| Author | Message | ||
     Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 27 Registered: 5-2006  |
They didn't flee or were expelled. They left voluntarily after the invading Arab armies advised them to get out of the way so they could more easily exterminate the Jews. The “refugees” were told they would be allowed back once the fighting ended. Of course things didn't work out that way. Then instead of being resettled in Arab lands, the “refugees” were put into camps, for which the Arab world has never contributed a single penny, and convinced to make their kids into suicide bombers. Somehow the original 600,000, few of whom are still alive, has grown into 5 million. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5587 Registered: 10-1999  |
The problem with the premise of this thread, imho, is neatly summarized in this line from FvF's post above - "Can't you view Sheehan's comments and the inferences in a manner divorced from Iraq and your politics?"Yes, the emphasis was added. Nobody is condoning anti-semitism here. But, you continue to want us to condemn Ms. Sheehan, based on the "inferences" you keep attributing to her. And, with all due respect, the only reason that one would keep attributing those inferences to her statements, is because of the Iraq war. Nobody would be parsing Ms. Sheehan's words, in order to claim, "A hah! She's an anti-semite!", if not for the Iraq war. It's pointless to engage in discussions of "What she really means." As you know (or can find out, since you apparently have access to a computer), Ms. Sheehan hasn't called for the destruction of Israel, or otherwise carried on in the way you seem to desparately wish she has. And, since you clearly missed the entire point of Mr. Surovell's post, I don't know why I even bothered typing this. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4451 Registered: 12-2001  |
FvF, Jews were expelled or made to feel unsafe in other countries in response to the Zionist migration from Europe to Palestine. The Arabs understood the implications of Zionism and reacted violently because of what Zionism meant. It isn't as though the Arabs woke up one fine day in 1922 or so and decided to became homicidal anti-Semites. Now, all of this history is largely irrelevant since the Jews are in Palestine and the Arabs are in Palestine and they will either learn live in peace or will, one day, die collectively under mushroom clouds. The history of the conflict interests me to the extent that I get tired of hearing the various explanations for the conflict that generally completely ignore the Arab point of view. What doesn't portend well for the future is the Arab view that they outlasted the Crusaders and, similarly, will outlast the Jews. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2836 Registered: 6-2002 |
NoHero: You typed it because you believe in engaging in dialogue. It appears to me that FvF was not interested in dialogue when he began this thread but rather interested only in baiting those who he considers "left". I think Paul Surovell, you and others have responded more than adequately. And the discussion of Israel and the Palestinians has had some positive and intelligent moments demonstrating that "thread drift" can be good. By the way you are correct that: Nobody would be parsing Ms. Sheehan's words ... if not for the Iraq war. No one would have heard of her! | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 970 Registered: 12-2003 |
your mother? Mother jokes...the last refuge of the comedically deficient. You know this is the internet, right? Not real time? You could have taken a few minutes to get some help with an actual joke. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5589 Registered: 10-1999 |
Since you put it that way, I guess it's the case that even Ms. Sheehan might have preferred that we never heard of her. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 971 Registered: 12-2003 |
Nohero, you're crazy. She's obviously loving the death of her child, just like those greedy 9/11 widows. It's all a big party! | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2838 Registered: 6-2002 |
What I meant is that her prominence arose from her public opposition to the War in Iraq. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5590 Registered: 10-1999 |
I knew that's what you meant. I was agreeing with you. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7517 Registered: 10-2001 |
oh, such as... Yo mama so fat when her beeper goes off, people thought she was backing up Yo mama so fat her nickname is "Lardo" Yo mama so fat she eats Wheat Thicks. Yo mama so fat were in her right now Yo mama so fat people jog around her for exercise Yo mama so fat she went to the movies and sat next to everyone | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67  Post Number: 544 Registered: 11-2002  |
FvF...very perceptive of you..I thought I was the only one wh thought that Paul was in love with Cindy Sheehan... Also, I wonder how hard Paul has been looking to find the Native Americans who used to own his land...That was a pretty week comparison IMHO. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 642 Registered: 2-2003 |
FactvsFiction, With regard to your last post: Well, the answer to your question is contained in the first reply on this thread (which I posted): On your second question, no I don't support Pat Buchanan. On the issue of whether there is anything "Freudian" taking place here -- I'd like to reply but in order to do that, I need to know your position on the war. Could you tell us where you stand? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 643 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gregor, You've misunderstood my posts. Let me break it down for you more succintly -- (a) as noted in my last post I don't agree with everything that Cindy Sheehan says. (b) my point about Native Americans was that those who advocate a literal Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel are hypocrites if they do not also advocate a return of land to descendants of Native Americans who lived on those lands. I disagree with both propositions. | ||
| Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 545 Registered: 11-2002 |
I was referring to your incident with the guy in front of the post office...That's the argument YOU used. The Freud thing was a joke anyway... | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 972 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yo momma so intellectually lazy, she thinks Stawberry's posts are worth reading. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 943 Registered: 4-2006 |
Nohero- I think I disposed of your argument some time back in this thread. Interesting that you thought you dismissed my points the last time and said there was nothing more to talk about, but had to come back to dismiss my points again.  . My post is not about "baiting" the extreme left here on MOL. I do find a lot of you guys to be sadly parochial and closed-minded, the things you attribute to the rightwingers. Only on MOL would I be a rightwing fanatic too, lol. It is sad you can't separate Cindy Sheehan from your politics on Iraq. Shouldn't Pat Buchanan be your guy too? One thing that I do find, in general, is the greater willingness to excuse and ignore possible anti-semitism than possible racism and gay-bashing among the left. IMHO the "right" politics of the speaker, or the cause, seems to matter more. Given the recent documentary on the last Newark election and Sharp James' comments about Jews in the movie, I am kinda wondering when any of our elected democratic officials in the state are going to call him on it? Oh, sorry they were too busy being pictured hugging him before he decided to leave office  . I think there is a different standard applied to anti-semitism than there is other forms of hatred, and THAT needs to be discussed. Anyway, play nice everyone I will look at what you are posting on this thread when I come back. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1628 Registered: 10-2004  |
It is obvious from FvFs posts that he does not understand the very issues that he brings up. First he asks for commentary from liberal MOLers then he ignores all commentary when the answers he gets are counter to the answers he wants. FvF - I have no idea what Cindy Sheehan feels, thinks or believes regarding Jewish people. I do know that the statements that you have brought up in this thread do not seem in anyway anti-semitic. from your original posting -
I have no idea if this particular quote is indeed accurate, nor do I know if it was taken out of context but even if I am to read it at face value it appears that she is angry at American government for lying and angry at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) for the foreign policy it has implemented directly contributing to her sons death. I cant see it as anti-semitic. I see it as anti administration. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 592 Registered: 8-2003 |
FactvsFition, Hate has history and cultural rootings and anti-semitism is a particular form of ideology that stems from an "Abrahamic" faith space. Semitism is not the sole property of those of Jewish faith but it applies to a host of middle-eastern and North African cultures. That it has become one that is closely associated with Jews, is a historical development it itself. Socres of threads ago, we had a similar discussion on anti-semitism and my question was whether it is possible to be anti-semitic if one does not practice Islam or Christianity. Wha would be the charactersitics of a Hindu anti-semite or a Busshist one for that matter? What is the basis of his or her hate and where is it coming from historically? Is that hate rooted in a specific cultural context? I ask these questions because racisms have histories although the hate and predudice they create can create a universal value. For instance, the colonial enterprise was essentially based on racial superiority of the white man but forms of racisms that it engendered (the French anti-arab, English anti-jewish and anti-hindu, the Indian anti-black) assumed particular historical forms. In that sense racisms have a past and I believe that anti-semitism is a form of racism that has specific historical moorings. I also believe that to question specific policies of Israel does not tantamount to ani-semitism. At a philosophical level, I do not believe in a state being founded on religion just as I don't believe in the concept of the Indian state being a Hindu state but that does not mean I question the the right of Israel to exist. neither do I question states such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia which are all Islamic nations-states. You say that "there is a different standard applied to anti-semitism than there is other forms of hatred." What makes you say that? How is different from other forms of hatred and here I am nore interested in the cultural/historical implications of your question. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 593 Registered: 8-2003 |
Now that's a Freudian slip- I meant Buddhist not Busshist. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3494 Registered: 9-2001  |
Hoops: Growing up Jewish, I have found that anti-semitic comments are sometimes couched in statements like, "I don't want my son to die for Israel." Israel becomes a proxy for a Jewish cabal that wields inordinate control over Washington policies, to the benefit of Jews and to the detriment of America. I do not know if Sheehan meant it that way, and I somewhat doubt she did, but I certainly understand why FVF and others might take it that way. The statement has echoes of the blood libel Protocols of the Elders of Zion and similar screeds. Some of we Jewish people can be sensitive to such nuances because we have heard and seen them before. Such statements make some of us nervous, uncomfortable, historically twitchy. I ask you to be aware of this when you read such comments as FVF made--not to excuse them or convince yourself otherwise, but to understand why and where they come from. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2706 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eats, great comments. Unfortunately wasted on Hoops, imo. Perhaps others will hear them. The reason why I feel it's wasted on Hoops is because in a prior post in this thread in response to something I posted he called the murder of others the act of someone blowing themselves up*. If that isn't Orwellian anti-semitic Newspeak, I don't know what is. *"There is no necessity to speak about how foul it is for Palestinians to blow themselves up in shopping centers before making a statement about the incredible destuction that Israel reaks in its effort at revenge in retalliation." | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2536 Registered: 3-2003 |
>"You say that "there is a different standard applied to anti-semitism than there is other forms of hatred." What makes you say that?" Well, it's self-evident. You, for instance, have implied here that neighbors who say they object to a new basketball court in SO attracting an obstreperous crowd are actually objecting to black kids coming to play. I don't recall anyone jumping in to say you are too "sensitive." Upthread, Mantram opined that Jews who objected to vehement, one-sided criticisms of Israel sounded like "whiny children" complaining of antisemititsm. Does that sort of stereotypical talk go unnoticed when blacks in this community claim they face institutional racism? Seems a remark like that, if directed toward African Americans, would quickly be identified as racist by most people on this board. Yet no one here uttered a peep. Nor did anyone seem to notice that the discussion about the eruv in Maplewood produced all sorts of interesting fears about Orthodox Jews "taking over." (Never mind that communities all around us have eruvs and the Orthodox haven't taken over.) BobK mentioned a neighborhood in Brooklyn that went from being largely white and Christian working-class to...integrated, as Orthodox Jews and their "hordes of children" moved in. And this was just terrible for the indigenous residents. Can anyone imagine what the liberal reaction on MOL would have been to someone talking about "hordes" of black children moving into, say, west Maplewood? Not to speak for FvF, but perhaps he says there's a different standard applied to antisemitism because suspicion, contempt, and hatred of Israel always seems to have a "legitimate" justification these days. That justification is Israel's villainy. It's a fact, after all, isn't it? The narrative of this villainy--not just the 'ordinary' nastiness of countries defending their security and interests, but the special viciousness of racism, imperialism, gratuitous murderousness, and the litany of various "overreactions"--has become ubiquitous throughout Europe, much of Asia, and amongst liberals in the US. Virtually all non-Jewish liberals on MOL (as well as one or two Jewish ones!) believe in that narrative and can recite it like a catechism. Hoops, for instance, who disparages religion but thinks about politics in religion-like terms, believes the list of Israeli harms against Palestinians outshines the harms of the Pals against the Jews like the sun compared to a candle. Hoops wants to know where the antisemitism is in criticising Israel for (what he has been told, and uncritically accepts as) "disproportionate" Israeli responses to terror: >"Each act of Palestinian terror and murder is met with bombings and bulldozings of the homes of the relatives of that person plus the Palestinian goverment and police buildings." Set aside for a moment the fact that Hoops is somehow unaware that the IDF has until recently not responded to the barrage of rocket fire into Sderot over the past year. (Nearly 90 missiles in the last month alone.) For Hoops, it doesn't really matter what the Palestinians do to the Israelis. What's important is what the Israelis do to the Palestinians. After all, the equation is simple: Israel was born in sin. Zionists disenfranchised Arabs. Israel, not the Palestinians, deserve to be punished. Only through repentence, self-sacrifice and renunciation of what it fundamentally is (a Jewish state, which is wrong in itself) will Israel be redeemed among the nations. I am persuaded at this point that nothing can change Hoops' mind (and I don't mean to pick on Hoops in particular--again, many, many people agree with him). It doesn't matter how often or how persuasively people here explain that the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not what he thinks he knows it is, that the events unfolding now are not happening in the context, or for the reasons, he assumes. It doesn't matter what arguments are adduced to show that the moral equation is not as clear as he makes it. It also doesn't matter that the Christian-American idea of peaceful universalism Hoops adheres to is no more likely to be delivered to Palestinians by Israel suddenly acting benficently than democracy is likely to be delivered to Iraq on a platter by American GIs. It doesn't matter because Hoops knows that the villain is Israel. And even if there were not a steady stream of media propaganda for him to rely on for his views, at least he knows that Israel is militarily powerful. Power is suspect. The meek shall inherit the earth. A post-Christian perspective embodies the trappings of Christianity with the religion removed. People who disapprove of religion in general can still hold to views that come from religion. One of them is antisemitism. When trying to determine whether someone is an antisemite or something else, I ask myself, how easily and with how much certitude does he believe the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli narrative? Would he be as vocal or judgmental about some other ethnic conflict or some other nation's motives and actions? Does he ever question whether the criticisms he thinks are legitimate actually are valid in context? Is there any caution in his heart or mind, where claims of Israeli villainy are concerened, or does he simply know they must be true? I'm sure it's frustrating sorting out one's legitimate criticisms of Israel from contempt for Jewishness and the Jewish state. Just keep in mind, people who believed the blood libel thought they were making legitimate criticisms, too. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 563 Registered: 3-2005 |
Eats Shoots & Leaves, Having been raised as a Republican and recalling the McCarthy era, I also recognize when inflammatory rhetorical questions like "Anti-Semitism from a 'Progressive' OK?" are tossed out, not as an expression of sincere concern but in a rightwing attempt to villify liberals by whipping up base fears. Funny, they use to villify liberals by insinuating they're all Jews! My, how times change. Or do they? I wouldn't count on the pendulam not switching back. That kind of ding-dong mentality and ding-dong politics that reaches for a low smear doesn't have much variety. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1634 Registered: 10-2004 |
ESL - thank you for the perspective and the insight into how a person sensitive to certain phrases might read into this something that is not there. Wendy - you totally misinterpreted that line. I do believe that what I said was entirely true, its why they are called suicide bombers. But if you believe I am anti-semitic its because you have a need to believe it. I made reasoned arguments and you have seen fit to nitpick certain language and read past the actual message. Possibly I speak in English that is too blunt for you to get past your emotional reaction and read for understanding. I have not intended to offend your sensibilities but I do think that you are going out of your way to try to offend me. You have already wished or prayed for the death of me and my ancestors*, which I thought was pretty damn harsh, so I dont see how you can rationally argue any point on this issue. "Oh and Israel will "stand" long after you and your ancestors are dust. Amen." | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2707 Registered: 5-2001 |
I did not wish or pray for your death. My sentence about Israel standing long after you're gone was a term of art. Israel "stood" even before she was a state in the hearts, minds and prayers of Jews everywhere. But funny how you went ape and Freudian with that ONE sentence of mine but didn't respond to the reasoned, eloquent post of J. Crohn. And Kathleen, you make/made some excellent points. And you're right about the OP and the title. But I still have to say the things I see regardless of the context. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1635 Registered: 10-2004 |
J.Crohn - Israel is the most powerful nation in the middle east. They have the military might and wherewithal to defend themselves and have historically done so. I have never stated that Palestinian terrorism was justified in any shape or form. Nor, J.Crohn have I ever stated that I would like to see Israel be given back to the indigenous Arab people. I think Israel has done a fine job of growing their country from nothing into a thriving democracy however that doesnt stop me from decrying their tactics and the wrongs that they are doing. Why are they being criticized? Because Israel is powerful and as such has to have the broad shoulders to take the criticism. Violence will only create more violence. Your statement
is more then wrong, its slanderous, outrageous and despicable. J.Crohn, it would be better if you would try to make a statement about the issue then to try to tell the readers how I think. I can tell you what I think without you putting ideas and/or words in my mouth. Israel is a state and as such can be criticized for its actions. Substitute Israel for Mozambique in any of the statements I made and its the same thing. Your post is an attempt to paint me with a broad brush of anti-semitism and I reject it outright. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12088 Registered: 5-2001 |
JC, I realize that you have a very narrow world view. However, any comments that I made about the Eruv was in no way directed at the Orthodox community. My comments and brief history of one neighborhood concerned ultra Orthodox groups and the effect they have on a neighborhood. We shouldn't send troops to the Middle East to "defend" Israel. If we send more troops to that God foresaken part of the world it should be done to protect American interests. If that is anti-semitic in your very narrow view, so be it. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1636 Registered: 10-2004 |
Wendy - see, give me a chance. Its not easy being green. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2708 Registered: 5-2001 |
In my humble, Jewish and for the most part liberal opinion, defending Israel does more to protect American interests - if by American interests we mean supporting a progressive, democratic country in the middle east - than ousting Saddam (and attempting to force democracy down the throats of people who are just entering the modern era) unless by American interests we're talking oil. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2709 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK Hoops, you win. Now let's eat. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1637 Registered: 10-2004 |
Gee Wendy, its looks like we actually agree on something. [editted to add - I agree with your response to BobK, not about winning...  ] | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3495 Registered: 9-2001 |
Kathleen--amen, I agree with you on the inflammatory language by FVF and recognize that he is grinding his own political axe here. But the point remains that Sheehan was veering, however inadvertently, into some sad old territory that Jewish people have seen before. And it is interesting that the world seems united in its approbation of Israeli aggression. There is concern, but no where near the same universal moral outrage, about: Hindu-Muslim violence in India; Chinese ethnic cleansing of Buddhists in Tibet; Hindu-Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka; Muslim-Christian violence in much of Africa (Darfur being but one example). Israel is treated far differently in the United Nations, and what other country has all of its neighbors in a state of declared war (except for two that have a very cold peace) with it? Who would deny Israel the right to self defense when it has been invaded by multiple neighbors acting in concert three times in less than 70 years, and whose stated foreign policy is to push Israel into the sea (often stated as ridding the Middle East of all Jews)? What countries provided direct military support when Israel was invaded, unlike Kuwait where at least some countries intervened on their behalf? These are some of the reasons why Jewish people legitimately feel like it is our faith and ethnicity (not sure we are technically a race) that is at stake, and not just Israel's status as an "aggressor nation". Does this excuse Israeli aggression in all cases? No. I believe that there are better ways for Israel to defend itself, and it surely has made many mistakes that I deplore. But there is a double standard when it comes to the Jewish state. Edited to add: Hoops, I do not think you are anti-semitic, and while I love Wendy, I think she went a bit far with that. This topic always brings out sharp claws because it is so personal and so intractable, at least for me as a Jewish person. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 949 Registered: 4-2006 |
Man, I come back for two minutes and almost all I read is a bunch of hoo-ey, except: J.Crohn- Thank you for your incredible essay taking Hoops to school on what facts, reasoning, and applied intellect are all about. You have to be a writer. Hoops- Everytime I expect a brief shimmer of light will shine through the fog that are your posts I get disappointed. You clearly know little about the Middle East, Israel, or certain areas of broader history or religion, but don't seem inclined to school yourself on them before you post. But then again, talk is cheap and meaningless online. It's a pity because I think you have a lot to offer once you get beyond the polemic stage. Bob K- You were well hoisted on the "eruv" petard by Crohn. Telling? Eat Shoots- I found your post "explaining" for me, as a leftwinger born Jewish, a tad patronizing. One of the problems that exists with effectively dealing with anti-semitism in political causes and organizations is the actions of Jews who excuse it away in order to fit in and participate. Not saying you do this, just saying anti-semites are happiest using the statements and comments of Jews to excuse their behavior and hate. Wendy- Keep on fighting the good fight. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3496 Registered: 9-2001 |
FVF--not trying to explain you--trying to explain why some of us (me included) are very aware of language used around and about Israel, regardless of our politics. What I was saying is that Jews on the Left have good reason to be hypersensitive to this language. I have been unable to march in the protests in NYC and DC against the Iraq war because so many of the signs and speakers link the anti-war cause to pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli statements, many of which veer into covert or even overt anti-Semitism. The Left's protests have always been a laundry-list of loosely related causes--look at how many issues of the Socialist Workers and Larouchie newspapers you get at a major anti-war rally--but the lock-step reaction against Israel and lauding all things Palestinian (including excusing suicide bombing and terrorism as legitimate means of resistance) is disturbing to me--enough so that I cannot march under their banner and be identified with them. Paul Surovell and I have discussed this at length, and I deeply admire his principled stand and his efforts to be clear on this issue (he is often a lone voice of reason, however), but I still cannot attend these rallies. Cindy Sheehan's comments come out of this bias in the movement, whether she understands them or not, and it is right to call her out on them and I hope other Lefties can understand why her language makes my skin crawl (and yours as well). | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12090 Registered: 5-2001 |
The main interest of the United States in the Middle East is to control terrorism through slowing, or eliminating, the rapid spread of militant Islam from that area to our country. Most of the posters here are, to one degree or another, against the war in Iraq, mainly because it is just breeding more terrorists. If support of Israel, including militarily, supports that goal, fine. If it doesn't, I think we have to stop short of military action. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2049 Registered: 5-2001 |
Our founding fathers wisely advocated a separation between church and state. I've been reading this thread and for the most part staying out of the fray - but the mention of the Eruv has been nagging at me. It's fairly well-known in town under the radar that the 2 (husband/wife) organizers and fundraisers for the Eruv have been outspoken about their hope that the Eruv will "keep out blacks" - perpetuating an ugliness that I hope most Maplewoodians would reject. My husband spent an uncomfortable 45 minutes on the train with one half of the couple who hosted the fundraiser listening to his "Eruv = fewer people of color moving to Maplewood" rants. I guess I have to add: I'm not any "ist" I am for separation of church and state. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4459 Registered: 12-2001 |
Well, you are obviously a Separationist. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2537 Registered: 3-2003 |
"It's fairly well-known in town under the radar that the 2 (husband/wife) organizers and fundraisers for the Eruv have been outspoken about their hope that the Eruv will "keep out blacks"..." I hadn't heard that. It's disgusting. (I'm wondering if I know who you're talking about. If so, hey, they don't care much for me either.) However, I'm not sure how an eruv actually does keep out blacks. (If it's supposed to occur mystically then I'm not worried, as I'm pretty sure the G-d of Abraham is not a racist.) In any case it seems the courts have ruled that eruvim are not necessarily violations of church and state, whereas not permitting them can be. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2051 Registered: 5-2001 |
JCrohn - Didn't know the courts had ruled that Eruvism is not a violation of church v. State - it should be cut and dry in my opinion. Religion? Keep it separate. Tolerate? Yes. Make any special allowances? No. As far as the ugly sentiments about "keeping out the blacks" - you probably can guess who said it. I'd post a smily face but it really isn't funny - ironic? Yes. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 564 Registered: 3-2005 |
ESL, I just thought it was funny that psychological fragility due to emotional trauma was being given as a plea for understand of FVF's point of view -- when it was Cindy Sheehan's kid who is dead. I don't think there is any unitary view in the world about Israel among any groups of people, and that includes Jews. My post in response to you was to underscore that. My post was also intended to underscore, once again, that no one speaks for all Jews, there is no "Jewish point of view" all Jews sign on to (not by a mile) and there is no single Jewish experience or outlook that inevitably produces some kind of predictable "Jewish" political reaction or sensitivity or advocacy for anything. Many Jews could give two figs about what Cindy Sheehan said or implied or believed, and they couldn't give two figs about the future of Israel. Nor do they worry about their ethnicity or faith being at stake. Once you know somebody is Jewish or was raised in a Jewish family, it doesn't mean you know anything about how they think about anything, or why they think what they think. People can of course speak to their own ideas about being Jewish or the fate of the Jews. They can't speak for other Jews. It would seem that a moment's reflection about the world and recent American history would lead anybody to understand that anti-Semitism is not the explanation as to why the Palestininan-Israeli conflict attracts more concern in America and creates more controversy here than what goes on in China, India or Pakistan, or Africa -- although I'm not denying you have a moral point about the indifference to those horrors. Likewise, another moment's reflection would lead people to understand why racism and gay bashing appear the more urgent threats to our fellow Americans than anti-Semitism, which is not to deny anti-Semitism exists in America or that it poses no threat to individual Jews here. Nothing in my experience has ever indicated to me that Jews are of one mind in their views about anti-Semitism and what should be done about it in America today. I appreciate everybody's individual input -- but that's all it is. There is no such thing as a "Jewish point of view" about any issue. It's a delusion. In the middle of a war, the partisans in that war expect everybody to take sides. If you don't take a side, the only thing the partisans see is that you haven't picked their side -- which to them means you must've picked the other side, and therefore you must be their enemy. But the truth is that a great many people are deeply alarmed and saddened by the ongoing loss of life on both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they sincerely believe that the only guarantee of security Israelis and Palestinians will ever have is a peace rooted in a recognintion of the rights of both peoples to the land in question and the creation of a functioning democracy not based on ethnicity or faith. That may be controversial, and a great disappointment to some people, and even cause people to feel fear, but it is not anti-Semitic. |
