Another look at "anti-semitism".

[frigidweirdo]

Sure. I hear what you are saying. While I fully support Israel defending herself when and as necessary, I am disgusted by the calls to murder Arabs and/or Muslims. And yes, I see it here too.

You're an anti-Semite.

And you think that, why?

I don't think that. I was being sarcastic.

But I'll answer your question anyway.

You said you're disgusted by their calls to murder Arabs or Muslims. Some might take this as being anti-Jew.

Do you like being called an anti-Semite for a ridiculous reason? I don't.

 

[Humanity]

So because I am pro Palestinian I am anti-semitic?

No. Teddy is trying to say that many (not you) pro-Pallys support ideas which are ultimately anti-Pally.

A lot of pro-Israel could be 'tarred' with that same brush. Don't you agree?

I'm not sure. What would you use as an example?

I would suggest that Pro-Pallys who encourage violence against Jews or Israel ultimately harm Palestinians.

What would be the equivalent for Jews?

Anyone who wishes the violence to continue or, more often than not, escalate. Those who shout for Palestinians to be driven out of Palestine. Those who are belligerent.

Those who think that "winning" is the destruction of the Palestinians and, well, all Muslims.

I believe that, ultimately, that harms Israel and Jews.

The belief that nuking Iran, for example, would be a good thing for Israel.

There are, for me, two things, one for each 'team' that seriously pisses me off...

Team Palestine - The non recognition and ultimate destruction of Israel
Team Israel - The belief that war and conflict are the way forward.

There are plenty examples of BOTH here posted almost daily!

Sad really.

On the face of it, you seem like a sincere and neutral guy. Like you should be mediating peace over there instead of Jared Kushner. But every once in awhile, you let things slip out that reveal your true colors. Like saying that the Liberty incident was NOT friendly fire. Or asking if Israel wants to expand its borders when it has not made any move to do so since 1967. Or saying that Jerusalem should be divided again. I used to think you were a fair guy, but not anymore. Sorry.

My "true colours"?

I don't ask for and have never asked for your 'opinion' of me because of my views.

The examples you mention make me anti-semitic?

There in lies the problem. Any criticism of Israel or different thinking in relation to the I/P issue and you are classed anti-semite.

What you think of me is none of my concern.

 

[Humanity]

Sure. I hear what you are saying. While I fully support Israel defending herself when and as necessary, I am disgusted by the calls to murder Arabs and/or Muslims. And yes, I see it here too.

Thank you.

That said, I do believe that Israel (rightly or wrongly) feels the military might is the only way to protect her existence and her population from those who would wish to destroy her. I don't think Israel WANTS war or escalation. I think she feels (rightly or wrongly) forced into it.

Israel can have as much "military might" as it likes, I am not really of a mind one way or the other on that. What I don't care for are Israels "military might" being use to suppress people.

How is Israel to keep the Jewish people safe and alive without the use of the military and law enforcement? Where's the peace partner?

America?

At a time when antisemitism is again rampant and the burning of a synagogue in Germany is considered "legitimate criticism of Israel"? If I want to "legitimately criticize" North Korea -- can I burn down a Taekwon-Do school in Canada? If I want to "legitimately criticize" China, should I burn down a couple of Chinese Restaurants in San Francisco?

No, of course none of those are acceptable in any way. The same as the mosque attack in London is not acceptable.

I mean, what are Israel's options here? Land for peace? How's that working in Gaza? How's that working on the Temple Mount, or in Hebron? What makes you think Israel has options here?

Well, this one we have covered to death and you know my views on this one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. Teddy is trying to say that many (not you) pro-Pallys support ideas which are ultimately anti-Pally.

A lot of pro-Israel could be 'tarred' with that same brush. Don't you agree?

I'm not sure. What would you use as an example?

I would suggest that Pro-Pallys who encourage violence against Jews or Israel ultimately harm Palestinians.

What would be the equivalent for Jews?

Anyone who wishes the violence to continue or, more often than not, escalate. Those who shout for Palestinians to be driven out of Palestine. Those who are belligerent.

Those who think that "winning" is the destruction of the Palestinians and, well, all Muslims.

I believe that, ultimately, that harms Israel and Jews.

The belief that nuking Iran, for example, would be a good thing for Israel.

There are, for me, two things, one for each 'team' that seriously pisses me off...

Team Palestine - The non recognition and ultimate destruction of Israel
Team Israel - The belief that war and conflict are the way forward.

There are plenty examples of BOTH here posted almost daily!

Sad really.

On the face of it, you seem like a sincere and neutral guy. Like you should be mediating peace over there instead of Jared Kushner. But every once in awhile, you let things slip out that reveal your true colors. Like saying that the Liberty incident was NOT friendly fire. Or asking if Israel wants to expand its borders when it has not made any move to do so since 1967. Or saying that Jerusalem should be divided again. I used to think you were a fair guy, but not anymore. Sorry.

My "true colours"?

I don't ask for and have never asked for your 'opinion' of me because of my views.

The examples you mention make me anti-semitic?

There in lies the problem. Any criticism of Israel or different thinking in relation to the I/P issue and you are classed anti-semite.

What you think of me is none of my concern.

Yes, this seems to be a problem here.

I have no bias in the Israel/Palestine issue. I don't think one side has better argument than the other. I don't like either side, and it has nothing to do with their religion, but their politics.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Another look at "anti-semitism"
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

For many years, I thought it was much more intellectually safe to assume a median position on such difficult political-military (POLMIL) concerns (salt and peppered with religious questions) as the Israeli-Palestinian/Middle East Conflict. But in the twilight years, I find it more and more to be an untenable position to hold.

Yes, this seems to be a problem here.

I have no bias in the Israel/Palestine issue. I don't think one side has better argument than the other. I don't like either side, and it has nothing to do with their religion, but their politics.

(COMMENT)

The larger questions, and probably the original questions, central to the issues are:

✪ Do we, as Americans, believe that the "Freedom of Religion" is so important in humanity, that America would guarantee the absolute protection of the Jewish National Home (JNH); as it has evolved in the form of Israel?

✪ Do we, as Americans, have a sense that it is an imperative that the Jewish People has an absolute right to access the central holy place in Jerusalem?

✪ Do we as Americans, believe that it is essential to protect and preserve the culture and heritage of the Jewish People by establishing a refuge, and safe home, to which they can retreat without fear of rejection under the color of law; and maintain the ability to adequately protect themselves in times of anti-Semitic tsunamis that have swept through Europe, Russia, North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia in the past. (Remembering the Voyage of the Damned" on the SS St Louis 1939!)​

While the bulk of discussions revolve around self-determination, autonomous government, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, these are merely the tools by which the protection and preservation of the culture and heritage are maintained.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[teddyearp]

Fine, you're wasting my time. Ignore list. Bye.

Ignore list is for sissies . . .

 

[frigidweirdo]

RE: Another look at "anti-semitism"
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

For many years, I thought it was much more intellectually safe to assume a median position on such difficult political-military (POLMIL) concerns (salt and peppered with religious questions) as the Israeli-Palestinian/Middle East Conflict. But in the twilight years, I find it more and more to be an untenable position to hold.

Yes, this seems to be a problem here.

I have no bias in the Israel/Palestine issue. I don't think one side has better argument than the other. I don't like either side, and it has nothing to do with their religion, but their politics.

(COMMENT)

The larger questions, and probably the original questions, central to the issues are:

✪ Do we, as Americans, believe that the "Freedom of Religion" is so important in humanity, that America would guarantee the absolute protection of the Jewish National Home (JNH); as it has evolved in the form of Israel?

✪ Do we, as Americans, have a sense that it is an imperative that the Jewish People has an absolute right to access the central holy place in Jerusalem?

✪ Do we as Americans, believe that it is essential to protect and preserve the culture and heritage of the Jewish People by establishing a refuge, and safe home, to which they can retreat without fear of rejection under the color of law; and maintain the ability to adequately protect themselves in times of anti-Semitic tsunamis that have swept through Europe, Russia, North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia in the past. (Remembering the Voyage of the Damned" on the SS St Louis 1939!)​

While the bulk of discussions revolve around self-determination, autonomous government, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, these are merely the tools by which the protection and preservation of the culture and heritage are maintained.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm really sure what this has to do with what we've been talking about. We're not talking about whether Israel should or should not have this that or the other, but anti-Semitism. I've been talking about the term being used as a weapon to try and shut people up.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Another look at "anti-semitism"
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

For many years, I thought it was much more intellectually safe to assume a median position on such difficult political-military (POLMIL) concerns (salt and peppered with religious questions) as the Israeli-Palestinian/Middle East Conflict. But in the twilight years, I find it more and more to be an untenable position to hold.

Yes, this seems to be a problem here.

I have no bias in the Israel/Palestine issue. I don't think one side has better argument than the other. I don't like either side, and it has nothing to do with their religion, but their politics.

(COMMENT)

The larger questions, and probably the original questions, central to the issues are:

✪ Do we, as Americans, believe that the "Freedom of Religion" is so important in humanity, that America would guarantee the absolute protection of the Jewish National Home (JNH); as it has evolved in the form of Israel?

✪ Do we, as Americans, have a sense that it is an imperative that the Jewish People has an absolute right to access the central holy place in Jerusalem?

✪ Do we as Americans, believe that it is essential to protect and preserve the culture and heritage of the Jewish People by establishing a refuge, and safe home, to which they can retreat without fear of rejection under the color of law; and maintain the ability to adequately protect themselves in times of anti-Semitic tsunamis that have swept through Europe, Russia, North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia in the past. (Remembering the Voyage of the Damned" on the SS St Louis 1939!)​

While the bulk of discussions revolve around self-determination, autonomous government, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, these are merely the tools by which the protection and preservation of the culture and heritage are maintained.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm really sure what this has to do with what we've been talking about. We're not talking about whether Israel should or should not have this that or the other, but anti-Semitism. I've been talking about the term being used as a weapon to try and shut people up.

The issue you probably may have, is that you may not know what antisemitism may be and when saying things which are actually antisemitic, you may not realize you may be doing it because of your points of view.

Antisemitism is a clear thing.

What usually happens is that when people are called out for being antisemitic in Europe or Muslim countries or anywhere else, what those who are saying those things usually say is that they are not saying anything antisemitic, and that they are not antisemitic in the least. It is all about Israel's policies.

When asked to clarify which policies those are, it ends up being policies which any other country has in order to protect its population and its borders.

Based on that, would your views on the policies for the protection of the whole population in Israel, and its borders, the same as the policies found in any other country?

Which policies do bother you in Israel which are not found in any other country?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What I think is odd is how many people assume antisemitism is some sort of right wing, white supremacist/nazi phenomenon when it is now primarily a politically correct leftist one. It's not like the neo nazis aren't out there , but their numbers are absolutely dwarfed by the leftists.


Radical leftists see it as their duty to hate the existence of Israel. This is an act of utter conformity for them as anything short of this utter conformity and all their little peeps will consider them as some sort of traitor. Since they side with Arabs on the issue, their language on the subject has adopted Arab talking points and along with these talking points are all the familiar antisemitic canards.

When leftists quibble over the meaning of antisemitism, they do so for a reason. It's just their way of obfuscating in order to divorce themselves from the reality of the words they use to show their solidarity with Arabs. It's the politically correct thing to do.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Another look at "anti-semitism"
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

Yes, on these points, I sometimes don't make myself very clear.

I'm really sure what this has to do with what we've been talking about. We're not talking about whether Israel should or should not have this that or the other, but anti-Semitism. I've been talking about the term being used as a weapon to try and shut people up.

(COMMENT)

If "I" (as an example) oppose any of the oppose any of the ideas articulated three pints of the tetrahedron on Posting #105 (supra), I open myself up to being labeled as "antisemitic." Without prejudiced as to whether it is a proper charge or not.

✪ To say that I (as an example again) fall on the side that America does not believe the Jewish National Home (JNH) deserves the absolute protection in its freedom establish a Jewish State, then some would call me antisemitic. Why? (Rhetorical) Short Answer: I don't extend Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to the Israelis. It becomes a double standard. We, in America (non-Semetic → not in the family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic), are guaranteed the absolutes freedom of religion; but our ally on the Middle East is not worth that same investment (Hewbrew 'vs' Muslim).
↓
And similar with the other two central issues.

✪ I would be charged with being antisemitic if I came down on the side of the Arab Palestinians and said the Palestinians control access to the central holy place in Jerusalem.

✪ I would be charged with being antisemitic if I came down on the side of the Arab Palestinians and backed the position that the territory formerly under the Mandate is be under the law governing the land of Palestine applied by Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force (Article 11, Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
​

Now, being charged with antisemitism can very well be, given the environmental POLMIL sensitivity, a weapon; dependent on the perspective. Just as it is easy to reverse these roles and come-out to be anti-Islamic/anti-Muslim.

This is an oversimplification, factored down to a last component. It does not factor in the cosmetic propaganda makeover, or the incitement factors which pressure discussion opponents to alter an objective perspective, less the unnecessary cosmetics:

✪ Just today I saw another misrepresentation relative to the Security Barrier. If I (as an example) hold the perspectives of the Israelis, then the Security Barrier (keeping security threats outside) does not resemble the old Berlin Wall (keeping constituents from defecting).

But the weaponized words are what they are and do the damage they do; just the same
​

All the key words of description have both faces, depending on the opening presentation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

 

[Shusha]

Israel can have as much "military might" as it likes, I am not really of a mind one way or the other on that. What I don't care for are Israels "military might" being use to suppress people.

Suppress people?

Be specific. How is Israel using its military might to suppress people? What is the difference between using security measures to prevent or respond to violence and suppressing a people?

I will give you a bunch of specific examples. Suppression or security measure?

The separation wall.
Checkpoints.
Borders.
Air strikes.
Military incursions.
Destruction of tunnels.
Arresting people who commit violence.
Arresting people who incite violence.
Destruction of illegal homes.
Releasing convicted criminals.
Metal detectors at important or flashpoint sites.
Policing protests.
Water management.
Segregation.
Prevention of access to Holy places.

Feel free to add more.

You know I don't think that people should be suppressed (or oppressed). BUT, given that the fundamental problem that Israel faces is the call for her destruction -- what are her real options here? Israel is still, a hundred years later, still way down on Maslow's hierarchy. She's not fighting for higher goals and needs here. In very real ways (as you admitted yourself) she is fighting for survival both literally and against the destruction of her culture, religion and ethnicity.

If the GOAL is to protect the Jewish people (and it is) -- how can Israel best accomplish that?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

While I agree with your post for the most part, I would caution you about usurping a term which has always been intended to mean "anti-Jewish" and applying it to other groups. Antisemitism is not a generally applied term, like "discrimination". It means a very specific, very unique type of discrimination directed only at the Jewish people.

Actually it's a linguistic term, and the Semitic languages include both Hebrew and Arabic as well as others. So that's not very specific.

The term antisemitism has be coined to mean hatred of the Jews. Which nearly all Muslims fit that mold. So take your bullshit somewhere else


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet, it can't mean that. By definition. If you weren't pissing time away reading USMB on your ******* phone while sitting at a red light maybe you would have figured that out by now.

Once again the premise was that the term "antiSemitic" is specific to Jews. But "Semitic" isn't specific at all, therefore nor can its opposite be. And none of this refers to "nearly all Muslims" or any Muslims at all, or Jews either for that matter, since "Semitic" is a reference to language --- not religion.

How old are you and where do you live? I can understand a child not knowing the definition of antisemitism and I can understand a person from a country that places severe restrictions on education ot knowing it, but if you are out of your teens and grew up in America, you should be embarrassed by your utter ignorance. It's like finding an adult who has never heard of Babe Ruth.

If you ARE and adult and you DO live in this country, your stubbornness can only be attributed to an agenda. We have gone over this before and you indulged in the same very childish nonsense as you are now,.

Do you also try to argue that non-plussed means a complete absence of plus? You would if you followed the same absurd line of sophistry. Of course, you have no agenda when it comes to that term while you do concerning Jewish people, now, do you?

 

[Pogo]

While I agree with your post for the most part, I would caution you about usurping a term which has always been intended to mean "anti-Jewish" and applying it to other groups. Antisemitism is not a generally applied term, like "discrimination". It means a very specific, very unique type of discrimination directed only at the Jewish people.

Actually it's a linguistic term, and the Semitic languages include both Hebrew and Arabic as well as others. So that's not very specific.

The term antisemitism has be coined to mean hatred of the Jews. Which nearly all Muslims fit that mold. So take your bullshit somewhere else


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet, it can't mean that. By definition. If you weren't pissing time away reading USMB on your ******* phone while sitting at a red light maybe you would have figured that out by now.

Once again the premise was that the term "antiSemitic" is specific to Jews. But "Semitic" isn't specific at all, therefore nor can its opposite be. And none of this refers to "nearly all Muslims" or any Muslims at all, or Jews either for that matter, since "Semitic" is a reference to language --- not religion.

How old are you and where do you live? I can understand a child not knowing the definition of antisemitism and I can understand a person from a country that places severe restrictions on education ot knowing it, but if you are out of your teens and grew up in America, you should be embarrassed by your utter ignorance. It's like finding an adult who has never heard of Babe Ruth.

If you ARE and adult and you DO live in this country, your stubbornness can only be attributed to an agenda. We have gone over this before and you indulged in the same very childish nonsense as you are now,.

Do you also try to argue that non-plussed means a complete absence of plus? You would if you followed the same absurd line of sophistry. Of course, you have no agenda when it comes to that term while you do concerning Jewish people, now, do you?

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand while Semitic languages certainly do exist, there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think at one time or another, just about every one of the pro-Palestinian zealots has justified the killing of innocent Jews. It is inevitably couched in language along the lines of "they are fighting the only way hey can', or "what else do you expect them to do?" with that banal platitude "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" thrown in for good measure, but wipe away all the self-serving crap they offer, what they are supporting is the intentional murder of Jews just going about their business.

What utter temerity for these pieces of filth to try to claim they aren't antisemitic.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

While I agree with your post for the most part, I would caution you about usurping a term which has always been intended to mean "anti-Jewish" and applying it to other groups. Antisemitism is not a generally applied term, like "discrimination". It means a very specific, very unique type of discrimination directed only at the Jewish people.

Actually it's a linguistic term, and the Semitic languages include both Hebrew and Arabic as well as others. So that's not very specific.

The term antisemitism has be coined to mean hatred of the Jews. Which nearly all Muslims fit that mold. So take your bullshit somewhere else


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet, it can't mean that. By definition. If you weren't pissing time away reading USMB on your ******* phone while sitting at a red light maybe you would have figured that out by now.

Once again the premise was that the term "antiSemitic" is specific to Jews. But "Semitic" isn't specific at all, therefore nor can its opposite be. And none of this refers to "nearly all Muslims" or any Muslims at all, or Jews either for that matter, since "Semitic" is a reference to language --- not religion.

How old are you and where do you live? I can understand a child not knowing the definition of antisemitism and I can understand a person from a country that places severe restrictions on education ot knowing it, but if you are out of your teens and grew up in America, you should be embarrassed by your utter ignorance. It's like finding an adult who has never heard of Babe Ruth.

If you ARE and adult and you DO live in this country, your stubbornness can only be attributed to an agenda. We have gone over this before and you indulged in the same very childish nonsense as you are now,.

Do you also try to argue that non-plussed means a complete absence of plus? You would if you followed the same absurd line of sophistry. Of course, you have no agenda when it comes to that term while you do concerning Jewish people, now, do you?

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

So if someone would say to you, "Look at Bruce over there. He is anti-Semitic", your first reaction would be, "I didn't know that Bruce is against Arabs"?

 

[Pogo]

Actually it's a linguistic term, and the Semitic languages include both Hebrew and Arabic as well as others. So that's not very specific.

The term antisemitism has be coined to mean hatred of the Jews. Which nearly all Muslims fit that mold. So take your bullshit somewhere else


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet, it can't mean that. By definition. If you weren't pissing time away reading USMB on your ******* phone while sitting at a red light maybe you would have figured that out by now.

Once again the premise was that the term "antiSemitic" is specific to Jews. But "Semitic" isn't specific at all, therefore nor can its opposite be. And none of this refers to "nearly all Muslims" or any Muslims at all, or Jews either for that matter, since "Semitic" is a reference to language --- not religion.

How old are you and where do you live? I can understand a child not knowing the definition of antisemitism and I can understand a person from a country that places severe restrictions on education ot knowing it, but if you are out of your teens and grew up in America, you should be embarrassed by your utter ignorance. It's like finding an adult who has never heard of Babe Ruth.

If you ARE and adult and you DO live in this country, your stubbornness can only be attributed to an agenda. We have gone over this before and you indulged in the same very childish nonsense as you are now,.

Do you also try to argue that non-plussed means a complete absence of plus? You would if you followed the same absurd line of sophistry. Of course, you have no agenda when it comes to that term while you do concerning Jewish people, now, do you?

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

So if someone would say to you, "Look at Bruce over there. He is anti-Semitic", your first reaction would be, "I didn't know that Bruce is against Arabs"?

Nope. "Arab" is not a language, is it. This Bruce would have to be against a given language family. I might ask him what language family he thinks to be "superior". Upon his confirmative answer I would say, "anta majnoon". And that would piss Bruce off if he understood it.

 

[Shusha]

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Really? You DO understand that one's religion and one's language is directly related to the culture one was born into and raised with, yes? Obviously, both religion and language are PARTS of that culture.

 

[Shusha]

Nope. "Arab" is not a language, is it. This Bruce would have to be against a given language family. I might ask him what language family he thinks to be "superior". Upon his confirmative answer I would say, "anta majnoon". And that would piss Bruce off if he understood it.

(emphasis mine)

Nope. No antisemitism going on around here. /sarcasm

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Correct. I do not. However I do know what the term Semitic means. On the other hand while Semitic languages certainly do exist, there is no such thing as "plussed", so the nonpositive negative cannot apply here.

Now be a good boy and essplain to the class how what religion you follow has anything to do with what language you speak.

Your being this deliberately obtuse reveals your agenda more than you know.