The Miracle, at 60

[Barbara Branden]

Bob wrote: "So, now let me go back and summarize what Barbara's argument boils down to:

1.) Jews = greatness.

2.) Arabs totally suck.

No, no racism there, none at all."

Laure wrote: "Well... OK, Bob, you win this round. Although I don't think it is necessarily racist to view present-day Jewish culture as superior to present-day Arab culture. But I can see where you're coming from -- if you replace "'white' for 'Jewish' and 'black' for 'Arab', the nasty tone of a statement like this becomes more obvious to me."

Laure, you were too quick to accept Bob's statement of what my argument "boils down to." If that were what my statements implied, he would be correct; but that is by no stretch what I was implying. Please see my last post in answer to Bob.

Michael, I appreciate your pointing out all my writing denouncing racism and bigotry. This is an issue I feel very stronglyl about. But facts are facts, and yes, by any rational standard, present-day Israeli culture is superior to present-day Arab culture. Can there really be an argument about that?

Barbara

[bmacwilliam]

This is sheer nonsense, As of 1999, approximately 80% of Israeli citizens were Jewish (a majority of them secular). Approximately 16 percent were Muslims, 2 percent Christians, and 1.5 percent Druze, or other faiths, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs.

I take strong exception to this. Who can immigrate to Israel? Who?

Do you dare to pretend that Israel is non-discriminatory? No. In fact you outline how bad they are. But when I claim discrimination and exclusion, you say 'sheer nonsense'. Which is it?

Bob

Edited May 22, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Michael,

You raise some good issues. Let me address the 'prejudice' issue first.

A prejudice is a PRE-judgement, without the proper facts.

"2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable."

So, when one makes a conclusion based on race and applies it to the individual PRE-observation then it's racist. Sometimes this is benign, and at other times it's very damaging. This is certainly not a circular definition.

Rand's definition is a perfect illustration of how smart people can get these ideas so screwed up.

"Ayn Rand: "It [racism] is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

The truth is of course that many or even most of the traits are indeed 'produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry' and Rand was wrong. But that misses the point that for most traits like intelligence for example, do INDEED have weak racial and strong genetic factors, BUT, the intRA-race variability is vastly greater than the intER race variability and that's why a PRE-judgment, a prejudice, is irrational.

That's the key point of why racism is fundamentally wrong.

More later.

Bob

Edited May 22, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Laure]

This is sheer nonsense, As of 1999, approximately 80% of Israeli citizens were Jewish (a majority of them secular). Approximately 16 percent were Muslims, 2 percent Christians, and 1.5 percent Druze, or other faiths, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs.

I take strong exception to this. Who can immigrate to Israel? Who?

Do you dare to pretend that Israel is non-discriminatory?

Bob

Now Bob, Barbara's not the Prime Minister of Israel, so let's not hold her responsible for their immigration policy.

The more I think about the Jewish State, though, the more confused I get. So, you have to be a Jew to get in. How do they decide that? I take it you can convert to Judaism and get in? What if I pretend to convert? What about people born in Israel who are atheists? Do they still count as Jews?

Barbara, I agree that Israel has had stunning achievements. But in retrospect, was the idea of a Jewish State really a good one?

*edit* Also, what constitutes a "secular Jew"? What's the difference between me and a secular Jew? Can secular Jews immigrate? Could I claim to be one?

Edited May 22, 2008 by Laure

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since claiming one whole culture is superior to another is a hot-button issue that practically invites hostility, why not break the concept down into its referents? That is a rational process. When specific things are measured, it becomes very hard to blur lines.

Here is an example. Would anyone contest that in industry, Isreal is superior to its Arab neighbors? In adoption of reason as reflected in technological achievements on earth, it goes hands down to Israel. I haven't looked at these statistics, but I have little doubt that this is true.

How about in symphony orchestras? There are many parameters. In the arts, though, I would give superior poetry to Arab poets in general. They have some beautiful stuff. There are some other parameters that I would give to the Arabs, also.

Now here's the rub. When we get to universal values (other than applying reason to production), it gets very, very sticky. Do Arabs lie more than Jews? Do they steal more? Do they cheat on their spouses more? Are Israeli mothers better mothers than Arab mothers? Do Arabs love less than Jews and for worse reasons? And on and on and on. I remember well the speech I learned in high-school from The Merchant of Venus. Shylock is discussing his pound of flesh condition for loaning money to Antonio, a Christian man who has mocked and insulted him and even spat on him.

SALARINO

Why, I am sure, if he forfeit, thou wilt not take

his flesh: what's that good for?

SHYLOCK

To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,

it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and

hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,

mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my

bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine

enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath

not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,

dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with

the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject

to the same diseases, healed by the same means,

warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as

a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?

if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison

us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not

revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will

resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,

what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian

wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by

Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you

teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I

will better the instruction.

I can easily see replacing "Arab" for "Jew" in this speech. It works for both cultures. Even the pound of flesh condition makes sense as a metaphor because it is so vicious and irrational. And it is not hard to see the spitting on both sides.

So when judging a culture, I simply would leave these universal human condition parameters out altogether and concentrate on things that can be easily measured and observed. I don't know how it is possible to do that when such a broad statement is used like one culture is superior to another, but this is one of the main problems with painting with such a broad brush.

There is an exception. In a study that presents a long list of measured parameters, it is reasonable to make a summary, qualifying it by saying that it is valid for the aspects measured.

In my discussions with Barbara, she has made it clear that in comparing Israel to neighboring countries, she is not saying that Arab countries cannot improve and catch up. They can and should. This might not be clear in the thread so far since the focus has been on hatred and not production.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Laure: "Barbara, I agree that Israel has had stunning achievements. But in retrospect, was the idea of a Jewish State really a good one?"

It was infinitely better than the alternative. Before World War 11, the alternative, in most countries of the world, was endless persecution. During World War 11, the alternative for most European Jewry was death. Under Franklin Roosevelt, even America -- like every other country they appealed to -- refused admission to a shipload of 900 Jews escaping from Hitler, forcing their return to certain death. After the war, the alternative, for the remaining Jews in Europe, was internment camps at best, because no one would take them in; for the Jews in Arab nations, endless persecution; for Jews in many other nations, endless persecution. And no means to fight back, no way to defend themselves from the onslaughts of hatred.

A Jewish State promised life to the remnants of European Jewry, and one small strip of land where Jews might, at last, be safe. Israeli Jews are still struggling to be safe from external enemies, but, at least, they now can fight back.

I visited Israel in 1966. I was born and brought up in a relatively small Canadian city, during a period of considerable anti-Semitism – of open hostility to Jews, of Jewish quotas in the universities, of hotels and resorts and restaurants and clubs that Jews were not allowed to enter, of Jewish cemetaries desecrated, of entire professions closed to Jews. When our ship docked in Israel and I walked on Israeli soil for the first time, I suddenly thought, with a feeling of strangeness and almost of disbelief: “No one will hate me here because I’m Jewish.”

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Bob, I seem to be wasting my time responding to your posts, since clearly at best you skim over my responses.

You had written: "Jews go ahead and set up the ultimate club (a country) and refuse to allow non-Jews to join." It was in reply to this statement that I wrote: “This is sheer nonsense, As of 1999, approximately 80% of Israeli citizens were Jewish (a majority of them secular). Approximately 16 percent were Muslims, 2 percent Christians, and 1.5 percent Druze, or other faiths, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs.”

You then wrote: “I take strong exception to this. Who can immigrate to Israel? Who? Do you dare to pretend that Israel is non-discriminatory? No. In fact you outline how bad they are. But when I claim discrimination and exclusion, you say 'sheer nonsense'. Which is it?”

The government of Israel does not allow the immigration of non-Jewish citizens from countries with whom Israel is in a state of war. (Does any country?) This means, obviously, most of the countries surrounding Israel. Further, since the end of World War 11, millions of Jewish refugees from Europe, Russia, and dozens of other countries have immigrated to Israel and still are immigrating. By its Law of Return, Israel is committed to accept and grant citizenship to Jews from all over the world. Do you know the size of Israel? How many more people do you think it can accept? Yet it grants citizenship to non-Jewish family members of immigrating Jews, and it grants permanent residency to non-Jews from countries not at war with Israel.

Do you dare to suggest that this tiny country should exclude Jews who wish to immigrate? – that it should turn its back on the purpose for which it came into existence, which is to offer a safe haven to Jews?

Barbara

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, I seem to be wasting my time responding to your posts, since clearly at best you skim over my responses.

You had written: "Jews go ahead and set up the ultimate club (a country) and refuse to allow non-Jews to join." It was in reply to this statement that I wrote: “This is sheer nonsense, As of 1999, approximately 80% of Israeli citizens were Jewish (a majority of them secular). Approximately 16 percent were Muslims, 2 percent Christians, and 1.5 percent Druze, or other faiths, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs.”

You then wrote: “I take strong exception to this. Who can immigrate to Israel? Who? Do you dare to pretend that Israel is non-discriminatory? No. In fact you outline how bad they are. But when I claim discrimination and exclusion, you say 'sheer nonsense'. Which is it?”

The government of Israel does not allow the immigration of non-Jewish citizens from countries with whom Israel is in a state of war. (Does any country?) This means, obviously, most of the countries surrounding Israel. Further, since the end of World War 11, millions of Jewish refugees from Europe, Russia, and dozens of other countries have immigrated to Israel and still are immigrating. By its Law of Return, Israel is committed to accept and grant citizenship to Jews from all over the world. Do you know the size of Israel? How many more people do you think it can accept? Yet it grants citizenship to non-Jewish family members of immigrating Jews, and it grants permanent residency to non-Jews from countries not at war with Israel.

Do you dare to suggest that this tiny country should exclude Jews who wish to immigrate? – that it should turn its back on the purpose for which it came into existence, which is to offer a safe haven to Jews?

Barbara

Barbara,

The simple point I was making was that Israel's immigration/citizenship policies are highly discriminatory against non-Jews. This is overtly racist. Just because some pre-existing non-Jews are tolerated, and families are allowed to immigrate together doesn't make this any better.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Barbara, I agree that Israel has had stunning achievements. But in retrospect, was the idea of a Jewish State really a good one?

Let me add my two cents to this one. I for one, can hardly blame anyone for desiring a safe haven after the horrors that so many suffered. However, that is an emotional argument, not a rational one. Let's look at this with an analogy.

Pick a poor neighbourhood somewhere with a somewhat homogenous racial population, say Harlem. Now, kick people out of a portion of it and set up a whites-only country club and posh residences - basically a vastly richer neighbourhood by comparison - and then, don't allow black people to join. Even rich ones aren't allowed to move in. How much does it matter why this was done in the first place? Well, I'd say it matters to the rich white residents maybe, but the outsiders aren't going to care much are they? They just see the injustice, and rightly so.

I think this type of thing can only be defended emotionally, not rationally (see Barbara's response to you).

*edit* Also, what constitutes a "secular Jew"? What's the difference between me and a secular Jew? Can secular Jews immigrate? Could I claim to be one?

Excellent questions, and I'm curious to see the answers. I think I can answer one:

"What's the difference between me and a secular Jew?"

Genetic lineage.

Bob

Edited May 23, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Since claiming one whole culture is superior to another is a hot-button issue that practically invites hostility, why not break the concept down into its referents? That is a rational process. When specific things are measured, it becomes very hard to blur lines.

Here is an example. Would anyone contest that in industry, Isreal is superior to its Arab neighbors? In adoption of reason as reflected in technological achievements on earth, it goes hands down to Israel. I haven't looked at these statistics, but I have little doubt that this is true.

How about in symphony orchestras? There are many parameters. In the arts, though, I would give superior poetry to Arab poets in general. They have some beautiful stuff. There are some other parameters that I would give to the Arabs, also.

Now here's the rub. When we get to universal values (other than applying reason to production), it gets very, very sticky. Do Arabs lie more than Jews? Do they steal more? Do they cheat on their spouses more? Are Israeli mothers better mothers than Arab mothers? Do Arabs love less than Jews and for worse reasons? And on and on and on. I remember well the speech I learned in high-school from The Merchant of Venus. Shylock is discussing his pound of flesh condition for loaning money to Antonio, a Christian man who has mocked and insulted him and even spat on him.

SALARINO

Why, I am sure, if he forfeit, thou wilt not take

his flesh: what's that good for?

SHYLOCK

To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,

it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and

hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,

mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my

bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine

enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath

not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,

dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with

the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject

to the same diseases, healed by the same means,

warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as

a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?

if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison

us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not

revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will

resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,

what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian

wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by

Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you

teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I

will better the instruction.

I can easily see replacing "Arab" for "Jew" in this speech. It works for both cultures. Even the pound of flesh condition makes sense as a metaphor because it is so vicious and irrational. And it is not hard to see the spitting on both sides.

So when judging a culture, I simply would leave these universal human condition parameters out altogether and concentrate on things that can be easily measured and observed. I don't know how it is possible to do that when such a broad statement is used like one culture is superior to another, but this is one of the main problems with painting with such a broad brush.

There is an exception. In a study that presents a long list of measured parameters, it is reasonable to make a summary, qualifying it by saying that it is valid for the aspects measured.

In my discussions with Barbara, she has made it clear that in comparing Israel to neighboring countries, she is not saying that Arab countries cannot improve and catch up. They can and should. This might not be clear in the thread so far since the focus has been on hatred and not production.

Michael

Judging culture is a different issue. Prejudice is the central problem I'm concerned with and is not relevant when one is dealing with facts. Jews might be 72% wealthier as a group than Arab neighbours. Fine. You just shouldn't assume Ahmed is poor simply because he's Arab. The problem is you should have the facts about Ahmed before you judge him.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I sincerely do not know how you equate refusing admittance to a country from another where war is being waged between them with racism, and I know of no one on this discussion board at all who thinks Arabs are poorer just because they are Arabs. You are the only one who seems to think that, since you keep harping on it in the face of lack of objective evidence and outright corrections from people who say, "I mean this, not what you are saying."

From what I have seen so far, you do not have the capacity to mind-read, yet you presume to know what someone "really means." I would grant a capacity for looking beneath the surface if I saw evidence of correspondence to reality, but I don't. Your arguments so far, when you level the charge of racism, are simply distortions of what people are saying, refusal to take honest people at their word, and attempts at intimidation. I started a rational path with you by defining terms. You seem to prefer intimidation and blind accusations so far. (I know, it's boring to have to think through to the premises and more exciting to engage people with hostility. But reason works that way sometimes.)

I learned a long time ago that when a person insists on making unfounded accusations, he generally has trouble with that very same issue in his heart. I suggest you look within yourself and see of your own house is in order.

Objectivism is a philosophy of reason and individualism. There are cultural forces at work in adopting reason (especially the approach to religion), but using reason is equally available to all human beings, including all Jews and all Arabs. If the use of reason and adoption of capitalism is encouraged within a society, the people produce and become wealthy. If the use of reason and adoption of capitalism is discouraged within a society, some fat cats might be wealthy from foreign trade or taxes or inheritance, but the people will remain poor, producing mostly survival-level goods and services.

It is not racism to notice that.

Does this fact bother you about present-day Jews in Israel?

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

I sincerely do not know how you equate refusing admittance to a country from another where war is being waged between them with racism, and I know of no one on this discussion board at all who thinks Arabs are poorer just because they are Arabs. You are the only one who seems to think that, since you keep harping on it in the face of lack of objective evidence and outright corrections from people who say, "I mean this, not what you are saying."

From what I have seen so far, you do not have the capacity to mind-read, yet you presume to know what someone "really means." I would grant a capacity for looking beneath the surface if I saw evidence of correspondence to reality, but I don't. Your arguments so far, when you level the charge of racism, are simply distortions of what people are saying, refusal to take honest people at their word, and attempts at intimidation. I started a rational path with you by defining terms. You seem to prefer intimidation and blind accusations so far. (I know, it's boring to have to think through to the premises and more exciting to engage people with hostility. But reason works that way sometimes.)

I learned a long time ago that when a person insists on making unfounded accusations, he generally has trouble with that very same issue in his heart. I suggest you look within yourself and see of your own house is in order.

Objectivism is a philosophy of reason and individualism. There are cultural forces at work in adopting reason (especially the approach to religion), but using reason is equally available to all human beings, including all Jews and all Arabs. If the use of reason and adoption of capitalism is encouraged within a society, the people produce and become wealthy. If the use of reason and adoption of capitalism is discouraged within a society, some fat cats might be wealthy from foreign trade or taxes or inheritance, but the people will remain poor, producing mostly survival-level goods and services.

It is not racism to notice that.

Does this fact bother you about present-day Jews in Israel?

Michael

Micheal,

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

"I sincerely do not know how you equate refusing admittance to a country from another where war is being waged between them with racism,"

War, schmar. Could an Arab from DETROIT immigrate to Israel? The answer is NO!

"I started a rational path with you by defining terms."

So? No problem, I addressed that I thought. Is there something else you're not understanding? My definition of racism fits yours quite well.

"2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race." is just fine.

"the use of reason and adoption of capitalism is discouraged within a society, some fat cats might be wealthy from foreign trade or taxes or inheritance, but the people will remain poor, producing mostly survival-level goods and services.

It is not racism to notice that."

I agree, in fact I clearly stated that prejudice is rooted in the ABSENCE of facts. Nothing wrong with what you're talking about. That's not racism. Never said it was.

"Your arguments so far, when you level the charge of racism, are simply distortions of what people are saying, refusal to take honest people at their word, and attempts at intimidation. "

No way. My arguments are simple and coherent and correct. You, or anyone else, have not even ATTEMPED to show how racism can be absent when one is clearly PRO [insert race here]. No attempt at all. Why? Because it can't be done.

Bob

Edited May 23, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

No way. My arguments are simple and coherent and correct. You, or anyone else, have not even ATTEMPED to show how racism can be absent when one is clearly PRO [insert race here]. No attempt at all. Why? Because it can't be done.

But, but, but BOB! I did! (Jumping up and down, waving arms.) I mean I attempted to. Have you forgotten already?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

War, schmar. Could an Arab from DETROIT immigrate to Israel? The answer is NO!

Do you mean a citizen of an Islamic country with which Israel is at war, or an American citizen of Arabian descent?

My definition of racism fits yours quite well.

Actually it doesn't for the reasons I gave. You are free to ignore them, but I can't take this seriously.

No way. My arguments are simple and coherent and correct. You, or anyone else, have not even ATTEMPED to show how racism can be absent when one is clearly PRO [insert race here]. No attempt at all. Why? Because it can't be done.

I guess saying it makes it so. I use another standard.

I'm done for now. I thought this was going in a different direction toward understanding, not preaching. Please be respectful of Barbara if you continue. (If in doubt, please check out the posting guidelines.)

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

No way. My arguments are simple and coherent and correct. You, or anyone else, have not even ATTEMPED to show how racism can be absent when one is clearly PRO [insert race here]. No attempt at all. Why? Because it can't be done.

But, but, but BOB! I did! (Jumping up and down, waving arms.) I mean I attempted to. Have you forgotten already?

--Brant

Brant,

You admitted you were racist. WTF?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Actually it doesn't for the reasons I gave. You are free to ignore them, but I can't take this seriously.

Ahem, I agreed to use the definition YOU provided. I'm using YOUR definition for crying out loud.

""2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race." is just fine. "

Do you read the posts or what?

My only qualification, and it's a small one is a reminder that prejudice can be both a positive or a negative assessment. I can only conclude you don't wish to discuss this in good faith. Why? Who knows, but you're not making any sense.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

No way. My arguments are simple and coherent and correct. You, or anyone else, have not even ATTEMPED to show how racism can be absent when one is clearly PRO [insert race here]. No attempt at all. Why? Because it can't be done.

But, but, but BOB! I did! (Jumping up and down, waving arms.) I mean I attempted to. Have you forgotten already?

--Brant

Brant,

You admitted you were racist. WTF?

Bob

1) That's not what I was referring to.

2) I was being sarcastic.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

No way. My arguments are simple and coherent and correct. You, or anyone else, have not even ATTEMPED to show how racism can be absent when one is clearly PRO [insert race here]. No attempt at all. Why? Because it can't be done.

But, but, but BOB! I did! (Jumping up and down, waving arms.) I mean I attempted to. Have you forgotten already?

--Brant

Brant,

You admitted you were racist. WTF?

Bob

1) That's not what I was referring to.

2) I was being sarcastic.

--Brant

Ok, I guess.

Don't really know what you were getting at but sorry I missed the sarcasm....

But to add to what I was trying to say... I think it's pretty clear that racism comes in many forms, from the almost completely harmless, to devastatingly destructive and everywhere in between. Your instance that you outlined

"I will tend to hold a Jew in higher esteem than any other including WASPs if that's all I know right off the bat as a default start. "

Is not a horrible thing, but it's not good either. Nobody perhaps will be harmed by this, but what if you were ranking resumes? What if someone with similar, but stronger feelings was ranking them? A potential exists for a prejudice to be applied to an individual without the facts, so it is not harmless.

I think absolutely everybody is racist somewhat or at some point in their lives. I am certainly not entirely free of it. But I do try to think about it, realize it when it exists, and deal with it. Most of us it seems, don't even have a clue what it is!

You don't have to agree with me, but I am entirely convinced that the racial-based love-fests are the exact same disease process with the exact same results (discrimination and prejudice) as racial-based hatred.

Can you claim that anything is "superior" without an implication that a comparison has to exist to something else that is "inferior"? Of course not. But people don't want to give up being a proud Jew, Hispanic, White whatever, but we must dispose of this. We don't need to be ashamed of course, but we need to relegate our racial heritage to relative meaninglessness like eye-colour or shoe size. Sure its part of us, but it can't be part of a value judgement of how we measure or value others OR ourselves.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

And as a next question...

I think most of us would agree that the words "Ayran sovereignty" bring horrible images to mind, and few of us would not be offended,

yet the words Barbara quoted "Jewish sovereignty" are not only OK, but 'miraculous'.

"Besides restoring Jewish sovereignty, the establishment of the State of Israel embodied many subsidiary miracles, from the creation of the first Jewish army..."

Am I the only one that finds the concept of racial sovereignty offensive? Does past injustice and suffering supercede our rationality? Show me the error in this thinking.

Bob

Edited May 24, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[BaalChatzaf]

And as a next question...

I think most of us would agree that the words "Ayran sovereignty" bring horrible images to mind, and few of us would not be offended,

yet the words Barbara quoted "Jewish sovereignty" are not only OK, but 'miraculous'.

"Besides restoring Jewish sovereignty, the establishment of the State of Israel embodied many subsidiary miracles, from the creation of the first Jewish army..."

Am I the only one that finds the concept of racial sovereignty offensive? Does past injustice and suffering supercede our rationality? Show me the error in this thinking.

Bob

What is wrong with "Jewish Sovereignty" over a piece of land the size of New Jersey? It would be a safe haven (if it could be sustained) for Jews to protect themselves from chronic world wide anti-semitism. We are not talking about the Jewish Conquest of the World.

Anyway, that was the plan. It did not work out as intended. Strangely enough, the safest place in the world for Jews (at this juncture) is the United States or Canada where Jews are a small minority of the population. Who knows? Maybe the U.S.A. is the Promised Land.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

No way. My arguments are simple and coherent and correct. You, or anyone else, have not even ATTEMPED to show how racism can be absent when one is clearly PRO [insert race here]. No attempt at all. Why? Because it can't be done.

But, but, but BOB! I did! (Jumping up and down, waving arms.) I mean I attempted to. Have you forgotten already?

--Brant

Brant,

You admitted you were racist. WTF?

Bob

1) That's not what I was referring to.

2) I was being sarcastic.

--Brant

Ok, I guess.

Don't really know what you were getting at but sorry I missed the sarcasm....

But to add to what I was trying to say... I think it's pretty clear that racism comes in many forms, from the almost completely harmless, to devastatingly destructive and everywhere in between. Your instance that you outlined

"I will tend to hold a Jew in higher esteem than any other including WASPs if that's all I know right off the bat as a default start. "

Is not a horrible thing, but it's not good either. Nobody perhaps will be harmed by this, but what if you were ranking resumes? What if someone with similar, but stronger feelings was ranking them? A potential exists for a prejudice to be applied to an individual without the facts, so it is not harmless.

I think absolutely everybody is racist somewhat or at some point in their lives. I am certainly not entirely free of it. But I do try to think about it, realize it when it exists, and deal with it. Most of us it seems, don't even have a clue what it is!

You don't have to agree with me, but I am entirely convinced that the racial-based love-fests are the exact same disease process with the exact same results (discrimination and prejudice) as racial-based hatred.

Can you claim that anything is "superior" without an implication that a comparison has to exist to something else that is "inferior"? Of course not. But people don't want to give up being a proud Jew, Hispanic, White whatever, but we must dispose of this. We don't need to be ashamed of course, but we need to relegate our racial heritage to relative meaninglessness like eye-colour or shoe size. Sure its part of us, but it can't be part of a value judgement of how we measure or value others OR ourselves.

Look, I've liked Jews ever since I first knowingly ran into Jews in my junior year in high school. It was my first year in that school, maybe 1/3 of the students were Jewish. Even then it took me years to begin to understand the cultural/ethnic differences between them and me and amongst Jews themselves, a lot of that last I'm sure I still don't completely get. Accoding to you because when I first encounter a Jew I tend to have warm, positive feelings this is positive prejudice and I'm a "racist." Racism is Nazis murdering millions of Jews and gypsies. I don't care for an analogy that somehow makes me one with a Nazi and the Holocaust. I grew up amongst Hispanics; I went to school with blacks and Hispanics, aka Mexican-Americans. I've had good and bad experiences with members of all these groups I've mentioned so far plus Italians in New Jersey. I've experienced more racism FROM blacks and Hispanics than they ever got from me. I was picked on by a few Italian and WASP boys. Fortunately college left all that adolescent crap behind when, ironically, one obnoxious Jew stuck it to me with a rhetorical slander. Yes, I've had feelings at various times in my life that can truely be described as racist and I've always properly dealt with them. I'm sure everybody has had these feelings. Now I'm supposed to adequately deal with positive but "racist" feelings--by what? Pretending all Jews are "New York Jews"? Washing away good feelings with bad feelings? Or telling myself my feelings are wrong and that when I meet a Jew they should be neutral until I know something good or bad but not "Jewish" to stoke them? Look, what I like about Jews has to do with their essential, live-on-earth humanity. They tend overall to like me too, but I doubt it is because they see me as a WASP! In their case they need more time to know me than I need for starters, but as I've already said starters is starters and is not the end of evaluation.

I think you need to examine racism empirically and historically and not let philosophical ratiocinations and deductions lead you to conclusions about what is racism and who is a racist. Before you I thought all racism was negative. Now it's positive/negative???!!!

--Brant

Edited May 24, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob K,

I approved your post on this topic with misgivings. Bob M is already bad enough seeing racists under the bed and in between the blades of grass. I don't need a flame war here with two overly-biased people taking this to the gutter.

(btw - Are you going to behave? I want to remove the restriction. I think you are a man of honor, so I will take you at your word.)

Michael

[Mike11]

Its been a few days and I owe a few responses.

I hate talking about Israel but I always seem to end up in these flame wars. K, Brant first, if he still wants to talk about it...

Brant, you asked a few days back a few questions I want answer. One was -

Israel is at war with Hamas because Hamas is at war with Israel. What possible excuse does Hamas have for firing rockets into Israel at civilians from Gaza except to provoke Israel into firing back and thus maintaining the conflict?

My opinion of the conflict is that those on both sides with a vested interest in controlling their own populations and diverting interest in their own problems will use Fighting The Enemy as a good technique to maintain and expand their power. This applies as well to those who frame this situation as "Good Vs Evil" in a heavy handed and extreme way. I think the Hamas recognize their tenuous grip on the hearts of the Palestinians and are therefore doing what many other non western countries have done (Like Turkey, Egypt, and Japan) and that is try to express military equality as cultural equality. By continually attacking Israel internal contradictions within Palestine can be vented and, given the last war in Lebanon, Israel may find itself in a losing war in the GS and WB which would be a vindication of Islam and Palestine through the fanatic's bottom line of triumph after mass human suffering.

Put another way, the Israeli Right and Palestinian Right focus on each other so absolutely because they need each other to survive.

You also asked -

Let the United States do the non-interventionist, libertarian foreign policy thing and leave Israel alone to finally realize it's truly at war and smash its enemy. Not to mention the enemy that is Iran. Is this what you want? I mean, after the U.S. cuts loose Israel what's to criticize compared to the brutal insanities extant in the rest of the world? Perhaps you have some good transitional ideas?

I don't know what you're asking me. Can you rephrase that?

Edited May 24, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald

[Brant Gaede]

Its been a few days and I owe a few responses.

I hate talking about Israel but I always seem to end up in these flame wars. K, Brant first, if he still wants to talk about it...

Brant, you asked a few days back a few questions I want answer. One was -

Israel is at war with Hamas because Hamas is at war with Israel. What possible excuse does Hamas have for firing rockets into Israel at civilians from Gaza except to provoke Israel into firing back and thus maintaining the conflict?

My opinion of the conflict is that those on both sides with a vested interest in controlling their own populations and diverting interest in their own problems will use Fighting The Enemy as a good technique to maintain and expand their power. This applies as well to those who frame this situation as "Good Vs Evil" in a heavy handed and extreme way. I think the Hamas recognize their tenuous grip on the hearts of the Palestinians and are therefore doing what many other non western countries have done (Like Turkey, Egypt, and Japan) and that is try to express military equality as cultural equality. By continually attacking Israel internal contradictions within Palestine can be vented and, given the last war in Lebanon, Israel may find itself in a losing war in the GS and WB which would be a vindication of Islam and Palestine through the fanatic's bottom line of triumph after mass human suffering.

Put another way, the Israeli Right and Palestinian Right focus on each other so absolutely because they need each other to survive.

You also asked -

Let the United States do the non-interventionist, libertarian foreign policy thing and leave Israel alone to finally realize it's truly at war and smash its enemy. Not to mention the enemy that is Iran. Is this what you want? I mean, after the U.S. cuts loose Israel what's to criticize compared to the brutal insanities extant in the rest of the world? Perhaps you have some good transitional ideas?

I don't know what you're asking me. Can you rephrase that?

Israel retaliates because it is being attacked. No attacks, no retaliation. Your moral equivalency refines itself into an evil danse macabre.

What do you think should be the US relationship, government to government, with Israel?

--Brant

[Mike11]

A Israel retaliates because it is being attacked. No attacks, no retaliation. Your moral equivalency refines itself into an evil danse macabre.

B What do you think should be the US relationship, government to government, with Israel?

--Brant

A- At some point in the future, maybe a week or so from now, I'll start a thread on this. It will function as a reply to Barbara as well.

B- No idea. The relationship between The "West", America, Israel and the Arabs/Muslims is too complex for me to say what should be done. I guess the Objectivistically Libertarian Correct thing to say would be something like "We should pull out all foreign aid to Middle Eastern countries and let Darwin sort it out - with hopefully a few more Jews than Arabs left standing" and I'm guessing that's the sort of answer you were looking for. If so I have nothing to say to that.

I don't know what should be done but I think a fundamental shift in attitude needs to take place. Realism is not something which has defined American/Israeli relations. I guess that's symptomatic of Israel and the West generally. America needs to take a hard look at Israeli actions and ask "What is this? Why is it happening? Is this good for us? Is it damaging us?"

Israel defined itself early on as an instrument of the Imperialist powers, a synergistic relationship which gives Western military and economic aid to dominate the Arabs while giving Britain, France and America a springboard from which to exert their own power. The instrument and relationship are broken. The shared "War on Terror" is a fiction which works very good for Israel but badly for America in the long run.

But no one in history has ever accused an Empire of knowing what the hell its doing in the world so,

I guess my advice to American policy makers would be -

Have fun learning.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald