Thought provoking speech here from Andrew Neil.
https://vimeo.com/238584380
Quote from: Mandryka on November 13, 2017, 09:47:43 AM
Thought provoking speech here from Andrew Neil.
https://vimeo.com/238584380
Which bits did you find thought provoking?
Quote from: Tulse on November 13, 2017, 11:07:22 AM
Which bits did you find thought provoking?
The attempt to revive the old idea that there's a link between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. I thought that idea was as dead as a dodo, and rightly so, but Neil can't resist regurgitating it.
Quote from: Mandryka on November 13, 2017, 11:42:16 AM
The attempt to revive the old idea that there's a link between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. I thought that idea was as dead as a dodo, and rightly so, but Neil can't resist regurgitating it.
Ah yes, I missed that bit. i have heard it more frequently in the past year or two though.
I flicked through the link. I saw him say that left wingers and all conspiracy theories are anti-semitic.
Wrong: Having distaste for Jews as Jews.
Not wrong: Loathing zionism and the quasi-fifth-columnist behavior of Israel supporters, among them the neocons who are always encouraging U.S wars against nations Israel doesn't like.
Quote from: -abe- on November 13, 2017, 12:54:39 PM
Not wrong: Loathing zionism and the quasi-fifth-columnist behavior of Israel supporters, among them the neocons who are always encouraging U.S wars against nations Israel doesn't like.
Which is straight out of the old Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
This is not the first time you've expressed your anti-Semitism.
Quote from: Mandryka on November 13, 2017, 11:42:16 AM
The attempt to revive the old idea that there's a link between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. I thought that idea was as dead as a dodo, and rightly so, but Neil can't resist regurgitating it.
It is quite true and alive.
The context is that anti-Zionists don't usually stick to opposing the policies of the Israeli government, which is valid. Heck, I oppose a good many things the Israeli government does. They don't stick to advocating a single country, achieved by peaceful means, in which Arabs and Jews live together as fellow citizens, which I disagree with, mainly because I don't think it would work in practice.
Instead anti-Zionists tend to peddle outright anti-Semitism, as -abe- has done in this thread, and tend to approve of killing Jews in the name of Palestinian Independence. And killing Jews (btw, the stated goal of Hamas) is pretty much the end goal of anti-Semitism, after all.
There have been some incidents recently, e.g. women being banned from the Chicago Dyke March for carrying a flag with the magen david on it because the same symbol appears on the Israeli flag (even though it's just a general symbol for being Jewish), a number of leftist politicians exposed for antisemitic statements or views which both they and the right-wing media conflate with antizionism, I believe there was something with Linda Sarsour supporting a person convicted on terrorism charges and conflating that with support of the Palestinian cause.
At the same time I really don't like pointing fingers at "the left" when "the right" is doing much worse including yesterday's white supremacist/neo-nazi rally in Poland that attracted 60,000 people. The left and its "woke" antisemitism seems to be mostly an internet phenomenon among edgy kids that only occasionally spills out into the mainstream, and a lot of really questionable shit that people say seems to come down to them not considering what it would look like to a Jewish person or understanding how antisemitism functions in practice. It's a sin of ignorance which sometimes becomes intentional because people refuse to listen, particularly re American Jewry because "Jews are white and therefore antisemitism doesn't exist anymore/isn't a big deal", but for the most part the left remains active in countering white supremacy—rather than upholding it by demonising Jews—in a way that the right is........ doing the exact opposite of.
I mean obvs I'm a jewish antizionist so w/e
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 13, 2017, 05:08:51 PM
Which is straight out of the old Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
This is not the first time you've expressed your anti-Semitism.
Yes, there really is such a thing as Jew Hatred. There also really is such a thing as using false charges of Jew Hatred to silence legitimate disagreement.
The extreme right seems to be more focused on Moslems.
Quote from: -abe- on November 13, 2017, 05:38:38 PM
Yes, there really is such a thing as Jew Hatred. There also really is such a thing as using false charges of Jew Hatred to silence legitimate disagreement.
The post I quoted is straight out anti-Semitism of the old "Jews have too much power" variety. Therefore it is accurate to say you are an anti-Semite.
The Chicago thing was a troll job by AIPAC. In many leftist circles (like the type that would conduct a Dyke march) people loudly supporting Israel are unwelcome. Someone went there carrying the Israel flag while shouting pro-Israel slogans. They got thrown out and then said "oh no antisemitism!"
There are real bigots out there who hate Jews, and it's a disservice to the worthwhile goal of continuing to stigmatize such bigotry by redefining antisemitism as "opposition to Israel/Zionism."
Quote from: -abe- on November 13, 2017, 05:48:01 PMIn many leftist circles (like the type that would conduct a Dyke march) people loudly supporting Israel are unwelcome.
In the story as it was reported when I saw it, the person carrying the flag didn't say or do anything in support of Israel and was approached by march organisers and asked to leave. That said there was something about a pro-Israel group showing up at the march so who knows.
It's a story I didn't follow closely because identity politics is false consciousness anyway. >_>
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 13, 2017, 05:42:02 PM
The post I quoted is straight out anti-Semitism of the old "Jews have too much power" variety. Therefore it is accurate to say you are an anti-Semite.
Jewish-Americans have outsize political and cultural capital relative to their numbers in the population, and while it may be neo-nazis and such who are very eager to explore these questions, it certainly shouldn't be unspeakable for everyone else to observe this or even comment on it. Indeed, it's not out of bounds for a member of a multicultural society to ask, for instance, if it's truly in the interest of the nation as a whole that so many of our mid-east negotiators on Israel/Palestine happen to be Jews who have an emotional and ideological connection with Israel. Perhaps those type of positions should be held by an American who wouldn't, in that case, have such conflicting loyalties. After all, Jewish Americans certainly wouldn't like it if these positions were held by Arab-Americans, would they? Basically so much of your whining, Jeffrey Smith, could be whittled down to "don't call us out on our privileges."
Quote from: -abe- on November 13, 2017, 05:59:21 PM
Jewish-Americans have outsize political and cultural capital relative to their numbers in the population, and while it may be neo-nazis and such who are very eager to explore these questions, it certainly shouldn't be unspeakable for everyone else to observe this or even comment on it. Indeed, it's not out of bounds for a member of a multicultural society to ask, for instance, if it's truly in the interest of the nation as a whole that so many of our mid-east negotiators on Israel/Palestine happen to be Jews who have an emotional and ideological connection with Israel. Perhaps those type of positions should be held by an American who wouldn't, in that case, have such conflicting loyalties. After all, Jewish Americans certainly wouldn't like it if these positions were held by Arab-Americans, would they? Basically so much of your whining, Jeffrey Smith, could be whittled down to "don't call us out on our privileges."
You just regurgitated the Protocols again...
Quote from: -abe- on November 13, 2017, 05:59:21 PM
Jewish-Americans have outsize political and cultural capital relative to their numbers in the population
*wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish Americans whose families emigrated in the 1930s or earlier, mostly orthodox or conservative
American Jewry is an extremely class-stratified population. The wealthiest tend to be concentrated in major cities, particularly New York City and even more particularly in upscale areas such as the Upper East Side. These families were wealthy even before coming to the US, because without the ability to own land in Europe their only way to ensure financial security was through liquid assets (i.e. cash). Those who could not obtain large amounts of cash are the poor Ashkenazi Jews, which tend to be concentrated in poverty-stricken areas such as Borough Park or Kiryas Joel, and are among the populations most dependent on social services in the US. Sephardi & Mizrahi Jews also tend to be quite poor and, because they tend to speak Arabic or Ladino rather than Yiddish (and be brown), can't really assimilate into the Ashkenazi communities and thus more likely to live in predominantly Middle Eastern neighbourhoods.
Poor and working-class Jews are much more likely to be targeted by discrimination and hate crimes than any other religious group in the US, at least according to the FBI (which was run by an anglo-saxon man of perfect Aryan heritage when the latest statistics were released). Upper-class Jews generally report very little discrimination on religious grounds. It's important to remember that there is no Jewish middle class in the USA—if you aren't part of the cultural elite, or even if you don't pronounce your Hebrew in the Ashkenazi manner (shabbat -> shabbos, etc) as my mom found out when she moved there, you're basically not ever going to be part of the Jewish upper class and your social circles are going to be limited to the working poor of your particular religious denomination. So it's really more complicated than "check your privilege".
The political power of AIPAC et al comes down only partly to the money. The whole idea from the start was that the US would fund Israel as a counter to the Soviet Union's ties with Egypt, and essentially build a regional power to be a bulwark against communism. (I'm on communism's side there, tbh.) With the fall of the Soviet Union the US became increasingly eager to disentangle itself from Israel, leading to the Oslo Accords, but enough money had been flowing in at that point that the donors were loath to abandon their investment, and convinced the US it needed Israel as a regional power to be a bulwark against Iran. (I'm on Iran's side too. >.>) Now that Saudi is the bulwark against Iran instead, Israel has technically outlived its usefulness once again, which makes me think the time is coming ripe for a new peace agreement, and which has Netanyahu and Abbas scrambling because their cushy lifestyles may be coming to an end. I expect the leaders who succeed them will have much more appetite for peace and honestly I expect the platform of the US Democratic Party to include ending military aid to Israel & negotiating a two-state solution by 2024. I mean if we're still alive and everything.
Also, though I'm a Sarsour agnostic, this (https://www.eventbrite.com/e/antisemitism-and-the-struggle-for-justice-tickets-39696960678) actually looks interesting.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 13, 2017, 05:19:57 PM
It is quite true and alive.
The context is that anti-Zionists don't usually stick to opposing the policies of the Israeli government, which is valid. Heck, I oppose a good many things the Israeli government does. They don't stick to advocating a single country, achieved by peaceful means, in which Arabs and Jews live together as fellow citizens, which I disagree with, mainly because I don't think it would work in practice.
Instead anti-Zionists tend to peddle outright anti-Semitism, as -abe- has done in this thread, and tend to approve of killing Jews in the name of Palestinian Independence. And killing Jews (btw, the stated goal of Hamas) is pretty much the end goal of anti-Semitism, after all.
I acknowledge that anti-zionist rhetoric can slip into anti-jewish rhetoric. Do you acknowledge that charges of antisemitism can be misused to merely silence individuals that are politically hostile to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?
Quote from: amw on November 13, 2017, 06:29:00 PM
*wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish Americans whose families emigrated in the 1930s or earlier, mostly orthodox or conservative
American Jewry is an extremely class-stratified population. The wealthiest tend to be concentrated in major cities, particularly New York City and even more particularly in upscale areas such as the Upper East Side. These families were wealthy even before coming to the US, because without the ability to own land in Europe their only way to ensure financial security was through liquid assets (i.e. cash). Those who could not obtain large amounts of cash are the poor Ashkenazi Jews, which tend to be concentrated in poverty-stricken areas such as Borough Park or Kiryas Joel, and are among the populations most dependent on social services in the US. Sephardi & Mizrahi Jews also tend to be quite poor and, because they tend to speak Arabic or Ladino rather than Yiddish (and be brown), can't really assimilate into the Ashkenazi communities and thus more likely to live in predominantly Middle Eastern neighbourhoods.
Poor and working-class Jews are much more likely to be targeted by discrimination and hate crimes than any other religious group in the US, at least according to the FBI (which was run by an anglo-saxon man of perfect Aryan heritage when the latest statistics were released). Upper-class Jews generally report very little discrimination on religious grounds. It's important to remember that there is no Jewish middle class in the USA—if you aren't part of the cultural elite, or even if you don't pronounce your Hebrew in the Ashkenazi manner (shabbat -> shabbos, etc) as my mom found out when she moved there, you're basically not ever going to be part of the Jewish upper class and your social circles are going to be limited to the working poor of your particular religious denomination. So it's really more complicated than "check your privilege".
The political power of AIPAC et al comes down only partly to the money. The whole idea from the start was that the US would fund Israel as a counter to the Soviet Union's ties with Egypt, and essentially build a regional power to be a bulwark against communism. (I'm on communism's side there, tbh.) With the fall of the Soviet Union the US became increasingly eager to disentangle itself from Israel, leading to the Oslo Accords, but enough money had been flowing in at that point that the donors were loath to abandon their investment, and convinced the US it needed Israel as a regional power to be a bulwark against Iran. (I'm on Iran's side too. >.>) Now that Saudi is the bulwark against Iran instead, Israel has technically outlived its usefulness once again, which makes me think the time is coming ripe for a new peace agreement, and which has Netanyahu and Abbas scrambling because their cushy lifestyles may be coming to an end. I expect the leaders who succeed them will have much more appetite for peace and honestly I expect the platform of the US Democratic Party to include ending military aid to Israel & negotiating a two-state solution by 2024. I mean if we're still alive and everything.
Also, though I'm a Sarsour agnostic, this (https://www.eventbrite.com/e/antisemitism-and-the-struggle-for-justice-tickets-39696960678) actually looks interesting.
Good, nuanced information.
Quote from: -abe- on November 13, 2017, 06:43:20 PM
I acknowledge that anti-zionist rhetoric can slip into anti-jewish rhetoric. Do you acknowledge that charges of antisemitism can be misused to merely silence individuals that are politically hostile to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?
Yes. But I know of no case in which the charge was made, but was not deserved.
Mind you, support for Hamas, or wanting to treat it as anything other than a group of murderous thugs who ought to be in jail for the rest of their lives, is anti-Semitism. I specify Hamas because it blantanly calls for killing Jews, unlike the Abbas regime, which at least pays lip service to the idea of eventually living in peace.
Hamas has moved way over to the non-killing-Jews side of things since 2006 and having to actually govern, tbh. At this point I kinda qualified-support them as the least bad option (at least if it's a choice between Hamas, the PA & the Knesset) which I couldn't have said three years ago. The new charter (http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies) and the negotiations that led to it went some way towards changing my mind on them. I still don't believe in any national or ethnic movement, or that Palestine is "for" any particular group of people, and I also don't think armed resistance is the most effective way to combat occupation (that said "armed resistance" is defined by international law as excluding attacks on civilians, so that's a step forward from their old charter which encouraged attacks on civilians)—I'd rather see BDS expanded tbh. It has shown itself to be a much more effective political tool and I feel like even Hamas can't avoid recognising this, as much as their armed forces want to hang on to power internally.
While I think that connections between anti-zionism and anti-semitism and also (both from the nationalist right and some leftist) between anti-semitism and anti-capitalism (or sometimes only/especially banking/WS/speculation) clearly exist, in my experience in Germany this often spurious association is far more frequently used to slander people who dare to criticize Israeli politics or rabid speculation as antisemites because this is about the worst thing one can tar an opponent with. (With the special history and demographics of Germany it is far more efficient a slander than mere racism.)
Quote from: Jo498 on November 13, 2017, 11:37:48 PM
While I think that connections between anti-zionism and anti-semitism and also (both from the nationalist right and some leftist) between anti-semitism and anti-capitalism (or sometimes only/especially banking/WS/speculation) clearly exist, in my experience in Germany this often spurious association is far more frequently used to slander people who dare to criticize Israeli politics or rabid speculation as antisemites because this is about the worst thing one can tar an opponent with. (With the special history and demographics of Germany it is far more efficient a slander than mere racism.)
I see that there is a thing called 'New Antisemitism'. To be an antisemite you no longer need to say or do anything antisemetic, it is sufficient that you are left wing and / or antiglobalisation. The idea is to label people who are against neoliberalism as antisemites. This is the worst kind of slander, not just in Germany. Neoliberals are adept at using language as a way to extend their groupthink, and this seems to be the latest strategy in this regard. It has been a very successful approach and one that went almost unchallenged until the GFC.
Yes this is obviously slander.
Most "traditional" antisemites are probably also antizionists although I think there are also some who don't really much care about Israel but rather about the supposedly too influential Jewish circles elsewhere.
For typical leftists critizing Israeli politics this is basically only another case of suppression or "colonialism" but because of the suffering of Jews in the past Israel supposedly get a free pass today. (Both claims are gross simplifications at best, I think but they are not completely absurd either.) And it is true that it is the offical policy of both Germany and the US to support Israel in general and if in doubt. And in Germany this has nothing to do with Jews being in positions of power (because there are hardly any in such positions, no comparison at all with some fields in the US) so it does not have to combined with the claim of sinister influence of Diaspora Jews.
AFAIK, there are (and have been ever since Theodor Herzl's time) Jewish anti-zionists, including some rabbis. Are they too anti-semite?
In my book, a true, genuine and authentic anti-semite is one who (1) consistently and indiscriminately holds and express negative and derogatory opinions about Jews both as individuals and as a group or (2) calls for, or supports, measures aiming at their expulsion / seggregation / physical annihilation. One can have (1) without (2) (the most famous case being Wagner; a more obscure case is a friend of mine who misses no opportunity to rail against Jews --- and masons, the NWO and such) but not (2) without (1).
To the best of my knowledge, no GMG member is, or ever has been, an anti-semite.
Simply criticizing this or that Israeli policy, without questioning its right to exist or supporting Hamas, is not anti-semitism, not by any stretch of the imagination.
The problem is that there are some people and organizations who cry "Anti-semitism!" pretty much every time the state of Israel or an individual Jew is criticized, regardless whether the criticism is justified or not. This is neither rational nor reasonable.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 14, 2017, 03:56:14 AM
it is true that it is the offical policy of both Germany and the US to support Israel in general and if in doubt.
It is also true that Israel is the only functional liberal democracy in the Middle East (okay, maybe Liban comes as a distant second, but that's pretty much all there is in this respect in the region) --- and this is not, and has never been, due to any US or Germany or whatever support or free pass.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 13, 2017, 05:19:57 PM
Instead anti-Zionists tend to peddle outright anti-Semitism, as -abe- has done in this thread, and tend to approve of killing Jews in the name of Palestinian Independence. And killing Jews (btw, the stated goal of Hamas) is pretty much the end goal of anti-Semitism, after all.
According to Israeli figures nearly 10000 Palestinians have been killed in conflict since 1987 compared to 1600 Israelis. Perhaps we should talk more about who approves the killing of Arabs in the name of Israeli independence. Do you approve Jeffrey Smith?
Quote from: San Antonio on November 14, 2017, 05:15:52 AM
the history has been politicized for so long that it is virtually impossible for people on both sides to agree on the facts. Because of this reality I have very little hope for any kind of peaceful settlement in the future.
Israel is certainly not perfect and the government has made some bad decisions over its 70 year existence. Not many countries have been faced with the kind of hostility as had Israel; and I think while there have been some specific lapses, Israel has handled its response in a ethical and measured manner. At least in Israel there is a significant segment of the society which seriously and candidly questions the government and its policies; it is hard to find a similar segment on the other side.
My thoughts exactly.
Quote from: San Antonio on November 14, 2017, 05:15:52 AM
It is not like Israel is killing Arabs for no reason. Really, are you completely ignorant of the context? It is your reductionist kind of comment which I find so frustrating when a discussion of Israel and the Arabs comes up. Many people are just too young to know the history and the history has been politicized for so long that it is virtually impossible for people on both sides to agree on the facts. Because of this reality I have very little hope for any kind of peaceful settlement in the future.
Israel is certainly not perfect and the government has made some bad decisions over its 70 year existence. Not many countries have been faced with the kind of hostility as had Israel; and I think while there have been some specific lapses, Israel has handled its response in a ethical and measured manner. At least in Israel there is a significant segment of the society which seriously and candidly questions the government and its policies; it is hard to find a similar segment on the other side.
I have spent a good many years studying the history of Israel and the Zionist movement and used to debate people all the time about Israel and the Arabs. But I gave it up about 10 years ago when it became obvious that many people who attack Israel were impervious to a fact-based argument. There is a psychological need on the part of some people to believe what they believe about Israel and, unfortunately, often it is because they have a problem with Jews.
Thank you for your response San Antonio. I take on board that this is a frustrating issue for you.
So from your point of view it is not permissible to state or imply approval of Arabs killing Israelis, whilst at the same time you approve, more or less, of the Israelis killing Arabs, lapses aside. Furthermore because I am questioning this apparent anomaly, you assert that I may have a problem with Jews. You have encapsulated in a nutshell the concerns being raised on this thread about the debate being stifled because of the threat of being slandered antisemitic.
Of greater concern is of this view becoming the
de facto neo-liberal position and thereby being used to increase the enrichment of wealthy elites at the expense of the global population. Because now it appears that one can be branded as anti-semite if you are against the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals.
Oxfam have produced figures highlighting the growing disparity between rich and poor since the GFC. According to them 8 individuals have the same combined wealth as the bottom 50% of the population. I would be interested to hear what you and Jeffrey Smith think about this. Specifically, do you think that those who raise concerns about the increased wealth of a small elite 'often have problems with Jews'?
I grew up in the 1980s reading stuff like Uris' "Exodus" and similar books and I was (and still am) full of admiration for what the founders of Israel achieved and how they survived against nasty and overwhelming enemies.
However, the Palestinians really got thrown under the bus from the very beginning and their current plight should be considered without bringing Egypt attacking Israel 50 years ago into the mix.
The relevant beginning is roughly the founding of modern Israel in 1948 (or maybe the earlier return of European Jews in the first decades of the 20th century). Not Joshua fighting the Battle of Jericho...
For studying the Israel-Palestinian problem in depth, one should divide one´s time exactly equally, 50-50%, between the views and living conditions of the two groups/parties.
This very rarely occurs.
Sort of cynical, but why should I care more about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict than any other squalid backwater ethnic conflict around the world, such as Armenians / Azeris, Turks / Kurds etc? Everyone has their national stories and identities and they are all more or less crap. In hindsight, creating a Jewish national state in Muslim land was a mistake, but now that it exists both the refusal of the Palestinians to come to terms with its reality and the settler / colonial mentality of a decisive block of the Israeli electorate now drives the conflict.
Quote from: San Antonio on November 14, 2017, 08:22:45 AM
Why do you think it is an anomaly? What is you basis for comparison?
I did not mean to imply that you "have a problem with Jews" only that you did not place the casualty numbers in any historical context. While my comment was in response to your post, I was speaking generally. You claim that ...
I never stated or implied anything remotely like that. But I ask you, how is the government of Israel (whose mandate is to protect its citizens) to respond when confronted by Palestinian Arab attacks against the civilian population? I would hope that you would concede that in any response Palestinian Arabs will be killed. If you think it is a reasonable expectation for Israel to only kill them at the same rate that they kill Jews, I wonder how is that accomplished? The violence would end tomorrow if the Palestinians ended their incitement and attacks and accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
If you think Israel would continue to kill any Palestinian Arab if it were not acting in self-defense, you are very much deluded. Israel does not wish to kill Arabs; it wishes to live in peace.
What has not been said yet, is the acknowledgement of a growing tendancy on the Left to move from criticizing Israel's policies vis a vis the Palestinians to questioning Israel legitimacy or right to exist as a Jewish majority state. To the extent that line is crossed it becomes harder to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism.
You are not taking on board my position. You can defend Israel until you are blue in the face but it still won't deal with the issues raised in the OP. I'm not talking about Arab good, Israel bad or vice versa. The issue is about whether or not a left wing position, anti-globalisation views, a conspiracy theory or an anti-Israeli view can be held without being labelled an antisemite. Clearly the journalist in the OP thinks not.
I'm not clear from your responses to what extent you agree with Andrew Neil's position.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 14, 2017, 09:18:11 AM
why should I care more about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict than any other squalid backwater ethnic conflict around the world, such as Armenians / Azeris, Turks / Kurds etc?
Israel has nuclear weapons. It could start a nuclear war and we could all die.
Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2017, 11:19:37 AM
Do you identify with any nation? If yes, then according to your own theory it's crap; if no, then it's crap as well --- just wait until your habit of listening to, and buying, (favorite) recordings of your favorite music would be forbidden by Sharia, in which case you'd quickly and instantly identify as a diehard Westerner! ;D
t
Sure, I'm 'murican which is unique and special and uniquely destined among all other nations of the world
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 14, 2017, 09:18:11 AM
Sort of cynical, but why should I care more about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict than any other squalid backwater ethnic conflict around the world, such as Armenians / Azeris, Turks / Kurds etc?
Amen to that. As John Gay said "those who in quarrels interpose, must often wipe a bloody nose"
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 14, 2017, 09:18:11 AM
Sort of cynical, but why should I care more about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict than any other squalid backwater ethnic conflict around the world, such as Armenians / Azeris, Turks / Kurds etc? Everyone has their national stories and identities and they are all more or less crap.
I guess you don't know many American born-again Christians? You should care because millions of them believe the Second Coming and the Rapture, during which they will ascend to heaven, can't happen until the apocalypse begins as a cataclysmic conflict in Israel. For many, their attainment of paradise depends on the rest of us being consumed in "fire and fury like the world has never seen." If you don't believe me you should talk to my mom and her prayer group. They'll tell you all about it.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 14, 2017, 12:00:17 PM
I guess you don't know many American born-again Christians? You should care because millions of them believe the Second Coming and the Rapture, during which they will ascend to heaven, can't happen until the apocalypse begins as a cataclysmic conflict in Israel. For many, their attainment of paradise depends on the rest of us being consumed in "fire and fury like the world has never seen." If you don't believe me you should talk to my mom and her prayer group. They'll tell you all about it.
sounds like a win-win. The Middle East blows up and goes away then annoying American Fundies all vanish
Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2017, 12:34:30 PM
I don't expect anyone born, raised and educated in a Protestant environment to acknowledge that the so-called "Reformation" was actually a backward-looking movement, theologically, intellectually and artistically speaking-- yet this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...
Oh, I will - it was much like Islamic Wahhabism. Its only saving grace was the 150 years of religious wars it spawned paved the way for the Enlightenment, which now underpins most all Western Christianity
Quote from: amw on November 13, 2017, 07:29:49 PM
Hamas has moved way over to the non-killing-Jews side of things since 2006 and having to actually govern, tbh. At this point I kinda qualified-support them as the least bad option (at least if it's a choice between Hamas, the PA & the Knesset) which I couldn't have said three years ago. The new charter (http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies) and the negotiations that led to it went some way towards changing my mind on them. I still don't believe in any national or ethnic movement, or that Palestine is "for" any particular group of people, and I also don't think armed resistance is the most effective way to combat occupation (that said "armed resistance" is defined by international law as excluding attacks on civilians, so that's a step forward from their old charter which encouraged attacks on civilians)—I'd rather see BDS expanded tbh. It has shown itself to be a much more effective political tool and I feel like even Hamas can't avoid recognising this, as much as their armed forces want to hang on to power internally.
Do note that in the new charter, the ideal is an Islamic state, and no statement that would conflict with the idea of a Palestine in which no Jews (or Christians) are allowed to reside.
Quote from: Tulse on November 14, 2017, 10:29:17 AM
You are not taking on board my position. You can defend Israel until you are blue in the face but it still won't deal with the issues raised in the OP. I'm not talking about Arab good, Israel bad or vice versa. The issue is about whether or not a left wing position, anti-globalisation views, a conspiracy theory or an anti-Israeli view can be held without being labelled an antisemite. Clearly the journalist in the OP thinks not.
I'm not clear from your responses to what extent you agree with Andrew Neil's position.
I will answer the question for myself. It is possible to be antiglobalist and a left-winger and still support Israel. The problem lies in the fact that antiglobalists and left-wingers often adopt anti-Semitism. So the charge is not always true but in practice often is.
Anti-Israeli needs clarification. Does it mean opposition to many of the policies of the current Israeli government? Does it mean support of a Palestinian state living peacefully with its neighbors or a single state where Jews and Arabs live, if not harmoniously, at least peacefully, together? Since a lot of Jews, including myself, oppose the policies of the current government and want a Palestinian state in some form, it's obviously not anti-Semitic to hold those positions. But much of the left goes much further than that, denies the right of the Jews to exist as a people, and holds to the classic illusion of Jews having too much power. And those are classic anti-Semitic positions.
Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2017, 11:54:16 AM
I don't know who John Gay is, but I know what John Donne said:
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Why is "Amen to that" bad, yet "Amen to what John Gay said" is good? ;D
John Gay was the man responsible for The Beggar's Opera. And also a friend of Swift and Pope.
The great tragedy, in my opinion, was the assassination of Yitzak Rabin - a man of integrity who just might have helped to bring peace to that troubled region. After that Israeli politics shifted to the right. In Britain the premature death of the Labour leader John Smith was also, in my opinion, a disaster as it ushered in the Blair years and the disastrous intervention in Iraq with all the consequences which are still with us. I guess that it also depends on the extent to which you believe that an individual can change the course of history. At one time I thought that it was absurd to suggest that criticism of Israel is a form of anti-semitism. I still largely believe this but I think that sometimes criticism of Israel is a mask for anti-semitism. The Labour Party in Britain does, I believe, still have a problem with anti-semitism as evidenced by the Labour MP Naz Shah's suggestion that Israel should be 'transported' to the USA. She was rightly condemned by David Cameron for suggesting this but, in fairness to her, she sincerely apologised and seems to have a good relationship with her local Jewish community.
Quote from: Tulse on November 14, 2017, 04:58:44 AM
According to Israeli figures nearly 10000 Palestinians have been killed in conflict since 1987 compared to 1600 Israelis. Perhaps we should talk more about who approves the killing of Arabs in the name of Israeli independence. Do you approve Jeffrey Smith?
10 000 is 8400 more than 1600.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 14, 2017, 06:41:59 PM
But much of the left goes much further than that, denies the right of the Jews to exist as a people,
Thanks for your reply, which I'd clipped because this comment surprised me, can you point me to something about it? It's the word "much" which surprised me, and I'm not sure what " as a people" means exactly here.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 14, 2017, 06:41:59 PM
I will answer the question for myself. It is possible to be antiglobalist and a left-winger and still support Israel. The problem lies in the fact that antiglobalists and left-wingers often adopt anti-Semitism. So the charge is not always true but in practice often is.
Anti-Israeli needs clarification. Does it mean opposition to many of the policies of the current Israeli government? Does it mean support of a Palestinian state living peacefully with its neighbors or a single state where Jews and Arabs live, if not harmoniously, at least peacefully, together? Since a lot of Jews, including myself, oppose the policies of the current government and want a Palestinian state in some form, it's obviously not anti-Semitic to hold those positions. But much of the left goes much further than that, denies the right of the Jews to exist as a people, and holds to the classic illusion of Jews having too much power. And those are classic anti-Semitic positions.
I have a disconnect with you over the two bolded bits. The neo-liberal media in the UK often point to anti-semitism in the (neo-liberal) Labour party, but I haven't yet seen anything to make me think that it is anything other than a smokescreen to continue to enable the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population.
So can you provide any evidence of the bolded comments to support what you assert? I would be genuinely interested, as this seems to be a new thing and it should be called out.
Quote from: Tulse on November 21, 2017, 10:08:11 AM
I have a disconnect with you over the two bolded bits. The neo-liberal media in the UK often point to anti-semitism in the (neo-liberal) Labour party, but I haven't yet seen anything to make me think that it is anything other than a smokescreen to continue to enable the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population.
So can you provide any evidence of the bolded comments to support what you assert? I would be genuinely interested, as this seems to be a new thing and it should be called out.
As evidence, may I suggest you re-read the last sentence of the first paragraph you yourself wrote, and consider how it seems to echo classic anti-Semitism? You seem to have adopted the idea without even realizing that you have adopted it.
As for the rest, the Left, especially in the universities and anywhere there is a strong Muslim population, openly supports and even celebrates the extreme program and the terrorism of Palestinian militants, and tries to shut down any discussion of the issue that deviates from the Hamas party line. That is not a media fabrication.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 21, 2017, 01:02:18 PM
As evidence, may I suggest you re-read the last sentence of the first paragraph you yourself wrote, and consider how it seems to echo classic anti-Semitism? You seem to have adopted the idea without even realizing that you have adopted it.
As for the rest, the Left, especially in the universities and anywhere there is a strong Muslim population, openly supports and even celebrates the extreme program and the terrorism of Palestinian militants, and tries to shut down any discussion of the issue that deviates from the Hamas party line. That is not a media fabrication.
I wrote: 'The neo-liberal media in the UK often point to anti-semitism in the (neo-liberal) Labour party, but I haven't yet seen anything to make me think that it is anything other than a smokescreen to continue to enable the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population.'
I cannot see how this is even slightly anti-semitic. Can you explain that to me?
Regarding people on the left, can you provide me with instances of this occurring, that is what I am looking for, leading left wing politicians, unionists, activists, academics etc. making anti-semitic comments? If you are right, the media should be littered with anti-semitic quotes. Are you able to point me to some?
Quote from: Tulse on November 21, 2017, 01:20:34 PM
I wrote: 'The neo-liberal media in the UK often point to anti-semitism in the (neo-liberal) Labour party, but I haven't yet seen anything to make me think that it is anything other than a smokescreen to continue to enable the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population.'
I cannot see how this is even slightly anti-semitic. Can you explain that to me?
Regarding people on the left, can you provide me with instances of this occurring, that is what I am looking for, leading left wing politicians, unionists, activists, academics etc. making anti-semitic comments? If you are right, the media should be littered with anti-semitic quotes. Are you able to point me to some?
I bolded it so you can see how you glibly rephrased the "Jewish lobby" line, apparently without even realizing you did it.
You yourself mentioned those anti-Semitic utterances in order to dismiss them as media fabrications. Why should I bother to provide further evidence if you already feel the evidence is fake news?
Quote from: Tulse on November 21, 2017, 01:20:34 PM
I wrote: 'The neo-liberal media in the UK often point to anti-semitism in the (neo-liberal) Labour party, but I haven't yet seen anything to make me think that it is anything other than a smokescreen to continue to enable the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population.'
I cannot see how this is even slightly anti-semitic. Can you explain that to me?
Regarding people on the left, can you provide me with instances of this occurring, that is what I am looking for, leading left wing politicians, unionists, activists, academics etc. making anti-semitic comments? If you are right, the media should be littered with anti-semitic quotes. Are you able to point me to some?
Please could you elaborate on '...the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population'. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by this comment.
Quote from: vandermolen on November 21, 2017, 02:11:26 PM
Please could you elaborate on '...the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population'. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by this comment.
I don't want to get into this discussion, but this can easily be read as a reference growing income inequality (i.e., the growth in wealth of the investor class at the expense of the middle class and working class) without reference to any particular ethnic group.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 21, 2017, 01:28:39 PM
I bolded it so you can see how you glibly rephrased the "Jewish lobby" line, apparently without even realizing you did it.
You yourself mentioned those anti-Semitic utterances in order to dismiss them as media fabrications. Why should I bother to provide further evidence if you already feel the evidence is fake news?
Sorry if I'm being dense, but I genuinely do not understand what you mean. Nothing I wrote relates to Jews. You'll have to spell it out to me.
And what are the anti-semitic utterances? I'm not following your logic at all.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 21, 2017, 01:28:39 PM
I bolded it so you can see how you glibly rephrased the "Jewish lobby" line, apparently without even realizing you did it.
You yourself mentioned those anti-Semitic utterances in order to dismiss them as media fabrications. Why should I bother to provide further evidence if you already feel the evidence is fake news?
But there is a "jewish" or "zionist" lobby or whatever you'd like to call it. Many Jews like you are fiercely tribal about the issue of Israel. Your screeching about "anti-semetism" is entirely a result of your abhorrence of others recognizing this tribal behavior. The thing about tribalism though is that it almost always provokes other tribalism -- like Zionism leading to Palestinian nationalism. By labeling others as beyond the pale Jew-haters you are basically asking for
your tribal nationalist impulses to be given primacy over that of others (say, the Palestinians.) This is ridiculous. How are those of us who don't share your tribal outlook and allegiances supposed to regard you? Labeling us as Jew haters won't disguise the fact that you are basically demanding your people be given continued supremacy over another people.
Quote from: vandermolen on November 21, 2017, 02:11:26 PM
Please could you elaborate on '...the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population'. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by this comment.
Over the last few decades, an increasing amount of wealth is held by a smaller number of people. Conversely, the bulk of the population is becoming relatively poorer. The rich are getting a larger slice of the cake, the poor a smaller one.
I don't think that this is deniable. It is a factual statement which can be empirically proved or disproved (though you'd struggle with the latter). I'm just not getting how the statement is antisemitic, but I'm happy for it to be explained to me. it isn't very nice to be labeled in this way.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 21, 2017, 02:20:38 PM
I don't want to get into this discussion, but this can easily be read as a reference growing income inequality (i.e., the growth in wealth of the investor class at the expense of the middle class and working class) without reference to any particular ethnic group.
Yes, thanks Scarpia.
Quote from: Tulse on November 21, 2017, 03:05:55 PM
Over the last few decades, an increasing amount of wealth is held by a smaller number of people. Conversely, the bulk of the population is becoming relatively poorer. The rich are getting a larger slice of the cake, the poor a smaller one.
I don't think that this is deniable. It is a factual statement which can be empirically proved or disproved (though you'd struggle with the latter). I'm just not getting how the statement is antisemitic, but I'm happy for it to be explained to me. it isn't very nice to be labeled in this way.
One of the core beliefs of antisemitism is that Jews hold a larger degree of social or economic power than they "deserve", or at least a disproportionate level of power relative to their population, and use this power to control white people and, in some conspiracy theories, the entire world.
The idea that the UK Parliament or the US Congress etc is secretly controlled by the "Israel lobby" is often used as an updated version of this for modern times. And there are definitely politicians who come under scrutiny for ties to the Israeli government (eg Priti Patel) in part as a result of this. There is not (yet) a similar conspiracy about the "Saudi lobby" secretly controlling the world's governments, or any other wealthy group of individuals who influence foreign policy, even though the influence of the Saudis (or other Gulf states, or China, or whatever) plays a similar role in US/UK politics as that of the Israelis. No one suggests that Sunni Muslims in the US are a "fifth column" who are too closely tied to Saudi Arabia to be effective Middle East negotiators. (Although they do suggest this about Shia Muslims and Iran, but that's another story.)
The whole idea that Jews are influencing American politics in order to consolidate their power and wealth is part of this, and also very uninformed, since the people pushing hardest for Israel in the US are born-again Christians rather than Zionists.
Quote from: Tulse on November 21, 2017, 03:05:55 PM
Over the last few decades, an increasing amount of wealth is held by a smaller number of people. Conversely, the bulk of the population is becoming relatively poorer. The rich are getting a larger slice of the cake, the poor a smaller one.
I don't think that this is deniable. It is a factual statement which can be empirically proved or disproved (though you'd struggle with the latter). I'm just not getting how the statement is antisemitic, but I'm happy for it to be explained to me. it isn't very nice to be labeled in this way.
I agree with you on that. But it was phrased a bit vaguely, in a way that echoed anti-Semitic canards about the Rothschild s, etc.--and in the context of a thread about anti-Semitism...I think you understand. But I did not think you were actually an anti-Semite, and if I seemed to say you were, I apologise.
Quote from: Tulse on November 21, 2017, 02:50:23 PM
And what are the anti-semitic utterances? I'm not following your logic at all.
I am referring to the various incidents reported in the media which you dismissed in your earlier comment
QuoteThe neo-liberal media in the UK often point to anti-semitism in the (neo-liberal) Labour party, but I haven't yet seen anything to make me think that it is anything other than a smokescreen to continue to enable the increased wealth and power of a smaller portion of the population.'
I think you are gravely mistaken in your opinion.
The most extreme example seems to be George Galloway, who is too extreme even for his own voters.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 21, 2017, 02:20:38 PM
I don't want to get into this discussion, but this can easily be read as a reference growing income inequality (i.e., the growth in wealth of the investor class at the expense of the middle class and working class) without reference to any particular ethnic group.
Thanks - I hope this is what it means.
Quote from: Tulse on November 21, 2017, 03:05:55 PM
Over the last few decades, an increasing amount of wealth is held by a smaller number of people. Conversely, the bulk of the population is becoming relatively poorer. The rich are getting a larger slice of the cake, the poor a smaller one.
I don't think that this is deniable. It is a factual statement which can be empirically proved or disproved (though you'd struggle with the latter). I'm just not getting how the statement is antisemitic, but I'm happy for it to be explained to me. it isn't very nice to be labeled in this way.
Thank you for the explanation.
The past 30 years actually have seen a dramatic decrease in global poverty along with a stagnation in median incomes in developing countries, neither of which is the fault of the Jews or any other cabal of sinister capitalists. Globalization placed poor Asians in competition for the same jobs as working class people in the US and Europe with the result that Asian incomes increased while Western incomes stagnated
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/23/gayle-smith/did-we-really-reduce-extreme-poverty-half-30-years/ (http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/23/gayle-smith/did-we-really-reduce-extreme-poverty-half-30-years/)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 22, 2017, 06:40:11 AM
The past 30 years actually have seen a dramatic decrease in global poverty along with a stagnation in median incomes in developing countries, neither of which is the fault of the Jews or any other cabal of sinister capitalists. Globalization placed poor Asians in competition for the same jobs as working class people in the US and Europe with the result that Asian incomes increased while Western incomes stagnated
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/23/gayle-smith/did-we-really-reduce-extreme-poverty-half-30-years/ (http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/23/gayle-smith/did-we-really-reduce-extreme-poverty-half-30-years/)
True, but US wealth inequality has seen a dramatic increase in the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/v/QPKKQnijnsM
I'll wind up here with a quote from Fassbinder: 'Terrorism is an idea generated by capitalism to justify better defense measures to safeguard capitalism.'
Quote from: Tulse on November 23, 2017, 11:31:30 AM
I'll wind up here with a quote from Fassbinder: 'Terrorism is an idea generated by capitalism to justify better defense measures to safeguard capitalism.'
Yes if the utterings of a Lamborghini- buying cocaine commie can't be taken as the authoritative final word on the topic, then what can?
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 23, 2017, 04:41:30 PM
Yes if the utterings of a Lamborghini- buying cocaine commie can't be taken as the authoritative final word on the topic, then what can?
Not to mention that it is only in a "capitalistic" society that he could lead his eccentric and provocative lifestyle. In any other it would have landed him in jail. ;D
It's a verified fact, time and again, that those who complain most vociferously about "capitalism" are sometimes those who benefit the most from it.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 23, 2017, 04:41:30 PM
Yes if the utterings of a Lamborghini- buying cocaine commie can't be taken as the authoritative final word on the topic, then what can?
That is so funny. You have provided some confirmation for Fassbinder's assertion.
Quote from: Tulse on November 24, 2017, 07:05:11 AM
That is so funny. You have provided some confirmation for Fassbinder's assertion.
By pointing out there's no reason to think he knows better than the average person in the street?
The better position is that capitalism in conjunction with our current political system has made it reasonable for some people to think that random mass murder is the best way to alleviate their problems.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 21, 2017, 04:58:14 PM
I am referring to the various incidents reported in the media which you dismissed in your earlier comment
I think you are gravely mistaken in your opinion.
The most extreme example seems to be George Galloway, who is too extreme even for his own voters.
Galloway was booted out of the Labour Party 15 years ago. He formed his own little tin pot party thereafter.
Quote from: nodogen on January 19, 2018, 05:49:05 AM
Galloway was booted out of the Labour Party 15 years ago. He formed his own little tin pot party thereafter.
And was afterwards voted out by Muslim constituents in Bradford, wasn't it? As I said, he's too extreme even for his own voters.
I'm taking a wild guess--Galloway's for Brexit?
I really don't know or care what he thinks of brexit.... or anything else for that matter. He should have been kept locked in the Big Brother house. With the lights off.