Why are there so many posts questioning the Jewish people?

[sir_captain]

As both a Jew and a liberal, I am kind of puzzled as to why there are so many posts here on DU that are...agressive, if you will...towards the Jewish people. Is the term "the chosen people" offensive? Do we pay too much attention to the Holocaust? We see posts like these here on DU nearly every day, and much more rarely do we see posts in similar veins that are targeted toward other ethnic or religious groups. (I'm certainly not saying that we *should* see any more posts like these towards anyone.)

I am not expressing a particular opinion here either way, but I sure am curious to see what you guys think the reason for this might be. Why are Jews such fair game?

[revree]

1. I think it is just a matter of ignorance...

people trying to understand other people, but not always doing so in a kind or compassionate manner.

Also could be because of so many Christians on board...

I am a New Thought minister, student of Science of Mind and metaphysics, and I am constantly surprised by how many people see my minister title and assume I am a Christian! Just simple ignorance, but in DU's case, perhaps a great opportunity for everyone to educate each other.

Could also be because of all the fuss over Mel Gibson movie, and the ongoing strife in Middle East - just makes the Jews as a topic timely and always relevant.

[H2O Man]

78. I thought the phrase God's Choosen People

was a reference to the Irish. I just finished a book (it's being printed now) on Irish immigrants on the canals and railroads in upstate New York. The Irish were frequently pitted against the Italian immigrants. My immigrant grandfather taught my dad that the only way to really break down the "group hatred" was to become friends as individuals. It's the same with Jewish people or Muslims or any group. When you get to know human beings, the old stereotypes fade. The important thing is to recognize that on some levels, all of us are able to hold unhealthy "group" views, and more important, we can all grow beyond that.

[Malva Zebrina]

88. I think that the Puritans also considered themselves a chosen people

and were given their new zion from god.

[Cassandra]

96. I wish it were true that...

getting to know each other as human beings makes old stereotypes fade; and then I think of the Jews turned in to the Nazi's by their neighbors and the Tutsis in Rwanda killed, in some cases by their own family members as well as neighbors, and I really have to wonder how propaganda overwhelms some people's better judgment.

[AspenRose]

2. Three thoughts

1. Current events in Israel
2. The Passion of the Christ (and all that it has wrought)

3. I think you'd see a lot more regarding other ethnic/racial groups if you went to the "Civil Rights" area on DU.

[sir_captain]

6. Fair enough...

Though I fail to see how current events in Israel have much bearing on the examples I offered.

[AspenRose]

11. Oh I know...I agree

it doesn't have to make sense, though :shrug:

stuff like that seldom does, unfortunately.

[sir_captain]

14. Heh...yeah

I think partially I'm just not used to it--definitely one of the benefits of living in NY. :-)

[Djinn]

32. Try being a Muslim on this board

which I'm not btw - I'm an atheist although my family background follows one of the Big3 - I tend not to overtly say which as people make all sorts of stupid assumptions based on it and others use it as some kind of badge of authority to speak on certain issues. There is FAR more bigotry on this board towards Muslims - people who assume that the Wabbabists are representative of Islam, that because the Koran says a certain thing it "prooves" the bigotry of Islam (ignoring the almost identical phrases in "their own" holy tracts, assuming that all Muslim woman are oppressed (ignoring female heads of state in Bangladesh and Indonesia - the most populous Islamic nation) and all sorts of other massive generalisations.

Unfortunately there's a bit of (I'm hoping unintended) bigotry towards some groups here at DU most of it comes from either (on the negative side) ignorance or (on the positive) a genuine wish to understand better. Atleast the outright hateful stuff about the Jewish people get deleted pretty pronto - some of the "Islam is sexist" posts stay up. It is one of the things I like about this place though - people DO get to learn stuff they didn't know about other religions, practices, cultures and beliefs.

[_Jumper_]

48. Good points

n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. The Big 3?

what do you mean?

[_Jumper_]

68. I think he means Christianity, Islam, and Judaism

The three main Western religions.

[Djinn]

74. She actually

but yeah I mean the 3 large monotheistic - sorry I thought it was a pretty well known term - I guess it's an Australian thing

[Malva Zebrina]

89. and absolutely ALL of the bigotry toward "fundies" is allowed to stay

and flourish. :-)

[Alenne]

3. There are many threads here questioning different religions.

[wuushew]

4. That thread was locked

and rightfully so. Are their other examples?

[sir_captain]

9. Unfortunately, I can't use the search feature...

as I haven't donated to DU (yet!) :-)

And I certainly don't want to call out any individual DUers, but I think there absolutely have been a plethora of posts, here, over in Civil Rights, and in GD:2004 that have focused in particular on the Jewish people.

Sorry--that's not a very satisfying answer. I'll start digging manually for examples.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. I agree it's a problem

Much comes from hatred (understandably) of Sharon but then gets into that grey area where it then does smack of anti-semitism.

I am fine with objecting to Sharon. I am Jewish and I don't care for him, but some posts are indeed beyond the pale.
And no...no ethnic group should be fair game where bigotry is concerned.

[sir_captain]

7. Yeah, I really agree with you

I find Sharon to be pretty awful, but it seems like he gets used too often as an excuse to take the next step, if you know what I mean...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Exactly

[BEZARK]

81. It's more than Sharon

It's Likud and the settler's movement too that draws the fire. But the fire should never be at Jewish people in general or even Israelis in general.

[redqueen]

192. Or any group in general

Once you start addressing a group as if it were an entity, assigning characteristics to them as if they were a homogenous 'they' rather than a diverse 'they' (which is the reality), you de-humanize them.

But it's a very effective tactic in helping a group of people to go along with things they normally wouldn't, such as illegal wars, concentration camps, etc.

[Ksec]

8. Jews seem to be lightning rods

I dont understand either.

My theory lies with the fact that so much power is held by such a small demographic and that the only logical conclusion to that would be that they believe it has to be fixed or somehow unfairly done.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. I'm not understanding your second statement

Can you elaborate?

[MAlibdem]

17. to be fair...

in terms of the second post...we do have an unbalancedly favorable advantage compared to other groups concerning education and income...i would suggest that comes from close social networks and a culture focused on education, rather than some kind of attempt to garner power

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Thanks

I don't think it comes from some secret conspiracy but from an innate sense of perseverance (I am speaking from experience in my own family)

I think people forget that Jews in America post world war two were not treated fairly, were blamed for much of the hardships of the war and have had to deal with discrimination and hatred as much as any group.

In my family, that equated to my father insisting on all of us pursuing higher education and I do think that the Jewish religion in many respects fosters intellectualism and resourcefulness.

[salinen]

13. As both a Jew and a liberal as well

I might suggest Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Brock, and Bill Krystol.

[sir_captain]

15. On this point...

Let's not leave out William Safire

[MadProphetMargin]

16. But can you excuse blaming an entire people because of a few morons?

I hope not.

[sir_captain]

18. No, no, of course not

And there are certainly plenty of lousy columnists and politicians of every type of race and creed

[Djinn]

34. seems to work for Muslims

you know the Saudi's, Bin Laden - other nutjobs = ALL Islam

Some also do it with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson = ALL Christianity

THe Hindu mobs that slaughter Muslims in India = ALL Hindu's

[rman]

174. why is blaming the morons so often interpreted as blaming all jews?

why is it so often said that anti-zionism = anti-semitism?

[_Jumper_]

231. Notice that you haven't got any replies to it

Sadly, sometimes anti-Israel criticisms are deemed anti-Semitic to A) discredit them and B) have a chilling effect on future criticism.

[Jim Sagle]

21. Who's Brock?

[salinen]

26. David Brock

I believe is the neo-con who co-authored a new book with Perle. Actually, I don't know enough about him to have used his name. Maybe someone could help.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Isn't that Brooks?

Brock was the former right winger and author of Blinded By the Right (unless I am misinformed)

[salinen]

53. Yes Brooks

Thanks again NSMA.

[_Jumper_]

52. That's David Frum

n/t

[ContinentalOp]

95. David Brock!

The lead singer/guitarist from the space rock band Hawkwind?! I had no idea he was a neocon ;) Sorry. Carry on.

[DerekG]

19. I started one of the threads you spoke of...

I questioned why one atrocity received the lion's share of attention in America, while others are ignored.

I don't "question the Jewish people."

And I hope you know that of the estimated 10 million people who died in the Holocaust, some 4 million included political enemies, the disabled, Catholics, homosexuals, communists, Gypsies and other groups. So my thread was not solely concerned with a genocide against the Jews.

[MadProphetMargin]

20. Because that one atrocity is still

...the greatest single attempt at genocide in history, other than what we did to the Amerinds, which we would really rather not discuss, thank you very much.

MPM,
Knows that we Americans don't deal with collective guilt very well.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Actually it isn't the single greatest

While Hitler was exterminating the Jews, Stalin was busy offing far more Ukranians

[MadProphetMargin]

31. But we still hold the title.

American genocide of Amerinds trumps Stalin.

We're #1!
We're #1!
We're #1!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. No argument from me there ;-)

[BEZARK]

84. The Mongol's attempt to exterminate the Chinese peasantry

. . . was given as the worst in one list I saw. 35 million dead. Seems hard to believe, but then there are those old stories of a single Mongol horseman killing an entire village.

[Djinn]

38. sorry but it's actually not

we seem unable to look beyond the 20th C but even in those terms - Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin were "worse" (it's a bad word - I don't really know what other term to use - no offense intended) in terms of percentage of population - and given the meaning of genocide that's relevant.

If look back further than the 20thC it comes even further down the list. And personally the "we" in "we would rather not discuss" is irritating - please do not claim to speak for all Jewish people

[absyntheNsugar]

40. Pardon my ignorance

But wasn't there a Turkish massacre of Armenians during WWI that was really bad?

All genocide is equally atrocious in my opinion.

[Djinn]

51. Yep that one too

I just don't know as much about that one as I do the others I mentioned.

[MadProphetMargin]

57. Please do not take me out of context.

I'm not Jewish...I was being tongue-in-cheek about AMERICANS reluctance to speak about the genocidal tactics used on Amerinds.

That is all.

[Djinn]

75. sorry read you wrong

:-)

[MadProphetMargin]

82. S'ok. I should have written more clearly. EOM.

[sir_captain]

23. First of all...

I have no beef with you nor do I have a particular desire to rehash the question you brought up. I would like to think that every educated person realizes that not only Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but I think it's naive to suggest that the genocide of the Jewish people was not far and away the primary focus.

[BEZARK]

86. The subjugation of all Slavs

. . . was Hitler's primary focus. The extermination of the Jews was far secondary.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

98. Wrong. Hitler hated Slavs, but anti-semitism was what drove him

I studied German history in school (I have a Masters in European History). The Final Solution was specifically aimed at the extermination of the Jews and the domestic and foreign policies of the Nazis were based on virulent anti-semitisim.

Hitler hated the Slavs also (he may have had Czech blood), but it was his hatred of Jews that was core to his philosophy.

[BEZARK]

243. Nope. Look at the relative efforts.

Hitler put FAR FAR more effort and resources and personal attention into conquering the "inferior Slavs" for making them virtual slaves in a German empire than he ever did to the extermination of the Jews. Nowhere close.

[MAlibdem]

224. ummm...

check your history books...and primary source docs...Mein Kampf, Final Solution docs, etc

[Jim Sagle]

25. Threads like that make things very unpleasant.

[liberalhistorian]

30. True, but the Jews

were the main, primary, all-important target, whereas it wasn't as important to the Nazis to get rid of the rest of those groups, much as they hated them also. The goal was to get every single last Jew walking on earth, no matter what they had to do to achieve it.

[Djinn]

39. no it actually wasn't

the Nazi's (and IM NOT DEFENDING THEM - I'm annoyed given my family background that I even need to state that but I can see ridiculous "anti-semite" and "holocaust denier" charges flying as I type) actually pushed for a "Jewish homeland" they only wanted them out of the large chunk of Europe that they controlled.

They were still vile murdering revolting dregs of humanity but I beleive historical fact is important

[NorthernSpy]

Djinn

I'm impressed by your knowledge. I want you to know that I'm grateful for your commentary.


Mary

[Djinn]

76. it's not that welcome down in the I/P!

atleast by the majority anyway - but I try to remind myself that even the posters I vehemently disagree with "down there" I also have agreed with them on other topics outside of there. Helps with the whole perspective thing

And thanks! :)

[liberalhistorian]

185. No, no, no, that was NOT

what they really wanted! That was their "cover story", so to speak. They were saying that even as they were putting the finishing touches on the details of the Final Solution. They were saying that as the trains were running to and from Auschwitz and Sobibor and Theresienstadt and Dachou and Maidenek, etc., etc., filled with Jews destined for the gas chamber, firing squad, or death by overwork.

[MikeGalos]

204. If historical fact is important

Than you'd know that in January 20, 1942, the Nazis held a conference in Wannsee to formulate the details of the total extermination of all Jews. Prior to that, some were to be killed, some sterilized and some just exported to foreign lands.

The program, led by SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich (and later by SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Adolf Eichmann after Heydrich's death) built the death factories to improve the efficiency of the genocide in order to make sure that no Jews would survive.

It's also worth noting that Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, met with Eichmann during the war to have blueprints drawn for another death camp to be built just north of Jerusalem to exterminate any Jews that had escaped Europe into the British Mandate of Palestine.

There's an excellent movie made by HBO on the Wannsee conference taken virtually verbatim from the surviving copy of the minutes of the meeting. It's entitled "Conspiracy" and was made in 2001. You can see more about it on IMDB at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/combined

[MikeGalos]

205. As an FYI

Loring Mandel, who wrote the screenplay for "Conspiracy" is doing a followup movie for HBO entitled "Complicity" about the Bermuda conference in April 19-29, 1943 when the US and British governments decided to let the Jews die rather than allow refugees to emmigrate to refugee camps, allied countries or the British Mandate of Palestine.

It promises to be a very painful look at a part of history most of us were never taught.

[MAlibdem]

225. WHAT ABOUT THAT FINAL SOLUTION THING?

If they wanted us in a homeland, they would have deported us...but the didn't, they systematically gassed us, killing 6 million of a people that had about 18 million at the time.

[rockymountaindem]

97. I didn't see the original thread

but I think the answer is because there are so many Jews in the US, and fewer Gypsies. Jews and their non-Jewish friends would automatically focus on the Jewish victims as opposed to the Gypsy victims because hardly anybody in the US knows any Gypsies. Back in the day, so to speak, nobody was even willing to use the word communist except as a slander, and even today homosexuals are targets of discrimination. The disabled were mostly targeted prior to the days of concentration camps, and their treatment was less graphically violent (although just as murderous), so it captures less attention because of its lower shock value. Hitler's political enemies were/are viewed as victims of their own outspokenness, not as targets of racial/religious hatred. As for the Catholics, many of those who were killed by Hitler were murdered because they used their religious beliefs to justify pacifism and objection to Hitler's military obsession. Pacifism isn't too popular in the US, so they are ignored as well.

These are not necessarily my views, but this is how I view public perception.

[Djinn]

126. glad someone brought up the Romany (gypsies)

as I think there are interesting parrallels.

The Gypsies were dispersed from the original homelands, they faced persecution in almost every country in Eastern & Western Europe, were victims of the Holocaust (which given the geographical spread of gypsies was arguably more detromental to their overall population) and have no homeland of their own...yet most people don't even know they exist

[_Jumper_]

164. 2 million were killed in the Holocaust but it is swept under the rug

Just curious, what were the original homelands of the Romany?

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. Briefly, northern India

I think that has been settled as a question, though research continues on exactly how and when the migration from there through Europe happened.

http://www.romani.org/toronto/diaspora_rl.html

[_Jumper_]

233. Thanks

:yourock:

[Muddleoftheroad]

167. Not swept

The deaths of the Romany, homosexuals, Catholic priests and others are all marked in the Holocaust Museum.

[_Jumper_]

214. Wow, marked in a museum

It is well-known that the Holocaust is presented as a campaign to eliminate the Jews, even though most of the victims were non-Jews. Remember, the Holocaust was not used to justify building a Romany state or homosexual state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

215. Used to justify?

Wow. That's downright scary.

The Holocaust WAS a campaign to eliminate Jews. The Germans also tried to eliminate many other groups, but vastly more Jews were killed than any other group. Six million in fact. Whole communities simply ceased to exist.

The Holocaust was only the latest outrage suffered by the Jewish people at the time of the creation of Israel. After 2,000 years of such outrages, even some of the weakest supporters of the Zionist movement saw the need for Jews to have their own state.

[Dark Angel]

226. I wouldn't bother, friend.

nt

[_Jumper_]

237. Are you anti-Gypsy?

A legitimate argument could be made that they suffered the most from the Holocaust. Regardless, it is intellectually dishonest and immoral to give a state to one persecuted group and leave the Romany and others exposed to another Holocaust. When feasible, we should create states for all oppressed stateless groups. Why don't you care about the crimes against them? Why are they not worthy of having a state in your eyes? Do you consider them "savages"?

I'm new to I/P so correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't Israel created in Palestine in response to something that Germany did? Thankfully, people not living in Palestine at the time so the "land without a people" was the ideal place to respond to Germany's WW2 actions against a people without a land.

[Muddleoftheroad]

240. Talk about intellectually dishonest

Your comment certainly meets that standard.

The push for the state of Israel did not begin in 1945 as your comments imply. In fact, it was merely the culmination of decades of work. Yes, the Holocaust was a factor, but only a factor. A state had been promised to Israel long before 1945.

That is just the facts which are not anti-Gypsy as you lamely comment.

Personally, I owe MY freedom in part to the efforts of Jewish men and women who fought for my civil rights when few others would stand beside black Americans. As a result, I choose to stand beside Jewish people whenever or wherever I can.

If the Romany wish to start a campaign to get themselves a state, I would likely support that, depending on the particulars of the plan. Just as I support Taiwanese independence and the creation of a Kurdish state.

[_Jumper_]

251. Correct

But was the Holocaust the impetus in finally creating a state for Jews in Palestine? I don't know. I'm a newcomer to this. I only learned that Israel doesn't allow non-Jews to live on 90% of its land yesterday. My main concern is my interests, not the interests of the Palestinians, Arabs, or Israelis.

<Personally, I owe MY freedom in part to the efforts of Jewish men and women who fought for my civil rights when few others would stand beside black Americans. As a result, I choose to stand beside Jewish people whenever or wherever I can.>

What do Israeli atrocities have to do with Jews?

That is interesting. So you support anything an entire group does because of what some members of that group did in the past?

I suppose I'll have to support anything white Christians do because they played a key role in creating America. Of course, I would be called an "Uncle Tom" for that...

[FlemingsGhost]

22. It's a favorite wedge issue.

There are few sure-fire ways to distract the folks at DU, and get them to grab at each others throats. Apparently, jews mean Isreal... which opens up the whole Isreali-Palestinian conflict. (There is a reason it has its own forum.)

Nader is a all-time hit, too.


Divide and conquer.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. There were quite a few more threads attacking Mel Gibson,...

...and his recent film than there ever have been "questioning the Jewish people", IMHO.

There have been some people, usually Freepers and/or Freeper-like visitors, that have posted inflammatory comments about all kinds of subjects just to stir up trouble. I would wager a guess that the posts you read probably came from that direction.

[HereSince1628]

33. Yes, the term chosen people is offensive.

I won't even try to soften that. Claiming to be chosen directly implies that other people aren't. I can't imagine anything more offensive than to declare that the God(s) are against every people but one.

In the egalitarian world Democratic movements around the globe are trying to achieve, people claiming divine primacy are a very real problem.

No one should be anti-semetic or out of hand anti-any ethnic group.

But then no one should take the position that their destiny is as an elite people chosen by an arguably nonexistant supreme mythical being.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. Chosen comes from the book of Exodus which is an important book

to Jews.


If you want to argue atheism, fine, but no Jewish person has the intent of offending with that text.

[HereSince1628]

166. But not recognizing bigotry is one of bigotry's biggest problems

The fact that a people wouldn't recognize that their sacred were offensive does little but re-enscribe what we've learned from the civil rights movement here in the US.

Lots of white people didn't mean anything offensive when using racial slurs, red-lining real estate markets, limiting voting access, limiting educational, access etc... It was "just the way it was."

The failure to recognize that white skin still provides the bearer un-earned advantage in the US helps to keep American racism alive.

I don't doubt that sacred writings are seen as "telling it the way it is" or that devotees to sacred texts are unable to see the shortcomings of behaviors based on documents that basically define the "in group" and its special position as surrounded by "out groups" and in need of special group identifying rituals (dietary codes, dress codes, ritual behaviors) and anti-outgroup rules (exclusion from attendance, decision making, etc). Indeed sacred writings can and have provided extreme believers, dare I say fundamentalists, with justification to promote their "us-group" strategies and behaviors against "them." Bigotry, with or without religious endorsement allows "us" to de-humanize (and demonize) "them."

A requirment of progress is that all groups recognize that their right to engage in their group beliefs, rituals, and behaviors have the capacity to be offensive to other groups. So, I wrote mythical arguably nonexistant supreme being not because there isn't such a female somewhere, but because we need to be sensitive to the reality that not everyone shares in the belief of that being.

[absyntheNsugar]

37. You said this much better than I did

Hats off to you!

[Cassandra]

41. You are offended because you are misinterpreting that.

"Claiming to be chosen directly implies that other people aren't. I can't imagine anything more offensive than to declare that the God(s) are against every people but one."
That interpretation is completely off the mark. The Chosen People are those who have chosen to obey God's laws. There are 613 of them (the ten commandments + 603). Obeying the laws is an option available to anyone who is willing to put in the considerable effort involved.
On the other hand, from Mark Twain:
"- If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent. of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star-dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.

He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality? "

Maybe there's something to this chosen thing you should be trying to learn from, instead of using it as an excuse for being insulted. :-)

[absyntheNsugar]

43. I don't think anyone is saying the Jews aren't remarkable

In fact the one thing I never see in any discussion of the Jews was their post-dispora homeland. That's right, the Empire of Kazaria. It was somewhere in what is now Kazakhstan (I think) but for a time it was a formidable empire, and it was a Jewish empire. If I am correct, the slide rule was invented by the Jewish Kazarians.

But I digress...

[Cassandra]

54. Probably not spoken of for this reason

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/the_cohanim_-_dna_connection.asp
"Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical original can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied.

This genetic research has clearly refuted the libel that the Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar tribe -- a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence."

I really wish people would stop spreading that Khazar crap. The Khazars converted to Judaism. My family got to Russia through France. If you would like me to take credit for the slide rule, I'll consider it.

[absyntheNsugar]

61. Interesting - I'll show that to my Jewish relatives

Since they were the ones who told me about it. It is spread amongst the Jewish community btw, and that makes sense why it never made the light of day.

There is so little information about post-dispora Judaism and I wish there was more...

[rockymountaindem]

100. As I learned in my Russian History class

here at the University of Toronto, the Khazars didn't really convert to Judaism. *Some* elements of the *upper class* were the only converts. The rest remained pagan/shamanist until being driven from the Ukranian steppe by the Tsars. After that, they dispursed across the Turkic (not to be confused with Turkish) world and mostly converted to Islam. Their domain was hardly a "Jewish homeland", but more of a nomad's paradise for pagan horsemen and a few Jews.

[Fight_n_back]

112. You are correct sir

"converting" to Judaism was a political move based on geography. It also allowed the Chief to invite Jews from Spain and elswehre to help him administer his nation.

[_Jumper_]

63. How is that not racist?

Substitute the word "white" for "Jew"...

[Cassandra]

99. I didn't know...

that whites were 1% of the population. The point of Twain's comments were to wonder about a tiny population doing well out of proportion to what their actual numbers would suggest. As long as this sort of thing doesn't wander into the "Jews rule the world" thicket, I don't have a problem with Twain having the question. Did you think he meant to be racist?

[_Jumper_]

105. It implies ethnic superiority

n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. If this is the case, shouldn't we retranslate?

because the real meaning seems to be "the choosing people", or "the people who have chosen". Has all this disagreement and suspicion come about because some translator didn't know their subject from their object?

[absyntheNsugar]

72. That makes more sense, "choosing people"

And it isn't offensive....

[NorthernSpy]

73. grand sweeping generalization!

Oh...my...gosh! What you reprinted above is a far, FAR more sweeping characterization of a entire people than anything I'd ever dream of posting!

WHY is this kind of generalization acceptable?

Seriously, Cassandra: Why?

Is it just me? 'Cause I find this kind of thing pretty jaw-dropping.


Mary

[Cassandra]

93. Twain's comments have been posted on DU before

and I find them pretty entertaining (particularly since I'm Jewish). It's a comment worth considering; why did major civilizations rise and fall while Jews, who were always considered to be at a disadvantage, have endured and prospered for so long against so many odds? Flexibility? A decentralized religion that could, if need be, be carried in a book and a rabbi? A need to stick together in foreign lands? A need to be able to read to understand the laws, which required an expensive education that couldn't be financed by poorly paid labor (a theory I've read recently)? Met any Sumerians lately?

[_Jumper_]

106. Apples and oranges

Powerful states and empires inevitably fall. Twain was comparing states and empires with a religious group. Let's look at the "fallen" Romans today. Today they are part of the world's sixth largest economy. Italy is substnatially wealthier than Israel. How could they have "fallen" while the Jews are deemed prosperous? Moreover, what evidence is there for this disproportionate Jewish success? I suspect that much of that perception is a result of anti-Semitic myths and stereotypes. For instance, Jews are 2% of the US population and deemed to have influence far greater than their numbers. Is there evidence to corroberate that? For instance, what % of the national income is earned by Jews?

[bloom]

265. in answer to Jumper.... some statistics...

I don't think these were done in the spirit of anti-semitism as just a general curiosity. Sometimes there are patterns. Deny them if you wish. It is interesting to see actual statisics. I don't see any reason to fault the Jewish people for their collective success. If anything, people should learn from it.

Some will no doubt believe that it is BAD to cite statistics - but I think acknowledging them is the only way to have a dialogue.

this is what I found online:

"http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/relgwlth.htm

RELIGION HELPS SHAPE WEALTH OF AMERICANS, STUDY FINDS

COLUMBUS, Ohio ? A new national study shows that religious affiliation plays a powerful role in how much wealth Americans accumulate, with Jews amassing the most wealth and conservative Protestants the least...

Moreover, people who attend religious services regularly build more wealth than those who don?t, the study found.
The religious beliefs children learn in their families translate into educational attainment, adult occupations, financial literacy, social connections and other factors that influence adult wealth ownership.

The effect of religion is robust, even after taking into account inheritances, levels of education and other factors affecting wealth that may be associated with particular religious denominations, said Lisa Keister, author of the study and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University....Overall, the median net worth of Jewish people in the survey was $150,890, more than three times the median for the entire sample ($48,200). The median net worth for conservative Protestants (which included Baptists, Jehovah?s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, among others) was $26,200, or about half the overall average. The median net worth of mainstream Protestants (including Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians and others) and Catholics were similar to each other and about the average for the whole sample."

____________


http://www.arthurhu.com/index/jewish.htm


By Population Ratio
=============================================
Ratio Average=1.00
---------------------------------------------
60.00 Time 20th Cent Top 20 (worldwide)
23.00 Westinghouse Science Talent Search
15.00 Supreme Court Law Clerk
13.00 US Law School Professor
12.00 ACM Turing Awards
10.00 Ivy League doc\94\13\ivypoll.wk1
7.14 Clinton Cabinet
7.00 McArthur Awards
6.89 Time 1997 Top 25
5.8 CA Congress 1992
5.35 UCLA '91 Jews at high selective colleges
5.00 Pulitzer Prize


By Percentage
----------
100% CA Senators 1996
85% College age jews in college
76% Most influential intellectuals Alan Dershowitz
60% Yale Grad students
60% Top Hollywood positions 60 min
58% Directors, writers, producers in 2 or more TV series
50% Greg McDivitt estimate of "Millionaire" contestants
40% Partners at best NY and DC law firms
40% American Nobel laureates science economics
20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize
30% Faculty at elite college
30% Supreme Court law clerks

[NorthernSpy]

111. so stereotyping is okay -- as long as it's adulatory

You wrote: It's a comment worth considering; why did major civilizations rise and fall while Jews, who were always considered to be at a disadvantage, have endured and prospered for so long against so many odds? Flexibility? A decentralized religion that could, if need be, be carried in a book and a rabbi? A need to stick together in foreign lands? A need to be able to read to understand the laws, which required an expensive education that couldn't be financed by poorly paid labor (a theory I've read recently)? Met any Sumerians lately?


Well, the descendents of the Sumerians still exist.

Aside from that, I'm not sure that we can discuss the question you've asked, but we may be able to have a bit of a meta-conversation on the parameters of this discussion.

Derogatory generalization is a bad thing, and any discussion based on such would not be worth having. But adulatory generalization is just about as bad. Your post sounded an awful lot like the kind of triumphalist racial gloating that I wholeheartedly object to whenever white supremacists do it. I don't think that sort of thing is consistent with liberal, antiracist principles -- which are the principles I've held all my life.

Tell me, Cassandra: what do you say when, after you've quoted that bit of Twain or something similar, and your listener says "yeah, that's true, and that's a problem"? After opening up that entire line of inquiry, on what moral basis could you call that person a bigot? In my opinion, anyone who makes (or cites) what amounts to a claim of ethnic superiority (in any sense) leaves himself completely open to outright contradiction on the same grounds. Think about it: do any of us really want to go there?



Mary

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. Ethnic pride is not bigotry

It is not bigotry for me to be proud of Dr. King or George Washington Carver or Benjamin Banneker. It is not bigotry for Jewish people to be proud of Einstein or Paul Wellstone or just the founding of the state of Israel after 2,000 years.

[NorthernSpy]

131. you mean somebody said it was?

You wrote: It is not bigotry for me to be proud of Dr. King or George Washington Carver or Benjamin Banneker. It is not bigotry for Jewish people to be proud of Einstein or Paul Wellstone or just the founding of the state of Israel after 2,000 years.

Well, first: the creation of Israel, I believe, is a question for a different forum (we're kind of urged not to discuss it in GD, am I right? At least, that was my understanding.)

Did I say it was wrong for people to take an interest in the accomplishments of other people in their group?

I don't see how you could conclude that I did.

:shrug:


Mary

[Muddleoftheroad]

168. You were discussing stereotyping

And I responded.

And I don't see why, in this context, I can't mention Israel. The I/P forum is for exclusive I/P topics.

[Violet_Crumble]

173. You were discussing something completely different...

Let me explain it for you. A comment was made about the superiority of a particular group. At no point was it claimed that it's not okay to be proud of specific individuals of a particular group (though I'd hope most people would be proud of them for what they did and not because of what ethnic group they belonged to), which is what you claimed was said. Hope that clears it up for you :)

Violet...

[_Jumper_]

42. So are the views of Christianity and Islam

They consider themselves superior to others too. Why single out the Jews because of a phrase?

[absyntheNsugar]

46. And the Christians and Muslims who state that are just as wrong

Anytime a group says they are superior, they are promoting a dangerous agenda. Right now I can fully say the greatest threat to the world is American Christianity (not Christianity, and not America, but American Christianity )

Not only do they claim to be superior, but they have political power, the military and one wacko sitting in the White House to rule them all...

[_Jumper_]

56. Myths, or if you prefer, "religions" are the real problem

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Religions are not the problem

People find infinite reasons to do harm to one another. Religion is just a cloak some few evildoers wear to deceive others. The same kind of swine hide in politics, business, the military, government, charities and every other field of human endeavor.

To damn an entire aspect of human life simply because of the wrongs of a few is misguided.

[_Jumper_]

70. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism

Read what they say about unbelievers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. I am a Christian

What have I done to any unbelievers here?

What do you CLAIM we think?

[DrWeird]

85. Do you believe that atheists go to hell?

nt

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. Depends on the person, I'd guess

But that final judgment isn't up to me.

If you are asking does someone have to believe in God or be damned, I would say no, but again, I am not the final authority on it.

[Dark Angel]

227. Some do.

Some people go to hell, no matter what their religion. There are Christians in hell(Hitler), Muslims in hell(Arafat will go there), Jews in hell, and atheists in hell. I imagine every religion is represented there.

I personally believe that every religion is well-represented in hell.

[MikeGalos]

186. Perhaps you should read what they say about "unbelievers"

Perhaps you'd do better learning about Judaism rather than thinking it's Christianity without Jesus.

Jews, at least, don't believe that "unbelievers" are any less that "believers" except that they are only bound to observe the 7 laws given to Noah not the full 613 Mosaic laws that Jews must observe. If any person in either group observes the laws they're bound by they are considered a righteous person.

And, no, that whole fire and brimstone Hell thing isn't Jewish. Judaism says you follow the laws because they are right not because an all-powerful, all-knowing policeman is watching you, waiting to torture you if you ever slip up. You can't say "wow, I'm righteous because I didn't get caught" and you can't say "wow, I'm righteous because I knew I was being watched and didn't want to get punished". Neither one would be much of a measure.

btw: the 7 laws that non-Jews need to follow to be righteous are (from an online theology site):

1. Prohibition on idolatry.
2. Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing the Name of God.
3. Prohibition on murder.
4. Prohibition on robbery and theft.
5. Prohibition on immorality and forbidden sexual relations.
6. Prohibition on removing and eating a limb from a live animal.
7. Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law to enforce the other 6 laws.

[Malva Zebrina]

91. It should not be a problem then if you really do not believe in this

supreme mythological being.

I do not believe in a supreme god who was involved in the real estate business and who gave certain lands to certain tribes and that must be defended now by killing off other tribes who are considered squatting on the land this god gave to them thousands of years ago.

The reason they know the god gave them that land and no one else is because he caused certain people in that tribe to actually write it down. That these people were of the same tribe that claims the god gave them the land, is a little questionable, then as to the truth of it all.

That is my atheism speaking.

It is not anti-semitic by any definition, but as an athiest I just cannot believe the god fairy tale. I also do not think I am obliged to not say that for fear of being labeled"anti-semitic" and being deleted or possibly banned off DU.

I cannot believe in gods and I cannot believe a god gave an ancient tribe certain lands because they were a "chosen people" of that god. That goes for all people all over the world. I think it was an expiediant writing of scripture that united the tribe in the bellief that they were the rightful owners of a certain tract of land and that united the tribe and was a tool toward their survival.

That dog don't hunt anymore in this modern world, imo. Many, not anti-semitic, would question the "god as real estate agent" claim to ownership of lands.

As an atheist I cannot subscribe.

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. "the god fairy tale"

And if I started refering to atheists as "Godless" here, some would likely be offended.

Funny. Every single religion thread reminds me why conservatives have a decent chance of taking elections as the left continues to mock or demonize religions and the religious.

[Djinn]

130. Nope

call us Godless any time you like - the only problem I think atheists would have is if you tried to attach some negative connotations to being "godless" - if you do find an atheist who takes offense at simply being called "godless" without a judgement attached then tell them to go and find out the meaning of atheist:

a) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
b) A godless person
c) someone who denies the existence of god

and you know I find it funny too - every religious thread reminds me of the HUGE cultural gap between the US and most other western industrialised nations. An atheist would have absolutely no problem getting elected in Australia (several are) and someone who spouted biblical versus or claimed that "God" elected them would be laughed out of office. Just something I've noticed more since being a DU member

[Muddleoftheroad]

169. Some consider that hate speech

I would be more than happy to use it otherwise, since it seems like it applies.

The judgments people attach to the word are their own personal choice aren't they?

[Violet_Crumble]

175. Who considers it hate speech?

Mind you, there's some here who consider someone telling another poster as an aside in a post that they're an atheist to be hate speech. I've had the 'godless' line thrown at me once because I happened to mention to someone else I was an atheist, but it was the attack that came with the label that was the problem :)

Violet...

[redqueen]

193. A scary factoid

I heard on NPR a while back that the United States was alone among Western countries in it's becoming more and not less religious. :(

Mind you I don't have a problem with God or spirituality at all, just the ubiquitous manipulation of the flock by the corrupted churches.

[Dark Angel]

234. What a bigoted post

nt

[MikeGalos]

184. As an FYI

The phrase "Chosen People" doesn't mean chosen as God's favorite. I means the people chosen to receive the 10 Commandments. And the Talmud tells Jews that we were only chosen for that when all the important peoples like the Egyptians, Hittites and Sumerians turned them down. Kind of like being the last kid picked when choosing sides for baseball.

It's summed up in the old anti-Semitic doggeral:

How odd of God to choose the Jews.

and the Jewish reply

'twas not so odd, the Jews chose God.

[David Zephyr]

44. I've More Than Noticed It, Too, Sir_Captain.

The "so much attention" thread was offensive, whether it was intentional or not.

There is simply a crazy notion that you Jews --what is it now? a whole 3% of the U.S population---have got way too much power in this country and it just sort of oozes out in people's posting in all sorts of ways, doesn't it?

As a circumcised, non-Jew named David (talk about your contradictions!), I feel that your curiosity is merited.

Here's hoping that all non-Jews here at the DU, including myself, will be more vigilant against these postings. They are not helpful.

:thumbsup:

[sir_captain]

123. Thanks for noticing...

that I'm not some crazed lunatic who's just trying to cause trouble. I really have to say that some people here at DU really make me wish I hadn't bothered to sign up.

[donco6]

45. Personally, I believe we're paying too high a price

for our unquestioning support of Israel.

[Jim Sagle]

60. You have a perfect right to that opinion, but how does it relate to the

thread topic?

[donco6]

62. It always comes to my mind when I think about terrorism

and terrorist acts. I often wonder if we would be such a target were it not for our blind support of everything Israeli.

[_Jumper_]

65. You are correct

By far the #1 reason Muslims hate America is its close ties with Israel.

[Jim Sagle]

87. Not necessarily, Osama' s big gripe was our close ties w/Saudi Arabia.

[_Jumper_]

107. That is just one Muslim

Overall, that is the #1 reason the US is hated in the Muslim world. Too bad discussing it is off limits in the US.

[Jim Sagle]

108. A mighty influential one, though.

[Muddleoftheroad]

109. In the greater scheme of things

Too bad for them. Israel is both and ally and a friend. We stand together.

[_Jumper_]

155. Too bad for America

Israel provides no benefit to the US and causes immense problems. Americans are sentencing themselves to decades of terrorism because of a foolish, almost lapdog-like allegiance to a foreign nation of 5 million against 1.2 billion Muslims. How can you support this policy when an even-handed policy would serve your interests and the interests of America?

[Muddleoftheroad]

170. Israel provides many benefits

Israel has done so for decades. During the Cold War, it was our ally against the Soviet Union, providing both a base and intelligence information in a vital part of the world.

Now it is our ally against terror and faces the same enemies and problems we face and offers the same support and intelligence information.

There is no Arab nation that is anywhere near the ally Israel is.

You call for abandoning Israel -- a nation of 6 million people. Six million. Does that number ring a bell to you?

[_Jumper_]

216. Response

<Israel has done so for decades. During the Cold War, it was our ally against the Soviet Union, providing both a base and intelligence information in a vital part of the world.>

<There is no Arab nation that is anywhere near the ally Israel is>

That is pro-Israel spin. Let's look at it from the American perspective. The US could have had Arab friends from Morroco to Iraq if it was even-handed in the Middle East but it antagonized them for one little country. The pro-Israel stance during the Cold War was a strategic mistake.

Israel is an ally against terrorism? How many Al-Qaeda members has it arrested or helped arrest? Granted, it does provide help in the fight but we could get far more help from Muslim nations--which is vital to winning the war--and could erase most hatred of America in the Muslim world by being even-handed in the Middle East. Israel is a major liability in the War on Terrorism. I do not wish to die because of blind support of a foreign rogue state.

<You call for abandoning Israel >

No, I call for an even-handed policy. You know, the policy that virtually the entire world has, except the US...

<a nation of 6 million people. Six million. Does that number ring a bell to you?>

Israel is secure due to its WMD.

[Muddleoftheroad]

218. "The Holocaust card?"

My God. Or should I say Mein Gott.

It is no "pro-Israel spin" to point out the reality of the situation, not couldhave, shouldhave, mighthave. Those potential Arab friends chose to side with our enemies in the Cold War. Hell, some of them sided with our enemies in WWII as well. And, if you want to count the PLO/PA, some of them even sided with our enemies in Gulf I.

You have no idea how much help tracking al Qaeda Israel has been. Why? Because it's SECRET. We do know that even the Arab nations admit Mossad is excellent, so the information they provide would be equally excellent.

Israel is not a liability in the war on terror. Israel is a nation that knows EXACTLY what it means to fight such a war and what monsters oppose us.

You call for a "even-handed policy." I call for one that stands by our allies. Thankfully, my side will win out on this.

[Dark Angel]

228. I can't believe that is allowed.

That has to be against the rules, saying a "Holocaust card." That sounds like it could have some from the Nuremberg Trial.

[_Jumper_]

239. Response

The bottom line is that we ar endangering our security with our I/P policy. Do you approve of putting your kids at risk for Israel?

<Those potential Arab friends chose to side with our enemies in the Cold War. Hell, some of them sided with our enemies in WWII as well. And, if you want to count the PLO/PA, some of them even sided with our enemies in Gulf I.>

That is because the US chose to become an enemy of hundreds of millions of Arabs for a few million Israelis. The US could become allies with the Arab world if it only had an even-handed policy in the ME. That is in the national security interest of the US.

<You have no idea how much help tracking al Qaeda Israel has been. Why? Because it's SECRET. We do know that even the Arab nations admit Mossad is excellent, so the information they provide would be equally excellent.>

You have no idea Israel's role in causing people to join Al-Qaeda in the first place is.

Did you hear about the Israeli 9/11 spy ring? They really came through when they were needed. Too bad the media buried that story too.


<You call for a "even-handed policy." I call for one that stands by our allies.>

You call for one that makes dozens of enemies in exchange for a small ally. That is in and of itself is enough but on top of that we have the fact that your policy damages American security. Of course, why care about American security? Israel is more important. "God" said so.

[Muddleoftheroad]

244. The bottom line

Yes, I do approve of putting my children at risk for Israel. I approve of putting my children at risk for freedom.

Actually, your opinion about enemies is inverting cause and effect just a bit. Many Arabs sided with Germany in WWII, OUR enemy. It isn't especially surprising that we sided with Israel afterward.

No one knows what lunacy drives people to join al Qaeda. Many reasons, none of which can be decided here. But to blame Israel for that is pathetic.

I don't care if I make dozens of enemies as long as they are on the wrong side and I am on the right. I don't choose to always be popular in life. I do choose to make good friends and stand by them.

[Darranar]

67. And what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

If you wish to discuss Israel/Palestine, there is a forum available for that.

[donco6]

80. It's hard to discuss the Jews w/o mentioning Israel.

But, OK.

[Darranar]

83. How so?

Aren't they seperate issues?

Israel's policies have nothing to do with the question asked by the original poster.

[struggle4progress]

47. I really haven't noticed that ...

in posts I'm reading, but perhaps I'm not sensitive enough.

Maybe the comment in #22 to the effect that some people fail to distinguish "judaic" from "israeli" accounts for this perception.

I hope anything like that reflects only inexperience and verbal sloppiness. Otherwise, my reaction is nausea.

I did notice (not here but in wider cyberspace) some boards were unbelievably racist while Haiti was still in the news.

[blurp]

49. It's an extension of class war. Shamefully the same as 60+ years ago.

[_Jumper_]

50. Israel and the Middle East?

First, Muslims are targeted far more than Jews here. Aside from that thread, I haven't seen any thread that would qualify is direct anti-Jewish baiting. However, there are some anti-Israel posts that straddle the line and there are many that are subtly anti-Jewish. Compare that to Muslims, who can be bashed overtly.

To answer your question, my theory regarding why there is a hostility to Jews by some DU'ers is Israel and the ME. Jews are seen by many as driving the United States policy towards Israel. With the advent of PNAC, many believe that US Middle East policy is being made for the sake of Israel. Hence, you'll see the debunked Sharon quote about Jews controlling America be used occasionally here.

[Djinn]

55. True

"Jews are seen by many as driving the United States policy towards Israel."

However I wish those people would realise not ALL Jews support the occupation - some actaully NEVER supported the creation of Israel in the first place - it doesn't help that for their own political purposes many Israeli leaders (and it's not just the Likud party) have effectively blurred the line. Israeli does not equal Jew, Jew does not equal Israeli - Not ALL jews support Israel, not ALL supporters of Israel ARE Jewish. It's a really hard message to get through to some people in the face of such overwhelming propganda

[_Jumper_]

59. Good post

n/t

[NorthernSpy]

77. yup

Not ALL jews support Israel, not ALL supporters of Israel ARE Jewish. It's a really hard message to get through to some people in the face of such overwhelming propganda


Absolutely. The so-called "Christian Zionists" are -- at least numerically -- by far the biggest part of the American Israel-support equation. Of course, they're not Jewish and never have been.


Mary

[redqueen]

197. I don't know why this is not widely known

There are marches and protests against Sharon's policies in Israel, aren't there? Why is it not obvious that there are many Israelis that disagree with Sharon? And certainly there are Jews all over the world who don't agree.

I really hate when any group is considered to be some homogenous 'they'. So wrong...

[MikeGalos]

200. Absolutely

Not all Jews support Sharon or the Likud party
Not all Zionists support Sharon or the Likud party
Not all supporters of Israel's right to exist support Sharon or the Likud party

In fact, lots of us who are Jews, Zionists and quite vocal supporters of Israel really dislike Sharon and the Likud very openly, vocally and often.

But, amazingly, any criticism of even the most horrific murder of innocent civilians by Palestinian terrorists (such as saying anything stronger than "it's a shame but what do you expect")gets you called (and I've been called all of these) a Sharon lackey, Likud supporter, a secret Likud plant, a Republican, a Bush lover (ironic considering Bush's ties to the same Saudis the fund Hamas and Fatah), a right-winger and an anti-Moslem bigot.

Really, the knee jerk characterizations in the name of political fashion are quite tiresome.

[redqueen]

203. I agree

and worse than tiresome, counterproductive. Excuse me if I'm mistaken but the point of these boards is to communicate. If one already has one's mind made up, then there's no point in communicating, it's just a huge stream of contradictions ('yes it is', 'no it isn't' - ad infinitum - e.g. abortion threads).

However, I'm quite sure I've been guilty of this behavior. Since I've not yet achieved Spock-like immunity to emotional reactions, I'm still sometiems capable of falling into the trap of kneejerking, resorting to reactionary comments, etc. (e.g. child porn thread from yesterday).

I think just about everyone on this planet could stand to do more empathizing with one another, not to mention actually helping to foster more understanding.

[_Jumper_]

241. Good post

Conversly, some call any position that doesn't toe the Israeli line, which right now is the Likud line, anti-Semitic. That is equally as replusive as what you described.

[Rex]

69. There's a big difference between "questioning" and "fair game"

Which one do you really mean? Curiosity or persecution? If you're looking for passive posts, well, forums are made for debate (I've never seen a passive debate).

[sir_captain]

113. I'm not sure I understand your point

Of course there should be debate. I was suggesting that Jews seem often to be open to forms of debate that might not be tolerated otherwise, and I don't understand why.

[Rex]

120. Can you give me an example?

Tolerated as in breaking the rules of DU? I've been here a long time and seen no more or less "Jew-bashing" going on than "leftest/catholic/green/moderate/gay-bashing" (just a small example, the list is endless) since I found DU. Maybe there is more "Jew-bashing" here, you obviously believe so. Can you show me why you believe that?

[sir_captain]

125. I don't think I would call it Jew-bashing

hopefully outright bashing of anyone would not be tolerated by anyone. (Well, other than Bush, etc, of course) :-)

Like I said earlier in the thread, I can't use the search function since I haven't donated yet, and I haven't had time to wade through the archives yet.

Also, as I said, since I don't want to break the DU rules, I'm not going to mention any specific posters, but I can think of a few, particularly over in the GD:2004 forum, who consistently bring anti-Jewish rhetoric into nearly every imaginable thread.

[Rex]

133. Well if it is true then I hope it stops.

The Left need all the liberals it can get to fight the BFEE! Whatever else we may be, I would hope DUrs would seek solidarity towards defeating the greater evil that calls itself George Bush. :)

[sir_captain]

134. I'll drink to that! (nt)

[terisel]

79. I learned something from that thread because people

took the time to answer the question about the "chosen people" and made thoughtful informative responses about the term and show how different it is from a concept of a "master race."

I also was reminded about something from the thread about the Holocaust-the systematic pseudo-scientific engineering aspect of it.

I appreciated what some other people had to say about religion- Catholicism and "the one true church" teaching. It reminded me about how some churches use a very narrow definition of "christian" and tell other people who consider themselves to be Christians that they are not.

It seemed to me that the question opened up discussion about religion and culture and genocide. I thought that was a good thing. (The Twentieth Century-a "civilized" century with so much killing crammed into so few years).

After reading the Holocaust thread, I picked up a few little books from the Holocaust Museum about the murders of gay people and mentally retarded people in the Nazi concentration camps and the Voyage of the St. Louis (the forced return of the Jewish people who were fleeing from the Nazis and were denied refuge).

Those 2 threads were begun as questions--maybe they seemed naive, maybe I am naive for not thinking that they were attacks- but they elicited some thoughtful comments that I think lay a foundation for understanding.

Are questions wrong? and if so can the right answer tranform a wrong question?

.

[wabeewoman]

90. I haven't really noticed the 'aggressiveness'

toward Jewish people in posts unless it relates to specific individuals like Pearle or the Israeli conflict. I do notice a sensitivity from posters who IMHO perceive any comment a slight against Jewish people and accuse the poster of being anti-semantic. I think some posters have a persecution complex. It makes me avoid those threads because I don't like what they deteriorate into.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

92. I think you'd have to not have seen some of the actual anti-semitic

comments posted on DU in the past to claim that..I agree there are some where it is a knee-jerk response but I remember a poster once claiming that the whole issue with Iraq was because of the "Jews in the White House basement" a phrase that was actually COINED by Richard Nixon when talking to Fred Malek back in the 70's.

[durutti]

94. What on Earth are you talking about?

Could I have a few examples?

[Cassandra]

101. Some of the most egregious were removed

and that might have been one of them. A number of posters were TS'd over that thread.

[leesa]

104. Are you confusing dislike of the Israeli government and its actions

with dislike of Jews? Many posters like yourself seem to make that mistake.

[sir_captain]

115. Perhaps you're the one who's made a mistake

Hmm...perhaps part of the problem is posters like you making assumptions about other people. I asked a legitimate question, and as can be seen by the debate that has followed, I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

I have to say, your statement really gets my goat. It is the excuse made by many people who say incredibly slanderous things about the Jewish people and then hide behind Israel. I don't like Sharon, Likud, or the settlement policies any more than the next guy, and I am perfectly capable of telling the difference between legitimate criticisms of Israel (of which there are many) and criticisms that extend to the entire Jewish people.

[rman]

152. you'll have a hard time pointing out

posts on DU that are critical of the entire Jewish people. Let alone posts that are actually agressive to jews in general.

And there aren't that many post about jews anyway.
There are fare more posts questioning neocons and freepers.

[Trajan]

110. Let's evaluate closer this assertion ....

YOU say : " ... I am kind of puzzled as to why there are so many posts here on DU that are...agressive, if you will...towards the Jewish people. .. "

It is then revealed that one specific thread was the source of this discouraging trend toward anti-semitism on DU ....

How many posts would you say would comprise a clear "Anti-Semitic" tone ??? ...

Compare this to the total number of posts in DU for the day ...

I cannot honestly fathom that number, but I would guess, offhand, that approximately one thousand thread are posted per day, of which there exists perhaps an average 20 posts per thread ...

so: ... 20,000 posts, of which you see maybe 10 ? .. 15 ? .. of what you perceive to be 'against jews' ...

Ergo: ... We here at DU are 'against jews' because 10, 15 or 20 posts, out of 20,000 or so, appear to be slanted 'against jews' ...

0.1 % of DU posts are 'against jews', so therefore: ... DU is against jews ? ...

I have been chastised by the pro-likud cadre here at DU, because I reject the rightist policies of the current Israeli government as much as I reject rightist governments ANYWHERE ... Yet: .. my legitimate objections against that right wing government are generally misconstrued as 'against jews', by those who promote the PRO Likud line here ....

I think there are three critical points to make here ...

1) ALL jews are NOT rightists: MANY jews are liberal and do NOT support the rightist government in Israel ....

2) One is NOT automatically 'anti-semite' simply because they condemn the current right wing regime in Israel, nor do they hate 'jews' when they reject Sharon and his ilk ...

3) When someone posts comments that favor the right wing government in Israel, one should expect that liberals here at DU will automatically respond unfavorably to such commentary, considering that liberals in general reject right wing initiatives of ANY kind ... When liberals post against those who support the rightist government in Israel, they are not automatically being 'against jews, and should not be depicted as such ...

IF someone posts something that is patently antisemitic, then CERTAINLY such posts should be condemned on the whole, and by all ...

So in closing: ... Let's admit this: .. a few posts, out of THOUSANDS of posts, does not constitute a majority ...

Its barely a blip on the big screen ....

[Fight_n_back]

114. How many bigoted threads are acceptable to you?

I would hope you would like it to be zero...

[Trajan]

122. Read ...

"IF someone posts something that is patently antisemitic, then CERTAINLY such posts should be condemned on the whole, and by all ... " ...

BTW: ... that goes BOTH ways ....

I find very few posts in I/P that condemn wholesale stereotyping of arabs ....

My point was: The existence of a few untoward posts expressing hatred against a specific group of human beings does NOT define the whole of us in DU ...

Fallacy of Converse Accident ...

[sir_captain]

124. I absolutely agree with you

and was in no way intending to accuse anyone of anything. I just had a question.

[Fight_n_back]

127. Who do you give permission

to decide when something is anti semitic?

[NorthernSpy]

137. ultimately, each person judges for himself

... though of course the mods who tend these forums have the final say on what's permitted here.

Personally, I don't really see a legitimate basis for a lot of the charges of anti-semitism that are made (both here and elsewhere). You may have a different opinion.


Mary

[Fight_n_back]

142. Generally

if a gay person tells me something I said was homophobic then I tend to ask "why" rather than tell them they are wrong. I leave it to women to decide what is sexist, etc...

If you see someone here charged with anti semitism then you should alert the moderators because it is against the rules to make such a charge.

It is permissable, however, to tell someone that most compliants of anti semitism is a ruse so Jews can be "victims".

Such is life...

[Violet_Crumble]

179. So only women can decide what's sexist??

if a gay person tells me something I said was homophobic then I tend to ask "why" rather than tell them they are wrong. I leave it to women to decide what is sexist, etc...

Yang, there's a huge difference between asking someone what offended them, and leaving it to them to decide how to define any form of bigotry. The logic yr using leads to the conclusion that a woman I worked with a few years ago who claimed she missed out on a promotion because she was a woman was a victim of discrimination based on her gender. The reality was that she was a complete moron who performed poorly in the interview for the job. I'm a feminist and no way is an idiot like that going to define what sexism is...

According to yr logic, the guy who trained me and others in our roles as Harrassment Contact Officers at work, and who was a specialist in the field, couldn't define what sexual harrassment was because he wasn't a woman...

According to yr logic, we should leave it to someone like Ariel Sharon or one of his goons to decide what anti-Semitism is, even though we already know that according to them legitimate criticism of Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories is anti-Semitism...

And what happens when two women, two Jews, two Afro-Americans, or two Muslims disagree with each other over deciding what the forms of bigotry that affect them are? Which person out of the two is right? The way to decide what's bigotry is to decide if what's being said to the person that causes offense is being said because of something the person's done or solely because of what the person is....

Violet...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

116. I missed the flame thread, but have seen anti-semitism on DU

and not just in the I/P forum. Most of the time, though, the anti-semitism is so ingrained that the poster doesn't even realize that he/she is being bigoted.

[GabysPoppy]

178. You are only right some of the time

Some know exactly what they are saying and what they mean. They try to cover there intentions with question marks, quotations from known anti-Semites, emoticons etc. The more blatant are deleted but their lingering stench stays. So what is left is the less(?) objectionable posts. I highly doubt a poster's intentions have been altered by a deleted post. Swatting a mosquito does not eliminate malaria.

[sir_captain]

117. When did I say anything about Israel?

Or that this was about one thread? Or that there were a majority of threads? I don't recall even saying anything specifically about anti-semitism. Lord knows I wasn't accusing anyone of anti-semitism. Perhaps, before you lecture me, you should go back and read my original post, particulary since I actually agree with many of your points.

[MikeGalos]

187. A yes - the "pro-likud cadre"

that's always attacking you...

Care to tell us who here is in this "pro-likud cadre" that keeps attacking you? I haven't met Likud party supporters in several years of being here. None. And I've probably talked to more pro-Israel posters here than almost anybody. Not one supports the Likud party. Hardly a "cadre".

I HAVE, on the other hand, seen quite a few posts that could have come right out of David Duke's website that were defended as "not really anti-Semitic but really only anti-Sharon or maybe anti-Zionist". I've seen the same for posts defending Egyptian government TV's production of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". I've seen the same for posts defending the Syrian government minister's book "The Matzoh of Zion" which says Jews not only use Moslem children's blood to make matzoh for Passover but also use tortured Moslem adolescent's dried blood to make hamentashen for Purim. But those posts weren't anti-Semitic, they were just anti-Zionist...

[Trajan]

210. One can say they dont support Sharon ...

and then go on to spend their time here at DU espousing the VERY same policies and philosophies that distinguish Sharon and Likud from any other group on earth ...

If it quacks: if it waddles ... its a duck ....

IF you defend the policies that are the hallmarks of Sharonite/Likud philosophy, ... then you support Sharon and Likud ...

Note your usage of the term: ' ... quite a few posts ' ...

You know ? ... DU is a large community, and just like ANY other large group of human beings, one will find "MANY" untoward, or ridiculuously ignorantly racist comments; ... but do they define US as a whole ? ...

IF ONE poster is anti-semitic, then DU is anti-semitic ? ...

I stand by my previous assertion: ... DU is NOT anti-semitic, nor are the vastly greater part of its members anti-semitic ...

I neednt relate exactly WHO posts Pro Likud statements: .. You can tell who by reading the content of their comments: ...

IF a post promotes the same policies that Sharon/Likud promote, then one can fairly conclude that such a poster is in concord with Likud philosophy ...

Note that my usage of the term 'cadre' does not imply a 'great number' .... that cadre is small, and does NOT define DU as 'Pro-Likud' ...

[_Jumper_]

252. What else can be said about people that support Likud?

?????????

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sir_captain]

121. As a human being...

I find it sad that you have the immodesty to call someone you've never met immodest! Just because I recently started posting does not mean that I have not been reading DU for quite a long time! How is what I posted flamebait? And how could you possibly know me enough to suggest that I'm a Freeper? 50 posts or not, I had a question, and I don't believe that this thread has devolved into a flamewar. Some very interesting points have been raised.

I'm not even going to get into your implication about Zionism.

[WillyBrandt]

128. What a sick post

"As a Progressive and a human being, I am kind of puzzled by the invasion of Freepers, Zionists and PR firms"

The layers of ugliness in that tiny sentence are almost amazing to comprehend. Are you looking to validate the concerns of the original poster? Or was the Zionist bit sufficiently pleasing to you to be thrown out on its own terms?

[sir_captain]

129. Thanks Willy

I was starting to wonder where you were... ;-)

[Djinn]

132. and the problem there is?

many Jews are also anti-Zionists - Zionism is NOT a religion it is a political belief, is it repulsive in and of itself for a Republican to dislike the views of Democrats or vice versa??

What is ugly about saying one isn't fond of the political system of Zionism? are you calling ALL non Zionist Jews bigoted?

[sir_captain]

135. I have a few problems with it

You're right that Zionism is a political belief. However, it is also often used as code.

Also, the poster lumped in Zionism with freepers and so on. And I do think there is something wrong with the poster's assertion that people who support the existence of Israel are somehow ruining a democratic message board the same way an influx of Republicans might.

[BEZARK]

260. It is often used literally, but still taken for code.

"You're right that Zionism is a political belief. However, it is also often used as code." S. C.
----------

[WillyBrandt]

136. Trying to parse your post...

The point is that the Original Poster complained about unfair, and somewhat negative attention to Jewish People. And the responder took it upon him/herself to reply with a flip reference to Zionism and Freepers in the same sentence.

I'll ignore the question about what Zionism means (and doesn't mean)--but if you can't see what is so deeply wrong about what the responder did, and what he/she conflated, then I'm afraid there's nothing to be said.

[Djinn]

145. there's probabaly nothing to be said anyway

because I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and not instantly assume the worst of them...sorry hippie parents I guess.

I can see what you're getting at but to be honest I took it as a complaint about people holding rigid unchanging beleifs - it is actually hard to argue about I/P stuff (trying to avoid specific references as I don't want this thread locked and/or moved) with Zionists - come have dinner with my extended family some time - as it's a partisan position - it is impossible to be a Zionist AND to accept the right of Palestinians to live where THEIR relatives have always lived. (Mod's sorry if this is getting too close - please just delete this post and not the thread if so)

As for the "I'll ignore the question about what Zionism means" bit I don't get your point - no-one asked that question, I know more than well enough on that and if I was thinking the worst of people's posts I may object to THAT comment as being somewhat snide and to the comment that not being a zionist is "code" for something, I might get all humphy about it being suggested that I'm using "code" but I wont.

I havn't seen many of this persons other posts so I wasn't going to take the worst possible inference from his post...sorry

Edit. spelling

[sir_captain]

147. Djinn...

I didn't mean to imply anything about you with my comment on Zionism being used as code, and if it came across the wrong way, I apologize. I was just saying that I believe that sometimes, people use the word Zionists primarily in order to avoid being branded an anti-semite. I certainly never said that not being a Zionist is code for anything. I absolutely respect both sides' opinions about Israel.

[Djinn]

150. that's why I didn't get offended

I DO tend to (try atleast) not to instantly look for the offense in people's posts...I do know what you mean and I completely agree it CAN be used as a way to "legitimise" (want of a better word) hatred, but conversely the term "anti-semitism" has also become a little mis-used - particularly when it's used to mean "critical of Israel" it cheapens (for want of a better word) the term for when it's really needed (Nazi's, SOME Wahhabist Muslims, passion plays, a certain ex action star's crazy father) and beleive me I wont be pretending that REAL anti-semitism doesn't exist anytime soon.

I just think - particularly in threads like this one where tempers run high - it's a good idea to clarify what people meant before judging them...I wont claim I havn't EVER done that myself though - I just reached a 1000+ and I don't think I COULD have without the occasional rant :)

[sir_captain]

151. Point taken...

Congrats on getting to 1000+...if this thread continues on, I'll be joining you pretty soon. ;-)

It's too bad MrPrax doesn't seem to want to clarify his point. I've asked him a couple times now. Ah well.

[MrPrax]

138. Which layer?

In the US most of the anti-war opposition was reduced to celebrities...it simply fed into a self-imagine with debate:

Should Sean Penn be arrested?

Should Al Franken support the troops?...

Were the Dixie Chix traitors?

All 'designer' debates invented to take the focus off the public.

The war protestors (and Democrats) who were simply stroked by the Net media to fuel money to the various democractic candidates.

There is a few layers in there...I don't mind being 'tiny' in my criticism when I suggest 'big' issues

[WillyBrandt]

139. Excellent Non Sequiter

When called out for responding to a post about anti-Jewish sentiment with a glib reference to "Freepers" and "Zionists," you post a long, nonsensical post that has nothing to do with anything. From Jews to Freepers to Zionists to PR Firms to Sean Penn to a wistful misuse of single quotation marks. (The wonders of free association!)

When I'm exposed as saying something toxic in the future, I'll deflect attention by cooking up an illogical, irrelevant marshmellow. Good strategy.

[MrPrax]

148. My post was about...

The decline of DU originally...

I was suggesting the irrelevence of debate here as epitomize by some 'long time listener, first time caller' decrying 'anti-semitism' in an abundant number of posts...and the cheezy regal comradiery of 'we'.

If you want to compare yourself to Freepers, Zionists and Sean Penn...fine. WE wouldn't

Your're not alone...many share the same causes. A better world for all is the main geist of those ads

I really don't bother with 'toxic' fields as there are many fields that are securely and firmly posted with 'Do Not Enter' signs...

Do you really believe there are 'anti-Jewish' posts here?
If there is a vapid pool of anti-semiticism germinating here...then all is, indeed, lost and there really is no bother educating anyone anymore and certainly NO reason to start a thread pointing out the obvious...

Wouldn't you agree?

[sir_captain]

149. First of all...

I did not blithely decry anti-semitism on DU. I made an observation which plenty of other people in the post have not seemed to find as ridiculous as you do.

Fine, perhaps I should not have used the word "we" and could have picked something else. I am willing to grant you that. But what about your lengthy time here on DU gives you the right to judge me simply for being new? If everyone was as friendly as you are, no one would sign up at DU, and that would be a shame wouldn't it? (Well, apparently, you don't think so.)

Also, I again ask you, how is it alright to say that those who support the right of existence of Israel do not belong here? Do you really believe that?

[sir_captain]

140. Can you explain...

how people who support the existence of a Jewish state should be lumped in with Republicans as anathema to a democratic message board? Or did Israel become a completely partisan issue while I wasn't looking?

[Fight_n_back]

143. Mr Prax

Lumping "Zionists" in with Freepers is, in the very least, insensitive and ignorant.

[Dark Angel]

141. I don't know about DU,

but I know a large percentage of Americans and Europeans are anti-semitic.

I think it's basically because some people are jealous of the success of Jews. They may wonder, why are the Jews so resourceful and why have some become so wealthy? I can answer that for them. A lot of Jews are unusually motivated. Some are very successful people and they should not be hated for their success.

[Fight_n_back]

144. Jews are exactly like everyone else

only more so.

Americans and Europeans are anti semitic for the same reason they are racists and anti catholic (or anti protestant) or anti muslim. Its how people are until they decide to be otherwise.

[Dark Angel]

146. Good points

nt

[_Jumper_]

156. What does this mean?

"Jews are exactly like everyone else only more so."

[rman]

188. it means "some are more equal then others"

i think it's from 'animal farm'

[_Jumper_]

217. That is what I was thinking

But I wanted to give Yang a chance to respond to whether he believes Jews are "more equal than others."

[rman]

153. interestingly,

for a european or american to simply point out that jews are so resourceful and wealthy, is often interpreted as being anti-semetic.
Why is that?

[sir_captain]

154. Maybe it's because

Hitler used that as an argument for extermination.
Also, it's a stereotype.

[Dark Angel]

160. Well, I was raised Jewish,

so I am speaking from practical experience. I am not meaning to stereotype, though I agree with you that they are, in fact, stereotypes.

[rman]

171. also, it's true

and often proudly proclaimed by jews.

so what's the problem with speaking the truth?

[corporatewhore]

189. those are alott better than say the one we latinos get

thugs lazy stupid criminals dirty animal like (we breed we dont have kids) damn i would love it if some automatically assumed if i was successful or wealthy instead of the maid (which i have gotten before)
anyway stereotypes suck!! heres one that applies to the whole human race:Christian Jewish Muslim black white brown whatevcer-stupid jerks!!

[sir_captain]

206. Sure, they don't sound so bad...

but they carry very negative connotations that have been used to harm Jews throughout history. Successful: wily, tricky, using powerful connections, etc. Rich: moneygrubbing, greedy, only care about money, etc.

These are severely backhanded compliments at best.

[Dark Angel]

230. Oh come on

Please don't start the my struggle was worse than your struggle thing.

I think that it's almost as annoying as Jesse Jackson saying that the gay rights struggle can't be compared to the civil rights struggle.

Can't you acknowledge that the Jews have suffered over the years, as well as those of Hispanic descent?

[_Jumper_]

158. It causes resentment

Jews exert influence far beyond their numbers, especially in America, and that causes resentment just like success of many Asian-American groups does on a lesser scale.

[rman]

172. especially when one looks at the results of the policies

that result from this "influence far beyond their numbers".
Indeed that does cause a lot of resentment.

[_Jumper_]

157. Is America anti-Semitic?

Compare that to the ratings for Christians.

[Dark Angel]

159. America is definitely less anti semitic than Europe

France has a particularly high Muslim population, as does Russia. That probably contributes to some of the anti-semitism in those countries. By the way, I was raised Jewish. So I am using these stereotypes, having lived with them for years. Please understand that.

[_Jumper_]

161. Jews are ethnic members of the white majority

However, the possiblity for renascent anti-Semitism is a very real danger, as the current Mel Gibson movie showed. There is nothing that would cause a great deal of hostility between Christian white ethnics but there is always the specter of a rise in religious intolerance.

Only 14% of French people have an unfavorable opinion of Jews. Anti-Semitism there is hyped by the right-wing in the US and Israel to discredit France's Middle East policies.

Russia's anti-Semitism is a major threat to Jews because some Russian politicians are demogogically scapegoating Jews for Russia's economic problems.

[Dark Angel]

162. 14% is hardly nothing

I am not a right winger and I resent that you say that I am hyping the anti semitism there. You obviously aren't Jewish so you can't possibly comprehend what it's like to see on the news that synagogues in France have been vandalized, and swastikaz have been painted on the doors. Or that Jewish comedians there have been called all kinds of foul names, like "kike". Saying kike to a jew is like saying n----- to an African-American. It's an incredibly hurtful word.

Rather, I would not say that the right-wing is hyping Anti-semitism to discredit France's Middle East policies. To the contrary, I would say that part of the left-wing is attempting to diminish and dismiss the ever-prevalent Anti-semitism of Old Europe while not so tacitly supporting Old Europe's Middle East policies.

Your remarks sound positively Raimondian. Are you next going to state that Israel has a dedicated "amen corner" in the United States, a la Pat Buchanan?

[_Jumper_]

163. Response

It is actually 11%. The real number is in the single digits. Christianity received a negative rating of 9%. Much of that 11% is general anti-religion sentiment. Of course, you will probably blame both numbers on French Muslims but take a look at the numbers for small. It is obvious that there is a small group that opposes all religion.

I would LOVE to live in a country where only 11% of the people were Christianity in Germany, UK, and US where the Muslim population is prejudicied against me.

<I am not a right winger and I resent that you say that I am hyping the anti semitism there.>

I was making a general comment. The fact that there is a right-wing campaign to vilify pro-Arab France as anti-Semitic cannot be denied.

<You obviously aren't Jewish so you can't possibly comprehend what it's like to see on the news that synagogues in France have been vandalized, and swastikaz have been painted on the doors. Or that Jewish comedians there have been called all kinds of foul names, like "kike". Saying kike to a jew is like saying n----- to an African-American. It's an incredibly hurtful word.>

Yeah, I know nothing about discrimination. :eyes:

Put 11% into context:




<To the contrary, I would say that part of the left-wing is attempting to diminish and dismiss the ever-prevalent Anti-semitism of Old Europe while not so tacitly supporting Old Europe's Middle East policies.>

Did you bother to look at the numbers for Muslims? It is absurd to allege that they are making their Middle East policies based on bigotry. If any Western country is doing that it is the US.

Yes, we progressives opposed the Iraq War like "Old Europe" and we favor an even-handed policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sorry, we do not support the right-wing in the US and Israel.

<Are you next going to state that Israel has a dedicated "amen corner" in the United States, a la Pat Buchanan?>

Are you seriously going to argue that one doesn't exist? Most Jews aren't an "amen corner" for Israel but it is no secret that there are some Jews and Christians who support anything that Israel wants. Have you ever heard of AIPAC? Jerry Falwell? When is the last time an American president stood up to Israel and coerced it into changing its polices toward the Palestinians to further American interests? What happened to Bush I when he conditioned giving Israel a loan on it halting the construction of illegal settlements which harmed US interests? The guy had a 70% approval rating and was shot down. It wasn't by accident. Take a look at how many newspaper columnists support anything that Israel does. How many pro-Palestinian voices are their in the media? All this stuff isn't an accident. The Israeli "amen corner" is simply exponentially stronger than the Palestinian "amen corner", which also does exist.

[MikeGalos]

190. How about some actual studies

done with documentation and historical trendlines and confidence levels and historical comparisons ...

The ADL studies which are done in multiple countries by an independant polling group and which have actual statistical value and proper controls and methods showed the following (with a possible error of 4.4% at a 95% confidence):

In the two studies in 2002, the summary results were:
21% harbor strong anti-Semitic views
56% believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country
40% believe that Jews have too much power in international financial markets
29% say Jews don't care about anyone but their own kind
25% say Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want
49% believe Jews still talk too much about the Holocaust

The studies polled people in the following countries:

October 2002 - Austria, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland
http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/EuropeanAttitudesPoll-10-02.pdf

June 2002 - Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, United Kingdom
http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/European_Attitudes.pdf

[MikeGalos]

194. And as an FYI

The corresponding US study ( http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/2002/as_survey.pdf ) shows:

17% fit in the "Most Anti-Semitic" category (up from 12% in 1998)
35% fit in the "Middle" category with some anti-Semitic beliefs
48% fit in the "not Anti-Semeitic" category (down from 53% in 1998)

So, while Europe in general has more anti-Semitism than the US, it's not by much, is worse than in some European countries and the US isn't in any great position to gloat...

[Dark Angel]

196. Thank you Mike

I still think that France, for example, is far more anti-semitic than America, but I say that from personal experience.

[MikeGalos]

201. Remember

that both are large and diverse countries. I suspect there are regions of France that are far less anti-Semitic than regions of the US and for other regions of both countries exactly the reverse.

[Dark Angel]

202. Indeed.

I am disgusterd, however, at how much Anti-semitism there appears to be in countries like Morocco. Turkey is less anti-semitic, but turkey has a sizeable Jewish population, and Morocco does not.

Morocco also is anti-christian, but not as much anti-christian as it is anti-jewish.

These anti-semitic countries will have to be watched closely. I fear more violence will erupt and we will have mini-pogroms. I have already seen synagogues desecrated and burned down here in America, so there is no telling what can happen overseas.

Mike, I don't know if you're aware of this site, but if you are interested in keeping about the anti-semitism issue, here's a good link:

http://www.adl.org

Abraham Foxman has been fighting for years against anti-semitism worldwide, and against other forms of bigotry too. There are very interesting links on that site to read.

Talk to you later.

[_Jumper_]

212. Anti-Semitism in Morroco or opposition to Israeli atrocities?

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13880&intcategoryid=2

It appears that the poll number is a result of dissapproval of Israeli atrocities, not blanket anti-Semitism.

The ADL backed a bigot, Daniel Pipes. The ADL may care about anti-Semitism and a few other forms of bigotry but it doesn't care about bigotry against Arabs and Muslims.

[Dark Angel]

221. WRONG!

Calling you out on the misstatement, Jumper.

Here is a link:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/DiRaB_41/4168_41.htm

New York, NY, October 4, 2002 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) strongly condemned Rev. Jerry Falwell’s statement that the Prophet Mohammed “was a terrorist” and called on him to apologize to the followers of Islam.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
The Rev. Jerry Falwell has once again demonstrated his intolerance by his outrageous charge about the Prophet Mohammed. He owes an apology to the millions of good people who follow the Muslim faith. As a man of the cloth, he should be working toward bringing faith communities closer together, not driving wedges through them.

JUMPER, I urge you to apologize to me and to the ADL, for slandering them. Are you prepared to do so, after seeing this news release? you certainly should.

[_Jumper_]

242. Did or did they not back Daniel Pipes?

Do you consider Pipes to not be a bigot?

[Dark Angel]

256. He is a bigot

Pipes is also a renowned expert in Middle East policy. That is why he was appointed to his current position as a board member of the United States Institute of Peace.

[_Jumper_]

261. Do you or do you not support the ADL backing a bigot?

Should bigots be making policy???????????????????????

[Dark Angel]

263. Dodging

Dodging dodging, all day long.

Still haven't answered my questions in my other posts.

PIPES is not making policy. That Institute of Peace has little influence with Bush.

So are you still sticking with the incorrect assertion that the ADL doesn't stand up for Muslims?

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/prime/1004-129.html

http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/adl_responds.asp

If you are going to ignore your own misstatements and continue to attack me, then we have nothing more to discuss, Jumper.

I will not debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge that they have mid mis-statements, after being confronted with facts.

You said, and I quote:

The ADL may care about anti-Semitism and a few other forms of bigotry but it doesn't care about bigotry against Arabs and Muslims.

Retract your statement or we have nothing more to discuss. That's it.

[Dark Angel]

238. Want some more proof that you're wrong?

http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/adl_responds.asp


In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against America, ADL has responded to numerous incidents of violence and harassment against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans and other individuals or groups that are perceived to be of Middle Eastern descent. Our message is consistent and clear -- no one should be singled out for hatred, prejudice or blame based on their ethnicity or religion. American unity and democracy is founded on this important ideal.

I guess the ADL doesn't care about anti-Muslim bigotry, right? That's why they devoted an entire SECTION of their site to it.

Still waiting on that apology. Feel free to jump in here any time, Muddle. :D

[_Jumper_]

253. Did or did they not back Daniel Pipes? Is Pipes a bigot or not?

Do you consider Pipes to not be a bigot? You probably don't since you admitted that you have negative stereotypes of Muslims...

[Dark Angel]

255. Where did I admit that?

I was just pointed out that the poll showed more anti-semitism in countries like Morocco, which have substantially higher Muslim populations. It's the same in Pakistan.

I think Daniel Pipes has said some ridiculous things about Muslims, and the ADL condemns anti-muslim bigotry.

Nice dodge though. I'm still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong in saying that the ADL does not stand up against anti-muslim bigotry.

My links proved that you're wrong. Retract your statement.

[_Jumper_]

262. The ADL backed Pipes

I will not support any group that supports people that promote bigotry. Some of us actually have to worry about the consquences of Pipes does. Never again? Muslims and perceived Muslims may be headed to gas chambers soon thanks to Pipes and his ilk. Hence, I couldn't care less about the ADL.

[Dark Angel]

266. Muslims will never go to gas chambers

There are over 1 billion muslims, and only 11 million Jews. Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to nearly 1.6 billion. The Jewish population has been declining.

Do the math. And keep dodging.

[_Jumper_]

211. I stand corrected

However, it is well-known that bigtory against non-whites and Muslims is far greater than anti-Semitism in Europe. Why doesn't that ever make the news while the much smaller problem of anti-Semitism does?

[Muddleoftheroad]

219. European Anti-Semitism

Probably because the last time Europe let anti-Semitism run unchecked they killed 6 million Jews. Before that, they pogrom, murder and Inquisition. Wow, people watch Europe a little more closely now.

Go figure.

[_Jumper_]

223. That doesn't answer the question

Bigotry caused all that so it would be logical to focus on the groups that are the most hated since they are most likely to be in the next Holocaust, pogrom, and Inquisition.

Muslims were in the Inquisition too, but that is often not mentioned. Apparently that is okay, just like sky-high anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe.

Why does the US media focus on anti-Semitism but ignore anti-black, anti-Arab, anti-Asian, and anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe?

[Muddleoftheroad]

245. Of course it answers the question

Europe has 2,000 years of anti-Semitism on its record. That includes pogroms, the Inquisition and the Holocaust. That means ANTI-SEMITISM deserves special attention.

Yes, Muslims were in the Inquisition. And Muslims were also trying to conquer Euope at one point. Jews were merely caught in the middle.

As for the other antis in Europe, the media is concerned when European actions get out of control like France with the head scarf ban.

[_Jumper_]

254. Why?

Take a look at the facts. Hatred of the other groups is far greater. It is fundamentally racist to deem the greater hatred of them as less important than a far smaller amount of hatred against one group. The not-so-subtle implication is that they are worth less than the smaller groups. I think this explains a lot...


<As for the other antis in Europe, the media is concerned when European actions get out of control like France with the head scarf ban.>

Spin. The media does not pay the same attention to "ordinary" hatred against thoe groups, such as hate crimes, like it does for Jews. It does not care about politicians who make statements against those groups but reports about a few hundred hate crimes against Jews, while ignoring the far greater number of hate crimes against other groups.

<Yes, Muslims were in the Inquisition. And Muslims were also trying to conquer Euope at one point. Jews were merely caught in the middle.>

So you are justifying the Inquisition of Muslims because they happened to have the power to conquer much of Europe at one point? That is sick. Your position regarding Muslims is becoming very clear...

[Dark Angel]

267. You just don't like Jews

I don't know why you don't, but you don't. That's fine.

But please just state that in your posts, instead of trying to hide behind disproved assertions.

[Dark Angel]

198. Hmm

Did you think that there might be some supporters of Israel here because Israel is the ONLY democracy in that region, and the rest of those governments are(no offense) a bunch of fundamentalist regimes, with almost no democratic ideals? Israel is more like the U.S. than any of them, and Israel is very kind to Arabs. Israel lets Arabs sit in the Knesset, and lets Arabs vote. But Israel MUST respond to terrorism, as must we. To say that Israel should just sit back and let the Arab countries push it gradually into the sea, is ridiculous, in my opinion.



Look at the map.

Israel is so tiny. People always talk about how Israel is SO greedy with their land, but look how tiny they are compared to the rest of the Arab world.

[_Jumper_]

213. Oh come on. Everyone here knows that is nonsense

The US does not give a damn about who is or isn't democratic. :eyes:

<Israel is more like the U.S. than any of them>

Nice subtle appeal to race. :eyes:

<and Israel is very kind to Arabs.>

Even Ariel Sharon wouldn't attempt to make such a claim.

<Israel lets Arabs sit in the Knesset, and lets Arabs vote. >

Israel also apparently is an apratheid state: http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/counterpunch.htm

<For a state to claim a Democratic form of government, it must accept the equality of all residents within its borders as legitimate citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, religion, political belief, or gender. For a state to claim it is Democratic and reserve the rights of citizenship to a select group negates its claim. It is an oxymoron to limit citizenship rights to Jews alone and call the state Democratic. As Joel Kovel has stated in Tikkun, "a democracy that is only to be for a certain people cannot exist, for the elementary reason that the modern democratic state is defined by its claims of universality." Yet this inherent contradiction exists in Israel. And this brings us from the philosophical phase to the practical one.

Daniel Elazar, reflecting on this conundrum in the postmodern era, notes that this "makes it impossible for the State to distinguish between the entitlements of Jewish citizens and others based upon obligations and performance; i.e., more benefits if one does military service than if one does not."

How does Israel implement the Democracy it claims to possess? First, any Jew from anywhere in the world can come to Israel and receive citizenship by virtue of his/her Jewishness. By contrast, a Muslim or Christian Palestinian living in exile because of the 1948 war cannot claim citizenship even though they were indigenous to the area, nor can their descendents claim citizenship. Second, ninety percent of the land in Israel is held in restrictive covenants, land initially owned by Palestinians for the most part, covenants that bar non-Jews from ownership including the Palestinians who hold a limited version of Israeli citizenship. Third, Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian do not share the rights accorded Jews who serve in the military, nor do they receive the benefits extended to those who serve in the military. Non-Jews are taxed differently than Israeli citizens and the neighborhoods in which they live receive less support. As recently as June 12, 2002, Paul Martin writing for the Washington Times noted "Israeli Arabs are trying to strike down a new law reducing family benefits, arguing that it has deliberately been drafted in a way that will affect Arabs more harshly than Jews.">

<People always talk about how Israel is SO greedy with their land, but look how tiny they are compared to the rest of the Arab world.>

Maybe it's because it is the only one stealing land, even if it incurs terrorism as a result of it. LOL, the old "tiny Israel" talking point. Israel is the regional superpower. It has nuclear weapons and is backed by the world's lone superpower.


< support anything Palestine wants.
Let me list some of those groups: ANSWER, Green Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party. Good company they're keeping.>

Who are you going to vote for in this election???????

True, but everyone here knows that the Palestinian amen corner is virtually powerless while the Israeli amen corner shapes American opinion on the issue and has shown that it can bring American presidents to their knees.

[Dark Angel]

There are also some groups that

support anything Palestine wants.

Let me list some of those groups: ANSWER, Green Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party. Good company they're keeping.

[Dark Angel]

199. There are also some groups that

support anything Palestine wants.

Let me list some of those groups: ANSWER, Green Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party. Good company they're keeping.

[Nlighten1]

176. Silly question don't you think?

Why do we question the Jewish people? The question sounds like they are above reproach.

Not true

[WillyBrandt]

182. I'm speechless...

[Nlighten1]

195. Y?

[DennisReveni]

177. SOUTHPARK!

Cartman goes hard on the Jews. Anyone else watch the season opener?
Reno 911 has some interesting Jewish comments as well.
I spoke with my 18 year old daughter a couple of years ago. One of the slang comments in her crowd was " don't be a Jew" or " That is so Jewish". These are white suburban middle class kids.
Could be long term Israel fallout landing on a people not a culture/place.

[FDRrocks]

183. I think its just plain old fashioned anti-semitism

[Mairead]

180. Are you perhaps conflating Jews with Israelis? It's a very popular error.

Because I don't see a lot of posts about Jews, except in connection with Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

181. Except for those times when a person tries to hide their true feelings

and deliberately substitutes one for the other. Tis a pity their is no archive of deleted posts for you to peruse.

[IronLionZion]

191. I have no beef with Jews

My beef is with Ariel Sharon and his draconian actions against the Palestinians. No anti-semitism here.

[donsu]

207. you are being cute with your question

you know perfectly well it's because of Palestine

[sir_captain]

209. Thanks so much

for your input. I don't know what I could have been thinking. Why did I bother to ask a question when I obviously already knew the answer? Really, thank you for pushing aside the dark clouds within my mind and showing me the light.

In all seriousness, perhaps you'd consider being less flippant and try to explain to me since you seem so sure of yourself.

[Zinfandel]

208. We are not even allow to mention Israel on DU, they'll lock your thread

It's happen to me, if one gives their opinion as negitive about Israel or Sharons deeds...but one could say anything about any other country in the world, or one can critique any religion (including Christianity) but not Judaism.

I'm not anti-Semitic by a long shot, their Jewish people in my family...I just don't understand DU position????

[_Jumper_]

220. Good question

Every country on Earth can be criticized--including the United States, the home of probably 90% of posters here--but Israel is deemed above this. Hey, that is par for the course in America, though. Have you ever heard a major US politician question Israeli policies? There was one guy who simply called for an even-handed policy and I think you remember how much he was damaged because of it. He had to immediately get on his knees and repenant publicly for calling for fairness. Can you imagine this happening if someone called for fairness regarding any other country? Israel is considered some sort of sacred cow in the US. I don't understand that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

222. Laughable

Israel is not above criticism.

The problem is that Israel is beset by enemies and everything needs to be seen in that light. So caling for even-handed policy is like FDR calling for an even-handed policy in regard to Nazi Germany and Britain or even Imperial Japan and Britain. He didn't. With Lend Lease, he clearly sided with Britain. You can't be even-handed when the positions are not even.

Asking Americans to abandon other allies would result in the same response.

But Americans also side with Israel because we understand the plight of the Jewish people for 2,000 years and we sympathize with a nation so outnumbered that has still perservered.

[Dark Angel]

236. YES!

You can't be even-handed when the positions are not even.

TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN!

I might even put that in my sig line.

[_Jumper_]

247. LOL

<Israel is not above criticism.>

I challenge you to post a thread in GD denouncing Israel not allowing non-Jews to live on 90% of its land.

<The problem is that Israel is beset by enemies and everything needs to be seen in that light.>

That justifies not having a debate about the issue?

<So caling for even-handed policy is like FDR calling for an even-handed policy in regard to Nazi Germany and Britain or even Imperial Japan and Britain. He didn't. With Lend Lease, he clearly sided with Britain. You can't be even-handed when the positions are not even.

Asking Americans to abandon other allies would result in the same response.>

South Africa was an American ally. Did you support abandoning the apartheid regime?

It is an America's interest to be even-handed in this case. In the case of the UK and Germany it was not. Sue me, but I kind of care about American interests because I live here.

<But Americans also side with Israel because we understand the plight of the Jewish people for 2,000 years and we sympathize with a nation so outnumbered that has still perservered.>

That is racist. You are saying that the rest of the world is too dumb to understand the plight of the Jews?

Israel is outnumbered but it is the regional superpower because of the US. If Americans admire it surviving with it having the best weapons, and being saved when it was losing in 1973 by the USA, then they don't know the military realities of the Middle East.

Americans side with Israel because it is the only country with a pro-Israel media, a strong Israeli lobby, and a strong Christian fundamentalist population that both back anything that Israel does. In countries where the media is fair, there isn't a powerful lobby for Israel, and there isn't a Christian fundamentalist factor, surprise, surprise: the people are balanced in their views. What a shock, isn't it!

[Dark Angel]

258. Hmm?

That is racist. You are saying that the rest of the world is too dumb to understand the plight of the Jews?


Where did Muddle say that? You're really grasping at straws here. I recommend that you read up more on the situation.

[_Jumper_]

264. That's the clear implication

Muddle often bashes the position the entire world, except one country, has on Israel. He says they are wrong and the American people understand the situation. The implication is clear: they are dumb and incorrect, while Americans are intelligent enough to reach the correct conclusion.

[Dark Angel]

268. I got it

So Hitler was right, and we were wrong?

Because Europe is always right about matters concerning the Jews. If we had taken your advice in the 1930s and 1940s, every single Jew in the world might have been eliminated. Thank god we didn't.

[Dark Angel]

235. What a bigoted post

That is so untrue. All you need to do is go down to I/P and see all of the anti-semitic stuff there.

[Darranar]

246. I don't see much anti-semitic stuff there at all...

most of it is deleted, with those who posted it quickly banned.

[_Jumper_]

257. If someone doesn't support anything that Israel does...

...they are an anti-Semite. Didn't you get the memo?

[Dark Angel]

271. If it walks like a duck....

nt

[Dark Angel]

270. Not quite

One of those people is still here, and he/she is posting in this thread.

[Darranar]

229. Why is this turning in an Israel thread?

The original poster didn't mention Israel, nor did he mention the Middle East, or foreign policy at all, for that matter.

[Dark Angel]

232. Don't you know?

Didn't you get the memo, Darranar?

Israel = Jews?

Say, don't miss the Jewish meeting man. It's at 7 pm. Don't be late. We have to finish the formulation of our plan for world domination. PNAC will be our guest.

\sarcasm

[_Jumper_]

248. Israel does not equal Jews

It is a shame that Likud and many pro-Israel people conflate the two, even though 2/3 of Jews live outside of Israel and most of them oppose Likud and Israeli atrocities.

[MAlibdem]

269. well...no...but

tho jewish policies are not israeli policies and vice versa, israel is the jewish homeland...its purpose is to protect and provide for the jewish people.

I know that if things go awry here in the us (which i will fight 'til the death to stop) and anti-semetism takes over, my family can find shelter in israel and gain citizenship/entrance to the country very quickly.

so to say jews have no stake in israel, or should agree that since likud is bad there should be a binational state or whatever bullsh*t people are coming up with these days, is bs.

[BEZARK]

249. Unfortunately, "antisemitism" has lost nearly all meaning.

It is now such a cowardly-cast aspersion onto any and all that question Israel's motives, policies, or actions that it has lost all true meaning. (Jews who make such question are labeled "self-hating Jews" instead.) Thus the term has been diluted to nothingness and the vile true antisemite escapes deserved censure in the confusion.

[_Jumper_]

259. It is a shame that the meaning of that word has been diluted...

...mostly by Americans who want to protect the interests of a foreign country.

[DuctapeFatwa]

250. Most of the anti-Semitism I see has to do with people making any kind of

association between the Israeli government and US use of Israel as a weapons dump and Judaism, which as the reading minority are aware, is about tolerance, peace, and learning about God.

[Moderator]

272. Locking

This thread has gone on long enough now. Thank you.