Another Lib Dem anti-Semite

[DotCommunist]

anyway, I prefer 'protestant'

 

[Falcon]

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]

Why are you suspicious of Jews falcon?

We are teh kapitalizt establishmentz!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

He said Jehovah!

Me: "No wai!"

You: "Yah weh!!!"

 

[BigTom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

I never knew Falcon voted Lib-Dem.

 

[Falcon]

Some are supportive

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

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[stuff_it]

... 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.

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

Sweet, your round then!

 

[ViolentPanda]

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]

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

Quite.

 

[BigTom]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

<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?