spin

Are "virulently" and "vehemently" interchangeable in the above comment?


spin

DCHindley

The terms are not, as far as I can tell (but Howard will set me straight if I am not correct), interchangeable.

Neturai Karta does not believe that the State of Israel is legitimate, but on religious grounds. The Jewish Homeland will not be set up until the coming of Messiah, and until then, anything else set up as if it was is not sanctioned by God. They virulently (aggressively) attack the notion that it has the right to represent God's people or advertise itself as a Jewish homeland. If the government would turn into one that equally represented all of the residents under its jurisdiction, and stop calling itself "Israel" and claiming biblical precedents to justify its existence, they might be less upset.

Norman Fredrics, who I don't know, is a "Zionist" in the secular sense, and I would guess represents a more secular POV of the state. From his POV, he is certainly justified to be "vehemently" opposed to the idea that the State of "Israel" has a right to exist, and represent the Jewish people collectively, whether observant or not. The original Zionists who pushed, after WW2, to create a state for Jews run by Jews, were not religious fanatics, but secularists with a drive and determination to create a state where the holocaust could never happen to Jews again.

Unfortunately, in achieving this goal that state has fallen into the trap of treating the Muslim palestinian population in ways that are eerily similar to the manner that the Nazi party treated Jews: restrictive laws, confiscation of property, treatment as pests and parasites on society to be pushed into ghettos and denied resources. The holocaust is treated as sacred justification for the creation of a Jewish homeland, and to suggest otherwise is to insult the sacrifice of millions of Jews to Nazi hatred.

To others, though, it is also sacred justification for making sure the same thing does not happen again to other collective groups (in this case the Muslim palestinians). For many years the Nazi party let Jews emigrate to other countries, as long as they left all their property and wealth in Germany, before the extermination of those who remained started. It is a slippery slope that is being tread.

But you don't have to believe me, see their position statement yourself here.

DCH

spin

Thanks DCH, but my comment was aimed at colored "journalism". What's the difference between "freedom fighters" and "insurgents"? What's the difference between "weapons in our arsenals" and "weapons of mass destruction"? If I used "stridently" instead of either adverb I pointed to, the only thing we'd lose is the rhetoric of the speaker, isn't it? Some might consider howardfredrics' disagreement "virulent" and the Neturai Karta's position on Zionism "vehement".


spin

howardfredrics

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the merits of Zionism and the treatment of Palestinians, so as to avoid spiking my BP. But I must correct your inaccurate characterization of my views on the right of Israel to exist. You said "...from his [Howard's] POV, he is certainly justified to be "vehemently" opposed to the idea that the State of "Israel" has a right to exist..."

I am vehemently in favor of Israel's right to exist principally for precisely the reason you outlined in your discussion of secularist Zionist's POV -- i.e. the Holocaust issue. But I go further in so far as Jews have lacked a homeland for centuries, while being subjected to various and sundry purges and repression wherever they did live, so not only the Holocaust, but the Holocaust as the culmination of centuries of abuse.

I also believe that Jews have a historical tie to what is now Israel, and that is why it makes sense that the country was created where it is. Indeed, references to Jerusalem are an integral portion of the Torah, whereas by contrast it is NOT even mentioned in the Koran. That having been said, had I been around at the time and given my secular views, I would have personally accepted as a second choice, a variety of alternative sites for a Jewish homeland, but the reality is that no other site could be even partly agreed at the time.

Lastly, I didn't intend to use "virulently" and "vehemently" interchangeably. I think my usage was a fair characterization of the respective views, and in no way was it intended in any pejorative or favoring sense, though I can see how it might have been taken as biased.

DCHindley

Howard,

You are of course correct. I meant to say that you are "certainly justified to vehemently disagree with their position".

What I said was not meant as a criticism of you, just my usual observation of the relative nature of truth. There are two sides to every coin, but only one of them looks up at any one time.

DCH

judge

Ok.

Isn't that going into the merits of zionism though?

spin

Yes, that was the point. Someone else, using the terms differently, might feel just as justified in saying the same thing.

The word "virulent" is inherently pejorative in common parlance. The relative entry in the New Shorter Oxford English dictionary is "Violently bitter or rancorous; full of acrimony or hostility." And that's just the figurative meaning. More literal meanings involve "containing or yielding toxic or purulent matter" or "Possessing venomous or strongly poisonous qualities; extremely noxious". I don't see how you could not have intended anything but a pejorative sense, while of course feeling justified in doing so.


spin

Toto

Moderator Note: modern politic topics are outside the scope of this forum.

manwithdream

I asked Dr. Cargill on his blog what he thought about Dr. Golb's article about Dr. Schiffman's NYU confidential letter, and Dr. Cargill said "Not much." I expected him to have a long detailed answer, but so far that is all he said on his blog.

http://robertcargill.com/2011/01/01/...ct-jan-1-2011/

Kenneth Greifer

howardfredrics

Apparently, the Raphael Golb trial transcripts are now published online at:
http://raphaelgolbtrialtranscripts.wordpress.com/

Also, there have been unconfirmed reports that Prof. Lawrence Schiffman is leaving his post at NYU to become the Vice-Provost for Undergrad Education at Yeshiva University.
http://twitoaster.com/country-us/jyu...puzzling-news/

Happy reading -- those transcripts are LONG!