A fun night with Xian Zionists

[Mike11]

I've always been closer - geographically, socially and culturally - to the Right Wing Zionists and their supporters. This is why most of my 'thoughts' on the Middle East are critical of Israel and the West and not of Islam. Anyway a major rally was held nearby as part of a general nation wide program to further cement the Xian/Zionist alliance. Being the kind of person I am I decided to go, hear them out, talk to them, see what's up and such.

As a blanket rule the Palestinians were addressed as 'the terrorists' in Eretz Yisrael/The 'territories'/The 'Land' (a euphemism for Israel and Palestine with heavy religious connotations) The only time Palestinians were mentioned as being in Palestine was in statements like"Only the Israelis are fit to rule. Palestinians who want to live peacefully ought to realize that and give up their terrorist dream against Israel" and "Why do the Palestinians hate Israel? Is it something Israel did? No! Its their hatred of our rights and freedoms. They embrace lawlessness, poverty and Evil! They will come for you next!" I blanked out Big Time after that. The only other thing I recall was stuff about the "Sin of Moral Relativism" that sees the "Enemy as victims" Can't buy gold like that.

There was a lot of support for Israel there but this sort of denial of the Palestinian narrative is thoroughly counter productive. The longer the Palestinians are seen as a group that the Israelis can and should dominate the longer the conflict will continue.

NOTE FROM MSK: The original post has been replaced with the one above at the author's request.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Barbara Branden]

Mike, I'm not clear on the point you intend making by your comments. As you know, there are nuts in every movement, and Zionism is of course no exception. Nor are you likely to find an intelligent defense of Israel at the meeting of a religious organization -- any more than you'd find an intelligent defense of American principles at the meeting of a religious organization.

Barbara

[Wolf DeVoon]

cc from a PM to Mike 11, who asked me to post it here:

I very much appreciate and thank you for reporting the Xian Zionist gumph. Good job, very level and clean. I didn't want to detract from your post by adding a comment.

Repeated thanks.

W.

There are a lot of bad actors in the modern world, but nothing, absolutely nothing is worse than Zionism IMO. If there was a legitimate American national interest in the Middle East, which there is not, separate from our apparently irrevocable guarantee to defend Israel at all costs including nuclear war, it would still be wrong to finance the subjugation of 3 million refugees in a gulag bottled up by the tyrant Mubarak, who we pay to keep them imprisoned without electricity, food, fuel, or means of escape. I don't care what Ron Paul said or didn't say. I'll say it. The United States is paying a heavy price in blood and treasure for Harry Truman's doltish vanity, the haberdasher who wanted to be elected President and got his wish, by recognizing Israel -- a phony 'nation state' without definable borders, conquering by terror, claiming Divine Right of conquest.

The attack on WTC was not against the people of the United States of America. The target was Cantor Fitzgerald. Bad enough that ARI is led by Zionists. But there's litte doubt that Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans to conquer Iraq was likewise staffed and led by Zionists. That the WMD 'smoking gun' lies were concocted by Zionists and those lies were trumpeted in U.S. newspapers, radio and television channels by Zionists.

Justin Raimondo has done as much as anyone to expose the Jewish Lobby and its hammerlock grip on Congress and presidential politics. Personally, I'm in favor of a Jewish National Holiday, one day a year when their control of Wall Street, television, movies, music, book publishing, and politics would be suspended for 24 hours. Maybe that would wake people up, a day without Zionist propaganda -- blank TV screens.

Judaism is racist, defined by heredity. Zionism is infinitely worse, defined by fantasy.

Wolf DeVoon

What Right To Exist?

Edited May 15, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Chris Grieb]

Wolf; Your last post was worthy of the Grand Mufti.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf; Your last post was worthy of the Grand Mufti.

Chris, I have no idea what a mufti is. Help me out, so I understand what you said.

W.

I guessed it was a smear, and sho nuf here it is, courtesy Wikipedia:

The title of Grand Mufti (Arabic: مفتي عام‎) refers to the highest official of religious law in a Sunni Muslim country. The Grand Mufti issues legal opinions and edicts, fatwa, on interpretations of Islamic law for private clients or to assist judges in deciding cases. The collected opinions of the Grand Mufti serve as a valuable source of information on the practical application of Islamic law as opposed to its abstract formulation. The Grand Mufti's fataawa (plural of "fatwa") are not binding precedents in areas of civil laws regulating marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In criminal courts, the Grand Mufti's recommendations are generally not binding either. In the Ottoman Empire the Grand Mufti was a state official, and the Grand Mufti of Constantinople was the highest of these. The British retained the institution in some Muslim areas under their control and accorded the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem the highest political stature.

For those who don't comprehend Americanism, it is citizenship without reference to religion. Objectivism is supposed to be something along those lines, too. Okay. Whatever, Chris. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.

Wolf DeVoon

Hamas Condemns the Holocaust (Guardian)

Israel at Sixty (Antiwar.com)

Edited May 16, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Grand Mufti often means Hadj Amin Al Husseini, Hitler's buddy.

I am presently reading an interesting and impassioned defense of Israel by Dershowitz, but I don't want to write about it until I have more time for this issue. If facts are to be looked at, the ones Dershowitz mentions (or anybody for that matter, including Raimondo) should not be brushed aside.

The weird thing about the Israel issue is that it is impossible to be an outside observer if you talk to someone committed. They just won't let you. There is great hatred seething all around this issue and it contaminates all involved.

Zionism is well and flourishing in the Middle East. Nazism under several names is well and flourishing in the Islamist world.

Both are evil.

Jews and Muslims are generally good. They are the ones I treasure.

But the fanatics? Zionists and Nazis (Islamists) deserve each other. They are disgusting.

Michael

[Mike11]

I am presently reading an interesting and impassioned defense of Israel by Dershowitz, but I don't want to write about it until I have more time for this issue. If facts are to be looked at, the ones Dershowitz mentions (or anybody for that matter, including Raimondo) should not be brushed aside.

If you're reading "The Case for Israel" it wasn't bad. Obviously there is a strong bias at work in the selection of facts to emphasize and ignore as well as a debatable difference of standards for Israelis and Arabs but its about as good as it could be while remaining partisan.

As for the Mufti, he was bad but not so much for his antizionism. He valued his hatred of the British and Zionists more than his people's own political and economic development. When the British pulled out of Palestine the first waves of "refugees" were the Arab upper and middle classes - doctors, teachers, mailmen - who depended on the British for their livelihoods. When the British administration collapsed they found themselves out of a job. Had the Mufti backed an Arab Agency in Palestine which the British insisted on there would have been a strong Palestinian government and society following the British withdrawal. Everything followed from there...

[Brant Gaede]

Zionism is evil because it is collectivist. Israel set up the Palestinians to be ruled by Arafat and they ended up with Hamas because the Palestinians effectively live in a prison and in a prison the worst rule. Hamas and Hamas ruled Palestinians are at war with Israel, a fact not fully appreciated by Israel or the consequences to the Palestinians would be much more negative. The US involvement in the Middle East has primarily to do with oil. To the extent the US is not engaged state to state with Israel is the extent Israel will have to stand on its own, meaning it will have to desocialize its economy to compensate for US aid lost. That will also mean the US will have to give up much of its influence on Israeli foreign and war policies, a country armed to the teeth with various conventional and nuclear weapons. Because of a its small population base Israel really cannot conquer and occupy any neighboring country, only make costly forays as into Lebanon. This means a much greater possibility Israel will use nukes.

Most of the Palestinians are not displaced. Their ancestors were displaced, many if not most of whom simply packed up and left Israel in expectation that the new Jewish state would be destroyed and they would then simply move back.

The US invaded Iraq because of oil. If not oil the US could have gotten what it wanted from Iraq through intimidation. It had to do with what Saddam would do with all those potential oil revenues. But by that standard the US should have also invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran. The price of not having energy independence is using force abroad to secure a supply of oil and funding enemies with the very money used to purchase it. But so much force can only do so much and the entire situation is unstable and oil is increasingly problamatic all over the world. To sell oil short today without using a substantial hedge is potentially suicidal. You can wake up any morning to oil spiking up $50 or even more a barrel.

--Brant

Edited May 15, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

Personally, I'm in favor of a Jewish National Holiday, one day a year when their control of Wall Street, television, movies, music, book publishing, and politics would be suspended for 24 hours. Maybe that would wake people up, a day without Zionist propaganda -- blank TV screens.

Unpack the first sentence and read: Jews control Wall Street. Jews control television. Jews control movies. Jews control music. Jews control book publishing. Jews control politics.

I'm interested in the details of the Jewish control of television and music. Could you add some flesh to the bones of this contention? It sounds really awful.

[Brant Gaede]

Personally, I'm in favor of a Jewish National Holiday, one day a year when their control of Wall Street, television, movies, music, book publishing, and politics would be suspended for 24 hours. Maybe that would wake people up, a day without Zionist propaganda -- blank TV screens.

Unpack the first sentence and read: Jews control Wall Street. Jews control television. Jews control movies. Jews control music. Jews control book publishing. Jews control politics.

I'm interested in the details of the Jewish control of television and music. Could you add some flesh to the bones of this contention? It sounds really awful.

Yes, those awful people, the Jews.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Wolf also seems to channeling Minister Farra"con".

[Wolf DeVoon]

Personally, I'm in favor of a Jewish National Holiday, one day a year when their control of Wall Street, television, movies, music, book publishing, and politics would be suspended for 24 hours. Maybe that would wake people up, a day without Zionist propaganda -- blank TV screens.

Unpack the first sentence and read: Jews control Wall Street. Jews control television. Jews control movies. Jews control music. Jews control book publishing. Jews control politics.

I'm interested in the details of the Jewish control of television and music. Could you add some flesh to the bones of this contention? It sounds really awful.

I am not a good source of information, and Brant's right (as usual) -- my remarks could be interpreted to mean that I dislike all Jews, which is not true, or that I think there is unanimity of opinion among Jews, which is likewise untrue and not what I believe about Jewish control of the media.

As I understand it, American WASPs historically considered entertainment to be sinful, subversive of public morals, wasteful. WASPs were aghast at blasphemy and crudity. Vaudeville was imported from Britain. Jews pioneered filmed entertainment, comic books, recorded music, pulp fiction.

Always best to assume that I'm 100% wrong about everything.

Jewish American entertainers (long list, scroll down past the actors, then multiply by about 1,000 to gauge the number of editors, book reviewers, film critics, talent agents, nieces and nephews working in Hollywood). See also Jews in the American Media and David Sarnoff

JERUSALEM (New York Times) — President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to denounce those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals,” a remark that was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, who has argued that the United States should talk directly with countries like Iran and Syria.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to qualify a meaning in my last post.

Zionism is often perceived as Jewish bigotry. To a smaller number of people it also means simply supporter of Israel.

I support Israel and I want that to be clear to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also loathe all bigotry.

I was using Zionism in the popular meaning of fanatic and bigot, not the less-used meaning of supporter of Israel.

I don't know how to unpack the racist undertones of the word "Zionist" in todays culture, so I use the word as it is normally used and expect the reader to understand the meaning from the context. If you say "fanatic" like I did as a preface, it takes a stretch to imagine I am talking about run-of-the-mill supporters of Israel who are not bigots.

My target for condemnation is racism and bigotry, whether Jewish or Muslim or any other form, not the Jewish culture or state.

Bigotry is evil and I do not think lines should be blurred to cover it up, wherever it may reside. As Rand said, in any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that gains.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I want to qualify a meaning in my last post.

Zionism is often perceived as Jewish bigotry. To a smaller number of people it also means simply supporter of Israel.

I support Israel and I want that to be clear to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also loathe all bigotry.

I was using Zionism in the popular meaning of fanatic and bigot, not the less-used meaning of supporter of Israel.

I don't know how to unpack the racist undertones of the word "Zionist" in todays culture, so I use the word as it is normally used and expect the reader to understand the meaning from the context. If you say "fanatic" like I did as a preface, it takes a stretch to imagine I am talking about run-of-the-mill supporters of Israel who are not bigots.

My target for condemnation is racism and bigotry, whether Jewish or Muslim or any other form, not the Jewish culture or state.

Bigotry is evil and I do not think lines should be blurred to cover it up, wherever it may reside. As Rand said, in any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that gains.

Michael

I think the problem is Michael, that racial 'positivism' and racial 'negativism' (or what we'd normally call racism) are one and the same and inseparable. One cannot be pro white, black, or purple (meaning anything ethnic OR cultural) without being a racist. And until we fess up and realize this, racism will flourish.

Why is it so easy to see that being pro "white" is an ugly thing, but pro "jewish" is somehow just fine? The truth is, both are wrong for the exact same reason.

I think that supporting Israel in it's current form is clearly and objectively a racist position.

"I support Israel and I want that to be clear to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also loathe all bigotry."

I think there's a contradiction there that needs to be resolved. One of those statements HAS to be false.

Bob

[Barbara Branden]

I am astounded, saddened, and profoundly disgusted by Wolf's posts about Jews and Zionism. He wrote the following:

"There are a lot of bad actors in the modern world, but nothing, absolutely nothing is worse than Zionism IMO. If there was a legitimate American national interest in the Middle East, which there is not, separate from our apparently irrevocable guarantee to defend Israel at all costs including nuclear war, it would still be wrong to finance the subjugation of 3 million refugees in a gulag bottled up by the tyrant Mubarak, who we pay to keep them imprisoned without electricity, food, fuel, or means of escape. I don't care what Ron Paul said or didn't say. I'll say it. The United States is paying a heavy price in blood and treasure for Harry Truman's doltish vanity, the haberdasher who wanted to be elected President and got his wish, by recognizing Israel -- a phony 'nation state' without definable borders, conquering by terror, claiming Divine Right of conquest.

"The attack on WTC was not against the people of the United States of America. The target was Cantor Fitzgerald. Bad enough that ARI is led by Zionists. But there's litte doubt that Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans to conquer Iraq was likewise staffed and led by Zionists. That the WMD 'smoking gun' lies were concocted by Zionists and those lies were trumpeted in U.S. newspapers, radio and television channels by Zionists.

"Justin Raimondo has done as much as anyone to expose the Jewish Lobby and its hammerlock grip on Congress and presidential politics. Personally, I'm in favor of a Jewish National Holiday, one day a year when their control of Wall Street, television, movies, music, book publishing, and politics would be suspended for 24 hours. Maybe that would wake people up, a day without Zionist propaganda -- blank TV screens.

"Judaism is racist, defined by heredity. Zionism is infinitely worse, defined by fantasy".

And

"Jewish American entertainers (long list, scroll down past the actors, then multiply by about 1,000 to gauge the number of editors, book reviewers, film critics, talent agents, nieces and nephews working in Hollywood). See also Jews in the American Media and David Sarnoff."

And:

"JERUSALEM (New York Times) — President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to denounce those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals,” a remark that was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, who has argued that the United States should talk directly with countries like Iran and Syria. "

Compare tthese comments with the statements in any openly anti-Semitic web site. Try Jewwatch.com, widely kmown as the most anti-Semitic of them all. Wolf is all but quoting them, and is in fact is outdoing them in many of his statements..

From Jewwatch.com:

"I am not the evil doer in this deadly game of world wide control. I am only an innocent librarian of existing information. I did not bring the ited States into many wars in the 20th century, but the Jews have done so time and again. Their stories and how they manipulated us in into wars are inside Jew Watch where they demonstrate their personal responsibility for many, many non-Jewish deaths...."

An article on another site about Jew Watch makes this point:

"Claims on Jew Watch include: the United States is ruled by a Jewish-Occupied Government, that Communism is a Jewish plot (based on the evidence that Karl Marx was Jewish) to enslave the world, and that Jews control the world finance system and control the American and world media.

"Jew Watch contains sections on the following topics, note that the section name gives the "story" Jew Watch is trying to invent, the content within the section may be complete lies, or legitimate content that is strecthed beyond breaking point by editorials.

• Jew Watch -> Jewish Controlled Press

• Jew Watch -> Jewish Entertainment

• Jew Watch -> Jewish Banking & Financial Manipulations

• Jew Watch -> Jewish-Zionist-Soviet Anti-American Spies

• Jew Watch -> Jewish Communist Rulers & Killers

• Jew Watch -> Jewish Terrorists

• Jew Watch -> Zionist Occupied Governments

• Jew Watch -> Jewish Communists

• Jew Watch -> Jewish Atrocities

• Jew Watch -> Jewish World Conspiracies - zionism"

Does this not sound familiar? In no forum that I know of -- except the openly anti-Semitic ones -- would someone be allowed to get away with the kind of statements Wolf has made. I did not dream that I would find this attitude on Objectivist Lifving, which has been my refuge from the vicousness and irrationality of too many Objectivist sites. "Wake people up?" Wolf says. And then have them do...what?

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

I want to qualify a meaning in my last post.

Zionism is often perceived as Jewish bigotry. To a smaller number of people it also means simply supporter of Israel.

I support Israel and I want that to be clear to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also loathe all bigotry.

I was using Zionism in the popular meaning of fanatic and bigot, not the less-used meaning of supporter of Israel.

I don't know how to unpack the racist undertones of the word "Zionist" in todays culture, so I use the word as it is normally used and expect the reader to understand the meaning from the context. If you say "fanatic" like I did as a preface, it takes a stretch to imagine I am talking about run-of-the-mill supporters of Israel who are not bigots.

My target for condemnation is racism and bigotry, whether Jewish or Muslim or any other form, not the Jewish culture or state.

Bigotry is evil and I do not think lines should be blurred to cover it up, wherever it may reside. As Rand said, in any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that gains.

Michael

I think the problem is Michael, that racial 'positivism' and racial 'negativism' (or what we'd normally call racism) are one and the same and inseparable. One cannot be pro white, black, or purple (meaning anything ethnic OR cultural) without being a racist. And until we fess up and realize this, racism will flourish.

Why is it so easy to see that being pro "white" is an ugly thing, but pro "jewish" is somehow just fine? The truth is, both are wrong for the exact same reason.

I think that supporting Israel in it's current form is clearly and objectively a racist position.

"I support Israel and I want that to be clear to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also loathe all bigotry."

I think there's a contradiction there that needs to be resolved. One of those statements HAS to be false.

Bob

When I say I'm "pro-Jewish" I mean I'm against the physical destruction of Jews either in a Holocaust or by war against Israel. I mean I'm pro-intelligence, human ability and achievement. I also mean I'm pro-life and, qua culture, Jews are generally more pro-life here and now on this earth than any other ethnic group of people I know of. Culturally I'm Protestant at the core. Not Catholic, Jewish or anything else. I'm also an atheist. I can't change this and I certainly don't expect a Jew to be a non-Jew. It's too simple and simply wrong to say that such is collectivist/racist. Jews have been driven out of nearly all Middle Eastern countries. To support Israel means supporting a refuge for Jews from this continuing onslaught. This is not "positive" racism; in this context it's a reaction to the negative racism of Israel's enemies. Israel does have gross deficiencies from the human rights perspective, a generally extant problem for all countries. If Israel wasn't perpetually at war it would have the luxury of dealing with those. (I have not addressed US foreign policy.)

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, you wrote: "Zionism is often perceived as Jewish bigotry. To a smaller number of people it also means simply supporter of Israel."

It is perceived as Jewish bigotry by anti-Semites and opposers of Israel's existence -- on the premise that to wish to survive on the part of Jews is bigoted fanaticism. .

And you wrote: "I was using Zionism in the popular meaning of fanatic and bigot, not the less-used meaning of supporter of Israel."

.

You are mistaken about rthe meaning of the word..

Here are four dictionary definitions of Zionism:

Random House Unabridged:: "a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel.'

American Heritage: "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel."

Princeton University: "1. a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine

2. a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine "

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: "The belief that Jews should have their own nation; Jewish nationalism. Zionism gained much support among Jews and others in the early twentieth century, and the hoped-for nation was established in the late 1940s in Palestine, as the state of Israel. Zionism is opposed by most Arabs."

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I have no problem changing the word if the problem is semantics.

I observe, though, that it is best to abandon a word altogether than try to insist on a limited meaning once it has become part of the popular jargon with another. And I observe that this is even truer when a term has become derogatory.

Let's look at it. A difference has been made between normal Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists who insist on mixing church and state and violence and bigotry: Islamist. I would have no problem making a distinction between Zionist as a normal person who supports Israel and some other similar term to describe Jewish bigots who also support Israel (but who also insist on mixing church and state and violence).

At the appropriate moment in my writing and discussions, I would simply qualify my meanings as I did above with my other statement (although, as I hinted, I might be better off to abandon the term Zionist altogether—let others bicker over the word—and talk about Israeli nationalists and Israel supporters, etc.).

But for an exercise, what term do you suggest for the Samson Blinded boneheads and people like that? Jew Supremacists? King Davidians? Zionicists? I am open for a term. These bigots exist so they should be named. A term that is accurate and stings (like I think Islamist does) would be the best.

One thing is for sure. I left my culture and country and lived in another for over 30 years to get away from bigotry (hillbilly racism). I did not just talk about these things. I went out and lived what I believed. I did not come back to the USA and become active in the Objectivist world to defend bigotry in any fashion, hidden or open. I am an avowed enemy of all bigotry.

Is this moral equivalency? If so, then so. A Jewish bigot is not superior to an Islamist bigot, nor vice versa. Nor even a hillbilly bigot. Morally they are all equivalent.

They are all practicing evil.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Zionism resulted in significant Jewish support on behalf of Great Britain in WWI including getting the United States into that war which in turn led to its prolongation and the subsequent rise of Nazism in Germany and communism in Russia. This led, with the help of the Great Depression, to WWII and generally speaking the bloody, irrational, collectivist states of the 20th Century. Zionism was thus an ironic, inadvertant cause of the Holocaust because of Hitler's scapegoating Jews. Collectivism begat collectivism begat disaster. Going back further, Zionism was the natural outgrowth of all the shit the Jews had had to put up with in Europe for many centuries. It is, regardless, evil in its collectivistic outlook and orientation, but not what I'd call a conscious evil, which is what Nazism, for example, was all about. Today it's still a mixed bag concretized into a nation-state. Israel will eventually be destroyed by a big bomb or by demographics and the essential contradiction between individualism and collectivism within a Jewish, Zionist person and within a Jewish, Zionist state. Israeli socialism is reflective of all this. The greatest irony is that after the Holocaust Europe was probably safer for Jews than the Middle East where other peoples were willing to continue Hitler's work out of even greater feelings of envy. Envy is the root cause of anti-Semitism. Inescapable tribalism is the pot for that plant.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think the problem is Michael, that racial 'positivism' and racial 'negativism' (or what we'd normally call racism) are one and the same and inseparable. One cannot be pro white, black, or purple (meaning anything ethnic OR cultural) without being a racist. And until we fess up and realize this, racism will flourish.

Why is it so easy to see that being pro "white" is an ugly thing, but pro "jewish" is somehow just fine? The truth is, both are wrong for the exact same reason.

I think that supporting Israel in it's current form is clearly and objectively a racist position.

"I support Israel and I want that to be clear to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also loathe all bigotry."

I think there's a contradiction there that needs to be resolved. One of those statements HAS to be false.

Bob,

There is no contradiction. This whole issue boils down to putting the normative before the cognitive, which is what I constantly complain about. People like to judge before they know what it is that they are judging. I will illustrate with the black/white issue since it is easier to see.

Cognitively it would be stupid to look at the difference in skin color, hair, etc., between blacks and whites and pretend there is no difference. The difference is quite noticeable. As an example of just one problem with ignoring this, think about the difficulty law enforcement officers would have in identifying the bad guys if witnesses had to eliminate racial characteristics from their observations. Saying that a black guy or white guy stole the lady's purse is no more racist than saying it was a man or woman, tall or short.

Normatively, people who nurture hatred and bigotry in their hearts attach a negative value to those observable characteristics (when a human being bears them), and then pretends that this evaluation is a cognitive identification. It is not. It is a cognitive identification plus a quite sick evaluation.

Racists will deny this to the very end, and then become violent if you keep pointing it out. They want to hijack the minds of all people and change the manner of human perception to fit their hatred. But, as the lady said, A is A.

Obviously, in addition to the racists on the other side, there are those who resist them mightily (resist both, actually) and this is where a lot of confusion—in addition to tribal warfare—starts.

This is all the same for Jewish people: cognitive identification and evaluations. People constantly mix them up.

If a Jewish nation exists so that people who want to practice the religion (and have been traditionally persecuted) have a safe haven, there is no bigotry involved. Israel does not prohibit the practice of other religions. The USA was founded by people who tried to get away from persecution.

If the Jewish nation is founded on the concept that the Jews are a master race (chosen by God above all others), then yes, bigotry is involved. I have not read the charter documents of Israel, but I am reading a very good book that lays all this out right now.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am astounded, saddened, and profoundly disgusted by Wolf's posts about Jews and Zionism.

Barbara,

I will not defend Wolf on this. I will let him speak for himself. His rhetoric was certainly quite polemical this time—and offensive.

In my own evaluation, I do not think he is anti-Semitic. I think he is coming at the issue from a different angle, fighting with the words to capture something he sees, and trying to be emphatic and colorful (as all good writers try to be). But I don't think he had a good perception of how his words come off to others in this case.

If I ever start believing he is a bigot, I will first discuss it with him, then go on from there. I like Wolf. He gets quirky and I have a thing for quirky. But quirky comes with a price. I always want to make sure I understand him correctly, which is why I often ask what he means to make sure. I think he misfired, not that he was preaching bigotry. But like I said, I will let him speak for himself.

Regardless, I hope Wolf sets aside this kind of rhetoric in the future and provides in-depth explanations when the issue is delicate instead of generalizations that can be easily misunderstood at best, and are disgusting if bigotry is what he really meant.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "Jewish bigot is not superior to an Islamist bigot, nor vice versa. Nor even a hillbilly bigot. Morally they are all equivalent."

That's obviously true, although I don't know what it has to do with the present discussion.

Barbara

.

[Barbara Branden]

Michael:L "I observe, though, that it is best to abandon a word altogether than try to insist on a limited meaning once it has become part of the popular jargon with another. And I observe that this is even truer when a term has become derogator."

You might as well say we should abandon the word "metaphyisics" because various seers and their followers -- and a good percentage of the public -- use it to mean the study of the supernatural. Or because "Jew" is a dirty word to vast numbers of anti-Semites, Jews should call themselves something else.

Surely the wide consensus of dictionary definitions is sufficient reason to accept the definition of a term. And I have only heard the word "Zionism" used as you originally used it in speeches at the United Nations by Arab states and by other open anti-Semites.. (I am emphatically not saying this is true of you. I know it is not. You simply made a mistake.) The term "Zionism" has a long and illustrious history, and a powerful emotive meaning to Jews all over the world -- it meant that there was one small place in the world where they might hope for an end to being hated. It is not likely ti be abandoned, nor should it be.

Barbara

[bmacwilliam]

I think the problem is Michael, that racial 'positivism' and racial 'negativism' (or what we'd normally call racism) are one and the same and inseparable. One cannot be pro white, black, or purple (meaning anything ethnic OR cultural) without being a racist. And until we fess up and realize this, racism will flourish.

Why is it so easy to see that being pro "white" is an ugly thing, but pro "jewish" is somehow just fine? The truth is, both are wrong for the exact same reason.

I think that supporting Israel in it's current form is clearly and objectively a racist position.

"I support Israel and I want that to be clear to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also loathe all bigotry."

I think there's a contradiction there that needs to be resolved. One of those statements HAS to be false.

Bob,

There is no contradiction. This whole issue boils down to putting the normative before the cognitive, which is what I constantly complain about. People like to judge before they know what it is that they are judging. I will illustrate with the black/white issue since it is easier to see.

Cognitively it would be stupid to look at the difference in skin color, hair, etc., between blacks and whites and pretend there is no difference. The difference is quite noticeable. As an example of just one problem with ignoring this, think about the difficulty law enforcement officers would have in identifying the bad guys if witnesses had to eliminate racial characteristics from their observations. Saying that a black guy or white guy stole the lady's purse is no more racist than saying it was a man or woman, tall or short.

Normatively, people who nurture hatred and bigotry in their hearts attach a negative value to those observable characteristics (when a human being bears them), and then pretends that this evaluation is a cognitive identification. It is not. It is a cognitive identification plus a quite sick evaluation.

Racists will deny this to the very end, and then become violent if you keep pointing it out. They want to hijack the minds of all people and change the manner of human perception to fit their hatred. But, as the lady said, A is A.

Obviously, in addition to the racists on the other side, there are those who resist them mightily (resist both, actually) and this is where a lot of confusion—in addition to tribal warfare—starts.

This is all the same for Jewish people: cognitive identification and evaluations. People constantly mix them up.

If a Jewish nation exists so that people who want to practice the religion (and have been traditionally persecuted) have a safe haven, there is no bigotry involved. Israel does not prohibit the practice of other religions. The USA was founded by people who tried to get away from persecution.

If the Jewish nation is founded on the concept that the Jews are a master race (chosen by God above all others), then yes, bigotry is involved. I have not read the charter documents of Israel, but I am reading a very good book that lays all this out right now.

Michael

I understand your argument and some of it I agree with.

"Israel does not prohibit the practice of other religions." Try to immigrate there as a non-Jew and then see if you'd write that again. Israel at the very least is highly disriminatory against other religions.

Identifications aside, the celebration or privileged position of one religion or ethnic group over another is pure racism. Condemnation is not needed, it is implied, like it or not, in the privilege.

Bob

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "In my own evaluation, I do not think he [Wolf] is anti-Semitic. I think he is coming at the issue from a different angle, fighting with the words to capture something he sees, and trying to be emphatic and colorful (as all good writers try to be)"

Good writers do not, in the interest of being emphatic and colorful, accuse a people of heinous crimes they did not commit. Nor do they ape the exact words and charges of the worst and most hysterical Jew-hating bigots. They do not say, as Wolf did, "I don't care what Ron Paul said or didn't say. I'll say it. The United States is paying a heavy price in blood and treasure for Harry Truman's doltish vanity, the haberdasher who wanted to be elected President and got his wish, by recognizing Israel -- a phony 'nation state' without definable borders, conquering by terror, claiming Divine Right of conquest.

"The attack on WTC was not against the people of the United States of America. The target was Cantor Fitzgerald. Bad enough that ARI is led by Zionists. But there's litte doubt that Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans to conquer Iraq was likewise staffed and led by Zionists. That the WMD 'smoking gun' lies were concocted by Zionists and those lies were trumpeted in U.S. newspapers, radio and television channels by Zionists."

Do you not realize the enormity of the accusations Wolf has made? What is it you world require in order to conclude that someone is anti-Semitic?

I will read whatever Wolf has to say, and I will read it with all the objectivity I have learned to employ over the years, but I believe my estimate and the reasons for it so far is clear. I will need very good reasons to change it.

Barbara