Old news, new show: Billy Graham on Jews
Darrin
Graham, and his role as confidant to The Presidents. They played the
private conversations between he and Richard Nixon (rabid anti-
Semite):
"This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down
the drain.. I have friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they
"swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon,
"They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this
country." Graham insists that his comments were out-of-character, and
he may have said it to appease Nixon. Ironically, Charles Gibson then
sits down with Jimmy Carter, and asks him to comment on Graham's anti-
Semitic remarks! LOL! Carter says, "his remarks are inexcusable!" What
about Carter's inexcusable anti-Israel stance?
Andy Katz
wrote:
Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
Andy Katz
"Modesty is in thought, not clothing."
Joel Shurkin
************************************************
amk...@earthlink.net
fla...@verizon.net
You missed the real point of the show: it was
for them to help Carter whitewash himself.
Susan
Dan Kimmel
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
news:dbnvb3dupv68de89p...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Darrin <darr...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Tonight's 20/20 (ABC Studios in NYC) profiled the life of Billy
> >Graham, and his role as confidant to The Presidents. They played the
> >private conversations between he and Richard Nixon (rabid anti-
> >Semite):
> >"This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down
> >the drain.. I have friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they
> >"swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon,
> >"They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this
> >country." Graham insists that his comments were out-of-character, and
> >he may have said it to appease Nixon. Ironically, Charles Gibson then
> >sits down with Jimmy Carter, and asks him to comment on Graham's anti-
> >Semitic remarks! LOL! Carter says, "his remarks are inexcusable!" What
> >about Carter's inexcusable anti-Israel stance?
>
> Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
> or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
True, but in Carter's case I'm willing to make an exception.
He has a track record.
DoD
> Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
> or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
I don't think so. I think I have only encountered two people on the forums
that had legitimate criticisms of Israel that were not Jew bashers. From an
important interview with Dr. Gerstenfeld....
Q: Does it also have to do with outright anti-Semitism?
A: It also plays, there is undoubtedly in Europe, an anti-Semitism which has
difficulty to manifest itself in the classic ways, so it now reaches the
third stage: the first stage was religious anti-Semitism, the second one was
political anti-Semitism which led to the Holocaust, the third one is a
concentrated or focused on the collective Jews of the State of Israel and I
have published a big essay on how anti-Semitism and a anti-Israelism
overlap, with a large number of different types of analysis which are also
the same.
Q: You mention the Holocaust and what comes to my mind is this idea that
perhaps, in light of what happened to the Jews of Europe during the
Holocaust, that now maybe there is a tendency among Europeans, to vindicate
themselves in some way, by saying: "Look at the Jews: now that they are in
power they are also doing brutal things to other people. Well look, the Jews
are no better than we were, the Jews are doing the same to the Arabs, the
Palestinians."
A: There is no doubt that that is a reason, it is not the sole reason.
Obviously psychologists have looked into this matter and they have come to a
conclusion that this is a very effective way to get rid of your own guilt,
what is a classical remark is that of a psychologist, Rex, who once said
that the Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz. If the Jews are
guilty, then everybody is guilty, if everybody is guilty - nobody is guilty,
and with that you find a way to get rid of the memory of your own
misbehavior and that of your parents and grandparents, a number of decades
ago.
David
James Kahn
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Darrin <darr...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>> Ironically, Charles Gibson then
>>sits down with Jimmy Carter, and asks him to comment on Graham's anti-
>>Semitic remarks! LOL! Carter says, "his remarks are inexcusable!" What
>>about Carter's inexcusable anti-Israel stance?
>Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
>or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
Of course not, but Carter's does.
Why do you respond to specifics with bland generalities that no one
claimed to the contrary? Please cite one person in this ng who ever
claimed "all criticism of Israel, valid or not, constitute
anti-semitism."
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Andy Katz
Of antisemitism?
Andy Katz
Andy Katz
wrote:
>
>"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
>news:dbnvb3dupv68de89p...@4ax.com...
>
>> Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
>> or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
>
>I don't think so. I think I have only encountered two people on the forums
>that had legitimate criticisms of Israel that were not Jew bashers. From an
>important interview with Dr. Gerstenfeld....
Well, first you'd have to define what constitutes *legitimate* in this
context, Dave.
Second, Israel, as the principle economic and military power in the
region mirrors the US as the world's principle economic and military
power. Not surprisingly we come under a lot of criticism. Some of it
valid, some not. What we don't do, however, is characterize all of it
as some form of pathology (as is antisemitism). We understand that
when you have a big profile, people take shots.
This, I believe, is something Israel and her supporters need to do as
well. There's a need to separate the idea of Israel as a Jewish state
from Israel as a regional superpower ... and all that the latter
quality entails.
While the comment from Dr Gerstenfeld is interesting, note that he
does not do that: Israel = the Jews in his analysis. But Israel also =
the Israelis.
When someone like Carter states that Israel has made mistakes in
constructing its West Bank security barrier (note Carter does not deny
the need for its existence) is he necessarily criticizing the Jewish
people, or an Israeli government initiative?
Andy Katz
Andy Katz
Kahn) wrote:
>In <dbnvb3dupv68de89p...@4ax.com> Andy Katz <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Darrin <darr...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Ironically, Charles Gibson then
>>>sits down with Jimmy Carter, and asks him to comment on Graham's anti-
>>>Semitic remarks! LOL! Carter says, "his remarks are inexcusable!" What
>>>about Carter's inexcusable anti-Israel stance?
>
>>Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
>>or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
>
>Of course not, but Carter's does.
>
>Why do you respond to specifics with bland generalities that no one
>claimed to the contrary?
What's so specific about "Carter's inexcusable anti-Israel stance"?
Seems to me that it rather begs the questions of whether Carter's
stance is both anti-Israel and inexcusable.
Furthermore I see nothing contradictory about criticizing some of
Israel's policies as a nation while criticizing anti-semitism per se.
Perhaps rather than taking Carter to task, his comment is an
opportunity to consider that, right or wrong, he is *not* motivated by
anti-semitism?
> Please cite one person in this ng who ever
>claimed "all criticism of Israel, valid or not, constitute
>anti-semitism."
No one makes that claim, James. Because it sounds ridiculous. But many
here *act* as though it were true.
Andy Katz
Dan Kimmel
This is the story that ensured I didn't vote for him:
Speechwriter Bob Shrum quit the Carter campaign after just a few weeks,
reportedly saying that Carter, convinced the Democratic primaries' Jewish
vote would go to Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, had instructed his staff
not to issue any more statements on the Middle East."Jackson has all the
Jews anyway," Shrum quoted Carter as saying. "We get the Christians."
But check out the other anecdotal evidence at the link:
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2006/12/04/carters-crap/
Darrin
> "Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dbnvb3dupv68de89p...@4ax.com...
> > wrote:
> > >Tonight's 20/20 (ABC Studios in NYC) profiled the life of Billy
> > >Graham, and his role as confidant to The Presidents. They played the
> > >private conversations between he and Richard Nixon (rabid anti-
> > >Semite):> > >"This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down
> > >the drain.. I have friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they
> > >"swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon,
> > >"They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this
> > >country." Graham insists that his comments were out-of-character, and
> > >he may have said it to appease Nixon. Ironically, Charles Gibson then
> > >sits down with Jimmy Carter, and asks him to comment on Graham's anti-
> > >Semitic remarks! LOL! Carter says, "his remarks are inexcusable!" What
> > >about Carter's inexcusable anti-Israel stance?
>
> > Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
> > or not, constitutes anti-semitism?>
> True, but in Carter's case I'm willing to make an exception.
> He has a track record.>
That he does! Excerpt from CAMERA (Committee For Accuracy In Middle
East Reporting In America www.camera.org ):
Correct Carter's Falsehoods
Peace Can't Be Built On A Foundation of Lies
An Open Letter to Simon & Schuster & CEO Jack Romanos
All those who seek an enduring Israeli-Palestinian settlement
must be dismayed by former President Jimmy Carter's error-riddled
book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. In falsely casting Israel as
a malevolent, colonialist power overwhelmingly responsible for
failed peace efforts. Carter encourages those who obstruct resolution
of the conflict and pursue Israel's annihilaton.
We urge a full and systematic review of the book and public
correction of every material error. Below are a few of the
many untruths:
CARTER:
Page 57: The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of
the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United
States, and recognized officially by the United Nations.
FACT:
The 1949 armistice lines separating the West Bank from Israel never
became permanent borders recognized by Israel, the United States or
the U.N. Security Council. On the contrary, the Jordanian-Israeli
General Armistice Agreement of April 3, 1949 specifically notes that
the lines are not borders: "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in
articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties
without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines
or to claims of either Party relating thereto."
CARTER:
Page 71: Israel has relinquished its control over ... almost all of
Lebanon ...
Page 98: [A number of events influenced] Israel's decision in May 2000
to withdraw almost completely from Lebanon after eighteen years of
occupation, retaining its presence only in Shebaa Farms.
FACT:
On June 16, 2000, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reported
to the Security Council that "Israeli forces have withdrawn from
Lebanon in compliance with resolution 425" and "in compliance with the
line of withdrawal identified by the United Nations."
(Security Council Resolution 425 called on Israel to "withdraw
forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory." The line identified
by the United Nations "conform[ed] to the internationally recognized
boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and
other documentary material.")
Two days later, the Security Council endorsed the Secretary General's
conclusion.
CARTER:
Page 62: When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated, "The PLO has
never advocated the annihilation of Israel. The Zionists started the
'drive the Jews into the sea' slogan and attributed it to the PLO."
FACT:
The original PLO founding charter speaks almost exclusively of "the
liberation of Palestine," and calls on Palestinians to "move forward
on the path of jihad until complete and final victory has been
attained." (Note that this was written in 1964, before Israel's
entrance into the West Bank and Gaza Strip.) It adds: "The
partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the
establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void ..."
Likewise, the 1968 version of the charter describes "Palestine" as the
area encompassing the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel, then states:
"Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the
overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase."
Arafat himself frequently called for destroying that nation, as in:
"The goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, and there can be no
compromise" (Washington Post, March 29, 1970) and "[p]eace for us
means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war,
a war which will last for generations" (El Mundo [Venezuela], Feb. 11,
1980).
And Israel's enemies have indeed referred to driving Jews into the
sea. In a 1948 interview with the New York Times, for example, Muslim
Brotherhood head Sheikh Hassan el-Bana said: "If the Jewish state
becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will
drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea" ("Aim to oust
Jews pledged by sheikh," Aug. 2, 1948).
More recently, Lieutenant-Colonel Munir Maqdah, who had commanded
Arafat's Fatah army in Lebanon before being suspended, said his forces
would continue fighting "the Jews and their agents" despite any peace
talks, promising that "[s]ooner or later we will throw the Zionists
into the sea." (Reuters, Oct. 8, 1993)
Q
> In <dbnvb3dupv68de89pg42famnttf97nb...@4ax.com> Andy Katz <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> writes:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Darrin <darrin...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Ironically, Charles Gibson then
> >>sits down with Jimmy Carter, and asks him to comment on Graham's anti-
> >>Semitic remarks! LOL! Carter says, "his remarks are inexcusable!" What
> >>about Carter's inexcusable anti-Israel stance?
> >Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
> >or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
>
> Of course not, but Carter's does.
How is it that Carter's criticism anti-semitic, and other people's
criticism is not?
>
> Why do you respond to specifics with bland generalities that no one
> claimed to the contrary? Please cite one person in this ng who ever
> claimed "all criticism of Israel, valid or not, constitute
> anti-semitism."
Upthread, some person has written "I think I have only encountered
two people on the forums
that had legitimate criticisms of Israel that were not Jew bashers,"
which comes pretty close to that claim.
Lots of people have said that anti-semites pretend they are merely
criticizing Israel, when they really hate all Jews. The corollary to
that kind of statement is that people who criticize Israel are
probably anti-semites.
That would certainly be a good way to silence *all* criticism of
Israel -- if it worked. Fortunately, it doesn't work. It just makes
people angry.
-- Q
Steve Goldfarb
>That would certainly be a good way to silence *all* criticism of
>Israel -- if it worked. Fortunately, it doesn't work. It just makes
>people angry.
Why is it appropriate to criticize a country - any country - in the first
place? One criticizes actions or inactions, and then you can point
examples in various countries. For example, one can oppose torture, say,
and then criticize the various governments around the world who engage in
torture.
But to choose one particular country, and focus on its misbehavior while
ignoring similar or worse behavior from others, probably is indeed to make
a statement about the racial / ethnic / religious / philosophical makeup
of that country.
Sometimes maybe it's appropriate -- "democratic countries are....,"
"communist countries are..." those are not "racist-like" statements.
"Catholic countries are...," "Jewish/religion countries are..." well then
you can talk about how they apply religion to civil policy, I suppose, but
"Arab countries are...," "Jewish/ethnic countries are...," "Black African
countries are...," yeah pretty much anything you'd say from there would be
racist. Yup.
Much Israel-bashing falls into that last category, I think. Not all, but
it's easy to tell - if someone takes a stand against some practice or
other, land appropropriation, say, and just focuses on what Israel does,
then it's suspicious. If they cover land appropriation around the world
(including the US, e.g., the Kelo case) then I'm willing to accept that
they're not anti-semitic.
--s
--
Q
> In <1187063611.164517.152...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >That would certainly be a good way to silence *all* criticism of
> >Israel -- if it worked. Fortunately, it doesn't work. It just makes
> >people angry.
>
> Why is it appropriate to criticize a country - any country - in the first
> place? One criticizes actions or inactions, and then you can point
> examples in various countries. For example, one can oppose torture, say,
> and then criticize the various governments around the world who engage in
> torture.
I don't think it's appropriate to criticize a country -- I worded that
statement poorly. What I meant was to criticize details of its
political behavior.
>
> But to choose one particular country, and focus on its misbehavior while
> ignoring similar or worse behavior from others, probably is indeed to make
> a statement about the racial / ethnic / religious / philosophical makeup
> of that country.
Yes, it would be. But that's not what I meant.
>
> Sometimes maybe it's appropriate -- "democratic countries are....,"
> "communist countries are..." those are not "racist-like" statements.
>
> "Catholic countries are...," "Jewish/religion countries are..." well then
> you can talk about how they apply religion to civil policy, I suppose, but
> "Arab countries are...," "Jewish/ethnic countries are...," "Black African
> countries are...," yeah pretty much anything you'd say from there would be
> racist. Yup.
>
> Much Israel-bashing falls into that last category, I think. Not all, but
> it's easy to tell - if someone takes a stand against some practice or
> other, land appropropriation, say, and just focuses on what Israel does,
> then it's suspicious.
I don't agree with that. I don't think there are many situations that
are similar to the way the Palestinians have been sequestered in the
Occupied Territories. When Carter compared this sequestration to
former conditions in South Africa, people went nuts.
As far as I am concerned, people are allowed to say "this is wrong"
about something that Israel is doing, without having to supply a
litany which includes other countries. They should not be branded
anti-semitic for doing that.
> If they cover land appropriation around the world
> (including the US, e.g., the Kelo case) then I'm willing to accept that
> they're not anti-semitic.
I think criticism always needs to be specific. When it's not
specific, it's not helpful, for one thing. TTo criticize anything
implies that the critic would like to see it done differently. I
don't see the point in being critical of land appropriation all over
the world, when I would like to see Israel change her tactics to --
for example -- lessen the tension in the Middle East.
When people complain about American land appropriation, nobody
requires them to complain about Israeli land appropriation to prove
they're not anti-American. -- Q
>
> --s
> --
Steve Goldfarb
>> Why is it appropriate to criticize a country - any country - in the first
>> place? One criticizes actions or inactions, and then you can point
>> examples in various countries. For example, one can oppose torture, say,
>> and then criticize the various governments around the world who engage in
>> torture.
>I don't think it's appropriate to criticize a country -- I worded that
>statement poorly. What I meant was to criticize details of its
>political behavior.
But why choose any particular country to criticize? If it's your own
country that's one thing, but to select some other country in the world to
focus on, to the exclusion of others, why?
>> Much Israel-bashing falls into that last category, I think. Not all, but
>> it's easy to tell - if someone takes a stand against some practice or
>> other, land appropropriation, say, and just focuses on what Israel does,
>> then it's suspicious.
>I don't agree with that. I don't think there are many situations that
>are similar to the way the Palestinians have been sequestered in the
>Occupied Territories. When Carter compared this sequestration to
>former conditions in South Africa, people went nuts.
There have been Palestinians in refugee camps for 50 years in Lebanon,
Jordan, etc. with no hope of gaining citizenship in the nations in which
they were born. Where's your outrage? Let alone the treatment of Tibetans,
Kashmiris, Kurds, and god knows who else.
>As far as I am concerned, people are allowed to say "this is wrong"
>about something that Israel is doing, without having to supply a
>litany which includes other countries. They should not be branded
>anti-semitic for doing that.
Is it racist to point out that black people use crack? Or that Mexican
illegals murder people in Newark? Not necessarily, but I'd be
uncomfortable if a local organization sponsored a "Speak out against black
robbers" day, wouldn't you?
>> If they cover land appropriation around the world
>> (including the US, e.g., the Kelo case) then I'm willing to accept that
>> they're not anti-semitic.
>I think criticism always needs to be specific. When it's not
>specific, it's not helpful, for one thing. TTo criticize anything
>implies that the critic would like to see it done differently. I
>don't see the point in being critical of land appropriation all over
>the world, when I would like to see Israel change her tactics to --
>for example -- lessen the tension in the Middle East.
Saying Israel should change tactics is one thing, and it's not necessarily
anti-semitic. Specifically denouncing Israeli land appropriations (not
that you've done that, I'm speaking generally) while not mentioning anyone
else's land appropriation policies is much more likely to be anti-semitic,
IMO.
>When people complain about American land appropriation, nobody
>requires them to complain about Israeli land appropriation to prove
>they're not anti-American. -- Q
If *Americans* complain about American land appropriation, it's not
anti-American. If the French, say, were to take up the cause, then it
would be. It's none of their damn business.
--s
--
Q
Really? How about if Jews are critical of Israel? Or Jews with
relatives in Israel? Or Jews who hold stock in Israeli companies?
Does that make it more okay?
And what business do any of the Americans in this newsgroup, including
you, have talking about Israel at all, for that matter? What kind of
world is it where, in talking about something, we're only allow to say
favorable things?
I>f the French, say, were to take up the cause, then it
> would be. It's none of their damn business.
I think it is the business of anybody who finds a practice
objectionable to speak out against it.
As for the example you give, that would be true especially if the
land belongs to another country, or the taking of the land is likely
to cause a war that will involve everybody else sooner or later.
In either case, people can object for humanitarian reasons. This
"sorry, not my table" way of looking at problems won't wash in the
type of world we live in now, where that kind of insularity is a thing
of the past. -- Q
>
> --s
> --
Andy Katz
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
<shrug> I don't know, Dan. Given the present circumstances: tensions
with Syria, Iran, sporadic fighting with Hezbollah, Iran trying to
develop a bomb, anarchy in Iraq ... Israel is very, very fortunate to
have long-standing treaties with Egypt and Jordan that secure her
sourthern flanks.
Without them, Israel would have no credible threat against Iran and
Syria (we should also see at this point that evacuating Gaza wasn't a
spasm of treasonous self-hatred or a sop to the Palestinians as some
have claimed, but a sound and necessary military move). And in fact,
given how near the '73 war was, Iranian nukes might be the least of
her problems.
What it boils down to is permitting a few insensitive remarks and a
provocative book title to overshadow completely Carter's role in an
Israeli diplomatic coup that was second in importance only to her
initial recognition after declaring independence.
Funny how some conservative readers excuse Nixon's far more egregious
anti-semitism because "he saved Israel" in '73, but Carter gets no
such balance (in fact, it was the same reader who excused Nixon that
called Carter one of the most evil men of the century).
My first national vote also came in '76. I didn't vote for Carter
(probably in subconscious rebellion to my family's long-standing
loyalty to the Democratic Party). I didn't vote for him in '80, either
(though I didn't vote Reagan and I *wish* Carter had been re-elected
if only to forestall the "Reagan revolution"). So I'm not a Carter
partisan. But I really think some folks are protesting too much here.
Is Carter really the Jewish peoples' greatest enemy since Hitler?
Or is he starting to hit some sore points?
Andy Katz
Steve Goldfarb
>> If *Americans* complain about American land appropriation, it's not
>> anti-American.
>Really? How about if Jews are critical of Israel? Or Jews with
>relatives in Israel? Or Jews who hold stock in Israeli companies?
>Does that make it more okay?
Yes, of course it does.
>And what business do any of the Americans in this newsgroup, including
>you, have talking about Israel at all, for that matter? What kind of
>world is it where, in talking about something, we're only allow to say
>favorable things?
It's all about context, Q.
>I>f the French, say, were to take up the cause, then it
>> would be. It's none of their damn business.
>I think it is the business of anybody who finds a practice
>objectionable to speak out against it.
It's all about context, Q. Were someone to speak out against drug-related
crime, he or she would certainly need to address how drug related crime is
caused by and in turn impacts the black community, and that wouldn't be
inherently racist. OTOH, for someone to decide to address regarding the
black community, and speak only of how black people do drugs, that would,
indeed, be racist. Context, Q.
> As for the example you give, that would be true especially if the
>land belongs to another country, or the taking of the land is likely
>to cause a war that will involve everybody else sooner or later.
> In either case, people can object for humanitarian reasons. This
>"sorry, not my table" way of looking at problems won't wash in the
>type of world we live in now, where that kind of insularity is a thing
>of the past. -- Q
People can object to whatever they like. People who single out the
behavior of certain racial or ethnic groups for censure while ignoring
that same behavior by other groups are racists.
--s
--
DoD
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:21:13 +0000 (UTC), "DoD" <navy...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:dbnvb3dupv68de89p...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel, valid
> >> or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
> >
> >I don't think so. I think I have only encountered two people on the
forums
> >that had legitimate criticisms of Israel that were not Jew bashers. From
an
> >important interview with Dr. Gerstenfeld....
>
> Well, first you'd have to define what constitutes *legitimate* in this
> context, Dave.
Legitimate is not lying and half-truthing the matter.
> Second, Israel, as the principle economic and military power in the
> region mirrors the US as the world's principle economic and military
> power. Not surprisingly we come under a lot of criticism. Some of it
> valid, some not. What we don't do, however, is characterize all of it
> as some form of pathology (as is antisemitism). We understand that
> when you have a big profile, people take shots.
This is partially true. The U.S. and Israel are the most criticized
countries in the world, but we get a lot of unneccessary criticism, not on
the merits or non-merits of what we do, but because we are Americans and
Israelis. The Soviets (of years past) and present day Russia and China
deserve a lot more criticism than what they recieve. And FRANCE, that
little pompous country arrogantly loves to criticism any and everyone else,
but it DARN sure needs to look inside and clean their own house up.
> This, I believe, is something Israel and her supporters need to do as
> well. There's a need to separate the idea of Israel as a Jewish state
> from Israel as a regional superpower ... and all that the latter
> quality entails.
I don't think you can seperate the two. The only reason why it is a regional
superpower is precisely because it is a Jewish state. If it were just
another Arab state it wouldn't be that superpower.
> While the comment from Dr Gerstenfeld is interesting, note that he
> does not do that: Israel = the Jews in his analysis. But Israel also =
> the Israelis.
Ummm... yes he does. He knows exactly that it is not in vogue today to be a
"classical" anti-semite. He follows Professor Wistrichs models that 99.9
percent of the time anti-Israel = anti-Jewish. Hense he said:
"I have published a big essay on how anti-Semitism and a anti-Israelism
overlap, with a large number of different types of analysis which are also
the same."
> When someone like Carter states that Israel has made mistakes in
> constructing its West Bank security barrier (note Carter does not deny
> the need for its existence) is he necessarily criticizing the Jewish
> people, or an Israeli government initiative?
The problem with Carter is that he was dishonest in his criticism. IF he
would have stuck to the facts, then I would bet that most of us wouldn't
have had any major problems. Look, I know Israel isn't no saint. But on
the balance sheet in comparison, Israel is head and shoulders above everyone
else. Does she have her own problems? Of course. Does those flaws and
problems deserve to be pointed out? YES.... As Don Levey (so logically
points out) it would be a slap in the face to NOT do that. BUT do those
flaws need to be embellished and half truthed? HECK no. When that happens,
then the scenario starts to change and Israel can't afford that.
Fex.... Am I the only one here that would like to stick to the truth that
when Palestine was broken up, ~20 percent was designated towards Jews
(Israel) ~80 percent was designated towards the Arabs (Jordan). In my
estimation, that was a crappy deal to begin with, but who cares, we are just
talking about giving Jews a raw deal anyways, what else is new? Jews had
boughten most of their land in the first place. There was no idea of a third
(Arab) country. Now all the sudden we have a whole new people because lies
and half truths have been allowed to be told. Carter is one of those liars
and half truthers. The buck has to stop somewhere. The lies need to cease,
because Israel just can't afford anymore.
David
Q
> In <1187112733.760084.59...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> If *Americans* complain about American land appropriation, it's not
> >> anti-American.
> >Really? How about if Jews are critical of Israel? Or Jews with
> >relatives in Israel? Or Jews who hold stock in Israeli companies?
> >Does that make it more okay?
>
> Yes, of course it does.
Why does it? What difference should that make? Bad behavior is bad
behavior. I'm Jewish, and I still get accused of antisemitism for
even asking questions about Israel. The people who think they are
making the rules about what I'm allowed to say, claim that's because
I'm a "self-hating" Jew -- when they're not accusing me of secretly
being Suzy Muslim, that is.
>
> >And what business do any of the Americans in this newsgroup, including
> >you, have talking about Israel at all, for that matter? What kind of
> >world is it where, in talking about something, we're only allow to say
> >favorable things?
>
> It's all about context, Q.
>
> >I>f the French, say, were to take up the cause, then it
> >> would be. It's none of their damn business.
> >I think it is the business of anybody who finds a practice
> >objectionable to speak out against it.
>
> It's all about context, Q.
You said that already.
And it is about context, Steve. If you're talking about a sovereign
country, then you're not talking about an ethnic group or a
religion. Because religions and ethnic groups generally don't have
their own armies, their own nuclear arsenals, their own seats at the
United Nations or any of those other goodies that Israel has picked up
along the way. And also -- until the Bush administration -- this
country did not hand out aid to ethnic and religious as such. In
fact, we made it a point not to do so.
> Were someone to speak out against drug-related
> crime, he or she would certainly need to address how drug related crime is
> caused by and in turn impacts the black community, and that wouldn't be
> inherently racist. OTOH, for someone to decide to address regarding the
> black community, and speak only of how black people do drugs, that would,
> indeed, be racist. Context, Q.
Well, Steve, we are just going to have to decide whether Israel
suddenly becomes a race every time somebody takes exception to its
behavior, or whether -- when it is criticized -- it just needs to suck
it up, like every other country.
I don't hear North Korea boohoohooing about "racism" every time its
brinksmanship policies are condemned.
And also, Steve, the "it's none of our business" argument is a crock,
since we fund Israel directly and indirectly with our tax dollars.
Maybe it will become more "none of our business" when Israel stops
accepting our loans and handouts and other assistance.
>
> > As for the example you give, that would be true especially if the
> >land belongs to another country, or the taking of the land is likely
> >to cause a war that will involve everybody else sooner or later.
> > In either case, people can object for humanitarian reasons. This
> >"sorry, not my table" way of looking at problems won't wash in the
> >type of world we live in now, where that kind of insularity is a thing
> >of the past. -- Q
>
> People can object to whatever they like. People who single out the
> behavior of certain racial or ethnic groups for censure while ignoring
> that same behavior by other groups are racists.
Sure, if you think of Israel only as a bunch of Jews.
But what if you think of Israel as a sovereign nation that has the
same responsibilities as other nations, regardless of who happens to
live in it? I think outrageous behavior should be criticized no
matter who is responsible for it, and wherever it exists.
And what do you mean when you write "certain racial or ethnic"
groups? Do Jews enjoy some kind of special, "protected" status that
enables them to do exactly as they please?
And it's not appropriate to answer the criticism by saying that the
nation down the road is doing the same thing.
Do you have children, Steve? Because if you do, you'd recognize that
reasoning as the kindergarten type of morality it really is.
Certainly, it's not an acceptable response in the world of grown-up
politics.
-- Q
>
> --s
> --
Andy Katz
The issue of land appropriation is complex, Steve (did 19th century
Americans really *steal* all of the red man's land out of racist
greed, or did they sometimes react in frustration to treaties signed
with tribes that had no governing structure that would enforce them,
thus leaving individual members with enough charisma to garner
followers free to break them, often murderously?). If you're going to
comment intelligently on a particular situation you have to do your
homework, know the region, the players and the history. It's simply
not practical to expect very many people to have that kind of
knowledge about so complex a subject on a global level.
That said, it often *would* help to make analogies and comparisons to
regions with less emotional investment than the ME when commenting on
policies there. But it's not always possible. A person can only write
so many books and, conversely we can only *read* so many books or
articles.
E.g, Noam Chomsky is often characterized as a self-hating
Israel-basher. He does bash Israel, true. But if you read his work,
his actual writings (vs. right wing analyses of them) you'll see the
man's an Anarchist. He bashes *every* government.
And that's why I don't take his political ideas very seriously.
Not because he's a self-hater, though.
Dan Kimmel
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:57:08 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
> <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:j062c3ht3s5t07aeq...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Perhaps it's time to consider that not all criticism of Israel,
valid
> >> >> or not, constitutes anti-semitism?
> >> >
> >> >True, but in Carter's case I'm willing to make an exception.
> >> >
> >> >He has a track record.
> >>
> >> Of antisemitism?
> >
> >This is the story that ensured I didn't vote for him:
> >
> >Speechwriter Bob Shrum quit the Carter campaign after just a few weeks,
> >reportedly saying that Carter, convinced the Democratic primaries' Jewish
> >vote would go to Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, had instructed his
staff
> >not to issue any more statements on the Middle East."Jackson has all the
> >Jews anyway," Shrum quoted Carter as saying. "We get the Christians."
> >
> >But check out the other anecdotal evidence at the link:
> >http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2006/12/04/carters-cr
>
> <shrug> I don't know, Dan. Given the present circumstances: tensions
> with Syria, Iran, sporadic fighting with Hezbollah, Iran trying to
> develop a bomb, anarchy in Iraq ... Israel is very, very fortunate to
> have long-standing treaties with Egypt and Jordan that secure her
> sourthern flanks.
Sure, but what has that got to do with Carter? Israel has a peace treaty
with Egypt because of the courage of Anwar Sadat. Carter was not the
peacemaker, he was the innkeeper after Israel and Egypt initiated contact.
>
> Without them, Israel would have no credible threat against Iran and
> Syria (we should also see at this point that evacuating Gaza wasn't a
> spasm of treasonous self-hatred or a sop to the Palestinians as some
> have claimed, but a sound and necessary military move). And in fact,
> given how near the '73 war was, Iranian nukes might be the least of
> her problems.
>
> What it boils down to is permitting a few insensitive remarks and a
> provocative book title to overshadow completely Carter's role in an
> Israeli diplomatic coup that was second in importance only to her
> initial recognition after declaring independence.
What was his "role?" The reason Sadat flew to Jerusalem was that he was
upset with Carter's attempt to create a Middle East peace conference that
would have given a promiinent platform to Arafat.
>
> Funny how some conservative readers excuse Nixon's far more egregious
> anti-semitism because "he saved Israel" in '73, but Carter gets no
> such balance (in fact, it was the same reader who excused Nixon that
> called Carter one of the most evil men of the century).
>
> My first national vote also came in '76. I didn't vote for Carter
> (probably in subconscious rebellion to my family's long-standing
> loyalty to the Democratic Party). I didn't vote for him in '80, either
> (though I didn't vote Reagan and I *wish* Carter had been re-elected
> if only to forestall the "Reagan revolution"). So I'm not a Carter
> partisan. But I really think some folks are protesting too much here.
> Is Carter really the Jewish peoples' greatest enemy since Hitler?
Of course not, but better enemies like Nixon than "friends" like Carter. I
didn't vote for Carter either time and I blame his incompetence for paving
the way for the Reagan Error. I think Carter was one of our worst
presidents. I suspect he gets up every morning and thanks heaven for Bush,
since the incumbent's failures mean that Carter is no longer the VERY worst
of recent times.
> Or is he starting to hit some sore points?
No, he's just an arrogant, self-important prig who loves Arab terrorists
more than a Jewish democracy Personally I think Bush has been a huge
disaster for Israel and think the tiny group of people still supporting him
because they think he's made things safer for Israel are seriously deluding
themselves..
Andy Katz
wrote:
>On Aug 13, 7:07 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
Okay, Carter goofs ... how's that an anti-Israel distortion?
>CARTER:
>
>Page 71: Israel has relinquished its control over ... almost all of
>Lebanon ...
>
>Page 98: [A number of events influenced] Israel's decision in May 2000
>to withdraw almost completely from Lebanon after eighteen years of
>occupation, retaining its presence only in Shebaa Farms.
>
>FACT:
>
>On June 16, 2000, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reported
>to the Security Council that "Israeli forces have withdrawn from
>Lebanon in compliance with resolution 425" and "in compliance with the
>line of withdrawal identified by the United Nations."
>
>(Security Council Resolution 425 called on Israel to "withdraw
>forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory." The line identified
>by the United Nations "conform[ed] to the internationally recognized
>boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and
>other documentary material.")
>
>Two days later, the Security Council endorsed the Secretary General's
>conclusion.
Okay .... how do Carter's comments diverge from the "facts" in the
above?
Carter writes a paragraph simply quoting Arafat. That's all. If Carter
had also added "I believe this magnificent Arab in every particular!"
it would have appeared in the citation. So Carter quotes Arafat in
what most people believe is at best a disingenuous evasion, or at
worst a lie?
So what?
Andy Katz
>
>
>
>
>
>
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Darrin <darr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Aug 13, 7:07 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>> "Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> > >Tonight's 20/20 (ABC Studios in NYC) profiled the life of Billy
>>> > >Graham, and his role as confidant to The Presidents.
snip
Well, if half his "goofs" were in Israel's favor, I would say it
doesn't show distortion. When they're all in one direction...
>>CARTER:
>>
>>Page 71: Israel has relinquished its control over ... almost all of
>>Lebanon ...
>>
>>Page 98: [A number of events influenced] Israel's decision in May 2000
>>to withdraw almost completely from Lebanon after eighteen years of
>>occupation, retaining its presence only in Shebaa Farms.
Did you see thw word 'almost" there? Repeated twice? Giving the
impression that Israel didn't "really" withdraw as it was supposed to?
>>FACT:
>>
>>On June 16, 2000, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reported
>>to the Security Council that "Israeli forces have withdrawn from
>>Lebanon in compliance with resolution 425" and "in compliance with the
>>line of withdrawal identified by the United Nations."
>>
>>(Security Council Resolution 425 called on Israel to "withdraw
>>forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory." The line identified
>>by the United Nations "conform[ed] to the internationally recognized
>>boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and
>>other documentary material.")
>>
>>Two days later, the Security Council endorsed the Secretary General's
>>conclusion.
>
> Okay .... how do Carter's comments diverge from the "facts" in the
> above?
The UN, which is not known for being nice to Israel, confirmed that
Israel withdrew from "ALL LEBANESE TERRITORY" (emphasis mine). By
saying "almost, Carter denies Israel the credit for its withdrawal
and simultaneaouly, embrces the Hizballa positionm that the area
Israel still occupies, the Shebaa Farms is really Lebanese territory
so Hizballa claims the "right" to continue to attack Israel.
Andy, do you really need such elementary things spelled out for you?
So by not giving the other side of the coin, he gives the impression
that he, Carter, does accept that lie.
Disappointed.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Matt Silberstein
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> in
<a_udnXo04937FVzb...@rcn.net> wrote:
I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
the U.S., a voting bloc that makes Israel a major issue. There is
nothing anti-Semitic about acknowledging the existing of that bloc and
making political decisions based on it. I see reasons to object to
Carter's comment, but not anti-Semitism.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Steve Goldfarb
>> Yes, of course it does.
>Why does it? What difference should that make? Bad behavior is bad
>behavior. I'm Jewish, and I still get accused of antisemitism for
>even asking questions about Israel. The people who think they are
>making the rules about what I'm allowed to say, claim that's because
>I'm a "self-hating" Jew -- when they're not accusing me of secretly
>being Suzy Muslim, that is.
Bad behavior is indeed bad behavior. So, if someone where to figure out
who you were and decide to take it upon him or herself to set up a "Q
Blog" in which all of your bad behavior (and we're all bad sometimes) were
to be categorized and publicized, that'd be OK by you, because bad
behavior is bad behavior?
If you're opposed to a certain type of behavior, then go ahead and rail
against it. But to start with an individual person, ethnic group, or
country and then try to find all the bad behavior you can about them,
well, that's a different animal.
>>
>> It's all about context, Q.
>You said that already.
I did, but I'm not sure that you're hearing it or getting it.
>And it is about context, Steve. If you're talking about a sovereign
>country, then you're not talking about an ethnic group or a
>religion. Because religions and ethnic groups generally don't have
>their own armies, their own nuclear arsenals, their own seats at the
>United Nations or any of those other goodies that Israel has picked up
>along the way. And also -- until the Bush administration -- this
>country did not hand out aid to ethnic and religious as such. In
>fact, we made it a point not to do so.
Yep - you aren't getting it. Let me take another example -- when the UN
Human Rights committee gets together to speak out against violations of
human rights around the world, and somehow the only country worthy of
condemnation is Israel, is there any doubt whatsoever that this is
anti-semitic? (it's anti- some other stuff too, i.e., anti-west,
anti-freedom, but it's certainly also anti-semitic)
> > Were someone to speak out against drug-related
>> crime, he or she would certainly need to address how drug related crime is
>> caused by and in turn impacts the black community, and that wouldn't be
>> inherently racist. OTOH, for someone to decide to address regarding the
>> black community, and speak only of how black people do drugs, that would,
>> indeed, be racist. Context, Q.
>Well, Steve, we are just going to have to decide whether Israel
>suddenly becomes a race every time somebody takes exception to its
>behavior, or whether -- when it is criticized -- it just needs to suck
>it up, like every other country.
It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't exist, Q,
there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a thing.
> I don't hear North Korea boohoohooing about "racism" every time its
>brinksmanship policies are condemned.
Actually I think they do - they believe themselves to be some sort of
master race, I think. But typically right-thinking people don't speak
solely of North Korea, they put them together with the other equivalent
violators, although N. Korea is a pretty extreme example.
>And also, Steve, the "it's none of our business" argument is a crock,
>since we fund Israel directly and indirectly with our tax dollars.
We fund Egypt too. How come I don't see articles in the NYTimes about
Egypt's repressive policies every single day? And believe me, Egypt's
policies are MUCH more repressive than anything Israel has ever done.
Where's your condemnation of that, Q? In fact that would be the proof
right there -- if there were side by side articles on Egypt's misbehavior
as well, then perhaps you'd have a point. Google what they're doing to
suspected Muslim Brotherhood members if you don't believe me, then talk to
me about Abu Ghraib if you dare.
>Maybe it will become more "none of our business" when Israel stops
>accepting our loans and handouts and other assistance.
And I'm not suggesting that Americans don't have a right to hold Israel to
account - it's just a question of degree, proportion, and CONTEXT.
>> People can object to whatever they like. People who single out the
>> behavior of certain racial or ethnic groups for censure while ignoring
>> that same behavior by other groups are racists.
>Sure, if you think of Israel only as a bunch of Jews.
Doesn't matter what I think. Criticizing Israel as if it's just a bunch of
Jews is anti-semitic. That's what people are doing.
>But what if you think of Israel as a sovereign nation that has the
>same responsibilities as other nations, regardless of who happens to
>live in it? I think outrageous behavior should be criticized no
>matter who is responsible for it, and wherever it exists.
I agree. WHEREEVER it exists. Not just in one place. When the NY Times
starts running daily articles on abuse in Egypt and other Arab countries,
then we can talk.
>And what do you mean when you write "certain racial or ethnic"
>groups? Do Jews enjoy some kind of special, "protected" status that
>enables them to do exactly as they please?
Not at all. You're not getting what I'm saying.
>And it's not appropriate to answer the criticism by saying that the
>nation down the road is doing the same thing.
>Do you have children, Steve? Because if you do, you'd recognize that
>reasoning as the kindergarten type of morality it really is.
>Certainly, it's not an acceptable response in the world of grown-up
>politics.
You're not getting what I'm saying.
--s
--
Eliyahu
> In <1187121818.922389.283...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >But what if you think of Israel as a sovereign nation that has the
> >same responsibilities as other nations, regardless of who happens to
> >live in it? I think outrageous behavior should be criticized no
> >matter who is responsible for it, and wherever it exists.
>
> I agree. WHEREEVER it exists. Not just in one place. When the NY Times
> starts running daily articles on abuse in Egypt and other Arab countries,
> then we can talk.
And therein lies the problem. Imagine the outcry if Israel conducted
public beheadings, as Saudi Arabia does with great frequency, if
Israel ordered women not to appear in public without an approved male
escort, if Israel made it unlawful for non-Jews to live there, if
Israel permitted "honor killings", and if Israel had a "religious
police" like that in Muslim nations... The difference, of course, is
that no one needs to kowtow to Israel in order to get petroleum. The
world attitude toward Muslim nations has long been that they're just
backward and primitive children who can't be held to the standards of
the civilized nations, and that we must indulge them because they
control our fuel supply. If the oil dried up and people balanced the
rest of Islam's contributions of recent years with those of Israel
(Explosive vests and IEDs vs. just about everything you can think of
in science and technology), the focus might change a bit.
Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb
>And therein lies the problem. Imagine the outcry if Israel conducted
>public beheadings, as Saudi Arabia does with great frequency, if
>Israel ordered women not to appear in public without an approved male
>escort, if Israel made it unlawful for non-Jews to live there, if
>Israel permitted "honor killings", and if Israel had a "religious
>police" like that in Muslim nations... The difference, of course, is
>that no one needs to kowtow to Israel in order to get petroleum. The
>world attitude toward Muslim nations has long been that they're just
>backward and primitive children who can't be held to the standards of
>the civilized nations, and that we must indulge them because they
>control our fuel supply. If the oil dried up and people balanced the
>rest of Islam's contributions of recent years with those of Israel
>(Explosive vests and IEDs vs. just about everything you can think of
>in science and technology), the focus might change a bit.
I absolutely agree.
Not sure if the cause is media kowtowing due to petroleum or not -- could
be, and if not directly then perhaps indirectly, i.e., politicians are
kowtowing and the media follow.
I agree also that as you say, it's bias on both sides -- against Israelis
as well as against those child-like Arabs who are apparently incapable of
knowing any better.
--s
--
Dan Kimmel
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:57:24 +0000 (UTC), Darrin <darr...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 13, 7:07 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> "Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:dbnvb3dupv68de89p...@4ax.com...
Interesting how his "goof" favors the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel account by
making it look like the pre-1967 borders are the "real" Israel.
>
> >CARTER:
> >
> >Page 71: Israel has relinquished its control over ... almost all of
> >Lebanon ...
> >
> >Page 98: [A number of events influenced] Israel's decision in May 2000
> >to withdraw almost completely from Lebanon after eighteen years of
> >occupation, retaining its presence only in Shebaa Farms.
> >
> >FACT:
> >
> >On June 16, 2000, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reported
> >to the Security Council that "Israeli forces have withdrawn from
> >Lebanon in compliance with resolution 425" and "in compliance with the
> >line of withdrawal identified by the United Nations."
> >
> >(Security Council Resolution 425 called on Israel to "withdraw
> >forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory." The line identified
> >by the United Nations "conform[ed] to the internationally recognized
> >boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and
> >other documentary material.")
> >
> >Two days later, the Security Council endorsed the Secretary General's
> >conclusion.
>
> Okay .... how do Carter's comments diverge from the "facts" in the
> above?
Carter endorses the Syrian/Hezbollah position that Israel has NOT fully
withdrawn
since they they claim "Shebaa Farms" for themselves. Even the UN does not
go so far.
Sorry, Andy, you're the one being disingenuous. He was "simply quoting"
Arafat? Why quote him in his lies at all unless either a.) to refute them,
which he does not or b.) because he agrees with them? To claim he is
"simply quoting" and doing nothing further is a real example of a
"disingenuous evasion."
chsw
"The media" is not kowtowing due to petrodollars. Some members
of the media kowtow because of direct and indirect threats
against them by the Islamofascists, dictators (e.g., Eason
Jordan) and leftist organizations. Others simply follow the
party line of the press releases by the above.
chsw
DoD
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
> I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
> the U.S.,
Your politics are likely to be dramatically different than Bernie Goldberg
or David Horowitz
> a voting bloc that makes Israel a major issue.
I am not sure about this. Twenty or even ten years ago there was prolly a
much more unified Jewish vote. I have a "sense" that is changing slowly but
surely. Most Jews (hopefully) are still staunch Israel supporters, but to
say that they are still generally always gonna vote Democrat is a stretch.
I personally get around 70 percent of my politcal leanings from Jewish
conservatives.
There is
> nothing anti-Semitic about acknowledging the existing of that bloc and
> making political decisions based on it. I see reasons to object to
> Carter's comment, but not anti-Semitism.
Problem is, this leads to that stupid dual loyalty canard. Thre maybe some
truth to that, but that truth could be applied to every American... German,
Italian, Samoan, etc etc.
David
Steve Goldfarb
>>
>> Not sure if the cause is media kowtowing due to petroleum or not -- could
>> be, and if not directly then perhaps indirectly, i.e., politicians are
>> kowtowing and the media follow.
>>
>"The media" is not kowtowing due to petrodollars. Some members
>of the media kowtow because of direct and indirect threats
>against them by the Islamofascists, dictators (e.g., Eason
>Jordan) and leftist organizations. Others simply follow the
>party line of the press releases by the above.
Right, I think there's more to this than kowtowing. Hence the accusations
of bias.
Probably a big part of it is simply that the media covers what they're
familiar with -- they've got a Jerusalem Bureau and Steve Erlanger wants
to get some column inches. As far as I know they don't have anybody on the
ground in Sudan (because they aren't allowed to) and rather than writing
every day "We would be reporting from Sudan today but they won't let us,"
which I think they ought to in some form or another, they're just silent
on that issue.
Also, for the NY Times at least their home audience, i.e., New Yorkers,
are probably more interested in Israel than the average American for
simple demographic reasons (i.e., more likely to be Jewish)
Some of this probably applies to other media outlets too, but still
doesn't explain why Israeli internal politics and Arab internal politics
don't get roughly equal press coverage, as they ought to if there were no
bias involved.
--s
--
Eliyahu
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
It's actually one of many factors when it comes to the press. Most of
the Islamic nations impose strict controls over media reporting, and
if reporters and editors publish things that are too unfavorable or
try to cover stories where their handlers won't take them, they won't
be allowed to have their reporters in that country to cover whatever
the press handlers choose to allow. That was one of the factors in the
fauxtograph scandal a year or so ago. If AP and Reuters didn't
photograph and publish the staged events provided for them, they
wouldn't be allowed to stay in the country and would lose the ability
to cover more staged events. Israel doesn't do this, so it gets more
coverage of things that they'd just as soon not have in the headlines,
as well as seeing published POVs that disagree with whatever is
happening. [Question for grammarians: what is the proper acronym for
"points of view (plural)"? PsOV? POVs?]
In any case, owners of mass media are well aware of the results of the
last fuel embargo and won't want to publish things that might incite
another one. And the Saudis are also aware of just how much control
they have over the world economy now. They control the valves for oil
production, and the completion of their Scorched Earth technology
installation effectively eliminated any possibility of outside forces
taking over the oil fields and facilities. The good news is that the
explosives they used in the dirty bombs have a shelf life of about
twenty years, and since their last deliveries were in 1991 and 1992,
they only have about five years at the most before it becomes defunct.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> messagenews:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
believes in absolutely nothing, doesn't know anyone else, has no
opinions about anything, has never been involved in business,
agriculture, the military or commerce and who is nevertheless ready to
act without consulting anyone else who might have similar biases.
Eliyahu (who would be unelectable because of a terrible habit of
stating what he really thinks about stuff...)
Dan Kimmel
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
I remember Shrum's article at the time as to why he resigned from the Carter
campaign. What you said and what Carter said is not the same thing. Shrum
said he had never heard a politician phrase it like that: "Jackson has all
the Jews... We get the Christians." That's not about voting blocs (like
Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama in figuring out which candidate will get
more black support). That's about declaring a religious divide and writing
off "all the Jews."
Dan Kimmel
"chsw" <ch...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:HUHwi.21$x2...@newsfe12.lga...
Or they follow the partyline of the RIGHTWING organizations still in thrall
to Cheney/Bush. Ignore the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi
as is Osama. Pretend that Bush and his father haven't been oh, so cozy with
the Saudis for years. Pretend we didn't help Saudi nationals flee the
country in the days after 9/11. Pretend that Islam is a religion of peace
and that the Saudis haven't been exporting their extreme Wahabi sectarianism
around the world.
If you support Cheney/Bush and their war in Iraq, you're not allowed to
notice that our real enemy is in Riyahd, not Baghdad.
You play right into their hands by pretending this is all about the "left."
Q
> In <1187121818.922389.283...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Yes, of course it does.
> >Why does it? What difference should that make? Bad behavior is bad
> >behavior. I'm Jewish, and I still get accused of antisemitism for
> >even asking questions about Israel. The people who think they are
> >making the rules about what I'm allowed to say, claim that's because
> >I'm a "self-hating" Jew -- when they're not accusing me of secretly
> >being Suzy Muslim, that is.
>
> Bad behavior is indeed bad behavior. So, if someone where to figure out
> who you were and decide to take it upon him or herself to set up a "Q
> Blog" in which all of your bad behavior (and we're all bad sometimes) were
> to be categorized and publicized, that'd be OK by you, because bad
> behavior is bad behavior?
No. I am a private person. I'm not a celebrity or a sovereign state,
and unless I engage in some kind of behavior that causes public harm,
such a blog would be way out of line, and actionable. If such a blog
were created to harass me by publishing information about me and
destroying my privacy, it would be a criminal offense. As far as
criticizing me is concerned, the fact is that I've been raked over the
coals in this very newsgroup, including for things I don't believe,
and never said. Whereas others who have said pretty much the same
darn thing as what I've actually said get a free pass.
>
> If you're opposed to a certain type of behavior, then go ahead and rail
> against it. But to start with an individual person, ethnic group, or
> country and then try to find all the bad behavior you can about them,
> well, that's a different animal.
Yes, it is a different animal. But I don't think this discussion is
about that kind of animal. We are talking about people who criticize
Israel, and not people who criticize Jews.
>
>
>
> >> It's all about context, Q.
> >You said that already.
>
> I did, but I'm not sure that you're hearing it or getting it.
Since repetition does't seem to make it clear, why don't you try
saying it really, really loud? Try typing in all upper case -- maybe
that will help.
>
> >And it is about context, Steve. If you're talking about a sovereign
> >country, then you're not talking about an ethnic group or a
> >religion. Because religions and ethnic groups generally don't have
> >their own armies, their own nuclear arsenals, their own seats at the
> >United Nations or any of those other goodies that Israel has picked up
> >along the way. And also -- until the Bush administration -- this
> >country did not hand out aid to ethnic and religious as such. In
> >fact, we made it a point not to do so.
>
> Yep - you aren't getting it. Let me take another example -- when the UN
> Human Rights committee gets together to speak out against violations of
> human rights around the world, and somehow the only country worthy of
> condemnation is Israel, is there any doubt whatsoever that this is
> anti-semitic? (it's anti- some other stuff too, i.e., anti-west,
> anti-freedom, but it's certainly also anti-semitic)
I don't think that's an honest statement of what they do. Plenty of
countries have been condemned for human rights violations. But to the
extent that Israel is so condemned when other countries are not, it is
"anti-Israel," not "anti-semitic."
>
> > > Were someone to speak out against drug-related
> >> crime, he or she would certainly need to address how drug related crime is
> >> caused by and in turn impacts the black community, and that wouldn't be
> >> inherently racist. OTOH, for someone to decide to address regarding the
> >> black community, and speak only of how black people do drugs, that would,
> >> indeed, be racist. Context, Q.
> >Well, Steve, we are just going to have to decide whether Israel
> >suddenly becomes a race every time somebody takes exception to its
> >behavior, or whether -- when it is criticized -- it just needs to suck
> >it up, like every other country.
>
> It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't exist, Q,
> there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a thing.
Don't tell me that. Tell it to Webster's Dictionary, the OED, the US
Census Bureau, the world community of antropologists, and everyone
else who thinks "Race" does indeed exist. The definition of race is a
group of people who share a common ancestry.
>
> > I don't hear North Korea boohoohooing about "racism" every time its
> >brinksmanship policies are condemned.
>
> Actually I think they do - they believe themselves to be some sort of
> master race, I think.
Do they? You'lll have to show me where it says that.
>But typically right-thinking people don't speak
> solely of North Korea, they put them together with the other equivalent
> violators, although N. Korea is a pretty extreme example.
"Right-thinking people?" Who are they? How do you define them?
And no, when people discuss North Korea, they don't weaken their
criticism by packaging it with similar complaints about every other
country on the face of the earth.
>
> >And also, Steve, the "it's none of our business" argument is a crock,
> >since we fund Israel directly and indirectly with our tax dollars.
>
> We fund Egypt too. How come I don't see articles in the NYTimes about
> Egypt's repressive policies every single day? And believe me, Egypt's
> policies are MUCH more repressive than anything Israel has ever done.
> Where's your condemnation of that, Q? In fact that would be the proof
> right there -- if there were side by side articles on Egypt's misbehavior
> as well, then perhaps you'd have a point. Google what they're doing to
> suspected Muslim Brotherhood members if you don't believe me, then talk to
> me about Abu Ghraib if you dare.
Once again, Steve, that is a juvenile argument. And speaking as a
mother, a grandmother and a former nursery school principal, I
wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning from a six-year-old. Just
because Egypt and China and countless other places have dismal records
where human rights are concerned, doesn't give Israel -- or the United
States -- or any other place -- a free pass.
And also, I don't discuss Egypt, because Egypt is off topic for this
newsgroup. I'm more interested in what goes on in Israel than I am in
Egypt, and presumably everybody else who comes to this newsgroup is as
well.
>
> >Maybe it will become more "none of our business" when Israel stops
> >accepting our loans and handouts and other assistance.
>
> And I'm not suggesting that Americans don't have a right to hold Israel to
> account - it's just a question of degree, proportion, and CONTEXT.
What exactly does that mean, in practical terms, with respect to --
for example -- Jimmy Carter?
>
> >> People can object to whatever they like. People who single out the
> >> behavior of certain racial or ethnic groups for censure while ignoring
> >> that same behavior by other groups are racists.
> >Sure, if you think of Israel only as a bunch of Jews.
>
> Doesn't matter what I think.
That was the "rhetorical" you. This discussion is not about Steve.
And it isn't about Q, either.
>Criticizing Israel as if it's just a bunch of
> Jews is anti-semitic. That's what people are doing.
Which people? Because it seems to me that anybody and everybody who
is critical of Israel in any way gets labeled as anti-semitic. And
that's simply hogwash.
>
> >But what if you think of Israel as a sovereign nation that has the
> >same responsibilities as other nations, regardless of who happens to
> >live in it? I think outrageous behavior should be criticized no
> >matter who is responsible for it, and wherever it exists.
>
> I agree. WHEREEVER it exists. Not just in one place. When the NY Times
> starts running daily articles on abuse in Egypt and other Arab countries,
> then we can talk.
They run those articles as the news occurs. They don't run them every
day. Why should they? So everything will be even-steven? (again,
that's a figure of speech from one's childhood -- it's not about
you).
>
> >And what do you mean when you write "certain racial or ethnic"
> >groups? Do Jews enjoy some kind of special, "protected" status that
> >enables them to do exactly as they please?
>
> Not at all. You're not getting what I'm saying.
>
> >And it's not appropriate to answer the criticism by saying that the
> >nation down the road is doing the same thing.
> >Do you have children, Steve? Because if you do, you'd recognize that
> >reasoning as the kindergarten type of morality it really is.
> >Certainly, it's not an acceptable response in the world of grown-up
> >politics.
>
> You're not getting what I'm saying.
You seem to be saying that people who criticize Israel like the other
countries better, like Tommy Smothers' mom. They are playing
favorites, and that's not fair. And all the other countries are
allowed to do things Israel gets punished -- or at least censured --
for doing. No fair! And the reason some people object to what Israel
does isn't because they care about human rights; it's because they
hate Jews.
You seem to be saying is that it's only okay to criticize Israel, if
at the same time, you (rhetorical you, not you, Steve) criticize every
other country that's guilty -- or has ever been guilty -- of the
same or similar whatever-it-is. Otherwise, you are singling out
Israel because you hate Jews.
And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
the real thing, when it occurs.
Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
make.
-- Q
>
> --s
> --
Dan Kimmel
"DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:r1Iwi.307$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
>
> > I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
> > the U.S.,
>
> Your politics are likely to be dramatically different than Bernie Goldberg
> or David Horowitz
>
> > a voting bloc that makes Israel a major issue.
>
> I am not sure about this. Twenty or even ten years ago there was prolly a
> much more unified Jewish vote. I have a "sense" that is changing slowly
but
> surely. Most Jews (hopefully) are still staunch Israel supporters, but to
> say that they are still generally always gonna vote Democrat is a stretch.
Actually, no it isn't. American Jews by and large continue to be strongly
Democratic. Bush and Karl Rove hoped to change that, and they failed.
> I personally get around 70 percent of my politcal leanings from Jewish
> conservatives.
Who certainly do a lot to promote each other and make sure the get
themselves heard, but they are, in fact, a tiny minority of American Jews,
even among political activists.
Matt Silberstein
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> in
<r1Iwi.307$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net> wrote:
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
>
>> I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
>> the U.S.,
>
>Your politics are likely to be dramatically different than Bernie Goldberg
>or David Horowitz
Bloc does not mean uniformity.
>> a voting bloc that makes Israel a major issue.
>
>I am not sure about this. Twenty or even ten years ago there was prolly a
>much more unified Jewish vote. I have a "sense" that is changing slowly but
>surely. Most Jews (hopefully) are still staunch Israel supporters, but to
>say that they are still generally always gonna vote Democrat is a stretch.
We are talking about 1976, not 2007.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
Repeating the same information does not change my position. From the
words it does not look anti-Semitic (nor anti-Christian), it looks
like a discussion of political blocs.
Dan Kimmel
"Q" <quon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187215410.7...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 15, 12:38 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Yep - you aren't getting it. Let me take another example -- when the UN
> > Human Rights committee gets together to speak out against violations of
> > human rights around the world, and somehow the only country worthy of
> > condemnation is Israel, is there any doubt whatsoever that this is
> > anti-semitic? (it's anti- some other stuff too, i.e., anti-west,
> > anti-freedom, but it's certainly also anti-semitic)
>
> I don't think that's an honest statement of what they do. Plenty of
> countries have been condemned for human rights violations. But to the
> extent that Israel is so condemned when other countries are not, it is
> "anti-Israel," not "anti-semitic."
I think that's an extremely honest statement of what they do. Plenty of
other countries have NOT been condemned for human rights violations. But
Israel is always the primary target of criticism.
Please cite any articles where they condemned Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China,
North Korea, Iran....
Take all the space you need.
> > We fund Egypt too. How come I don't see articles in the NYTimes about
> > Egypt's repressive policies every single day? And believe me, Egypt's
> > policies are MUCH more repressive than anything Israel has ever done.
> > Where's your condemnation of that, Q? In fact that would be the proof
> > right there -- if there were side by side articles on Egypt's
misbehavior
> > as well, then perhaps you'd have a point. Google what they're doing to
> > suspected Muslim Brotherhood members if you don't believe me, then talk
to
> > me about Abu Ghraib if you dare.
>
> Once again, Steve, that is a juvenile argument. And speaking as a
> mother, a grandmother and a former nursery school principal, I
> wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning from a six-year-old. Just
> because Egypt and China and countless other places have dismal records
> where human rights are concerned, doesn't give Israel -- or the United
> States -- or any other place -- a free pass.
Actually you are engaging in an absurd evasion, and as a father and a
college professor, I would not accept such an evasion from my daughter or
from one of my students. The fact that Israel is *constantly* and
*prominently* criticized, even when they are NOT in the wrong, while
countries that engage in imprisoning dissidents, torturing people, and all
sorts of barbarity are not, speaks volumes about a double standard in place.
It's blatant there isn't even the pretense that it's not going on.
> > I agree. WHEREEVER it exists. Not just in one place. When the NY Times
> > starts running daily articles on abuse in Egypt and other Arab
countries,
> > then we can talk.
>
> They run those articles as the news occurs. They don't run them every
> day. Why should they? So everything will be even-steven? (again,
> that's a figure of speech from one's childhood -- it's not about
> you).
This is utter nonsense. It suggests that you believe that Israel engages in
constant abuses and that's why they are always criticized, but that Egypt or
Saudi Arabia or Sudan or China does it so infrequently that they need only
do "as the news occurs." Are you really that blind to this double standard
or do you simply not pay attention to the news media?
> You seem to be saying that people who criticize Israel like the other
> countries better, like Tommy Smothers' mom. They are playing
> favorites, and that's not fair. And all the other countries are
> allowed to do things Israel gets punished -- or at least censured --
> for doing. No fair! And the reason some people object to what Israel
> does isn't because they care about human rights; it's because they
> hate Jews.
>
> You seem to be saying is that it's only okay to criticize Israel, if
> at the same time, you (rhetorical you, not you, Steve) criticize every
> other country that's guilty -- or has ever been guilty -- of the
> same or similar whatever-it-is. Otherwise, you are singling out
> Israel because you hate Jews.
>
> And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
> cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
> the real thing, when it occurs.
>
> Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
> Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
> make.
Get your head out of the sand and start paying attention to the real world.
Sudan engages in genocide. China has occupied Tibet for decades. Saudi
Arabia has no religious freedom (except for Wahabi Islam) and women are
third class citizens. These stories do not make the news media every day.
But there is an unending stream of criticism directed at Israel which,
whatever its faults, is a democracy where *Arabs* enjoy more rights than
they do in most of the ARAB countries in the Middle East, and which is under
constant bombardment from missile attacks from Gaza, and terrorist forays
from Hamas.
Yet you think criticism of Israel is simply objective reporting and anyone
pointing out the blatant double standard that is going on is hypersensitive
and childish.
Why do you assume your lack of knowledge trumps real world observations?
Your denial suggests you really don't follow the news at all.
chsw
Your argument consists of smears and strawmen, and I am surprised
that you have responded with such biliousness about a post that
is not party-political. Moreover, the last time someone accused
me of saying that "this is all about the left," my interlocutor
was a member of Jews For Palestine. I wonder. Are you one of
them? Do you mean to come across like one of them?
chsw
Steve Goldfarb
>> Bad behavior is indeed bad behavior. So, if someone where to figure out
>> who you were and decide to take it upon him or herself to set up a "Q
>> Blog" in which all of your bad behavior (and we're all bad sometimes) were
>> to be categorized and publicized, that'd be OK by you, because bad
>> behavior is bad behavior?
>No. I am a private person. I'm not a celebrity or a sovereign state,
>and unless I engage in some kind of behavior that causes public harm,
>such a blog would be way out of line, and actionable. If such a blog
>were created to harass me by publishing information about me and
>destroying my privacy, it would be a criminal offense. As far as
>criticizing me is concerned, the fact is that I've been raked over the
>coals in this very newsgroup, including for things I don't believe,
>and never said. Whereas others who have said pretty much the same
>darn thing as what I've actually said get a free pass.
I was speaking rhetorically - for the record I'm not suggesting anyone
actually create such a blog about you, or anyone else. But even if it was
about, say, Tom Cruise - that makes it OK?
>>
>> If you're opposed to a certain type of behavior, then go ahead and rail
>> against it. But to start with an individual person, ethnic group, or
>> country and then try to find all the bad behavior you can about them,
>> well, that's a different animal.
>Yes, it is a different animal. But I don't think this discussion is
>about that kind of animal. We are talking about people who criticize
>Israel, and not people who criticize Jews.
>>
Are we? I think we're talking about whether or not people use criticism of
Israel as a cover for their criticism of Jews.
>> Yep - you aren't getting it. Let me take another example -- when the UN
>> Human Rights committee gets together to speak out against violations of
>> human rights around the world, and somehow the only country worthy of
>> condemnation is Israel, is there any doubt whatsoever that this is
>> anti-semitic? (it's anti- some other stuff too, i.e., anti-west,
>> anti-freedom, but it's certainly also anti-semitic)
>I don't think that's an honest statement of what they do. Plenty of
>countries have been condemned for human rights violations. But to the
>extent that Israel is so condemned when other countries are not, it is
>"anti-Israel," not "anti-semitic."
Prove it. Give me a list. I gave you a specific example -- the new UN
Council on Human Rights. My understanding is that the ONLY country they've
censured is Israel. Is that anti-Israel not anti-Semitic? Well that
presumes your own conclusion, doesn't it? Your conclusion is that it can't
be anti-semitic, therefore you assert that it's not. That's a circular
argument, Q.
>> It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't exist, Q,
>> there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a thing.
>Don't tell me that. Tell it to Webster's Dictionary, the OED, the US
>Census Bureau, the world community of antropologists, and everyone
>else who thinks "Race" does indeed exist. The definition of race is a
>group of people who share a common ancestry.
The word exists, thus it appears in the dictionary. Find me three leading
anthropologists to support the existence of race and I'll concede.
Everything I've read says that few if any scientists accept the concept.
We all share a common ancestry -- pretty much every living person on earth
has Genghis Khan as an ancestor, for example. It's a statistical fact.
>>But typically right-thinking people don't speak
>> solely of North Korea, they put them together with the other equivalent
>> violators, although N. Korea is a pretty extreme example.
>"Right-thinking people?" Who are they? How do you define them?
>And no, when people discuss North Korea, they don't weaken their
>criticism by packaging it with similar complaints about every other
>country on the face of the earth.
If that's the case, then North Korea would have a good argument that the
world doesn't care about human rights, it only cares about punishing North
Korea- that it's a personal vendetta. (I don't think it's the case,
though, see also "axis of evil.")
>> We fund Egypt too. How come I don't see articles in the NYTimes about
>> Egypt's repressive policies every single day? And believe me, Egypt's
>> policies are MUCH more repressive than anything Israel has ever done.
>> Where's your condemnation of that, Q? In fact that would be the proof
>> right there -- if there were side by side articles on Egypt's misbehavior
>> as well, then perhaps you'd have a point. Google what they're doing to
>> suspected Muslim Brotherhood members if you don't believe me, then talk to
>> me about Abu Ghraib if you dare.
>Once again, Steve, that is a juvenile argument. And speaking as a
>mother, a grandmother and a former nursery school principal, I
>wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning from a six-year-old. Just
>because Egypt and China and countless other places have dismal records
>where human rights are concerned, doesn't give Israel -- or the United
>States -- or any other place -- a free pass.
Six year olds have an advanced sense of fairness. That doesn't make them
wrong.
Once again you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding. No one's saying
Israel should get a free pass. All I'm saying is that Israel should be
treated as any other nation, and not singled out for criticism.
>And also, I don't discuss Egypt, because Egypt is off topic for this
>newsgroup. I'm more interested in what goes on in Israel than I am in
>Egypt, and presumably everybody else who comes to this newsgroup is as
>well.
I didn't think we were talking about the context of this newsgroup -
clearly criticism of Israel is relevant here, while criticism of Belgium
isn't. I didn't think this was all about Q defending herself from feeling
hurt by people's comments regarding the Jimmy Carter thread, if that's all
it is then leave me out of it.
>> >> People can object to whatever they like. People who single out the
>> >> behavior of certain racial or ethnic groups for censure while ignoring
>> >> that same behavior by other groups are racists.
>> >Sure, if you think of Israel only as a bunch of Jews.
>>
>> Doesn't matter what I think.
>That was the "rhetorical" you. This discussion is not about Steve.
>And it isn't about Q, either.
Once again you missed my point. If Joe taunts Betty using anti-black
stereotypes, insults, etc., and it turns out that Betty isn't black, does
that mean Joe isn't racist? Of coruse not. So too here - whether or not
*I* think Israel is only a bunch of Jews is irrelevant, people who attack
Israel *as if* it's just a bunch of Jews are still anti-semites.
>>Criticizing Israel as if it's just a bunch of
>> Jews is anti-semitic. That's what people are doing.
>Which people? Because it seems to me that anybody and everybody who
>is critical of Israel in any way gets labeled as anti-semitic. And
>that's simply hogwash.
Really? Anybody and everybody? Or do you just mean you? Is this all just
personal?
>> I agree. WHEREEVER it exists. Not just in one place. When the NY Times
>> starts running daily articles on abuse in Egypt and other Arab countries,
>> then we can talk.
>They run those articles as the news occurs. They don't run them every
>day. Why should they? So everything will be even-steven? (again,
>that's a figure of speech from one's childhood -- it's not about
>you).
So you don't think any human rights violations happened in, say, Egypt
today? How do you know that? Can you prove it?
>> You're not getting what I'm saying.
>You seem to be saying that people who criticize Israel like the other
>countries better, like Tommy Smothers' mom. They are playing
>favorites, and that's not fair. And all the other countries are
>allowed to do things Israel gets punished -- or at least censured --
>for doing. No fair! And the reason some people object to what Israel
>does isn't because they care about human rights; it's because they
>hate Jews.
To some degree yes - people who choose to criticize Israel when they don't
choose to critize others must have some reason for selecting Israel to
criticize. Generally that reason has something to do with Jews - a sense
of affiliation, or of non-affiliation.
>You seem to be saying is that it's only okay to criticize Israel, if
>at the same time, you (rhetorical you, not you, Steve) criticize every
>other country that's guilty -- or has ever been guilty -- of the
>same or similar whatever-it-is. Otherwise, you are singling out
>Israel because you hate Jews.
Once again, depends on the context. If you choose to criticize a certain
behavior and only focus on Israel, appropros of nothing else, then it's
suspect in my eyes. If you have some larger reason for speaking about
Israel, then maybe not. Context. You say you get that, but you don't
acknowledge it.
>And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
>cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
>the real thing, when it occurs.
>Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
>Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
>make.
I know the story, and I don't get it even slightly. There really is a
wolf, Q.
--s
--
DoD
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:lMKdneCfbv-MwV7b...@rcn.net...
>
> "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Iwi.307$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>
>> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
>> > the U.S.,
>>
>> Your politics are likely to be dramatically different than Bernie
>> Goldberg
>> or David Horowitz
>>
>> > a voting bloc that makes Israel a major issue.
>>
>> I am not sure about this. Twenty or even ten years ago there was prolly a
>> much more unified Jewish vote. I have a "sense" that is changing slowly
> but
>> surely. Most Jews (hopefully) are still staunch Israel supporters, but to
>> say that they are still generally always gonna vote Democrat is a
>> stretch.
>
> Actually, no it isn't. American Jews by and large continue to be strongly
> Democratic. Bush and Karl Rove hoped to change that, and they failed.
It is slowly but surely still changing towards the better. As the Democrat
party keeps following in the footsteps of the failed Yurpean ding dong
model.
>> I personally get around 70 percent of my politcal leanings from Jewish
>> conservatives.
>
> Who certainly do a lot to promote each other and make sure the get
> themselves heard, but they are, in fact, a tiny minority of American Jews,
> even among political activists.
You just keep telling yourself that, and you will find yourself increasingly
disappointed in years to come.
They do have the credentials. THEY are the REAL deal.
David
DoD
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:07:36 +0000 (UTC), in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated , "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> in
> <r1Iwi.307$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> >message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
> >> the U.S.,
> >
> >Your politics are likely to be dramatically different than Bernie
Goldberg
> >or David Horowitz
>
> Bloc does not mean uniformity.
Maybe tidy? I was taking your comments to mean that all Jews vote for Demo
candidates.
Don Levey
You don't find discussing the issue in terms of "leftist organisations"
and their party line to be party-political?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
Matt Silberstein
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:ugq6c357vqatm80k2...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:07:36 +0000 (UTC), in
>> soc.culture.jewish.moderated , "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> in
>> <r1Iwi.307$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> >message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
>> >> the U.S.,
>> >
>> >Your politics are likely to be dramatically different than Bernie
>Goldberg
>> >or David Horowitz
>>
>> Bloc does not mean uniformity.
>
>Maybe tidy? I was taking your comments to mean that all Jews vote for Demo
>candidates.
A voting bloc is a group that you aim at as relatively uniform. It is
more that you have a single message for them than that they all vote
alike. Soccer Moms are a famous example.
Damien Sullivan
>> > Yep - you aren't getting it. Let me take another example -- when the UN
>> > Human Rights committee gets together to speak out against violations of
>> > human rights around the world, and somehow the only country worthy of
>> > condemnation is Israel, is there any doubt whatsoever that this is
>Please cite any articles where they condemned Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China,
>North Korea, Iran....
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-27-voa52.cfm
Sudan
http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/article.php3?id_article=2018
Czech Republic
And there's a lot of room for confusion. There was the old UN Commssion
on Human Rights, and the new UN Human Rights Council, which was created
last year and wikipedia says has only condemned Israel, while China's
used it to block US motions about China's human rights record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
Looking at the membership list, I think UN human rights committees might
be a bad idea. The UN exists to treat countries fairly, regardless of
whether they treat their own citizens fairly.
>from one of my students. The fact that Israel is *constantly* and
>*prominently* criticized, even when they are NOT in the wrong, while
>countries that engage in imprisoning dissidents, torturing people, and
>all sorts of barbarity are not, speaks volumes about a double standard
>in place.
I'd agree there's a double standard of sorts, I'm just not convinced
it's one of anti-Semitism in the media. As opposed to Israel being
Western and a democracy, "one of us". Egypt is Arab and a dictatorship,
"one of them". Plus it's easier to get news out of Israel.
-xx- Damien X-)
Steve Goldfarb
>I'd agree there's a double standard of sorts, I'm just not convinced
>it's one of anti-Semitism in the media. As opposed to Israel being
>Western and a democracy, "one of us". Egypt is Arab and a dictatorship,
>"one of them". Plus it's easier to get news out of Israel.
OK, you found a few examples about the UN :-) but I don't think there's
any question that the UN, as an institution, is virulently anti-semitic.
I agree with what you said above, those are certainly reasons - perhaps
even the main reasons - why the media report what they do. Still, even if
the intent isn't to be anti-semitic, if the effect is bias and/or
anti-semitism, or the appearance of same, then it becomes incumbent upon
the media to consider those effects. At some point, insistence upon
continuing a practice starts to become questionable, even if the original
intent wasn't, if it can be shown to be harmful.
To say it another way, the NY Times might develop a bias for the reasons
you cite, but once that bias is pointed out (and it has been, repeatedly
and often) then a refusal to address what might be "innocent" bias becomes
something less innocent.
--s
--
Dan Kimmel
Repeating your denial of the obvious does not make it so. It doesn't look
at all like a discussion of political blocs.
chsw
"Leftist organizations" is not party-political in the pachyderm
or donkey sense of the term. Moreover, I recognize that there
are variations within the major political parties, and that is
why I did not identify "leftist" with any particular major party.
I am also annoyed that Dan wrote that I am "not allowed" to have
an independent thought which shatters his perception that those
who support the war in Iraq are a monolithic bloc without
variations of thought. I would be curious as to why Dan thinks
that way. I think his presumption is un-halachic, in that we are
supposed to judge each other favorably. In this case, the issue
is that there are reasons why we perceive a thing - the present
war - differently.
chsw
PS: BTW, I do think that the Saudis are enemies of the US. Now
will those Democrats who agree with me and Dan "allow" the
jackass environut section of their party to stop blocking
development of nuclear and coal power?.
Damien Sullivan
>> Actually, no it isn't. American Jews by and large continue to be strongly
>> Democratic. Bush and Karl Rove hoped to change that, and they failed.
>
>It is slowly but surely still changing towards the better. As the Democrat
>party keeps following in the footsteps of the failed Yurpean ding dong
>model.
It'd be funny if Jews were shifting to the right while Americans shift
to the left:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fbe0b986-4a8d-11dc-95b5-0000779fd2ac.html
(The Nation has had similar articles, but the Financial Times is less
likely to be indulging in wishful thinking, I figure.)
-xx- Damien X-)
Come to America! Highest infant mortality in the First World!
Q
> In <1187215410.778266.108...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Bad behavior is indeed bad behavior. So, if someone where to figure out
> >> who you were and decide to take it upon him or herself to set up a "Q
> >> Blog" in which all of your bad behavior (and we're all bad sometimes) were
> >> to be categorized and publicized, that'd be OK by you, because bad
> >> behavior is bad behavior?
> >No. I am a private person. I'm not a celebrity or a sovereign state,
> >and unless I engage in some kind of behavior that causes public harm,
> >such a blog would be way out of line, and actionable. If such a blog
> >were created to harass me by publishing information about me and
> >destroying my privacy, it would be a criminal offense. As far as
> >criticizing me is concerned, the fact is that I've been raked over the
> >coals in this very newsgroup, including for things I don't believe,
> >and never said. Whereas others who have said pretty much the same
> >darn thing as what I've actually said get a free pass.
>
> I was speaking rhetorically - for the record I'm not suggesting anyone
> actually create such a blog about you, or anyone else. But even if it was
> about, say, Tom Cruise - that makes it OK?
>
life, including how antidepressants are bad and Scientology is the
Way. I don't have any problems about criticizing Cruise's peculiar
weltanshauung. I don't think it's appropriate to criticize his
personal life, and speculations about his marriage and his child are
IMO way out of line.
>
>
> >> If you're opposed to a certain type of behavior, then go ahead and rail
> >> against it. But to start with an individual person, ethnic group, or
> >> country and then try to find all the bad behavior you can about them,
> >> well, that's a different animal.
> >Yes, it is a different animal. But I don't think this discussion is
> >about that kind of animal. We are talking about people who criticize
> >Israel, and not people who criticize Jews.
>
> Are we? I think we're talking about whether or not people use criticism of
> Israel as a cover for their criticism of Jews.
I think that may be true of a small number of critics. And I think --
regardless of the source -- that all criticism should be taken at face
value, and not deflected by making an issue of the possible mindset of
the critic.
>
> >> Yep - you aren't getting it. Let me take another example -- when the UN
> >> Human Rights committee gets together to speak out against violations of
> >> human rights around the world, and somehow the only country worthy of
> >> condemnation is Israel, is there any doubt whatsoever that this is
> >> anti-semitic? (it's anti- some other stuff too, i.e., anti-west,
> >> anti-freedom, but it's certainly also anti-semitic)
> >I don't think that's an honest statement of what they do. Plenty of
> >countries have been condemned for human rights violations. But to the
> >extent that Israel is so condemned when other countries are not, it is
> >"anti-Israel," not "anti-semitic."
>
> Prove it. Give me a list. I gave you a specific example -- the new UN
> Council on Human Rights.
The new UN Council on Human Rights is a joke that seems to have as its
purpose to deflect attention from the worst offenders. Anti-Israel
is not the same as antisemitic. And Israel should address the
criticism, and not use the source of the criticism as a diversion.
> My understanding is that the ONLY country they've
> censured is Israel. Is that anti-Israel not anti-Semitic? Well that
> presumes your own conclusion, doesn't it? Your conclusion is that it can't
> be anti-semitic, therefore you assert that it's not. That's a circular
> argument, Q.
I'm unable to parse what you are trying to say in the above graf.
>
> >> It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't exist, Q,
> >> there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a thing.
> >Don't tell me that. Tell it to Webster's Dictionary, the OED, the US
> >Census Bureau, the world community of antropologists, and everyone
> >else who thinks "Race" does indeed exist. The definition of race is a
> >group of people who share a common ancestry.
>
> The word exists, thus it appears in the dictionary. Find me three leading
> anthropologists to support the existence of race and I'll concede.
> Everything I've read says that few if any scientists accept the concept.
Why don't you instead supply citations from "leading-anthropologists"
who say that there's no such thing as race.
And since even "leading anthropologists" cannot erase the fact that
there are groups of people with common ancestry, tell us, what is the
PC word du jour that they use now instead of "race."
"Tribe?"
"People?"
And since you're so up on things anthropological, what are they doing
about words like "racism?" Or has that disappeared too?
>
> We all share a common ancestry -- pretty much every living person on earth
> has Genghis Khan as an ancestor, for example. It's a statistical fact.
Whaaaaa-a-a-a-t?
First, what in the world do you mean by "it's a statistical fact?"
Second, that silly notion was disproved some time ago. GK only died
in 1227. Somewhat less silly is the theory that everybody of European
extraction is descended from Charlemagne, who died in 812 and
therefore has far more descendants that GK. Even more likely is the
hypothesis that everybody in the world is descended from Abraham and
Sarah, who lived in 2000 BC, approximately .
>
> >>But typically right-thinking people don't speak
> >> solely of North Korea, they put them together with the other equivalent
> >> violators, although N. Korea is a pretty extreme example.
> >"Right-thinking people?" Who are they? How do you define them?
> >And no, when people discuss North Korea, they don't weaken their
> >criticism by packaging it with similar complaints about every other
> >country on the face of the earth.
>
> If that's the case, then North Korea would have a good argument that the
> world doesn't care about human rights, it only cares about punishing North
> Korea- that it's a personal vendetta. (I don't think it's the case,
> though, see also "axis of evil.")
They'd have a "good argument" only by your peculiar logic.
>
> >> We fund Egypt too. How come I don't see articles in the NYTimes about
> >> Egypt's repressive policies every single day? And believe me, Egypt's
> >> policies are MUCH more repressive than anything Israel has ever done.
> >> Where's your condemnation of that, Q? In fact that would be the proof
> >> right there -- if there were side by side articles on Egypt's misbehavior
> >> as well, then perhaps you'd have a point. Google what they're doing to
> >> suspected Muslim Brotherhood members if you don't believe me, then talk to
> >> me about Abu Ghraib if you dare.
> >Once again, Steve, that is a juvenile argument. And speaking as a
> >mother, a grandmother and a former nursery school principal, I
> >wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning from a six-year-old. Just
> >because Egypt and China and countless other places have dismal records
> >where human rights are concerned, doesn't give Israel -- or the United
> >States -- or any other place -- a free pass.
>
> Six year olds have an advanced sense of fairness. That doesn't make them
> wrong.
A six-year old's notion of fairness is crude. It is unnuanced, and
invariably self-serving.
>
> Once again you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding. No one's saying
> Israel should get a free pass. All I'm saying is that Israel should be
> treated as any other nation, and not singled out for criticism.
Even when the criticism is justified?
>
> >And also, I don't discuss Egypt, because Egypt is off topic for this
> >newsgroup. I'm more interested in what goes on in Israel than I am in
> >Egypt, and presumably everybody else who comes to this newsgroup is as
> >well.
>
> I didn't think we were talking about the context of this newsgroup - clearly criticism of Israel is relevant here, while criticism of Belgium
> isn't.
Then don't ask why I'm not criticizing Egypt, because that is the
statement -- which you have snipped -- that I was responding to.
> I didn't think this was all about Q defending herself from feeling
> hurt by people's comments regarding the Jimmy Carter thread, if that's all
> it is then leave me out of it.
I won't pretend I wasn't offended and disappointed by all of that.
One person even had the gall to say that I love dead Jews and also
that I had altered his posts.
>
> >> >> People can object to whatever they like. People who single out the
> >> >> behavior of certain racial or ethnic groups for censure while ignoring
> >> >> that same behavior by other groups are racists.
> >> >Sure, if you think of Israel only as a bunch of Jews.
>
> >> Doesn't matter what I think.
> >That was the "rhetorical" you. This discussion is not about Steve.
> >And it isn't about Q, either.
>
> Once again you missed my point. If Joe taunts Betty using anti-black
> stereotypes, insults, etc., and it turns out that Betty isn't black, does
> that mean Joe isn't racist? Of coruse not. So too here - whether or not
> *I* think Israel is only a bunch of Jews is irrelevant, people who attack
> Israel *as if* it's just a bunch of Jews are still anti-semites.
That's right. But people who attack Israel because of things Israel
is actually doing that they believe it ought not to do, are not
antisemites.
>
> >>Criticizing Israel as if it's just a bunch of
> >> Jews is anti-semitic. That's what people are doing.
> >Which people? Because it seems to me that anybody and everybody who
> >is critical of Israel in any way gets labeled as anti-semitic. And
> >that's simply hogwash.
>
> Really? Anybody and everybody? Or do you just mean you? Is this all just
> personal?
I'm an example of it, but this newsgroup has had many threads about
overuse of that epithet.
>
> >> I agree. WHEREEVER it exists. Not just in one place. When the NY Times
> >> starts running daily articles on abuse in Egypt and other Arab countries,
> >> then we can talk.
> >They run those articles as the news occurs. They don't run them every
> >day. Why should they? So everything will be even-steven? (again,
> >that's a figure of speech from one's childhood -- it's not about
> >you).
>
> So you don't think any human rights violations happened in, say, Egypt
> today? How do you know that? Can you prove it?
Why should I? It's not my job, and it's not something that's of
interest to me.
I'm sure human rights violations occur in every country in the world
every day. Maybe, when the day arrives when your daily newspaper is
the size of the phone book, we will read about it every single time it
occurs.
>
> >> You're not getting what I'm saying.
> >You seem to be saying that people who criticize Israel like the other
> >countries better, like Tommy Smothers' mom. They are playing
> >favorites, and that's not fair. And all the other countries are
> >allowed to do things Israel gets punished -- or at least censured --
> >for doing. No fair! And the reason some people object to what Israel
> >does isn't because they care about human rights; it's because they
> >hate Jews.
>
> To some degree yes - people who choose to criticize Israel when they don't
> choose to critize others must have some reason for selecting Israel to
> criticize. Generally that reason has something to do with Jews - a sense
> of affiliation, or of non-affiliation.
Maybe they are interested in Israel. Maybe they are even Jewish.
Maybe they do business with Israel, or are acquainted with Israelis
who complain a lot about conditions there. Maybe they are troubled
about threats to world peace, in general. There are lots of
legitimate reasons for being interested in Israel.
>
> >You seem to be saying is that it's only okay to criticize Israel, if
> >at the same time, you (rhetorical you, not you, Steve) criticize every
> >other country that's guilty -- or has ever been guilty -- of the
> >same or similar whatever-it-is. Otherwise, you are singling out
> >Israel because you hate Jews.
>
> Once again, depends on the context. If you choose to criticize a certain
> behavior and only focus on Israel, appropros of nothing else, then it's
> suspect in my eyes. If you have some larger reason for speaking about
> Israel, then maybe not. Context. You say you get that, but you don't
> acknowledge it.
I understand why it's suspect in your eyes, but I think your attitude
is wrong.
>
> >And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
> >cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
> >the real thing, when it occurs.
> >Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
> >Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
> >make.
>
> I know the story, and I don't get it even slightly. There really is a
> wolf, Q.
Yes. That's the point of the story. There *is* a real wolf, but it's
not the neighbor's cocker spaniel, or the squirrel in your attic, or
the deer that wanders onto your property.
But if you keep claiming that every four-legged thing that annoys you
is a wolf, you will have zero credibility left when a real wolf shows
up in your backyard.
-- Q
>
> --s
> --
Dan Kimmel
"Damien Sullivan" <pho...@ofb.net> wrote in message
news:fa2f31$d7p$2...@naig.caltech.edu...
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Yep - you aren't getting it. Let me take another example -- when the
UN
> >> > Human Rights committee gets together to speak out against violations
of
> >> > human rights around the world, and somehow the only country worthy of
> >> > condemnation is Israel, is there any doubt whatsoever that this is
>
> >Please cite any articles where they condemned Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China,
> >North Korea, Iran....
>
> http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-27-voa52.cfm
> Sudan
UN Condemns Gross Human Rights Violations in Sudan
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
27 July 2007
Nice of them to FINALLY notice.
>
> http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/article.php3?id_article=2018
> Czech Republic
Sounds like a nice discussion WITH the Czech government.
>
> And there's a lot of room for confusion. There was the old UN Commssion
> on Human Rights, and the new UN Human Rights Council, which was created
> last year and wikipedia says has only condemned Israel, while China's
> used it to block US motions about China's human rights record.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
>
> Looking at the membership list, I think UN human rights committees might
> be a bad idea. The UN exists to treat countries fairly, regardless of
> whether they treat their own citizens fairly.
>
> >from one of my students. The fact that Israel is *constantly* and
> >*prominently* criticized, even when they are NOT in the wrong, while
> >countries that engage in imprisoning dissidents, torturing people, and
> >all sorts of barbarity are not, speaks volumes about a double standard
> >in place.
>
> I'd agree there's a double standard of sorts, I'm just not convinced
> it's one of anti-Semitism in the media. As opposed to Israel being
> Western and a democracy, "one of us". Egypt is Arab and a dictatorship,
> "one of them". Plus it's easier to get news out of Israel.
That's really what it comes down to. Israel is attacked BECAUSE they don't
suppress the media, whereas in most Arab countries they don't report because
they CAN'T. Did you read much about how Hamas *seized* film and video of
them suppressing anti-Hamas protests in Gaza? Probably not.
Dan Kimmel
> "Leftist organizations" is not party-political in the pachyderm
> or donkey sense of the term. Moreover, I recognize that there
> are variations within the major political parties, and that is
> why I did not identify "leftist" with any particular major party.
>
> I am also annoyed that Dan wrote that I am "not allowed" to have
> an independent thought which shatters his perception that those
> who support the war in Iraq are a monolithic bloc without
> variations of thought. I would be curious as to why Dan thinks
> that way. I think his presumption is un-halachic, in that we are
> supposed to judge each other favorably. In this case, the issue
> is that there are reasons why we perceive a thing - the present
> war - differently.
I'm annoyed taht you were allowed to psot this statement about me when I
never said any such thing.
I simply point out the hypocrisy of blaming everything on the left, when the
Bushies and other rightwingers have ensured we are not permitted to honestly
discuss Saudi Arabia as the true enemy of America in the Middle East.
DoD
> "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, no it isn't. American Jews by and large continue to be
>>> strongly
>>> Democratic. Bush and Karl Rove hoped to change that, and they failed.
>>
>>It is slowly but surely still changing towards the better. As the Democrat
>>party keeps following in the footsteps of the failed Yurpean ding dong
>>model.
>
> It'd be funny if Jews were shifting to the right while Americans shift
> to the left:
Errr, Mr. Sullivan, I would like to take this time to point out to you that
Jews are also Americans.
And why would it be funny to see Jews be in the minority? Why would it be
funny to see the vast majority of Americans start to hate Israel?
David
chsw
> [comments cut - CW]
>
> I simply point out the hypocrisy of blaming everything on the left, when the
> Bushies and other rightwingers have ensured we are not permitted to honestly
> discuss Saudi Arabia as the true enemy of America in the Middle East.
How are "the Bushies and other rightwingers" suppressing
discussion of treating the Saudis as enemies? I have heard the
topic discussed by Rush Limbaugh more than once. The topic has
been discussed by conservative bloggers often. And of course, it
has been discussed by your favorite, Ann Coulter. To be fair,
the same point has been made by several liberal commentators.
The commentators start first, then the policymakers join in the
discussion.
However, a shift in policy with regard to Saudi Arabia absolutely
must be accompanied by an energy policy which frees the USA from
petroleum dependence on foreign sources by developing domestic
nuclear, coal, and petroleum options. That is the part of the
discussion which is not taking place. IIRC, many of this
administration's domestic energy proposals did not get through
Congress and probably will not be re-submitted. Therefore, the
energy leg of the discussion must proceed within the party
controls Congress. No serious proposals have been made by the
current Congressional leadership to date. Dan, if you can
discuss the linkage between energy independence and foreign
policy freedom from Saudi Arabia in one of your newspaper
columns, you will be doing more than your share to move the
discussion forward.
chsw
PS: The presidential campaigners have not yet put forward their
proposals. Too soon.
Eliyahu
> In <1187215410.778266.108...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't exist, Q,
> >> there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a thing.
> >Don't tell me that. Tell it to Webster's Dictionary, the OED, the US
> >Census Bureau, the world community of antropologists, and everyone
> >else who thinks "Race" does indeed exist. The definition of race is a
> >group of people who share a common ancestry.
>
> The word exists, thus it appears in the dictionary. Find me three leading
> anthropologists to support the existence of race and I'll concede.
> Everything I've read says that few if any scientists accept the concept.
And the existence of a word in the dictionary does not validate its
use as an accurate descriptor when it comes to scientific matters.
> >"Right-thinking people?" Who are they? How do you define them?
> >And no, when people discuss North Korea, they don't weaken their
> >criticism by packaging it with similar complaints about every other
> >country on the face of the earth.
People also don't routinely focus on the relatively minor human rights
issues occurring in South Korea and ignore those in the North.
>
> Once again you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding. No one's saying
> Israel should get a free pass. All I'm saying is that Israel should be
> treated as any other nation, and not singled out for criticism.
> >
> >> You're not getting what I'm saying.
> >You seem to be saying that people who criticize Israel like the other
> >countries better, like Tommy Smothers' mom. They are playing
> >favorites, and that's not fair. And all the other countries are
> >allowed to do things Israel gets punished -- or at least censured --
> >for doing. No fair! And the reason some people object to what Israel
> >does isn't because they care about human rights; it's because they
> >hate Jews.
Given that Israel is the only mideastern nation with a democratic
government, where there is freedom of religion, speech and the press,
where people of all religions can practice their beliefs freely, etc.,
and there are such horrendous abuses of human rights in virtually all
of the surrounding nations as well as a lack of basic freedoms and
civil rights, what alternative explanation can you propose for the
intense focus on Israel when it comes to criticism? If the mideastern
nations were children, we'd have all the biggest ones crying about the
smallest, "Mommy, make him stop hitting us back!"
> >And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
> >cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
> >the real thing, when it occurs.
> >Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
> >Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
> >make.
I'm surprised that such condescending and offensive drek got past the
moderators. "Go ask your mommy", indeed...
>
Eliyahu
Dan Kimmel
> Your argument consists of smears and strawmen, and I am surprised
> that you have responded with such biliousness about a post that
> is not party-political. Moreover, the last time someone accused
> me of saying that "this is all about the left," my interlocutor
> was a member of Jews For Palestine. I wonder. Are you one of
> them? Do you mean to come across like one of them?
I take your unwarranted smear as a concession that you cannot answer my
actual statements.
Dan Kimmel
"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187287827.6...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > >And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
> > >cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
> > >the real thing, when it occurs.
> > >Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
> > >Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
> > >make.
>
> I'm surprised that such condescending and offensive drek got past the
> moderators. "Go ask your mommy", indeed...
I'm not. The selective and haphazard censorship here is par for the course.
Damien Sullivan
>Errr, Mr. Sullivan, I would like to take this time to point out to you that
>Jews are also Americans.
Well, some of them are.
Like me.
>And why would it be funny to see Jews be in the minority? Why would it be
>funny to see the vast majority of Americans start to hate Israel?
Since I disagree with your premise, your question admits of no answer.
-xx- Damien X-)
Dan Kimmel
Where is this occuring? Surveys continue to show widespread support for
Israel among all Ameicans, and widespread distaste for the failed
Cheney/Bush administration among all Americans and among the subgroup of
Jewish Americans.
Q
> On Aug 16, 5:29 am, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In <1187215410.778266.108...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > >> It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't exist, Q,
> > >> there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a thing.
> > >Don't tell me that. Tell it to Webster's Dictionary, the OED, the US
> > >Census Bureau, the world community of antropologists, and everyone
> > >else who thinks "Race" does indeed exist. The definition of race is a
> > >group of people who share a common ancestry.
>
> > The word exists, thus it appears in the dictionary. Find me three leading
> > anthropologists to support the existence of race and I'll concede.
> > Everything I've read says that few if any scientists accept the concept.
>
> And the existence of a word in the dictionary does not validate its
> use as an accurate descriptor when it comes to scientific matters.
How about its use in the census and many other surveys?
Why don't *you* post a link to some writing by a *leading*
anthropologist which says there's no such thing as "race" since Steve
is apparently not going to do so. And -- since this is SCJM --
remember, the anthropologist has to be a "leading" one. Here's a link
to help you get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
And while you're at it, explain how -- if Steve says there's no such
thing as "race" (which is no longer PC apparently), there can still be
such thing as "racism." (which is nevertheless still PC's favorite
weapon)
>
> > >"Right-thinking people?" Who are they? How do you define them?
> > >And no, when people discuss North Korea, they don't weaken their
> > >criticism by packaging it with similar complaints about every other
> > >country on the face of the earth.
>
> People also don't routinely focus on the relatively minor human rights
> issues occurring in South Korea and ignore those in the North.
People don't routinely discuss human rights issues in South Korea at
all. The discussion of our problems with North Korea tends to be free-
standing and isn't related to how the little countries next door
behave better.
>
>
>
> > Once again you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding. No one's saying
> > Israel should get a free pass. All I'm saying is that Israel should be
> > treated as any other nation, and not singled out for criticism.
>
> > >> You're not getting what I'm saying.
> > >You seem to be saying that people who criticize Israel like the other
> > >countries better, like Tommy Smothers' mom. They are playing
> > >favorites, and that's not fair. And all the other countries are
> > >allowed to do things Israel gets punished -- or at least censured --
> > >for doing. No fair! And the reason some people object to what Israel
> > >does isn't because they care about human rights; it's because they
> > >hate Jews.
>
> Given that Israel is the only mideastern nation with a democratic
> government, where there is freedom of religion, speech and the press,
> where people of all religions can practice their beliefs freely, etc.,
Unless they get on the wrong bus, that is. Or want to eat pork. Or
want to marry the "wrong" person. Or wear a skirt that's too short.
Or even be considered Jewish.
Yes, I've noticed how freely everybody can practice their beliefs,
etc.
> and there are such horrendous abuses of human rights in virtually all
> of the surrounding nations as well as a lack of basic freedoms and
> civil rights, what alternative explanation can you propose for the
> intense focus on Israel when it comes to criticism? If the mideastern
> nations were children, we'd have all the biggest ones crying about the
> smallest, "Mommy, make him stop hitting us back!"
Yes. "They started it!" That excuses everything.
>
> > >And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
> > >cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
> > >the real thing, when it occurs.
> > >Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
> > >Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
> > >make.
>
> I'm surprised that such condescending and offensive drek got past the
> moderators. "Go ask your mommy", indeed...
The fact is, Steve was being very condescending to me with his revival
tent repetition of the crypto-Clintonian "It's the context, Q".
And do you think it's appropriate for *you* to be calling somebody's
on-topic posts drek? Are you hinting that I shouldn't be allowed to
post on this board?
I don't suppose you have anything to say about how people are crying
"Wolf!" when they label ordinary criticism as antisemitic. No point
in going after substance, when you can distract people by criticizing
the critic and her style.
Frankly, I'm surprised that your posts proposing a boycott of me as a
member of this forum -- which is supposed to be a discussion group and
not some kind of "love fest" where all opinions are in lockstep --
were allowed to pass.
I'm surprised you would even write a post like that.
Some people would consider this apparent need you and Dan -- and a
couple of the other self-proclaimed liberals here -- have to silence
people in a discussion group fascistic.
Actually, I shouldn't be surprised at all. To paraphrase Orwell, I
guess some members here are more equal than others. -- Q
>
> Eliyahu
Steve Goldfarb
>It'd be funny if Jews were shifting to the right while Americans shift
>to the left:
>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fbe0b986-4a8d-11dc-95b5-0000779fd2ac.html
>(The Nation has had similar articles, but the Financial Times is less
>likely to be indulging in wishful thinking, I figure.)
>-xx- Damien X-)
>Come to America! Highest infant mortality in the First World!
I don't think that statistic means what you imply it means.
But anyway, I think this whole "Right" versus "Left" debate is utterly
outdated. The meaning of those terms has shifted, and really it's more of
a matrix, or... I forget what those diagrams are called, but there are 2
axes -- someone has a nice analysis of this, I'll see if I can find it.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
As the "offended party" I really don't mind, I can take it and allowing it
through reveals a lot more about Q than supressing it would.
--s
--
Andy Katz
wrote:
>On Aug 15, 9:38 am, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <1187121818.922389.283...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> >But what if you think of Israel as a sovereign nation that has the
>> >same responsibilities as other nations, regardless of who happens to
>> >live in it? I think outrageous behavior should be criticized no
>> >matter who is responsible for it, and wherever it exists.
>>
>> I agree. WHEREEVER it exists. Not just in one place. When the NY Times
>> starts running daily articles on abuse in Egypt and other Arab countries,
>> then we can talk.
>
>And therein lies the problem. Imagine the outcry if Israel conducted
>public beheadings, as Saudi Arabia does with great frequency, if
Don't forget the documentary Death of a Princess that so irked the
royal family, and he controversy over US women serving in the Gulf to
protect a regime that treated them as second class citizens.
Saudi Arabia's a medieval kingdom, a vassal of the US empire that
flies F18s and doesn't let women drive or own property. Israel's a
modern democratic state, a US ally rather than vassal.
>Israel ordered women not to appear in public without an approved male
>escort, if Israel made it unlawful for non-Jews to live there, if
>Israel permitted "honor killings", and if Israel had a "religious
>police" like that in Muslim nations... The difference, of course, is
>that no one needs to kowtow to Israel in order to get petroleum. The
>world attitude toward Muslim nations has long been that they're just
>backward and primitive children who can't be held to the standards of
>the civilized nations, and that we must indulge them because they
>control our fuel supply. If the oil dried up and people balanced the
>rest of Islam's contributions of recent years with those of Israel
>(Explosive vests and IEDs vs. just about everything you can think of
>in science and technology), the focus might change a bit.
Seeing as the majority of Muslims live in Asia and don't expect
significant amounts of petroleum using Saudi Arabia as the model for
all of Islam doesn't seem reasonable.
Andy Katz
Andy Katz
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Okay .... how do Carter's comments diverge from the "facts" in the
>> above?
>
>Carter endorses the Syrian/Hezbollah position that Israel has NOT fully
>withdrawn
>since they they claim "Shebaa Farms" for themselves. Even the UN does not
>go so far.
Not sure I follow the significance of this. According to JVL, for one,
Israel does maintain a presence in Shebaa Farms:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#h
Israel, which has built a series of observation posts on strategic
hilltops in the area,[Shebaa Farms] maintains that the land was
captured from Syria; nevertheless, the Syrians have supported
Hizballah's claim.
>> Carter writes a paragraph simply quoting Arafat. That's all. If Carter
>> had also added "I believe this magnificent Arab in every particular!"
>> it would have appeared in the citation. So Carter quotes Arafat in
>> what most people believe is at best a disingenuous evasion, or at
>> worst a lie?
>>
>> So what?
>
>Sorry, Andy, you're the one being disingenuous. He was "simply quoting"
>Arafat? Why quote him in his lies at all unless either a.) to refute them,
>which he does not or b.) because he agrees with them? To claim he is
>"simply quoting" and doing nothing further is a real example of a
>"disingenuous evasion."
Problem is I haven't the entire book, so I don't have a context in
which Arafat is quoted. Is Carter endorsing or validating Arafat's
claim?
Not clear from the information presented here.
Incidentally, either here or in another reply you call Carter's role
in the Camp David Accords into question.
Here's Encyclopedia Britannica's comment:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9019831/Camp-David-Accords
The peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.The
peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.
Andy Katz
DoD
>
> "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:46c4f909$0$18988$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >
> > "Damien Sullivan" <pho...@ofb.net> wrote in message
> > news:fa2e3l$d7p$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> > > "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Actually, no it isn't. American Jews by and large continue to be
> > >>> strongly
> > >>> Democratic. Bush and Karl Rove hoped to change that, and they
failed.
> > >>
> > >>It is slowly but surely still changing towards the better. As the
> Democrat
> > >>party keeps following in the footsteps of the failed Yurpean ding dong
> > >>model.
> > >
> > > It'd be funny if Jews were shifting to the right while Americans shift
> > > to the left:
> >
> > Errr, Mr. Sullivan, I would like to take this time to point out to you
> that
> > Jews are also Americans.
> >
> > And why would it be funny to see Jews be in the minority? Why would it
be
> > funny to see the vast majority of Americans start to hate Israel?
>
> Where is this occuring?
Dan, I see the x posts coming into s.c.israel often (from that retarded
impeachment group you love), and you are always having to defend Israel.
Same thing goes elsewhere.... either you are imitating an ostrich, or you
are just being disingenuous. I don't want to talk about this anymore on
this forum..
David
Andy Katz
Have you have had a chance to read Seymour Hersh's article in the New
Yorker about the administration's strategic shift against Iran, funded
and abetted in large part by the Saudis?
In part:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new
strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an
existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the
Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine
will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved
in Arab-Israeli negotiations.
Andy Katz
Steve Goldfarb
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:36:26 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
><daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>> Okay .... how do Carter's comments diverge from the "facts" in the
>>> above?
>>
>>Carter endorses the Syrian/Hezbollah position that Israel has NOT fully
>>withdrawn
>>since they they claim "Shebaa Farms" for themselves. Even the UN does not
>>go so far.
>Not sure I follow the significance of this. According to JVL, for one,
>Israel does maintain a presence in Shebaa Farms:
>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#h
The issue isn't whether or not Israel is in Shebaa, but whether Shebaa is
disputed Syrian territory or disputed Lebanese territory. The UN
recognizes it as Syrian (or disputed Syrian), therefore they certified
that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory. The Party of God
claims that it belongs to Lebanon, thus Israel still occupies Lebanon and
therefore they're free to kill whomever they like.
--s
--
DoD
> "The media" is not kowtowing due to petrodollars. Some members
> of the media kowtow because of direct and indirect threats
> against them by the Islamofascists, dictators (e.g., Eason
> Jordan) and leftist organizations. Others simply follow the
> party line of the press releases by the above.
I was thinking of where I could inject this in the thread. I believe this is
the place.
To update an old Mark Twain (and Benjamin Disraeli) quote, there are lies,
damned lies, and Hollywood scripts.
Sometimes the lies are not what is in the script, but what is removed under
pressure from whining, politically correct interest groups. These days,
those groups are primarily Muslim and Middle Eastern. ......................
The rest............................
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=26392083-C138-418D-82F6-585475261E69
David
Dan Kimmel
> >>
> >> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
> >> message news:45s5c3dlmpge9qaj6...@4ax.com...
> >>
in
> >> > the U.S.,
> >>
> >> Goldberg
> >> or David Horowitz
> >>
> >>
a
> >> much more unified Jewish vote. I have a "sense" that is changing slowly
> > but
> >> surely. Most Jews (hopefully) are still staunch Israel supporters, but
to
> >> say that they are still generally always gonna vote Democrat is a
> >> stretch.
> >
> > Actually, no it isn't. American Jews by and large continue to be
strongly
> > Democratic. Bush and Karl Rove hoped to change that, and they failed.
>
> It is slowly but surely still changing towards the better. As the Democrat
> party keeps following in the footsteps of the failed Yurpean ding dong
> model.
It is surely remaining solidly Democratic. Bush Jr. actually gets LESS
support from Jews than his father or Reagan did.
The rightwing has been trumpeting the change in American Jewish voting
patterngs for years, but it still isn't happening. As the famous quip had
it, Jews still live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.
>
> >> I personally get around 70 percent of my politcal leanings from Jewish
> >> conservatives.
> >
> > Who certainly do a lot to promote each other and make sure the get
> > themselves heard, but they are, in fact, a tiny minority of American
Jews,
> > even among political activists.
>
> You just keep telling yourself that, and you will find yourself
increasingly
> disappointed in years to come.
In fact, it is the rightwing that is increasingly disappointed as they keep
predicting this realignment of the Jewish vote that never seems to happen.
Here's a 2005 survey:
Key Findings
a.. As many as 74% of American Jews identify as Democrats. Estimates of
Republican identification range from 11-21%
b.. The Jewish two-party vote in 2004 was 29% more Democratic than the
national two-party vote. This number has been very stable over the last
three presidential elections.
c.. Jewish voters who attend synagogue at least weekly and Jewish men
under 30 are more likely to vote Republican. Jewish women 60 years of age or
older and Jewish women under 30 years of age are more likely to vote
Democratic.
http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=1215
No doubt a current survey would find even stronger Democratic support.
> They do have the credentials. THEY are the REAL deal.
They are idelogues pushing an agenda that most American Jews continue to
reject. Nothing suggests that will be changing anytime soon.
DoD
> > They do have the credentials. THEY are the REAL deal.
>
> They are idelogues pushing an agenda that most American Jews continue to
> reject.
I think it would be a sad day when most American Jews would identify with
Adam Shapiro or Norman Finkelstein over David Horowitz or Bernie Goldberg.
> Nothing suggests that will be changing anytime soon.
Like I said before. You just keep telling yourself that. Dynamics change,
just as your liberal friends keep floating to the far left.
David
Dan Kimmel
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fa45v6$5mh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
I agree. My comment was about the censorship here.
Dan Kimmel
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:T_adna-Oia3hWVnb...@rcn.net...
>
> > > They do have the credentials. THEY are the REAL deal.
> >
> > They are idelogues pushing an agenda that most American Jews continue to
> > reject.
>
> I think it would be a sad day when most American Jews would identify with
> Adam Shapiro or Norman Finkelstein over David Horowitz or Bernie Goldberg.
I think it's a sad day when most American Jews would identify with EITHER of
these groups of extremists. Horowitz and Goldberg no more represent
mainstream American Jewish thought than do Shapiro or Finkelstein,.
>
> > Nothing suggests that will be changing anytime soon.
>
> Like I said before. You just keep telling yourself that. Dynamics change,
> just as your liberal friends keep floating to the far left.
Like I said before, you can pretend all you want, but the rightwing has been
predicting this realignment of American Jews for decades, and they've been
wrong every time.
Dan Kimmel
>
> "chsw" <ch...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:HUHwi.21$x2...@newsfe12.lga...
>
>
> > "The media" is not kowtowing due to petrodollars. Some members
> > of the media kowtow because of direct and indirect threats
> > against them by the Islamofascists, dictators (e.g., Eason
> > Jordan) and leftist organizations. Others simply follow the
> > party line of the press releases by the above.
>
> I was thinking of where I could inject this in the thread. I believe this
is
> the place.
>
> To update an old Mark Twain (and Benjamin Disraeli) quote, there are lies,
> damned lies, and Hollywood scripts.
> Sometimes the lies are not what is in the script, but what is removed
under
> pressure from whining, politically correct interest groups. These days,
> those groups are primarily Muslim and Middle Eastern.
>
> The rest............................
>
>
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=26392083-C138-418D-82F6-585475261E69
The mistake is in believing anything from a rightwing extremist souce like
Frontpagemag.
Scenes are cuts from movies all the time for all sorts of reasons. I have
no inclination to accept their explanation for it as they are a highly
UNreliable source.
Dan Kimmel
I accept your concession that you have no evidence whatsoever that the vast
majority of Americans are abandoning their longstanding support of Israel.
Steve Goldfarb
>> And the existence of a word in the dictionary does not validate its
>> use as an accurate descriptor when it comes to scientific matters.
>How about its use in the census and many other surveys?
Its use in the census and other surveys is, to a large degree, racist.
>Why don't *you* post a link to some writing by a *leading*
>anthropologist which says there's no such thing as "race" since Steve
>is apparently not going to do so. And -- since this is SCJM --
>remember, the anthropologist has to be a "leading" one. Here's a link
>to help you get started:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
Um, Q, did you read that article? It explains my position quite clearly
right in the first few paragraphs. "Mainstream scientists ahve argued that
race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom... thus
they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans
can have taxonomic rigour and validity." And oh look - there's a citation,
it says this is the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological
Association. "Evidence from the analysis of genetics indicates that most
physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means there
is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them."
OK? Satisfied?
>And while you're at it, explain how -- if Steve says there's no such
>thing as "race" (which is no longer PC apparently), there can still be
>such thing as "racism." (which is nevertheless still PC's favorite
>weapon)
I'm sorry but that's an astonishingly stupid thing to say. Of COURSE
they're such a thing as racism -- any time anyone categorize someone as
being part of a "race" that's racist, and IMO wrong. The very idea of
"race" is racist, well, be definition, but further is very wrong. Here's a
little test - finish this sentence without saying something most people
would agree is racist -- "All black people are...."
>> People also don't routinely focus on the relatively minor human rights
>> issues occurring in South Korea and ignore those in the North.
>People don't routinely discuss human rights issues in South Korea at
>all. The discussion of our problems with North Korea tends to be free-
>standing and isn't related to how the little countries next door
>behave better.
Why not? All the arguments about why people focus on Israel also apply to
South Korea.
>> I'm surprised that such condescending and offensive drek got past the
>> moderators. "Go ask your mommy", indeed...
>The fact is, Steve was being very condescending to me with his revival
>tent repetition of the crypto-Clintonian "It's the context, Q".
Aww. So you're saying I started it, therefore you ought to be allowed to
do something you consider misbehavior as well? And you accuse me of using
childish reasoning??
>And do you think it's appropriate for *you* to be calling somebody's
>on-topic posts drek? Are you hinting that I shouldn't be allowed to
>post on this board?
He identified the content he didn't think you ought to be able to post.
>I don't suppose you have anything to say about how people are crying
>"Wolf!" when they label ordinary criticism as antisemitic. No point
>in going after substance, when you can distract people by criticizing
>the critic and her style.
>Frankly, I'm surprised that your posts proposing a boycott of me as a
>member of this forum -- which is supposed to be a discussion group and
>not some kind of "love fest" where all opinions are in lockstep --
>were allowed to pass.
OK, dear. Frankly I'm becoming more and more convinced that Q is not who
or what she claims to be, just based solely on her posts. Now, that in and
of itself is neither here nor there, but increasingly leads me to believe
that "she" is just playing with us. So, my "don't feed the trolls" policy
may well have to come into effect here.
--s
--
DoD
> "DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Errr, Mr. Sullivan, I would like to take this time to point out to you
that
> >Jews are also Americans.
>
> Well, some of them are.
>
> Like me.
Around 40 or 50 percent, if I remember the statistic right. But if you are
an American Jew, you sure worded your original sentence very funny.
> >And why would it be funny to see Jews be in the minority? Why would it be
> >funny to see the vast majority of Americans start to hate Israel?
>
> Since I disagree with your premise, your question admits of no answer.
Which question? The first, second, or both? The first comes directly in
reply to what you said. The second *could* be just my opinion, but it is
based on what I see going on in the world. Take a look at the political
newsgroups for a moment. You will find that 80 to 90 percent of so-called
liberals hate Israel.... You will see about 99 percent of so-called
conservatives show their support for her. I am not kidding .... go see for
yourself.
David
Andy Katz
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>What was his "role?" The reason Sadat flew to Jerusalem was that he was
>upset with Carter's attempt to create a Middle East peace conference that
>would have given a promiinent platform to Arafat.
See my comments in another reply (I thought I had deleted this one).
Of course Sadat and Begin deserve the lion's share of credit (Begin
had to agree to remove the Sinai settlements, which he had earlier
promoted), it was Carter who brought them together.
>Of course not, but better enemies like Nixon than "friends" like Carter. I
>didn't vote for Carter either time and I blame his incompetence for paving
>the way for the Reagan Error. I think Carter was one of our worst
>presidents. I suspect he gets up every morning and thanks heaven for Bush,
>since the incumbent's failures mean that Carter is no longer the VERY worst
>of recent times.
Carter does have a lot to answer for re: '80:(
>> Or is he starting to hit some sore points?
>
>No, he's just an arrogant, self-important prig who loves Arab terrorists
>more than a Jewish democracy Personally I think Bush has been a huge
>disaster for Israel and think the tiny group of people still supporting him
>because they think he's made things safer for Israel are seriously deluding
>themselves..
Did you happen to notice in the "Carter's War Against Jews" article
even that author admitted that Carter believes the separation fence
along the West Bank is necessary. He may quarrel with some of its
methods (who doesn't?), but that's an odd position for a lover of Arab
terror.
Andy Katz
Steve Goldfarb
>It is surely remaining solidly Democratic. Bush Jr. actually gets LESS
>support from Jews than his father or Reagan did.
>The rightwing has been trumpeting the change in American Jewish voting
>patterngs for years, but it still isn't happening. As the famous quip had
>it, Jews still live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.
The differences between the Democratic and Republican parties these days
really aren't classic left vs. right differences, if "right" means small-c
conservative and "left" means classic liberal.
The democratic party isn't really "liberal" in the true sense of that
word, and neither is the republican party particularly "conservative."
--s
--
Dan Kimmel
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
news:b8cbc3tlc62uv4ek7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:36:26 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
> <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >> Okay .... how do Carter's comments diverge from the "facts" in the
> >> above?
> >
> >Carter endorses the Syrian/Hezbollah position that Israel has NOT fully
> >withdrawn
> >since they they claim "Shebaa Farms" for themselves. Even the UN does
not
> >go so far.
>
> Not sure I follow the significance of this. According to JVL, for one,
> Israel does maintain a presence in Shebaa Farms:
>
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#h
>
> Israel, which has built a series of observation posts on strategic
> hilltops in the area,[Shebaa Farms] maintains that the land was
> captured from Syria; nevertheless, the Syrians have supported
> Hizballah's claim.
Yes, go on... Oh, there wasn't any point there. Israel has fully withdrawn
from *Lebanon* yet Hezbollah has more demands. Syria, which refuses to make
peace with Israel, supports Hezbollah's empty claims, as does Jimmy Carter.
Thanks for proving my point abut Carter's inherent anti-Israel bias.
>
> >> Carter writes a paragraph simply quoting Arafat. That's all. If Carter
> >> had also added "I believe this magnificent Arab in every particular!"
> >> it would have appeared in the citation. So Carter quotes Arafat in
> >> what most people believe is at best a disingenuous evasion, or at
> >> worst a lie?
> >>
> >> So what?
> >
> >Sorry, Andy, you're the one being disingenuous. He was "simply quoting"
> >Arafat? Why quote him in his lies at all unless either a.) to refute
them,
> >which he does not or b.) because he agrees with them? To claim he is
> >"simply quoting" and doing nothing further is a real example of a
> >"disingenuous evasion."
>
> Problem is I haven't the entire book, so I don't have a context in
> which Arafat is quoted. Is Carter endorsing or validating Arafat's
> claim?
>
> Not clear from the information presented here.
And if he was quoting Eichmann or Stalin, you would require further
"context?"
>
> Incidentally, either here or in another reply you call Carter's role
> in the Camp David Accords into question.
>
> Here's Encyclopedia Britannica's comment:
>
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9019831/Camp-David-Accords
>
> The peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
> reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
> ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.The
> peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
> reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
> ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.
Yet Carter had been the one trying to do an end run around Egypt on behalf
of Arafat, and it only when Sadat took things into his own hands that Carter
suddenly had a vision for Israel/Egypitian peace.
It's interesting how you're willing to extend to Carter everyone benefit of
the doubt.
DoD
> "DoD" <navyd...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:_3kxi.362$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
>
>
> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:T_adna-Oia3hWVnb...@rcn.net...
>
> > > > They do have the credentials. THEY are the REAL deal.
>
> > > They are idelogues pushing an agenda that most American Jews continue to
> > > reject.
>
> > I think it would be a sad day when most American Jews would identify with
> > Adam Shapiro or Norman Finkelstein over David Horowitz or Bernie Goldberg.
>
> I think it's a sad day when most American Jews would identify with EITHER of
> these groups of extremists. Horowitz and Goldberg no more represent
> mainstream American Jewish thought than do Shapiro or Finkelstein,.
Horowitz and Goldberg are extremists?
LMAO!!!
DoD
>
> news:PHjxi.357$Qr...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "chsw" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:HUHwi.21$x2...@newsfe12.lga...
>
> > > "The media" is not kowtowing due to petrodollars. Some members
> > > of the media kowtow because of direct and indirect threats
> > > against them by the Islamofascists, dictators (e.g., Eason
> > > Jordan) and leftist organizations. Others simply follow the
> > > party line of the press releases by the above.
>
> > I was thinking of where I could inject this in the thread. I believe this
> is
> > the place.
>
> > To update an old Mark Twain (and Benjamin Disraeli) quote, there are lies,
> > damned lies, and Hollywood scripts.
> > Sometimes the lies are not what is in the script, but what is removed
> under
> > pressure from whining, politically correct interest groups. These days,
> > those groups are primarily Muslim and Middle Eastern.
>
> .......................
>
> > The rest............................
>
>
> The mistake is in believing anything from a rightwing extremist souce like
> Frontpagemag.
>
> Scenes are cuts from movies all the time for all sorts of reasons. I have
> no inclination to accept their explanation for it as they are a highly
Your choice. I will let moderates come to their own conclusions.
Dan Kimmel
Presumably from sources other than Frontpagemag.
Dan Kimmel
They aren't rightwing mouthpieces?
Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahah!!!!
You're so far to the extreme right you probably think William Krisol is a
"moderate."
DoD
> "DoD" <navyd...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:GUixi.354$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:1b2dnV42KoVM91jb...@rcn.net...
>
> > > "DoD" <navyd...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > >news:46c4f909$0$18988$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > > > "Damien Sullivan" <phoe...@ofb.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:fa2e3l$d7p$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
Oh, btw... I never implied that what so ever.
Dan Kimmel
Even if your highly dubious and subjective statistics were true, you're
lacking the context of noting just how UNREPRESENTATIVE such newsgroups are
of Americans, liberal or conservative.
If you think a few leftwing (or rightwing) ranters are speaking on behalf of
a significant portion of the American population on Israel -- or any other
issue -- you are very seriously deluded.
Eliyahu
> Take a look at the political
> newsgroups for a moment. You will find that 80 to 90 percent of so-called
> liberals hate Israel.... You will see about 99 percent of so-called
> conservatives show their support for her. I am not kidding .... go see for
> yourself.
>
members of Posse Comitatus are to real conservatives. The average
liberal is no more anti-Israel than the average Conservative. It's
always a mistake to assume that the most virulently-outspoken posters
on any group are representative of anything except for themselves.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
> On Aug 17, 12:59 am, Eliyahu <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 5:29 am, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > In <1187215410.778266.108...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > >And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
> > > >cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
> > > >the real thing, when it occurs.
> > > >Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
> > > >Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
> > > >make.
>
> > moderators. "Go ask your mommy", indeed...
>
> The fact is, Steve was being very condescending to me with his revival
> tent repetition of the crypto-Clintonian "It's the context, Q".
>
> on-topic posts drek? Are you hinting that I shouldn't be allowed to
> post on this board?
No, I'm stating that this particular post should have been rejected as
offensie, no matter who it comes from.
>
> I don't suppose you have anything to say about how people are crying
> "Wolf!" when they label ordinary criticism as antisemitic. No point
> in going after substance, when you can distract people by criticizing
> the critic and her style.
>
> Frankly, I'm surprised that your posts proposing a boycott of me as a
> member of this forum -- which is supposed to be a discussion group and
> not some kind of "love fest" where all opinions are in lockstep --
> were allowed to pass.
??? Where have I proposed a boycott of you as a member? You seem to
be reading an awful lot into a statement that a particular sentence in
a particular post was offensive and should have been rejected.
>
Eliyahu
DoD
>
> news:GUixi.354$Qr....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:1b2dnV42KoVM91jb...@rcn.net...
>
> > > "DoD" <navyd...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > >news:46c4f909$0$18988$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > > > "Damien Sullivan" <phoe...@ofb.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:fa2e3l$d7p$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
I accept your concession that you are being disingenuous.
Susan S
<quon...@yahoo.com>:
>On Aug 17, 12:59 am, Eliyahu <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 5:29 am, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In <1187215410.778266.108...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > >> It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't exist, Q,
>> > >> there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a thing.
>> > >Don't tell me that. Tell it to Webster's Dictionary, the OED, the US
>> > >Census Bureau, the world community of antropologists, and everyone
>> > >else who thinks "Race" does indeed exist. The definition of race is a
>> > >group of people who share a common ancestry.
>>
>> > The word exists, thus it appears in the dictionary. Find me three leading
>> > anthropologists to support the existence of race and I'll concede.
>> > Everything I've read says that few if any scientists accept the concept.
>>
>> And the existence of a word in the dictionary does not validate its
>> use as an accurate descriptor when it comes to scientific matters.
>
>How about its use in the census and many other surveys?
>
>Why don't *you* post a link to some writing by a *leading*
>anthropologist which says there's no such thing as "race" since Steve
>is apparently not going to do so. And -- since this is SCJM --
>remember, the anthropologist has to be a "leading" one. Here's a link
>to help you get started:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
>
Well, if you insist: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm,
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01.htm
[snip]
Susan Silberstein
D.M. Procida
> >But check out the other anecdotal evidence at the link:
> >http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2006/12/04/carters-crap/
>
> I don't see how that is at all anti-Semitic. Jews are a voting bloc in
> the U.S., a voting bloc that makes Israel a major issue. There is
> nothing anti-Semitic about acknowledging the existing of that bloc and
> making political decisions based on it. I see reasons to object to
> Carter's comment, but not anti-Semitism.
Hush now. In a minute you'll be saying that there's a Jewish lobby, and
you know what that'll get you round here.
Daniele
Q
> In <1187353184.419716.144...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> And the existence of a word in the dictionary does not validate its
> >> use as an accurate descriptor when it comes to scientific matters.
> >How about its use in the census and many other surveys?
>
> Its use in the census and other surveys is, to a large degree, racist.
Its use in the census shows that the United States government
recognizes that the idea of race -- as a tool for classifying people
-- exists.
>
> >Why don't *you* post a link to some writing by a *leading*
> >anthropologist which says there's no such thing as "race" since Steve
> >is apparently not going to do so. And -- since this is SCJM --
> >remember, the anthropologist has to be a "leading" one. Here's a link
> >to help you get started:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
>
> Um, Q, did you read that article?
Of course I did. That's why I said it would "help you get started."
>It explains my position quite clearly
> right in the first few paragraphs. "Mainstream scientists ahve argued that
> race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom... thus
> they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans
> can have taxonomic rigour and validity."
Nobody is arguing that race is defined in only one way, although it
does have the broad definition that I cited before. And nobody is
talking about taxonomic rigour -- as in "if you belong to Race A, then
you cannot belong to Race B."
>And oh look - there's a citation,
> it says this is the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological
> Association. "Evidence from the analysis of genetics indicates that most
> physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means there
> is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them."
>
> OK? Satisfied?
No, because they seem to be defining race as color, and the definition
is broader than that.
>
> >And while you're at it, explain how -- if Steve says there's no such
> >thing as "race" (which is no longer PC apparently), there can still be
> >such thing as "racism." (which is nevertheless still PC's favorite
> >weapon)
>
> I'm sorry but that's an astonishingly stupid thing to say
I don't find your utterances especially clever or elucidating either.
Not nearly as clever as you find them, for sure.
<Of COURSE
> they're such a thing as racism -- any time anyone categorize someone as
> being part of a "race" that's racist, and IMO wrong.
That's your opinion because you identify race narrowly as "color."
And whether that's "wrong" or not is just your opinion.
> The very idea of
> "race" is racist, well, be definition, but further is very wrong. Here's a
> little test - finish this sentence without saying something most people
> would agree is racist -- "All black people are...."
If you substituted the word "Americans" for "black people" the
sentence would be equally stupid and incorrect.
>
> >> People also don't routinely focus on the relatively minor human rights
> >> issues occurring in South Korea and ignore those in the North.
> >People don't routinely discuss human rights issues in South Korea at
> >all. The discussion of our problems with North Korea tends to be free-
> >standing and isn't related to how the little countries next door
> >behave better.
>
> Why not? All the arguments about why people focus on Israel also apply to
> South Korea.
?? We are talking about antisemitism -- remember?
>
> >> I'm surprised that such condescending and offensive drek got past the
> >> moderators. "Go ask your mommy", indeed...
> >The fact is, Steve was being very condescending to me with his revival
> >tent repetition of the crypto-Clintonian "It's the context, Q".
>
> Aww. So you're saying I started it, therefore you ought to be allowed to
> do something you consider misbehavior as well? And you accuse me of using
> childish reasoning??
I'm saying you were responded to in kind, which is appropriate.
But maybe "tit for tat" is childish.
Let's try your approach:
Maybe the fact that this person was critical of me, while ignoring
your obnoxious behavior, proves he's sexist and probably even
antisemitic.
>
> >And do you think it's appropriate for *you* to be calling somebody's
> >on-topic posts drek? Are you hinting that I shouldn't be allowed to
> >post on this board?
>
> He identified the content he didn't think you ought to be able to post.
It seems to me that the poster you are speaking of spends a great deal
of time identifying content he doesn't think other people "ought to be
able to post." And I'm not talking about *my* posts, because he has
had me killfiled since he incorrectly accused me of altering something
he wrote. Sometimes, it does seem as if his Inner Fascist is
screaming to get out.
>
> >I don't suppose you have anything to say about how people are crying
> >"Wolf!" when they label ordinary criticism as antisemitic. No point
> >in going after substance, when you can distract people by criticizing
> >the critic and her style.
> >Frankly, I'm surprised that your posts proposing a boycott of me as a
> >member of this forum -- which is supposed to be a discussion group and
> >not some kind of "love fest" where all opinions are in lockstep --
> >were allowed to pass.
>
> OK, dear. Frankly I'm becoming more and more convinced that Q is not who
> or what she claims to be, just based solely on her posts.
Who and what do you suppose I am, Tootsie-Wootsie?
Do they keep you locked up somewhere that you don't actually know lots
of women exactly like me, ie Jewish women who sometimes argue with
people and who are not especially religious and who don't necessarily
buy into the "my country right or wrong" mentality we see way too much
of in this newsgroup ?
Now, that in and
> of itself is neither here nor there, but increasingly leads me to believe
> that "she" is just playing with us.
So now I'm not a woman either? I will spare you a description of
what I think you are, but it's kind of sad that you cannot have a
discussion about the use of the term "antisemitism" without having it
quickly become a personal contest.
>So, my "don't feed the trolls" policy
> may well have to come into effect here.
IMO, this is just another attempt to censor, boycott and exclude
somebody by another free-speech-loving SCJM poster. From the
beginning of this thread, you have certainly behaved towards me as if
you already thought you were feeding a troll. I can certainly live
without that kind of treatment.
-- Q
>
> --s
> --
Andy Katz
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthnospamlink.net> wrote in message
>news:b8cbc3tlc62uv4ek7...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:36:26 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
>> <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Okay .... how do Carter's comments diverge from the "facts" in the
>> >> above?
>> >
>> >Carter endorses the Syrian/Hezbollah position that Israel has NOT fully
>> >withdrawn
>> >since they they claim "Shebaa Farms" for themselves. Even the UN does
>not
>> >go so far.
>>
>> Not sure I follow the significance of this. According to JVL, for one,
>> Israel does maintain a presence in Shebaa Farms:
>>
>> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#h
>>
>> Israel, which has built a series of observation posts on strategic
>> hilltops in the area,[Shebaa Farms] maintains that the land was
>> captured from Syria; nevertheless, the Syrians have supported
>> Hizballah's claim.
>
>Yes, go on... Oh, there wasn't any point there. Israel has fully withdrawn
>from *Lebanon* yet Hezbollah has more demands. Syria, which refuses to make
>peace with Israel, supports Hezbollah's empty claims, as does Jimmy Carter.
>
>Thanks for proving my point abut Carter's inherent anti-Israel bias.
Explain how this proves Carter's inherent anti-Israel bias, Dan,
rather than merely begging the question.
Shebaa Farms is disputed territory between Lebanon and Syria. There is
historical evidence linking it to both nations. In the present Lebanon
claims it, while Syria has both supported Lebanon's position and
contradicted it. Because Syria also claims (at least some of the time)
that *Lebanon* per se is part of Syria there is really no
contradiction from the Syrian pov between allowing Shebaa Farms to be
part of Lebanon *and* part of Syria.
Now, my understanding is that Carter is correct in stating that Israel
has not withdrawn from Shebaa Farms.
Is that false?
Israel's occupation of the area can be justified, in part, by Syria &
Lebanon's inability to resolve issues of sovereignty over it and the
possibility of its use as a staging ground for attacks from the north.
Does Carter address these issues? I don't know. Do you? I suspect not.
We're arguing over a quote taken out of context by sources who have
been historically trustworthy.
>
>
>>
>> >> Carter writes a paragraph simply quoting Arafat. That's all. If Carter
>> >> had also added "I believe this magnificent Arab in every particular!"
>> >> it would have appeared in the citation. So Carter quotes Arafat in
>> >> what most people believe is at best a disingenuous evasion, or at
>> >> worst a lie?
>> >>
>> >> So what?
>> >
>> >Sorry, Andy, you're the one being disingenuous. He was "simply quoting"
>> >Arafat? Why quote him in his lies at all unless either a.) to refute
>them,
>> >which he does not or b.) because he agrees with them? To claim he is
>> >"simply quoting" and doing nothing further is a real example of a
>> >"disingenuous evasion."
>>
>> Problem is I haven't the entire book, so I don't have a context in
>> which Arafat is quoted. Is Carter endorsing or validating Arafat's
>> claim?
>>
>> Not clear from the information presented here.
>
>And if he was quoting Eichmann or Stalin, you would require further
>"context?"
Commentators and historians quote Eichmann and Stalin all the time.
Does that necessarily make them ideological fellow-travelers?
>> Incidentally, either here or in another reply you call Carter's role
>> in the Camp David Accords into question.
>>
>> Here's Encyclopedia Britannica's comment:
>>
>> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9019831/Camp-David-Accords
>>
>> The peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
>> reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
>> ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.The
>> peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
>> reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
>> ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.
>
>Yet Carter had been the one trying to do an end run around Egypt on behalf
>of Arafat, and it only when Sadat took things into his own hands that Carter
>suddenly had a vision for Israel/Egypitian peace.
Can you explain (honestly, I'm perplexed;-) ... an "end run around
Egypt on behalf of Arafat..."?
What means this?
>It's interesting how you're willing to extend to Carter everyone benefit of
>the doubt.
No, Dan. It's really not that interesting unless you're intent on
joining Abe in forming the scjm version of HUAC.
I don't have a lot of pre-existing notions about Carter one way or the
other. But when I read the material cited by his critics here and in
the world at large I just don't see the smoking gun of Arab terror
apologia everyone else does.
Andy Katz
"Modesty is in thought, not clothing."
Joel Shurkin
************************************************
amk...@earthlink.net
fla...@verizon.net
On 17-Aug-2007, Eliyahu <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 5:29 am, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In <1187215410.778266.108...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Q
> > <quond...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> It becomes a race when people treat it like a race. Race doesn't
> > >> exist, Q,
> > >> there's no such thing. Racism is behaving as if there is such a
> > >> thing.
> > >Don't tell me that. Tell it to Webster's Dictionary, the OED, the US
> > >Census Bureau, the world community of antropologists, and everyone
> > >else who thinks "Race" does indeed exist. The definition of race is a
> > >group of people who share a common ancestry.
> >
> > The word exists, thus it appears in the dictionary. Find me three
> > leading
> > anthropologists to support the existence of race and I'll concede.
> > Everything I've read says that few if any scientists accept the concept.
>
> And the existence of a word in the dictionary does not validate its
> use as an accurate descriptor when it comes to scientific matters.
>
> > >"Right-thinking people?" Who are they? How do you define them?
> > >And no, when people discuss North Korea, they don't weaken their
> > >criticism by packaging it with similar complaints about every other
> > >country on the face of the earth.
>
> People also don't routinely focus on the relatively minor human rights
> issues occurring in South Korea and ignore those in the North.
> >
>
> > Once again you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding. No one's saying
> > Israel should get a free pass. All I'm saying is that Israel should be
> > treated as any other nation, and not singled out for criticism.
>
> > >
> > >> You're not getting what I'm saying.
> > >You seem to be saying that people who criticize Israel like the other
> > >countries better, like Tommy Smothers' mom. They are playing
> > >favorites, and that's not fair. And all the other countries are
> > >allowed to do things Israel gets punished -- or at least censured --
> > >for doing. No fair! And the reason some people object to what Israel
> > >does isn't because they care about human rights; it's because they
> > >hate Jews.
>
> Given that Israel is the only mideastern nation with a democratic
> government, where there is freedom of religion, speech and the press,
> where people of all religions can practice their beliefs freely, etc.,
> and there are such horrendous abuses of human rights in virtually all
> of the surrounding nations as well as a lack of basic freedoms and
> civil rights, what alternative explanation can you propose for the
> intense focus on Israel when it comes to criticism? If the mideastern
> nations were children, we'd have all the biggest ones crying about the
> smallest, "Mommy, make him stop hitting us back!"
>
> > >And that promiscuous use of "antisemitism" as a favorite epithet
> > >cheapens the concept of antisemitism, and it desensitizes people to
> > >the real thing, when it occurs.
> > >Go ask your Mommy to tell you the story of '"The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
> > >Maybe that will help you understand the point I've been trying to
> > >make.
>
> I'm surprised that such condescending and offensive drek got past the
> moderators. "Go ask your mommy", indeed...
The moderators are only human.
If they allowed the false statement that antisemitism was used
promiscuously here, they can miss anything.
Given their usual good job, I think we can turn a blind eye more than once.
Susan
Dan Kimmel
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1i324xf.1oz5yz91l84iq0N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
Of course the real reason Shrum was offended at Carter's outburst was not
the suggestion that there's a Jewish "voting bloc." It was his follow up:
"We have the Christians." Carter was a.) making it a *religious* divided
and b.) making it clear that he wasn't talking about 'voting blocs" since
"Christians" don't vote as a bloc in the US.
It was a stupid remark by Carter that, by itself, might not be so bad but
seen as part of a pattern over the course of his career makes it clear he's
no friend of Jews.
Dan Kimmel
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:43:20 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
> <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Now, my understanding is that Carter is correct in stating that Israel
> has not withdrawn from Shebaa Farms.
>
> Is that false?
My understanding is that Carter implies Israel has not fully withdrawn from
Lebanon, which IS false.
> >> >Sorry, Andy, you're the one being disingenuous. He was "simply
quoting"
> >> >Arafat? Why quote him in his lies at all unless either a.) to refute
> >them,
> >> >which he does not or b.) because he agrees with them? To claim he is
> >> >"simply quoting" and doing nothing further is a real example of a
> >> >"disingenuous evasion."
> >>
> >> Problem is I haven't the entire book, so I don't have a context in
> >> which Arafat is quoted. Is Carter endorsing or validating Arafat's
> >> claim?
> >>
> >> Not clear from the information presented here.
> >
> >And if he was quoting Eichmann or Stalin, you would require further
> >"context?"
>
> Commentators and historians quote Eichmann and Stalin all the time.
> Does that necessarily make them ideological fellow-travelers?
What a nonsensical reply. If someone was writing a book about Eichmann, the
context of the book would make it clear where the person was coming from.
However in the cast of Carter and Arafat, the context (from the title on)
make it clear that it is a pro-Palestinian book that will neither criticize
nor seriously examine the lies and terrorism that are part and parcel of
Arafat's history. So in THAT context, when Carter repeats one of Arafat's
lies without further elaboration, a rational person can only conclude that
Carter is approving.
>
> >> Incidentally, either here or in another reply you call Carter's role
> >> in the Camp David Accords into question.
> >>
> >> Here's Encyclopedia Britannica's comment:
> >>
> >> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9019831/Camp-David-Accords
> >>
> >> The peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
> >> reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
> >> ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.The
> >> peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely
> >> reflected President Carter's proposals at Camp David and formally
> >> ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries.
> >
> >Yet Carter had been the one trying to do an end run around Egypt on
behalf
> >of Arafat, and it only when Sadat took things into his own hands that
Carter
> >suddenly had a vision for Israel/Egypitian peace.
>
> Can you explain (honestly, I'm perplexed;-) ... an "end run around
> Egypt on behalf of Arafat..."?
>
> What means this?
Carter was trying to put together a European peace conference with Russia
that would "solve" the Middle East. Sadat had no interest in solutions
imposed from the outside and was thus motivated to make his own move.
Worse, Russia was funding military bases in Libya and Sadat saw Russian
involvement in recent unrest in Egypt. He was very concerned about Russia
taking a role in a Middle East peace settlement.
Carter meanwhile was going further than even Arabs at the time in urging
Israel to withdraw from "all" lands won in '67 and about the need for a
Palestinian "homeland."
>
> >It's interesting how you're willing to extend to Carter everyone benefit
of
> >the doubt.
>
> No, Dan. It's really not that interesting unless you're intent on
> joining Abe in forming the scjm version of HUAC.
Don't be absurd. I'm not saying your "suspect." I'm simply noting that you
seem willing to accept ANY explanation to excuse Carter from an extensive
track record that is less than friendly to Jews in general and Israel in
particular.
When Carter was campaigning in '76, he also expressed the view that the
Jackson-Vanik amendment (linking most favored nation status to letting Jews
leave Russia) was not helpful.
At the same time, though, he took pains to position himself somewhat to the
dovish side of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the hero of the Democratic
hawks. In particular, he denounced the Jackson-Vanik amendment that linked
trade privileges for the Soviet Union to freedom of emigration. In a 1975
speech blaming Jackson for a Soviet crackdown against emigration, Carter
sounded a theme that echoes in some of his pronouncements to this day:
I think that the so-called "Jackson Amendment" was ill-advised. . . .
Russia is a proud nation, like we are, and if Russian Communist leaders had
passed a resolution saying that they were not going to do this or that if we
didn't do something domestically, we would have reacted adversely to it.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10824
Now Commentary is a consevative journal I'm not given to quoting, but it is
a respectable one (as opposed to, say, "Human Events" or "The Weekly
Standard") and the quotation here is pretty straightforward. Do you want to
defend Carter here as well, or are you willing to admit that he has not
always been a great friend to Jews?
>
> I don't have a lot of pre-existing notions about Carter one way or the
> other. But when I read the material cited by his critics here and in
> the world at large I just don't see the smoking gun of Arab terror
> apologia everyone else does.
Frankly, I don't know how you can miss it.
Eliyahu
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:43:20 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
>
>
>
> <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Problem is I haven't the entire book, so I don't have a context in
> >> which Arafat is quoted. Is Carter endorsing or validating Arafat's
> >> claim?
>
> >> Not clear from the information presented here.
>
> >And if he was quoting Eichmann or Stalin, you would require further
> >"context?"
>
> Commentators and historians quote Eichmann and Stalin all the time.
> Does that necessarily make them ideological fellow-travelers?
>
quotes are used. An historian or biographer would likely quote either
of them to provide information about how they thought, what sort of
things they said, or their particular response to an historic event or
policy, but if they cited them approvingly or in support of something,
it would make the use somewhat suspect at best. Generally, no one
quotes a person whose record is as bad as that of Arafat in support of
his own position unless he has an awful lot of commonalities with him
or sits in the same ideological camp.
Incidentally, I'm in the middle of reading Gerald Posner's book,
"Secrets of the Kingdom", which details the shocking degree of
influence and control that the Saudis wield over US policy and our
economy. I would recommend it to you and everyone in the newsgroup.
Eliyahu
D.M. Procida
> It was a stupid remark by Carter that, by itself, might not be so bad but
> seen as part of a pattern over the course of his career makes it clear he's
> no friend of Jews.
I should hope not. One wouldn't want any political leader in a democracy
to announce or display that kind of partiality to a religious lobby.
Daniele