Hollywood Jews and Israel

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Fiona

unread,
Dec 4, 2002, 7:15:56 PM12/4/02
to
As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:

Hollywood's endangered species list.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650


Extracts:
--------------------------

So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming raw.
The screenwriter, Dan Gordon, summed up the Jewish community´s puzzlement
most eloquently when he observed that "in an industry where Jews take a
stand on everything, there´s been a disturbing silence on Israel. I´d love
to see the indignation about homicide bombers that is reserved for smokers."
Many seem to agree that there is more protest in Hollywood against potential
threats to endangered birds than there are against the Palestinian plans for
Israeli extinction..........

....I came across Braveheart, winner of the 1995 Academy Award for best
picture, a movie that I had neglected to see when it appeared. For its two
and half hours, a mostly blood-spattered and blue-faced Mel Gibson portrays
William Wallace, a 13th Century Scottish brigand who capably harasses the
English army in a struggle for Scottish independence. The movie has all the
decapitated heads and crushed skulls one would expect of a medieval epic. It
also has the standard distinction between good guys (Wallace and his band of
adventurers) and bad guys (King Edward I- nicknamed Longshanks - and his
generals). No effort is spared to enlist our sympathy for the hero - his
more intemperate moments carefully explained away. His merciless rages are
driven, for instance, by his lust for freedom; his barbarism is a result of
emotional loss - he has suffered....

....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little
make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat - the
selfless revolutionary battling for the liberation of his people. King
Edward, the cynical, repressive warlord determined to wipe out resistance to
his rule, would fit neatly into the shoes of Ariel Sharon. As for a love
interest, the Princess of Wales character would find a receptive vehicle in
Chava Alberstein, the Israeli singer whose far-left views and recent
performances have transformed her into an apologist for Palestinian
terror.....

...In the great conformist world of Hollywood, savagery can always find a
justification, genocidal mania a patronizing nod and brutality the
imprimatur of respectability. That is the legacy of Hollywood liberalism.
And that, sadly, is why Israelis may never quite make it onto its vaunted
endangered species list.

------------------------


Fiona


Susan Cohen

unread,
Dec 4, 2002, 8:39:25 PM12/4/02
to

Fiona wrote:

> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
> Extracts:
> --------------------------
>
> So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
> condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming raw.

Because they're damned if they do & damned if they don't.
Of course, this is the *charitable* view.

Susan

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 4, 2002, 10:14:12 PM12/4/02
to

"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>


Yes, I can see how someone completely ignorant on the subject might be
impressed by an article written by someone similarly uninformed.

BlackMonk

unread,
Dec 4, 2002, 10:21:18 PM12/4/02
to

"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>
> Extracts:
> --------------------------
>

This is really forcing an analogy. Remember, this is a film made for
American audiences. We're naturally sympathetic to revolutionaries (from a
safe distance, anyway), Washington and Jefferson loom large in our legend.

What is this person's point? That the film was an alegory for the situation
in Israel? That it really does parallel the current situation?


GAN EDEN WINES

unread,
Dec 4, 2002, 10:54:24 PM12/4/02
to

"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood

BS"D

You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews. There are very few movie
personalities who live in either area. The movie companies and TV companies
have largely moved elsewhere. These days, Hollywood Jews are not actors and
actresses. Instead they're hard working Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews with
large families, large mortgages and high yeshiva bills. Hancock Park, the
major black hat Jewish area, is the heart of Hollywood. Some of my best
friends are Hollywood Jews.

Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines

Fiona

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:45:34 AM12/5/02
to

"GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o5AH9.5208$hM3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

>
> "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
> impressed
> > with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of
Hollywood
>
> BS"D
>
> You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
> populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews.

Talk about pedantic. Of course, by Jews of Hollywood, and Hollywood Jews, I,
in deference to the author of the article quoted, was referring to Jews in
the Film Industry (or Movie Business if you like), not Jews who happen to
live in the geographical area called Hollywood. I would have thought that
was obvious from the context, but they you go...


Fiona

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 9:52:22 AM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:15:56 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
>with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
>the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
>Hollywood's endangered species list.
>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>
>Extracts:
>--------------------------
>
>So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
>condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming raw.
>The screenwriter, Dan Gordon, summed up the Jewish community´s puzzlement
>most eloquently when he observed that "in an industry where Jews take a
>stand on everything, there´s been a disturbing silence on Israel. I´d love
>to see the indignation about homicide bombers that is reserved for smokers."

Who is Dan Gordon and why is this particular screenwriter deemed an
effective spokesperson for Industry Jews?

>Many seem to agree that there is more protest in Hollywood against potential
>threats to endangered birds than there are against the Palestinian plans for
>Israeli extinction..........

Note the quantity and quality of weasel words that open the above
assertion "many" "seem" "agree". Hard to believe that material like
this passes scrunity--what happened to the art and science of editing?

Though I don't agree with every Hollywood-based cause I'd like to see
numbers before I agree to the above.

How much money has gone to Israel from Industry types recently?

Over its history?

>....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
>language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
>Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little
>make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat - the
>selfless revolutionary battling for the liberation of his people. King
>Edward, the cynical, repressive warlord determined to wipe out resistance to
>his rule, would fit neatly into the shoes of Ariel Sharon. As for a love
>interest, the Princess of Wales character would find a receptive vehicle in
>Chava Alberstein, the Israeli singer whose far-left views and recent
>performances have transformed her into an apologist for Palestinian
>terror.....

The above could be said about any cause. As I've been pointing out,
the left tends to side with the underdog.

>...In the great conformist world of Hollywood, savagery can always find a
>justification, genocidal mania a patronizing nod and brutality the
>imprimatur of respectability. That is the legacy of Hollywood liberalism.
>And that, sadly, is why Israelis may never quite make it onto its vaunted
>endangered species list.

I get the idea, Fiona, that Avi Davis doesn't watch movies or TV
anymore than you do.

Israelis never make it to the endangered species list?

Cast A Giant Shadow: lionizing Col Mickey Marcus, an American (very
secular;-) Jew who fought and died for Israeli liberation.

The Exodus: Newman, Eva Marie Saint, remember? Somewhat sympathetic to
Israelis imvho.

Judith: Sophia Loren portrays a Jewess who survives the war and
fights in the wars of liberation.

Schindler's List: doubtless even Mr. Davis has seen this one.

These films were all very big budget, major productions (along with a
few others the titles of which I can't remember right now). The first
three portrayed Jews as brave, plucky and worthy, and, with the
exception of an allied character or two, Arabs as barking hyneas.

So I don't know what would satisfy Mr. Davis--a constant stream of
CaGS remakes--recasting the title role from Kirk Douglas to Warren
Beatty to Arnold Schwartznegger to Brad Pitt?

Then Hollywood would be demonstrating it's self-hatred by the more
passive-aggressive mode of creative stagnation, right?

Sympathy for the perceived underdog aside it just isn't that easy to
come up with new story ideas to celebrate the founding of Israel or
its day to day survival. Whether certain people wish to acknowledge it
or not, Hollywood *has* been there, *has* done that.

This piece, unfortunately, is about as perceptive and relevant as yet
another gentile complaining about what the Talmud *really* says. It
stems from pure cussed ignorance, and reads more like standard issue
left-bashing with an anti-semetic veneer tossed in to please the
consumer.

Andy Katz
______________________________________
I sentence you to kmit!

The Simpsons


a...@rcn.net
Andre...@aol.com

Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org

GAN EDEN WINES

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:59:34 AM12/5/02
to

"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asne89$oqh$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o5AH9.5208$hM3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
> > impressed
> > > with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of
> Hollywood
> >
> > BS"D
> >
> > You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
> > populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews.
>
> Talk about pedantic. Of course, by Jews of Hollywood, and Hollywood Jews,
I,
> in deference to the author of the article quoted, was referring to Jews in
> the Film Industry (or Movie Business if you like), not Jews who happen to
> live in the geographical area called Hollywood. I would have thought that
> was obvious from the context, but they you go...

Gee, can't a guy have fun? Of course that's what you meant.

John W. Leys

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 11:03:02 AM12/5/02
to
Fiona wrote:

> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
> Extracts:
> --------------------------

<snip>

>
> ....I came across Braveheart, winner of the 1995 Academy Award for best
> picture, a movie that I had neglected to see when it appeared. For its two
> and half hours, a mostly blood-spattered and blue-faced Mel Gibson portrays
> William Wallace, a 13th Century Scottish brigand who capably harasses the
> English army in a struggle for Scottish independence. The movie has all the
> decapitated heads and crushed skulls one would expect of a medieval epic. It
> also has the standard distinction between good guys (Wallace and his band of
> adventurers) and bad guys (King Edward I- nicknamed Longshanks - and his
> generals). No effort is spared to enlist our sympathy for the hero - his
> more intemperate moments carefully explained away. His merciless rages are
> driven, for instance, by his lust for freedom; his barbarism is a result of
> emotional loss - he has suffered....
>
> ....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
> language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
> Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little
> make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat - the
> selfless revolutionary battling for the liberation of his people. King
> Edward, the cynical, repressive warlord determined to wipe out resistance to
> his rule, would fit neatly into the shoes of Ariel Sharon. As for a love
> interest, the Princess of Wales character would find a receptive vehicle in
> Chava Alberstein, the Israeli singer whose far-left views and recent
> performances have transformed her into an apologist for Palestinian
> terror.....

<snip>

I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I see the
movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient Israel and
the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of Antiouchus.
In fact, seeing the effect Braveheart had on Scottish nationalism I've often
thought a quality film interpretaion of the life of Judah Maccabee could do
wonders to drum up support for the modern state of Israel.

Just my 2 sheckles worth..

--
Shalom!
John W. Leys

"Come on, then, back to Creation. I mustn't waste any more time.
They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution."
- The Supreme Being
from 'Time Bandits'


John W. Leys

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 11:07:10 AM12/5/02
to
"John W. Leys" wrote:

>
> I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I see the
> movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient Israel and
> the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of Antiouchus.
>

Oi.. one too many revolts in that sentence!! And this is why I should proofread my
posts before sending them *L*

Eliyahu Rooff

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 11:22:36 AM12/5/02
to

"John W. Leys" <le...@helios.acomp.usf.edu> wrote in message
news:3DEF76D2...@helios.acomp.usf.edu...

> "John W. Leys" wrote:
>
> >
> > I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I see
the
> > movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient
Israel and
> > the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of
Antiouchus.
> >
>
> Oi.. one too many revolts in that sentence!! And this is why I should
proofread my
> posts before sending them *L*
>
Oy! What a revolting development... :-)

Eliyahu


SRubin5190

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 12:15:23 PM12/5/02
to
thought I would put in my 2 cents about Hollywood Jews. Just my observations
from what I have seen recently on TV and movies etc.

Hollywood (meaning tv and the movies) has produced over the last decade or so:
Schindler's list. Steven Spielburg is well know for donating to Jewish causes
and is involved, I believe, in a huge Holocaust remembrance project.

Last year or the year before, a beautifully done movie about Anne Frank
appeared on network television.

recently, movies appeared on various tv channels about the Danish rescue of
Jews during WWII and a movie about the holocaust starring the same actress who
played the mother on the newer Parent Trap (can't remember her name)

the show on WB, Seventh Heaven, which I personally can't stand, but my kids
like has received numerous awards and last year featured a marriage between the
son of a minister and the daughter of a rabbi.Now I am sure some of you would
really disapprove of this, but some of us don't and it was handled very nicely,
from what I heard.

a very nice kids sitcom is now on tv called the State of Grace. takes place in
the south in the mid sixties. A Jewish family moves down there and opens a
furniture factory. their 12 year old daughter makes friends with another girl.

The children's cartoon series "Hey Arnold" featured a well-done story about a
Bar Mitzvah. The voice of the Rabbi was done by Elliiot Gould.

Rugrats has done a passover and a chanukah story. Not sure I really liked
them, but at least there was exposure.

the sci-fi program Babylon 5 featured a woman officer who was second in command
and was Jewish on the program.

I am sure there are other examples.

What I am trying to say is that I don't believe there is an anti-Jewish bias
right now in Hollywood and these programs expose the rest of the world to our
religion and culture. I also really think that most of the people in the U.S.
vehemently disagree with the suicide bombers.

Sue in PA

Fiona

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 12:45:08 PM12/5/02
to

"SRubin5190" <srubi...@aol.com> wrote

> thought I would put in my 2 cents about Hollywood Jews. Just my
observations
> from what I have seen recently on TV and movies etc.
>
> Hollywood (meaning tv and the movies) has produced over the last decade or
so:
> Schindler's list. Steven Spielburg is well know for donating to Jewish
causes
> and is involved, I believe, in a huge Holocaust remembrance project.

Nothing to do with Israel.

> Last year or the year before, a beautifully done movie about Anne Frank
> appeared on network television.

Again, Shoah not Israel.

> recently, movies appeared on various tv channels about the Danish rescue
of
> Jews during WWII and a movie about the holocaust starring the same actress
who
> played the mother on the newer Parent Trap (can't remember her name)

WWII not Israel.

> the show on WB, Seventh Heaven, which I personally can't stand, but my
kids
> like has received numerous awards and last year featured a marriage
between the
> son of a minister and the daughter of a rabbi.Now I am sure some of you
would
> really disapprove of this, but some of us don't and it was handled very
nicely,
> from what I heard.

Intermarriage, sheesh not "Jewish" let alone Israel.

> a very nice kids sitcom is now on tv called the State of Grace. takes
place in
> the south in the mid sixties. A Jewish family moves down there and opens
a
> furniture factory. their 12 year old daughter makes friends with another
girl.

Israel?

> The children's cartoon series "Hey Arnold" featured a well-done story
about a
> Bar Mitzvah. The voice of the Rabbi was done by Elliiot Gould.

Israel?

> Rugrats has done a passover and a chanukah story. Not sure I really liked
> them, but at least there was exposure.

Israel?

> the sci-fi program Babylon 5 featured a woman officer who was second in
command
> and was Jewish on the program.

<sigh>

> I am sure there are other examples.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I don't believe there is an anti-Jewish
bias
> right now in Hollywood and these programs expose the rest of the world to
our
> religion and culture. I also really think that most of the people in the
U.S.
> vehemently disagree with the suicide bombers.

Sue, I think you missed the point of the article completely.

The bottomline is that we are fast approaching another a situation similar
to Europe in the 30s (but this it is global), and it is happening in part
because Arafat is being cast as Churchill, Hamas as the French Resistance,
Sharon as Hitler, when in reality Arafat is pursuing the policies of Hitler
(a Jew free state, expulsion and distruction of the Jews) etc. The world has
moved on a long way since the Shoah, and while certainly we should never
forget, unless we want a replay of old footage, we have learn the lessons of
history. The Palestinians are being cast as the underdogs because they are
being taken out of context and seen in isolation from the rest of the
Arab/Islamic world of they are merely the spearhead.


Polar

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 12:56:18 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:52:22 +0000 (UTC), amk...@earthlink.net (Andy
Katz) wrote:

[...]

>Who is Dan Gordon and why is this particular screenwriter deemed an
>effective spokesperson for Industry Jews?

Dan Gordon has done some excellent reporting for the L.A. Jewish
Journal. Here is the URL for one of his best articles, about the
Palestinian terrorists' refusal to accept "Jewish blood" for their
wounded, during the Jenin crisis, and how the IDF handled it.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=8646


--
Polar

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 1:23:40 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:45:08 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Nothing to do with Israel.

This is beginning to remind me of the old protest comment Catholics
made about the Pope and the Church's teaching on sex: you no playa da
game, you no maka da rules!

This ng isn't the place to go over Hollywood films frame by frame
seeking pro or anti-Israel content. You say you don't watch movies,
okay, then why insist on interpreting these movies you haven't seen?

I wish I had a nickel for every time an observant Jew has told
another, less observant one, to study before s/he speaks on some issue
in halacha, or practice. They're correct. One should know one's
subject before speaking out, and while I know you're citing Davis's
article, Fiona, it's really not well developed. His comments about
Braveheart could apply to any cause at all.

The founding of Israel has been treated very sympathetically by
Hollywood filmmakers; they put big bucks and major stars into telling
the story.

>The bottomline is that we are fast approaching another a situation similar
>to Europe in the 30s (but this it is global), and it is happening in part

Did Jews own the tanks and the fighter planes and the nukes in pre-war
Europe? No, I'm not comparing Israel to Germany or even to France
(thank goodness!), but neither is it another shtetl.

I don't know, honestly, how virulent anti-semetism in Europe is right
now (particularly as this thread is about Hollywood!), but I know many
people in the post WW1 era believed that French anti-semetism was the
most ubiquitous and potentially destructive, that if any power engaged
in a genocide against the Jews, it would be France, not Germany. So
appearances can mislead.

>because Arafat is being cast as Churchill, Hamas as the French Resistance,
>Sharon as Hitler, when in reality Arafat is pursuing the policies of Hitler

Naturally those who sympathize with Arafat will compare him to people
they admire. I do know many Arabs, incidentally, who despise Israel
and Israeli policies but who also despise Arafat & the PA. Some also
oppose Hamas while others support armed struggle.

Isn't it odd that three Jews can form four political parties, but all
Arabs think and feel exactly alike?

The issue is far more complex than the above makes it seem. Otherwise
problems in the ME would have been solved decades ago.

>(a Jew free state, expulsion and distruction of the Jews) etc. The world has
>moved on a long way since the Shoah, and while certainly we should never
>forget, unless we want a replay of old footage, we have learn the lessons of
>history. The Palestinians are being cast as the underdogs because they are
>being taken out of context and seen in isolation from the rest of the
>Arab/Islamic world of they are merely the spearhead.

The notion that the Arab/Muslim world is as monolithic as communism
and similarly seeks to conquer the "West" has been presented here
often, but it's never been documented beyond bald assertion and taking
religious writings out of context. Naturally some agree with it
because they're predisposed to do so; it obviates the necessity to
regard the Palestinians as individuals with needs and an agenda that's
unique. Instead they're merely an extension of a malignant hive
mentality that doesn't seek autonomy or a restoration of their
ancestral lands, but rather the destruction of the Jewish people. To
negotiate with such people, therefore, is not only ill-advised, it's
morally bereft.

But just because an idea is useful doesn't mean it's correct.

Fred Rosenblatt

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 1:38:06 PM12/5/02
to
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:<asmgms$ssjkq$1...@ID-133514.news.dfncis.de>...

Yes and no. Some of the people most sympathetic to the American Revolution,
i.e., conservatives, are also the most sympathetic to Israel and condemningf
of the "Palestinians" despite their claims to be revolutionary.

> What is this person's point? That the film was an alegory for the situation
> in Israel?

I don't think that that was the point.

> That it really does parallel the current situation?

That there is a tendency among a segment of Americans to rationalize and
explain away evil by those in certain categories that can lay claim to their
sensibilities - some minorities, those of disadvantaged background, etc.
It's more sympathy for so-called "underdogs" than for revolutionaries
per se. And we do tend to filter complex situations through the lens of
a very few simplistic paradigms. Thus the Arabs are said to be acting out
of their extreme poverty and sense of hopelessness, a standard scenario of
mid-2oth century socialist politics, rather than recognizing the obvious
fact that their economic situation is the outgrowth, rather than the cause,
of their rebellion. I don't think that "Brave Heart" was necessarily
intended to address the situation in the Middle East, but certainly some
of the same attitudes come in to play.

Fred Rosenblatt

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 1:40:22 PM12/5/02
to
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<KvzH9.43652$hK4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Do you disagree with the initial premise (that prominent Jews in the
So. Cal. film industry are not speaking out against terror) or with
the proposed reasons? If the latter, what do you think is the cause?

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 2:36:10 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:38:06 +0000 (UTC), fre...@juno.com (Fred
Rosenblatt) wrote:

>I don't think that "Brave Heart" was necessarily
>intended to address the situation in the Middle East, but certainly some
>of the same attitudes come in to play.

This is far too weak a disclaimer, Fred.

There is nothing in Braveheart, a fairly silly but visually striking
effort, that remotely parallels the contemporary mid-East. Davis
offered it as a hypothetical, but likely he's never actually seen it,
and is relying on second-hand descriptions.

While Scottish history isn't my forte, Edward 1 *was* pretty ruthless
in suppressing rebellions in Scotland and Wales and consolidating his
kingdom; an additional nickname for him was "Hammer of the Scots."

Wallace et al fought against him, and ultimately the Scots prevailed.

How else would one portray these events?

Why doesn't Davis insist that since the characters in Exodus or Cast A
Giant Shadow or Schindler's List could also be reversed, those movies
are also clear examples of morally relativistic liberal Hollywood
antisemetic allegories?

Could it be that acknowledgment of these films would undercut his
point?

Susan Cohen

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:14:19 PM12/5/02
to

"John W. Leys" wrote:

> Fiona wrote:
>
> > As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been impressed
> > with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> > the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
> >
> > Hollywood's endangered species list.
> > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
> >
> > Extracts:
> > --------------------------
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > ....I came across Braveheart, winner of the 1995 Academy Award for best

> > picture, a movie that I had neglected to see when it appeared. [SNIP] No


> effort is spared to enlist our sympathy for the hero - his
> > more intemperate moments carefully explained away. His merciless rages are
> > driven, for instance, by his lust for freedom; his barbarism is a result of
> > emotional loss - he has suffered....
> >
> > ....Modify the scenery slightly, change the characters´ names, overdub a new
> > language, bring in costume design to add a touch of reality, and 13th
> > Century Scotland transforms into 21st Century Israel. Here, with a little

> > make up, Mel Gibson could be turned into a less pudgy Yasser Arafat [snip]


>
> I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart.

It's certainly politer than my own, ME politics aside....

> When I see the
> movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient Israel and
> the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of Antiouchus.
> In fact, seeing the effect Braveheart had on Scottish nationalism

making me embarrassed to be part Scots - my husband couldn't even have me in the
same room w/him while hewas watching it....

> I've often
> thought a quality film interpretaion of the life of Judah Maccabee could do
> wonders to drum up support for the modern state of Israel.

It would be interesting to see if anyone could actually get it made!
How many movies about Jewish religio-historical figures/times have been made w/out
dragging Xianity into it? Not "The 10 Commandments," for sure.
There were two Solomon & Shebas, two David movies, one Esther, one Ruth, one
Samson - did we ever "decide" about the Jewishness of Victure Mature & Hedy
Lamarr?

Susan, rambling on a cold snowy day.

John W. Leys

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:14:37 PM12/5/02
to
Eliyahu Rooff wrote:

*groan* I heard that one coming a mile away *L*

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:04:41 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:56:18 +0000 (UTC), Polar <sme...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>Dan Gordon has done some excellent reporting for the L.A. Jewish
>Journal. Here is the URL for one of his best articles, about the
>Palestinian terrorists' refusal to accept "Jewish blood" for their
>wounded, during the Jenin crisis, and how the IDF handled it.
>
>http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=8646

Interesting piece.

Thanks for posting it, Polar;-)

John W. Leys

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:18:22 PM12/5/02
to
Susan Cohen wrote:

Well, there was a series of Biblical movies on cable several years ago (it may have
been TNT but I don't recall) based on the stories of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and
David (I think there may have been others in the series. To my recollection they were
all fairly well done & didn't seem to drag Xianity into it. I can dig up some more
info on these if anyone is interested. I know a few of them are on VHS, but I don't
think they've made it to DVD yet.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:39:36 PM12/5/02
to

"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aso3af$p6g$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> The bottomline is that we are fast approaching another a situation similar
> to Europe in the 30s (but this it is global), and it is happening in part
> because Arafat is being cast as Churchill, Hamas as the French Resistance,
> Sharon as Hitler, when in reality Arafat is pursuing the policies of
Hitler
> (a Jew free state, expulsion and distruction of the Jews) etc. The world
has
> moved on a long way since the Shoah, and while certainly we should never
> forget, unless we want a replay of old footage, we have learn the lessons
of
> history. The Palestinians are being cast as the underdogs because they
are
> being taken out of context and seen in isolation from the rest of the
> Arab/Islamic world of they are merely the spearhead.

Insofar as she is talking about Hollywood, Fiona is merely revealing she
doesn't have the slightest notion what she is talking about.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:40:18 PM12/5/02
to

"Fred Rosenblatt" <fre...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:61cb6731.02120...@posting.google.com...

I think it's interesting that those on the right are constantly whining
about Hollywood actors and directors speaking out on politics and now
they're whining when they don't speak out.

I think Susan got this exactly right: they're damned if they do and damned
if they don't.

BlackMonk

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:20:01 PM12/5/02
to

"Fred Rosenblatt" <fre...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:61cb6731.02120...@posting.google.com...

That's my point. Forcing the analogy to Israel/Palestine is a mistake. The
movie was made that way because Americans think of the American revolution
as heroic and sympathize with analagous situations. If they don't sympatize
with Arafat, then they don't see his situation as fitting that mold. (Pun
intended. Not that it means anything, I just couldn't resist)

BlackMonk

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:33:39 PM12/5/02
to

"SRubin5190" <srubi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021205105347...@mb-fv.aol.com...

> the show on WB, Seventh Heaven, which I personally can't stand, but my
kids
> like has received numerous awards and last year featured a marriage
between the
> son of a minister and the daughter of a rabbi.Now I am sure some of you
would
> really disapprove of this, but some of us don't and it was handled very
nicely,
> from what I heard.
>

It was done fairly well. There were a lot of things they got wrong or
glossed over, but I chalk that up to the necessities of doing a TV series.
The daughter and mother-in-law come off well. The rabbi is a bit of a
characture, but how can you have Richard Lewis on the show and not have him
do schtick?

I started watching the show to see how they'd handle the intermarriage arc,
but I have to admit I still watch it every now and then. They're trying to
tell a fairly dark story this year, but this is not a show that does dark
well.

Technically, it's not an intermarriage because the son plans to convert.
(things glossed over: it's going to be a reform conversion, so half the
brides family won't accept it; converting to Judaism would mean repudiating
the divinity of Jesus, which was never addressed. probably because it would
have alienated a lot of their audience, though it would have made for some
interesting television)


BlackMonk

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:37:00 PM12/5/02
to

"John W. Leys" <le...@helios.acomp.usf.edu> wrote in message
news:3DEFBEDC...@helios.acomp.usf.edu...

> Eliyahu Rooff wrote:
>
> > "John W. Leys" <le...@helios.acomp.usf.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3DEF76D2...@helios.acomp.usf.edu...
> > > "John W. Leys" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a rather harsh interpretation of Braveheart. When I
see
> > the
> > > > movie I've always seen parallels not to modern Israel, but ancient
> > Israel and
> > > > the revolt of the Maccabeeans revolt against the tyranical rule of
> > Antiouchus.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oi.. one too many revolts in that sentence!! And this is why I should
> > proofread my
> > > posts before sending them *L*
> > >
> > Oy! What a revolting development... :-)
> >
>
> *groan* I heard that one coming a mile away *L*
>
"The peasants are revolting"
"You said it, they stink on ice."


Polar

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 9:53:55 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 03:54:24 +0000 (UTC), "GAN EDEN WINES"
<gan...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:asm5r0$867$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
>impressed
>> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
>
>BS"D
>
>You don't like the Jews of Hollywood? Hollywood and Beverly Hills are
>populated by many, many shomrei Shabbos Jews. There are very few movie
>personalities who live in either area. The movie companies and TV companies
>have largely moved elsewhere. These days, Hollywood Jews are not actors and
>actresses. Instead they're hard working Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews with
>large families, large mortgages and high yeshiva bills. Hancock Park, the
>major black hat Jewish area, is the heart of Hollywood. Some of my best
>friends are Hollywood Jews.

It should have been obvious that the thread was about the big machers
in the motion picture and television industries, not the folks you are
talking about.

--
Polar

SRubin5190

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:39:30 PM12/5/02
to
>Nothing to do with Israel.

I think that what I was trying to prove here with my examples, is that there
are probably many Jews in Hollywood that are sympathetic to Jews everywhere as
well as Israel. As an American, I have not seen an enormous amount of sympathy
given to Arafat or the suicide bombers by the public at large. Most people I
have spoken with are disgusted with the violence on both sides and are
adamantly against the tactics used by the Palestinians.
Sue in PA

John W. Leys

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 10:36:18 AM12/6/02
to
BlackMonk wrote:

That last point--the divinity of Jesus--was a point I had hoped they would have
broached, since in the real world it is the one that often causes the most
friction in such a situation. Especially given that the father on the program
is a Protestant minister. But I suppose you can only expect so much from TV,
eh?

Fred Rosenblatt

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 2:28:58 PM12/6/02
to
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<pAQH9.44957$hK4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

No, I think they're damned if they do *and* don't. If most actors took the
position that acting didn't qualify them to speak on political and social
issues, and kept quiet, they would be respected for that. If they spoke
out on injustice, as they saw it, wherever they saw it, they would also
have a defensible position. But when the single issue of Israel's fight
for survival is ignored, one can legitimately wonder why, especially when
many of the industry's Jews are quite vocal about other issues. Are
they not sympathetic to Israel because that view is more in line with
their general views on other issues? Are they afraid to speak out due
to fear of retaliation from others whose world view does not include
sympathy to Israel? Is there another reason? I'm sure that there are
defensible positions in all these cases, but we are certainly entitled to
wonder. We the common public have no legal claim on the private lives
of so-called celebrities, but when they use that celebrity to push causes
they of interest to them, they have to a certain extent invited us in.

Fred Rosenblatt

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 2:32:56 PM12/6/02
to
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<pAQH9.44957$hK4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

What you say is true as far as it goes, but not confined to the right,
as the vilification of Charleton Heston vividly shows.

Fred Rosenblatt

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 2:36:53 PM12/6/02
to
amk...@earthlink.net (Andy Katz) wrote

> How much money has gone to Israel from Industry types recently?

Counting illegal contributions from Haim Saban to the Barak campaign?

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 6:40:23 PM12/6/02
to
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 19:28:58 +0000 (UTC), fre...@juno.com (Fred
Rosenblatt) wrote:

>But when the single issue of Israel's fight
>for survival is ignored, one can legitimately wonder why, especially when
>many of the industry's Jews are quite vocal about other issues. Are
>they not sympathetic to Israel because that view is more in line with
>their general views on other issues?

Or is it possible that they don't perceive current events as an actual
fight for survival on Israel's part?

Hollywood has, as I've already shown, lionized Israel's actual fight
for survival--ie. the wars of liberation--far more often and
vigorously than they did Scotland's.

Of course, Israel at the that time was perceived as being largely, if
not entirely, secular, filled with people who, from the remove, seemed
more similar to Hollywood Jews. Kirk Douglas's Mickey Marcus explains
to the Brit trying to recruit him in NYC that his Jewishness consisted
of a Bar Mitzvah and dozens of fountain pens as gifts.

Beyond the actual movie realm, I think Hollywood types are
uncomfortable speaking out against the underdog, which at this time is
the Palestinians--that doesn't make them right or deserving, al Qaeda
is also the underdog vis a viz the US--but it does create a dearth of
points of leverage for Industry types to insert their rhetorical
wedges.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 7, 2002, 5:58:13 PM12/7/02
to

The vilification of Charlton Heston is justified for reasons that are
decidedly off-topic here. Other right wing actors (Clint Eastwood, Bruce
Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris) have not been greeted with the
same sort of opposition.

Getting back to the matter of Israel, *Jewish* Hollywood has a history of
avoiding Jewish causes as a matter of in your face advocacy because of
wanting to avoid the charge that the people running the studios had an
"agenda." Nonetheless, Hollywood celebrities have also, traditionally,
donated big money to Jewish (and Israeli) causes.\\

Given the criticism in some quarters to the way Hollywood (correctly, in my
view) links some streams of terrorism with Arab/Islamic fundamentalism, one
can hardly claim that the industry is biased *against* Israel.

Polar

unread,
Dec 7, 2002, 9:23:12 PM12/7/02
to
[ Moderator's Comment: Please get it back on Jewis content or take it
elsewhere. ]

Can't think of a better nutcase to "vilify". Anybody catch "Bowling
for Columbine", Michael Moore's latest (on America's gun culture)?
The interview with Heston is priceless! Also, earlier in the film,
a clip of him hosting an NRA meeting in close proximity to Columbine,
only a few days after the shsooting, and proclaiming "...out of my
cold dead hand!..."


--
Polar

Fiona

unread,
Dec 8, 2002, 8:34:53 AM12/8/02
to

I <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote

> As I never really watch films (or television), and have never been
impressed
> with either Hollywood mentality or the attitudes of the Jews of Hollywood
> the conclusions of this article by Avi Davis do not surprise me one bit:
>
> Hollywood's endangered species list.
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1650
>
>
> Extracts:
> --------------------------
>
> So much has been written on Hollywood Jews´ unwillingness to publicly
> condemn the Palestinian terrorist campaign that the subject is becoming
raw.
> The screenwriter, Dan Gordon, summed up the Jewish community´s puzzlement
> most eloquently when he observed that "in an industry where Jews take a
> stand on everything, there´s been a disturbing silence on Israel. I´d love
> to see the indignation about homicide bombers that is reserved for
smokers."
> Many seem to agree that there is more protest in Hollywood against
potential
> threats to endangered birds than there are against the Palestinian plans
for
> Israeli extinction..........
.......etc.

It seems that most people chose to miss the point completely, and of there
were the diehard liberals who claimed that you have to understand how to
make films in order to comment of the politics of those who make them.

Well since I posted Avi Davis's opinion piece an article was published in
the Jerusalem Report discussing the other side of the media coin, the Arab
TV/Film media campaign against, not Israel but the Jews, all of us. Of
course the Kimmel's of this world will always prefer to bury their heads in
the sand than take the bull by the horns. But the reality is that we have a
situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews becuase
Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions of
influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where the
underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are. If the liberal
mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling towards
genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14818


Excepts:
----------------------------------------------------------

"Horseman without a horse," the Egyptian TV hit series being broadcast by 14
Arab TV networks, is not the only anti-Semitic production to be galloping
across the screens each evening this Ramadan. For viewers looking for more
than the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" can offer, there's no shortage of
alternatives. Anti-Semitism has become the last word in the Arab
entertainment industry....

...Syrian TV is running the dramatic locally produced series, "The Collapse
of
Legends." Its central premise is that there is no archeological evidence to
support the stories of the Old Testament; that the Torah we hold holy is
nothing but one big forgery made up by rabbis; that it has no connection
with the Ten Commandments, but is rather a fabrication of history designed
to give the Jews a claim to the Land of Israel. So in the dramatized serial,
a group of Syrian archeologists sets out on a campaign to expose a group of
Zionists who have infiltrated their party with the aim of tampering with the
ancient antiquities at the famous archeological site of Ebla, in order to
give some scientific basis to the forged scripture....
...And in case you were worrying, Arafat is not being left behind.
Palestinian
TV is broadcasting a series of documentaries with one single objective: to
disprove the "myth" that any Jewish Temple ever stood in Jerusalem, and to
present any historical reference to that claim as an act of deception. The
message is that the Jews have no business in the Holy City....

....For some time now I, along with a few colleagues who lend their ears day
by
day to the voices coming from the other side, have been asking ourselves:
Where is this campaign leading? After all, this is not about withdrawing
from the territories or granting Palestinian refugees the "right of return."
Rather, it is a far-reaching, dangerous rationale laying the ground for the
justification of a mass exile of Jews from Israel -- "ethnic cleansing" in
contemporary terms -- and even beyond that, it is gradually building a case
for justifying genocide!

----------------------------------------------------------

Fiona

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 8, 2002, 9:29:22 AM12/8/02
to

"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asvhp3$na0$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

For someone who claims never to read my posts, Fiona certainly seems
obsessed with what I think.

Here she pretends to know what I think about the antisemitic miniseries that
has been running in the Arab world for the last month.


>But the reality is that we have a
> situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews becuase
> Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions
of
> influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
> Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where
the
> underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are. If the liberal
> mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling towards
> genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
> question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"

This is truly ignorant. She knows nothing of *Western* media (she claims
not to see movies or TV) yet claims to be an expert on it. The laughable
notion that Hollywood "paint[s] Arabs as the underdogs" shows just out of
touch this woman is.

She also pretends that there has been no Western reaction to the Egyptian
miniseries when, if she had only read a little further in the magazine,
she'd note that Congressmen are now talking about cutting back (or cutting
off) aid to nations that foment such racist tripe, starting with Egypt.

Since she will not see this message, could someone please inform her just
how disconnected from reality she is?


Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 9, 2002, 9:09:00 AM12/9/02
to
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:34:53 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>It seems that most people chose to miss the point completely, and of there
>were the diehard liberals who claimed that you have to understand how to
>make films in order to comment of the politics of those who make them.

Miss what? That the creation of Braveheart and substitution of vague
phrases in place of documented facts signifies a pro-Arab, pro-Arab
genocide of the Jews on the part of American Jews?

That's not a point. It's mere rambling incoherence on Davis's part.

>Well since I posted Avi Davis's opinion piece an article was published in
>the Jerusalem Report discussing the other side of the media coin, the Arab
>TV/Film media campaign against, not Israel but the Jews, all of us. Of
>course the Kimmel's of this world will always prefer to bury their heads in
>the sand than take the bull by the horns. But the reality is that we have a
>situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews becuase
>Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions of

Western media is not the same as Hollywood, and in general Jews aren't
as influential in overall media (ie news) as we are in film and tv
entertainment.

>influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
>Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where the
>underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are.

Viewing the *Palestinians* as underdogs is not the same as viewing all
Arabs as underdogs, nor even all Muslims (since the reference to Allah
commanding the destruction of the Jews). Denying diversity among
Arab/Muslim peoples is also a form of burying one's head from reality.

And to say that liberals are uncomfortable in taking on the underdog
isn't the same as insisting that the underdog is always right.

> If the liberal
>mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling towards
>genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
>question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"

Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes going back well beyond any
current intifada. There would be no protocol-style conspiracy theme
directed against Arabs simply because we don't credit them with
sufficient intelligence or organization.

Does this mean that the west is also plotting genocide against Arabs?
Do decades of anti-Russian anti-communist entertainments signify a
desire to eradicate all Russians?

Israel has been engaged in a war with one Islamic/Arab people for
decades now. Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
surprise or even disconcert us unduly? The sympathies of the average
Egyptian on the street lie, I'm told, firmly with the Palestinians.
But since Egypt is both not a democracy and has a peace treaty with
Israel I think Israel has done its best in securing that particular
border.

To insist that all Arab/Muslim people desire the eradication of the
Jewish people is also a form of burying one's head in the sand, denial
of the necessity to negotiate and meet one's opponent halfway.

Doesn't this assertion *also* build the case for ethnic cleansing and
genocide?

News Admin

unread,
Dec 9, 2002, 6:18:12 PM12/9/02
to

"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u779vu0iob04nvncd...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:34:53 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >It seems that most people chose to miss the point completely, and of
there
> >were the diehard liberals who claimed that you have to understand how to
> >make films in order to comment of the politics of those who make them.
>
> Miss what? That the creation of Braveheart

Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of Hollywood
to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because they
were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
Arafat was the misplaced romantism, and the fact that it was only a small
step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day Braveheart.

> and substitution of vague
> phrases in place of documented facts signifies a pro-Arab, pro-Arab
> genocide of the Jews on the part of American Jews?
>
> That's not a point. It's mere rambling incoherence on Davis's part.
>
> >Well since I posted Avi Davis's opinion piece an article was published in
> >the Jerusalem Report discussing the other side of the media coin, the
Arab
> >TV/Film media campaign against, not Israel but the Jews, all of us. Of
> >course the Kimmel's of this world will always prefer to bury their heads
in
> >the sand than take the bull by the horns. But the reality is that we have
a
> >situation where the Arab media support the destruction of the Jews
becuase
> >Allah tells them to, and a Western media where many Jews are in positions
of
>
> Western media is not the same as Hollywood, and in general Jews aren't
> as influential in overall media (ie news) as we are in film and tv
> entertainment.

Just as this article didn't discuss Arab news programs, but entertainment,
so that is the context I used 'media' in the above quote.

> >influence that supports the Arabs against the Jews because the paint the
> >Arabs as the underdogs and they have this warped vision of reality where
the
> >underdog is *always* right no matter how evil they are.
>
> Viewing the *Palestinians* as underdogs is not the same as viewing all
> Arabs as underdogs, nor even all Muslims (since the reference to Allah
> commanding the destruction of the Jews). Denying diversity among
> Arab/Muslim peoples is also a form of burying one's head from reality.

Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those who
don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there are
those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew haters,
the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you also
have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters, and
the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
complaining about anti-Semitism.

> And to say that liberals are uncomfortable in taking on the underdog
> isn't the same as insisting that the underdog is always right.
>
> > If the liberal
> >mentality prohibits seeing that the Arab media snowball is rolling
towards
> >genocide, then perhaps they can provide an alternative answer to the
> >question asked in this article, "where is this campaign leading?"
>
> Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
> presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes

No, I am not aware of such things. And it has nothing to do with the point.

Omar Sharriff, he played evil, violent, cartoonish apes? No, I thought not.

> going back well beyond any
> current intifada. There would be no protocol-style conspiracy theme
> directed against Arabs simply because we don't credit them with
> sufficient intelligence or organization.

Which they themselves then play on and come up with stuff like "I cannot
still believe that 19 youths, including 15 Saudis, carried out the September
11attacks with the support of bin Laden and his Al-Qa'ida organization. It's
impossible. I will not believe that these people have the power to do so
horrendous an attack." Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz.
(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14769)

> Does this mean that the west is also plotting genocide against Arabs?

I am beginning to feel really sorry for you, you're really out there Andy...
There ain't nothing anti-Arab being shown anywhere in the western-world
comparable to the Jew-hate material being shown constantly in the Arab
world.

So, come on, where do you thing the unchallenged Arab "Kill a Jew today"
propoganda will lead the world? To another Holocaust (God forbid) or Peace
in our Time?

> Do decades of anti-Russian anti-communist entertainments signify a
> desire to eradicate all Russians?
>
> Israel has been engaged in a war with one Islamic/Arab people for
> decades now.

The Arabs have been at war with the Jews for 1400 years!

> Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
> Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
> surprise or even disconcert us unduly?

Yes! Particularly when we are outnumbered by such overwhelming odds.

> The sympathies of the average
> Egyptian on the street lie, I'm told, firmly with the Palestinians.
> But since Egypt is both not a democracy and has a peace treaty with
> Israel I think Israel has done its best in securing that particular
> border.

Israel's best is not good enough, when the Egyptian side has done nothing to
secure the border and turn a deliberately blind eye to gun running.

> To insist that all Arab/Muslim people desire the eradication of the
> Jewish people is also a form of burying one's head in the sand, denial
> of the necessity to negotiate and meet one's opponent halfway.

Face reality Andy, you cannot negotiate with someone who wants to kill you.
Life is an all or nothing commodity, half-dead is not an option.


Fiona


Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 12:00:51 AM12/10/02
to
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC), "News Admin"
<ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:

>Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of Hollywood
>to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
>focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because they
>were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and

In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
actually seen. There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
make George Washington Osama bin Laden.

>Arafat was the misplaced romantism, and the fact that it was only a small
>step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day Braveheart.

In Ramallah perhaps. In Hollywood that would be a very large step.

>Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those who
>don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there are
>those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
>the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
>then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew haters,
>the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
>haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you also
>have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
>Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
>Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters, and
>the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
>bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
>complaining about anti-Semitism.

And might these same people make exactly the same claims about
Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
so forth?

Those who hold another people in contempt are usually not the best
sources for a nuanced view of said people.

>> Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
>> presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes
>
>No, I am not aware of such things.

That's right. I forgot. You did mention that you don't watch movies or
tv, and so it's understandable that you wouldn't be aware.

>And it has nothing to do with the point.

It has everything to do with the point. If Arab media's negative
portrayal of Jews indicates a tendency towards genocide, then doesn't
western media's negative portrayal of Arabs indicate the same?

>Omar Sharriff, he played evil, violent, cartoonish apes? No, I thought not.

And with one exception, he never played Arab characters.

>> going back well beyond any
>> current intifada. There would be no protocol-style conspiracy theme
>> directed against Arabs simply because we don't credit them with
>> sufficient intelligence or organization.
>
>Which they themselves then play on and come up with stuff like "I cannot
>still believe that 19 youths, including 15 Saudis, carried out the September
>11attacks with the support of bin Laden and his Al-Qa'ida organization. It's
>impossible. I will not believe that these people have the power to do so
>horrendous an attack." Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz.
>(http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14769)

Bad example. Because I'm not going to argue that the Saudis aren't
full of crap here;-)

>> Does this mean that the west is also plotting genocide against Arabs?
>
>I am beginning to feel really sorry for you, you're really out there Andy...

How about instead of that we just keep focused on the issue at
hand:-)?

>There ain't nothing anti-Arab being shown anywhere in the western-world
>comparable to the Jew-hate material being shown constantly in the Arab
>world.

Again, if you haven't actually seen the material, on either side, how
can you make that assertion?

>So, come on, where do you thing the unchallenged Arab "Kill a Jew today"
>propoganda will lead the world? To another Holocaust (God forbid) or Peace
>in our Time?

Funny, but further down you insist that the Arab world has been at war
with the Jews, all the Jews, for 14 centuries, now, and while there
certainly has been violence on their part, they haven't accomplished
anything like the slaughters our good friends the Christians have
managed. Often without even really trying, such as the Rhineland
Pogroms, or the Russian Civil War.

If they're planning another Holocaust, they're sure taking their sweet
time about it.

>> Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
>> Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
>> surprise or even disconcert us unduly?
>
>Yes! Particularly when we are outnumbered by such overwhelming odds.

Israel has made real progress with Egypt. Does that mean that the
average Egyptian loves Jews, anymore than the average Jew loves
Egyptians?

>> The sympathies of the average
>> Egyptian on the street lie, I'm told, firmly with the Palestinians.
>> But since Egypt is both not a democracy and has a peace treaty with
>> Israel I think Israel has done its best in securing that particular
>> border.
>
>Israel's best is not good enough, when the Egyptian side has done nothing to
>secure the border and turn a deliberately blind eye to gun running.

Gun running isn't good, but it beats having Egyptian T-34s cross the
border.

Naturally Arabs sympathize with the Palestinians, just as
Irish-Americans funded the IRA for decades. Does that mean that the US
and Great Britain ought to go to war?

Israel needs to settle its problems with the Palestinians.

>> To insist that all Arab/Muslim people desire the eradication of the
>> Jewish people is also a form of burying one's head in the sand, denial
>> of the necessity to negotiate and meet one's opponent halfway.
>
>Face reality Andy, you cannot negotiate with someone who wants to kill you.

Since you declare all Muslims to be Jew-haters you have no choice but
to negotiate. You can't wipe out one billion people.

>Life is an all or nothing commodity, half-dead is not an option.

How does "half-dead" come into play here?

Yitzchak Goodman

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 1:02:30 AM12/10/02
to
Andy Katz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC), "News Admin"
> <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>
> >Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of Hollywood
> >to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
> >focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because they
> >were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
>
> In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
> actually seen. There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.
>
> >Arafat was the misplaced romantism, and the fact that it was only a small
> >step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day Braveheart.
>
> In Ramallah perhaps. In Hollywood that would be a very large step.
>
> >Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those who
> >don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there are
> >those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
> >the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
> >then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew haters,
> >the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
> >haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you also
> >have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
> >Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
> >Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters, and
> >the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
> >bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
> >complaining about anti-Semitism.
>
> And might these same people make exactly the same claims about
> Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
> Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
> so forth?

Here is perhaps a more interesting way of framing this issue:
During WWII there were Germans who had no ill-will at all
towards Jews. However, national groups do function in certain
obvious ways as collective entities. Many modern
nation-states are associated with a particular nationality.
Sometimes they declare war on other nation-states.
In Germany during WWII the segment of the population that
bore ill-will towards Jews prevailed among the population
generally. The German people as a collective entity then became
a danger to the Jewish people. It should be born in
mind that Germany was also, in some ways, the most advanced
Western country militarily and scientifically.
It seems to me that now some Muslim national groups and political
groups hate Jews more than the Germans did in WWII.
The average Muslim is not as educated as the average German
was. It seems obvious that they are more susceptible
to conspiracism. Despotic governments tend to feed
their people a steady diet of conspiracy theories, etc.
After the recent riots, I think I read that Nigerian
Muslims were telling interviewers that they thought that
80 percent of Americans are Jews. Most Saudis don't believe
that Saudis were involved in the 9/11, etc. It is hard
to gauge the danger, however, because none of these groups
have the potential for conquest and domination that Germany
did before WWII. Students of Nazism sometimes use the term
"Judenkoller." It means an fit of intense anti-Semitic rage.
People who actually felt this were probably in a minority
among Germans, but it's hard to say--anti-Semites with murderous
intent gained control after all among the Germans.
How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
for a long time now among Muslims.

Yitz

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 5:40:00 AM12/10/02
to

"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:r3lavuot9437bbs8l...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC), "News Admin"
> <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>
> >Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of
Hollywood
> >to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
> >focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because
they
> >were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
>
> In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
> actually seen. There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.


Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
instigate an argument.

There's a name for people who do that on the Internet.

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 11:12:34 AM12/10/02
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:02:30 +0000 (UTC), yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak
Goodman) wrote:

>Here is perhaps a more interesting way of framing this issue:
>During WWII there were Germans who had no ill-will at all
>towards Jews. However, national groups do function in certain
>obvious ways as collective entities. Many modern
>nation-states are associated with a particular nationality.
>Sometimes they declare war on other nation-states.
>In Germany during WWII the segment of the population that
>bore ill-will towards Jews prevailed among the population
>generally. The German people as a collective entity then became
>a danger to the Jewish people. It should be born in
>mind that Germany was also, in some ways, the most advanced
>Western country militarily and scientifically.
>It seems to me that now some Muslim national groups and political
>groups hate Jews more than the Germans did in WWII.

I think you can find many examples throughout history where Jew-hatred
was more acute and widespread and had deeper historical roots than in
Germany. What created the Holocaust was a combination of Hitler's
total control of the apparatuses of state, his own obsessive hatred of
Jews and German efficiency.

Were, by comparison, the Rhenish Ashkenazi hated by the very European
nobility that they had financed prior to the Rhineland pogroms? Who
knows? What matters is that circumstances--organized military sorties
& indebtedness--combined to provide motive and opportunity.

>The average Muslim is not as educated as the average German
>was. It seems obvious that they are more susceptible
>to conspiracism. Despotic governments tend to feed
>their people a steady diet of conspiracy theories, etc.
>After the recent riots, I think I read that Nigerian
>Muslims were telling interviewers that they thought that
>80 percent of Americans are Jews. Most Saudis don't believe
>that Saudis were involved in the 9/11, etc. It is hard
>to gauge the danger, however, because none of these groups
>have the potential for conquest and domination that Germany
>did before WWII. Students of Nazism sometimes use the term
>"Judenkoller." It means an fit of intense anti-Semitic rage.
>People who actually felt this were probably in a minority
>among Germans, but it's hard to say--anti-Semites with murderous
>intent gained control after all among the Germans.
>How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
>has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
>for a long time now among Muslims.

Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.

To me, the point isn't whether Jews are loved or hated. International
cooperation, treaties, alliances, are based on national interest. How
many people in the world, by comparison, like Americans or the USA?
Not many, by all accounts, but because we have or develop congruent
interests, we get along, for the most part.

Certainly the Intifada has heightened tension and raised feelings
against Israel. That's probably its main purpose, and that's why it's
in Israel's best interests to find peace.

Some here have suggested that the Palestinians be expelled from the
territories at "bayonet point" if necessary, knowing full well that
such an attempt would entail a massacre, and knowing that even those
states that honor their treaties would be forced to act or possibly
face revolution. Then they can turn around and say, See, the Arabs
can't be trusted and it's all the fault of Hollywood!

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 2:23:50 PM12/10/02
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
>clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
>instigate an argument.

It goes to the very heart of so many discussions here, Dan, namely by
what process or series of events do hard-liners envision peace in the
ME?

After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
people?

Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ... Israel has peace
treaties with two former Arab enemies, but they don't matter because
Egyptians and Jordanians probably don't love Israelis, and so on.

So what's the next step here, and where are they leading?

I wonder if that isn't why people like Davis babble over the alleged
content of Hollywood films and HonestReporting frets over People
magazine's designation for Israel of twenty centuries past ... because
the accumulated logic of their oft-stated positions leads inexorably
into the abyss.

>There's a name for people who do that on the Internet.

;-)

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 4:39:16 PM12/10/02
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:12:34 +0000 (UTC), amk...@earthlink.net (Andy
Katz) said:

[snip]

>Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
>have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
>showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.

True. Speaking of which, I posted the following to another group I
frequent, alt.fan.heinlein, under subject "Off-T: Should I Be
Afraid?":

--------------------------------------------
As you know, I am an observant Jew (often called Orthodox Jew). As
such, I greatly appreciate the religious freedom and protection of the
law I and my coreligionists enjoy in the USA.

However, some of my coreligionists believe that the protection is
insufficient. They're trying to scare me into believing that the
so-called Christian Right is actively planning a takeover of the
government (through the Republican party) in order to Christianize the
country and advance Armageddon. This last is allegedly the reason many
devout Christians support the state of Israel. They further say that
if their plans are frustrated, they're likely to try to bring on
Armageddon all by themselves, by killing and/or forcefully converting
Jews.

I don't know whether we have any "Christian Right" on this ng, but
AFAIK we do have devout Christians; it is them I primarily address.
What do you think of all this? Is there danger? I'm sure there are
people in USA and elsewhere who do aspire to this goal, but are they
any more of a clear and present danger than, say, neo-nazis or
communists? If the end of days comes as you expect it, will you offer
me and mine an option of conversion or death?
--------------------------------------------

The first-level replies (before thread drift set in) were quite
interesting, IMHO. Some excerpts:

"The religious people I know support Israel because the Bible says it
was given to the Jews, so they believe that Jews have a right to it.
In the same way, they believe that Jews are the Chosen People and have
a special status. That doesn't necessarily mean they'd want their
daughter to marry one, but overt anti-semitism is right out. No-one I
know of plans to take over the country using the Republican Party. A
lot of the people there still vote Democrat from habit.

"I think the danger is in the mind of the beholder. I believe that
you'd find that the usual suspects are involved- Klan, Aryan Bro's,
etc. Those folks usually claim to be religious Christians, although
they don't follow Christian tenets. If the end of days comes, I'll
probably be way too busy to worry about trying to convert anyone. :)"

"Yisroel, it isn't that the folks who are truly devout Christians will
offer you such a choice. According to the New Testament (I don't know
if you're familiar with it or not), during the end times, the Jews,
who are regarded in the same NT as the chosen of God, will be led by
evangelistic Jews to embrace the concept of Jesus as the Son of God
and the path to salvation. This is not to be forced upon anyone by
humans, according to the NT, but by acts of God. Of course, in any
religion there are always those who think they are important enough to
be qualified to give God a hand when He has trouble convincing folks
on His own. Those are the ones you might want to watch carefully..."

"Just because a person is paranoid, doesn't mean there isn't anyone
out to get him. But in this case, I think the folks that brought this
up to you are trying to scare you into voting their way by trying to
sell you a steaming truckload of bovine fertilizer. My political views
are very much to the right (but at least a little bit to the left of
Genghis Khan ;-) ), and I consider myself Christian, and, no, I
think we in this country have much more important things to do. I like
to be left alone, and see no reason why I should stick my nose in your
affairs, so long as we both remain more or less law-abiding. I support
Israel because it is the decent thing to do."

"Yisroel, my background is Roman Catholic before learning of the
Baha'i Faith. I also have relatives who are Christians, Mormon, and
Jewish. I also have worked Night-Shift many years. Never once have I
ever heard of anyone contemplating any forced religious conversions.
As for the idea of Armagedon there are elements of the very far right,
very "fundamental " Christians who believe that this shall be a
physical event, and anticipate such. Now, whether or not such persons
have any power, or can exert any influence is something that I do not
know. I suspect not. That particular mind-set is not one that
appears to enable the individual to often function well in society...
With all due respect, but I believe that your friends, your
associates, may well have taken a small element of reality here and
decided to construct a mountain..."

"Two words: Hyperbolic paranoia. There are certainly some people like
this ("Reconstructionists" come to mind) but they are a tiny, fringe
group, nowhere near any sort of power outside of maybe small towns in
the wilds of Idaho. Bush is certainly not one of these. Neither is
Ashcroft. These people are *way* off in the fringes. Ashcroft is
mainstream compared to them. If these sorts of people were to somehow
take power, you'd find the vast majority of what is generally
considerd "the Christian Right" opposing them."

Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

Fred Rosenblatt

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 5:16:02 PM12/10/02
to
(Yitzchak Goodman) wrote

> Andy Katz wrote:
> >
"News Admin" wrote:

> > >Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those
> > >who don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there
> > >are those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there
> > >are the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew
> > >haters, then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew
> > >haters, the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite
> > >Jew haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you
> > >also have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters,
> > >the Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the
> > >German-Muslim Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim
> > >Jew haters, and the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a

> > >real diverse bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers

> > >of the Jews complaining about anti-Semitism.
> >
> > And might these same people make exactly the same claims about
> > Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
> > Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
> > so forth?

No, one might not. Enough of the motal equivalence, Andy. I am
probably one of the most vocal on this group for calling on people
to see the truth, and not what they would like to see. As such I
believe that the relationship between Islam and the troubles in
Indonesia, the Phillipines, India, Nigeria, etc., etc., should not
be ignored because we force ourselves to believe that all "major
religions" are inherently peaceful.

But I don't hate Arabs nor do I want a single Arab expelled from a
home in which he is willing to live at peace with the rest of the
world. If you are truly seeking moral equivalence, find me one
Arab who is willing to say that he believes that Jews should be able
to live at peace in theire homes in Israel.

> How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
> has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
> for a long time now among Muslims.

The picture of the nursery school girl raising hands covered
in red paint in celebration of the Ramallah lynching says
everything that needs to be said about that.

Fiona

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 6:14:47 PM12/10/02
to

"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC), "News Admin"
> <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>
> >Davis mentioned Braveheart as an illustration of the tendancy of
Hollywood
> >to reframe psychotic murderers as freedom-fighting heroes because they
> >focused their hatred and bloodlust on a political opponent, and because
they
> >were the "underdog." The only connection he made between Braveheart and
>
> In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
> actually seen.

Where is your evidence that he has never seen it?

> There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.

George Washington killed innocent civilians? (I can believe it, but I've
never heard it said.)

> >Arafat was the misplaced romantism, and the fact that it was only a small
> >step before someone cast Arafat in the movies, as the modern-day
Braveheart.
>
> In Ramallah perhaps. In Hollywood that would be a very large step.

CNN do a pretty good job of it.

> >Oh, sure there is diversity amost the Arabs and Muslims: there are those
who
> >don't take much notice of the Koran and don't hate Jews much, and there
are
> >those who really go by the Koran and hate the Jews a lot, there there are
> >the Sunni Jew haters, the Shiite Jew haters, and secular-Arab Jew haters,
> >then of course you have have the Iranian Jew haters, the Saudi Jew
haters,
> >the Palestinian Jew haters, the Egyptian Jew haters, the Yemenite Jew
> >haters, the Pakistani Jew haters, the Iraqi Jew haters, naturally you
also
> >have the British-Muslim Jew haters, and the French-Muslim Jew haters, the
> >Belgium-Muslim Jew haters, the Dutch-Muslim Jew haters, the German-Muslim
> >Jew haters, the Swiss-Muslim Jew haters, the Canadian-Muslim Jew haters,
and
> >the US-Muslim Jew haters. Guess I missed a few, but yep, a rela diverse
> >bunch. The airwaves are just crammed with those Muslim lovers of the Jews
> >complaining about anti-Semitism.
>
> And might these same people make exactly the same claims about
> Arab-hating American Jews, and Arab-hating Canadian Jews, and
> Arab-hating Israeli Jews, and Arab-hating English Jews and so on and
> so forth?

I am sure they make the claim already, in fact they always have done it is
one of their classic excuses for hating the Jews. There is even a verse in
the Koran to support it.

> Those who hold another people in contempt are usually not the best
> sources for a nuanced view of said people.

You accusing me of hating Arabs? I don't hate Arabs, some of my best friends
are Arabs (or married to them) :-), but I do hold Islam in contempt. But
then you seem to know nothing of Islam, so it's kind of difficult to discuss
the Jewish-Arab reality with you.

> >> Even if you're not a fan, I'm sure you're aware that Hollywood has
> >> presented Arabs as violent, cartoonish apes
> >
> >No, I am not aware of such things.
>
> That's right. I forgot. You did mention that you don't watch movies or
> tv, and so it's understandable that you wouldn't be aware.

Just 'cos I choose not to go to the movies, or own a TV does not mean I
never see them, or have never seen them, nor have never studies Media
Studies or made films, video, or been involved in TV production.

> >And it has nothing to do with the point.
>
> It has everything to do with the point. If Arab media's negative
> portrayal of Jews indicates a tendency towards genocide, then doesn't
> western media's negative portrayal of Arabs indicate the same?

You want to claim that there is equivalence between the western media's
portrayal of Arabs and the Arab media's portrayal of Jews? Name one western
program/movie that portrays Arabs as using Jewish or Christian blood for
ritual purposes.

[snip]


> >There ain't nothing anti-Arab being shown anywhere in the western-world
> >comparable to the Jew-hate material being shown constantly in the Arab
> >world.
>
> Again, if you haven't actually seen the material, on either side, how
> can you make that assertion?

Who says I haven't any of the material? On either side.

> >So, come on, where do you thing the unchallenged Arab "Kill a Jew today"
> >propoganda will lead the world? To another Holocaust (God forbid) or
Peace
> >in our Time?
>
> Funny, but further down you insist that the Arab world has been at war
> with the Jews, all the Jews, for 14 centuries, now, and while there
> certainly has been violence on their part, they haven't accomplished
> anything like the slaughters our good friends the Christians have
> managed. Often without even really trying, such as the Rhineland
> Pogroms, or the Russian Civil War.

Just shows how little you know about Jewish-Arab history.

> If they're planning another Holocaust, they're sure taking their sweet
> time about it.

What do you expect, German efficiency?

Are you going to actually answer the question?

> >> Another Islamic/Arab state employs images of
> >> Jewish/Israeli that aren't flattering . . . should this really
> >> surprise or even disconcert us unduly?
> >
> >Yes! Particularly when we are outnumbered by such overwhelming odds.
>
> Israel has made real progress with Egypt.

In case you forgot, Egypt closed it's embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Egyptian
media if full of anti-semitic crap. We have at best a 'cold' peace with
Egypt.

Who wants to wipe out anyone?

> >Life is an all or nothing commodity, half-dead is not an option.
>
> How does "half-dead" come into play here?

You proposed to give away have of what you have in negotiations, when
someone to kill you, what is halfway?


Fiona


Fiona

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 6:19:57 PM12/10/02
to

"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote

> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
> >clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
> >instigate an argument.

Wrong again Kimmel, I know exactly what I am talking about. Just because I
choose not watch films, or own a sh*t spewing box in my home (other than the
internet). Does not mean I have never watched films or television, or
studied media studies. Anyway, the whole argument actually very little to do
with Hollywood, it is about media politics, and although you don't want to
face it we (Israeli Jews) are at war. Now as far as I am concerned you (pl)
liberal media sc*m in the USA are a danger to us, and it is about time you
came clean about who's side you are on. As your lovely president said: you
are either with us or you are against us.

> It goes to the very heart of so many discussions here, Dan, namely by
> what process or series of events do hard-liners envision peace in the
> ME?
>
> After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
> plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
> not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
> people?

Nice try, but as you well know the law of 'first strike' only applies where
there is actual knowledge of an attack. It is Islam that says you can wipe
out anyone you *think* is going to attack you, this is based on the Sunna of
Mohamed, where he massacred the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) because he got
paranoid and thought they were going to attack him. You are getting your
religions mixed up, go study your Qoran and Hadith.

> Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
> about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
> can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ...

Can you provide some evidence, hard evidence, not your fantasy that everyone
can be bought for the right price, that the Arabs *can* be reasoned and
bargained with, and *can* be trusted. Such as an agreement that the
Palestinians have ever kept.

> Israel has peace
> treaties with two former Arab enemies, but they don't matter because
> Egyptians and Jordanians probably don't love Israelis, and so on.

Israel only has 'peace' agreements with Egypt and Jordan because we whipped
'em in the last war. Israel had wiped out the Egyptian Airforce and
surrounded the Egyptian Army in Sinai, we were on the verge of taking Cairo.
Course they signed a peace agreement, have they ever made any real attempt
to foster a peaceful neighbourly spirit?

> So what's the next step here, and where are they leading?

Defence of the Jews. Where are you heading? And back to the original
question that you continue to avoid, and try to spin back, where is the Arab
anti-semitism of a billion muslims leading?

> I wonder if that isn't why people like Davis babble over the alleged
> content of Hollywood films and HonestReporting frets over People
> magazine's designation for Israel of twenty centuries past ... because
> the accumulated logic of their oft-stated positions leads inexorably
> into the abyss.
>
> >There's a name for people who do that on the Internet.

A Kimmel?


Fiona

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 10:14:12 PM12/10/02
to

"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pnubvucbjl3ogoh47...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:02:30 +0000 (UTC), yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak
> Goodman) wrote:
>
> >Here is perhaps a more interesting way of framing this issue:
> >During WWII there were Germans who had no ill-will at all
> >towards Jews. However, national groups do function in certain
> >obvious ways as collective entities. Many modern
> >nation-states are associated with a particular nationality.
> >Sometimes they declare war on other nation-states.
> >In Germany during WWII the segment of the population that
> >bore ill-will towards Jews prevailed among the population
> >generally. The German people as a collective entity then became
> >a danger to the Jewish people. It should be born in
> >mind that Germany was also, in some ways, the most advanced
> >Western country militarily and scientifically.
> >It seems to me that now some Muslim national groups and political
> >groups hate Jews more than the Germans did in WWII.
>
> I think you can find many examples throughout history where Jew-hatred
> was more acute and widespread and had deeper historical roots than in
> Germany. What created the Holocaust was a combination of Hitler's
> total control of the apparatuses of state, his own obsessive hatred of
> Jews and German efficiency.

But he could not use any of those to achieve anything until he had granted
license to the general populous to let them do the that was in their hearts.
He granted them license through propoganda and incitment, in return they
elected him and followed through his designs.


> >The average Muslim is not as educated as the average German
> >was. It seems obvious that they are more susceptible
> >to conspiracism. Despotic governments tend to feed
> >their people a steady diet of conspiracy theories, etc.
> >After the recent riots, I think I read that Nigerian
> >Muslims were telling interviewers that they thought that
> >80 percent of Americans are Jews. Most Saudis don't believe
> >that Saudis were involved in the 9/11, etc. It is hard
> >to gauge the danger, however, because none of these groups
> >have the potential for conquest and domination that Germany
> >did before WWII. Students of Nazism sometimes use the term
> >"Judenkoller." It means an fit of intense anti-Semitic rage.
> >People who actually felt this were probably in a minority
> >among Germans, but it's hard to say--anti-Semites with murderous
> >intent gained control after all among the Germans.
> >How common is "Judenkoller" among Muslims? Remember that it
> >has been cultivated intensely and on a large scale and
> >for a long time now among Muslims.
>
> Yet, as I pointed out to Fiona, if Muslims universally despise us, and
> have for 14 centuries, they haven't done nearly as good a job of
> showing it as our new best pals, the Christians.

Pointless comparison, Muslim culture is not Christian culture, Muslim
methodology is not Christian methodology. Considering the once mighty
Eastern communities were reduced to shadows of their former selves by the
time they fled to Israel in the 50s, the Arabs did a pretty good job. Where
do you think all those Jews went? Europe? Why would they go there if
conditions were so bad?

> To me, the point isn't whether Jews are loved or hated. International
> cooperation, treaties, alliances, are based on national interest.

Name one Arab state that has an national interest compatable with Israel
(other than Jordon, where only 20% of the population is non-Palestinian, or
Christian Lebanon, which we already sold down the river anyway)?

> How
> many people in the world, by comparison, like Americans or the USA?
> Not many, by all accounts, but because we have or develop congruent
> interests, we get along, for the most part.
>
> Certainly the Intifada has heightened tension and raised feelings
> against Israel. That's probably its main purpose, and that's why it's
> in Israel's best interests to find peace.
>
> Some here have suggested that the Palestinians be expelled from the
> territories at "bayonet point" if necessary, knowing full well that
> such an attempt would entail a massacre, and knowing that even those
> states that honor their treaties would be forced to act or possibly
> face revolution. Then they can turn around and say, See, the Arabs
> can't be trusted and it's all the fault of Hollywood!

Those of us who know that the Arabs cannot be trusted know it because of
history and culture, that, we are not going to blame on Hollywood and nobody
has even suggested such a thing. What we will blame on Hollywood is their
promotion of the Palestinian "big lie," that they are the defenceless
underdog who has to resort to murdeing pensioners, women, and children in
order to 'defend' themselves.


Fiona


Yisroel Markov

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 11:18:35 PM12/10/02
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:23:50 +0000 (UTC), amk...@earthlink.net (Andy
Katz) said:

>On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:40:00 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
><dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Why are you wasting your time with Fiona? She admits she doesn't have a
>>clue as to what she's talking about, and yet is going out of her way to
>>instigate an argument.
>
>It goes to the very heart of so many discussions here, Dan, namely by
>what process or series of events do hard-liners envision peace in the
>ME?
>
>After all, if all Arabs--nay, all Muslims--exist to despise Jews and
>plot our demise then doesn't Jewish law (well, common sense, actually)
>not only permit but command us to kill them first? One billion or so
>people?

You're over-reaching, IMHO. I don't believe anyone advocates killing
all Jew-haters - just the ones who are a clear and present danger.
That's probably less than a thousand people, all told.

>Naturally such an approach is untenable, isn't even worth thinking
>about. But hard-liners also insist that Arabs can't be reasoned with,
>can't be bargained with, can't be trusted ... Israel has peace
>treaties with two former Arab enemies, but they don't matter because
>Egyptians and Jordanians probably don't love Israelis, and so on.

Hardly. What I see is that the hard-liners insist on negotiating from
a position of strength, with real consequences for violations - not
that negotiations are impossible. Haven't you seen appeals from the
-right to the Palestinians to get themselves more reasonable leaders
who will actually negotiate in good faith?

[snip]

Andy Katz

unread,
Dec 11, 2002, 12:01:18 AM12/11/02
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:14:47 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> In that case, Davis would have been better off citing a movie he'd
>> actually seen.
>
>Where is your evidence that he has never seen it?

His own comments.

>> There were no psychotic murderers in Braveheart, not
>> even among the English. It was a story of an oppressed culture
>> fighting and ultimately prevailing against its oppressor. If William
>> Wallace, as portrayed in the movie, could be Arafat, then that must
>> make George Washington Osama bin Laden.
>
>George Washington killed innocent civilians? (I can believe it, but I've
>never heard it said.)

Neither did Wallace, according to the film Davis cited.

>You accusing me of hating Arabs? I don't hate Arabs, some of my best friends
>are Arabs (or married to them) :-), but I do hold Islam in contempt.

Yes. And this is exactly why I take your analyses of Islam with a
hefty grain of salt. After all, we would hardly accept the "truth"
about Judaism from someone who doesn't hate Jews but does avowedly
hold Judaism in contempt, right?

>But then you seem to know nothing of Islam,

Then that makes two of us;-)

>so it's kind of difficult to discuss the Jewish-Arab reality with you.

Au contraire. If you honestly believe that I know nothing about Islam,
then I'm exactly the person you need to discuss this reality with.

Who better? Someone who already agrees with everything you have to say
and thus validates your comments without the need for further thought?

>Just 'cos I choose not to go to the movies, or own a TV does not mean I
>never see them, or have never seen them, nor have never studies Media
>Studies or made films, video, or been involved in TV production.

Be that as it may, citing Davis's article creates understandable
grounds for skepticism.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Hollywood,
American media and prominent Jews, but the Davis article missed all of
them.

>You want to claim that there is equivalence between the western media's
>portrayal of Arabs and the Arab media's portrayal of Jews? Name one western
>program/movie that portrays Arabs as using Jewish or Christian blood for
>ritual purposes.

Ethnic groups have their own, usually unique stereotypes. To accuse
Christians or Muslims of blood libel would be meaningless, like a
small child hurling accusations back at his parents simply to mirror
what he's heard.

>> Funny, but further down you insist that the Arab world has been at war
>> with the Jews, all the Jews, for 14 centuries, now, and while there
>> certainly has been violence on their part, they haven't accomplished
>> anything like the slaughters our good friends the Christians have
>> managed. Often without even really trying, such as the Rhineland
>> Pogroms, or the Russian Civil War.
>
>Just shows how little you know about Jewish-Arab history.

You're right, Fiona, I'm not an expert on Arab-Jewish history. But I
do read scjm, and I've noticed that people cite, for example, a
massacre in Medina prompted by Muhammad that took the lives of about
six hundred. Now it would be cold comfort if you were one of the six
hundred, but six hundred corpses would scarcely get our Christian pals
warmed up. During the Russian Civil War one hundred times as many Jews
were massacred in one city alone, in one action, by the Whites,
incidentally.

I'm sure there have been other examples of violence against Jews. But
if Moslems slew as many Jews as Christians I'm equally certain we'd
have seen the figures posted here.

And as for treating Jews as equals?

Please . . . how many European nations offered Jews full citizenship
prior to the French Revolution? In many instances we were lucky if
they allowed us in at all.

>> If they're planning another Holocaust, they're sure taking their sweet
>> time about it.
>
>What do you expect, German efficiency?

Islam under the Caliphs enjoyed a hegemony and duration in Asia Minor
and the Mediterranean that Hitler could only have dreamed of. They had
plenty of opportunity.

>Are you going to actually answer the question?

What question?

>In case you forgot, Egypt closed it's embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Egyptian
>media if full of anti-semitic crap. We have at best a 'cold' peace with
>Egypt.

Sure. And it's liable to get colder as the Intifada continues. But no
one says peace has to be based on warmth, just a recognition of mutual
interest.

>> Since you declare all Muslims to be Jew-haters you have no choice but
>> to negotiate. You can't wipe out one billion people.
>
>Who wants to wipe out anyone?

I certainly don't. But I wonder whether hard-liners are painting
themselves into a corner here.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 11, 2002, 6:24:32 AM12/11/02
to

"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:03ubvu0lb60u9528j...@4ax.com...

> I wonder if that isn't why people like Davis babble over the alleged
> content of Hollywood films and HonestReporting frets over People
> magazine's designation for Israel of twenty centuries past ... because
> the accumulated logic of their oft-stated positions leads inexorably
> into the abyss.

Have to disagree on this point. The Hollywood angle was just plain nuts
since it involved a willful misinterpretation/misunderstanding of movies
having nothing whatsoever to do with the Middle East.

But when People magazine claims there was an ancient land of "Palestine" but
"Israel" is purely a modern invention, they are rewriting history and they
are doing so in a way that works to the disadvantage of Israel. That
*ought* to be challenged.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Dec 11, 2002, 6:24:34 AM12/11/02