"Liberal" American Jew equates civic equality with genocide

[GeoffP]

Some Westerners do have a "KILL THEM ALL" mentality when it comes to targets of their prejudice

?? I presume this is meant as damning of Westerners, but so do lots of people from any number of cultures. Get a grip. And I'd thought the target du jour was American Jewish opinion, rather than Israel. These two are synonymous?

In some quarters, it seems they are.

 

[Bells]

Bells. He just said it was partially about me. Besides which, we have moved on. Let's keep moving on.

Me thinks you do not fully understand....

Bells. When someone calls me a bigot, this is libel. I report it. There's no reason I should have to put up with it. It is not acceptable. At all.

You mean after you took something completely out of context, applied it to yourself, decided to become offended by it and then virtually demanded and pushed for him to call you a bigot?

Do you understand why string told you that you should play nice if you're going to report in his red mod note to you?

Huh. I was wondering who and when this would come out. I honestly figured a mod, and sometime before now, but in point of fact it's still possible that someone's looked me up, dummy IP and all. I wonder where gus wanted to go next with this. Curious, eh?

Is there a reason why we should look you up?

I will admit the thought never crossed my mind.

 

[CptBork]

hmm
i think i am beginning to understand....

WASHINGTON - "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008. (Olmert to Haaretz: Two-state solution, or Israel is done for)​

ahhh.......

No, what I've been saying is that Jews, regardless of their past experiences, are not morally obliged any more than any other peoples to abandon sovereignty and independence, or to relinquish the sovereignty and independence they've enjoyed in Israel for 60+ years. They already have an internationally recognized border (the pre '67 one), and within that border they have an overwhelming majority. I don't think South Africa was ever in the same situation, and they can only be compared insofar as Israel insists on colonizing the West Bank.

i have this strange notion, a gut feeling..... that the noble jewish folks will survive amongst their brothers in the middle east
ja, i am fairly certain of it

And since when are they obliged to trust your gut feelings? The Arab nations have an enormous amount of liberalization and modernization they will need to undergo for several decades at minimum. Even then, if Israel were for some reason to finally accept the immigration of every foreign-born Arab with a Palestinian grandparent, the Arabs would still have to provide similar compensation for the even larger tracts of land they took from the Jews after '48, and in a manner that preserves the self-determination they've since acquired in Israel.

If the Arabs want a one-state solution and want it now, all they have to do is speak Hebrew, learn the basic culture and history of Judaism and abolish all bigotry against non-Muslims, accept existing Israeli property rights, and prove they have the skills and work ethic to contribute to the new state more than they'll take from it in turn-- then I'm sure most Israelis would have little trouble uniting with like-minded souls and enlarging Israel's borders to include all the new citizens who want to join their territories to it. Or do the Arabs not care for equality and quality of life, they just want their turn to play Saladin?

 

[S.A.M.]

Going back to "liberal" American Jews and the Israel Palestine "piece" process alongwith the genocide of civic equality for non-Jews

For three months, White House officials have been debating whether the time has come for Mr. Obama to make a major address on the region’s turmoil, including the upheaval in the Arab world, and whether he should use the occasion to propose a new plan for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

One administration official said that course was backed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the president himself, but opposed by Dennis B. Ross, the president’s senior adviser on the Middle East.

So apparently, if Mister Ross opposes the Presidential plan it will not follow through.

One of the ways by which the "Piece of Palestine" process is being manipulated is by inviting Netanyahu into the fray:

The tussling between the Obama administration and the Israeli government reached a peak last week when Mrs. Clinton, in Washington at a meeting of the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, announced that Mr. Obama would be “speaking in greater detail about America’s policy in the Middle East and North Africa in the coming weeks.”

Her announcement electrified Israeli officials, who quickly got on the phone with American officials and journalists to determine whether Mr. Obama had decided to put an American plan on the table. He had not made such a decision, and White House officials cautioned that the internal debate was still going on.

But two days later, the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, announced his intention to invite Mr. Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress. “America and Israel are the closest of friends and allies, and we look forward to hearing the prime minister’s views on how we can continue working together for peace, freedom and stability,” Mr. Boehner said in a news release.

...Mr. Netanyahu’s address will coincide with the planned meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably the most powerful of the American groups that advocate for Israel.

Brendan Buck, Mr. Boehner’s press secretary, said that staff members had received no pushback from the White House about the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. “Obviously, it’s a troubled time for the region,” he said. “Our members have been very interested in demonstrating that we stand with Israel.”

Last November, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, told Mr. Netanyahu that the new G.O.P. majority in the House would “serve as a check on the administration,” in a statement that was rare for its blunt disagreement on American foreign policy as conveyed to a foreign leader.

So clearly, American policy on Israel is set not by Americans but by Israel.

A little more on Mr Ross from Forward [which is now on my frequent flyer list]

Ross’s involvement in the peace process increased when the administration sought to ease its troubled relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and with the Jewish community. A longtime Middle East hand, Ross, who is widely liked and trusted by Israelis, was sent to assure Jerusalem that the Obama administration was committed to Israel’s security and wellbeing. He also publicly addressed Jewish audiences at several events.

Ross’s history as a veteran peace negotiator under successive presidents from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush gives him a record of experience in the region that few can match. But critics counter that this experience reflects a record of U.S. failure in the region, particularly with regard to the Oslo process that collapsed under his long-term role as its chief negotiator and strategist on the U.S. side.

Nevertheless, Ross’ strong ties to Israel now make him indispensable to the administration. Those ties include his previous role as head of the Jewish People Policy Institute, a Jerusalem-based think tank founded by the Jewish Agency for Israel. His son, Gabe, is also married to an Israeli. These factors, together with Ross’s strong personal sense of Jewish identity, have gained him a reputation of being pro-Israeli.

“In every administration, we tend to look for a bogeyman to blame,” a Palestinian official said, “and now it is Dennis.”

For Israelis, however, Ross’s appearance on the scene was a welcome change because he had long-standing ties with Israeli officials and was widely recognized as having a strong understanding of Israeli politics and society.

“Dennis is the closest thing you’ll find to a melitz yosher, as far as Israel is concerned,” said the Anti-Defamation League’s national director, Abraham Foxman, who used the ancient Hebrew term for “advocate.”

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/134642/#ixzz1KGJVBp2i

Seems to me, if the Palestinians are looking for a fair deal, its not going to be found with the Americans

Back to Jews in the Holey Land

No, what I've been saying is that Jews, regardless of their past experiences, are not morally obliged any more than any other peoples to abandon sovereignty and independence, or to relinquish the sovereignty and independence they've enjoyed in Israel for 60+ years. They already have an internationally recognized border (the pre '67 one), and within that border they have an overwhelming majority. I don't think South Africa was ever in the same situation, and they can only be compared insofar as Israel insists on colonizing the West Bank.

Indeed, racism is as old as the hills, but its price is pretty steep too.

There is a heavy price to pay for denial. This month, figures were published on the opinions of our country's young people; figures that have revolted us. Some 60 percent believe that a strong leader is more important than the rule of law and that a Jewish state is preferable to a democratic state. About half the respondents would like to see Arabs prevented from being elected to the Knesset. They also object to having Arab neighbors and do not believe in coexistence. That's the fruit of the labor of the local version of the madrassa. Should we train up a child in the way he should go, or the way we should go?

So meet our children and pupils; they're getting uglier just as the Education Ministry is investing most of its spiritual and material resources in "strengthening Jewish and Zionist values." The focus is so strong on "Israeli culture and heritage" that education about democracy, civics and coexistence has been dropped from the new work plan that was recently sent to the schools. Only half the Jewish and democratic state has been left, but without both parts the whole cannot exist. If it's not democratic, it will simply not exist.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-does-not-have-a-monopoly-on-suffering-1.357520

But ideology aside, James North asks some valid practical questions:

. . . Do you really think, if a 2-state solution is agreed on, that the Israeli military will do whatever it takes to remove the 500,000 Israeli settlers/colonists from the West Bank to back behind the green line, to the pre-1967 borders of Israel?

Let's not forget: the settler/colonists are people who murdered their own prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and who continue to boast about it. These are people who produced the mass killer, Dr. Baruch Goldstein. These are people who are armed and who do not hesitate use violence.

In other words, would a genuine 2-state solution provoke a civil war? Would the Israeli army split? Would a well-trained and committed section break away? In Algeria in the early 1960s, the far right-wing OAS (Secret Army Organization), composed of French colonists and soldiers, split off, and waged a ferocious terrorist campaign in both Algeria and France itself. Is there any reason to believe the same thing would not happen in Israel?

Would the United Nations, or other foreign military forces, have to be called in? How long would such a civil war last?

And why do those of you who support the 2-state solution think it is self-evidently more practical, less utopian, then the 1-state solution?

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/a-question-for-our-pro-israel-visitors.html

But I'd say everyone is entitled to their own choices but if its a choice between Jews in Israel killing "Ayrabs" and Jews in Israel killing other Jews, then its surprising that so many Israel-firsters opt for door number two.

 

[pjdude1219]

No, what I've been saying is that Jews, regardless of their past experiences, are not morally obliged any more than any other peoples to abandon sovereignty and independence, or to relinquish the sovereignty and independence they've enjoyed in Israel for 60+ years. They already have an internationally recognized border (the pre '67 one), and within that border they have an overwhelming majority. I don't think South Africa was ever in the same situation, and they can only be compared insofar as Israel insists on colonizing the West Bank.



And since when are they obliged to trust your gut feelings? The Arab nations have an enormous amount of liberalization and modernization they will need to undergo for several decades at minimum. Even then, if Israel were for some reason to finally accept the immigration of every foreign-born Arab with a Palestinian grandparent, the Arabs would still have to provide similar compensation for the even larger tracts of land they took from the Jews after '48, and in a manner that preserves the self-determination they've since acquired in Israel.

If the Arabs want a one-state solution and want it now, all they have to do is speak Hebrew, learn the basic culture and history of Judaism and abolish all bigotry against non-Muslims, accept existing Israeli property rights, and prove they have the skills and work ethic to contribute to the new state more than they'll take from it in turn-- then I'm sure most Israelis would have little trouble uniting with like-minded souls and enlarging Israel's borders to include all the new citizens who want to join their territories to it. Or do the Arabs not care for equality and quality of life, they just want their turn to play Saladin?

you hilarious. you say the palestinians don't want equality when you demand they give up their rights to their proptery so the thieves living in their homes won't be burdened. this the same old arrogance of imperialism and erupean sense of supierority.


the simple fact is your nothing more than a hypocrite demanding the palestinians do the very things you and yours were to fucking selfish to do. you can make the claim but you deserve to ridiculed for it.


jews didn't aquire self determination in Israel. they merely made sure the palestinians didn't get to have theirs. religions don't get self determinatriuon. hell ethnicities don't even get it unless like the palestinians they get conquered by warmongers and denied it.

 

[GeoffP]

Me thinks you do not fully understand....

Yes, I know you think that. You're going to focus on this to the ignorance of everything else, aren't you? I'll Fisk you, but only because it's so easy.

You mean after you took something completely out of context, applied it to yourself

Whereas Tiassa has already admitted that it included me.

, decided to become offended by it

And who could possibly be offended by being called one of the "usual suspects"? Oh, wait: unless he meant that I was suspected of being brilliant and in good taste. In which case: guilty as charged, Bells. You two are just too nice. Awww, g'wan.

and then virtually demanded and pushed for him to call you a bigot?

We're going to stop your train right there, though, because this one is juicy. Exactly how did I demand and push for him to call me a bigot? By...writing in? What was it that I wrote that virtually demanded it? I'd like an answer on this one, pleaase, and thanks.

Do you understand why string told you that you should play nice if you're going to report in his red mod note to you?

I understand what string thought he was seeing, but he hadn't really examined the thread in much depth. As I said to him: if you try to dismiss me along with some "usual suspects" - and we haven't even delved into what Tiassa feels the characteristics of such suspects are, although I naturally suspect he means they have inordinate political wisdom - then you may indeed well find yourself in a spandex stretchie battling a Queen Anne upright with a warm nut brown finish.

Aaand in this corner....​

That kind of metaphorical straw man strikes me as a lot less cruel than a vicious lie about my character. Maybe you feel otherwise, but, well: you know.

Is there a reason why we should look you up?

I will admit the thought never crossed my mind.

There's no particular reason why. I do place a certain value on my privacy, as you do, of course.

In our discussions of Israel, and Israeli right-winger politicians as examples of pervading liberal Jewish political opinion I thought I'd repost an idea some of the posters here hadn't visited in some time - the OP - in their rush to equate liberal American Jewish opinion with Israeli opinion, because of...some...association the two must share. What is that association, I wonder? What are we meant to conclude from it? If there is such an association, what advantage would be gained or what concept advanced by the impression of such a collusion?

It's a mystery, no?

Do American Jews now consider it illiberal to receive the same civil rights as non-Jews?

Would they feel better if they were isolated in separate and exclusive communication management units?

 

[S.A.M.]

What is that association, I wonder?

I believe the term "illiberal freaks" covers it quite nicely.

 

[GeoffP]

Und so who are these "illiberal freaks"?

Sorry: And so who are these "illiberal freaks"? Is it a generalized political condition? Or are you attributing it at some elevated proportion to a particular group?

 

[S.A.M.]

I believe it is a condition where so-called liberals are seen to be allegedly supportive of fanatical illiberal philosophies. A sort of Jor-El for Jesus group member

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, but I think you had some kind of message about where I might find such so-called liberals. From the trend of the thread, it sounded as though you'd made a conclusion about their ethnicity, or something.

 

[Bells]

Yes, I know you think that. You're going to focus on this to the ignorance of everything else, aren't you? I'll Fisk you, but only because it's so easy.

You are a strange little man.

Whereas Tiassa has already admitted that it included me.

Go back, and read what he said again.

Try for me cherie.

And who could possibly be offended by being called one of the "usual suspects"? Oh, wait: unless he meant that I was suspected of being brilliant and in good taste. In which case: guilty as charged, Bells. You two are just too nice. Awww, g'wan.

Again, go back and read the whole post.. not selectively pick words and apply it to yourself as your deluded mind thinks it should apply.

We're going to stop your train right there, though, because this one is juicy. Exactly how did I demand and push for him to call me a bigot? By...writing in? What was it that I wrote that virtually demanded it? I'd like an answer on this one, pleaase, and thanks.

By inserting yourself into something that actually did not concern you (again) and demanding to be offended.

I understand what string thought he was seeing, but he hadn't really examined the thread in much depth

Of course.

String, like the rest of us, read it as words and did not delve into what you were seeing...

How silly of him.

We should pay particular note that you selectively pull out a few words and apply it to yourself and feel you need to be offended by it.

As I said to him: if you try to dismiss me along with some "usual suspects" - and we haven't even delved into what Tiassa feels the characteristics of such suspects are, although I naturally suspect he means they have inordinate political wisdom - then you may indeed well find yourself in a spandex stretchie battling a Queen Anne upright with a warm nut brown finish.

Ermm okay..

You see, I would respond, but I feel you have lost the plot and anything said to you could be construed by you as being an insult.

Personally speaking, I have been witnessing a decline in you Geoff.. One which, if I am to speak frankly, concerns me. Because before me you have gone from a funny and intelligent and witty poster with an interesting insight, even though we did not always agree, to a whining and paranoid (as well as delusional) poster who sees personal attacks in anything and everything. When things are not about you, you twist and turn things to make it about yourself so you can be the victim. A prime example has been in this thread.

There's no particular reason why. I do place a certain value on my privacy, as you do, of course.

Okay..

:shrug:

In our discussions of Israel, and Israeli right-winger politicians as examples of pervading liberal Jewish political opinion I thought I'd repost an idea some of the posters here hadn't visited in some time - the OP - in their rush to equate liberal American Jewish opinion with Israeli opinion, because of...some...association the two must share. What is that association, I wonder? What are we meant to conclude from it? If there is such an association, what advantage would be gained or what concept advanced by the impression of such a collusion?

It's a mystery, no?

I wonder Geoff, how you would react if faced with a true and pure anti-semite (of the white supremaist type)?

We have one posting on this forum and I find it interesting, in your zeal to defend and accuse people of anti-semitism, you have failed to even say boo about him and what he has been saying.

I think you focus too much on your perception of anti-semitism while you have ignored one posting right under your actual nose..

Maybe you should put your rabid and non-delusional self (if he still exists) to better use instead of reading selective words because you wanted to pick a fight because you were offended that you were not the centre of attention.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, but I think you had some kind of message about where I might find such so-called liberals. From the trend of the thread, it sounded as though you'd made a conclusion about their ethnicity, or something.

I believe that is called "projection", perhaps you are thinking of the Saudi connections of Rauf. I'm concerned with the political consistencies of Americans who enjoy secular society while openly promoting racist ideologies.

 

[GeoffP]

Again, go back and read the whole post.. not selectively pick words and apply it to yourself as your deluded mind thinks it should apply.

Dear me. I shall not be offended at the word "deluded", because - no idea. Some reason I hope to see invented later.

By inserting yourself into something that actually did not concern you (again) and demanding to be offended.

Fail. Try again. How did I ask to be insulted?

Personally speaking, I have been witnessing a decline in you Geoff.. One which, if I am to speak frankly, concerns me. Because before me you have gone from a funny and intelligent and witty poster with an interesting insight, even though we did not always agree, to a whining and paranoid (as well as delusional) poster who sees personal attacks in anything and everything.

This is interesting, because it brings up an actual issue.

Some of the mods on the forums have, in within the last year or so, been experiencing something of a change in posting habit; or possibly it's simply that it's more noticeable to me, since I seem to be bearing much of it. In short, when their swan-like descent into a thread in which they had not previously been involved (since I'm meant to understand by some of them that one ought not to interject oneself into an argument one was not meant to interject oneself into) is not met with uniform appreciation, something of a hissy fit ensues. Very often - about 80% of the time, I would guess - these mods respond with inappropriate and uncalled for comments about the intelligence of the posters, or of their honesty; the "wife-beater's choice" is invariably proposed or alluded to. Or, alternatively, they step into reinforce a particular poster given to throwing supremacist bombs and then running for cover under daddy's wing; the opposition, whoever they may be, are summarized as the "usual suspects" and consigned en masse to some reactive block of nasty. Sometimes there is no objection. Sometimes there is. If a poster in this opposition dares to counter this farcical grouping, he or she is more individually and viciously demonized in an attempt - supported in this thread, for instance, with the admonition to butt out - to drive them out of the discussion.

Now, I appreciate that some of the moderators have their own illogical and often hypersensitive biases; in fact, I've been on the receiving end of some very biased 'moderation' (pun intended) by at leas one of them. People are people. It's possibly unavoidable. But what is avoidable is dragging this bias into nearly every discussion, instead of discussing the issues; there's worse, obviously - blithe dismissal, ignorance, drawing on farcical interpretations of past debates, long since concluded, and the like - but it's the prevalent atmosphere among some of the moderators. There are reasons why these biases might creep in: perhaps some of these moderators are undergoing personal problems or what have you. The problem is that even in such an extremity, it's not the fault of the poster. Do you see what I mean? Why exactly is someone writing in being used as a punching bag for transient - or in some cases, probably permanent - insecurities? There's no end to the caterwauling from some of these mods: they don't like being made to look stupid, or being insulted - quite accurately, usually, IMHO - in return, or they don't like disagreement, or they don't like the discussion, and so on, and so on. The sad thing is that they do show a glimmer of intelligence. Some of them are even handy with Google. But it doesn't excuse the malicious way in which they carry on. It has to be asked: are you representing the forums in the way it should be represented? Because that's the job you're here for; that and impartial arbitration. If a moderator is going to behave like a bomb-thrower, then there's no real purpose in them being a mod. Just look at the membership list: old members are disappearing faster than an Arizona frost. New ones show, sure: but the familiar faces are disappearing, because they know the score. When a mod drops a bomb from on high, the resulting intellectual shrapnel scatters into the laity on all sides: hey, they realize, I think that too, or at least I'm receptive to the idea being labeled here. And they slowly wink out, not to return.

Anyway, long story short: Bells, read this carefully, because I'm trying to help you here. You cannot engage in personal vitriol without the offended responding in some way. Either they will post less in the effort to avoid confrontation, or they will lash back in return, as I do. It is simply not credible to keep on the personal attacks as some moderators do and then to complain when the subject retaliates in some way, instead of taking a botched dissection from Dr. Empty-Head as the price of doing business. Ask around: I'd be very interested to see how the posters think they're being handled by the moderators, and who they expect to give them a fair shake and who they expect only the worst from. Confidence is low. Any ideas why?

I wonder Geoff, how you would react if faced with a true and pure anti-semite (of the white supremaist type)?

Probably hit them, which I've actually done. It's spelled supremacist, BTW. Also, Semite is meant to be capitalized, or so I'm given to understand. That anti-Semitism charge does seem to be bothering you, since we'd actually left it back a couple of pages ago. Is there something you wanted to get off your chest?

We have one posting on this forum

??? Sorry, who is this again?

 

[GeoffP]

I believe that is called "projection", perhaps you are thinking of the Saudi connections of Rauf.

:facepalm:

I would ask how Rauf enters into this discussion (actually, he's out; have you seen the new guy? The project appears to have tanked anyway, which is possibly a shame in its way) but, if truth must be told, I do not want to know.

Oh, fine: how, exactly? Now I'm all curious.

I'm concerned with the political consistencies of Americans who enjoy secular society while openly promoting racist ideologies.

:bugeye:

Alll...rightie. So...why are you searching for Israeli support of this perspective on one-state? And why racist? I thought we'd agreed a while back that the genetic relationships of the ME weren't very cut-and-dry. I think 'supremacist' might be the word you're thinking of.

We can get into this new issue if you like, however.

 

[Bells]

Fail. Try again. How did I ask to be insulted?

You invented inserted yourself into a discussion and applied it to yourself and became offended. Then you became offended when you were told it was not about you and asked what you were on about and off you went.. You demanded and you pushed.

Some of the mods on the forums have, in within the last year or so, been experiencing something of a change in posting habit; or possibly it's simply that it's more noticeable to me, since I seem to be bearing much of it. In short, when their swan-like descent into a thread in which they had not previously been involved (since I'm meant to understand by some of them that one ought not to interject oneself into an argument one was not meant to interject oneself into) is not met with uniform appreciation, something of a hissy fit ensues. Very often - about 80% of the time, I would guess - these mods respond with inappropriate and uncalled for comments about the intelligence of the posters, or of their honesty; the "wife-beater's choice" is invariably proposed or alluded to. Or, alternatively, they step into reinforce a particular poster given to throwing supremacist bombs and then running for cover under daddy's wing; the opposition, whoever they may be, are summarized as the "usual suspects" and consigned en masse to some reactive block of nasty. Sometimes there is no objection. Sometimes there is. If a poster in this opposition dares to counter this farcical grouping, he or she is more individually and viciously demonized in an attempt - supported in this thread, for instance, with the admonition to butt out - to drive them out of the discussion.

Now, I appreciate that some of the moderators have their own illogical and often hypersensitive biases; in fact, I've been on the receiving end of some very biased 'moderation' (pun intended) by at leas one of them. People are people. It's possibly unavoidable. But what is avoidable is dragging this bias into nearly every discussion, instead of discussing the issues; there's worse, obviously - blithe dismissal, ignorance, drawing on farcical interpretations of past debates, long since concluded, and the like - but it's the prevalent atmosphere among some of the moderators. There are reasons why these biases might creep in: perhaps some of these moderators are undergoing personal problems or what have you. The problem is that even in such an extremity, it's not the fault of the poster. Do you see what I mean? Why exactly is someone writing in being used as a punching bag for transient - or in some cases, probably permanent - insecurities? There's no end to the caterwauling from some of these mods: they don't like being made to look stupid, or being insulted - quite accurately, usually, IMHO - in return, or they don't like disagreement, or they don't like the discussion, and so on, and so on. The sad thing is that they do show a glimmer of intelligence. Some of them are even handy with Google. But it doesn't excuse the malicious way in which they carry on. It has to be asked: are you representing the forums in the way it should be represented? Because that's the job you're here for; that and impartial arbitration. If a moderator is going to behave like a bomb-thrower, then there's no real purpose in them being a mod. Just look at the membership list: old members are disappearing faster than an Arizona frost. New ones show, sure: but the familiar faces are disappearing, because they know the score. When a mod drops a bomb from on high, the resulting intellectual shrapnel scatters into the laity on all sides: hey, they realize, I think that too, or at least I'm receptive to the idea being labeled here. And they slowly wink out, not to return.

One day, you will be able to come up with an argument that does not parry that of your opposition..

In this instance, the moderator did not behave like a bomb thrower. The moderator was discussing the issue as per this thread's topic when you inserted yourself into the conversation and demanded that they were talking about you and then goaded and pushed until you got the response you wanted and you hit 'report'.

People thought I was joking when I did this post, they thought you and I were in on the joke. But the sad thing is that there was no joke.

The world does not revolve around you, nor around what you personally believe.

This thread is not discussing something new. Quite the contrary. But instead of discussing the thread's topic, which is quite interesting in and of itself, you turned around and attacked, because of your own delusions and paranoia about anti-semitism.

Anyway, long story short: Bells, read this carefully, because I'm trying to help you here. You cannot engage in personal vitriol without the offended responding in some way. Either they will post less in the effort to avoid confrontation, or they will lash back in return, as I do. It is simply not credible to keep on the personal attacks as some moderators do and then to complain when the subject retaliates in some way, instead of taking a botched dissection from Dr. Empty-Head as the price of doing business. Ask around: I'd be very interested to see how the posters think they're being handled by the moderators, and who they expect to give them a fair shake and who they expect only the worst from. Confidence is low. Any ideas why?

Geoff, Tiassa did not engage in any vitriol against you until you demanded he did so. He was discussing this thread with someone else when you demanded it be made about you. When he complied after several posts, many of which looked to be amused and stunned disbelief at your stupidity, you then whined and cried unfair.

You lobbed the first stone and then demanded he play along.

Probably hit them, which I've actually done. It's spelled supremacist, BTW. Also, Semite is meant to be capitalized, or so I'm given to understand. That anti-Semitism charge does seem to be bothering you, since we'd actually left it back a couple of pages ago. Is there something you wanted to get off your chest?

There you go again. Laying blame about something because that is how your mind views it. Tell me, do you think I am anti-semitic? Is it because I criticise Israel? Can you differentiate between the country and the religion? Can you recognise that when one criticises Israel's policies, for example, then one is not abusing or insulting a religious belief or its followers? Can you recognise that the two are not one and the same?

You see, you would not recognise actual anti-semitism if it bit you on your hairy arse.

And as I already explained to you, my spelling is bad at the moment.. drugs are bad mmkay? Difficult to remain focused.

??? Sorry, who is this again?

Start reading some threads in here that are not started by Sam.

You know.. broaden your horizons a bit..

 

[Gustav]

I'd be very interested to see how the posters think they're being handled by the moderators, and who they expect to give them a fair shake and who they expect only the worst from. Confidence is low. Any ideas why?

geoff
if you know how to construct a poll, start a thread asking members to rate the mods

i think it happened once before

 

[charles brough]

Can't wrap my head around this:


http://forward.com/articles/137016/#ixzz1JWJhDkQx

Do American Jews now consider it illiberal to receive the same civil rights as non-Jews?

Would they feel better if they were isolated in separate and exclusive communication management units?

I think what makes it difficult to deal with this subject is that everyone is confused by Judaic doctrine into thinking that anyone born of parents who believe in Judaism are "Jews." Actually, if the individual does not
believe in it, he is not a "Jew" because religions are not defined on a race but an ideological basis. Judaic racial doctrine is false, at least on that issue. Just because the system is racist that way is no excuse for the rest of us to believe they are a race and be racist in that way also.

brough
civilization-overview.com

 

[Giambattista]

geoff
if you know how to construct a poll, start a thread asking members to rate the mods

i think it happened once before

I want to see that. What would be the reaction from the mods?

Sounds like something that would piss somebody off.

 

[spidergoat]

I think what makes it difficult to deal with this subject is that everyone is confused by Judaic doctrine into thinking that anyone born of parents who believe in Judaism are "Jews." Actually, if the individual does not
believe in it, he is not a "Jew" because religions are not defined on a race but an ideological basis. Judaic racial doctrine is false, at least on that issue. Just because the system is racist that way is no excuse for the rest of us to believe they are a race and be racist in that way also.

brough
civilization-overview.com

It's not racial or racist, it's cultural. Jewishness is both a religion and a culture.

 

[S.A.M.]

:facepalm:

I would ask how Rauf enters into this discussion (actually, he's out; have you seen the new guy? The project appears to have tanked anyway, which is possibly a shame in its way) but, if truth must be told, I do not want to know.

Oh, fine: how, exactly? Now I'm all curious.

Like I said, its called "projection". If you re-read the OP in the English language [rather than in ESL], you will become acquainted with the fact that the OP is about politics

Do American Jews now consider it illiberal to receive the same civil rights as non-Jews?

Would they feel better if they were isolated in separate and exclusive communication management units?

If you actually go on to read the thread, you will meet this post:

People seem to be on the wrong track here. The issue is not Israel or what Israelis think or do - the issue is "liberal" American Jews who equate civic equality for minorities with genocide.

Whats wrong with that picture? Its like "liberal" American black joins the KKK? Huh?

See?

Further on Tiassa will expand on the proposition:

Well, I think part of what you're seeing is an expected result, and that's not a negative thing. The basic paradox you're describing is pretty blatant, so people are grabbing onto things that aren't quite so obviously resolved: Yes, there is something counterintuitive about civic equality equating to genocide.

But here's the thing: Especially for a Jew.

Yes, the cutural allusion is clear, but it is also counterintuitive. That is, we cannot limit an American Jewish identity politic strictly to its Judaism. It is also American, and thus entitled to be as apparently counterintuitive, openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American, or otherwise bogglingly self-contradictory as any other identity politic.

It's not fair to the black guy to expect him to view the police department with an automatically cynical eye. It is not fair to the woman to oblige her to feminism. And it is not fair to the Jew to expect the Holocaust to have any logical place in the identity politic. We cannot bind all Jews to Hitler for all time.

We cannot insist that any given Jew always share the picture frame with Hitler and Sharon.

American Jews are American, and one of the great quirks of American culture is that people often come to demand of our American system exactly what they're entitled to, even though they don't actually believe people should have all those rights to begin with. An American is predisposed toward spending what is theirs while saying they shouldn't have it in the first place.

Look at the title of this thread. One can argue the same point on any given day without the words "liberal" or "Jew" in the sentence.

So, first: Yes, people see exactly the problem you're pointing to.

And then: But the phenomenon exists in the American culture regardless of political, cultural, or ethnic identity factors.

That's where you're running into that crippling dissonance. You're not actually supposed to wrap your head around it. The question—



—can be written without mentioning Jews. Or blacks, or indigenous tribal descendants.

Or anyone, really, more specifically than Americans. And if we pause to consider the number of people from nations abroad who would disagree with American decadence but also, should circumstance ever find them in such a situation, invoke every last right they could find in the American judicial system civil or criminal, we don't even need to make it about Americans.

Is there not something paradoxical about anyone, anywhere, who might ever have said jack squat about justice ... &c.?

Now, let's just add a bit of sweetener: It's you. Do you really think, in any weather, given so obvious a thread focus and that craven need to find some reason to disagree wtih you ... okay, that's not entirely fair. It only counts for the usual suspects.

But, yes, people are eggshelling it for, well, varius reasons. But it starts with the facts of how obvious is the problem you're referring to, and, well, the fact that it's you, and thus the one thing some folks won't do is simply shrug and move on.

And I will agree with his proposition:

Good points Tiassa, yes, I see the distinctions you make.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, - not inclusive of blacks, women and Afghan/Iraq "insurgents"

The freedom of expression vs the support for dictators

Free elections = terrorism

Good points all.

But here's the thing: Especially for a Jew.

Yeah which is what I was trying to point out. The notion that civic equality equals genocide. Been there, done that and forgot what it means.

Of course some clueless individuals will assert that the issue is not American politics :

Whoa whoa: you're seriously portraying this as a branch of Americanized thought? Do you really think it's time to slap on the stretchy tights for another blind-man's grapple with the coat rack?

But thats because they are not reading very well.

:bugeye:

Alll...rightie. So...why are you searching for Israeli support of this perspective on one-state? And why racist? I thought we'd agreed a while back that the genetic relationships of the ME weren't very cut-and-dry. I think 'supremacist' might be the word you're thinking of.

We can get into this new issue if you like, however.

I can only ask: What the Hell are you blathering on about?



--------------------------

I think what makes it difficult to deal with this subject is that everyone is confused by Judaic doctrine into thinking that anyone born of parents who believe in Judaism are "Jews." Actually, if the individual does not
believe in it, he is not a "Jew" because religions are not defined on a race but an ideological basis. Judaic racial doctrine is false, at least on that issue. Just because the system is racist that way is no excuse for the rest of us to believe they are a race and be racist in that way also.

brough
civilization-overview.com

It depends on your view of religion. Before Christianity, religions were determined by birth- the only difference being that in Judaism, like in the Nairs of Kerala, it was by matrilineal descent. Of course, it is strange that although Judaism follows matrilineal descent in practice, in their scriptures, they follow patrilineal descent - but the issue here is not Judaism, the issue here is apparently liberal politicians preferring to support illiberal policies when applied to some other state - as Tiassa points out Israel is not the only example, it is apparently a de facto American position [and not only American] to claim one political bent while endorsing another. i.e. if they were American Christians they would likely oppose non-Christian minorities being given equal civic rights in Christian majority states and if they were American Muslims, they would likely endorse the lack of civic rights for non-Muslim minorities in Muslim majority states - and still call themselves liberals.