superstring01
Moderator
Mod Note: Not getting involved. Sorry Geoff. It's a debate. Roll with it. Also, stop hitting the report button when you've participated in the negative tenor of the conversation. If you want friendly, give friendly.
"Liberal" American Jew equates civic equality with genocide
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
superstring01
Moderator
Ugh. Tell me that you Aussies dodged that bullet. Tell me it wasn't exported Down Undah'.
~String
Bells
Staff member
I have a photo here of my cousin wearing a gold leotard and gold leg warmers dancing in front of the TV when that show was on. She was desperate to be a Solid Gold dancer. I use the photo to make her deathly afraid of me.
Anywho.. back to topic.. not Geoff.. but the thread topic...
I have a photo here of my cousin wearing a gold leotard and gold leg warmers dancing in front of the TV when that show was on. She was desperate to be a Solid Gold dancer. I use the photo to make her deathly afraid of me.
Anywho.. back to topic.. not Geoff.. but the thread topic...
Please post this picture here... otherwise I will be an agnostic about it.
Bells
Staff member
No. You can see her face and that of others of my family in the photo.
Anywho.. back to topic..
My apologies to Sam for having gone off topic..
No problem, I am also trying to visualise the gold leotard!
You could share your thoughts on the issue. You're one of the younger generation and on campus, I noted that many young Jews had different ideas about identity and zionism-associated notions of race than oldies like us. I've also noticed that your own notions have either changed or matured some in the last four years
You could share your thoughts on the issue. You're one of the younger generation and on campus, I noted that many young Jews had different ideas about identity and zionism-associated notions of race than oldies like us. I've also noticed that your own notions have either changed or matured some in the last four years
Bells
Staff member
It is also possible he simply does not know of the fear involved with assimilation and what we take for civic equality. I mean can you imagine any other race or religious group doing something like this?
A bungled ad campaign that urged Israelis to phone a hotline and report details on individual Diaspora Jews whom they fear will assimilate involved an outlay of around $8,000 per name received, the Forward has learned.
On September 2, Masa, an Israeli government and Jewish Agency-funded organization, began a 10-day advertising campaign on Israeli television. It hoped to harness the Israeli public in recruitment for its programs, which bring young Jews to Israel for subsidized yearlong or semester-long trips. But its campaign caused international outcry, and on the sixth day it was dropped.
In the wake of the debacle, experts in Israel’s relations with world Jewry are shaking their heads over the depth of the chasm it revealed.
In the advertisement, missing-person signs showed Jewish names and faces posted at a train station as grim-looking trains departed, while a narrator, speaking over haunting music, intoned: “More than 50% of young Jews overseas are assimilating, and we are losing them. Do you know a young Jew overseas? Call Project Masa, and together we will strengthen the tie to Israel so we won’t lose him. Masa — a year in Israel, a love for a lifetime.” The ad gave viewers a hot line to contact.
No source was cited for the 50% assimilation figure, but it is widely believed to reflect the much discussed finding of the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, sponsored by the Council of Jewish Federations, which reported a 52% annual rate of intermarriage.
(Source)
On September 2, Masa, an Israeli government and Jewish Agency-funded organization, began a 10-day advertising campaign on Israeli television. It hoped to harness the Israeli public in recruitment for its programs, which bring young Jews to Israel for subsidized yearlong or semester-long trips. But its campaign caused international outcry, and on the sixth day it was dropped.
In the wake of the debacle, experts in Israel’s relations with world Jewry are shaking their heads over the depth of the chasm it revealed.
In the advertisement, missing-person signs showed Jewish names and faces posted at a train station as grim-looking trains departed, while a narrator, speaking over haunting music, intoned: “More than 50% of young Jews overseas are assimilating, and we are losing them. Do you know a young Jew overseas? Call Project Masa, and together we will strengthen the tie to Israel so we won’t lose him. Masa — a year in Israel, a love for a lifetime.” The ad gave viewers a hot line to contact.
No source was cited for the 50% assimilation figure, but it is widely believed to reflect the much discussed finding of the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, sponsored by the Council of Jewish Federations, which reported a 52% annual rate of intermarriage.
(Source)
And their solution isn't new. It is the encouragement of young American Jews to move to Israel to ensure they do not marry outside of the faith.. To place them in a situation where they will meet mostly Jews and hopefully marry within the faith.
It isn't something to be wholly connected to Jews or Israel. As you pointed out yourself, the problem exists in India and in many other religious circles around the world. But some take it to a whole new level, like Israel's campaign to save the "lost Jews" over seas and to save them from intermarriage and moving away from their Jewishness. Or disowning and disinheriting children or grandchildren because they dared to marry outside of the faith. To even murders and threats of death, it exists everywhere. That being said, I know of no other country that tried to launch a Government funded campaign to stop assimilation and intermarriage of people of a religion overseas, but yeah.. If you look at the responses to the article about how some American Jews were so offended by Israel's response to their assimilation, you'll see that this kind of attitude is not going to go away anytime soon.. And this could be any religion or race or class or caste.
Yup. I'm not truly comfortable with the idea of Jewish nationalism, nor am I truly comfortable with any other form of nationalism which excludes others for cosmetic reasons. I simply don't see how the Palestinian Arab cause isn't itself a nationalistic cause, and as such, with so many Arab nations and only 1 Jewish state, I don't see the Jewish state as the one that should be prioritized for dismantling.
No actually, I don't see the Holocaust as suggestive in either direction. All I've been saying is how absurd it is for you to argue that the Jews, with their experience in the Holocaust, "should know better", more than any other people, as if they're morally obliged to accept millions of refugees from other countries who have wished death upon them for decades. There's no reason a Jew should feel more obliged than anyone else to take those kinds of risks or make those kinds of sacrifices, Holocaust or not. I liked your points arguing that few others in this world can truly say their actions are more moral (to me it's an obvious point that doesn't need to be defended as if it were a brilliant revelation), but at the same time it seems you still expect that Jews, if they truly want to call themselves liberal the way others do, are supposed to act differently, or you wouldn't have used the word "especially" in that context. Maybe you think Jews are so much smarter than everyone else that they should indeed know better, but that's not the line of reasoning I picked up.
Again, I'm taking exception to the idea that the Holocaust has any bearing on how a Jew should think about a one-state solution with 10 million Palestinian refugees freely moving in. The Holocaust showed that civil inequality leads to evil, and it showed that being a minority exposed to an uncivil majority also leads to evil. It's simply absurd to try and tie the Holocaust into this whole discussion, it's like using an apple to prove something about oranges.
And I don't stay friends with people who treat folks like you that way. I'm sorry to hear about the physical abuse you've had to endure, and I'm glad you have some perspective on what it's like to be foolishly labelled as if you were part of some evil alien monolith.
Well let's cool off and rewind just a tad, instead of getting personal about it like little children. As Quadraphonics wisely notes, SAM completely distorts the OP article and uses it to attack a liberal Jew who actually shares her political viewpoints on a one-state solution for Israel. Par for the course on her part, with a certain grammatically challenged brown-noser following close behind in lockstep as usual. But then you join in, and your response seems to be saying that American Jews should not be expected to be sensible people, anymore than the average American. I thus sense an implication from you that an American or a Jew opposed to flooding Israel with millions of Arab refugees is somehow an unreasonable or illiberal asshole. Is this not what you've been trying to imply, or am I really just that stupid?
SAM is not playing a game, Tiassa. She has basically spent years here calling for a genocide of Israel's Jews in one form or another. See those horse blinders? Take 'em off and just read through a small sampling of her posts. You don't see me starting dozens of threads raising a shitstorm because Arabs won't leave north Africa or won't stop beating women, but that's the kind of "game" she consistently plays with Israel. I'm sure she has fun with it, but that doesn't make it a game.
Well from my POV, it doesn't seem like I'm missing your point, it seems you just have a really tough time being called out.
I'm baffled how you just sit there watching SAM start thread after thread after thread, always complaining about how her ethnocentric fantasies fail to gain the proper respect they deserve. What's up with that? Have you never, ever felt the urge to tell her to can it?
You're 10 years older than me, but it really needs to be said: grow up.
This is just one of the many many atrocities which are considered as "normal behaviour" for Israel and crimes against humanity for everyone else. What does it mean that people dismiss such Israeli behaviour as justified? Or pretend that violently settling into Palestine and killing and dispossessing whoever opposes them is "normal" because they are "natives" even when they come from Russia or the US because of attachment to myths?
Imagine if Christians did the same to other denominations in the US.
Maybe we can name a cologne after you: "Obsession, by Quadraphonics"
Irrelevant. The question is whether your reading of her output is reasonable.
The effort required to draw those boundaries is admirable.
I actually see it much differently. Much more simply. The underlying question is, "How, exactly, is this supposed to work? And does it?"
That's how I'd take it if S.A.M. and I were having the conversation over korma in Neal Street. Building all those boundaries is a lot of work; if that's what she meant, she would have plenty of time to set up those constraints.
I do not see, in the opening post, the "specific, limited, factual assertion that the liberal wing of American Jewry equates 'one state solution' with 'genocide.'"
What I see is:
The thing is that, as a reader, it takes considerably less time to recognize those elements than it does to explain them.
This is part of the idea of critical reading. You're quite happy, it seems to read S.A.M. according to some criteria of criticism, but you're apparently not extending that to what she's drawing from. To be specific, nothing about the fact that it is Gal Beckerman makes the article definitive in any way. Nor does the fact of the Forward. But Vilkomerson makes an assertion; Cohen makes an assertion; Beckerman connects the assertions functionally.
S.A.M. inquires about the seemingly obvious dysfunction that results, and the question is solely the result of her bitter, obvious, and unrelenting anti-Semitism?
Is that where we're at?
If you find such positions so offensive, and if you actually give a damn about the Jews, Israel, or whatever, I would think your issue would lie with Beckerman, to start, and then perhaps Cohen. Maybe you could bitch-slap Vilkomerson for good measure, but I think when you're starting with S.A.M. it has more to do with egotism and other personal aspects than anything real and factual.
When S.A.M. asks the question about the seemingly obvious dysfunction resulting from a particular combination of factors, that's exactly what I see.
You, though, apparently see S.A.M. inventing something anti-Semitic out of thin air because that's just her evil, witchy way.
At the heart of the question is an outcome some find bizarre: Even liberal Jews, apparently, will accept ethnic cleansing.
Now, S.A.M. finds that a ridiculous proposition; ethnic cleansing doesn't really accomplish much except the extremely consequential embodiment of hatred. But, to the other, she is also of Muslim education and Indian acculturation. Perhaps there is something about the American Jewry she's missing. After all, she spent some time here, but you can spend a lifetime in this country without grasping the myriad nuances. Is she unique if she failed to achieve what none of us can pull off?
And so she asks. Yet what is obvious to anyone looking at the actual components involved is some manner of extremism to the rational, good people who know—just flat-out know, y'know—how evil S.A.M. really is.
That's what unsettles me. If it wasn't S.A.M.—if it wasn't a non-American Muslim—people would generally perceive the question differently. At least, that's how I see it.
Really, if I applied the logic of so many of her critics, and applied it equally throughout American society, it ought to be illegal to be black by now.
That's where we've landed. Not because of Israel. Not because of Jews. Not because of anything but people's hatred of Muslims.
And if I'm facepalming, Quad? If I'm disappointed in anything? It's simply that someone like you would buy into the constant chorus of hatred. Just stop. Take S.A.M. out of the equation. Look at the actual elements of the issue in front of us.
A Jew says this; a Jew says that; a Jew puts the two together and comes up with this other. A Muslim happens to ask the obvious question about the dysfunction of the outcome, and it can only be the Muslim's hateful, evil fault.
Where S.A.M. goes wrong on American Jews is if she fails to account for the fact that they are American. She'll figure it out eventually, but it will be like a lot of Americans and immigration; we won't be satisfied until the incoming citizens can score a hundred percent on a test we couldn't even pass halfway°. But, yes, for all the times I've told my colleagues in the back room how to deal with S.A.M., and for all the times I might go through it with my neighbors in the general membership, it seems almost a lost cause.
In this case, it's not a "Jewish" problem she's noting. It's an "American" issue. And I just don't see how communicating with her is a particularly onerous task. Indeed, it seems much easier to make the point about the fact that these are American Jews she's considering than it does to get worked up into a froth and frenzy about how "eeeevil" S.A.M. is.
____________________
Notes:
° whether or not liberal Jews can accept a two-state solution — In truth, this issue is a bit murky to me. Some aspects of liberalism balk at religiously-oriented states, but plenty of liberals accept the mere fact of Israel, the idea of an Islamic republic, the proposition of a Palestinian homeland, and even the existence of places like Vatican City, Costa Rica, and other states with official religions. And it's true: We might give the Irish shit from time to time about their abortion laws and the Catholic Church, but they can always shoot back that they did away with official religion in '73, and hell, if we were really that mad at them, we wouldn't come and drink and hang out listening to their bands. But as concerns Israel and Palestine, yes, I can see that, as long as there exists an officially Jewish state, a homeland confiscated from people who happened to be Muslim, there will always be a functionally valid claim to a Palestinian homeland for Muslims.
° a test we couldn't even pass halfway — See The Simpsons #3F20, "Much Apu About Nothing":
And, by the way, have you noticed the editorials of late? We're back to whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. That is, a Simpsons joke happens to coincide with reality. Of course, that's not exactly new, is it?
Works Cited:
Beckerman, Gal. "JVP, Harsh Critic Of Israel, Seeks a Seat at the Communal Table". Jewish Daily Forward. April 22, 2011. Forward.com. April 18, 2011. http://forward.com/articles/137016/
Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "[3F20] Much Apu About Nothing". June 10, 1996. SNPP.com. April 18, 2011. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F20.html
Quadraphonics said:
Irrelevant. The question is whether your reading of her output is reasonable.
The effort required to draw those boundaries is admirable.
I actually see it much differently. Much more simply. The underlying question is, "How, exactly, is this supposed to work? And does it?"
That's how I'd take it if S.A.M. and I were having the conversation over korma in Neal Street. Building all those boundaries is a lot of work; if that's what she meant, she would have plenty of time to set up those constraints.
I do not see, in the opening post, the "specific, limited, factual assertion that the liberal wing of American Jewry equates 'one state solution' with 'genocide.'"
What I see is:
(1) A statement that something confuses S.A.M.: "Can't wrap my head around this".
(2) An extract from an article in the Jewish Daily Forward.
(3) A question regarding whether or not American Jews generally consider the proposition raised by the mix of Vilkomerson, Beckerman, and Cohen. That is: "Do American Jews now consider it illiberal to receive the same civil rights as non-Jews?"
(4) A follow-up question entirely dependent on an affirmative answer to the prior inquiry.
(2) An extract from an article in the Jewish Daily Forward.
— The extract includes an activist's lament that Judaism has become deeply intertwined with support for the Israeli government, presumably to the point of justifying the Jewish state's excesses.
— The article then quotes one Ben Cohen, "a writer who has focused on American Jewish responses to Israel". Cohen is critical of JVP, the activist's organization, but this is exscinded from the extract for brevity. Remaining in the extract is Cohen's assertion that the organization's membership includes many who hope for an outcome that includes the ethnic purification of Israel and Palestine. The full quote, unexpurgated, would read: "JVP is characteristically slippery on the question of one state or two states. But it is clear that many of their members dream about one state, and for those of us under the communal tent, one state is a code word for genocide."
— The proposition thus rests on an alleged specialist depicted in a newspaper published by a Jewish immigrant-advocacy organization:
The proposition is not, as you have suggested, "a very specific, limited, factual assertion that the liberal wing of American Jewry equates 'one state solution' with 'genocide.'" Rather, a Forward writer (and former Columbia Journalism Review staffer) has proposed that the distinction between criticizing Israel and betraying the Jewry is so blurred that "even many liberals do not embrace it". And then quoted Mr. Cohen in order to adapt the proposition to the JVP.
— What we have, then, are competing propositions. Vilkomerson, the activist, suggests one cannot in the current discourse, criticize Israeli government action without being denounced as anti-Semitic. Beckerman asserts that the distinction between those two conditions is not even widely acknowledged by allegedly liberal American Jews. Cohen is quoted to suggest that even JVP, an allegedly liberal group, is trapped between a rock and a hard place. The underlying suggestion, when we mix Vilkomerson, Beckerman, and Cohen, is a question about whether or not liberal Jews can accept a two-state solution°. The problem with the one-state outcome, though, seems obvious, at least according to Beckerman and Cohen: some iterations of the one-state solution permit, or even require, ethnic purification of the region.
— As a result of a Jewish activist, Jewish reporter, and Jewish writer who specializes in American Jewish responses to Israel—and, apparently, all anti-semitic to the bone—we have the proposition that even liberal American Jews have trouble with the distinction between criticizing Israel and being a proper Jew, because the only realistic result is, apparently, the ethnic purification of Israeli territory. Some might consider this a bizarre circumstance to be witnessing. Hence ....
— The article then quotes one Ben Cohen, "a writer who has focused on American Jewish responses to Israel". Cohen is critical of JVP, the activist's organization, but this is exscinded from the extract for brevity. Remaining in the extract is Cohen's assertion that the organization's membership includes many who hope for an outcome that includes the ethnic purification of Israel and Palestine. The full quote, unexpurgated, would read: "JVP is characteristically slippery on the question of one state or two states. But it is clear that many of their members dream about one state, and for those of us under the communal tent, one state is a code word for genocide."
— The proposition thus rests on an alleged specialist depicted in a newspaper published by a Jewish immigrant-advocacy organization:
“It is troubling that Judaism and support for Israel have become so inextricably linked,” Vilkomerson said at the New York event. “We are trying to create a space in the Jewish world where we can express our criticism as Jews without needing to apologize for ourselves.”
That is a distinction that even many liberals do not embrace. “JVP is characteristically slippery on the question of one state or two states,” said Ben Cohen, a writer who has focused on American Jewish responses to Israel. “But it is clear that many of their members dream about one state, and for those of us under the communal tent, one state is a code word for genocide.”
(Beckerman)
That is a distinction that even many liberals do not embrace. “JVP is characteristically slippery on the question of one state or two states,” said Ben Cohen, a writer who has focused on American Jewish responses to Israel. “But it is clear that many of their members dream about one state, and for those of us under the communal tent, one state is a code word for genocide.”
(Beckerman)
The proposition is not, as you have suggested, "a very specific, limited, factual assertion that the liberal wing of American Jewry equates 'one state solution' with 'genocide.'" Rather, a Forward writer (and former Columbia Journalism Review staffer) has proposed that the distinction between criticizing Israel and betraying the Jewry is so blurred that "even many liberals do not embrace it". And then quoted Mr. Cohen in order to adapt the proposition to the JVP.
> Indeed, there are plenty of directions the discussion can go from this point, but which depends entirely on who is perceiving, and who is speaking. It's all about the players at that point. For instance, if it's me, I might pick out Cohen (the specialist), Beckerman (the reporter), or Vilkomerson (the activist), depending on the suggestions and indications of the moment, and inquire about the practicality of the proposition as it stands. What about you? Is Ben Cohen, a Jewish writer specializing in American Jewish responses to Israel, an anti-semitic propagandist? And, yeah, as you and I are having the conversation, I'll go with Cohen or Beckerman, since each is necessary for the suggestion you find so objectionable.
— What we have, then, are competing propositions. Vilkomerson, the activist, suggests one cannot in the current discourse, criticize Israeli government action without being denounced as anti-Semitic. Beckerman asserts that the distinction between those two conditions is not even widely acknowledged by allegedly liberal American Jews. Cohen is quoted to suggest that even JVP, an allegedly liberal group, is trapped between a rock and a hard place. The underlying suggestion, when we mix Vilkomerson, Beckerman, and Cohen, is a question about whether or not liberal Jews can accept a two-state solution°. The problem with the one-state outcome, though, seems obvious, at least according to Beckerman and Cohen: some iterations of the one-state solution permit, or even require, ethnic purification of the region.
— As a result of a Jewish activist, Jewish reporter, and Jewish writer who specializes in American Jewish responses to Israel—and, apparently, all anti-semitic to the bone—we have the proposition that even liberal American Jews have trouble with the distinction between criticizing Israel and being a proper Jew, because the only realistic result is, apparently, the ethnic purification of Israeli territory. Some might consider this a bizarre circumstance to be witnessing. Hence ....
(3) A question regarding whether or not American Jews generally consider the proposition raised by the mix of Vilkomerson, Beckerman, and Cohen. That is: "Do American Jews now consider it illiberal to receive the same civil rights as non-Jews?"
— The elements, we might remind, derive as follows: Judaism/Israel from Vilkomerson; liberal Jews from Beckerman; genocide from Cohen.
(4) A follow-up question entirely dependent on an affirmative answer to the prior inquiry.
The thing is that, as a reader, it takes considerably less time to recognize those elements than it does to explain them.
This is part of the idea of critical reading. You're quite happy, it seems to read S.A.M. according to some criteria of criticism, but you're apparently not extending that to what she's drawing from. To be specific, nothing about the fact that it is Gal Beckerman makes the article definitive in any way. Nor does the fact of the Forward. But Vilkomerson makes an assertion; Cohen makes an assertion; Beckerman connects the assertions functionally.
S.A.M. inquires about the seemingly obvious dysfunction that results, and the question is solely the result of her bitter, obvious, and unrelenting anti-Semitism?
Is that where we're at?
If you find such positions so offensive, and if you actually give a damn about the Jews, Israel, or whatever, I would think your issue would lie with Beckerman, to start, and then perhaps Cohen. Maybe you could bitch-slap Vilkomerson for good measure, but I think when you're starting with S.A.M. it has more to do with egotism and other personal aspects than anything real and factual.
When S.A.M. asks the question about the seemingly obvious dysfunction resulting from a particular combination of factors, that's exactly what I see.
You, though, apparently see S.A.M. inventing something anti-Semitic out of thin air because that's just her evil, witchy way.
At the heart of the question is an outcome some find bizarre: Even liberal Jews, apparently, will accept ethnic cleansing.
Now, S.A.M. finds that a ridiculous proposition; ethnic cleansing doesn't really accomplish much except the extremely consequential embodiment of hatred. But, to the other, she is also of Muslim education and Indian acculturation. Perhaps there is something about the American Jewry she's missing. After all, she spent some time here, but you can spend a lifetime in this country without grasping the myriad nuances. Is she unique if she failed to achieve what none of us can pull off?
And so she asks. Yet what is obvious to anyone looking at the actual components involved is some manner of extremism to the rational, good people who know—just flat-out know, y'know—how evil S.A.M. really is.
That's what unsettles me. If it wasn't S.A.M.—if it wasn't a non-American Muslim—people would generally perceive the question differently. At least, that's how I see it.
Really, if I applied the logic of so many of her critics, and applied it equally throughout American society, it ought to be illegal to be black by now.
That's where we've landed. Not because of Israel. Not because of Jews. Not because of anything but people's hatred of Muslims.
And if I'm facepalming, Quad? If I'm disappointed in anything? It's simply that someone like you would buy into the constant chorus of hatred. Just stop. Take S.A.M. out of the equation. Look at the actual elements of the issue in front of us.
A Jew says this; a Jew says that; a Jew puts the two together and comes up with this other. A Muslim happens to ask the obvious question about the dysfunction of the outcome, and it can only be the Muslim's hateful, evil fault.
Where S.A.M. goes wrong on American Jews is if she fails to account for the fact that they are American. She'll figure it out eventually, but it will be like a lot of Americans and immigration; we won't be satisfied until the incoming citizens can score a hundred percent on a test we couldn't even pass halfway°. But, yes, for all the times I've told my colleagues in the back room how to deal with S.A.M., and for all the times I might go through it with my neighbors in the general membership, it seems almost a lost cause.
In this case, it's not a "Jewish" problem she's noting. It's an "American" issue. And I just don't see how communicating with her is a particularly onerous task. Indeed, it seems much easier to make the point about the fact that these are American Jews she's considering than it does to get worked up into a froth and frenzy about how "eeeevil" S.A.M. is.
____________________
Notes:
° whether or not liberal Jews can accept a two-state solution — In truth, this issue is a bit murky to me. Some aspects of liberalism balk at religiously-oriented states, but plenty of liberals accept the mere fact of Israel, the idea of an Islamic republic, the proposition of a Palestinian homeland, and even the existence of places like Vatican City, Costa Rica, and other states with official religions. And it's true: We might give the Irish shit from time to time about their abortion laws and the Catholic Church, but they can always shoot back that they did away with official religion in '73, and hell, if we were really that mad at them, we wouldn't come and drink and hang out listening to their bands. But as concerns Israel and Palestine, yes, I can see that, as long as there exists an officially Jewish state, a homeland confiscated from people who happened to be Muslim, there will always be a functionally valid claim to a Palestinian homeland for Muslims.
° a test we couldn't even pass halfway — See The Simpsons #3F20, "Much Apu About Nothing":
Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait ... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait ... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
And, by the way, have you noticed the editorials of late? We're back to whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. That is, a Simpsons joke happens to coincide with reality. Of course, that's not exactly new, is it?
Works Cited:
Beckerman, Gal. "JVP, Harsh Critic Of Israel, Seeks a Seat at the Communal Table". Jewish Daily Forward. April 22, 2011. Forward.com. April 18, 2011. http://forward.com/articles/137016/
Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "[3F20] Much Apu About Nothing". June 10, 1996. SNPP.com. April 18, 2011. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F20.html
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
I am not sure if it is considered "normal". The Government's campaign only lasted 6 days as people found it stupid and silly, not to mention racist.
But that attitude exists everywhere, in many communities. Like the village who where residents were proud of an honour killing of a young couple because they dared marry outside of their caste. One could say that that attitude was "normal" in such an atmosphere. But it is not normal elsewhere.. more like a fringe belief.
Saying that, the belief exists amongst many. That whole 'keeping it pure'.. It's not just race but religion as well. The fear is that American Jews will lose their Jewishness, so they encourage them to come to Israel, where they will be surrounded by other Jews to avoid the bloodlines being watered down. I mean just look at the lengths some have to go to to prove they are Jewish enough..
Keeping it pure..
Who is to say they do not to a slighter or more private extent?
The whole born again Bible belt where marrying an atheist could see you ostracised from the community and one's family and friends.
Community prejudices are common everywhere - see the vote against prop 8 in California. But in Israel it is state policy. Imagine if the US government started a campaign about the dangers of racial mixing by marriage. Or the dangers of gay marriage to US society. Imagine if the Indian government requested the people to alert them to marriages between low and high caste. This is my issue with the problems in Israel. Its not some random dude burning a book in the backyard. Its a whole state politically dedicated to ethnic cleansing.
Manwhile back to the US and liberal American Jews being ethnically cleansed by civic equality in Occupied Palestine.
Manwhile back to the US and liberal American Jews being ethnically cleansed by civic equality in Occupied Palestine.
Last edited:
Israel is not Judaism, and other seemingly obvious notes
Quadraphonics: The Follow-Up, of Sorts
Jeez, it just struck me that I'd only responded to part of your post.
Okay, so ... where did I leave off? Oh, right. I made it through three sentences before having to digress into all that in order to accommodate the problems.
Picking up after all the problems with those three sentences, the rest of your review is suspect:
It is only emphatically and repeatedly clear if one emphatically and repeatedly insists on doing her thinking for her.
The rest of this criticism is simply you rambling on after a straw man.
It can sing and dance, but if it only had a brain? (Sorry, I've seen The Wizard of Oz too many times in the last twenty-four hours to let that straw man joke pass.)
And riddled with problems, to say the least.
If the basic topical issue is screwy, is that necessarily S.A.M.'s fault?
I mean, it couldn't be the activist, who made a comment; or the article writer, who connected the comment to another; or the specialist who made that other comment. If the writer adds up two and two and gets five, and S.A.M. asks whether that equation seems strange to anyone, it's obviously S.A.M.'s fault for saying that two and two equals five.
Right?
I mean, that's what you've done.
We've tried that, in order to accommodate the pro-Israelis, the Judeosupremacists, the Zionists, the anti-Zionists, the pro-Palestinians ... in the end, it doesn't really matter because it's not a question of whether a thread topic is irrelevant to its contents. Rather, it's whether critics like yourself decide to fill a thread with a bunch of irrelevant bullshit and then complain about the irrelevance.
I'm sorry, dude, but you fucking blew it this time.
But, hey, at least you got to criticize S.A.M., so it wasn't a total loss, eh?
A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.
The difference between me being a loony liberal and S.A.M. being an anti-Semite is exactly the difference between the fact that I am an American bastard and she an Indian Muslim. Coming from me, people might try the liberal extremist bit, but they sure as hell wouldn't try to rest on their laurels while screaming about anti-Semitism.
Geoff is his own question.
Of course, I don't see why you would want to be like him, but that's your own choice.
I'm more inclined toward the idea that you are the problem, sir, and not the OP.
Skip the fallacy, Quad. Maybe you treat people so poorly, but if you'll notice, I was talking about how I see people. If I treat S.A.M. as you do, I have to treat her in a manner that is specifically different from how I treat anyone else.
That's all you're asking of me. And that's all anyone ever asks. I would agree with them, yes I would, if only I would see what they see, feel what they feel, and simply be them.
And it just doesn't work that way.
Actually, you are. Now, perhaps that's not your intention, but it's what you're doing.
So don't tell me you're not.
Yes, and apparently I have to do a much deeper analysis than you're willing to put up.
Dude, look: You want a piece of S.A.M.? Go get one. You want everyone to throw the fight for you from the outset? Some of us aren't in for the fix, and there's no amount of whining you can do that will convince us to join you in that corruption.
No, I think your reading of the situation is monumentally stupid. Criminally stupid. So fucking stupid I find myself wondering what your malfunction is. Ridiculously stupid. Shamefully stupid. The kind of stupid that makes me wonder how I never noticed before, or why I made so many goddamn excuses for that kind of pathetic grease-spot of an intellect smeared all over the goddamn highway.
Honestly? I have always thought you more intelligent than the shit you're shoveling in this discussion. And yes, it would trouble me greatly to be wrong about that.
Depends on the terms of those relationships. People who don't approach me looking specifically for a fight tend to view me much differently than the belligerent sorts. To the belligerent, I'm an asshole. To everyone else, I range betweeen village idiot, the guy who's fun to smoke dope with, and brilliant; from timid to tempermental to tempestuous. In other words, the only generally consistent view of me I ever hear about comes from those who are looking for a fight.
And that is worth exactly what it's worth.
If you say so. After all, you ought to know. A noob like me could never have any idea what's going on around here, right?
If you expect for even the passing of a heartbeat that I would buy into that pathetic attempt to pass Israel off as the whole of Judaism, you are sadly mistaken.
True. You have Muslims to hate more than Jews, so for once you can imagine yourself in the noble role.
No, seriously, look at you. Anti-Jewish is apparently interchangeable with anti-Israeli. And for Bork ... where is it ... oh, right: "All I've been saying is how absurd it is for you to argue that the Jews, with their experience in the Holocaust, 'should know better' ...."
Dude, you two are killing Jews° with your kindness.
Good one.
Well, it's good to know I'm nobody.
Look in the mirror. Well, if you can actually see the reflection.
No, really: "Because I say so," doesn't work for other arguments. Why should I let it this time?
Because it's S.A.M.? Because it's in defense of the poor Jews in Israel who are so oppressed and have no choice but to take lessons from tyrants?
No, really, Quad. What, aside from your say-so? I go through this with my colleagues all the time. Getting them to cough up an example is hard enough. Getting them to cough up an example that doesn't depend on a "Because I say so" indictment? Yeah, right. That'll be the day.
Quite simply, if it was so goddamn easy, someone would have pulled it off by now.
Right. For all you care.
Whatever you say.
(You pretend to care a lot.)
Right. Okay, see the prior post. The one devoted to working through something like three of your sentences.
It's an interesting proposition. But I'm not sure I like your terms. Make sure to lay out which Jews are credible and which aren't, and which ones we need to blame S.A.M. for.
We'll figure it out, but since they're your demands, I can't write them for you.
No, that's what you need S.A.M. to be pushing here. Anything else defies your prejudice. And, well, since your prejudice simply can't be wrong ....
Have you considered that it might be a problem with your argumentative method?
____________________
Notes:
° killing Jews — Oh, I'm sorry, does that offend you? What? What's wrong? I'm not playing nearly as loose with your words or Bork's as you would with S.A.M.'s. So keep dehumanizing the Jews in order to hate S.A.M. Go on. Have your fill. And then get this through your skull: Israel is not Judaism! One would think that obvious, but, then again, one would think hating Jews passé. Life goes on. Well, for the living.
Quadraphonics: The Follow-Up, of Sorts
Jeez, it just struck me that I'd only responded to part of your post.
Okay, so ... where did I leave off? Oh, right. I made it through three sentences before having to digress into all that in order to accommodate the problems.
Picking up after all the problems with those three sentences, the rest of your review is suspect:
Quadraphonics said:
It is only emphatically and repeatedly clear if one emphatically and repeatedly insists on doing her thinking for her.
The rest of this criticism is simply you rambling on after a straw man.
It can sing and dance, but if it only had a brain? (Sorry, I've seen The Wizard of Oz too many times in the last twenty-four hours to let that straw man joke pass.)
And riddled with problems, to say the least.
If the basic topical issue is screwy, is that necessarily S.A.M.'s fault?
I mean, it couldn't be the activist, who made a comment; or the article writer, who connected the comment to another; or the specialist who made that other comment. If the writer adds up two and two and gets five, and S.A.M. asks whether that equation seems strange to anyone, it's obviously S.A.M.'s fault for saying that two and two equals five.
Right?
I mean, that's what you've done.
We've tried that, in order to accommodate the pro-Israelis, the Judeosupremacists, the Zionists, the anti-Zionists, the pro-Palestinians ... in the end, it doesn't really matter because it's not a question of whether a thread topic is irrelevant to its contents. Rather, it's whether critics like yourself decide to fill a thread with a bunch of irrelevant bullshit and then complain about the irrelevance.
I'm sorry, dude, but you fucking blew it this time.
But, hey, at least you got to criticize S.A.M., so it wasn't a total loss, eh?
A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.
The difference between me being a loony liberal and S.A.M. being an anti-Semite is exactly the difference between the fact that I am an American bastard and she an Indian Muslim. Coming from me, people might try the liberal extremist bit, but they sure as hell wouldn't try to rest on their laurels while screaming about anti-Semitism.
Geoff is his own question.
Of course, I don't see why you would want to be like him, but that's your own choice.
I'm more inclined toward the idea that you are the problem, sir, and not the OP.
Skip the fallacy, Quad. Maybe you treat people so poorly, but if you'll notice, I was talking about how I see people. If I treat S.A.M. as you do, I have to treat her in a manner that is specifically different from how I treat anyone else.
That's all you're asking of me. And that's all anyone ever asks. I would agree with them, yes I would, if only I would see what they see, feel what they feel, and simply be them.
And it just doesn't work that way.
Actually, you are. Now, perhaps that's not your intention, but it's what you're doing.
So don't tell me you're not.
Yes, and apparently I have to do a much deeper analysis than you're willing to put up.
Dude, look: You want a piece of S.A.M.? Go get one. You want everyone to throw the fight for you from the outset? Some of us aren't in for the fix, and there's no amount of whining you can do that will convince us to join you in that corruption.
No, I think your reading of the situation is monumentally stupid. Criminally stupid. So fucking stupid I find myself wondering what your malfunction is. Ridiculously stupid. Shamefully stupid. The kind of stupid that makes me wonder how I never noticed before, or why I made so many goddamn excuses for that kind of pathetic grease-spot of an intellect smeared all over the goddamn highway.
Honestly? I have always thought you more intelligent than the shit you're shoveling in this discussion. And yes, it would trouble me greatly to be wrong about that.
Depends on the terms of those relationships. People who don't approach me looking specifically for a fight tend to view me much differently than the belligerent sorts. To the belligerent, I'm an asshole. To everyone else, I range betweeen village idiot, the guy who's fun to smoke dope with, and brilliant; from timid to tempermental to tempestuous. In other words, the only generally consistent view of me I ever hear about comes from those who are looking for a fight.
And that is worth exactly what it's worth.
If you say so. After all, you ought to know. A noob like me could never have any idea what's going on around here, right?
If you expect for even the passing of a heartbeat that I would buy into that pathetic attempt to pass Israel off as the whole of Judaism, you are sadly mistaken.
True. You have Muslims to hate more than Jews, so for once you can imagine yourself in the noble role.
No, seriously, look at you. Anti-Jewish is apparently interchangeable with anti-Israeli. And for Bork ... where is it ... oh, right: "All I've been saying is how absurd it is for you to argue that the Jews, with their experience in the Holocaust, 'should know better' ...."
Dude, you two are killing Jews° with your kindness.
Good one.
Well, it's good to know I'm nobody.
Look in the mirror. Well, if you can actually see the reflection.
No, really: "Because I say so," doesn't work for other arguments. Why should I let it this time?
Because it's S.A.M.? Because it's in defense of the poor Jews in Israel who are so oppressed and have no choice but to take lessons from tyrants?
No, really, Quad. What, aside from your say-so? I go through this with my colleagues all the time. Getting them to cough up an example is hard enough. Getting them to cough up an example that doesn't depend on a "Because I say so" indictment? Yeah, right. That'll be the day.
Quite simply, if it was so goddamn easy, someone would have pulled it off by now.
Right. For all you care.
Whatever you say.
(You pretend to care a lot.)
Right. Okay, see the prior post. The one devoted to working through something like three of your sentences.
It's an interesting proposition. But I'm not sure I like your terms. Make sure to lay out which Jews are credible and which aren't, and which ones we need to blame S.A.M. for.
We'll figure it out, but since they're your demands, I can't write them for you.
No, that's what you need S.A.M. to be pushing here. Anything else defies your prejudice. And, well, since your prejudice simply can't be wrong ....
Have you considered that it might be a problem with your argumentative method?
____________________
Notes:
° killing Jews — Oh, I'm sorry, does that offend you? What? What's wrong? I'm not playing nearly as loose with your words or Bork's as you would with S.A.M.'s. So keep dehumanizing the Jews in order to hate S.A.M. Go on. Have your fill. And then get this through your skull: Israel is not Judaism! One would think that obvious, but, then again, one would think hating Jews passé. Life goes on. Well, for the living.
Bells
Staff member
Yes.
It is connected though.
As per the quote in your OP. The fear of losing the dominance of population in a one State of Israel. The fear that the one thing they can look to to represent their beliefs, their sanctuary disappearing and being lost in assimilation and birth rates of non-Jews. Lose the numbers and lose the power.
Irony is the justifications for it in this thread alone.. The excuses for it.
Peace is too expensive
One wonders at the history of this idea when Israel is not involved.
Of course, one might wonder how Israel, or any other related issue, might affect the history of the idea.
In American history, there is an insanely ironic chapter. In Maryland, often referred to as the "Catholic colony", a religious tolerance law eventually led to the persecution of Catholics.
There is a reason to fear numbers.
But we in the United States, over the years, have wrangled with this issue. And what strikes me about the numbers game in Israel is that apparently nobody believes Israeli Jews can assemble a secular constitution that will allow a one-state solution while preventing any religious supremacy within the nation.
As many Americans of my generation might recall, there is actually a transitional period in the evolution of our thought in which the simplistic idea of "majority rules" comes up against the idea of "equal protection of the law". Indeed, this transition can be impaired, so that one never reconciles the idea. Note, for instance, the gay fray. Or the music wars before that. The idea of a gay person having equal rights, or a heavy metal band having free speech, is still, in the twenty-first century, viewed by somewhere between some and many Christians as oppressive. It's easy enough to illustrate with a book protest at a library: That this book is available for public consumption is a violation of my right as a Christian to go into this library and not have to see this book.
Really, that's how the argument goes.
Music. Books. Gay people. And before that, non-Christians. Women. Before that, blacks. Indigenous peoples. All the way back to the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, which guaranteed freedom of religion within the colony ... as long as that religion was Trinitarian Christianity. Jews, naturally, need not apply. Nor Unitarians. Offending the law risked asset seizure and even the death penalty.
It's an interesting discussion, the numbers game. I sometimes charge that the reason people don't trust others is because they would not trust themselves in the same situation. Like Michelle Obama. Some apparently think she's evil, and trying to steal away your pork rinds and deep fried Twinkies. I don't see any evidence of this, but given what happened with Nancy Reagan and the "Just Say No" campaign, I can see why conservatives would distrust a First Lady with a cause.
So people see how badly they've fucked it up before. But it's always the other people they don't trust. The Jewish folks in Israel aren't going to oppose the one-state solution because they think the Jews are going to screw everyone. That's not how it works. Would such a cautious self-regard be wise? Of course. Would it be human? Only in aberration.
The history of the numbers game is demonstrably a mess. But, in the end, I don't see why it's not possible to ... er ... oh.
Right.
Overhead.
Costs.
Obligations.
It's too much effort.
That is, listen to Americans as an example. You'd think, from the way we talk about this place, it would be the libertarian's paradise.
And you'd be mistaken.
The reality is that whether you're measuring with money, or effort, or toleration, or whatever, our idyll is far too expensive. So we'll go with the knock-off version built by cheap, foreign labor.
We have these wonderful American ideals. And we fail miserably, every day, to fulfill them. That doesn't mean we haven't done some wonderful work, but it's the twenty-first century and we're having (and losing, at that) a habeas corpus argument, embroiled in bedroom politics, and showing the fruits of our glorious freedom with bombs and bullets across the globe.
So, yeah. There, I guess, is the big complication with the numbers game.
One would think, given the amount of such rhetoric in the world, that it would be possible to create a secular democracy capable of preserving itself against the tyranny of freedom.
Bells said:
One wonders at the history of this idea when Israel is not involved.
Of course, one might wonder how Israel, or any other related issue, might affect the history of the idea.
In American history, there is an insanely ironic chapter. In Maryland, often referred to as the "Catholic colony", a religious tolerance law eventually led to the persecution of Catholics.
There is a reason to fear numbers.
But we in the United States, over the years, have wrangled with this issue. And what strikes me about the numbers game in Israel is that apparently nobody believes Israeli Jews can assemble a secular constitution that will allow a one-state solution while preventing any religious supremacy within the nation.
As many Americans of my generation might recall, there is actually a transitional period in the evolution of our thought in which the simplistic idea of "majority rules" comes up against the idea of "equal protection of the law". Indeed, this transition can be impaired, so that one never reconciles the idea. Note, for instance, the gay fray. Or the music wars before that. The idea of a gay person having equal rights, or a heavy metal band having free speech, is still, in the twenty-first century, viewed by somewhere between some and many Christians as oppressive. It's easy enough to illustrate with a book protest at a library: That this book is available for public consumption is a violation of my right as a Christian to go into this library and not have to see this book.
Really, that's how the argument goes.
Music. Books. Gay people. And before that, non-Christians. Women. Before that, blacks. Indigenous peoples. All the way back to the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, which guaranteed freedom of religion within the colony ... as long as that religion was Trinitarian Christianity. Jews, naturally, need not apply. Nor Unitarians. Offending the law risked asset seizure and even the death penalty.
It's an interesting discussion, the numbers game. I sometimes charge that the reason people don't trust others is because they would not trust themselves in the same situation. Like Michelle Obama. Some apparently think she's evil, and trying to steal away your pork rinds and deep fried Twinkies. I don't see any evidence of this, but given what happened with Nancy Reagan and the "Just Say No" campaign, I can see why conservatives would distrust a First Lady with a cause.
So people see how badly they've fucked it up before. But it's always the other people they don't trust. The Jewish folks in Israel aren't going to oppose the one-state solution because they think the Jews are going to screw everyone. That's not how it works. Would such a cautious self-regard be wise? Of course. Would it be human? Only in aberration.
The history of the numbers game is demonstrably a mess. But, in the end, I don't see why it's not possible to ... er ... oh.
Right.
Overhead.
Costs.
Obligations.
It's too much effort.
That is, listen to Americans as an example. You'd think, from the way we talk about this place, it would be the libertarian's paradise.
And you'd be mistaken.
The reality is that whether you're measuring with money, or effort, or toleration, or whatever, our idyll is far too expensive. So we'll go with the knock-off version built by cheap, foreign labor.
We have these wonderful American ideals. And we fail miserably, every day, to fulfill them. That doesn't mean we haven't done some wonderful work, but it's the twenty-first century and we're having (and losing, at that) a habeas corpus argument, embroiled in bedroom politics, and showing the fruits of our glorious freedom with bombs and bullets across the globe.
So, yeah. There, I guess, is the big complication with the numbers game.
One would think, given the amount of such rhetoric in the world, that it would be possible to create a secular democracy capable of preserving itself against the tyranny of freedom.
the response is sole on the part in bold
am I really the only person who gets what is seriously wrong with argument predicated on this basis?
I know it seems innocent enough but the arguments based on this are based on the the premise it is ok to deny people rights and other such things simply because other people like them got them. By the very argument bork is making it would be ok to dissolve Vietnam to make a mormon state because their so many other asian states or that it would be ok to stop someone in line voting going so many ( fill in the blank for a group you belong to) already voted so you don't get to.
People you need to realize their is never a justification or an excuse to deny people their legal mandated rights. ( and for you pro-Israel people just don't do what I know you going to do.)
and arguments like these need to stop being used. the are arrogant, elitist, intolerant, prejudiced, stupid, and illogical
I'll run slapdown on the usual suspects later. But zis:
If you don't want to do anything, that's fine, string. But when someone hits the bigot button, I hit the report button. I gave fair warning. It's a serious accusation, and it can get your ass kicked off the forums. Ergo, CYA. Ja?
As for "give friendly": hey, when you start with "usual suspects" and end with pointless accusations of "bigot", don't be surprised when they kick back. Our rules run hot and cold: report, fire back, don't do anything. Shall I flip a coin?
If you don't want to do anything, that's fine, string. But when someone hits the bigot button, I hit the report button. I gave fair warning. It's a serious accusation, and it can get your ass kicked off the forums. Ergo, CYA. Ja?
As for "give friendly": hey, when you start with "usual suspects" and end with pointless accusations of "bigot", don't be surprised when they kick back. Our rules run hot and cold: report, fire back, don't do anything. Shall I flip a coin?