# Another Lib Dem anti-Semite



## Garek (Jan 25, 2013)

Up there with Toynbee in clueless mouthing off.




> "Having visited Auschwitz twice - once with my family and once with local schools - I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza."


 

Yes that's right. The crimes of Israel are the crimes of THE JEWS.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 25, 2013)

it's not put very well, is it?

israel is a jewish state, but jews are not all israeli.


----------



## Garek (Jan 25, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> it's not put very well, is it?
> 
> israel is a jewish state, but jews are not all israeli.


 
Exactly, and nor are all Israelis part of the Israeli ruling elite...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

cat killers and anti semites, can't wait for the GE wipeout


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 25, 2013)

My thought on this was oh good grief what a knob


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> My thought on this was oh good grief what a knob


 
Majority of just 365 in Bradford East. I'm figuring not a huge Jewish vote there?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Majority of just 365 in Bradford East. I'm figuring not a huge Jewish vote there?


 
well, not for him after that.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

the jews.

baronness younge (??) was another one iirc


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 25, 2013)

'The Jews' - ffs.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Majority of just 365 in Bradford East. I'm figuring not a huge Jewish vote there?


 
Probably not a huge lib dem one there now either.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

as the economy goes downhill some are trying to revive the old socialism of fools again. including many of the people partly responsible for ruining the economy in the first place


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Probably not a huge lib dem one there now either.


 
Yes, and of course those two things will have been completely unrelated.


----------



## Garek (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the jews.
> 
> baronness younge (??) was another one iirc


 


purenarcotic said:


> 'The Jews' - ffs.


They killed Jesus to you know!


----------



## agricola (Jan 25, 2013)

It is amazing how many people blame "the Jews" for all manner of bad things that happen - Lib Dem politicians, people whose white clothing has been ruined by spilled drinks etc


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

i hope for the sake of everyone here that the late and unlamented dr beeching was not a nazi because if he was i would go on about it in a mad rage for the next 40 years


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

beeching railhater


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

seriously if he did turn out to be a nazi, i would never, ever, ever forget it. and would remind people of it continuously


----------



## Balbi (Jan 25, 2013)

It's fucking icy here, bloody jews  stealing all the good weather to have in their zionist paradise.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 25, 2013)

Without wishing to diminish what this chap has said and the picture floating around of him with a swastika graffiti behind him -  really rather a lot is being made of this by right wingers on twitter. If I were a cynical fellow I might think they want to talk about something, anything that wasn't failed economic policies and unprecedented triple dip recessions.


----------



## Left (Jan 25, 2013)

Tactless remark. But people say much worse things. Doesn't seem worth making a big deal out of.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

Left said:


> Tactless remark. But people say much worse things. Doesn't seem worth making a big deal out of.


He's a lib-dem MP, of course it is.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 25, 2013)

agricola said:


> It is amazing how many people blame "the Jews" for all manner of bad things that happen - Lib Dem politicians, people whose white clothing has been ruined by spilled drinks etc


 
I come across more anti semitism coming from  asians and arabs than any other grouping.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> as the economy goes downhill some are trying to revive the old socialism of fools again. including many of the people partly responsible for ruining the economy in the first place


Sounds like dogwhistle politics for Bradford racists. Or maybe more klaxon politics


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

It is unfortunate that Israel defines itself in its basic laws as a "Jewish" state and, in fact, is the only Jewish state in the sense that it is the only Jewish-majority state. So "The Jews" and "Israel" do tend to be conflated, not least by Israel, and many Jews, when advancing a Jewish political agenda. It seems a little skewed to assert that Israel represents the interests of all Jews when it is promoting their interests, and doesn't represent them when it is harming them.

Furthermore, I think we can assert the principle that, in many matters, "silence is consent", and that this is one of those matters. So can anyone provide any material evidence of institutions representing non-Israeli Jews deploring Israeli atrocities in Palestine in pursuit of a greater Jewish state? I expect there will be individuals - I'm interested in representative institutions.

That would be fascinating.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

That's an example of "advancing a Jewish political agenda"





Falcon said:


> It is unfortunate that Israel defines itself in its basic laws as a "Jewish" state and, in fact, is the only Jewish state in the sense that it is the only Jewish-majority state. So "The Jews" and "Israel" do tend to be conflated, not least by Israel, and many Jews, when advancing a Jewish political agenda. It seems a little skewed to assert that Israel represents the interests of all Jews when it is promoting their interests, and doesn't represent them when it is harming them.
> 
> Furthermore, I think we can assert the principle that, in many matters, "silence is consent", and that this is one of those matters. So can anyone provide any material evidence of institutions representing non-Israeli Jews deploring Israeli atrocities in Palestine in pursuit of a greater Jewish state? I expect there will be individuals - I'm interested in representative institutions.
> 
> That would be fascinating.


What would "advancing a Jewish political agenda" look like? Have you any examples?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What would "advancing a Jewish political agenda" look like? Have you any examples?


Other than the establishment of the state of Israel as a home to Jews and the political fulfilment of Jewish religious prophesy, you mean?


----------



## dylans (Jan 26, 2013)

Blaming "the Jews" for Zionist atrocities is no different to blaming "the Muslims" for the crimes of Islamists. Apart from the fact that such remarks are offensively stereotypical and generalising, they actually play into the narrative of Zionists and Islamists because it is they who claim to speak for all Jews or all Muslims. It is they who clothe their politics in the language of religion. It is important not to play into their narrative.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Other than the establishment of the state of Israel as a home to Jews and the political fulfilment of Jewish religious prophesy, you mean?


 
That's an example of "advancing a Jewish political agenda"? Are you the suggesting then that it is _correct_ to conflate Jews with the Israeli state and that they have a shared "Jewish agenda"?

What other examples of "advancing a Jewish political agenda" could you point to?


----------



## Garek (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Furthermore, I think we can assert the principle that, in many matters, "silence is consent", and that this is one of those matters. So can anyone provide any material evidence of institutions representing non-Israeli Jews deploring Israeli atrocities in Palestine in pursuit of a greater Jewish state? I expect there will be individuals - I'm interested in representative institutions.
> 
> That would be fascinating.


 
"Silence is consent"?


----------



## Maggot (Jan 26, 2013)

MP words something badly - yawn.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

I think the Falcon has flew a litle further than he intended to here, must be some strong winds up there today.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you the suggesting then that it is _correct_ to conflate Jews with the Israeli state?


Nope. Please don't waste everyone's time on one of your little strawman fantasies. I've observed that Israelis and some Jews routinely do. That is the extent of my statement.

I've made a simple point: the assertion that Israel does not represent general Jewish sentiment can be easily disproven by presenting evidence of material Jewish sentiment condemming Israeli atrocity.

I am neither condoning conflation, nor denying that such evidence exists. I'm just curious what it looks like, since I've never seen it. I would be delighted if it did.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> It is unfortunate that Israel defines itself in its basic laws as a "Jewish" state and, in fact, is the only Jewish state in the sense that it is the only Jewish-majority state. So "The Jews" and "Israel" do tend to be conflated, not least by Israel, and many Jews, when advancing a Jewish political agenda. It seems a little skewed to assert that Israel represents the interests of all Jews when it is promoting their interests, and doesn't represent them when it is harming them.
> 
> Furthermore, I think we can assert the principle that, in many matters, "silence is consent", and that this is one of those matters. So *can anyone provide any material evidence of institutions representing non-Israeli Jews deploring Israeli atrocities in Palestine* in pursuit of a greater Jewish state? I expect there will be individuals - I'm interested in representative institutions.
> 
> That would be fascinating.


 

theres loads, do your own homework


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Nope. Please don't waste everyone's time on one of your little strawman fantasies.
> 
> I've asked a simple question: the assertion that Israel does not represent general Jewish sentiment can be easily disproven by presenting evidence of material Jewish sentiment condemming Israeli atrocity.
> 
> I am neither condoning conflation, nor denying that such evidence exists. I'm just curious what it looks like, since I've never seen it. I would be delighted if it did.


Did you read what you actually wrote in your original post? Did you actually think it through and thought that whatever you were trying to express would be best presented in that form? You managed it much better in the above post. Now, beyond the example that you offered above, what others examples can you offer of  "advancing a Jewish political agenda"?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think the Falcon has flew a litle further than he intended to here, must be some strong winds up there today.


For those not familiar with butchersapron's thought processes, this is the activity he substitutes for debate when he has nothing interesting to say. It is to debate what masturbation is to sex.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon eh? Who'd have thought it.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Now, beyond the example that you offered above, what others examples can you offer of "advancing a Jewish political agenda"?


The example I provided combines religious prophesy, a political program, and the destruction of an incumbent state. In what way is the example not sufficient?

I've asked a question, and this is irrelevant misdirection, as will be all the tiresome personal attack which will serve only to draw attention to any absence of evidence.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Nope. Please don't waste everyone's time on one of your little strawman fantasies. I've observed that Israelis and some Jews routinely do. That is the extent of my statement.
> 
> I've made a simple point: the assertion that Israel does not represent general Jewish sentiment can be easily disproven by presenting evidence of material Jewish sentiment condemming Israeli atrocity.
> 
> I am neither condoning conflation, nor denying that such evidence exists. I'm just curious what it looks like, since I've never seen it. I would be delighted if it did.


 
Oh for goodness sake. Sate your curiosity with a few simple google searches.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> The example I provided is sufficient. I've asked a question, and this is irrelevant misdirection.


No it's not. It's entirely insufficient, and you suggested in your reply to me that you have others. So let's have some of them. This actually is rather important to establishing that such a "jewish agenda" actually exists, something that your own posts rely on.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> theres loads, do your own homework


I am. Help me with it.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. It's entirely insufficient, and you suggested in your reply to me that you have others. So let's have some of them. This actually is rather important to establishing that such a "jewish agenda" actually exists, something that your own posts rely on.


Important to you. I'm interested in the proposition of this thread. What evidence is there that Israeli atrocity is deplored by significant non-Israeli Jewish institutions? My interest in this thread will be concluded when it is presented, and I hope that it will be. There is no argument here for you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

There most certainly is, your original post was a great example of political question begging - it assumes a shared "jewish agenda" between jews and the Israeli state as its start point and then proceeds to ask what evidence there is to suggest that this is a nonsense - and in the most sarcastic tone as if to suggest _yeah, you try it and see how you fail - _"That would be fascinating." Of course, now that you've been alerted to that fact that you went too far too soon you will dress it up as honest inquiry.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Nope. Please don't waste everyone's time on one of your little strawman fantasies. I've observed that Israelis and some Jews routinely do. That is the extent of my statement.
> 
> I've made a simple point: the assertion that Israel does not represent general Jewish sentiment can be easily disproven by presenting evidence of material Jewish sentiment condemming Israeli atrocity.
> 
> I am neither condoning conflation, nor denying that such evidence exists. I'm just curious what it looks like, since I've never seen it. I would be delighted if it did.


 
Have you tried google? 12.4 million hits for "jews against zionism". I cba to paste a load of links though. There are fucking loads of jews and jewish groups against both zionism in principle and against the actions of the current israeli state. Come to any palestine protest and you will find us there.

I'm just going to post up a single link, a group called "Peace Now"
http://peacenow.org.il/eng/

not against zionism, but against the way that the Israeli state treats Palestine/Palestinians. They are Israeli Jews btw in case you don't care to check through to the link. Is this enough material evidence for you to answer this: "the assertion that Israel does not represent general Jewish sentiment can be easily disproven by presenting evidence of material Jewish sentiment condemming Israeli atrocity."? 

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you are (a) either completely unaware of the substantial jewish criticisms of Israel or (b) couldn't be bothered with a simple google search, so I'm wondering what your agenda is here?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2013)

Maggot said:


> MP words something badly - yawn.


Just about, could have been that _originally_. However he seems to have stuck by his wording (according to the link. There's a bbc interview which I can't hear as speakers are bust). Have to take it that he meant 'Jews' and is sticking with 'Jews'. He's a racisit fool.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

BigTom said:


> , so I'm wondering what your agenda is here?


 

i have my suspicions


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you are (a) either completely unaware of the substantial jewish criticisms of Israel or (b) couldn't be bothered with a simple google search, so I'm wondering what your agenda is here?


That's all I'm looking for, and that is useful - thank you. This is not an area I'm familiar with. Since you are, I can easily understand that you can't imagine what that's like, and indeed, I am constantly surprised by the many things of which you are completely unaware that I take for granted - yet I don't accuse you of an agenda. Sometimes, "Here's how it looks to me but I don't know, can anyone help me?" is precisely what it looks like.

Meanwhile, I'd suggest that treating anyone who wishes to reduce his ignorance on a subject through debate is a malcontent is hardly the best recruiting strategy.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> i have my suspicions


Ironically, the Jews and I share the same problem. This isn't good for your argument.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Ironically, precisely the problem Jews have.


 

quality


pre-ninja edit version


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> That's all I'm looking for, and that is useful - thank you. This is not an area I'm familiar with. Since you are, I can easily understand that you can't imagine what that's like, and indeed, I am constantly surprised by the many things of which you are completely unaware that I take for granted - yet I don't accuse you of an agenda.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'd suggest that treating anyone who wishes to reduce his ignorance on a subject through debate is a malcontent is hardly the best recruiting strategy.


 
sorry, should have said (a) and (b) not or, it's such a simple google search to find anti-zionist jewish groups that I struggle to understand that you couldn't do it, knowing from other threads that you are both intelligent and internet capable. Please accept my apologies, but understand my skepticism. I'm not seeking to recruit anyone btw.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

BigTom said:


> sorry, should have said (a) and (b) not or, it's such a simple google search to find anti-zionist jewish groups that I struggle to understand that you couldn't do it, knowing from other threads that you are both intelligent and internet capable. Please accept my apologies, but understand my skepticism. I'm not seeking to recruit anyone btw.


Of course it's simple. So is an internet search on industrial metabolism. If you know that's the question you need to ask. I use "recruit" in the sense of understanding and adopting your view. No apology required, I enjoy your posts.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> quality
> 
> 
> pre-ninja edit version


Thanks for allowing me to point out the hilarity of your position in two ways.

So you have suspicions about my views on the suspicions people have with Jews? Can you develop this point a little further?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

I'd suggest that someone who in the past has demonstrated a rather detailed knowledge of a subject - to the extent of quoting academic papers and serious books (including one by Israel Shahak - a prominent leader of just such groups that he now professes ignorance of - among other interesting things) suddenly becoming totally ignorant is a little unlikely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Thanks for allowing me to point out the hilarity of your position in two ways.
> 
> So you have suspicions about my views on the suspicions people have with Jews? Can you develop this point a little further?


 
i have no point, just laughing at you having let the mask slip and furiously backpeddaling


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

Lee Jasper is praising Ward for refusing to apologise


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> i have no point, just laughing at you having let the mask slip and furiously backpeddaling


Can you explain to the others why observing that (1) the fact that people are suspicious of Jews is the problem this thread seeks to demonstrate and (2) that fact that your suspicion of me means that Jews and I have the same problem and (3) the fact that demonstrating precisely the behaviours you accuse others of in deploying your argument harms you argument, is backpeddling?

Seems like pretty vigorous forward peddling to me. And it does also seem to reinforce your admission that you have no point.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

Again, 'the Jews'? Falcon

God spare me.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Can you explain to the others why observing that (1) the fact that people are suspicious of Jews is the problem this thread seeks to demonstrate and (2) that fact that your suspicion of me means that Jews and I have the same problem and (3) the fact that demonstrating precisely the behaviours you accuse others of in deploying your argument harms you argument, is backpeddling?
> 
> Seems like pretty vigorous forward peddling to me. But it does also seem to reinforce your admission that you have no point.


 
Why are you suspicious of Jews falcon?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Can you explain to the others why observing that (1) the fact that people are suspicious of Jews is the problem this thread seeks to demonstrate and (2) that fact that your suspicion of me means that Jews and I have the same problem and (3) the fact that demonstrating precisely the behaviours you accuse others of in deploying your argument harms you argument, is backpeddling?
> 
> Seems like pretty vigorous forward peddling to me. And it does also seem to reinforce your admission that you have no point.


 
thing is I don't need a point to sit here an laugh at how you've fucked yourself.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Why are you suspicious of Jews falcon?


 
It's our noses. Blates.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

I would also suggest that the reasons why many jewish people don't like groups such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods etc isn't because they are fanatical zionists but because these single-issue groups tend to be dominated by middle class secular jews who have little or no involvement with the jewish community and are sometimes all too willing to ignore anti-semitism in the name of "anti-zionism". These same people could actually be very very critical of Israel.

Then again that is the same problem of much of the anti-war movement and the left. It is like asking why British people dont oppose the war in iraq. They do but they feel alienated by many of the most vocal people in the opposition to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

'Silence is consent'?

Silence of whom? Israelis or just any Jews anywhere? Is there a duty on any Jew anywhere to be actively campaigning against Israel, even if they are opposed to Zionism and have nothing to do with the Israeli state? Are people to be held to different standards depending on their Jewishness?

I can see the point perhaps if you're talking about Israelis. But not if you're talking about all Jews. That's falling into the same trap as the person in the OP.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Silence is consent'?
> 
> Silence of whom? Israelis or just any Jews anywhere? Is there a duty on any Jew anywhere to be actively campaigning against Israel, even if they are opposed to Zionism and have nothing to do with the Israeli state? Are people to be held to different standards depending on their Jewishness?
> 
> I can see the point perhaps if you're talking about Israelis. But not if you're talking about all Jews. That's falling into the same trap as the person in the OP.


 
Nah. People act like Israelis have any more control over their government than British people do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Nah. People act like Israelis have any more control over their government than British people do.


It's not a question of control. I'm not saying that all Israelis are to blame for their government's actions.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

And when the public visible Jewish opposition to zionism is made of haredi Jews who believe that a secular government in Israel is a sin against G-D among other things such as believing that to drive on the sabbath means should get stoned to death, and, if their leadership got political power, would introduce a theocratic regime that was worse than the taliban, that the holocaust was a punishment for not being religious enough, and middle-class secular Jews who ignore anti-semitism on the part of their political fellow travellers for whatever reason you can hardly blame jewish people for not wanting to get involved in campaigns about Israel.

There is no fucking obligation for Jews to get involved in campaigns about Israel just because they're Jews btw.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd suggest that someone who in the past has demonstrated a rather detailed knowledge of **a** subject - to the extent of quoting academic papers and serious books (including one by Israel Shahak - a prominent leader of just such groups that he now professes ignorance of - among other interesting things) suddenly becoming totally ignorant is a little unlikely. _(my edit)_


*detailed knowledge*? *totally ignorant*? A strawman constructed from synthetic absolutes. I know some bits, and am exploring the subject. You are picking a fight where none is warranted.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Silence is consent'?
> 
> Silence of whom? Israelis or just any Jews anywhere? Is there a duty on any Jew anywhere to be actively campaigning against Israel, even if they are opposed to Zionism and have nothing to do with the Israeli state? Are people to be held to different standards depending on their Jewishness?
> 
> I can see the point perhaps if you're talking about Israelis. But not if you're talking about all Jews. That's falling into the same trap as the person in the OP.


 
There is no obligation to campaign against israel. or are we back to dual loyalty charges now? (not you)


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Why are you suspicious of Jews falcon?


I see. "People are suspicious of Jews. I am "people". Therefore, I am suspicious of Jews".

May God, Jehova and Allah spare us from junior school logical fallacies.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

He said Jehovah!


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> thing is I don't need a point to sit here an laugh at how you've fucked yourself.


I concede you don't need a point to sit there and laugh. I don't concede that you have demonstrated how I've fucked myself, and I am quite certain you won't. Meanwhile, it will be obvious to others that you fail even to try.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Silence is consent'?
> 
> Silence of whom? .


Could you clarify this?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

appeal to audience, desperate stuff. Consider your cards marked


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

What is a "Jewish political agenda"?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> the Jews and I


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


 
starring Yul Brynner


----------



## TheHermit (Jan 26, 2013)

Not actually an anti-semite but an anti-zionist, the Semites were a mixed tribe of Jews, Arabs and others so this statement is not strictly speaking anti-semitic. There is a big difference between this and anti-zionism.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

TheHermit said:


> Not actually an anti-semite but an anti-zionist, the Semites were a mixed tribe of Jews, Arabs and others so this statement is not strictly speaking anti-semitic. There is a big difference between this and anti-zionism.


 
Completely irrelevant, anti-semitism always refers to prejudice against jews and people who use this argument remind me of that "Islam isn't a race" bullshit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

TheHermit said:


> Not actually an anti-semite but an anti-zionist, the Semites were a mixed tribe of Jews, Arabs and others so this statement is not strictly speaking anti-semitic. There is a big difference between this and anti-zionism.


 

everyone is aware of the origins of the phrase, its not relevant any more than 'homophobia' means an actual fear of gay people on behalf of the person kicking a gay mans head in.

language isn't an exact science and meaning is fluid. What we commonly understand as 'anti-semitism' is jew hatred


----------



## Belushi (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There is no obligation to campaign against israel. or are we back to dual loyalty charges now? (not you)


 
I'm only part jewish so I reckon being mildy miffed about Israeli actions is enough..


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

shit, forgot to capitalise the J, ayatollah will now condemn me


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> lanh=guage isn't an exct science


----------



## emanymton (Jan 26, 2013)

Garek said:


> They killed Jesus to you know!


It was really more of an assisted suicide if you think about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

You can hardly sit on the high horse wrt spelling


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> You can hardly sit on the high horse wrt spelling


I've been great since the board changeover. No one knows what my posts _really_ look like now.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There is no fucking obligation for Jews to get involved in campaigns about Israel just because they're Jews btw.


 
Seems an important point, to me. Israel is only viable as a state for as long as the US and others continue to fund Israel's military projects (so, thankfully, this is a problem that will go away soon). Would the US subsidise Israeli military projects if there wasn't a powerful Jewish lobby? It certainly has regional political significance that isn't religious. But the influence of the Jewish lobby on US foreign policy in general, and Israeli policy in particular, is indisputable.

So there is a very large and powerful group of Jews who do get very involved in campaigns in Israel, obligation or not.

One of the problems Palestine has is that this involvement is not sufficiently opposed. Yet the most powerful opponent of a state which claims to represent the interests of Jews worldwide would be worldwide Jews. That seems to present some sort of obligation, if only to dissociate from atrocity, which the pro-Israeli activities of non-Israeli Jews seems only to deepen.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There is no obligation to campaign against israel.


 
It reminds me of after 9/11 when  twats were demanding that Muslims everywhere condemn it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Would the US subsidise Israeli military projects if there wasn't a powerful Jewish lobby?


 
Yes



> It certainly has regional political significance that isn't religious. But the influence of the Jewish lobby on US foreign policy in general, and Israeli policy in particular, is indisputable.


 
Why do you think it is "indisputable"?



> So there is a very large and powerful group of Jews who do get very involved in campaigns in Israel, obligation or not.


 




> One of the problems Palestine has is that no-one opposes this involvement.


 
Yes they do


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Belushi said:


> It reminds me of after 9/11 when twats were demanding that Muslims everywhere condemn it.


Yeah that is exactly it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

whats the finklestein book on this frog? the recent one about some american jews becoming less supportive of Israel?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

Belushi said:


> It reminds me of after 9/11 when twats were demanding that Muslims everywhere condemn it.


Yet, interestingly, the obligation to condemn the Holocaust is subject to legal enforcement in some countries. I hastily point out that I do not question condemnation of the Holocaust, merely the supposition that there is some basis for special distinction in law.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Seems an important point, to me. Israel is only viable as a state for as long as the US and others continue to fund Israel's military projects (so, thankfully, this is a problem that will go away soon). Would the US subsidise Israeli military projects if there wasn't a powerful Jewish lobby? It certainly has regional political significance that isn't religious. But the influence of the Jewish lobby on US foreign policy in general, and Israeli policy in particular, is indisputable.
> 
> So there is a very large and powerful group of Jews who do get very involved in campaigns in Israel, obligation or not.
> 
> One of the problems Palestine has is that this involvement is not sufficiently opposed. Yet the most powerful opponent of a state which claims to represent the interests of Jews worldwide would be worldwide Jews. That seems to present some sort of obligation, if only to dissociate from atrocity, which the pro-Israeli activities of non-Israeli Jews seems only to deepen.


This is dangerous ground you're on here. You do appear to be holding people to different standards depending on nothing other than their Jewishness.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yet, interestingly, the obligation to condemn the Holocaust is subject to legal enforcement in some countries.


so you also think that there was an obligation on Muslims to condemn 9/11?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> whats the finklestein book on this frog? the recent one about some american jews becoming less supportive of Israel?


 
I think it's called "knowing too much"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

TBH, this ground underneath you is starting to give way, Falcon. You need to rethink the way you categorise the world, I think.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

is it an obligation to condemn it or a legal restriction against denying it happened?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yet, interestingly, the obligation to condemn the Holocaust is subject to legal enforcement in some countries. I hastily point out that I do not question condemnation of the Holocaust, merely the supposition that there is some basis for special distinction in law.


 
There are laws about denying the armenian genocide too in some european countries.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

In Germany there's a legal restriction against denying the Holocaust. Bit different. And they have a rather specific reason to have that law.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

We need a solution to this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In Germany there's a legal restriction against denying the Holocaust. Bit different. And they have a rather specific reason to have that law.


Only in public. Often missed out.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is dangerous ground you're on here. You do appear to be holding people to different standards depending on nothing other than their Jewishness.


Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from actions of that state.


 
Presumably Armenians are also given special treatment in law as well in France and Germany at least.

There are very sound reasons why the German state decided to ban expressions of holocaust denial. I wonder why that is?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.


 
Holocaust denial isn't illegal in most countries, even if your warped logic had any basis in reality it wouldn't apply to, for example, American or British Jews.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.


 
What has banning holocaust denial got to do with Israel?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.


Hang on, are you talking about Jewish courts in the UK?

You do know the history of those things, don't you? They're a hangover from the time when the mainstream courts were more explicitly Christian in character - a recognition that not all people are Christian and that in certain areas of the law, they should be allowed to have judgements made from within their own tradition. Now I favour the abolition of these courts that would be made possible by the full secularisation of the mainstream British constitution. But I can understand why they exist, and it isn't really 'special treatment'; it's an attempt at equal treatment under a set of specific - and now rather outdated - assumptions.

ETA: Oh, you didn't mean that. I've typed it out now, though, so I'll leave it.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBH, this ground underneath you is starting to give way, Falcon. You need to rethink the way you categorise the world, I think.


Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility, and just fucking learn something without all this tediousness?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Note also, all jews benefit from the actions of the state of Israel.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

say more stuff about the jews falcon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility?


Or to use them to try and foreground something that would not be acceptable if stated bluntly and honestly.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

if you start banging on about the holocaust, a group of "powerful jews" with a "jewish agenda" then ... well ... no


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility?


 
How do you think this would have been going if you'd been writing stuff like "the blacks and I" as if all black people were one monolithic homogeneous hive-mind mass?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> How do you think this would have been going if you'd been writing stuff like "the blacks and I" as if all black people were one monolithic homogeneous hive-mind mass?


How do you think this will go if I simply conclude that you are all too prickly and I might as well conclude that my assumptions are correct? Is this really your model for how anti-Semitism is to be resolved?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility, and just fucking learn something without all this tediousness?


I said that you were on shaky ground by talking about the responsibilities of all Jews wrt Israel. You compounded that by continuing to talk in this way and even to suggest that you might also support the proposition that all Muslims should feel accountable for 9/11. That made the ground shakier.

And imo one reason your ground is so shaky is the way you categorise things. That's a blunt criticism of your position, nothing more.

Plus, you keep saying things that need explanation to give clarity to what you mean. You did it again by talking about the special treatment afforded to Jews by the law. Which law, where, and in what way?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> and even to suggest that you might also support the proposition that all Muslims should feel accountable for 9/11.


Pardon? Suggest, might, proposition, Muslims?

How about we stick to what is said, about anti-Semitism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Pardon?


Ok, so you don't agree with that proposition? Good. Now why do you agree with a very similar proposition wrt Jews across the world and their silence over the actions of Israel?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And imo one reason your ground is so shaky is the way you categorise things. That's a blunt criticism of your position, nothing more.


I love how your statement that I have ground is a categorisation.

I have no ground I'm defending. I certainly have ground I'm exploring which, by definition, is shaky.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> How do you think this will go if I simply conclude that* you are all too prickly and I might as well conclude that my assumptions are correct?* Is this really your model for how anti-Semitism is to be resolved?


 

uncomfortable truths defense


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I love how your statement that I have ground is a categorisation.


Of course it is. I'm not having a go at you for having categories. I'm having a go at you for having the wrong categories - specifically one called 'the Jews'. It's a useless category to think about this stuff with. Throw it away.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> How do you think this will go if I simply conclude that you are all too prickly and I might as well conclude that my assumptions are correct? Is this really your model for how anti-Semitism is to be resolved?


 
What is your model for how it is to be resolved? We need a solution to resolve this problem once and for all.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 26, 2013)

Jews and their prickliness


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Jews and their prickliness


 
Always whining about something, when they've got all these protections under the law. Something must be done. How long must we tolerate this state of affairs?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm off to do something else. This post from page 1 says it all for me, anyway.



dylans said:


> Blaming "the Jews" for Zionist atrocities is no different to blaming "the Muslims" for the crimes of Islamists. Apart from the fact that such remarks are offensively stereotypical and generalising, they actually play into the narrative of Zionists and Islamists because it is they who claim to speak for all Jews or all Muslims. It is they who clothe their politics in the language of religion. It is important not to play into their narrative.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, so you don't agree with that proposition? Good. Now why do you agree with a very similar proposition wrt Jews across the world and their silence over the actions of Israel?


What proposition, exactly? If someone does something of which others disapprove, and those others mistake you for one of them, then it would be wise to dissociate yourself, particularly if you also disapprove, and your silence is likely to be interpreted as evidence of association. You don't have to, but if doing so will improve your situation, why would you not if it costs you nothing? Conversely, given the obvious benefit of dissociation from an activity with which you also disapprove and which costs you nothing, why would you remain silent?

I think we are talking about rational behaviour more than anything else.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Jews and their prickliness





frogwoman said:


> Always whining about something, when they've got all these protections under the law. Something must be done. How long must we tolerate this state of affairs?


You do realise that the behaviour you have just displayed is precisely the behaviour you are deploring in anti-Semites?
I have no idea whether the people I am debating with are Jews, and care even less - the statements that you are prickly, and Jews are prickly, are different and the latter is one you invented. And your slippery slope fallacy is deplorable. I am just trying to understand your viewpoint, and have even "Liked" one of your posts - you are doing it a profound disservice.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> You do realise that the behaviour you have just displayed is precisely the behaviour you are deploring in anti-Semites?


 
It really isn't.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It really isn't.


Substituting "People are prickly" with "Jews are prickly", and "Israelis do X" with "Jews do X", aren't the same behaviour? Do explain.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> What proposition, exactly? If someone does something of which others disapprove, and those others mistake you for one of them, then it would be wise to dissociate yourself, particularly if you also disapprove, and your silence is likely to be interpreted as evidence of association. You don't have to, but if doing so will improve your situation, why would you not if it costs you nothing? Conversely, given the obvious benefit of dissociation from an activity with which you also disapprove and which costs you nothing, why would you remain silent?
> 
> I think we are talking about rational behaviour more than anything else.


 
I have given some reasons as to why a lot of jews (including myself) don't get involved with campaigns about Israel, i find the politics of many such groups distasteful in many ways even if they're not actually anti-semitic, and i think that when "Jewish" groups are involved it often tends to turn discomfort at one's religious/ethnic identity into a political principle - the whole idea of Jewish activists "pledging to hold themselves accountable" for the actions Israel for example. I don't think that a lot of Jewish people would find it comfortable marching against some action of Israel alongside people who openly express the views which you have expressed on this thread. That doesn't mean they are all zionists. I myself despise zionism. The actions of israel in terms of its policy towards the palestinians don't benefit Jews any more than the actions of the british state in ireland and elsewhere benefit Christians.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> You do realise that the behaviour you have just displayed is precisely the behaviour you are deploring in anti-Semites?
> I have no idea whether the people I am debating with are Jews, and care even less - the statements that you are prickly, and Jews are prickly, are different and the latter is one you invented. And your slippery slope fallacy is deplorable. I am just trying to understand your viewpoint, *and have even "Liked" one of your posts* - you are doing it a profound disservice.


 

 move over Oscar Schindler


----------



## TheHermit (Jan 26, 2013)

You who were so quick to condemn the apartheid of white South Africa and the ethic cleansing of Bosnia by the Serbs stand back and indeed support the cunts in Israel who are perpetrating genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity and have been since 1948. The terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel have been consistently supported by the West since the carve-up of Palestine by the unholy trinity  in an act of appeasement following guilt over letting the holocaust happen. Today's terrorists, tomorrow,s freedom fighters. Think on. If I've missed the point of this thread then apologies but this stuff makes me ANGRY.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> What proposition, exactly? If someone does something of which others disapprove, and those others mistake you for one of them, then it would be wise to dissociate yourself, particularly if you also disapprove, and your silence is likely to be interpreted as evidence of association. You don't have to, but if doing so will improve your situation, why would you not if it costs you nothing? Conversely, given the obvious benefit of dissociation from an activity with which you also disapprove and which costs you nothing, why would you remain silent?
> 
> I think we are talking about rational behaviour more than anything else.


 
would you demand that black people disassociate themselves from "jamaican gangs"?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

TheHermit said:


> You who were so quick to condemn the apartheid of white South Africa and the ethic cleansing of Bosnia by the Sernow stand back and indeed support the cunts in Israel who are perpetrating genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity and have been since 1948. The terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel have been consistently supported by the West since the carve-up of Palestine by the unholy trinity in an act of appeasement following guilt over letting the holocaust happen.


 
You? Who are you talking about?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

do me a fucking favour


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

TheHermit said:


> You who were so quick to condemn the apartheid of white South Africa and the ethic cleansing of Bosnia by the Serbs stand back and indeed support the cunts in Israel who are perpetrating genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity and have been since 1948. The terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel have been consistently supported by the West since the carve-up of Palestine by the unholy trinity in an act of appeasement following guilt over letting the holocaust happen.


Who are you talking to on this thread?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

TheHermit said:


> You who were so quick to condemn the apartheid of white South Africa and the ethic cleansing of Bosnia by the Serbs stand back and indeed support the cunts in Israel who are perpetrating genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity and have been since 1948. The terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel have been consistently supported by the West since the carve-up of Palestine by the unholy trinity in an act of appeasement following guilt over letting the holocaust happen. Today's terrorists, tomorrow,s freedom fighters. Think on. If I've missed the point of this thread then apologies but this stuff makes me ANGRY.


 
you've missed the fucking bus imo


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think that a lot of Jewish people would find it comfortable marching against some action of Israel alongside people who openly express the views which you have expressed on this thread.


OK. So, anti-Semitism (understandably) makes you uncomfortable, but you will only engage in activities which are comfortable. Then should you be surprised or hurt if those people have no basis for discovering that they are wrong, and therefore continue with their uninformed views?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> OK. So, anti-Semitism (understandably) makes you uncomfortable, but you will only engage in activities which are comfortable. Then you mustn't be surprised or hurt if those people have no basis for discovering that they are wrong, and therefore continue with their views.


 
i didn't say that at all. having been involved in one such group i think any activity of that kind that does not seek to try and address the concerns of working class israelis and jews and does not tackle anti-semitism and has no political content rather than becoming some sort of circle jerk to the effect of "israel bad/everyone else good" so as not to alienate liberal democrats and tories who are supportive is a complete dead end


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> OK. So, anti-Semitism (understandably) makes you uncomfortable, but you will only engage in activities which are comfortable. Then should you be surprised or hurt if those people have no basis for discovering that they are wrong, and therefore continue with their uninformed views?


 
If they have any sense they will work it out for themselves anyway without the need of some sort of vanguard to educate them out of their false consciousness.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> would you demand that black people disassociate themselves from "jamaican gangs"?


Are there any jamaican gangs engaging in the destruction of a state in pursuit of a notion of manifest destiny which claims to derive its authority to do so from a black religion? Then - I'd be in no position to demand it, but I would suggest it wise.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If they have any sense they will work it out for themselves anyway without the need of some sort of vanguard to educate them out of their false consciousness.


But they don't. So passivity (and, dare I say, occasional alienation) is unlikely to be a viable strategy here. But I take your other points.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> But they don't. So passivity (and, dare I say, occasional alienation) is unlikely to be a viable strategy here. But I take your other points.


 
If they don't what? Stop blaming Jews for the crimes of Israel? If they don't want to do that despite the evidence that is around them then fuck them. We don't need them. If they have any sense, they'll work it out. If not they won't. If somebody is ideologically convinced of anti-semitism then a few more jews on anti israel demos isn't going to change that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

falcon is of course throwing up sand and obfuscating after being caught out making some pretty dodgy statements. No ones fooled falcon, you've mugged yourself- desperate clarifications, ninja edits and frantic rearguard action aside


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If they don't what? Stop blaming Jews for the crimes of Israel? If they don't want to do that despite the evidence that is around them then fuck them. We don't need them. If they have any sense, they'll work it out.


Have any sense. I presume you were referring to us goys, and I was agreeing that we have no sense in this regard (a sweeping statement, intended more for its calming rather than descriptive property). Which you turn into a protest about blaming Jews. In response to my regret that you occasionally alienate potential allies.

You couldn't make this thread up. It's a caricature.


----------



## TheHermit (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> do me a fucking favour


Any thing you would like in particular? Ego massaged maybe?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Have any sense. I presume you were referring to us goys, and I was agreeing that we have no sense. Which you turn into a protest about blaming Jews. In response to my regret that you occasionally alienate potential allies.
> 
> You couldn't make this thread up. It's a caricature.


 


Are you serious?

If somebody thinks that all Jews benefit from Israel's atrocities, thatJews get special treatment under law and that no Jews oppose what Israel is doing and that there are a group of powerful Jews controlling US foreign policy then a bit of evidence to the contrary probably isn't going to convince them to the contrary. If they have any sense they will examine these ideas critically by themselves, if they don't they will carry on thinking the same shit.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> falcon is of course throwing up sand and obfuscating after being caught out making some pretty dodgy statements. No ones fooled falcon, you've mugged yourself- desperate clarifications, ninja edits and frantic rearguard action aside


Of course. Or else you would have made an arse of your self, hoping no-one notices that you fail to demonstrate your points when you are called.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Have any sense. I presume you were referring to us goys, and I was agreeing that we have no sense in this regard (a sweeping statement, intended more for its calming rather than descriptive property). Which you turn into a protest about blaming Jews. In response to my regret that *you occasionally alienate potential allies*.
> 
> You couldn't make this thread up. It's a caricature.


Ahh. You're doing it again. Frogwoman is Jewish, but don't put her in this category 'the Jews' and talk about 'you' like that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

TheHermit said:


> Any thing you would like in particular? Ego massaged maybe?


 

I stroke that myself often enough thanks- you not throwing out accusations against an unidentified 'you' who support israels atrocities would be nice though


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Are you serious?


I was agreeing with you. You seem furious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Left said:


> Tactless remark. But people say much worse things. Doesn't seem worth making a big deal out of.


 
What's his purported job?
As far as I'm aware it's to *represent his constituents in Parliament*. As far as I'm concerned, that includes not making his constituents look like arseholes because the person they elected can't be bothered to think through what he's saying.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ahh. You're doing it again. Frogwoman is Jewish, but don't put her in this category 'the Jews' and talk about 'you' like that.


Ahh. The glimmer of a straw man appears ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Of course. Or else you would have made an arse of your self, hoping no-one notices that you fail to demonstrate your points when you are called.


 

my points lol- I've got nothing to substantiate or justify ('of course you havn't' etc) because this isn't debate club this is me laughing at you for a quite transparent swerve. Well attempted one anyway.

If you really think you've fooled anyone with this 'spirit of honest inquiry' lark then you are delusional.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

I have no idea what you're on about.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Ahh. The glimmer of a straw man appears ...


 


perhaps it will provide you with more straws to clutch while backpedaling. You fucking circus act


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I have no idea what you're on about.


That's evident. I was trying to build consensus, and I suspect that is novel in this subject area.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> perhaps it will provide you with more straws to clutch while backpedaling. You fucking circus act


Thanks Dot. I enjoyed your previous reference to back-pedalling and, indeed, responded in some depth. I don't recall you defending your point and must conclude you couldn't.

Going forward, in any conversation there is signal, and there is noise. For avoidance of doubt, you are the latter, and I skip over your bits.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> That's evident. I was trying to build consensus, and I suspect that is novel in this subject area.


 
And I am saying that we don't need a consensus to be built with the sort of people who are committed to a political position that says "the jews" all support israel and the other things you've been saying here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

of course you were


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> What proposition, exactly? If someone does something of which others disapprove, and those others mistake you for one of them, then it would be wise to dissociate yourself, particularly if you also disapprove, and your silence is likely to be interpreted as evidence of association. You don't have to, but if doing so will improve your situation, why would you not if it costs you nothing?


Have I missed the bit where you disassociate yourself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Thanks Dot. I enjoyed your previous reference to back-pedalling and, indeed, responded in some depth. I don't recall you defending your point and must conclude you couldn't.
> 
> Going forward, in any conversation there is signal, and there is noise. For avoidance of doubt, you are the latter, and I skip over your bits.


 

Mr. Logic doesn't get it

while responding to the bits he skips over. You are all over the shop


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And I am saying that we don't need a consensus to be built with the sort of people who are committed to a political position that says "the jews" all support israel and the other things you've been saying here.


I understand. And all I am saying is that, therefore, you can't expect those sort of people to change. Since you are the one who wants change, and they don't, that seems rather a sad conclusion.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Have I missed the bit where you disassociate yourself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists?


You mean the "Likes" on Frogwomans posts, agreement with parts of her argument, agreement that the Holocaust is deplorable, agreement that anti-Semitism is uncomfortable, etc. etc.?

Evidently you have. Or do you imagine it is possible to do those things and be a jew-hater, antisemite and fascist? But for avoidance of doubt - I dissociate myself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> It is unfortunate that Israel defines itself in its basic laws as a "Jewish" state and, in fact, is the only Jewish state in the sense that it is the only Jewish-majority state. So "The Jews" and "Israel" do tend to be conflated, not least by Israel, and many Jews when advancing a Jewish political agenda.


 
Really? "Many", eh? Not a phenomenon I've ever noticed in synagogue. Although it's fair to say that "the Jewish Establishment" in most western nation-states do tend to see their own interests and those of the state of Israel as synonymous, to conflate the interests of such establishments with the mass of Jewry is anile at best.



> It seems a little skewed to assert that Israel represents the interests of all Jews when it is promoting their interests, and doesn't represent them when it is harming them.


 
How does the state of Israel perform this promotion of the interests of "all Jews"? We are, after all, not exactly a homogeneous culture, even in religious observance (for those of us who go for that sort of thing). Most of us are well aware of the claims that the state of Israel makes in this regard. We are, however, equally well-aware of the speciousness of such claims, and therefore the speciousness of anyone who perpetuates and disseminates such claims.



> Furthermore, I think we can assert the principle that, in many matters, "silence is consent", and that this is one of those matters. So can anyone provide any material evidence of institutions representing non-Israeli Jews deploring Israeli atrocities in Palestine in pursuit of a greater Jewish state? I expect there will be individuals - I'm interested in representative institutions.
> 
> That would be fascinating.


 
Representative of whom, "non-Israeli Jews"? Do we, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what Jewry, after all, *IS*) have to organise under a "not in our name" banner in order to satisfy your criteria for evidence disproving your fatuous asserted principle? It certainly seems that way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I come across more anti semitism coming from asians and arabs than any other grouping.


 
Same here, with a rather humunguous "but"...
But, a lot of it is an artefact of the same sort of "religious" programming that many Catholics were heir to with regard to Jews, and foor the greater part can be dealt with in much the same way - education and critical thinking.  For the rest, no amount of education or crritical thinking will suffice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Ahh. The glimmer of a straw man appears ...


How so? Unfortunately English is an ambiguous language when it comes to the word 'you', which can be both singular and plural. I took the bit I highlighted to be a plural 'you' - 'youse' as some dialects would have it. If I'm mistaken, tell me. If I'm not mistaken, then this is not a straw man at all.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> But for avoidance of doubt - I dissociate myself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists.


I don't believe you. I think you're propagating the same myths that antisemites like - a view of jewishness that is just a mirror image of Zionism, and which exists symbiotically with it.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most of us are well aware of the claims that the state of Israel makes in this regard. We are, however, equally well-aware of the speciousness of such claims, and therefore the speciousness of anyone who perpetuates and disseminates such claims.


Really? "Most of us", eh? Not a phenomenon I've observed in public discourse. Let's be clear - your awareness - as a synagogue goer - of the speciousness of such claims is irrelevant. "Most of us" in the sense of public opinion have no idea whether the claims are specious or not. Only that they are made.



ViolentPanda said:


> Representative of whom, "non-Israeli Jews"? Do we, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what Jewry, after all, *IS*) have to organise under a "not in our name" banner in order to satisfy your criteria for evidence disproving your fatuous asserted principle? It certainly seems that way.


We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so. Can you imagine if someone asserted some notional right to remain silent on the matter, in our society?

Aren't you just advancing Exceptionalism?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so.


When did this happen?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

you genuinely don't see how you're pissing your chips here do you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When did this happen?


 

nobody told the NF and BM


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:


> I don't believe you. I think you're propagating the same myths that antisemites like - a view of jewishness that is just a mirror image of Zionism, and which exists symbiotically with it.


OK. Good luck with that. And, by the way, that's an affirmation of the consequent fallacy. ("If I'm an antisemite, then I propagate myth A. I've propagated myth A. Therefore I'm an anti-Semite"). Don't be discouraged - it's almost the default fail in Urban arguments.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

yeah you've definitely managed to pull this one out of the fire falcon, everybody including that audience you appeal to will be convinced.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Really? "Most of us", eh? Not a phenomenon I've observed in public discourse. Let's be clear - your awareness - as a synagogue goer - of the speciousness of such claims is irrelevant. "Most of us" in the sense of public opinion have no idea whether the claims are specious or not. Only that they are made.


 
even if this is true and most jews do support israeli policies (i would not argue that most jews support zionism in its current form, but what i would say is that most jews do not oppose, and probably support, israel's right to exist as a state) this does not justify the rest of your statements



> We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so. Can you imagine if someone asserted some notional right to remain silent on the matter, in our society?
> 
> Aren't you just advancing Exceptionalism?


 
no "gentiles" didn't, nobody organised "we as gentiles" to do anything, with one notable exception


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> OK. Good luck with that. And, by the way, that's an affirmation of the consequent fallacy. ("If I'm an antisemite, then I propagate myth A. I've propagated myth A. Therefore I'm an anti-Semite"). Don't be discouraged - it's almost the default fail in Urban arguments.


 
Kind of like 'People who support Israel don't criticise Israel. These people aren't criticising Israel. Therefore these people support Israel.'


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so. Can you imagine if someone asserted some notional right to remain silent on the matter, in our society?


You're talking about British citizens protesting against what was done with bombs paid for with British tax money. Not the same as some idea of "Jewishness" involving an apology for the state of Israel.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When did this happen?


Nip out to your local shopping mall and assert, in a loud voice, your right to remain silent on the matter of whether the Holocaust was carried out in your name as a gentile. Come back and tell us whether a Not In Our Name banner has, in fact, been erected. (Usual disclaimer - I do not for a moment suggest it should not have. I enquire in the context of wondering what is so mysterious about inviting Jews to state clearly whether or not Israeli atrocities are being carried out in their name).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

The holocaust wasn't carried out in my name. There are several reason why I would have been considered an enemy of the state in Nazi Germany. There you go with your bad categories again.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kind of like 'People who support Israel don't criticise Israel. These people aren't criticising Israel. Therefore these people support Israel.'


Actually, nothing like that. But this is hardly the place for parsing propositional logic.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> what is so mysterious about inviting Jews to state clearly whether or not  Israeli atrocities are not being carried out in their name).


Because it's creepy and weird.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Actually, nothing like that. But this is hardly the place for parsing propositional logic.


It is. And it is. But I'll leave it at that. Others can decide for themselves who's right.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Actually, nothing like that. But this is hardly the place for parsing propositional logic.


 
Exactly like that actually.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The holocaust wasn't carried out in my name. There are several reason why I would have been considered an enemy of the state in Nazi Germany. There you go with your bad categories again.


I didn't invite you to state your position. I invited you to state your right *not* to state your position. Do keep up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I didn't invite you to state your position. I invited you to state your right *not* to state your position. Do keep up.


Stumbling around a shopping mall shouting crap about the Holocaust is not in any way 'not stating a position'.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I didn't invite you to state your position. I invited you to state your right *not* to state your position. Do keep up.


 
there are millions of people who exercise that right by not talking about the holocaust every day


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Because it's creepy and weird.


So it *is* creepy and weird for littlebabyjesus to remain silent about his views on the holocaust, and *not* creepy and weird for a Jew to remain silent on his views on Israeli atrocity.

ViolentPanda is coming back to us shortly on Exceptionalism, thankfully.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> You do realise that the behaviour you have just displayed is precisely the behaviour you are deploring in anti-Semites?
> I have no idea whether the people I am debating with are Jews, and care even less - the statements that you are prickly, and Jews are prickly, are different and the latter is one you invented. And your slippery slope fallacy is deplorable. I am just trying to understand your viewpoint, and have even "Liked" one of your posts - you are doing it a profound disservice.


 
They're being sarcastic ffs.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> So it *is* creepy and weird for littlebabyjesus to remain silent about his views on the holocaust, and *not* creepy and weird for a Jew to remain silent on his views on Israeli atrocity.
> 
> ViolentPanda is coming back to us shortly on Exceptionalism, thankfully.


 
Declare your interests, Jews!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

I DEMAND THE RIGHT NOT TO SAY ANYTHING. LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY, JUST IN CASE YOU THOUGHT MY SILENCE ON THIS MATTER UP TO THIS POINT MEANT THAT I THOUGHT I DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. I CAN REMAIN SILENT NO LONGER ABOUT MY RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. WHO IS WITH ME?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there are millions of people who exercise that right by not talking about the holocaust every day


And not a single one of them who could state a right to remain silent about it, and not be suspected of supporting it.

I made the point in response to ViolentPanda's claim that stating there is no right to remain silent is fatuous, which I believe to be fatuous by virtue of the fact it can be proved by the simple mall test I put to LBJ.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Best meltdown thread in a while - and only enhanced by coming out of the blue. I mean we all knew he was on the right from his anti-strike posts before but this...


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stumbling around a shopping mall shouting crap about the Holocaust is not in any way 'not stating a position'.


If I've overestimated your capacity to engage in a thought experiment in order to make an advance in thinking, then I apologise.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> So it *is* creepy and weird for littlebabyjesus to remain silent about his views on the holocaust, and *not* creepy and weird for a Jew to remain silent on his views on Israeli atrocity.
> 
> ViolentPanda is coming back to us shortly on Exceptionalism, thankfully.


No, you're just creepy and weird by banging on about "the Jews" as some major issue that you care about. You are the real believer in "Jewish exceptionalism".


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

The only person here running around trying to claim Jews are all one homogenous group is you, Falcon.  Maybe you should look at yourself before attempting to criticise others.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Best meltdown thread in a while - and only enhanced by coming out of the blue. I mean we all knew he was on the right from his anti-strike posts before but this...


Can you help me understand how arguing that Jews might engage more in helping gentiles with their ignorance is evidence that I am "on the right".

Is *everything* capable of being plucked out of nowhere and presented as evidence of being on the right, to people of whatever side you are on?

[edit: changed "should" to "might".]


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

Why should they?  Shouldn't non Jews take more responsibility to be less ignorant? 

Why must all Jews do this?  Who the fuck are you to tell all Jews what to do?  And who are 'the Jews' anyway?  We're not all one group you know.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> Blaming "the Jews" for Zionist atrocities is no different to blaming "the Muslims" for the crimes of Islamists. Apart from the fact that such remarks are offensively stereotypical and generalising, they actually play into the narrative of Zionists and Islamists because it is they who claim to speak for all Jews or all Muslims.* It is they who clothe their politics in the language of religion. It is important not to play into their narrative.*


Falcon, read this, and particularly think about the bit I've bolded.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Best meltdown thread in a while - and only enhanced by coming out of the blue. I mean we all knew he was on the right f*rom his anti-strike posts* before but this...


 

and the 'spirit of honest inquiry' stuff about the welfare state


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Can you help me understand how arguing that Jews might engage more in helping gentiles with their ignorance is evidence that I am "on the right".


Falcon is clearly not on the right. Or the left. But some kind of third position.

Anyway can you stop with all of this "gentiles" crap, as well? Dividing up the world into Jews and non-Jews, trying to implicate everyone else in your world view.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Falcon is clearly not on the right. Or the left. But some kind of third position.
> 
> Anyway can you stop with all of this "gentiles" crap, as well? Dividing up the world into Jews and non-Jews, trying to implicate everyone else in your world view.


 
Would that be the 'ridiculous idiot' position?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Anyway can you stop with all of this "gentiles" crap, as well? Dividing up the world into Jews and non-Jews, trying to implicate everyone else in your world view.


yes, this. I don't recognise myself as a 'gentile'. Someone else might call me that, but it's not a term that has any real meaning to me. It's also not an unloaded term as it arises from a historical opposition between Jew and Christian, and I am neither of these.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Falcon, read this, and particularly think about the bit I've bolded.


Absolutely.But there are two different things going on here. Blaming Jews and Muslims about Zionist and Islamist atrocities and crimes, and Jews and Muslims remaining silent about such atrocities and crimes. **Both** play into the narrative of Zionists and Islamists.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Absolutely.But there are two different things going on here. Blaming Jews and Muslims about Zionist and Islamist atrocities and crimes, and Jews and Muslims remaining silent about such atrocities and crimes. **Both** play into the narrative of Zionists and Islamists.


 Most people want to get on with their lives, without being bothered by nationalist nutters. I don't blame them for refusing to engage with the whole game.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the jews.
> 
> baronness younge (??) was another one iirc


That was Jenny Tonge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Other than the establishment of the state of Israel as a home to Jews and the political fulfilment of Jewish religious prophesy, you mean?


 
In terms of religion, Judaism _per se_ does not validate the actions of the state of Israel in constructing a state of Israel, because the realisation of Israel can, to the religious, only come about through the coming and intervention of a Messiah, not through the proclamations of politicians. Therefore "political fulfillment of Jewish religious philosophy" is meaningless to religious Jews except insofar as it can be used as a justification to achieve ends of their own (which invariably are *not* anything to do with Jewish religious prophesy).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Nope. Please don't waste everyone's time on one of your little strawman fantasies. I've observed that Israelis and some Jews routinely do. That is the extent of my statement.
> 
> I've made a simple point: the assertion that Israel does not represent general Jewish sentiment can be easily disproven by presenting evidence of material Jewish sentiment condemming Israeli atrocity.
> 
> I am neither condoning conflation, nor denying that such evidence exists. I'm just curious what it looks like, since I've never seen it. I would be delighted if it did.


 
You haven't made a point, you've presented an assertion.


----------



## savoloysam (Jan 26, 2013)

Of course the americans have nothing to do with this at all, do they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> For those not familiar with butchersapron's thought processes, this is the activity he substitutes for debate when he has nothing interesting to say. It is to debate what masturbation is to sex.


 
For those not familiar with _ad hominem_ argument, the above is a fine example.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yes, this. I don't recognise myself as a 'gentile'. Someone else might call me that, but it's not a term that has any real meaning to me. It's also not an unloaded term as it arises from a historical opposition between Jew and Christian, and I am neither of these.


With all due respect, that is the accurate term, in its sense of meaning "not Jewish". You are not Jewish, therefore you are gentile. It has nothing to do with opposition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Have you tried google? 12.4 million hits for "jews against zionism". I cba to paste a load of links though. There are fucking loads of jews and jewish groups against both zionism in principle and against the actions of the current israeli state. Come to any palestine protest and you will find us there.
> 
> I'm just going to post up a single link, a group called "Peace Now"
> http://peacenow.org.il/eng/
> ...


 
You are? Perusal of his posting history (if you can stomach it: Some of it is stultifyingly banal) gives a fair indication.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

But you don't need to use the term, just say 'non Jewish'.  I don't know a lot of Jews who call non Jews gentiles.  The very religious perhaps.  You're quite likely to hear goyim in Israel, but that's a bit of a slang term.

You're using loaded words for no good reason.  And you haven't answered any of my questions.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> For those not familiar with _ad hominem_ argument, the above is a fine example.


Not really. An _ad hominem _fallacy is an attempt to refute an argument by questioning the arguer, rather than the argument. You'll note that butchers hadn't even made an argument, so I can't really be accused of trying to refute it. Think of it more as _meta-argument._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Lee Jasper is praising Ward for refusing to apologise


 
Good old Japser, ever-alert to the possibility of self-publicising!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> With all due respect, that is the accurate term, in its sense of meaning "not Jewish". You are not Jewish, therefore you are gentile. It has nothing to do with opposition.


It has a history and a context. Outside of that context, it loses value.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

anyway, I prefer 'protestant'


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It has a history and a context. Outside of that context, it loses value.


Indeed. And its history and context is in providing a label for people who aren't Jewish. Like you. But by all means give me a term you are satisfied with that corresponds with the "Semite", "anti-Semite" and ... whatever you are if you are neither a Semite or an anti-Semite - of this post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Why are you suspicious of Jews falcon?


 
We are teh kapitalizt establishmentz!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Indeed. And its history and context is in providing a label for people who aren't Jewish.


So the Han Chinese are all gentiles too? And the San people of southern Africa. As are all the as yet uncontacted groups in the Amazon. They'll be rather surprised and puzzled to hear that when they find out. The term becomes rather absurd, no?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Can you explain to the others why observing that (1) the fact that people are suspicious of Jews is the problem this thread seeks to demonstrate and (2) that fact that your suspicion of me means that Jews and I have the same problem and (3) the fact that demonstrating precisely the behaviours you accuse others of in deploying your argument harms you argument, is backpeddling?
> 
> Seems like pretty vigorous forward peddling to me. And it does also seem to reinforce your admission that you have no point.


 
perhaps because this thread isn't/wasn't seeking to demonstrate anything of the sort? If anything, it was attempting to demonstrate that the hard-of-thinking sometimes conflate the state of Israel's actions with the actions of Jewry _per se_, including the particular MP mentioned in the OP.


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Indeed. And its history and context is in providing a label for people who aren't Jewish. Like you. But by all means give me a term you are satisfied with that corresponds with the "Semite", "anti-Semite" and ... whatever you are if you are neither a Semite or an anti-Semite - of this post.


This is nuts - gentile vs Jew is an out-group/in-group descriptor; Semite is not paired with anti-Semite in the same way, the latter is a term of art coined in the late 19th C (IIRC) to describe the specific forms of anti-Jewish prejudice and those who harbour them, the lexical link is that it used a word from a particular set of ethnic categorisations, not very accurately either as any pub bore will be quick to tell you.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In terms of religion, Judaism _per se_ does not validate the actions of the state of Israel in constructing a state of Israel, because the realisation of Israel can, to the religious, only come about through the coming and intervention of a Messiah, not through the proclamations of politicians. Therefore "political fulfillment of Jewish religious philosophy" is meaningless to religious Jews except insofar as it can be used as a justification to achieve ends of their own (which invariably are *not* anything to do with Jewish religious prophesy).


So Jews - in the sense of members of the cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel - are, in general, indifferent to the establishment and defence of a Jewish homeland in Israel?

If they are indifferent, then what is the basis and legitimacy of the project to establish the state of Israel at the expense of the state of Palestine? If they are not indifferent, what is the status of your assertion that there is not a political agenda that arises by virtue of a religious affiliation, even if that religion it self does not express a political agenda?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> He said Jehovah!


 
Me: "No wai!"

You: "Yah weh!!!"


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> So Jews - in the sense of members of the cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel - are, in general, indifferent to the establishment and defence of a Jewish homeland in Israel?
> 
> If they are indifferent, then what is the basis and legitimacy of the project to establish the state of Israel at the expense of the state of Palestine? If they are not indifferent, what is the status of your assertion that there is not a political agenda that arises by virtue of a religious affiliation, even if that religion it self does not express a political agenda?


 
Some are indifferent, some are supportive, some are actively opposed to zionism in general.
Some are indifferent, some supportive and some actively opposed to the Israeli state as it exists in practice.

Your lumping together of a very diverse group of people as "the jews" is simply wrong and a barrier to understanding the state of israel imo.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Me: "No wai!"
> 
> You: "Yah weh!!!"


 

*groan* how long have you been storing that in the gag bag waiting for the perfect moment to air it vp?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> This is nuts - gentile vs Jew is an out-group/in-group descriptor; Semite is not paired with anti-Semite in the same way, the latter is a term of art coined in the late 19th C (IIRC) to describe the specific forms of anti-Jewish prejudice and those who harbour them, the lexical link is that it used a word from a particular set of ethnic categorisations, not very accurately either as any pub bore will be quick to tell you.


No one is asserting otherwise. Some are seeking what the appropriate terms might be, in the sense of those which offend the least number of people. I certainly can't keep talking about  "the cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel" and "the cultural community of people whose traditional religion is not Judaism and who do not trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Seems an important point, to me. Israel is only viable as a state for as long as the US and others continue to fund Israel's military projects (so, thankfully, this is a problem that will go away soon). Would the US subsidise Israeli military projects if there wasn't a powerful Jewish lobby? It certainly has regional political significance that isn't religious. But the influence of the Jewish lobby on US foreign policy in general, and Israeli policy in particular, is indisputable.
> 
> So there is a very large and powerful group of Jews who do get very involved in campaigns in Israel, obligation or not.
> 
> One of the problems Palestine has is that this involvement is not sufficiently opposed. Yet the most powerful opponent of a state which claims to represent the interests of Jews worldwide would be worldwide Jews. That seems to present some sort of obligation, if only to dissociate from atrocity, which the pro-Israeli activities of non-Israeli Jews seems only to deepen.


 
So, you're enticed by the idea of the collective guilt of Jews who choose not to *actively* decry the actions of the state of Israel. How very unsurprising.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> *groan* how long have you been storing that in the gag bag waiting for the perfect moment to air it vp?


 
A couple of minutes!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> No one is asserting otherwise. Some are seeking what the appropriate terms might be, in the sense of those which offend the least number of people. I certainly can't keep talking about "the cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel" and "the cultural community of people whose traditional religion is not Judaism and who do not trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel"


Jew/non-Jew, as purenarcotic said, is good enough. Introducing loaded terms such as gentile isn't helpful, I don't think, especially as I'm not entirely sure that you understand how it is a loaded term.

You might think this is nit-picking, but I think it's symptomatic of your misunderstanding here. You're not looking at things in quite the right way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Note also, all jews benefit from the actions of the state of Israel.


 
I get a bank transfer direct from Tel Aviv every moth, don'tcher know!


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> No one is asserting otherwise. Some are seeking what the appropriate terms might be, in the sense of those which offend the least number of people. I certainly can't keep talking about "the cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel" and "the cultural community of people whose traditional religion is not Judaism and who do not trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel"


But this seems to be your problem in a nutshell - you want to talk about a very broad and heterogeneous group of people en masse in certain political contexts where there's clearly not the commonality you presumed from the off.


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 26, 2013)

I never knew Falcon voted Lib-Dem.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Some are supportive


... seems rather to understate the magnitude of what is happing in former Palestine.


BigTom said:


> Your lumping together of a very diverse group of people as "the jews" is simply wrong and a barrier to understanding the state of israel imo.





JimW said:


> But this seems to be your problem in a nutshell - you want to talk about a very broad and heterogeneous group of people en masse in certain political contexts where there's clearly not the commonality you presumed from the off.


Apparently not so diverse and heterogenous that it presents any impediment to establishing, funding, populating and defending a sovereign state from scratch in highly hostile territory, surrounded by very powerful neighbours. Dismissing this as the product of some minor element of a community seems implausible, doesn't it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Indeed. And its history and context is in providing a label for people who aren't Jewish. Like you. But by all means give me a term you are satisfied with that corresponds with the "Semite", "anti-Semite" and ... whatever you are if you are neither a Semite or an anti-Semite - of this post.


I'm going to stick my oar in. You do realise that Arabs are Semites and that Maltese is a Semitic language?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2013)

What about the Samaritans? And I don't mean the charity either.


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> ... seems rather to understate the magnitude of what is happing in former Palestine.
> 
> 
> Apparently not so diverse and heterogenous that it presents any impediment to establishing, funding and populating a sovereign state from scratch in highly hostile territory. Dismissing this as the product of some minor element of a community seems implausible, doesn't it?


Sorry, I forgot that 'all Jews' live in Israel. 



ViolentPanda said:


> I get a bank transfer direct from Tel Aviv every moth, don'tcher know!


Sweet, your round then!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Really? "Most of us", eh? Not a phenomenon I've observed in public discourse. Let's be clear - your awareness - as a synagogue goer - of the speciousness of such claims is irrelevant. "Most of us" in the sense of public opinion have no idea whether the claims are specious or not. Only that they are made.


 
In which case, by your own admission, you're ill-informed.



> We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so. Can you imagine if someone asserted some notional right to remain silent on the matter, in our society?


 
In "our society" we have a notional right, as individuals or communities, to our own opinions and to silence, that includes the actions of our state, or any of the cultures that inhabit our state.



> Aren't you just advancing Exceptionalism?


 
No, in fact I'd say that's exactly what *you* are doing. You're saying that Jews should, in exception to any other culture, disavow any alliegiance to or support of the state of Israel and or its' actions based *SOLELY* on the fact of being a Jew who does not live in Israel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kind of like 'People who support Israel don't criticise Israel. These people aren't criticising Israel. Therefore these people support Israel.'


 
Quite.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> ... seems rather to understate the magnitude of what is happing in former Palestine.
> 
> Apparently not so diverse that the diversity presents an impediment to establishing, funding and populating a sovereign state from scratch in highly hostile territory. Dismissing this as the product of some minor element of a community seems implausible, doesn't it?


 
Except that the founding of the state of israel was not just the result of the zionist element in judaism, which began in earnest in the late 19th century afaik, it was also as a result of the end of colonialism, ww2/holocaust and the opportunity for the west to establish a friendly state in the middle east which had seen a series of hostile uprisings and independence movements between ww1 and 2.

tbh, my knowledge in this is I'm sure far exceeded by frogwoman and violent panda, but I don't think zionism was ever a majority movement within judaism, ime/o most jews don't really care where they are living, as long as they are not being harrased/discriminated against.
I didn't say minor element, but given the convergence of the guilt over the holocaust, the continuing growth of zionism within judaism and the convergence of interests with the ruling class in the UK (and US), I don't think it's implausible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> And not a single one of them who could state a right to remain silent about it, and not be suspected of supporting it.
> 
> I made the point in response to ViolentPanda's claim that stating there is no right to remain silent is fatuous, which I believe to be fatuous by virtue of the fact it can be proved by the simple mall test I put to LBJ.


 
Hilarious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:


> No, you're just creepy and weird by banging on about "the Jews" as some major issue that you care about. You are the real believer in "Jewish exceptionalism".


 
Except that he'll be utterly unable to appreciate what he's saying as being "Jewish exceptionalism".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> and the 'spirit of honest inquiry' stuff about the welfare state


 
He shat all over the memorial post about people who've died post ATOS too, in the supposed spirit of honest inquiry, and then had a hissy fit when he was asked to leave the thread.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> ... seems rather to understate the magnitude of what is happing in former Palestine.
> 
> 
> Apparently not so diverse and heterogenous that it presents any impediment to establishing, funding, populating and defending a sovereign state from scratch in highly hostile territory, surrounded by very powerful neighbours. Dismissing this as the product of some minor element of a community seems implausible, doesn't it?


 

remarkably ahistorical look at the founding of israel there falcon


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

savoloysam said:


> Of course the americans have nothing to do with this at all, do they?


 
They have plenty to do with why a state of Israel continues to exist.
To do with Jews _per se_, though? Not so much, however much people (including myself) mither on about "Jewish lobbies".


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> <snip>
> Apparently not so diverse and heterogenous that it presents any impediment to establishing, funding, populating and defending a sovereign state from scratch in highly hostile territory, surrounded by very powerful neighbours. Dismissing this as the product of some minor element of a community seems implausible, doesn't it?


Started typing various over-involved responses to this, but can't be arsed, so instead how far would you say this history, despite its unique specificities, can be divorced from the whole preceding period of European settler-colonialism? Was the notion of a project to create a state of incomers something unknown in the period when the various Zionist trends took shape?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Not really. An _ad hominem _fallacy is an attempt to refute an argument by questioning the arguer, rather than the argument. You'll note that butchers hadn't even made an argument, so I can't really be accused of trying to refute it. Think of it more as _meta-argument._


 
Interesting how you attempt to manouvre discourse to present yourself as a disinterested analyst, but you're not making a _meta-argument_, you're attempting to avoid admitting your own commiting of the "offence" you accuse others of.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Although Falcon himself is clearly some kind of hard baked wingnut, I think it's still worth debunking his arguments in public, as this kind of belief in a Jewish-wide conspiracy is unfortunately still too common.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In which case, by your own admission, you're ill-informed.


The people who are anti-Semitic most certainly are. To the extent that your fortunes improve or decline in proportion to their level of knowledge, and are invariant to yours, your statements of how well informed the folks are down your synagogue are interesting, but irrelevant to the problem of anti-Semitism explored in this thread.



ViolentPanda said:


> In "our society" we have a notional right, as individuals or communities, to our own opinions and to silence, that includes the actions of our state, or any of the cultures that inhabit our state.


... a right which we willingly forgo, irritatingly for your argument, in the matter of the Holocaust. 



ViolentPanda said:


> No, in fact I'd say that's exactly what *you* are doing. You're saying that Jews should, in exception to any other culture, disavow any alliegiance to or support of the state of Israel and or its' actions based *SOLELY* on the fact of being a Jew who does not live in Israel.


That is exactly what I am saying. You should forgo your right to silence in the matter of the atrocities carried out by the other members of your community whose traditional religion is also Judaism, who also trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel. Also, by observing that we already willingly do that in the matter of the Holocaust even though we did not live in Germany (or even that time), to argue otherwise is to assert Exceptionalism.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Also, by observing that we already willingly do that in the matter of the Holocaust even though we did not live in Germany (or even that time), to argue otherwise is to assert Exceptionalism.


 do all Aryans have the responsibility to constantly explain that they do not support the Nazi genocides?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He shat all over the memorial post about people who've died post ATOS too, in the supposed spirit of honest inquiry, and then had a hissy fit when he was asked to leave the thread.


*Nice* misdirection. For "shat all over", read "enquired whether understanding the reason why they died might help us to help others". Now *that's* a classy _ad-hominem_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> So Jews - in the sense of members of the cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel - are, in general, indifferent to the establishment and defence of a Jewish homeland in Israel?


 
Do you have a general understanding of the foundation of the state of Israel, of the demographics of that state with reference to what it comprised in terms of world Jewry? The formation of a *state* of Israel was a minority interest through most of the history of Zionism, for the religious reasons previously given. Even after the holocaust, formation of a state of Israel was the project of a minority of European and American Jews, aided by political "friends" in those countries.



> If they are indifferent, then what is the basis and legitimacy of the project to establish the state of Israel at the expense of the state of Palestine?


 
There is little basis and legitimacy to the project. That much is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an interest to declare. It's the propogation of "might is right" at the expense of others.



> If they are not indifferent, what is the status of your assertion that there is not a political agenda that arises by virtue of a religious affiliation, even if that religion it self does not express a political agenda?


 
The status of my assertion is that it is accurate, and the fairly well-established activism of a significant minority of Jews (secular and religious) in anti-Zionist projects reinforces that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> *Nice* misdirection. For "shat all over", read "enquired whether understanding the reason why they died might help us to help others". Now *that's* a classy _ad-hominem_.


 
It's not misdirection, it's a representation of your actions on another thread that may be informative to others on the thread of how you behave.


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2013)

I gleefully pretend my grandad served in the expeditionary force of the colonial powers that burned the Summer Palace to top off China's century of foreign humiliations, as it would seem churlish to pretend I'm not culpable by association.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> I gleefully pretend my grandad served in the expeditionary force of the colonial powers that burned the Summer Palace to top off China's century of foreign humiliations, as it would seem churlish to pretend I'm not culpable by association.


 

my grandad burned down Cork _singlehandedly_


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting how you attempt to manouvre discourse to present yourself as a disinterested analyst, but you're not making a _meta-argument_, you're attempting to avoid admitting your own commiting of the "offence" you accuse others of.


He didn't make an argument. I simply could not have committed an ad-hominem fallacy, for which there needs to be an argument.

Now, if butchers ever does present an actual argument, and I deploy a snarkiness as an element of my rebuttal, feel free to call it as ad-hominem. But in this case, you are simply wrong.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> There is little basis and legitimacy to the project. That much is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an interest to declare. It's the propogation of "might is right" at the expense of others.


Excellent. Then you will have no hesitation in condemning the atrocities arising from it, as I have no hesitation in condemning the Holocaust. Or do I presume too much, and you would rather assert your right to silence on the matter?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not misdirection, it's a representation of your actions on another thread that may be informative to others on the thread of how you behave.


And I would encourage those others to actually read that thread to compare what you claim as "shitting on the thread" with what I actually said, and the discussion I tried to hold. To the extent that it was with people who didn't seem in the least bit interested in the causes and therefore of meaningful response, but rather a passive recitation of old grievances, it has much in common with this.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:


> do all Aryans have the responsibility to constantly explain that they do not support the Nazi genocides?


They have the responsibility not to claim the right to silence on the matter. Do you disagree?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

a responsibility to not claim a right. Like blood and honour.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Have you tried google? 12.4 million hits for "jews against zionism". I cba to paste a load of links though. There are fucking loads of jews and jewish groups against both zionism in principle and against the actions of the current israeli state. Come to any palestine protest and you will find us there.
> 
> I'm just going to post up a single link, a group called "Peace Now"
> http://peacenow.org.il/eng/
> ...


Peace Now are a bit shit, unfortunately. "Stop killing us and we'll stop killing you and then we'll just keep your land and water and everyone will be happy". Inside Israel, groups like Anarchists Against the Wall and Black Laundry are better (gay activists against the occupation; the hebrew name translates colloquially as black sheep or dirty laundry). Gush-shalom are great, as are the Committe Against House Demolitions. Women for Women Prisoners visit Palestinian prisoners and their families to provide the only contact they get (I think there are similar groups doing the same for male prisoners). Checkpoint Watch is a group of mainly elderly citizens who observe the soldiers' behaviour at checkpoints and mitigate it simply by being there. ISM is international, but was co-founded by Palestinians, an American-Palestinian, an Israeli Jew and an American Jew.About a third of the volunteers are Jewish, and they work with a lot of Israeli-Jewish organisations also.

I'm way out of date, so there will be others now too.

There is shedloads of anti-Zionist civil society going on in Israel. It is made very hard by the propaganda of the government and the lack of insight many Israelis have into the reality on the other side of the Green Line. When it could no longer be ignored, after the start of the second intifada, the circulation of Ha'Aretz (the Israeli Guardian) fell because the truth is unpalatable. This transcript gives a good idea of views from both sides of the Green Line at that time (one Palestinian speaker, one Israeli). These articles both touch on attitudes towards Jews within Palestine, the fears of Jews in Palestine, and the contrast with the propaganda messages pumped out by Israel: The boy who kissed the soldier and I was a human shield.



Falcon said:


> Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.


Do you make the same sorts of statements about the Brits and their special obligation to actively oppose the legacy of and ongoing atrocities resulting from colonialism? Berate them for not being in Burma or Malaysia or India, righting the wrongs they've benefited from. Of course you don't, and if you do, what aren't you doing something about it?

It is Israel that says to be a 'real Jew' you must remain uncritical of the Jewish state. A ridiculous statement, and deeply racist. Jews are the only people in the world who are not allowed to form independent political opinions? And you fell for it, you fucking fool.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> Do you make the same sorts of statements about the Brits and their special obligation to actively oppose the legacy of and ongoing atrocities resulting from colonialism? Berate them for not being in Burma or Malaysia or India, righting the wrongs they've benefited from. Of course you don't, and if you do, what aren't you doing something about it?


Firstly, thanks for a sane and informative post. I regret you feel unable to resist the "fucking fool" nonsense that seems to attach itself like dogshit on a shoe to everyone's posts in this place.

As it happens, my whole political outlook is formed around the necessity of reversing the legacy of colonialism or, specifically, the anglo-saxon neoliberal capitalist geopolitical structure that arose from it. So I make plenty of statements about the Brits and I'm doing much as much as I can about it. (edited  )



ymu said:


> It is Israel that says to be a 'real Jew' you must remain uncritical of the Jewish state. A ridiculous statement, and deeply racist. Jews are the only people in the world who are not allowed to form independent political opinions? And you fell for it, you fucking fool.


Fell for what? The problem is not that they form independent political opinions. The problem is that, by remaining silent having formed them, they fail to dissociate themselves from the other opinion, deepening their disadvantage. Fucking fools, indeed (your words, not mine).


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

"They"?

Have anti-Zionist Jews remained silent, or been silenced? Who determines what gets into the mainstream media? For many Jews, especially young 'uns from secular backgrounds, Israel has been a reason to reject their Jewish identity. Jews for Justice for Palestinians has a lot of members from this sort of background, founded by people who though "hang on, this is my identity and Israel cannot take it away from me". Hence, some of the problems with them that frogwoman pointed out.

The problem is not that you think 'the Jews' should be doing more, the problem is that you assume "they" are not.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> The problem is not that you think 'the Jews' should be doing more, the problem is that you assume they are not.


Well, to be fair, my assumption is based on what I see. If, as a fairly widely read kind of chap, I don't see lots of evidence, it doesn't seem reasonable to be surprised and hurt that the average anti-Semite doesn't see it either. And that seems rather at odds with a ViolentPanda/FrogWoman sort of approach that "my views are my own business". If anti-Semitism bothers Jews, then Jews have an obligation - and a self interest - to engage in the sorts of behaviours that tackle it - like denouncing Israeli terrorism, supporting Palestinians, and all the rest. And if the current level of effort isn't cutting in, then they need to do more. Don't they?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Excellent. Then you will have no hesitation in condemning the atrocities arising from it, as I have no hesitation in condemning the Holocaust. Or do I presume too much, and you would rather assert your right to silence on the matter?


 
That's stupid, I'm British and there is a lot of stuff that British governments have done both during my lifetime and before it that I disapprove of massively but I'm not going to write a long letter of condemnation about every single crime of colonialism. This collective responsibility nonsense is bullshit and it's bullshit when it applies to Jews as well.

Besides which given that I'm British, I'd spend a lot longer writing out these letters of condemnation than any Jewish person, unless they were British too, or are Jews absolved of the crimes of gentile governments? 

My ancestors were living in Ireland when most British crimes against the Irish were being waged, am I still responsible for condemning those crimes or can I miss out those ones? 

Just how does this collective responsibility stuff work?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> That's stupid, I'm British and there is a lot of stuff that British governments have done both during my lifetime and before it that I disapprove of massively but I'm not going to write a long letter of condemnation about every single crime of colonialism. This collective responsibility nonsense is bullshit and it's bullshit when it applies to Jews as well.


Fantastic. But then, there is no British equivalent of anti-Semitism. So I guess you have that luxury. Doesn't help the Jews much, now, does it?


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Well, to be fair, my assumption is based on what I see. If, as a fairly widely read kind of chap, I don't see lots of evidence, it doesn't seem reasonable to be surprised and hurt that the average anti-Semite doesn't see it either. And that seems rather at odds with a ViolentPanda/FrogWoman sort of approach that "my views are my own business". If anti-Semitism bothers Jews, then Jews have an obligation - and a self interest - to engage in the sorts of behaviours that tackle it - like denouncing Israeli terrorism, supporting Palestinians, and all the rest. And if the current level of effort isn't cutting in, then they need to do more. Don't they?


 
It's asking a lot. Israel has a pernicious influence and even amongst Zionists who concede that there is a problem, the attitude is often that you only speak ill of Israel within Israel. I worked at a university with a very strong Zionist influence and it was extremely hard for Jewish students to reclaim the Jewish Society - they were shunned, had false allegations made against them (as did any pro-Palestinian who raised their head above the parapet), experienced physical violence on occasion. The Christian right were welcome allies, anti-Zionist Jews were treated like scum. That was in a period where many university campuses had movements to force separate Zionist Societies to allow Jewish Societies to cater for all Jewish students, but with limited success IIRC.

This is how dissent is silenced. But you cannot possibly have looked very hard for Jewish anti-Zionism. If I need a source on Palestine-Israel in a contentious debate, I generally choose one written by a Jewish Israeli because there is not a single thing said about the conflict that has not been said by a Jewish Israeli. They might get mainstream platforms denied much of the time, but they are there and they are vocal and not at all hard to find.

I spent some time in prison in Israel (and was called a terrorist on national TV by a government minister). The support from Israeli Jewish groups was overwhelming. One elderly couple contacted us to offer to act as go-between with our families because we couldn't get hold of phone cards that were sufficient to make international calls. We had a Jewish and a Palestinian lawyer acting pro bono, and offers of help from loads of Jewish Israeli lawyers and civil society groups. Women for Women Prisoners visited, not for us but so they could boost morale in the Palestinian wing. The court was full of Israeli Jews, all of them supporting us. Even the Jewish prisoners, wound up by the guards and sent in our direction, had no issue with what we had done, and it didn't take long to change their minds. Thank fuck; they were scary. We were locked up 23 hours a day with only what we had been arrested in and Jewish prisoners gave us their clothes, washed our clothes for us so they could dry in the sun and tried to make us take bottles of coke and chocolate through the bars of our cell.

I'm banging on, sorry, but this is so fucking offensive. People are not their governments and all governments make it fucking difficult for dissent to be heard. You know this.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

If Ed Miliband becomes Prime Minister, are Jews responsible for everything he does and the rest of us get a pass? Or do we both cop it?


----------



## cesare (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> They have the responsibility not to claim the right to silence on the matter. Do you disagree?


This style of questioning rings a bell.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> This is how dissent is silenced. But you cannot possibly have looked very hard for Jewish anti-Zionism.


This is internet forum writing at its best. Well written, unexpected, fascinating, and challenging. Thank you.

I haven't looked very hard at all, partly because I wouldn't know what to look for. Jews complain that non-Jews lump them all together. Well, non-Jews might make the same complaint. Neither I nor an anti-Semite are well informed - that does not make me an anti-Semite. Nor does me being anti-Israel.

I have to say, some Jews might help themselves by not flaming everyone who doesn't find their history and condition quite as fascinating as they do, and are therefore not as informed as they might like them to be. It's quite interesting to look back over what is a simple enquiry by a genuinely curious potential sympathiser, and count off all the fascist/anti-semite/right-wing/creepy/god knows what accusations - as a subject, it does seem to attract the most peculiarly hostile sort of people, which ironically only reinforces the impressions upon which anti-Semitism are founded.

So yes, it's asking a lot. Seems to be a good reason for some not to make it harder for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon: oh dear oh dear, you fall for the auld canard that anti-semites are necessarily ill-informed. Why?


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

The conflict and the debate surrounding it are a headfuck, it's true.

Start with Israeli revisionist historians like Avi Shlaim, and excellent journalists like Amira Hass (Israeli Jewish journalist who based herself in Gaza for many years) and Uri Avnery. And the Israeli academics who support the academic boycott. And Nurit Peled-Elhanan.

This piece by Uri Avnery gives a fantastic insight into the Israeli psyche: A moment of truth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2013)

Perhaps a different term could be used as revisionist historians aren't often the good guys


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps a different term could be used as revisionist historians aren't often the good guys


I did say "like Avi Shlaim". Most of them are OK though. Only Benny Morris drew the conclusion that, having uncovered evidence of deliberate genocide, the job should have been done properly. His actual history is good regardless of what you think of his politics.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Falcon: oh dear oh dear, you fall for the auld canard that anti-semites are necessarily ill-informed. Why?


Oh dear. You lump informed anti-Semites, uninformed anti-Semites, and the uninformed together, in a thread that complains about lumping Jews together. Why?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Excellent. Then you will have no hesitation in condemning the atrocities arising from it, as I have no hesitation in condemning the Holocaust. Or do I presume too much, and you would rather assert your right to silence on the matter?


 
Are you now demanding that VP denounces the atrocities committed by the state of Israel simply because he's Jewish? Have a fucking word you weirdo.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Oh dear. You lump informed anti-Semites, uninformed anti-Semites, and the uninformed together, in a thread that complains about lumping Jews together. Why?


 
So did you, you massive cock ring.



Falcon said:


> The people who are anti-Semitic most certainly are [ill-informed].


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you now demanding that VP denounces the atrocities committed by the state of Israel simply because he's Jewish? Have a fucking word you weirdo.


Err. No. I "demand" he does it because he's human. I'm curious to see if anything gets in the way of that humanity. We'll see how it turns out.

How are you feeling about the atrocities, sport? Chirpy? Or do you want to stay silent, too?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> So did you, you massive cock ring.


I refer you to my sympathy for ymu for the extent to which this subject acts like fly paper for the peculiarly hostile.

Massive cock ring? Spectacularly unappealing advocacy.


----------



## framed (Jan 26, 2013)

I know (from a quick search) that Matzpen have been mentioned here before, but I'm not sure if this documentary film about the group has been linked here. I know that they were fellow-travelers of Tariq Ali and the IMG, but nonetheless I found it an interesting and informative film. I am interested in the views of others on this group and its political positions and whether there exists any similar political organisations in Israel today?



_"Matzpen - the anti-Zionist Israeli socialist organization, has never had more than a few dozen active members. Still, at the end of the 1960's and beginning of the 1970's, it was considered a real threat to the Israeli political and social consensus. Most of Matzpen's members were Israeli born, coming from the core of Israeli society. Their fight against Zionism and against the occupation, as well as their contacts with Palestinian and European left-wing activists, were the cause of threats, slander, as well as political and social isolation. The film touches on the main issues of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict, through the eyes of some of the organization's prominent figures, their ideas, opinions and activities, then and today."_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

U75 Israel declaration form

Poster name: __________

Section 1

1.1.
Are you a Jew?

Yes, Jew   No, Gentile

1.2
If the answer to 1.1. is No, please go to section 4.
If the answer to 1.1 is Yes, please go to section 2.

Section 2

2.1
Do you condemn the actions of the state of Israel?

Yes   No   Won't say

2.2
If your answer to 2.1 is Yes, please go to section 6.
If your answer to 2.1 is No, we're sorry but your application has failed.
If your answer to 2.1 is Won't say, please go to section 3.

Section 3

3.1
Do you assert your right to remain silent over Israel?

Yes   No

3.2
If your answer to 3.1 is Yes, please go to section 6.
If your answer to 3.1 is No, we're sorry but your application has failed.


Section 4

4.1
Do you condemn the Holocaust?

Yes   No   Won't say

4.2
If your answer to 4.1 is Yes, please go to section 6.
If your answer to 4.1 is No, we're sorry but your application has failed.
If your answer to 2.1 is Won't say, please go to section 5.

5.1
Do you assert your right to remain silent over the Holocaust?

Yes   No

5.2
If your answer to 4.1 is Yes, please go to section 6.
If your answer to 4.1 is No, we're sorry but your application has failed.

Section 6

Welcome to U75. Have a hobnob.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Err. No. I "demand" he does it because he's human. I'm curious to see if anything gets in the way of that humanity. We'll see how it turns out.
> 
> How are you feeling about the atrocities, sport? Chirpy? Or do you want to stay silent, too?


 
Sport? Get to fuck.

I'm gonna stay silent. And interestingly enough, as a 'gentile' nobody has ever asked me to denounce the holocaust. My Irish relatives don't demand that I denounce Bloody Sunday either.

You see, those of us with a little faith in humanity assume people _don't_ support innocents being terrorized until they do something that makes us suspect otherwise. And being born of a Jewish mother doesn't count as one of those things.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

I went fucking mental when the idf bods done that school with white phos- I probably should have gone equally mental at every other time they did something shit but white phos on a un school compound struck me as a particularly heinous piece of shit act that cannot be excused.

Does this align me with truth seeker falcon


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I refer you to my sympathy for ymu for the extent to which this subject acts like fly paper for the peculiarly hostile.
> 
> Massive cock ring? Spectacularly unappealing advocacy.


 
The combination of not so thinly veiled bigotry (Jews must denounce Israeli state terror because they're Jews) and your university debating society style tosser attitude and obvious delusions of superiority do get up my nose, yes.








I take it you now admit that it was you, not PM, who lumped informed and ill-informed antisemites together?

Advocacy? What are you on about?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm gonna stay silent.


Wow. And how do you feel about the Holocaust? Refuse to condemn it, too?

If you don't - wow again. If you do, then all that stuff about faith in humanity appears to have been made up on the spot, rather unwisely.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

I don't remember ever having been asked to condemn the holocaust either come to think of it. Probably something to do with me not having anything to do with it. I bit like how most Jews have nothing to do with Israeli state violence.

E2A: Well, I hadn't until the above was posted anyway


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Wow. And how do you feel about the Holocaust? Refuse to condemn it, too?
> 
> If you don't - wow again. If you do, then all that stuff about faith in humanity appears to have been made up on the spot, rather unwisely.


 
Yeah I'll stay silent on that too.

You seem to be confusing my not dignifying stupid leading questions with an answer with something deeper and far more significant. Which logical fallacy is that Mr Logic?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The combination of not so thinly veiled bigotry (Jews must denounce Israeli state terror because they're Jews) and your university debating society style tosser attitude and obvious delusions of superiority do get up my nose, yes.


Gentiles must denounce gentile state terror (Holocaust) because they are gentiles (although I gather you are either the process of refusing to denounce the Holocaust, or disappearing up your own logical arse). Yet Jews need not denounce Israeli state terror because they are Jews. And pointing out that this is a bit odd is bigotry.

Got it.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

FFS.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah I'll stay silent on that too.
> 
> You seem to be confusing my not dignifying stupid leading questions with an answer with something deeper and far more significant. Which logical fallacy is that Mr Logic?


OK. You are refusing to denounce the Holocaust because of a deeper and far more significant principle? In a thread about anti-Semitism? Now I'm getting interested in this thread.

What principle?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Gentiles must denounce gentile state terror (Holocaust) because they are gentiles (although I gather you are either the process of refusing to denounce the Holocaust, or disappearing up your own logical arse). Yet Jews need not denounce Israeli state terror because they are Jews. And pointing out that this is a bit odd is bigotry.
> 
> Got it.


 
Nope, you've not 'got it' - nobody is obliged to denounce anything they're not responsible for. That's all there is to it. I'm no more responsibe for the Holocaust than any Jew, and Frogwoman or ViolentPanda are no more responsible for Israeli state terror than I am. That's it - very simple.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> OK. You are refusing to denounce the Holocaust because of a deeper and far more significant principle? In a thread about anti-Semitism? Now I'm getting interested in this thread.
> 
> What principle?


 
No, the other way round - it's not deep nor is it significant. It's a stupid question so I'm not answering it - that's all there is to it.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, the other way round - it's not deep nor is it significant. It's a stupid question so I'm not answering it - that's all there is to it.


A denier might refuse to answer, a deplorer ought to answer, so the rational conclusion is that you are a Holocaust denier? There are many, so your "faith in humanity" test is not reasonable in this case. How might we distinguish between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust deplorers, if asking the question is stupid? In what way does removing the ability to distinguish between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust supporters address anti-Semitism?

In short - have you thought this through? Proceeding from the statement that I'm a bigot, you appear to have removed the most fundamental test of anti-Semitism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Norman's completely right here. And in any case, a 'Holocaust denier' isn't just someone who doesn't volunteer their opinion about the Holocaust. It's someone who speaks out to say that it didn't happen, or that it didn't happen in the way 'they' say it happened.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> So you are a Holocaust denier?


 
Fucking hell, you're Laurie Penny and I claim my £5.

I suggest you point out where I denied the holocaust or withdraw that vile slur.



Falcon said:


> There are many, so your "faith in humanity" test is not reasonable in this case. How might we distinguish between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust deplorers, if asking the question is stupid? In what way does removing the ability to distinguish between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust supporters address anti-Semitism?
> 
> In short - have you thought this through?


 
Easy - holocaust deniers deny that the holocaust happened. Holocaust supporters (not that I've ever encountered any - oddly enough although you'd have thought they'd be proud of it, what with all the Jew hatred and that, Nazis almost all deny it completely) would likely bang on about how great killing 6 million Jews was. I generally assume people are neither - because most people aren't clueless fuckwits.

You're just really, really odd. And, as stated above, creepy as fuck.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> A denier might refuse to answer, a deplorer ought to answer, so the rational conclusion is that you are a Holocaust denier? There are many, so your "faith in humanity" test is not reasonable in this case. How might we distinguish between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust deplorers, if asking the question is stupid? In what way does removing the ability to distinguish between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust supporters address anti-Semitism?
> 
> In short - have you thought this through? Proceeding from the statement that I'm a bigot, you appear to have removed the most fundamental test of anti-Semitism.


 

I denied the holocaust three times before the cock crowed


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

You are incapable of understanding that you can't lump Jews into one homogenous group, Falcon, you really can't talk to anyone about bigotry.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're just really, really odd. And, as stated above, creepy as fuck.


You choose not to denounce Israeli atrocities, and the Holocaust, and I'm creepy as fuck?

For the avoidance of doubt, I denounce them both. I'll leave you to your silence on the subject.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> You choose not to denounce Israeli atrocities, and the Holocaust, and I'm creepy as fuck?
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt, I denounce them both. I'll leave you to your silence on the subject.


 

if you keep digging like this you'll never reach the moral highground


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> You choose not to denounce Israeli atrocities, and the Holocaust, and I'm creepy as fuck?
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt, I denounce them both. I'll leave you to your silence on the subject.


 
I choose not to answer your idiotic leading questions - there is a difference. Strangely nobody else on this thread appears to be reading anything more into it than that.

And anyway, you've not denounced the Armenian genocide yet so you must think that was OK.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> You are incapable of understanding that you can't lump Jews into one homogenous group, Falcon, you really can't talk to anyone about bigotry.


Umm - I'm perfectly capable, thanks. I think that is one of those statements you would need to be true for your position to have any coherence. I'm not certain what relevance you think your synthetic point about the heterogeneity of Jews has on the immunity any given faction ought to enjoy from denouncing atrocities committed by other factions that share the same religion and origins.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I choose not to answer your idiotic leading questions - there is a difference. Strangely nobody else on this thread appears to be reading anything more into it than that.
> 
> And anyway, you've not denounced the Armenian genocide yet so you must think that was OK.


Are you asking me to? Then I denounce it. But were I to assume your position, and choose to remain silent, you could not discount the probability that I did think it was OK, which is the bind you've got yourself in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Factions of the shared "Jewish Agenda". Marvelous.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Umm - I'm perfectly capable, thanks. I think that is one of those statements you would need to be true for your position to have any coherence. I'm not certain what relevance you think your synthetic point about the heterogeneity of Jews has on the immunity any given faction ought to enjoy from denouncing atrocities committed by other factions that share the same religion and origins.


 
Why do those who may share a religion and 'origins' with those who support Israeli state terror any more obliged to denounce them than I am? In the answer to _this _question is where you'll find your bigotry.

And since the most rabid supporters of the Israeli military agenda are _Christian_ zionists does that mean my mum needs to denounce it too, since she's a catholic? And do I need to denounce it since I share the same origins?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Are you asking me to? Then I denounce it. But were I to assume your position, and choose to remain silent, you could not discount the probability that I did think it was OK, which is the bind you've got yourself in.


 
Ah, so you _do _support the Rwandan genocide then?

I probably would suspect _you_ might have supported it because you've never shown even the briefest glimmer of humanity - you don't understand jokes, you've never shown any kind of emotion, empathy or even tried to understand why what you're saying might be offensive.

But were I to ask someone who isn't a fucking Mr Logic debating society/libertarian alliance style bore, in the way you just have - as an obviously dishonest leading question aimed at getting the answer you wanted - then I'd probably just think they didn't want to answer a stupid leading question.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Factions of the shared "Jewish Agenda". Marvelous.


 

bloodlines


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Ah, so you _do _support the Rwandan genocide then?


Nope. Not that one either. And you probably aren't going to understand that my failure to enumerate and denounce all possible atrocities, and your refusal to denounce this particular one, are fundamentally different moral propositions.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Nope. Not that one either. And you probably aren't going to understand that my failure to enumerate and denounce all possible atrocities, and your refusal to denounce this particular one, are fundamentally different moral propositions.


 
Why would I not understand that oh superior one? Please do educate me in all this logic business.

Not every Jew has been asked to specifically denounce Israeli state terror either - yet you for some reason think they are obliged to. So it's the same as your persistent failure to denounce the ethnic cleansing of native Americans.

Why do Jews have a greater obligation to denounce Israeli state terror than you do US/British/Portugese/Spanish state terror?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why do those who may share a religion and 'origins' with those who support Israeli state terror any more obliged to denounce them than I am? In the answer to _this _question is where you'll find your bigotry.


Three reasons:

Because it is the right thing to do. Why would you not? That's why gentiles denounce the gentile Holocaust and wouldn't dream of remaining silent.
Because denunciation by those who share the religion denies the terrorists the opportunity to claim that that they are acting on behalf of all the religious. You can do that. I can't.
Because by denouncing the terrorism perpetrated by *some* Jews, you deny anti-Semites the opportunity to claim that the terrorism is perpetrated by *all*Jews.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Three reasons:
> 
> Because it is the right thing to do. Why would you not? That's why gentiles denounce the gentile Holocaust and wouldn't dream of remaining silent.
> Because denunciation by those who share the religion denies the terrorists the opportunity to claim that that they are acting on behalf of all the religious. You can do that. I can't.
> Because by denouncing the terrorism perpetrated by *some* Jews, you deny anti-Semites the opportunity to claim that the terrorism is perpetrated by *all*Jews.


 
Except that's bollocks.

1) There's no need - without evidence otherwise people will assume that you're _not _a supporter of murder.

2) It doesn't deny them that opportinity - as evidenced by the ability of Zionists to claim to speak for all Jews, despite the protestations of anti-Zionist Jews to the contrary. You seem to be one of the ones who falls for it too.

3) No you don't - because the terrorists themselves have better access to media channels and they do claim to act on behalf of all Jews.

Your arguments add up to collective responsibility - which tends to entail collective punishment. It's a cunt's trick.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not every Jew has been asked to specifically denounce Israeli state terror either - yet you for some reason think they are obliged to.


Let's not get carried away. I suggested that being clear you don't support Israeli genocide might be a good idea if you wish to tackle anti-Semites head on and clear up some of the uncertainty upon which anti-Semitism depends. We are only pursuing this Holocaust denial thing because of the rather odd notion that Jews might be excused in a world where many others are not, and to suggest otherwise was bigoted/creepy/etc.

But while every Jew has not been asked, you have.


SpineyNorman said:


> So it's the same as your persistent failure to denounce the ethnic cleansing of native Americans.


Umm. What persistent failure? Do you mean me personally? I denounce that one too.



SpineyNorman said:


> Why do Jews have a greater obligation to denounce Israeli state terror than you do US/British/Portugese/Spanish state terror?


Que? They don't. We all have equal obligation. But for some reason, Jews appear to attract particular hostility, so it might necessitate particular clarity.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Umm - I'm perfectly capable, thanks. I think that is one of those statements you would need to be true for your position to have any coherence. I'm not certain what relevance you think your synthetic point about the heterogeneity of Jews has on the immunity any given faction ought to enjoy from denouncing atrocities committed by other factions that share the same religion and origins.


 
Several times on this thread, you have said 'the Jews' or 'Jews'.  So you clearly aren't capable.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

I give up. You're a very odd and an especially unpleasant person falcon.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Except that's bollocks.


There's no need to denounce atrocity? Really? I think that is astonishingly naive. The whole point of keeping the Holocaust alive in people's memories through active and continuous denunciation is to reduce the possibility of repetition.

And if I fall for it, it is because the balance is not right yet. That's only because there are not yet enough voices, yet you appear to wish to concede the fight to Zionists. Hardly an admirable position, and if with your silences you can't be bothered to make your case, it's hard to argue that anyone else should be bothered to listen.

So it sounds like you are resigned to anti-Semitism. How uninteresting.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Several times on this thread, you have said 'the Jews' or 'Jews'. So you clearly aren't capable.


Several times I've asked for a term that might cause the least offence to describe that community that shares Judaism. So I was aware the term might be imperfect and, had you given me the collective noun, I would have used it. So I disagree with your point.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I give up. You're a very odd and an especially unpleasant person falcon.


Because I think anti-Semitism is wrong and you can do a little better to help your self? I'm sorry you find that odd and unpleasant. Meanwhile, I do seem to be one of the few in the exchange that has avoided foul insults and incivility.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Several times I've asked for a term that might cause the least offence to describe that community that shares Judaism. So I was aware the term might be imperfect and, had you given me the collective noun, I would have used it. So I disagree with your point.


 
FFS.  People have taken umbridge with your use of 'the Jews' and 'Jews' because you have done it to lump all Jews into one group, suggesting they all think and feel the same way, as if we're all the same.  We're not.  You have not used it to simply describe.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Because I think anti-Semitism is wrong and you can do a little better to help your self? I'm sorry you find that odd and unpleasant. Meanwhile, I do seem to be one of the few in the exchange that has avoided foul insults and incivility.


Yet you've offered the most foul and insulting content. Odd that.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Jewish people? Some Jewish people? Zionists? Ultra-Zionists? Israel? The Israeli government? Anti-Zionist Jews? Liberal Jews? Right-wing Jews? Young Jews? Old Jews? Holocaust survivors? Immigrant Israeli? Born Israeli? Secular Jews? Ashkenazi Jews? Sephardi Jews? Reform Jews? Ultra-orthodox Jews? Arab Jews? Palestinian Jews?

Say who you mean.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

You appear to be implying that Jews must take some of the blame for anti-semitism because they don't denounce something they have nothing whatsoever to do with loudly enough. That is most definitely a cunt's trick.

I mean, women who walk home at night dressed up after a night out aren't helping themselves.

Gays who walk around in areas where there are a lot of homophobes aren't helping themselves.

etc.



Falcon said:


> Because I think anti-Semitism is wrong and you can do a little better to help your self? I'm sorry you find that odd and unpleasant. Meanwhile, I do seem to be one of the few in the exchange that has avoided foul insults and incivility.


 
I could do a little more of what to help myself with regards to what?

You're capable of astonishing amounts of foulness without using insults. And your soft antisemitism isn't exactly civil.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yet you've offered the most foul and insulting content. Odd that.


Such as? I don't discount the possibility that you have chosen to take offence as a device for avoiding debate, but that is a different matter.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> Say who you mean.


"Christians" is the label used to describe the collection of people who believe in Christianity. There are many, many sorts of Christians, yet I am not aware of any that would be insulted by the term "Christian".

"Jews", in the dictionary at least, is the label used to label the collection of people who's religion is Judaism. There are many, many sorts of Jews, and apparently, many of them are insulted by the term "Jew".

Can you help me understand why "Christian" is an acceptable term to Christians irrespective of faction, yet "Jew" is not? Is there an equivalent of the term "Christian" to label adherents of Judaism that is acceptable to all adherents?

(One of the uninformed criticisms of the anti-Semite is that adherents of Judaism are easily offended, and that ease of offence is a factor in anti-Semitism, so this is quite an interesting answer in the context of the thread.)


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You appear to be implying that Jews must take some of the blame for anti-semitism because they don't denounce something they have nothing whatsoever to do with loudly enough. That is most definitely a cunt's trick.


I imply nothing of the sort. I merely reject the argument that requiring a gentile to denounce the Holocaust while excusing the adherent-of-Judaism from denouncing Israeli terrorism is bigotry, and in fact assert that the attempt to excuse them is bigotry. Your only response to that is to refuse to denounce the Holocaust, which is an astonishing _non-sequitur_ arising from your premise.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Context.


----------



## dylans (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> "Christians" is the label used to describe the collection of people who believe in Christianity. There are many, many sorts of Christians, yet I am not aware of any that would be insulted by the term "Christian".


If you were to hold "Christians" responsible for every lunatic statement by some right wing US evangelist like Pat Robertson or the Westboro Baptist Church then you would be criticised for making a statement so general as to be meaningless. People would quite rightly ask you which Christians and would remind you that the term "Christian encompasses a group so heterogeneous, so diverse in culture and background that the word is meaningless as a description of anyone.  Likewise if you were to hold "Muslims" as somehow responsible for 9/11 or Jews for the occupation of Palestine.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> Context.


Do you mean adherents-of-Judaism demand context, where Christians do not?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> If you were to hold "Christians" responsible for every lunatic statement by some right wing US evangelist like Pat Robertson or the Westboro Baptist Church then you would be criticised for making a statement so general as to be meaningless. People would quite rightly ask you which Christians and would remind you that the term "Christian encompasses a group so heterogeneous, so diverse in culture and background that the word is meaningless as a description of anyone. Likewise if you were to hold "Muslims" as somehow responsible for 9/11 or Jews for the occupation of Palestine.


As it happens, I specifically do that, in the case of Christians. As a Humanist, I make the point that, once we admit the possibility and legitimacy of irrational thought in civil life, we deny ourselves the legitimate ability to argue against courses of action inspired by irrational thought, whether it is prayer, or mass suicide. So I do hold them accountable.

Notwithstanding, while different factions of Christians might disagree with other factions versions of irrationality, none would object to the label "Christian" of themselves.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Do you mean adherents-of-Judaism demand context, where Christians do not?


 
I mean that there are certain categories of statement that can legitimately be generalised to all Jewish people (never "the Jews", please) and certain categories of statement where this belies a racist mindset whereby the actions of a few 'other' define the beliefs and actions of all 'others'.


----------



## dylans (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> As it happens, I specifically do that, in the case of Christians. As a Humanist, I make the point that, once we admit the possibility and legitimacy of irrational thought in civil life, we deny ourselves the legitimate ability to argue against courses of action inspired by irrational thought, whether it is prayer, or mass suicide.
> 
> Notwithstanding, while different factions of Christians might disagree with other factions versions of irrationality,* none would object to the label "Christian" of themselves*.


No Jewish person objects to the label "Jew". People here are objecting to Jews being held responsible for the crimes of the Israeli state simply because they are Jewish.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)

As a secular half-jew (mum side so proper jewish, circumcised but no bah mitzvah though) I would just like to make it clear that I denounce all the bad things, done by anyone since I'm not-quite-jewish and not-really-gentile, I guess I must do this for everything bad done by everyone anywhere in history just in case my lack of denunciation is taken to mean that actually I support genocide or something.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> No Jewish person objects to the label "Jew". People here are objecting to Jews being held responsible for the crimes of the Israeli state simply because they are Jewish.


Yet no-one is objecting to gentiles being held responsible for the crimes of the German state simply because they are gentile. Indeed, most gentiles accept that responsibility perfectly willingly - I know I do. Moreover, no-one is inviting Jews to be responsible for the crimes of the Israeli state, merely to denounce them - which some Jews on this thread have refused to do. I'm struggling to understand the offence, and very aware of the criticism underpinning some anti-Semitism of the perception that Jews are easily offended.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yet no-one is objecting to gentiles being held responsible for the crimes of the German state simply because they are gentile. Indeed, most gentiles accept that responsibility perfectly willingly - I know I do. Moreover, no-one is inviting Jews to be responsible for the crimes of the Israeli state, merely to denounce them - which some Jews on this thread have refused to do. I'm struggling to understand the offence, and very aware of the criticism underpinning some anti-Semitism of the perception that Jews are easily offended.


 
bullshit, spiney was saying exactly that gentiles shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes of the NAZIs and I think most people would agree with that.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

All gentiles are held responsible for the actions of the Nazi state?? Wtf?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> I mean that there are certain categories of statement that can legitimately be generalised to all Jewish people (never "the Jews", please) and certain categories of statement where this belies a racist mindset whereby the actions of a few 'other' define the beliefs and actions of all 'others'.


Well I haven't checked, but if I've used the term "The Jews" and thereby caused offence, then I apologise and confirm none was intended.


----------



## dylans (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> *Yet no-one is objecting to gentiles being held responsible for the crimes of the German state simply because they are gentile.** Indeed, most gentiles accept that responsibility perfectly willingly* - I know I do. Moreover, no-one is inviting Jews to be responsible for the crimes of the Israeli state, merely to denounce them - which some Jews on this thread have refused to do. I'm struggling to understand the offence, and very aware of the criticism underpinning some anti-Semitism of the perception that Jews are easily offended.


 
Most non Jews accept responsibility for the crimes of the Nazis? This is what you are claiming?

Don't be so bloody stupid. I fucking don't accept any responsibility whatsoever. I wasn't there.. Who claims I bear some responsibility for those crimes?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> All gentiles are held responsible for the actions of the Nazi state?? Wtf?


Of course. It's been made clear to me growing up that my country colluded with Germany, along with many others, to facilitate the Holocaust. It's also been made clear it could happen again if we are not vigilant - that the seeds are around me, so to speak. So I feel a responsibility. I certainly feel responsible for the colonial legacy from which I benefit every day. Why shouldn't I?


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> Most non Jews accept responsibility for the crimes of the Nazis? This is what you are claiming?
> 
> Don't be so bloody stupid. I fucking don't accept any responsibility whatsoever. I wasn't there.. Who claims I bear some responsibility for those crimes?


That is your choice. Let's hope we don't find ourselves in similar circumstances, then.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 26, 2013)

As a Jew, I don't hold anyone alive today responsible for the Holocaust, bar any surviving members of the SS who took part and still feel no remorse for what they did. 

I also denounce the actions of Israel against Palestine.  I live in hope that one day it all ends, because so many wasted lives have been lost in years of heartbreak and torment.  The Palestinians must be freed, they deserve their homeland as much as any of us, they deserve freedom. 

Happy now?


----------



## dylans (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Of course. It's been made clear to me growing up that my country colluded with Germany, along with many others, to facilitate the Holocaust. It's also been made clear it could happen again if we are not vigilant - that the seeds are around me, so to speak. So I feel a responsibility. I certainly feel responsible for the colonial legacy from which I benefit every day. Why shouldn't I?


Were you there? 

No? Then you are not responsible. Stop beating yourself up. You are not responsible for events that occurred before you existed.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Of course. It's been made clear to me growing up that my country colluded with Germany, along with many others, to facilitate the Holocaust. It's also been made clear it could happen again if we are not vigilant - that the seeds are around me, so to speak. So I feel a responsibility. I certainly feel responsible for the colonial legacy from which I benefit every day. Why shouldn't I?


 
All the Jewish people ask of us is that we don't pretend it never happened.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> Were you there?
> 
> No? Then you are not responsible. Stop beating yourself up. You are not responsible for events that occurred before you existed.


Misses the point. I am here. The people who created the conditions under which the Holocaust became possible were as civilised, intelligent and moral as you and me. The circumstances that twisted them face us (comfortable about what's happening around immigration at the moment?). So it is only by accepting responsibility for our natures that we protect ourselves from being changed. I'm not beating myself up.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> All the Jewish people ask of us is that we don't pretend it never happened.


Then the Jewish people don't really understand what happened, and what might happen again.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)

My Grandmother left Austria in 1932, having been jailed in the 20s for communist activities. Lucky really, a communist jew... Most of her friends and relatives didn't survive. Do I think she held me or my dad or any of his relatives responsible for what happened? no way, she didn't see responsiblity for it for anyone but actual nazis.
Everyone has a collective responsibility to learn from all this kind of fucking shit and work towards it not happening again. That is not the same as being responsible for the atrocities that have been committed, and you cannot be responsible for things done before you were born.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Then the Jewish people don't really understand what happened, and what might happen again.


That is not true at all. An understanding of that is at the heart of the divide between Ultra-Zionist, Zionist, soft Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews. If you want to explore other Jewish demands and responses, you can no longer generalise.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

nobody says gentiles. nobody seriously attempts to organise people on the basis of their being gentiles either. well, there was one attempt but it was far from getting people to treat the jews better. quite the opposite. if you try to organise people on that basis it can only ever lead to that result.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

anyway, if you want to know, yes i do condemn the israeli state's state terrorism in the occupied palestinian territories and its terrorism against other states and its treatment of arabs, oriental jews, migrant workers etc at home.I absolutely condemn the actions of the state of israel and i do so again and again, publically and privately.

what i will not do however is to use that as a stick to beat myself or to other ordinary jews with because as far as i am concerned that is unhelpful in solving the situation and at worst leads to accommodation with politically convinced anti-semites. i also wont hesitate to condemn hamas and other organisations and states such as the Iranian state who use "anti-zionism" as a cover for their own activities in for example, killing striking workers, locking up dissidents etc.

i am enough of a fuckup without holding myself responsible for the situation in israel and palestine.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I imply nothing of the sort. I merely reject the argument that requiring a gentile to denounce the Holocaust while excusing the adherent-of-Judaism from denouncing Israeli terrorism is bigotry, and in fact assert that the attempt to excuse them is bigotry. Your only response to that is to refuse to denounce the Holocaust, which is an astonishing _non-sequitur_ arising from your premise.


 
You're an idiot.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 26, 2013)




----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yet no-one is objecting to gentiles being held responsible for the crimes of the German state simply because they are gentile.


 
I am.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yet no-one is objecting to gentiles being held responsible for the crimes of the German state simply because they are gentile. Indeed, most gentiles accept that responsibility perfectly willingly - I know I do. Moreover, no-one is inviting Jews to be responsible for the crimes of the Israeli state, merely to denounce them - which some Jews on this thread have refused to do. I'm struggling to understand the offence, and very aware of the criticism underpinning some anti-Semitism of the perception that Jews are easily offended.


 
this is nonsense.

nobody claims this.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

BigTom said:


> That is not the same as being responsible for the atrocities that have been committed, and you cannot be responsible for things done before you were born.


I don't think the issue is being responsible for the things done before we were born. I think the issue is being responsible for being a member of a society that rejects "different", whether it is disabled, gay, traveller, muslim - or Jew. Take a look at the debate about immigration right now, noting that our society hasn't suffered any significant contraction yet. Project forward - do you really imagine our society has changed much since 1945, in any sense that matters? People still need to eat, keep warm.

That is what we need to take responsibility for - our grandparents may have succumbed to susceptibility, but we are still susceptible. It strikes me as evidence of a dangerous lack of imagination to suggest this was someone else's fault, and we have no responsibility.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I don't think the issue is being responsible for the things done before we were born. I think the issue is being responsible for being a member of a society that rejects "different", whether it is disabled, gay, traveller, muslim - or Jew. Take a look at the debate about immigration right now, noting that our society hasn't suffered any significant reduction yet. Project forward - do you really imagine our society has changed much since 1945, in any sense that matters? People still need to eat, keep warm.
> 
> That is what we need to take responsibility for - our grandparents may have succumbed to susceptibility, but we are still susceptible. It strikes me as evidence of a dangerous lack of imagination to suggest this was someone else's fault.


 
taking responsibility is about looking at yourself though, not talking about what other people are doing.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I am.


Natch. You won't denounce the Holocaust - we can hardly expect you to feel any responsibility for being a member of the culture from which it arose and still persists.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

in fact it strikes me that what your'e doing is thevery opposite of taking responsibility, by saying that it is "the jews" who need to "take responsibility" but not you. you are presumably too enlightened for that.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Natch. You won't denounce the Holocaust - we can hardly expect you to feel any responsibility for being a member of the culture from which it arose and still persists.


 
thing is if you talk like this rather than addressing the socioeconomic factors from which the national socialist movement arose all you are left with is a vague liberalism and self flagellation which is just as unhealthy as nationalism and likely to evoke a nationalist backlash (and why wouldn't it)


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> in fact it strikes me that what your'e doing is thevery opposite of taking responsibility, by saying that it is "the jews" who need to "take responsibility" but not you. you are presumably too enlightened for that.


Have I?  I may have, in which case I was mistaken. I've said Jews should denounce it. I observed that (some) gentiles take responsibility. Are you getting mixed up, or am I?


----------



## thriller (Jan 26, 2013)

the twat has back tracked and apologised. Coward.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thing is if you talk like this rather than addressing the socioeconomic factors from which the national socialist movement arose all you are left with is a vague liberalism and self flagellation which is just as unhealthy as nationalism and likely to evoke a nationalist backlash (and why wouldn't it)


In what way is feeling responsibility for being a member of the culture in which the socioeconomic factors from which the national socialist movement arose, and addressing those factors, incompatible? Indeed, how can you attempt the latter without the former?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> In what way is feeling responsibility for being a member of the culture in which the socioeconomic factors from which the national socialist movement arose, and addressing those factors, incompatible? Indeed, how can you attempt the latter without the former?


 
I mean that feeling some sort of vague guilt for the holocaust simply because you are a "white aryan" is pointless, people will rightly ask why it is that they, who are not nazis, are responsible for nazi crimes, at worst it leads to the worst form of identity politics which seeks to lump everyone of a certain race or nationality together and ignore factors such as class etc. you end up getting shit like the anti-germans.

and as we know that sort of politics is like a gift to the far right. it is like the the whole idea of original sin. you have to address why the holocaust happened. it arose out of a set of historical conditions, not because of something deficient in the character of "gentiles" or jews for that matter.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I mean that feeling some sort of vague guilt for the holocaust simply because you are a "white aryan" is pointless,


You are confusing guilt and responsibility. I feel specific responsibility. I feel no guilt, vague or otherwise.


frogwoman said:


> it arose out of a set of historical conditions, not because of something deficient in the character of "gentiles" or jews for that matter.


This is dangerously complacent. This is a thread about anti-Semitism, far from rare, in a xenophobic, racist country. That's a bit of a clue about the deficiencies in the character of gentiles _en masse_, right now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> You are confusing guilt and responsibility. I feel specific responsibility. I feel no guilt, vague or otherwise.
> 
> This is dangerously complacent. This is a thread about anti-Semitism, far from rare, in a xenophobic, racist country. That's a bit of a clue about the character of gentiles _en masse_, right now.


What? you think the UK is on the verge of fascism? I see a different country from you, one in which there is less racism or anti-semitism than a generation ago, and one in which I have real hopes that there will be less racism or anti-semitism a generation from now. I know that's an optimistic point of view, but I think the reality backs my optimism up. Optimism isn't necessarily complacency.


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2013)

Just watching American History X. Do I need to tell everyone I'm not a racist?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Natch. You won't denounce the Holocaust - we can hardly expect you to feel any responsibility for being a member of the culture from which it arose and still persists.


 
Sorry, I'll go off and do a bit of self-flagellation shall I? You muppet.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What? you think the UK is on the verge of fascism? I see a different country from you, one in which there is less racism or anti-semitism than a generation ago, and one in which I have real hopes that there will be less racism or anti-semitism a generation from now. I know that's an optimistic point of view, but I think the reality backs my optimism up. Optimism isn't necessarily complacency.


I think you see a country that has seen a massive rise in wealth in the last generation, and is on the verge of a massive loss of wealth in the next. I think when that wealth starts to drop, we are going to start looking at all the "different" people around us, consuming resources of increasing scarcity, a little differently.

In fact, we already are. Which is why all this complacent talk of the Holocaust being a product of different people in a different time makes me nervous, frankly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2013)

thats right, stupid proles blame the darkies when times get tough AND THERES NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT


----------



## framed (Jan 27, 2013)

I might get slaughtered by some here for the (deliberately) loaded question that I asked of a German anti-fascist tonight, it was on an 'anti-fascist ultras' football page. I was genuinely gobsmacked by the reply. I assume that this person is from the 'anti-German' wing of the anti-fascist movement?

_How can anyone who calls themselves progressive or socialist support a state that is exclusively designed for a particular religious sect or ethnic group and which relies on the support of fanatics from all around the world simply because they share that religion or ethnicity?_
​
MICHAEL: Because only Israel has, in this system, the right to exist, until a communist society is achieved. Israel is shelter for all jews!​


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

this is why self-hatred can never form the bedrock of a revolutionary movement


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

This is what you get when you start off from a position of feeling that everyone in the west (or all jews, or whatever) are responsible for the crimes of the west or whatever because they supposedly benefit. you get this.you get more apologism for murder.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I don't think the issue is being responsible for the things done before we were born. I think the issue is being responsible for being a member of a society that rejects "different", whether it is disabled, gay, traveller, muslim - or Jew. Take a look at the debate about immigration right now, noting that our society hasn't suffered any significant contraction yet. Project forward - do you really imagine our society has changed much since 1945, in any sense that matters? People still need to eat, keep warm.
> 
> That is what we need to take responsibility for - our grandparents may have succumbed to susceptibility, but we are still susceptible. It strikes me as evidence of a dangerous lack of imagination to suggest this was someone else's fault, and we have no responsibility.



So did you just ignore the sentence you cut from that paragraph you quoted about the responsibility we have to stop nasty shit from happening again, because your response too what i said feels/sounds like it to me.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 27, 2013)

BigTom said:


> So did you just ignore the sentence you cut from that paragraph you quoted about the responsibility we have to stop nasty shit from happening again, because your response too what i said feels/sounds like it to me.


I don't understand your question. I don't feel responsible for the things that happened before I was born, if that is what you mean. I do feel responsible for being a member of the kind of society in which those things that happened before I was born could still happen, and to prevent it happening again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Oh dear. You lump informed anti-Semites, uninformed anti-Semites, and the uninformed together, in a thread that complains about lumping Jews together. Why?


I'm not tho.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not tho.


I sense we are moving on.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I don't understand your question. I don't feel responsible for the things that happened before I was born, if that is what you mean. I do feel responsible for being a member of the kind of society in which those things that happened before I was born could still happen, and to prevent it happening again.


 
ok, then I think we agree, but what you said that I was responding to is this:



Falcon said:


> Yet* no-one is objecting to gentiles being held responsible for the crimes of the German state simply because they are gentile. Indeed, most gentiles accept that responsibility perfectly willingly - I know I do.* Moreover, no-one is inviting Jews to be responsible for the crimes of the Israeli state, merely to denounce them - which some Jews on this thread have refused to do. I'm struggling to understand the offence, and very aware of the criticism underpinning some anti-Semitism of the perception that Jews are easily offended.


 
Which says something very different to what you are saying now. If this is a misunderstanding then maybe we can move on cos lots of people have been thinking you've said something different.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 27, 2013)

BigTom said:


> ok, then I think we agree, but what you said that I was responding to is this:


I think it's fine. Feeling responsible for the conditions under which the crimes took place (and still exist, and therefor for the possibility that the crimes could occur again), and feeling responsible for the crimes themselves are different and I was not clear enough.

I feel totally responsible for my role in a society in which anti-Semitism is an issue, and I don't feel any right to remain silent on the matter - because that would be to fail to accept my responsibility for helping avoid a repetition of the crimes that could still take place in it.


----------



## cdg (Jan 27, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21216801


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

the problem with asking "jews" to denounce the crimes of the israeli state, as well as the other reasons ive said, is to bring up the whole question of the dual loyalty charge as well. Fair enough if you dont intend this but basically throughout history jews have been suspected of being more loyal to world jewry than to the countries they live in and therefore have a connection to all other jews. now i don't deny that for many people this is true. it is even true with me to some extent even though i am a revolutionary marxist, i tend to get very upset when hearing about certain instances of anti-semitism, more than i do to hearing about an earthquake in indonesia or something. i know that this is wrong but at the same time it is similar to how a lot of people would feel with say a large scale shooting here compared to one in america because it is "closer to home". It is wrong but it is explainable. i also tend to get a visceral gut reaction to anti-semitism although i get the same reaction to say hearing the n-word used in a real life context and not in a film or song because i have been brought up in a pretty anti-racist family and know instinctively that its wrong.Its because its immediate and it feels alot closer.

the problem with asking 'jews" to do this or that tho in order to avoid people becoming anti-semitic, even if this is what you meant is very similar to the old loyalty charges of the past because it implies that jews are in some way linked to Israel and indeed perhaps more linked to it than where they are today.


----------



## Garek (Jan 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i tend to get very upset when hearing about certain instances of anti-semitism, more than i do to hearing about an earthquake in indonesia or something. i know that this is wrong but at the same time it is similar to how a lot of people would feel with say a large scale shooting here compared to one in america because it is "closer to home". It is wrong but it is explainable. i also tend to get a visceral gut reaction to anti-semitism although i get the same reaction to say hearing the n-word used in a real life context and not in a film or song because i have been brought up in a pretty anti-racist family and know instinctively that its wrong.Its because its immediate and it feels alot closer.


 
Why do you feel it is wrong?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

Garek said:


> Why do you feel it is wrong?


 
because it conflicts with the whole idea of internationalism etc. i think. or it might not, i dunno.


----------



## Garek (Jan 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> because it conflicts with the whole idea of internationalism etc. i think. or it might not, i dunno.


 
I don't think it does. I mean I see what you are saying. But I think it comes down more to how to you respond to that reaction. There is nothing right or wrong about the initial reaction. It is the reaction that naturally will come when you you are part of a history that involves large parts of your people*/family being murdered. Saying it is wrong almost seems like you are apologising for it. 

If you further reaction after the instinctual is to then think "I care less because they are not me" then that is wrong. 

If that makes sense. Still half asleep. 

*for want of a better term right now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Excellent. Then you will have no hesitation in condemning the atrocities arising from it, as I have no hesitation in condemning the Holocaust. Or do I presume too much, and you would rather assert your right to silence on the matter?


 
Telling people what they "will" or will not do is the mark of an idiot. I've condemned the actions of the state of Israel vociferously for all the years I've been politically-aware (that's 35+ years), you _schmuck_. You can find multiple instances on Urban alone where I've done so over the last 10 years. 
I suggest that you stick your presumption in the orifice you speak out of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> And I would encourage those others to actually read that thread to compare what you claim as "shitting on the thread" with what I actually said, and the discussion I tried to hold. To the extent that it was with people who didn't seem in the least bit interested in the causes and therefore of meaningful response, but rather a passive recitation of old grievances, it has much in common with this.


 
Perhaps those you encourage will note what you did not - that the thread wasn't aimed at analysis (hence the repeated requests from a moderator that you start a new thread to do so).
I *did* start a new thread aimed at analysis (after you refused the request of a moderator to do so) which you didn't see fit to post on. Perhaps it wouldn't have provided you with the platform you felt that your theses deserved, but it would have stopped you shitting all over a memorial thread, something you did with much gusto.

So yeah, I'd encourage people to read it too, if only so that they get a grasp of the difference between *your* analysis of your actions, and those of the other people on that thread.


----------



## dylans (Jan 27, 2013)

cdg said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21216801


The Israeli embassy response to his comments is very revealing. They don't take Ward to task for blaming "the Jews" for Israel's actions. How could they, this is a narrative they encourage and they claim to speak and act in the name of all Jews. 

Instead they take the opportunity to cynically use the holocaust as an excuse to defend Israel's brutality against Palestinians.




> Embassy spokesman Amir Ofek said: "David Ward's comments show a troubling ignorance of the brutal campaign of terrorist attacks waged against Israeli children, women and men by Palestinian terrorist groups, and of *the extraordinary efforts made by Israel to protect its citizens in an effective and humane manner*."


 
Ward fucked up badly. Not only did his comments descend into crass anti Semitism by associated Israel with all Jews but he also lost the opportunity to defend the Palestinians. If he had said that Israel cynically uses the memory of the holocaust as a smokescreen to justify its own crimes he would have been absolutely right.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

i also take anti-semitism _personally_ if that makes sense. its not that i dont care about anything else tho.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> This style of questioning rings a bell.


 
A small tinkly one, or a big boomin' motherfucker?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you now demanding that VP denounces the atrocities committed by the state of Israel simply because he's Jewish? Have a fucking word you weirdo.


 
That's exactly what he's doing. We have collective guilt for the crimes of a minority. Best to liquidate us all, just to make sure, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Err. No. I "demand" he does it because he's human. I'm curious to see if anything gets in the way of that humanity. We'll see how it turns out.
> 
> How are you feeling about the atrocities, sport? Chirpy? Or do you want to stay silent, too?


 
No, you're demanding that as a member of a particular overarching culture (Jewry), I denounce the atrocities of a minority of that culture (the nationalist Zionists that hold power in the state of Israel). That's not something you're demanding because of my humanity, it's something you're demanding because of my cultural background.


----------



## cesare (Jan 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A small tinkly one, or a big boomin' motherfucker?


The style's reminiscent of that guy in Bristol whose user name escapes me. Begins with Z I think. That was all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nope, you've not 'got it' - nobody is obliged to denounce anything they're not responsible for. That's all there is to it. I'm no more responsibe for the Holocaust than any Jew, and Frogwoman or ViolentPanda are no more responsible for Israeli state terror than I am. That's it - very simple.


 
In which case you're as guilty as fuck, because for Falcon, *"any Jew"* IS responsible for Israeli state terror if we don't publicly denounce it to Falcon's satisfaction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> The style's reminiscent of that guy in Bristol whose user name escapes me. Begins with Z I think. That was all.


 
You mean that dog-fucking grass Zaskar?


----------



## cesare (Jan 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean that dog-fucking grass Zaskar?


That's the one! The style's similar, don't you think?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> That's the one! The style's similar, don't you think?


 
Similar style, similar near-pathological inability to see the other side of any argument.
Better punctuation though.


----------



## Santino (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Well, to be fair, my assumption is based on what I see. If, as a fairly widely read kind of chap, I don't see lots of evidence, it doesn't seem reasonable to be surprised and hurt that the average anti-Semite doesn't see it either. And that seems rather at odds with a ViolentPanda/FrogWoman sort of approach that "my views are my own business". If anti-Semitism bothers Jews, then Jews have an obligation - and a self interest - to engage in the sorts of behaviours that tackle it - like denouncing Israeli terrorism, supporting Palestinians, and all the rest. And if the current level of effort isn't cutting in, then they need to do more. Don't they?


It's the Jews fault there isn't less anti-semitism. You cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2013)

we've established this already- the cunt part


----------



## framed (Jan 27, 2013)

Falcon's points about the need for Jews worldwide to show public contrition for the actions of Israel strike me as being the inverse of the equally preposterous demands of the "anti-Germans" that the left must give uncritical support to Israel. This appears to be primarily based on their own feelings of national and collective guilt, which they project on to the wider left and anti-fascist movement, sometimes quite aggressively. It seems absolutely crazy to me to suggest that all Germans, irrespective of their relationship to the Third Reich then or now, must bear responsibility for the rest of eternity for the holocaust and demonstrate their contrition by uncritically supporting the Israeli state.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

framed said:


> Falcon's points about the need for Jews worldwide to show public contrition for the actions of Israel strike me as being the inverse of the equally preposterous demands of the "anti-Germans" that the left must give uncritical support to Israel. This appears to be primarily based on their own feelings of national and collective guilt, which they project on to the wider left and anti-fascist movement, sometimes quite aggressively. It seems absolutely crazy to me to suggest that all Germans, irrespective of their relationship to the Third Reich then or now, must bear responsibility for the rest of eternity for the holocaust and demonstrate their contrition by uncritically supporting the Israeli state.


 
It's exactly the same thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

It's _more_ than that though - he _extends_ it to argue that if this public contrition is not forthcoming _then_ conflating Jewish people full stop with the Israeli state is an acceptable and rational conclusion to reach, and this, when placed alongside the usual tropes of "Jews in Law" receiving special treatment, a shared "Jewish agenda" and so on, something much more nasty appears. He managed to turn it around by projecting an image of genuine and beautiful concerned humanity last night somehow but all the pieces are there no matter how cultured and _civil_ he thinks the expression of them may be.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

yeah i'm probably too willing to give the benefit of the doubt i'm very sensitive about it and i was trying not to get too mental on this occasion and be polite.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There are laws about denying the armenian genocide too in some european countries.


 
France, most recently.  The Turks are well pissed off about it, and rather confused about the implications, since it effectively bans all of their diplomats from the country, among other things.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yes, this. I don't recognise myself as a 'gentile'. Someone else might call me that


 
_Plenty _of people call you that, trust me on this one.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 27, 2013)

framed said:


> It seems absolutely crazy to me to suggest that all Germans, irrespective of their relationship to the Third Reich then or now, must bear responsibility for the rest of eternity for the holocaust and demonstrate their contrition by uncritically supporting the Israeli state.


 
It's a bit harder for Germans to be critical of Israel, though. After four years of living there I was quite pro-Israel and coming back to the UK I was amazed at how many people I knew would happily come out with anti-Israel stuff. Took me quite a while to adjust.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2013)

Ward on Sky News.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Appalling interview, and the thing is that she is worse than him. Who is she?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's a bit harder for Germans to be critical of Israel, though. After four years of living there I was quite pro-Israel and coming back to the UK I was amazed at how many people I knew would happily come out with anti-Israel stuff. Took me quite a while to adjust.


have you got better?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

Falcon said:


> "Christians" is the label used to describe the collection of people who believe in Christianity. There are many, many sorts of Christians, yet I am not aware of any that would be insulted by the term "Christian".
> 
> "Jews", in the dictionary at least, is the label used to label the collection of people who's religion is Judaism. There are many, many sorts of Jews, and apparently, many of them are insulted by the term "Jew".
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to do this...but here goes.

You can use the term christian to describe a group of people who self identify as christians; e.g. pointing to a group of people taking communion and saying there's some christians.

You can't use the term christians to attach a political position to a group; e.g pointing to that same group of people and saying chrsitians oppose abortion.

You are continually trying to do the latter and it is simply wrong; just get over it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I sense we are moving on.


no, we're not. not until you answer the question in post #265


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

nobody is insulted by the word jew, the thing is that sometimes its used in a wrong way. also some people object to the term "the jews" cos your saying "the jews" do this and that and its like talking about "the blacks" or "the gays". you should drop the definite article and add "people" on the end.

of course if you say "the jew" in any sentence to mean jews then that means you're a complete wrongun


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

and a lot of christians are pro-zionist, a lot of british and american politicians favour zionism as a bulwark in the region against both islamic extremism and working class militancy etc, so the Jewish political agenda is not entirely jewish or even real.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

Frogwoman - sort out your capital letters you massive antisemite


----------



## Garek (Feb 6, 2013)

And a little bump,



> "There is a huge operation out there, a machine almost, which is designed to protect the state of Israel from criticism. And that comes into play very, very quickly and focuses intensely on anyone who's seen to criticise the state of Israel. And so I end up looking at what happened to me, whether I should use this word, whether I should use that word – and that is winning, for them. Because what I want to talk about is the fundamental question of how can they do this, and how can they be allowed to do this."


 
A huge operation you say? A machine you say? Sounds like, like, begins with 'L', possibly ending in 'y', damn, it'll come to me...


----------



## Garek (Feb 6, 2013)

> Being careful who you are blaming for what would be a start. *"Do you really believe that by using that term I was referring to every single Jew on the planet?"* Ward is visibly angry now. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but on paper I think ... "Why are you thinking so hard? Why are you trying to make this so difficult? I'm clearly not referring to those I'm not referring to. I mean we refer to, 'Oh, you know what the Americans are like' [but we don't mean] every single American."
> Leaving aside the fact that that is not a particularly advisable way to proceed either, yes, it is different. There's a history of persecution and racism that simply doesn't apply to the term American. "So what we're saying is that the term a Jew, or Jews, is a term of abuse." No, we are not. Sometimes, during this conversation, I feel that he is not engaging with me at all, but with the chief whip. *"We refer to the** Liberal democrats**, day after day. You Liberal Democrats – what, every Liberal Democrat? Why is that different?"* The analogy is clearly completely obtuse: parties are organised around explicit principles to which all members sign up, by choice. Which is one reason why, particularly if you are a party in power, you have to be very, very careful about how you use words, always. Especially when referring to situations – Israel, Northern Ireland – where so many words are loaded with decades of hurt and violence and blame.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Can't remember if this has been pointed out already what with Falcon's little offering, but the reason he cannot and will not take a step backwards is simple:

Liberal Democrat: 13637 (33.71%)
Labour: 13272 (32.81%)
Conservative: 10860 (26.84%)

Hence the need to look harder on the issue for the 25% muslim population - without a good chunk, probably the majority, of that sector of the electorate he is gone. Odds are he is gone anyway - it's labours 10th target seat. Galloway should be buttering him up right now and vice versa, more chance under that flag than the lib-dems come 2015.


----------



## Garek (Feb 6, 2013)

He can go on the Peter Griffiths' list for that kind of politics.


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

More fail!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-21381067



> A Liberal Democrat MP has been summoned by party bosses again over comments he made about "the Jews" in Israel "inflicting atrocities on Palestinians"


 


> Jewish leaders demanded action following a meeting with Lib Dem chiefs aimed at calming tensions.


 
He isnt capable of digging himself out of this hole, just look at his apparent attempt at a correction:



> Jewish News had reported Mr Ward asked if it would satisfy critics if he changed the wording to read "the Jewish community", sparking renewed complaints.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

The Jewish community and their protocols


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The Jewish community and their protocols


Members of the bigot community secretly manipulating the heights of UK politics using code words to advance their Bigotist nationalist agenda


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

The jews
the jewish people
the jewish community
all jews
jews
the you know
thee jews


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The jews
> the jewish people
> the jewish community
> all jews
> ...


"Those of a Hebrew persuasion"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

The lizards
the rothschilds


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

spurs


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The lizards
> the rothschilds


International finance
Secret corporate elite


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

international financiers


----------



## Santino (Feb 8, 2013)

Red Sea pedestrians


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2013)

fourbies


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

rootless cosmopolitans


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> "Those of a Hebrew persuasion"


 
Four be twos.
Front wheel skids.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

wogs


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

what about the holohoaxers I really hate them?


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The Jewish community and their protocols


 
I know Netanyahu is seeking to form a fairly broad coalition, but I think most would be surprised to learn that the entire Jewish community are to be part of the Israeli government according to the Liberal Dumbocrat who complains about people thinking too much. Tune in next week when he claims it was the jews fault that he is rationing his thoughts, because a Rabbi appears on 'thought for the day' quite often, and thats obviously an instruction to only have one thought per day. It says so in this book, which is written using the blood of children.


----------



## Garek (Feb 8, 2013)

Jewish cabal.

(a thank you to Tam for that one)


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Four be twos.
> Front wheel skids.


 

I already did fourbies


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

Jews control the news, take away my ability to choose, put dog mess on the soles of my shoes, inflate the price of booze, ensure we always lose, instigate all coups, and surely are the masters of the ruse. They give me the blues and interfere with the consistency and texture of my poos.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what about the holohoaxers I really hate them?


 
the HOLLOWhoax


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

elbows said:


> Jews control the news, take away my ability to choose, put dog mess on the soles of my shoes, inflate the price of booze, ensure we always lose, instigate all coups, and surely are the masters of the ruse. They give me the blues and interfere with the consistency and texture of my poos.


and give you flu...(vaccination)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Anyway it's not jews, it's the jew.


----------



## cesare (Feb 8, 2013)

Tu whit tu woo


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

In a time of universal deceit telling THE TRUTH is a revolutionary act


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> Tu whit tu woo


 
and of course an owl is the symbol of teh bilderbergers


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past! If telling the truth makes you an anti-semite then I'm the biggest anti-semite of them all!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> and of course an owl is the symbol of teh bilderbergers








and of birkbeck college


----------



## cesare (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> and of course an owl is the symbol of teh bilderbergers



Method in my cute but madness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> In a time of universal deceit telling THE TRUTH is a revolutionary act


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

If you were kicked out of a million different countries wouldn't you start to think you were the one with the problem?(er , no)


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

The eyes to the right, the nose to the left.


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> and of course an owl is the symbol of teh bilderbergers


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

elbows said:


>


 
There are even Jews on other planets you know.


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There are even Jews on other planets you know.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

Garek said:


> Up there with Toynbee in clueless mouthing off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


does it say that the crimes of Israel are the crimes of the Jews?
or does it just point out that the leaders of Israel, being Jewish, should know better after having such terrible crimes perpetrated on them? After all almost all of the Israel Government are former Europeans that were Jewish.....Just a thought


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There are even Jews on other planets you know.


The Intergalactic Jew  (Henry Ford)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> does it say that the crimes of Israel are the crimes of the Jews?
> or does it just point out that the leaders of Israel, being Jewish, should know better after having such terrible crimes perpetrated on them? After all almost all of the Israel Government are former Europeans that were Jewish.....Just a thought


 
Why should they know better?


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

Oh yes, because normally humans who are victims go on to become passive saintly beings who are automatically enlightened by the horror, and decide that the lesson to be learnt is never to harm a fly or use attack as a form of defense. But not the jews, they uniquely chose to fight fire with fire and learn the wrong lessons, bloody victims, its still all their fault and no matter how much they are blamed or killed they just refuse to learn. The generation that are in power now are shaped by hitlers moustache, not the insecurities of their state and hostility from their current neighbours. Wibble.

PS. Netanyahu was born in Israel.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Why should they know better?


ok, know better is the wrong term, have a bit more compassion is maybe better.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> ok, know better is the wrong term, have a bit more compassion is maybe better.


 
Keep digging.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2013)

this thread is great, like flypaper.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

digging? 
Don't you think that if someone has had a crime perpetrated against them that they would have some compassion towards others that have had crimes perpetrated against them?

its a perfectly reasonable assumption.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> digging?
> Don't you think that if someone has had a crime perpetrated against them that they would have some compassion towards others that have had crimes perpetrated against them?
> 
> its a perfectly reasonable assumption.


It's a massively irreasonable asumption based on broad racist mind-set bollocks.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

are you calling me a racist?


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> are you calling me a racist?


 
I base all of my beliefs on my belief in humanity rather than race and certainly religion. My post was based on one human being having a terrible crime perpetrated against them and that they, no matter whom, would like to have a society based on humanitarian beliefs.... 

turning it into anything racist is just picking a fight for the sake of it...it seems.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Base it on what you like - i'm saying that arguing that 'the jews' learnt from the holocaust/didn't learn from the holocaust and the evidence is the existence and actions of the Israeli state is  a massively irreasonable asumption based on broad racist mind-set bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Maybe the jews should sense how they should act through the air?


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> I base all of my beliefs on my belief in humanity rather than race and certainly religion. My post was based on one human being having a terrible crime perpetrated against them and that they, no matter whom, would like to have a society based on humanitarian beliefs....
> 
> turning it into anything racist is just picking a fight for the sake of it...it seems.


 
Thats not generally how humanity works though is it? Cycles of violence and abuse tend to involve victims becoming perpetrators, not to a nice break of the cycle. Sexual abuse is a classic example of this.

And if you would like to believe in such ideals, there is a related one which you should consider before opening your own gob on the subject:

Given that the crimes perpetrated against millions of Jewish people were based on racist attitudes towards them, rather a lot of people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, might be keen to avoid the very same attitudes from creeping into discourse in future and leading to the same kind of shit. So going on about why the jews havent learnt the right lessons from the holocaust is part of the problem, not the solution. It doesnt matter if a Jewish state has come along and done some shit of its own, it doesnt make the use of collective complaints about 'the jews' acceptable, not even if said Jewish state has indulged in collective punishment and brutality of its own.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Base it on what you like - i'm saying that arguing that 'the jews' learnt from the holocaust/didn't learn from the holocaust and the evidence is the existence and actions of the Israeli state is a massively irreasonable asumption based on broad racist mind-set bollocks.


 
sorry that's rubbish,

my post can be applied to anyone that has been a victim of a crime, to say that i have racist mindset is ridiculous.

you know nothing about me, I have made very few posts on here, none of them remotely racist yet you have decided, because you dont agree with what i wrote, that i am a racist.

it says more about you than it does about me my friend.


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe the jews should sense how they should act through the air?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> sorry that's rubbish,
> 
> my post can be applied to anyone that has been a victim of a crime, to say that i have racist mindset is ridiculous.
> 
> ...


I don't think that you're a racist - i think that your logic is the same as those of racists and that you should have a look at it for that reason.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> you know nothing about me, I have made very few posts on here, none of them remotely racist yet you have decided, because you dont agree with what i wrote, that i am a racist.


 Calm down, no one's saying that you've got RACIST written through your body like a stick of rock. Racist assumptions are present in a lot of our lazy thinking, stereotypes, etc. If you're 100% non-racist then take the criticism as an opportunity to re-think.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

OK,
so some have taken offence, wrongly in my opinion, that is not what was meant when i made my post.
I do feel however that everyone should learn from history, then it might stop repeating itself over and over again, which in the end is felt by the working classes of all races all over the world. It just goes to show that the people in power, including the MP from the piece quoted at the start of this thread, dont give a fuck about anyone other than their own kind (the ruling classes) no matter what they say


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

elbows said:


> Thats not generally how humanity works though is it? Cycles of violence and abuse tend to involve victims becoming perpetrators, not to a nice break of the cycle. Sexual abuse is a classic example of this.


 
It is also worth noting that by attempting to state that the opposite to your point is more likely, I am making the very same mistake, because its still based on supposing that some great collective of people will share a lesson, draw the same conclusions and act upon them. There is no shared Jewish mindset that was altered by the holocaust.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Calm down, no one's saying that you've got RACIST written through your body like a stick of rock. Racist assumptions are present in a lot of our lazy thinking, stereotypes, etc. If you're 100% non-racist then take the criticism as an opportunity to re-think.


 
OK explain to me where i am being stereotypical?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> digging?
> Don't you think that if someone has had a crime perpetrated against them that they would have some compassion towards others that have had crimes perpetrated against them?
> 
> its a perfectly reasonable assumption.


 
No.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

elbows said:


> It is also worth noting that by attempting to state that the opposite to your point is more likely, I am making the very same mistake, because its still based on supposing that some great collective of people will share a lesson, draw the same conclusions and act upon them. There is no shared Jewish mindset that was altered by the holocaust.


 
 no there is not, that is true, however it only takes the leaders of any collective to explain impress on their people, it doesn't need to whole collective to share the view, only the leaders.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

People who have had crimes committed against them never go on to commit crimes against others. And if they do then they deserved it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> no there is not, that is true, however it only takes the leaders of any collective to explain impress on their people, it doesn't need to whole collective to share the view, only the leaders.


 
the mask slips

more of a joke shop disguise actually


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> no there is not, that is true, however it only takes the leaders of any collective to explain impress on their people, it doesn't need to whole collective to share the view, only the leaders.


 
my grammer is a mess today, and i havent even had a drink yet


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the mask slips
> 
> more of a joke shop disguise actually


 
what?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> no there is not, that is true, however it only takes the leaders of any collective to explain impress on their people, it doesn't need to whole collective to share the view, only the leaders.


Mr Ward, that ye? You need a taxi?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

however it only takes the leaders of any collective to explain impress on their people


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> however it only takes *the leaders* of any collective to explain impress on their people


 

All 12 of them


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> no there is not, that is true, however it only takes the leaders of any collective to explain impress on their people, it doesn't need to whole collective to share the view, only the leaders.


Here's a racist stereotype: you assume that Israel is a collective and its leaders represent it. Or, even worse you assume that the "Jewish people" are a collective and its "leaders" represent it. Do you say the same thing about Islam or Christianity? Are they "collectives" that have leaders?


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

On a vaguely related note, it always drove me somewhat potty that in history lessons and on the tv, during the endless re-evoking of the memory of world war 2 and its atrocities in the 60+ years that followed in the UK, there was a very well worn phrase about 'never forgetting the lessons'. This sentiment was never matched with a detailed description of exactly what those lessons were supposed to be, other than not letting dodgy foreigners with evil facial hair into power.

So it was with some eyebrow wiggling that I read this story last year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/26/britain-execution-nuremberg-nazi-leaders



> There, he felt his fear that the tribunals would be little better than show trials had been confirmed. "One cannot escape the feeling that most of the things the 21 are accused of having done over a period of 14 years, the Russians have done over a period of 28 years. This adds considerably to the somewhat phoney atmosphere of the whole proceedings and leads me to the point which in a way worries me most, namely, that the court is one of the victors who have framed their own charter, their own procedure and their own rules of evidence in order to deal with the vanquished."


 


> While the Nuremberg tribunals are now widely seen as a defining moment in international justice, providing the basis upon which war criminals could be brought to trial, Liddell thought it unwise to prosecute the Nazis for having waged a war of aggression. "One cannot help feeling ... a dangerous precedent is being created," he said.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> no there is not, that is true, however it only takes the leaders of any collective to explain impress on their people, it doesn't need to whole collective to share the view, only the leaders.


I'm confused. Are you saying that you think everyone in a country should be held accountable for the actions of the political leaders of that country?


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

no but 





Random said:


> Here's a racist stereotype: you assume that Israel is a collective and its leaders represent it. Or, even worse you assume that the "Jewish people" are a collective and its "leaders" represent it. Do you say the same thing about Islam or Christianity? Are they "collectives" that have leaders?


 
No but a nation is, most nations have governments. Any governing body should ensure that the nation has some kind of moral code. Israel is a state, states have governments, governments legislate, the laws that come out of the process should give the nation an idea of how to act against each other as human beings, how to behave.

doesnt the church have leaders? is that what you are saying? for the past two millennia someone has been running the Christian churches...who has it been if not their leaders?


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying that you think everyone in a country should be held accountable for the actions of the political leaders of that country?


Of course not


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2013)

ok, well I'm still confused then.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> no but
> 
> No but a nation is, most nations have governments. Any governing body should ensure that the nation has some kind of moral code. Israel is a state, states have governments, governments legislate, the laws that come out of the process should give the nation an idea of how to act against each other as human beings, how to behave.
> 
> doesnt the church have leaders? is that what you are saying? for the past two millennia someone has been running the Christian churches...who has it been if not their leaders?


 
Do David Cameron and his gang make sure that the UK has a moral code? What is it? How do they do this?


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> No but a nation is, most nations have governments. Any governing body should ensure that the nation has some kind of moral code. Israel is a state, states have governments, governments legislate, the laws that come out of the process should give the nation an idea of how to act against each other as human beings, how to behave.


 How does this fit with what you posted a little while earlier, about how ruling class scum MPs only look out for their own interests?


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Do David Cameron and his gang make sure that the UK has a moral code? What is it? How do they do this?


 ha nice one, they are a bunch of crooks. they are running the country for themselves and their mates....i dont even look upon them as a legitimate government.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> ha nice one, they are a bunch of crooks. they are running the country for themselves and their mates....i dont even look upon them as a legitimate government.


So what's different about Israel?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> ha nice one, they are a bunch of crooks. they are running the country for themselves and their mates....i dont even look upon them as a legitimate government.


 
Which governments today "ensure that the nation has a moral code"?


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> How does this fit with what you posted a little while earlier, about how ruling class scum MPs only look out for their own interests?


 
i'm sorry i should have been more explicit, what youve quoted is what is supposed to happen, but unfortunately it rarely does if at all


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Which governments today "ensure that the nation has a moral code"?


 
none that i know of
But, again it is what should be happening.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> i'm sorry i should have been more explicit, what youve quoted is what is supposed to happen, but unfortunately it rarely does if at all


So why do you seem to expect it to happen in the case of Israel?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> i'm sorry i should have been more explicit, what youve quoted is what is supposed to happen, but unfortunately it rarely does if at all


Except in Israel, where the country's government's policies are a reflection of the collective Israeli will? I'm struggling to understand your point here.


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

The JewBorg must be held to a higher standard because millions of them got killed.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Except in Israel, where the country's government's policies are a reflection of the collective Israeli will? I'm struggling to understand your point here.


 
i never said that, 
anyway it's been an experience.
I'm off to find out what my daughter was just going on about. 
enjoy a night of ranting folks


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> none that i know of
> But, again it is what should be happening.


 
So the UK's government is not a legitimate government and are looking out for their own interests. Whereas the Israeli government are ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> none that i know of
> But, again it is what should be happening.


I would have thought that it would be just as accurate to say that the nation should ensure that the government has a moral code. It should be a two-way process, of course, but it isn't to the extent that it isn't due to the power and wealth structures of societies that ensure that power is largely in the control of certain sectors of that society. Is this any different in Israel? Perhaps Israel has lessons for others to learn about truly representative government?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Anyway I'm sure that Anglicans living in Africa will be pleased to know that when a disabled person dies as a result of this government's actions or when another few hundred people die in Iraq it will all be their fault. Perhaps they didn't pray hard enough. They are part of the Church of England so they obviously share responsibility for everything the UK's government does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> i never said that,
> anyway it's been an experience.
> I'm off to find out what my daughter was just going on about.
> enjoy a night of ranting folks


tbh I am at a complete loss as to what you have said. Who's been ranting?


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> enjoy a night of ranting folks


 
Of course any critique of your ideas is just silly and bizarre ranting because peoples who collective brothers & sisters didnt end up in the oven are entitled to parp out their half-baked ideas without consequence, whereas those whose relatives got gassed should know better.


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would have thought that it would be just as accurate to say that the nation should ensure that the government has a moral code. It should be a two-way process, of course, but it isn't to the extent that it isn't due to the power and wealth structures of societies that ensure that power is largely in the control of certain sectors of that society. Is this any different in Israel? Perhaps Israel has lessons for others to learn about truly representative government?


 
i was just being flippant with the rant remark, 
i will come back on and try to explain myself but i need to go now


----------



## mdc (Feb 8, 2013)

elbows said:


> Of course any critique of your ideas is just silly and bizarre ranting because peoples who collective brothers & sisters didnt end up in the oven are entitled to parp out their half-baked ideas without consequence, whereas those whose relatives got gassed should know better.


 i point the no doubt honourable elbow to my previous reply re the use of the word ranting

i'll come back on and try to explain, until then

keep you mind open


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

There is no reason why Jews "should know better". There is no reason why we "should" be better than anyone else. Unless you are religious and go along with the idea of the "chosen people" who are commanded by god to hold themselves to higher ethical and moral standards to anyone else, which is a religious, rather than political idea so often criticised by the same people peddling this line as leading to zionist supremacism, ironically.


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2013)

mdc said:


> keep you mind open


 
And the doors of reason shut, with daft-excluder firmly in place.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 8, 2013)

elbows said:


> daft-excluder


 

Want!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 8, 2013)

I remember hitch-hiking when I was 18 or 19 and getting a lift from a black lorry-driver. We chatted about this and that amiably for most of the journey, but towards the end he started coming out with some real homophobic stuff and I remember being a bit surprised that someone from a minority that had suffered lots of abuse seemed so full of hatred for another minority. As I say, I was only young then.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

I'm surprised to see people who are not religious jews argue that jews should have moral spiritual and ethical standards that are higher than everyone else due to special historical and religious circumstances, in other words act like "the chosen people" and give the same arguments that religious jews have given throughout the centuries as support for theological views on the election of israel 0- the suffering of israel, the maintenance of the faith in difficult circumstances etc, the behaviour of the jews' enemies etc. Especially when they then criticise this idea _which they promote themselves_ for leading to zionism and racism.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> I remember hitch-hiking when I was 18 or 19 and getting a lift from a black lorry-driver. We chatted about this and that amiably for most of the journey, but towards the end he started coming out with some real homophobic stuff and I remember being a bit surprised that someone from a minority that had suffered lots of abuse seemed so full of hatred for another minority. As I say, I was only young then.


 
your a bloke right?


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

mdc said:


> no but
> 
> No but a nation is, most nations have governments. Any governing body should ensure that the nation has some kind of moral code. Israel is a state, states have governments, governments legislate, the laws that come out of the process should give the nation an idea of how to act against each other as human beings, how to behave.
> 
> doesnt the church have leaders? is that what you are saying? for the past two millennia someone has been running the Christian churches...who has it been if not their leaders?


Israel proper (excluding the Occupied Territories) is barely 70% Jewish and the majority of Jews live elsewhere. Why are you assigning its crimes to all Jews?

Why, for that matter, are you concluding that all people abused in childhood go on to be abusers? Most abusers were themselves abused but it doesn't work the other way around. If it did there would be an exponential growth in the number of abusers and there'd be virtually no non-abusive types left by now.

Ward could have said that the state of Israel has no right to co-opt the tragedy of the Holocaust in order to justify its disgusting conduct and that it does not represent all Jewish people and must stop claiming that it does.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

It might not have the right to do this but a lot of zionist actions are justified in those terms not by israel, but by people who may otherwise have opposed what they did, and believed on those terms, oddly enough the more israel heads into the abyss the stronger the fear gets and the more the possibility of this is believed. another holocaust happening again is something that a lot of people fear, my family are hardly the most religious or involved people in the community but i was exposed to constant paranoia about anti-semitism growing up, and I don't think it is down to people being weird. No these fears are not justified today, but i think that it is important to understand how they come about rather than just have a load of moral outrage about it.(not having go at you btw, just saying that aspect of the debate tends to piss me off a bit)

i know israel has no right to do this - why do people think it does?


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Because ultra-Zionists and Israel both make that claim, repeatedly, whilst dismissing Jewish critics as self-hating?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> Because ultra-Zionists and Israel both make that claim, repeatedly, whilst dismissing Jewish critics as self-hating?


 
yep, so why do people believe them? saying they don't have a right is not enough, some people evidently believe that they do.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Why do people believe that most people on benefits are scroungers? It's not like they go around interrogating every Jewish person they meet about how they feel about Israel. Well, some do, but those are mostly idiots of the anti-Zionist and anti-semitic kind.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> Why do people believe that most people on benefits are scroungers? It's not like they go around interrogating every Jewish person they meet about how they feel about Israel. Well, some do, but those are mostly idiots of the anti-Zionist and anti-semitic kind.


 
i'm not agreeing with them. just that i think something more than moral outrage is needed if you are going to persuade people to actively oppose zionism. some of them might do already, but be very uncomfortable with the organised movement. and as i said, i'm not having a go at you specifically, it's just a general point.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

Haven't read the thread btw... just the first page.

Would anybody else consider... just for the purposes of reflection... that the fact that this MP insists on conflating Zionists with 'Jews' to be less an involuntary admission of his personal anti-Semitism... and more a measure of the roaring success for Zionist propaganda.

It has taken 50 years... but appears to have been achieved.

“It would be my greatest sadness to see Zionists do to Palestinian Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews.” 
― Albert Einstein

I would love to know what Zionist contemporaries of Albert's said about his statement at the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

That statement is a different statement. It means something different.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

Yes. I understand that.

However, the question I asked was "Would anybody else consider... just for the purposes of reflection... that the fact that this MP insists on conflating Zionists with 'Jews' to be less an involuntary admission of his personal anti-Semitism... and more a measure of the roaring success for Zionist propaganda."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

You mean the zionists have poisoned him? That he can't get away with idiocies such as he offered because of the way that the Israeli state has tried to frame debate? You've picked the wrong horse for this Liam. You need to start with someone who didn't say what this clown did.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

It is precisely what the state of Israel and its mainstream supporters argue. That Ward is too thick to see through it is neither here nor there.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Zionist propaganda doesn't _need_ to have been a success when people come out with idiocy like that in the OP which still display assumptions (that "the jews" are all working together as one etc, that "the jews" are collectively responsible for shit) that have been going for hundreds of years before zionism existed.

It's the other way round.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You mean the zionists have poisoned him? That he can't get away with idiocies such as he offered because of the way that the Israeli state has tried to frame debate? You've picked the wrong horse for this Liam.


 
I haven't picked a horse. I have asked a question.

I _think_ the point I am trying to make is that (not for the first time in history) the interests and language of both Zionism and of (self-serving) anti-Semtism serve each other.

I understand the difference between a Zionist and a Jew. However, for millions of people around the world the two are _synonymous/interchangable_. The question I posed was whether this is as a result of anti-Semitic propaganda or Zionist propaganda.

This seems a reasonable enough question.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Zionist propaganda doesn't _need_ to have been a success when people come out with idiocy like that in the OP which still display assumptions (that "the jews" are all working together as one etc, that "the jews" are collectively responsible for shit) that have been going for hundreds of years before zionism existed.
> 
> It's the other way round.


 
... and yet... every spokesperson/apologist on TV/Radio defending Israel's actions seems to - quite deliberately - use the terms interchangeably.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm not sure that millions of people do think they're interchangeable, although it's certainly possible for people to have anti-zionist attitudes and anti-semitic attitudes at the same time. It also seems to me that a lot of real anti-semites insist they're just anti-zionists and then go on to define zionism in the way of meaning a jewish conspiracy, saying that they faked the holocaust etc to get sympathy, rather than its actual meaning, and then pointing out Neturei Karta and some other people like that to show that they're not.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I haven't picked a horse. I have asked a question.
> 
> I _think_ the point I am trying to make is that (not for the first time in history) the interests and language of both Zionism and of (self-serving) anti-Semtism serve each other.
> 
> ...


Sometimes one , sometimes another, sometimes both  - as established a million times.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Seriously, the idea that we can't judge specific instances because of an attempted general smearing is to accede to the smear.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

I find it very hard to believe that he didn't know what he was doing.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I find it very hard to believe that he didn't know what he was doing.


 
I agree. He is lazy. He knows his target audience (Musilm voters?) already tend to make this equivalence. Therefore he chooses to use the lowest common denominator... to use terms they 'get' at a gut level rather than an intellectual one. As a safety measure he also dresses it up so that it is something of an appeal to a British snese of 'fair play' too.

But the fact that he can even _use_ such language... language that politicians in the much-more-openly racist 70's would have shied away from... is a measure of the success of Zionist propaganda as well as the historical prevalence of anti-Semitism


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

I think being high profile doesn't necessarily mean success though. Pushing it into the foreground doesn't mean that it's accepted - if anything it's highlighted the contested nature of the terrain they wish to occupy (har har)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I agree. He is lazy. He knows his target audience (Musilm voters?) already tend to make this equivalence. Therefore he chooses to use the lowest common denominator... to use terms they 'get' at a gut level rather than an intellectual one. As a safety measure he also dresses it up so that it is something of an appeal to a British snese of 'fair play' too.
> 
> But the fact that he can even _use_ such language... language that politicians in the much-more-openly racist 70's would have shied away from... is a measure of the success of Zionist propaganda as well as the historical prevalence of anti-Semitism


 
you reckon it's because of zionist propaganda? i think it may be because as we get further away from the second world war and the memory of it starts to fade the lazy use of casual anti-semitism begins to have less of a taboo around it, and that people like him are able to dress this shit up in a justified opposition to israeli atrocities. i don't think he is a nazi or something but he is careless at best and a lot of people do have those sort of soft attitudes - he's one of them


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not sure that millions of people do think they're interchangeable, although it's certainly possible for people to have anti-zionist attitudes and anti-semitic attitudes at the same time. It also seems to me that a lot of real anti-semites insist they're just anti-zionists and then go on to define zionism in the way of meaning a jewish conspiracy, saying that they faked the holocaust etc to get sympathy, rather than its actual meaning, and then pointing out Neturei Karta and some other people like that to show that they're not.


 
I agree with everything you have posted above bar...



frogwoman said:


> I'm not sure that millions of people do think they're interchangeable,...


 
Really? I hear people (as opposed to politicians or politicval activists) use the term 'The Jews' when they mean 'The state of Israel' all the time... and I live in Europe. I would suspect the proportion who think that way increases exponentially once you get to countries with Arab/Muslim populations.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

that might just be a lazy use of language tho rather than actually thinking jews and the israeli state are the same.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think being high profile doesn't necessarily mean success though. Pushing it into the foreground doesn't mean that it's accepted - if anything it's highlighted the contested nature of the terrain they wish to occupy (har har)


 
Fill that out a bit please Butchers. I _nearly_ get your point and I do get your pun.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

By making all talk of the issue being about anti-semitism they allow, no they demand, that the stage be given to those who have the correct argument that it's not. It's a self-disarming logic once it's 'out there'


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that might just be a lazy use of language tho rather than actually thinking jews and the israeli state are the same.


 
agreed. Lazy and unfortunately _commonplace_. 

Look Froggy, it's language I very rarely _don't_ challenge when I hear it.

I challenge it (gently if possible) not so much to try and change the views of the person using it but a) to make the distinction for those listening... and b) to make it that bit harder to dress up anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in 'polite' conversation.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that might just be a lazy use of language tho rather than actually thinking jews and the israeli state are the same.


 
and over time... through repetition...  it becomes accepted 'truth'


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

I think most people know that Jews aren't responsible for what Israel does though? At least I hope so?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Most people don't give two shits either way. It's barely on their radar.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Well yeah that's what i meant.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think _*most people*_ know that Jews aren't responsible for what Israel does though? At least I hope so?


 
I'm not _at all_ sure that's true, I'm afraid.

I'm not talking about politically aware people... just average Joes and Josephines in Belfast, Brixton, Boston or Beirut.



butchersapron said:


> Most people don't give two shits either way. It's barely on their radar.


 
True. But IME many of these people (on whose radar Israel/palestine barely registers) are the very people who use 'Jews' and 'Israelis' interchangeably.

My original question - and it _was_ just a question rather than an attempt at any kind of answer - was whether this was as a result of anti-Semitic propaganda or Zionist propaganda.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Zionist propaganda doesn't _need_ to have been a success when people come out with idiocy like that in the OP which still display assumptions (that "the jews" are all working together as one etc, that "the jews" are collectively responsible for shit) that have been going for hundreds of years before zionism existed.
> 
> It's the other way round.


Which came first, Israel or David Ward?

Anti-semitism has been around since the beginning of recorded history, but Israel has not. The argument against Israel would not be made in this form anything like as much (and especially not by Liberal Democrats, bless their piously hypocritical socks) if Israel did not co-opt the Holocaust for its own political ends and there are passionately vocal Holocaust survivors telling them to quit it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Oh god. He wouldn't be dick if Israel hadn't made him be a dick. Yes he would.

Does this only work on unconscious and non anti-semitic anti-semites? Or does it work on open anti-semites too?


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you reckon it's because of zionist propaganda? i think it may be because as we get further away from the second world war and the memory of it starts to fade the lazy use of casual anti-semitism begins to have less of a taboo around it, and that people like him are able to dress this shit up in a justified opposition to israeli atrocities. i don't think he is a nazi or something but he is careless at best and a lot of people do have those sort of soft attitudes - he's one of them


Israel regularly demonises anti-Zionist Jews whilst welcoming known anti-semites with open arms. That is not to say that anti-semitism wouldn't exist without Israel, it is to say that Israel deliberately obfuscates the difference between Zionism and Jewishness and it doesn't give a shit how many Jewish people, inside or outside Israel, get hurt by it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> Israel regularly demonises anti-Zionist Jews whilst welcoming known anti-semites with open arms. That is not to say that anti-semitism wouldn't exist without Israel, it is to say that Israel deliberately obfuscates the difference between Zionism and Jewishness and it doesn't give a shit how many Jewish people, inside or outside Israel, get hurt by it.


 
you think i don't know that?

you think i haven't spend a large part of my life trying to do soemthing about that?

Of course they do but that does not mean other people do not do it too, it does not mean that people such as various ruling classes in the middle east for example do not portray a traditional jewish conspiracy as a "zionist conspiracy" and all the things that jews are supposed to have traditionally done (dual loyalties, the protocols etc) become things that zionists have done with a convenient get out that anti-zionism is not anti-semitism, which it's not. and the israeli state?

this is about an MP talking about "the jews" and then acting like he is jesus on the cross when he gets called out on it.  do you think people can't think for themselves?


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god. He wouldn't be dick if Israel hadn't made him be a dick. Yes he would.
> 
> Does this only work on unconscious and non anti-semitic anti-semites? Or does it work on open anti-semites too?


He'd still be a dick, but he would gain no political capital out of this particular form of dickishness because the claim would be outlandishly racist rather than the mirror of what Israel also says.

Very few Muslims blame all Jews for Israel's crimes and it is just as racist to suggest that they do as it is to suggest that the Jewish people are responsible for the crimes of the state that claims to represent them. You don't get to have it both ways.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

I've certainly met some Muslims who do. Just as I've met Jews who hate all arabs.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you think i don't know that?


No. That is why I am surprised that you're arguing this line. Anti-semitism is not innate, it is a result of divide-and-rule politics through the ages, with Jewish people being an easy target because they possessed no territory and so were always a minority wherever they lived.

I can't see how it is possible to more or less dismiss the role of Israel in promoting anti-semitism when they employ divide-and-rule politics using precisely the same language as Ward did and are the only media-friendly state (apart from the US, sometimes) that does so.

That doesn't mean he's not a racist, opportunist dick. It doesn't absolve him of personal responsibility. It just means that somehow this kind of language is still utterable by a centrist political figure. It's unimaginable that the same sort of statement might be made in relation to black people. Such statements can only be got away with if they are about Jews or Muslims, and he probably wouldn't be getting this much stick from his party or the press if he'd said something similar about Muslims, it's kinda trendy these days.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've certainly met some Muslims who do. Just as I've met Jews who hate all arabs.


Of course there are some. Denying that there are any is as ridiculous as implying that these views are held by all, or most, or even a substantial minority of either group. They're not and arguing against David Ward does not mean mirroring his argument in reverse. He could have gained as much electorally by telling the truth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 9, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I agree. He is lazy. H*e knows his target audience (Musilm voters?) already tend to make this equivalence.* Therefore he chooses to use the lowest common denominator... to use terms they 'get' at a gut level rather than an intellectual one. As a safety measure he also dresses it up so that it is something of an appeal to a British snese of 'fair play' too.
> 
> But the fact that he can even _use_ such language... language that politicians in the much-more-openly racist 70's would have shied away from... is a measure of the success of Zionist propaganda as well as the historical prevalence of anti-Semitism


 
this is why alarm bells rang with me, esp when MC jaspah praised him for refusing to back down. It does seem like sectarian politicking imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Or making clear why Ward is wrong without blaming it on Israel whilst pointing out the uses made by the Israeli state of clowns like him. An open an unambiguous fuck you to anti-antisemitism rather than suggesting that Israel produces it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> No. That is why I am surprised that you're arguing this line. Anti-semitism is not innate, it is a result of divide-and-rule politics through the ages, with Jewish people being an easy target because they possessed no territory and so were always a minority wherever they lived.
> 
> I can't see how it is possible to more or less dismiss the role of Israel in promoting anti-semitism when they employ divide-and-rule politics using precisely the same language as Ward did and are the only media-friendly state (apart from the US, sometimes) that does so.
> 
> That doesn't mean he's not a racist, opportunist dick. It doesn't absolve him of personal responsibility. It just means that somehow this kind of language is still utterable by a centrist political figure. It's unimaginable that the same sort of statement might be made in relation to black people. Such statements can only be got away with if they are about Jews or Muslims, and he probably wouldn't be getting this much stick from his party or the press if he'd said something similar about Muslims, it's kinda trendy these days.


 
I didn't say it was innate. Just that I don't think his views can necessarily be put down to influence by "zionist propaganda". Perhaps he spends all day listening to the Mark Regev channel but I doubt it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Or making clear why Ward is wrong without blaming it on Israel whilst pointing out the uses made by the Israeli state of clowns like him. An open an unambiguous fuck you to anti-antisemitism rather than suggesting that Israel produces it.


 
EXACTLY.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

If every time during a discussion on anti-muslim racism people came out with "well the iranian state or the saudi arabian state try to make it look like all muslims agree with them so it could be their fault" well it would be a bit fucking stupid wouldn't it. Not saying you're doing this ymu, it just often comes up.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I didn't say it was innate. Just that I don't think his views can necessarily be put down to influence by "zionist propaganda". Perhaps he spends all day listening to the Mark Regev channel but I doubt it.


You don't watch the BBC then? They appointed a Middle East Tsar (a Zionist one, of course) to ensure 'balanced' reporting a few years back (think it was after Operation Defensive Shield and all that terrible reporting of the truth).


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 9, 2013)

it is proper cynical shittery on a par with galloways 'god knows who is a muslim' to make statements that you know will resonate, or hope will, a significsnt proportion of the electorste. Our hollobone does this all the time with reference to muslim immigration, and recently with romanian/bulgarian and previously with the turkish threat. All easy to do when the electorate doesn't have a voting population that you are singling out eh. Fucking grubby politics.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If every time during a discussion on anti-muslim racism people came out with "well the iranian state or the saudi arabian state try to make it look like all muslims agree with them so it could be their fault" well it would be a bit fucking stupid wouldn't it. Not saying you're doing this ymu, it just often comes up.


Precisely. That is why I find it implausible that he could gain more electoral advantage from this form of wording than the truth. He'd get just as much publicity and more electoral support for being pro-Palestinian without being anti-semitic. There'd be a media offensive against him regardless and Israel would be calling him an anti-semite regardless.


----------



## Garek (Feb 9, 2013)

I've just realised I wrote Toynbee at the beginning of this thread. I meant Jenny Tonge


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> Precisely. That is why I find it implausible that he could gain more electoral advantage from this form of wording than the truth. He'd get just as much publicity and more electoral support for being pro-Palestinian without being anti-semitic. There'd be a media offensive against him regardless and Israel would be calling him an anti-semite regardless.


 
Is there a media offensive now?

Who is calling him anti-semitic?


----------



## Garek (Feb 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> this is why alarm bells rang with me, esp when MC jaspah praised him for refusing to back down. It does seem like sectarian politicking imo.


 
Not sure if it has already been mentioned but there have "Support David Ward" event such as these 1 2


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

And forgive me if my sympathy is limited about a media offensive about a man who not only used carelessly and possibly anti-semitic language and is now acting like a martyr on the cross, meanwhile being a member of a party which is spearheading some of the biggest attacks on living standards and conditions for living memory. Media offensive my fucking arse, sure he can cope with a couple of people on the board of deputies raising their eyebrows at him for a bit.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Garek said:


> Not sure if it has already been mentioned but there have "Support David Ward" event such as these 1 2


 
Where are the oppose david ward events? Where is tdhe media offensive?


----------



## Garek (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Where are the oppose david ward events? Where is tdhe media offensive?


 
 um, not sure. I think I need to read the last few pages as this thread seems to have moved on a lot since I last read it and I feel like I have walked into the middle of a barney.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Garek said:


> um, not sure. I think I need to read the last few pages as this thread seems to have moved on a lot since I last read it and I feel like I have walked into the middle of a barney.


Indeed, Fuck Mr ward.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

> “The chief whip has assured us that Mr Ward’s latest comments will be dealt with as a fresh issue,” said communal leaders from the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Holocaust Educational Trust in a statement released following the meeting, which also included Liberal Democrat chief executive Tim Gordon.


 
Not much of a witch hunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

> Nick Clegg, questioned on David Ward's comments during his weekly LBC phone-in show, denied that he had not been tough enough.
> "I stand by his apology," said Mr Clegg. "He was right to apologise because he was wrong."


 
the zionist media machine flexes its muscles.


----------



## Garek (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> You don't watch the BBC then? They appointed a Middle East Tsar (a Zionist one, of course) to ensure 'balanced' reporting a few years back (think it was after Operation Defensive Shield and all that terrible reporting of the truth).


 
Could you expand on that? It currently reads as though you are saying there is a Zionist in the media making sure that Israel gets favourable coverage. I am not quite sure you realise how wrong that sounds.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

> The meeting will include speeches from Reverend Geoff Reid, a representative from the Bradford Council of Mosques, David Ward MP and others.
> It has been organised by people in Bradford who are not linked to any political party or organisation.


 
Sure they aren't. Just concerned citizens.

Meanwhile the lib-dems' crimes go ignored in favour of a display of progressive religious nationalism.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cuts/north-east/BD/t1

http://disability-cuts-map.demos.co.uk/local-authority/bradford/

Fucking scum.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Is there a media offensive now?
> 
> Who is calling him anti-semitic?


Yes.

Almost everyone who's read the story. Because he is.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> You don't watch the BBC then? They appointed a Middle East Tsar (a Zionist one, of course) to ensure 'balanced' reporting a few years back (think it was after Operation Defensive Shield and all that terrible reporting of the truth).


 
He's a fucking MP.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And forgive me if my sympathy is limited about a media offensive about a man who not only used carelessly and possibly anti-semitic language and is now acting like a martyr on the cross, meanwhile being a member of a party which is spearheading some of the biggest attacks on living standards and conditions for living memory. Media offensive my fucking arse, sure he can cope with a couple of people on the board of deputies raising their eyebrows at him for a bit.


He needs and wants the media offensive. I didn't say he was complaining about it, I said he could have achieved the same column inches without using an anti-semitic form of words to make his point, and he wouldn't have lost himself the anti-racist vote along the way.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Public events outside his surgery to support this cunt. Jesus.  Sorry ymu.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Garek said:


> Could you expand on that? It currently reads as though you are saying there is a Zionist in the media making sure that Israel gets favourable coverage. I am not quite sure you realise how wrong that sounds.


There is. The tone of BBC News 24 changes completely at 6.30am and stays that way until after the main evening news.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Must support David Davis Ward


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Public events outside his surgery to support this cunt. Jesus.  Sorry ymu.


 


ymu said:


> Of course there are some. Denying that there are any is as ridiculous as implying that these views are held by all, or most, or even a substantial minority of either group. They're not and arguing against David Ward does not mean mirroring his argument in reverse. He could have gained as much electorally by telling the truth.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

some of the people going on those demos won't be anti-semitic, just clueless. i was not having a go at you with that last post, i'm just depressed. How the fuck can this happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

He would  not have gained the publicity by not making daft comments.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> some of the people going on those demos won't be anti-semitic, just clueless. i was not having a go at you with that last post, i'm just depressed. How the fuck can this happen.


Because Israelites made it happen. Or because others don't challenge that nonsense forcefully enough.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> There is. The tone of BBC News 24 changes completely at 6.30am and stays that way until after the main evening news.


 
The BBC's news coverage reflects the views of the British state and a certain "dissenting" portion of its establishment not zionists.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The BBC's news coverage reflects the views of the British state and a certain "dissenting" portion of its establishment not zionists.


Yeah but...wink 

(also, not dissenting)


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The BBC's news coverage reflects the views of the British state and a certain "dissenting" portion of its establishment not zionists.


Not sure I see the difference.

There is very clear media bias and the BBC is one of the worst offenders, C4 News the least. Bad News from Israel is not a polemic, it is a very well described study. You can disagree with it, but you'll need to demonstrate why it is flawed. I'll post you my copy when I can pick it up from storage, if you would like me to.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He would not have gained the publicity by not making daft comments.


Nonsense.



ymu said:


> Ward could have said that the state of Israel has no right to co-opt the tragedy of the Holocaust in order to justify its disgusting conduct a Palestinian genocide and that it does not represent all Jewish people and must stop claiming that it does.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> Nonsense.


Yes, a bog standard statement would have recieved this amount of attention. Hence you being able to point to such cases where such statements are made...


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Mentioning genocide is bog standard these days now, is it?

Jog on.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 9, 2013)

mdc said:


> I base all of my beliefs on my belief in humanity rather than race and certainly religion. My post was based on one human being having a terrible crime perpetrated against them and that they, no matter whom, would like to have a society based on humanitarian beliefs....
> 
> turning it into anything racist is just picking a fight for the sake of it...it seems.


 
What crime did Netanyahu have perpetrated against him?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What crime did Netanyahu have perpetrated against him?


 

look at the photos


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Mentioning genocide is bog standard these days now, is it?
> 
> Jog on.


Of course, 10 years and he just got lucky this week. Lucky old him. Would have happened anyway.


----------



## ymu (Feb 10, 2013)

Jenny Tonge got sacked for merely saying that she could understand the desperation that drove suicide bombers. What on earth makes you think that referring to "a Palestinian genocide" wouldn't get him the same exposure whilst making a much more effective appeal to his Muslim constituents?

It is not, after all, at all unreasonable to oppose the occupation and its brutality and many Muslims are conscious of the way their current scape-goating mirrors that of the 1930s. They're not some homogeneous mass of religious bigots cheering on the most extreme product of the most extreme form of Islam and its most extreme state.

You're full of shit. And getting lazy.


----------



## ymu (Feb 10, 2013)

I think Chomsky goes too far here; a generous interpretation of intent and relegating the racism to the subconscious/a semantic slip ("Jewish people" would have removed all traces of anti-semitism; he would then be saying no different to what many Jewish people say of the Shoah).

And Chomsky's still on probation post-Assange. And the source is known to be unreliable. Still, there's only one thing being discussed and it ain't the plight of the Palestinians. Funny that.



> *"I agree that there's nothing remotely anti-Semitic in his remarks, which are in fact familiar in Israeli discussions."*
> 
> Noam Chomsky 09/02/13


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Jenny Tonge got sacked for merely saying that she could understand the desperation that drove suicide bombers. What on earth makes you think that referring to "a Palestinian genocide" wouldn't get him the same exposure whilst making a much more effective appeal to his Muslim constituents?
> 
> It is not, after all, at all unreasonable to oppose the occupation and its brutality and many Muslims are conscious of the way their current scape-goating mirrors that of the 1930s. They're not some homogeneous mass of religious bigots cheering on the most extreme product of the most extreme form of Islam and its most extreme state.
> 
> You're full of shit. And getting lazy.


 
i think butchers is right.

i don;'t think he said anything about muslims being a homogenous mass or anything like that. In regard to the protests they might not have even been started by muslims. This man is a member of the governing party. To make out that he is a victim of some media witch-hunt when in reality all that's happening is that he's getting a slap on the wrist from some old and irrelevant jewish men like the ones that make up the board of deputies, is just ... well. I suspect he is trying to make a bit of a name for himself as a maverick before the next election.

I dont think it's just a section of the muslim vote he's trying to cater to either, but i don't think its being bigoted and racist to say that anti-semitic views are perhaps a bit more widely held among certain sections of the muslim community than they are in the population at large, any more than it's racist to say that some english people don't like polish people etc. maybe he thinks that it can win him back some support in his area.

It will probably backfire on him though. Let's hope so. Perhaps he sees what happened with Respect next door and thinks he can get a few more votes by aping some of the rhetoric of george galloway. I am fucking depressed to see all the soft tories turn out in support for him though.

Probably talking bollocks though but I'm thoroughly depressed by all this.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Jenny Tonge got sacked for merely saying that she could understand the desperation that drove suicide bombers. What on earth makes you think that referring to "a Palestinian genocide" wouldn't get him the same exposure whilst making a much more effective appeal to his Muslim constituents?
> 
> It is not, after all, at all unreasonable to oppose the occupation and its brutality and many Muslims are conscious of the way their current scape-goating mirrors that of the 1930s. They're not some homogeneous mass of religious bigots cheering on the most extreme product of the most extreme form of Islam and its most extreme state.
> 
> You're full of shit. And getting lazy.


 
He's a lib-dem MP he's not some bloke in the pub you can't judge him on those standards. He knows about the difference between saying "the jews" and "the state of israel".


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 10, 2013)

_should_ do. Should.

Probably does as well. Bit of dog whistle for that significant portion of the vote he thinks wants to hear it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

Yeah and when the party implodes he think he can get some support on that issue rather than head for lib-dem electoral oblivion like the rest of them.

Anyway when is the oppose david ward demo set up by the zionists in the media? If there isn't i want to start one.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've certainly met some Muslims who do. Just as I've met Jews who hate all arabs.


 
At Pesach a few years back, my cousin says: 'I hate all Arabs, including their babies.  We are the chosen people and they just have to accept that'.  There just aren't enough wtfs in the world really.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> At Pesach a few years back, my cousin says: 'I hate all Arabs, including their babies. We are the chosen people and they just have to accept that'. There just aren't enough wtfs in the world really.


 


My aunt came out with some proper blood and soil shit when my cousin was going to marry a muslim bloke.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> At Pesach a few years back, my cousin says: 'I hate all Arabs, including their babies. We are the chosen people and they just have to accept that'. There just aren't enough wtfs in the world really.


 
And no they don't. That's kind of what being the chosen people is about.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And no they don't. That's kind of what being the chosen people is about.


 
Well that's the point isn't it.  Being 'chosen' does not equate to running around doing whatever you want to anyone you want.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Well that's the point isn't it. Being 'chosen' does not equate to running around doing whatever you want to anyone you want.


 
Nobody has to "accept it" either. We were chosen to follow The Torah and as long as everyone else follows the 7 laws of Noah he doesn't give a fuck what they do or think.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

Do not murder. Pretty important law that.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

http://wwwdotmpacukdotorg/story/100213/silence-muslim-organisations.html

Pretty disgusting article by MPAC here complaining about how Muslims aren't supporting our brave Mr Ward. I won't link to it because they're right wing soft islamist scum.



> The Board of Deputies of British Jews are still applying unrelenting pressure on Lib Dem Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael to take further, more severe, disciplinary action against David Ward MP for his comments condemning the Zionist state of Israel.
> ​Read more​


​_The world is forever apologising to Zionists_ apparently.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 10, 2013)

The silence of British Muslim organisations in supporting David Ward MP. What a big shame. http://www.mpacuk.org/story/100213/silence-muslim-organisations.html#.URgvd8-DkYQ.twitter …

@*MPACUKIlford* why should they support somebody whose made anti-semitic remarks and is part of a party thats driving through a tory agenda

@*hrb264* The comments he made were not anti-Semitic, Noam Chomsky agrees. And his party is irrelevant in this matter.

@*MPACUKIlford* No it is not irrelevant he is an MP and a member of the ruling class. And it is anti-semitic he said "the jews" meaning israel

@*hrb264* He didn't refer to 'Jews' as a collective but Jews who oppressed/are oppressing Palestinians (who else is oppressing Palestinians?)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

Anyone fancy laughing at the cunt on twitter he really is digging himself deeper and deeper.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2013)

> The comments he made were not anti-Semitic,* Noam Chomsky agrees.* And his party is irrelevant in this matter.


 
oh well, the Lord has spoken


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

Innit, that's me told


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

He also pretended to be a constituent and said that he'd been "helping the community for ages" on his own twitter account


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

He's being hounded. Poor David Ward 

EDIT: 1. the article seems to be using 'liberal' as an insult. A bit bizarre then that it was copied to a Liberal Democrat website  2. Initial post made when I was just a few lines down. Getting to the end has left me feeling a bit sick.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Garek said:


> He's being hounded. Poor David Ward
> 
> EDIT: 1. the article seems to be using 'liberal' as an insult. A bit bizarre then that it was copied to a Liberal Democrat website  2. Initial post made when I was just a few lines down. Getting to the end has left me feeling a bit sick.


 
The only witch-hunt I can see is that of his supporters witch-hunting the people accusing him of anti-semitism.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

"There is a huge operation out there, a machine almost, which is designed to protect the state of Israel from criticism. And that comes into play very, very quickly and focuses intensely on anyone who's seen to criticise the state of Israel. And so I end up looking at what happened to me, whether I should use this word, whether I should use that word - and that is winning, for them. Because what I want to talk about is the fundamental question of how can they do this, and how can they be allowed to do this."
And you can read about it in this book which is so close to the truth it doesn't matter if it's a forgery or not.


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

> Behind the* lofty defence* of 'responsible language' which she uses to attack Ward


 
Because of course there is no danger in conflating Israel with "the Jews".


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

> Moreover, how likely is it that those same Zionist or/and Jewish denouncers of Ward would _defend_ other Jews who _do_ actually support the Palestinians and who find it immoral what Israel and Zionist Jews are doing in the name of all Jews? The reserved label for them is usually severe and similarly-generalised: "self-hating Jews".


 
Zionist or/and Jewish denouncers of Ward. Yeah I fucking knew it.

Why does every non-zionist jewish opponent of israel have to be a self-hating jew? What about those anti-zionists who aren't self-hating jews and accept that opposing a state's policies doesn't mean that you have to have to ignore anti-semitism and line up behind austerity-supporting racist filth?


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

Interesting how you can't be a Jewish denouncer of Ward and against the actions of Israel.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

_Only a zionist would accuse somebody of anti-semitism._


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Garek said:


> Interesting how you can't be a Jewish denouncer of Ward and against the actions of Israel.


 
Yeah but don't you know, to be a proper Jewish opponent of Israel you can't just get called a self-hating jew by zionists, you have to _actually hate yourself and all other jews._


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

lib-dem anti-semite said:
			
		

> There are too many who do politics in theory - it is not an interesting debate but a battle between those with power and those without


 

Look at this cunt. Too fucking right it's a battle.


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

> In all this discussion, there's a rather basic set of sequential things to restate:
> 
> The Holocaust was an historical abomination, an unquestionable genocide, which sought to eradicate an entire race of people, the Jews.
> 
> ...


 
I think point two is interesting. It seems to imply that there was nothing unique about the persecution of Jewish people during the holocaust, they were "just another community". The uniqueness only came later as par of Zionist ideology to justify its violence against the Palestinian people. 

In other words Jewish suffering was nothing special. The only people who believe it was are Zionists and that is only for their own evil political ends.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

How David Ward voted on key issues:

Voted *moderately for* greater *autonomy for schools*.  votes
Voted *against* a more proportional system for electing MPs.  votes
Voted *very strongly for* university *tuition fees*.  votes
Voted *for* raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year.  votes
Voted *for* Labour's *anti-terrorism laws*.  votes
Voted *for* automatic enrolment in occupational pensions.  votes
Voted *very strongly for* encouraging occupational pensions.  votes
Voted *for* replacing *Trident*.  votes
Voted *strongly for* more *EU integration*.  votes
Voted *for* a *smoking ban*.  votes
Voted *strongly for* increasing the *rate of VAT*.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2013)

Garek said:


> I think point two is interesting. *It seems to imply that there was nothing unique about the persecution of Jewish people during the holocaust*, they were "just another community". The uniqueness only came later as par of Zionist ideology to justify its violence against the Palestinian people.
> 
> In other words Jewish suffering was nothing special. The only people who believe it was are Zionists and that is only for their own evil political ends.


 

except we know that to be bollocks of the first water because slavs and gypsies were decimated rather than treated as complete 'bacilli' and singled out for complete extermination- the special focus on the jews was justified by the protocols and surrounding shit- the entire death camp program was designed with the jews in mind.


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> except we know that to be bollocks of the first water because slavs and gypsies were decimated rather than treated as complete 'bacilli' and singled out for complete extermination- the special focus on the jews was justified by the protocols and surrounding shit- the entire death camp program was designed with the jews in mind.


 
Exactly. I find comments like the one I singled out a form of 'soft'* Holocaust denial.

*if that makes sense.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Not sure I'd go along with that (the holocaust denial thing) but the tone of the whole article is really fucking unpleasant.


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Not sure I'd go along with that (the holocaust denial thing) but the tone of the whole article is really fucking unpleasant.


 
I am not saying it is Holocaust denial in the "6 million myth" sense. Just that I don't see it as being that far from it. The denial of uniqueness and the emphasis of its creation as a Zionist political tool is awfully similar.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2013)

Garek said:


> Exactly. I find comments like the one I singled out a form of 'soft'* Holocaust denial.
> 
> *if that makes sense.


 

I think I do- you mean a diminution of the special impact it had on jews, almost a 'just questioning the numbers' type thing?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Well the holocaust has been used to justify Israel's atrocities and zionism. However saying that the myth of the holocaust was "created" almost by Zionists, is completely different to what actually happened. In the early years of zionism holocaust survivors who moved to israel were given a terrible time because they had according to other jewish settlers been too weak and not had the guts to fight back. The holocaust was barely discussed in Israel for more than a few years after Israel was founded.


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I think I do- you mean a diminution of the special impact it had on jews, almost a 'just questioning the numbers' type thing?


 

Yeah. Basically point 2 and 4 combined I feel really quite nasty.



It was part of a systematic purge on any community, Jews, Gypsies, Communists, deemed inferior or/and a threat to Nazi ideology and power.

The Holocaust formed a central ideological, political and militarist agenda in the Zionist formulation and creation of a Jewish state.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Garek said:


> Yeah. Basically point 2 and 4 combined I feel really quite nasty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Point 1 is true except I would say that Nazi anti-semitism (and anti-communism) was absolutely _central_ to their ideology - at least in the higher up echelons of the party - it wasn't "just" the Nazis trying to get rid of their opponents. Hitler saw the struggle against the Jews and Bolshevism as being one and the same. I would also say that the exterminations of gypsies, poles, the mentally unfit, etc, weren't just the result of a dictator wanting to get rid of a threat to the state (how could the mentally handicapped present any kind of threat to the state?) it was key to how the Nazis saw the development of the society after the war and the creation of a new racially pure German race united under one leader etc.

Point 2 is complete bullshit. most of the groundwork for the state of Israel was created prior to world war II and the nakba occurred when details of the camps were still coming out.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Whether it's formed an important ideological justification for the activities of zionist organisations and an important reason for continued support of israeli policies among some sections of the population etc since is another question. To some extent yes it has.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

The Balfour declaration for example occurred at a time when nobody involved could have possibly imagined that there would be an industrial project to murder all the Jews in Europe.


----------



## Garek (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Point 1 is true except I would say that Nazi anti-semitism (and anti-communism) was absolutely _central_ to their ideology


 
To me that's the key. The centrality of it. That and its place within the context of hundreds of years worth of European anti-Semitism.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Yep, it wasn't a simple consolidation of power and killing off "enemies of the state" (as bad as that would have been).


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

> What they're really doing is shrouding the central issue by focusing on a careless discrepancy, thus serving to keep other journalists in a state of cautious apprehension about discussing the Holocaust in relation to the Occupation.


 
Uncomfortable truths.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Look at this cunt. Too fucking right it's a battle.


 
Obvious to me that, as is par for the course with Lib Dems, he's a nonce as well as an antisemite. I mean, just _look at him!_


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How David Ward voted on key issues:
> 
> Voted *moderately for* greater *autonomy for schools*. votes
> Voted *against* a more proportional system for electing MPs. votes
> ...


 
Smoking ban? Line him up against the wall, I'll fetch my grandfather's service revolver!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Obvious to me that, as is par for the course with Lib Dems, he's a nonce as well as an antisemite. I mean, just _look at him!_


 
RIP Tipsy and Rinka. Never forgive, never forget.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 14, 2013)

I spent far too long reading this thread last night with horrified fascination. It flags something very very worrying I've been noticing in the last few years, as more and more apparently educated, intelligent people I know have been gradually talking more and more about what they call "zionism" and the "international banking elite" (replace with your own synonyms as you will) but when I scratch the surface of their argument it becomes obvious what they're really talking about: Jews. Such people invariably claim to be anti-fascist / lefty / anarchist / other right-on political position (some of them I believe, too, having known them a while) and respond very badly when I point out that they probably ought to be careful of the company they're keeping in this discussion. And finally, not a few of them have even started treading the path towards denying the holocaust - it starts with "I'm just questioning the numbers", moving on to "no mass burial pits or gas chambers have ever been found" and finally ends up at "the holocaust was just a zionist plot to get a country" .. of course the names Rockefeller, Rothschild and Freud inevitably come up, I accuse them of (albeit perhaps unwitting) antisemitism, they tell me I need to wake up and start looking for The Truth (invariably capitalized) like they did. I point that virtually all the evidence they use comes from ultra-conservative or neo-nazi sources (eg. the Institute for Historical Review) and they say something asinine like "The Truth is The Truth, I don't care where it comes from, just that it's The Truth" and there's nothing I can do to persuade them of the mistake they're making... It scares me and worries me, and makes me want to return to the old methods we used when I was young - nut the fuckers.

That was a long paragraph, but it's really all about saying, clearly U75 isn't immune to such people and I'm very very happy to discover that most folks here are ready to destroy such warped reasoning. This guy Falcon was very careful, more than most, but I was very happy to see you guys saw through the bullshit immediately. I know you didn't do it for me, but I want to say thankyou anyway 

I was surprised, though, that in 21 pages nobody had posted this, it's my favourite way to wind them up online (other than showing them Stormfront threads containing the same links to "evidence" they post themselves) ...as well as being light relief among the odiousness and negativity of having to talk about it at all. 



I won't be taking part in too many political discussions because the level is way above what I can maintain, but I wanted to jump in quickly here because this is a particularly acute concern of mine just now. Too many people are using legitimate criticism of zionism or international finance to covertly advance another agenda altogether. I know it's not new, but a lot of the people doing it in 2013 seem to be people I might otherwise describe as progressive / liberal / socialist / communist / anarchist.

It's frightening.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2013)

mojo pixy said:


> I spent far too long reading this thread last night with horrified fascination. It flags something very very worrying I've been noticing in the last few years, as more and more apparently educated, intelligent people I know have been gradually talking more and more about what they call "zionism" and the "international banking elite" (replace with your own synonyms as you will) but when I scratch the surface of their argument it becomes obvious what they're really talking about: Jews. Such people invariably claim to be anti-fascist / lefty / anarchist / other right-on political position (some of them I believe, too, having known them a while) and respond very badly when I point out that they probably ought to be careful of the company they're keeping in this discussion. And finally, not a few of them have even started treading the path towards denying the holocaust - it starts with "I'm just questioning the numbers", moving on to "no mass burial pits or gas chambers have ever been found" and finally ends up at "the holocaust was just a zionist plot to get a country" .. of course the names Rockefeller, Rothschild and Freud inevitably come up, I accuse them of (albeit perhaps unwitting) antisemitism, they tell me I need to wake up and start looking for The Truth (invariably capitalized) like they did. I point that virtually all the evidence they use comes from ultra-conservative or neo-nazi sources (eg. the Institute for Historical Review) and they say something asinine like "The Truth is The Truth, I don't care where it comes from, just that it's The Truth" and there's nothing I can do to persuade them of the mistake they're making... It scares me and worries me, and makes me want to return to the old methods we used when I was young - nut the fuckers.
> 
> That was a long paragraph, but it's really all about saying, clearly U75 isn't immune to such people and I'm very very happy to discover that most folks here are ready to destroy such warped reasoning. This guy Falcon was very careful, more than most, but I was very happy to see you guys saw through the bullshit immediately. I know you didn't do it for me, but I want to say thankyou anyway
> 
> ...




Great post - welcome to the boards. I've had similar experiences to you in PSC and since from a few people who really should know better.What I find concerning is the whole idea that nobody's an anti-semite any more and that it wasn't something we need to be worried about, that it doesn't exist any more. In reality I would say that while it is nowhere the social force that it was at the beginning of the last century and before the war, and probably never will be again, it still exists and has been given something of a "progressive" revival.


----------



## co-op (Feb 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Great post - welcome to the boards. *I've had similar experiences to you in PSC* and since from a few people who really should know better..


 
Me too in ISM. Depressing, especially because it should be such an obvious mistake in any kind of Palestinian solidarity movement.

There was an ISM guy posting on here from in Palestine and he made some gag about Red Sea pedestrians har har and I must admit I didn't think 'morally wrong', I just thought how dumb are you to say that? - it undermines your whole credibility. Either because you are an anti-semite*, or because you're just not politically/culturally smart enough to deal with this issue.


*maybe not even consciously


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2013)

co-op said:


> Me too in ISM. Depressing, especially because it should be such an obvious mistake in any kind of Palestinian solidarity movement.
> 
> There was an ISM guy posting on here from in Palestine and he made some gag about Red Sea pedestrians har har and I must admit I didn't think 'morally wrong', I just thought how dumb are you to say that? - it undermines your whole credibility. Either because you are an anti-semite*, or because you're just not politically/culturally smart enough to deal with this issue.
> 
> ...


 
I think it's not helped by illuminati type shit either which is far more mainstream and like widely seen by people than most posters on here realise. The other day I met somebody on the train going back who started ranting at me about what david icke had said and i've had a mate talk to me about how she was reading stuff about the illuminati.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think it's not helped by illuminati type shit either which is far more mainstream and like widely seen by people than most posters on here realise. The other day I met somebody on the train going back who started ranting at me about what david icke had said and i've had a mate talk to me about how she was reading stuff about the illuminati.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

mojo pixy said:


> I won't be taking part in too many political discussions because the level is way above what I can maintain, but I wanted to jump in quickly here because this is a particularly acute concern of mine just now. Too many people are using legitimate criticism of zionism or international finance to covertly advance another agenda altogether. I know it's not new, but a lot of the people doing it in 2013 seem to be people I might otherwise describe as progressive / liberal / socialist / communist / anarchist.
> 
> It's frightening.


 
One of the reasons you might find people like that slipping that route is that there appears to be little appetite to properly get to the bottom of the financial crisis, other systemic flaws, global shifts in power, the economic system in general. Well-placed mistrust in these systems, corporations etc is instead easily converted into some sloppy scapegoating. This is further enhanced by the difficulty in really believing that the alternatives can be brought about, or at least how to get to them given the realities which have been made real by the prevailing economic and political direction of recent decades. There is a strange kind of stalemate going on, everyone is locked onto the rails and when the pressure finally leads to a derailment, there is a high chance that the train may crash into some innocent scenery.

No wonder then that the era of youtube has combined with the above predicament to lull people who should know better into getting behind crude and dangerous narratives about the state of things, power and control.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think it's not helped by illuminati type shit either which is far more mainstream and like widely seen by people than most posters on here realise. The other day I met somebody on the train going back who started ranting at me about what david icke had said and i've had a mate talk to me about how she was reading stuff about the illuminati.


 
I've never encountered a conspiracy theory that didn't end up blaming the Jews in the end.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I've never encountered a conspiracy theory that didn't end up blaming the Jews in the end.


that's because all conspiracy theories are a means to an end


----------



## Belushi (Feb 14, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I've never encountered a conspiracy theory that didn't end up blaming the Jews in the end.


 
Sorry did I say Jews? I meant Rothschild-Zionists of course


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


 
You might want to read some of that stuff. That particular conspiracy fiction could very well be used as a test to determine who the sane, humorous, loving, decent, intelligent people are. The ones who can spot satire, enjoy a joke and explore interesting themes without turning them into sick dogma or becoming paranoid, hate-filled, dangerous, shambolic fuckwits. I dont know much about Shea but Robert Anton Wilson had a lively mind and was rather good at taking the piss. Apparently some of the wackiest theories in the trilogy come from unpublished letters to Playboy magazine


----------



## Garek (Feb 14, 2013)

Searching on Twitter shows that David Icke is in support of Ward. I know we can't always help which people declare their support for us but I'd be a bit worried if someone like Icke was defending me!


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

I also credit the three Cosmic Trigger books by Robert Anton Wilson with standing me in good stead for all the drool I would later be exposed to on the internet. I learnt plenty about the intersection between drugs, new age belief, counterculture and co-incidences. However much like the fictional books by him & Shea, I suspect that what you get out of it is highly influenced by the reader. i.e. that its just as likely that idiotic beliefs will be reinforced by reading such books as it is that, as in my case, it will help with the great unravelling of phoney awakenings, snake oil salesmen, the paranoid and the damned.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


 

Its actually a fantastic trilogy- nutty as squirrel shit, funny as fuck and soaked in hippy acid counterculture


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2013)

I left my copy round Tufty's flat ages ago. So worth the time- brilliant piss take of Atlas Shrugged buried in there called 'Telemachus Sneezed'

hard to say how much the authors believed their own lines


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 14, 2013)

Opinions vary as to how good it is as a work of literature, shall we say.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm not sure I'd want to rate it in literary terms, but if I was setting up a Sunday School for Discordianism I would probably put it on the reading list


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look.


----------



## Garek (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look.


 
What's a niche public school sport got to do with all this?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Opinions vary as to how good it is as a work of literature, shall we say.


 

best read when you are 20 and really into pot and Dark Side of The Moon

ime


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

Consult your pineal gland.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I've never encountered a conspiracy theory that didn't end up blaming the Jews in the end.


 
except the ones that are true like CIA involvment in the importation of drugs and the whole contra supporting thing.


And the one about how JP 1 was murdered


less conspiracy theories those more, look at all this evidence!

Proff Griff from Public Enemy (that ever reliable source) is convinced the drug influx aided by the cia was a direct attack on black militant communities

He never did recant his anti-semetic remarks though, just said he was quoted out of context.....


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2013)

mojo pixy said:


> I And finally, not a few of them have even started treading the path towards denying the holocaust - it starts with "I'm just questioning the numbers", moving on to "*no mass burial pits or gas chambers have ever been found"*





on this- leaving aside the mass of cross corroborating oral evidence from both sides- leaving aside the mass of ariel photography showing full trains going in and empty one leaving- ignoring all that for a moment. There have been tests done on the walls of the chambers which prove conclusively that the gas was used and not in any delousing or cleaning procedure. You categorically do not get the compounds built up on those stones unless you've used the gas regularly and in lethal to humans concentrations. Its a massive fucking facepalm to hear the apologetics from those who want to deny this happened. Christ I wish it was born from an innocent desire to not believe humans capable of doing that to humans but we know it isn't.

oh and don't be chary of chipping into politics discussions here. I'm thick as pigshit nd that doesn't stop me- your post shows that you've got a decent grasp of things, chip in regardless. Every fucker else does!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

And off he goes.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> An off he goes.


 

That's another one for why the guardian are shit thread. It implies that it's because of his views about Israel rather than "the jews".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Of course, it's the lib-dems so it's covered in fakery:



> His suspension, which is due to last eight weeks, is largely symbolic as it comes the day before parliament rises for its summer recess.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2013)

Ugh.


----------



## Corax (Jul 18, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I've never encountered a conspiracy theory that didn't end up blaming the Jews in the end.


 
Most that are (rightly) labelled as CT maybe.  But there are a fair few that are pedalled by the US and UK that have Islam (amongst others) on the end of the rope instead.  Difference being that the credibility lent to them by officialdom tends to see them excused from the CT label.  It's unfortunate that the likes of Jones and Icke give them further credibility by responding with counterclaims of their own that are (as you say) almost always riddled with antisemitism - whether overt or coded.

Not sure how well I've communicated that tbh.  Brain melting in the heat, and a pretty substandard organ at the best of times...


----------



## Garek (Jul 18, 2013)

> David Ward MP House of Commons LONDON SW1A 0AA
> 
> 17th July, 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## Garek (Jul 18, 2013)

So just a language issue then


----------



## Corax (Jul 18, 2013)

Wanker though I expect those better informed than I will be able to tell me he is, that's a decent smackdown letter from Carmichael...


----------



## Garek (Jul 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> Wanker though I expect those better informed than I will be able to tell me he is, that's a decent smackdown letter from Carmichael...


 

It's a letter that is entirely missing the point. And that is being generous. You could say it is a letter that deliberately obfuscates it.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2013)

Garek said:


> "we have all experienced an
> instinctive and liberal reaction"


Why does this phrase in particular make me want to stamp on someone's neck?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> Most that are (rightly) labelled as CT maybe. But there are a fair few that are pedalled by the US and UK that have Islam (amongst others) on the end of the rope instead. Difference being that the credibility lent to them by officialdom tends to see them excused from the CT label. It's unfortunate that the likes of Jones and Icke give them further credibility by responding with counterclaims of their own that are (as you say) almost always riddled with antisemitism - whether overt or coded.
> 
> Not sure how well I've communicated that tbh. Brain melting in the heat, and a pretty substandard organ at the best of times...


 

The Eurabia conspiracies promoted by the likes of Bat Ye'Or et al are a fairly recent thing and some of them do have anti-semitism involved. "Liberal" anti-zionist Jews from New York advocating tolerance for the muslims. Left-wing Jews ultimately using the far-left and Islam to promote a liberal agenda, and oppose Israel (  ). Even if there isn't any anti-semitism involved (and there often isn't) the islamophobia and bigotry based on their paranoia about "Eurabia", Saudi Arabia controlling the UK's immigration policies and the Council of Islamic Relations or whatever it is is still pretty fucking rancid.

"There's no anti-semitism involved in anti-muslims conspiracy theories" isn't really much of a defence tbh especially because one of the people who subscribed to those theories was Anders Breivik. They have blood on their hands too.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2013)

Oh and as much of the rhetoric/actions around terrorism and Islam by US and UK governments sucks I haven't seen much evidence of Eurabia conspiracy theories being peddled by them, overtly or otherwise.

In fact both governments would be at pains to point out how the anti-terror laws despite the brunt of them affecting muslims disproportionately would have nothing to do with Islam.


----------



## Corax (Jul 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> "There's no anti-semitism involved in anti-muslims conspiracy theories" isn't really much of a defence tbh


 
Not defending anything froggy.


----------



## Corax (Jul 18, 2013)

Garek said:


> It's a letter that is entirely missing the point. And that is being generous. You could say it is a letter that deliberately obfuscates it.


 
Sure.  I still think it'll make him feel tiny though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> Not defending anything froggy.


 

I know you're not  I just don't think we should give these cunts anything.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2013)

Garek said:


> It's a letter that is entirely missing the point. And that is being generous. You could say it is a letter that deliberately obfuscates it.


 

Disproportionate and imprecise? imprecise my arse. he knows exactly what he's doing.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 20, 2013)

Garek said:


> It's a letter that is entirely missing the point. And that is being generous. You could say it is a letter that deliberately obfuscates it.


 

Not at all. It hits the point. Say what you like about Jews, but remember to follow the party line on the partition of Palestine. It couldn't be clearer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2013)

could we have a new thread focussing on that section of the liberal democratick party which isn't prejudiced against jews, just entitled 'at last, the lib dem who isn't anti-semitick'?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 28, 2014)

mdc said:


> i'll come back on and try to explain



*taps watch*


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2014)

Lordy


----------



## Belushi (Jun 26, 2014)

FFS


----------



## IC3D (Jun 26, 2014)

He's being a sycophantic twat playing to the prejudices and legit feelings of the Bradford East locals much like labour and Respect do, in short being a politician.  I don;t imagine he's mates with Lynn Feathertone.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 26, 2014)

IC3D said:


> He's being a sycophantic twat .



Who? I can't work out who runs the LD chums of Palestine facebook page. Or are you talking about mad Atzmon?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2014)

of all the grounds to criticise milliband...this is the weirdest


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Who? I can't work out who runs the LD chums of Palestine facebook page. Or are you talking about mad Atzmon?


He's talking about David Ward  - the MP in the OP.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 26, 2014)

Oh, I see.

It looks to be one Sally FitzHarris who is secretary of LDFP and webmistress of LDFP.eu.



> She has previously been a volunteer case worker for the Liberal Democrats, working for Lynne Featherstone in Haringey. She has also been a parliamentary researcher for Baroness Lindsey Northover, the spokesperson on International Development for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords.
> Read more at http://www.kingswoodpeople.co.uk/ne...4550556-detail/story.html#7eAQtgsMuMlcMRDk.99




Although perhaps she can blame a new hire.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 26, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Who? I can't work out who runs the LD chums of Palestine facebook page. Or are you talking about mad Atzmon?


I mean't David Ward MP for Bradford East. I think he's clumsily trying to get some of the Muslim vote but being shit because he's libdem. Presumably this shit group is the same.


----------



## fogbat (Jun 26, 2014)

Oh god. This thread reminded me about _Falcon_


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2017)

After today's sacking as PPC for Bradford East:



> I" would defy anybody to find one single derogatory comment I've made against a Jew which was not related to something being done in Israel."



i.e it's ok to be anti-semitic if the Israeli state is bad. Read that defence a few times. It says, _i have said derogatory things about jews but they were provoked by the jews. _Or, more charitably_, i have said derogatory things about jews but they were provoked by the israeli state, so justifiable._

Probably one for the lib dems are shit thread but a) he may not be one for long b) always useful to remind people of the ways of the falcon and friends. I bet GG is thinking about this now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I know you're not  I just don't think we should give these cunts anything.


I think we should give them something 

A damn' good kicking


----------



## bimble (Apr 26, 2017)

Strange. In the Guardian and elsewhere his comment comes out as him saying he'd  “defy anybody to find any comment I have ever made which is not solely related to what Israel is doing”. No 'a Jew' in there. These people are usually very skilled at avoiding the noun Jew, wonder if Guardian and others edited or what.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 26, 2017)

bimble said:


> Strange. In the Guardian and elsewhere his comment comes out as him saying he'd  “defy anybody to find any comment I have ever made which is not solely related to what Israel is doing”. No 'a Jew' in there. These people are usually very skilled at avoiding the noun Jew, wonder if Guardian and others edited or what.



Would make sure if they did edit it, they are in full on defence of Lib Dem mode


----------



## bimble (Apr 26, 2017)

Wtf is wrong with the people who comment under 'articles' in the independent by the way, how come that particular site became such a magnet for jew-hating loons. Or is it just that they allow comments under jew or Israel-related news when most don't anymore?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2017)

bimble said:


> Wtf is wrong with the people who comment under 'articles' in the independent by the way, how come that particular site became such a magnet for jew-hating loons. Or is it just that they allow comments under jew or Israel-related when most don't anymore?


Under EU regulations (2015/472) newspapers must ensure their comments give space to opinions less frequently aired in public, on broadcast media or in the press.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2018)

(ex-lib dem, thought given peerage via lib-dems)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2018)

Pittsburgh famously the Israeli capital city of course.


----------



## rekil (Oct 28, 2018)

2016 case, but Matthew Gordon Banks might as well go in here.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/lib-dems-suspend-former-tory-mp-over-antisemitic-rant-1.53458

He got 12 weeks for running over a pensioner in his jag last year. Big fan of Vanessa Beeley as well. I think there's more in this vein but he apparently locked his account over twitterpest allegations.



Spoiler


----------



## The Pale King (Oct 28, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> View attachment 150939
> 
> (ex-lib dem, thought given peerage via lib-dems)



That's evil. She is practically gloating.


----------

