiona has really gone off the deep end and is espousing the physical
ejection of the Palestinians from the territories then she is signing
Israel's death warrant.
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Amazing, you think only Germans followed Hitler? What about the Austrians,
>the Poles, the Ukrainians, Rumanians, etc. etc...
The Poles and Ukranians have a lot to answer for, to be sure--they
didn't by all accounts, even need Hitler, and their homicidal acts
outlived him substantially--but I don't recall any death camps in
either Austria or Rumania.
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Okay. But Israel has no other alternative. Sooner or later a
>> negotiated peace will, some sort of compromise, will have to occur.
>
>What is there left to compromise on?
Settlements mainly. Unless my understanding is completely wrong, the
settlements are the primary reason the Palestinian regions are not
contiguous.
>
>> The Palestinians don't seem willing to walk peaceably out of this
>> particular bank.
>
>If it weren't for the US demands on Israel and the constant supply of funds
>and armaments to the PLO from the US, the EU, and the Arab Dictatorships,
>not to mention the unwavering support of the UN, Israel would have been able
>to sue for peace a long time ago.
Quite possibly. But there they are.
>> Why not both?
>
>Why not neither, they declared war on us, let them pay the price.
What price? Isn't the problem that Israel is paying the price, in
terms of domestic safety and international standing?
>> Sure. Two countries fight wars, the first step is that they stop
>> fighting--ceasefire/armistice--then they sign treaties--perhaps both
>
>In '73 the ceasefire was forced upon Israel by evil piece of US Jewry with
>Jewish blood on his hands, Henry Kissinger. Israel could have taken both
>Cairo and Damascus, but Kissinger blackmailed them into stopping the advance
And what would Israel do with Cairo and Damascus?
>by treatening to stop supplies, just like he delayed delivering supplies for
>the first eight days of the war to "let Israel bleed a little."
How did the US Secretary of State obtain control of essential Israeli
military supplies?
>The cold peace with Mitzraim is getting colder by the day, and their
>anti-Semitic incitement grows and grows.
Yes. That's why it's not okay to let "them suffer" even though they
did start the war.
>> And yet many Muslims will say that while there is anger at the Jews in
>> the Muslim world, Muslims also recognize Jews, and Christians, as
>> fellow Peoples of the Book.
>
>And what do you think that means? The only difference between being a Person
>of the Book, and being an idolator is that an idolator can be killed for
>refusing to accept Islam. But don't worry there are plenty of other reasons
>in Islamic law to kill Jews and Christians, like insulting the "prophet," so
>therefore it is quite easy to spin a refusal to embrace Islam into an
>insult.
Hmmm. If I recall the Rushdie imbroglio it was a Muslim who could be
killed for defaming Islam. Rushie would have okay if he hadn't been a
Muslim himself.
>> Who to believe? The Muslim or the non-Muslim?
>
>The non-Muslim, goes without saying. The Muslims say Muhammed was a prophet,
>the Jews say he wasn't. Who to believe? The Muslim or the non-Muslim?
That's a whole 'nother discussion. I for one don't care to say what
G'd might or might not do. If He chooses to appear before a fellow
named Mohammad, it's not up to me to say that He can't or won't.
But this is also why I don't take the whole "G'd said so," thing too
seriously either.
>> > and faith in the God who has already brought us
>> >through a few thousand years of persicution.
>>
>> Hmmm . . . I'm going to leave this one alone.
>
>Chicken :-)
You bet;-)
Fiona
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:25:54 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Amazing, you think only Germans followed Hitler? What about the
Austrians,
> >the Poles, the Ukrainians, Rumanians, etc. etc...
>
> The Poles and Ukranians have a lot to answer for, to be sure--they
> didn't by all accounts, even need Hitler, and their homicidal acts
> outlived him substantially--but I don't recall any death camps in
> either Austria or Rumania.
Your comment (purposely snipped no doubt) said nothing about death camps.
You stated all followers of Hitler were in one country - they were not! -
and you implied therefore that there was not genocidal comparison with the
the Muslims because the Muslims are not all in one country.
Fiona
Eliyahu Rooff
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:23:39 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Okay. But Israel has no other alternative. Sooner or later a
> >> negotiated peace will, some sort of compromise, will have to occur.
> >
> >What is there left to compromise on?
>
> Settlements mainly. Unless my understanding is completely wrong, the
> settlements are the primary reason the Palestinian regions are not
> contiguous.
This is something I've had a hard time understanding. IIUC, the Muslims are
demanding a right to continue living in Israel, but would insist that their
state be free of Jews. And for this, they expect international support?
Eliyahu
> >
Eliyahu Rooff
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:25:54 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Amazing, you think only Germans followed Hitler? What about the
Austrians,
> >the Poles, the Ukrainians, Rumanians, etc. etc...
>
> The Poles and Ukranians have a lot to answer for, to be sure--they
> didn't by all accounts, even need Hitler, and their homicidal acts
> outlived him substantially--but I don't recall any death camps in
> either Austria or Rumania.
>
_where_ they did their dirty work; only that they supported and participated
in it.
eliyahu
Paul
> I *know* Christians killed far more Jews than Muslims. Now I wonder
> how many were killed by Muslims compared to fundamentalist
> co-religionists like our old pals, the Hasmoneans.
Given that this occurred around 2200 years ago, the sources are pretty slim.
Try reading Josephus, I believe he talks about this.
However, I fail to see the relevance of the question to a history of
Jewish-Muslim relationships over the past 1300 years. It is similar to some
apologists for Palestinian violence stating that more Israelis have been
killed and maimed in auto accidents since September 2000 than have been
killed by Arab violence.
Henry Goodman
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvphjma...@corp.supernews.com...
So where were Belsen and Dachau?
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net>
Andy Katz
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>So where were Belsen and Dachau?
These are regarded as concentration camps, distinct from death camps
such as Aushwitz or Sobibor.
Henry Goodman
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:igkpvugbq8uonfte6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 18:52:56 +0000 (UTC), "Henry Goodman"
> <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >So where were Belsen and Dachau?
>
> These are regarded as concentration camps, distinct from death camps
> such as Aushwitz or Sobibor.
>
Agreed they didn't have gas chambers but plenty of deaths. Where did Ann
Frank die? I have read plenty of accounts of how horrified the British army
was when they liberated Belsen and I have visited Dachau.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
news:atikn6$qki$3...@falcon.steinthal.us...
What do you mean? Ask any Internet troll - Belsen and Dachau are in Jenin
and Ramallah respectively. As for the rest of us who know better, why do we
answer these trolls?
IS
Jess Olson
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:25:54 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Amazing, you think only Germans followed Hitler? What about the Austrians,
> >the Poles, the Ukrainians, Rumanians, etc. etc...
>
> The Poles and Ukranians have a lot to answer for, to be sure--they
> didn't by all accounts, even need Hitler, and their homicidal acts
> outlived him substantially--but I don't recall any death camps in
> either Austria or Rumania.
While I'd agree you're absolutely correct that the Poles and the
Ukrainians _do_ have a great deal to answer for (and for which, sadly,I
don't think they'll ever be called to task), the geographical location of
the death camps really doesn't have much to do with their anti-Semitic
proclivities. As I understand it, it was strategic decision made by
the Nazis for at least the following reasons: 1) the overwhelming number
of the Jews slated for murder lived in these territories; 2) to the Nazis,
the Ukrainians and Poles were themselves sub-human, and thus it was better
to have the uglyness of exterminating world Jewry out of sight of the more
refined Germans. Also, there was thought that if the murders where carried
out in too plain a sight in too great a number in front of Germans, it
might be too much for them to stomache, and might cause dissention to the
regime. This included putting camps in Austria, as Austrians, after 1938,
where considered Germans.
As for the Rumanians, while they had one of the highest "native"
anti-Semitic populations, and instigated heavy anti-Jewish legislation,
had the lowest murder rates of any Eastern European country due to their
not being occupied by the Germans, and being quite stubborn about being
"ordered" by the Germans to deport their Jews.
Although speaking of people how have a lot to answer for: what about the
Austrians? Austria, perhaps the most anti_Semitic western European country
before the war (and after, from what I've heard) has essentially been able
to play the "we were conquered" card and never been forced to answer for
their substantial part in the Holocaust.
JO
Jess Olson
They weren't death camps, they were concentration camps (there is a
difference).
JO
News Admin
> > <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >> Okay. But Israel has no other alternative. Sooner or later a
> > >> negotiated peace will, some sort of compromise, will have to occur.
> > >
> > >What is there left to compromise on?
> >
> > Settlements mainly. Unless my understanding is completely wrong, the
> > settlements are the primary reason the Palestinian regions are not
> > contiguous.
>
> This is something I've had a hard time understanding. IIUC, the Muslims
are
> demanding a right to continue living in Israel, but would insist that
their
> state be free of Jews. And for this, they expect international support?
Not only do they expect international support for this they get it by the
bucket load.
There you have it, liberal theology (yes theology, it is a belief with no
basis in any scientific logic) states "the underdog can be as
racist/bigotted/reactionary as he likes, but he is not questioned or called
on it, because he *is* the underdog." The converse is assumed to be true
also, "the 'overdog' is always accused of being racist/bigotted/reactionary,
no matter what, because he *is* the overdog." And that brings us back to the
original article about romanticizing the underdog.
Fiona
Jess Olson
Of course, the definition of "death" versus "concentration" camp is one
that was made to describe the primarly purpose of the camp. The death
camps sole operating function was to kill as many people as possible as
efficiently as possible. The concentration camps, which existed well
before the war, were political detention camps and punishment camps, and
while a number of people certainly were murdered in them, this wasn't
their primary function.
JO
>
>
>
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry....@virgin.net
>
>
>
>
Harry Weiss
You left out one caveat To the liberals, since we Jews contol all of the
world , all our enemies are by definition underdogs.
Now to do a Josh.
Two old Jewish men were reading papers. One was reading the Yiddish paper
and the other was reading the antisemitic organization paper. His friend
asked why. The Old Jew answered in you paper we read about progroms, anti
semitism, Jews being mistreated etc., in these papers I read that we
control all of the banks, the governments etc., This gives me more
pleasure.
> Fiona
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Dan Kimmel
"News Admin" <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote in message
news:atisdn$c9r$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
And the article utterly fails to make its case that these movies have
anything even REMOTELY connected to the Middle East.
Andy Katz
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Your comment (purposely snipped no doubt) said nothing about death camps.
>You stated all followers of Hitler were in one country - they were not! -
>and you implied therefore that there was not genocidal comparison with the
>the Muslims because the Muslims are not all in one country.
I didn't state state that all followers of Hitler were in Germany.
There existed, for example, an American Nazi Party, and, I'm sure,
such groups in most nations dominated by caucasions. Does that
indicate that all caucasions, all Christians, all Lutherans are Nazis
or share elements of Nazi philosophy?
Certainly Germany had allies, but Hitler's political fortunes and the
bases of his power were in Germany. And much of the Nazi
Weltanschaaung was particularly German.
I have no doubt that there are anti-semetic elements in all Muslim
countries, just as there are in all Christian countries and, if we're
to believe scjm readers, in Israel as well.
Recall, if you will, that this segue started with my reply to Susan
Silberstein who said that all Germans followed Hitler, did nothing to
stop him, and she applies the same standards to all Muslims.
Are we really going to expect Indonesian or Kasmiri Muslims to stop .
.. . ? Who, actually? Arafat? Is he the new Hitler (I suppose he did
get a sense of how it felt to reside in the Fuhrerbunker a couple
months back)?
Fact is the analogy is both weak and misleading, and arguing the
extent of Nazism isn't going to alter that.
Andy Katz
<lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So what? There weren't any inside Germany, either. We aren't talking about
>_where_ they did their dirty work; only that they supported and participated
>in it.
You're absolutely correct, Eliyahu. This discussion has nothing
whatever to do with death camps or Nazis and it was my mistake to rise
to the bait.