Dr Rick

No need; just look at what these fine intellectuals did for "my [] 'blacks/gays' and so on in here":

From http://www.stormfront.org/forum/arch...x.php/t-22291:

Ya' know what? I'll wager Urbano, renegade, and aryanknight aren't even Jewish... :Cheeky:

Epinoia

White Nationalists sites exist. So? This thread isn't about that. If there's some hidden message within these random Stormfront posts, the Bible Code isn't cracking it. As it is, those posts from Stormfront or Stormfront itself has as much to do with the price of rice in Mongolia as with this thread. So back on topic:

Bigots certainly do exist in every race, INCLUDING JEWS.

A good deal of what's oft-identified as high-drama "anti-Semitism" today is just plain ol' people giving off what they've gotten and vice versa. Happens to everybody. The more Jews who face up to that, admit it and work on it just as other grownups have, the more they may find the level of animosity decreases on both the collective and individual level. It's worked for others. It could be worth a try.

seebs

The existence of white nationalists is very relevant to a discussion of how people interact with Jews, simply because white nationalists have a habit of trying to exterminate Jews... And this tends to be the source of a lot of concerns about appropriate discourse.

In short, we can insult Jews freely once we've dealt with the nutjobs who want to exterminate them, but in the mean time, insults directed at Jews can be reasonably seen as enabling evil behavior of a kind we know to be a real risk.

Dr Rick

So if there's a valid point to rationalizing some forms of racism but not others, you haven't made it.

If there's a valid point in blaming some races for racism but not others, you haven't made it, either.

Epinoia

Stormfront posters have issues with Jews, Asians, blacks, Hispanics. Thank you for enlightening us to that fact. May I ask why you insist on bringing it up? Is it that everyone who has issues with racial minorities or Jews is somehow a Stormfronter? That subjecting Jews to the same standards as everybody else somehow benefits Stormfront? That believing anything lots of Stormfronters believe makes a person just like them? What is it with insisting on bringing up Stormfront in a thread that's not about Stormfront, especially when there's another thread over there in PD that is? What?

This apparent eagerness to equate such people with Stormfront is almost breathtaking. According to this line of thought--similar to that which has indeed been spewn by Jews and/or Israel-firsters all over the mainstream media and public discourse over the past year--people who
1) dislike the Iraq war;
2) loathe neocons;
3) want less U.S. aid to Israel;
4) speak out against intolerance foisted not just by Asians, Hispanics, blacks, Christians, Muslims but-also JEWS TOO are equal to
5) Stormfront White Nationalists, because the majority of them do it too!

This pseudo-reasoning has all the merit of a racial slur and is taken as one. Beyond scurrilous logiclessness, the assertion also lacks proof. Even if J/J/I is explicitly added as a factor, the assertion is STILL just as much B.S. Proving that any combo of 1, 2, 3 and 4 (the role of J/J/I nonwithstanding) equals 5 would require showing that the huge pluralities of Americans and Europeans are A) overwhelmingly in favor of making America and Europe all-white non-Jewish nations; B) against intermarriage between non-Jewish whites and anyone else, including Jews; C) themselves white and non-Jewish.

You can't. You laughably and so totally can't prove even one of the above, not collectively and not individually.

Intimidatory, intolerant insinuations are like racial slurs. They sure isn't likely to result in more truth or tolerance. To the extent the former is employed by bastions of either value makes it even more value-destroying. So why do it? As I'm sure you are aware, such a tactic inflames, detracts and gets threads closed far more often than they contribute to any robust discussion. They aren't the point, which is to wit: Is anti-Semitism is ever, ever, even partially the fault of what J/J/I actually do?

Dr Rick

On the other hand, insinuating that Jews are somehow inherently more evil, conniving, and/or conspiratorial than other races is a racial slur.

Attacking the Jewish race by citing examples of Jewish organizations and individuals makes about as much sense as attacking the White race because of the Republican Party, the Catholic Church, and George Bush.


No more so than the attack on the World Trade Center was "partially the fault" of "what Whites as a group actually do."

J-D

Epinoia, I need to make some general remarks in this post to provide context for another post with responses to the specific points you raise. (I think it'll be too long if I put it all in one post.)

The Jews form an ethnic group. They are not a race. Like other ethnic groups, they are sometimes referred to as a race. Sometimes such a reference is a figure of speech (specifically, a metonymy or synecdoche) and is not meant to be taken literally. Sometimes it is meant to be taken literally, in which case it is an error.

As with some other ethnic groups, there is a religion associated with the Jewish ethnic group (namely, Judaism). However, not all members of the ethnic group are adherents of that religion. Sometimes the description 'Jewish' refers to ethnicity and sometimes it refers to religion.

Referring to a group of people as a 'race' does not necessarily constitute racism, whether it is true or not. The words 'racism' and 'racist' apply to hostility towards, discrimination against, or persecution of people because of their actual or imputed racial identity or characteristics. It is thus perfectly possible for their to be anti-Jewish racism, even though the Jews are not a race.

The term 'anti-Semitism' was deliberately and specifically coined to apply to a particular phenomenon. In medieval Europe (and also, incidentally, in the medieval Middle East), when hostility towards, discrimination against, and persecution of Jews as a group occurred they were generally based (in theory and, to a considerable extent, in practice) on religious grounds. They did not affect (in theory and, to a considerable extent, in practice) Jews who converted to Christianity (or, in the Middle East, to Islam). In modern times, there appeared hostility towards, discrimination against, and persecution of Jews as a group which was based on their imputed racial identity and characteristics, and which was therefore unaffected (in theory and, to a considerable extent, in practice) by religious considerations. The term 'anti-Semitism' was coined specifically for this phenomenon. Some people find the term, or its use, confusing, but this does not change the fact that the phenomenon exists.

The term 'Zionism' was coined for the ideology, movement, and organisation aimed at establishing a national home in their own country for the Jewish people (that is, ethnic group), in the same way that other nations/peoples (ethnic groups) have their own national homes in their own countries. In itself it makes no racial or religious assumptions, although specific individuals, groups, or organisations within the Zionist movement do so.

J-D

Epinoia, I'm responding here to some specific points you've raised, in the context of the general remarks I put in another post.

You referred to the UN General Assembly resolution (later rescinded) saying that Zionism is racism. I am grateful to you for trying to clarify for me what you meant about this, but I am still not sure that I have understood you correctly. As I now understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), what you are saying is:

1. The resolution was based on the allegation that Zionism says the Jews are a race, which is a racist thing to say.
2. People objected to the resolution, saying that it was false because the Jews are not a race, they are a religion.
3. However, on some other occasion (and I still don't know which occasion you're referring to here), objections were raised to the display of Jewish symbols in a context where the display of religious symbols was deemed inappropriate.
4. The use of Jewish symbols on this unspecified occasion was defended on the grounds that the Jews are not a religion, but a race (or an ethnic group?).
5. 2&4 make a contradiction, and show people trying to have it both ways.

If that's what you're saying, my response is as follows:

Point 1 is an error. Zionism does not say that the Jews are a race, even if it did that is not a racist thing to say, and this argument was not a basis for the resolution.
It follows that Point 2 is also an error. The people who objected to the resolution did so on the grounds that it was a baseless slur. It makes no difference to this whether the Jews are a race or a religion.
Quite apart from this, the first part of Point 5 is true as a theoretical point, but the second part is not. Some people do say that the Jews are a religion and not a race, while other people do say that the Jews are a race and not a religion. These two positions cannot both be right (as a matter of fact I say they are both wrong), but it only shows people having it both ways if it's the same people saying both things. Which you have not shown.

You may or may not have a case when you suggest that more attention should be paid to the Nazi extermination campaigns as an aggregate phenomenon and less attention to separate groups of victims. This doesn't change the way that people, in fact, use words. I repeat that in my experience, people normally use the term 'the Holocaust' to refer specifically to the extermination of the Jews. Whether or not there should be such a specific word, there is such a specific word. But more importantly, you undermine your own case when you suggest that resources spent on commemoration should be divided up between different groups in proportion to their numbers of victims. How is this different from the sort of 'balkanisation' you say you don't want? In any case, this sort of system of allocation is impossible. Suppose we could agree figures, and said that x per cent of the victims were Jews, y per cent Roma (Gypsies), z per cent homosexuals, and so on, and then attempted to divide the commemorations in proportion. First problem: what about people who fell into more than one category, Jews who were homosexual, Roma with disabilities, or what-have-you? How do we count them and how do we commemorate them? Second problem: what about the people the Nazis called Mischlinge, that is, people of partly Jewish ancestry? Do we count them as a separate group, or what? And what about Jewish converts to Christianity? Do we count them separately? And that's just the start of the problems. Do we subdivide? Do we say, there were X number of Dutch Jewish victims, and Y number of Greek Jewish victims, and allocate in proportion? In that case, where do we stop? Do we go right down to the individual level, and allocate exactly one eleven-millionth (if that's the right figure) of the commemoration to Anne Frank and exactly another one eleven-millionth to Moshe Flinker? Do we count up and say that the number of people killed at Auschwitz was N times the number of people killed at Belzec, so Auschwitz should have N times as much commemoration as Belzec? And if we're basing everything on the numbers of people killed, does that mean we say nothing about the people who were in the camps or the ghettos but survived? Can we say nothing about the camp revolts and the ghetto fighters, except for the people who were killed? Can we say nothing about how most of the Danish Jews were saved? Can we say nothing about the 'Righteous Gentiles' who saved the lives of Jews? And why are we only looking at the Nazi exterminations? Why aren't we commemorating, in proportion to the number of people killed, other exterminations, like the Armenian massacres of 1915?

My opinion is that there are many different experiences, which should all (as far as practicable) be commemorated; but setting up any system of proportionate allocation implies commemorating one aspect more at the expense of commemorating another less, which I think is wrong. If there are particular aspects which you think need more attention paid to them, it's another matter. In fact, I'll mention one. I think that in Europe right now it is more pressing to commemorate the Nazi campaign against the Roma than it is to commemorate the Nazi campaign against the Jews, because right now in Europe the Roma are in more danger from discrimination and persecution than the Jews. But I don't think that means that the Roma should be commemorated at the expense of the Jews. I don't think people should be encouraged to see it as a competition, which I think your suggestion of proportionate commemoration tends towards.

In your first post on this thread, you said: 'To use ADL's terms, "they may evidence a deeper bias toward Israel and Jews." Try keeping your job with THAT pinned on ya.'. I understood this as meaning that people who acquired a reputation for that particular form of bias would find it difficult to find or hold a job, in general. The examples you are now mentioning seem more like saying that people who are associated with particular opinions may find it difficult to obtain or retain specific jobs. That makes sense to me, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Are you suggesting that somebody's opinions or associations should never disqualify them from any job? How would you argue that?

On your response to my explanation about the site FAQ, 'Are you saying that your answer to me is that more ppl with Xtian expertise have submitted articles so far but they hope others do too?', yes, you're basically right, that's most of what I was saying (which was just a summary of what the FAQ says).

If you are now saying that you do have fears about being persecuted for what you're saying, and that you can't discuss the basis for your fears because even that might get you into trouble, fair enough: but I hope you can see why you can't expect other people to accept that as evidence that the persecution you're talking about really exists. From my point of view, it's possible that it's not safe for you to give the evidence, but it's also possible that there just isn't any. I'm not pressing you to say any more on this point, just making my position clear.

Not all questions about aspects of the Holocaust are equivalent to Holocaust denial. Whether a particular question bears any relationship to Holocaust denial depends on what the question is. Until you mention what the particular 'alternative views' you are referring to are, they're impossible to assess.

There are many powerful political lobbies in the USA. One of them is the lobby that advocates US support for Israel. It's quite a strong one, but I doubt it's the strongest. If a US Presidential candidate advocated reduction in US support for Israel, this lobby would oppose that candidate, and given its strength that would probably be a serious disadvantage. But why shouldn't lobby groups behave in that way? They all do. And how are they culpable for their own strength? If you are criticising this lobby for being 'too strong', how strong do you think is the right strength? There may be good arguments for cutting US support for Israel, but they are not related to the strength of lobby groups. If somebody argued that US support for Israel should be reduced because the pro-Israel lobby is 'too strong' (whatever that means) and should be 'cut down to size', that person would be taking far too narrow a focus on the lobby itself at the expense of broader considerations.

You ask: 'Is anti-Semitism is ever, ever, even partially the fault of what Jews as a group actually do?'. It is true that people may be critical of, or antagonistic towards, Jewish individuals, groups, or organisations, because of what those individuals, groups, or organisations do. But that's not anti-Semitism. As I said before, the word anti-Semitism was coined to refer to a kind hostility towards Jews as a group: that is, all of them. It's also true that people may become receptive towards anti-Semitic attitudes because of the actions of specific Jewish individuals, groups, or organisations. But their leap from one to the other is not rational. The answer to the specific question you posed is: No, anti-Semitism is never even partially the fault of what Jews as a group actually do, because Jews as a group don't actually do anything: Please note that these words were written by a non-Jew (Stuart Chase, in The Tyranny of Words) in 1937.

Epinoia

JD, thanks for your reply, one well-thought out in its details. Such posts elevate the discourse. It doesn't mean I agree with you on a lot of things, but I'll focus for now on the most recent point addressed:

So he's a non-Jew? But is he black? Gay? Those aren't questions that matter either. What does is whether he'd say the same thing if the word "Muslim" or "Palestinian" were substituted in place of "Jew."

If not, this quote merely advocates the kind of anti-Semitism that isn't the focus of countless books and movies and education modules. The kind that ADL doesn't even acknowledge as "anti-Semitism": that against the unchosen Semite peoples. If anti-Semitism is unacceptable, both kinds are equally so. No more of this "he who saves one JEWISH life saves the world entire" attitude and all the hypocrisy that goes along with it. This mindset isn't universal. But it is somewhat pervasive among Zionists, as indicated by those who get pissed only when J/J/I's being dissed. Always nice to know who could be taking apart Christianity or Mel Gibson for the same reasons yeshiva students spit on Armenian priests in Jerusalem. Or not... I digress.

Back to the point: Judging everyone based on not everyone's actions is nonrational. That may be true in theory. But then again, when people see big crowds of a group, its most prominent individuals, and its mainstream organizations and supporting institutions all on one side of an issue and only a couple of scraggly contrarians on the other, they do tend to conclude that someone from that group is more likely to take one view over the other. Consider: In 2003, an Israel First-type rally on the Mall drew Paul Wolfowitz as a speaker. As you can imagine, his hawk-like pronouncements were a hit--until he delivered the throwaway line that Palestinians were people too and innocent Palestinians were being killed. A Mall-ful of Jews and assorted Christian Zionists actually booed. Consider, too, that 1) 96 percent-plus of US Jews support Israel; 2) much of the HB/OT presupposes the "chosenness" of Jews over everyone else, particularly to inhabit the land of Israel; 3) the mystical sense of "belonging to The Land" is frequently cited even by secular Jews and 4) some, like Ariel Sharon, think that The Land consists of a lot more than what Israel got in 1948. It just isn't much of a stretch to see a cause and effect between these factors and what happened at the rally and elsewhere, like in Israel. Calling people racist for noticing this does nothing but piss them off and reinforce stereotypes. If the goal is truly to increase understanding and debunk stereotypes, this is the least smart way of trying to do it. Want to fight a stereotype? Don't be one. Don't give people a pass on bad behavior, not even when they're "your own people." People's actions have a disproportionate effect on how their people in particular are perceived, but that can work to one’s advantage as well as one’s disadvantage. It may not be right and it may not be fair. But it still is the way it is, in Israel, in the U.S., and everywhere else.

Days after the Wolfowitz rally, Edgar Bronfman of Seagrams and WJC attempted damage control with an open letter to Jews. In Haggadah, he said, EhYeh scolded the angel for laughing at the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea because "they are my people, too." Uh, the very people that YVWH plagued and then drowned for the sake of the Chosen Ones of Israel. That part didn’t get acknowledged and without it the statement sounded ridiculous.Spin doesn't foster tolerance any better than intimidation does. Tolerance emerges from understanding, and understanding comes from frank discussion, which means acknowledging even the embarrassing parts without intimidation or spin.

Even a child reading the HB/OT for the first time notices what is at least on the surface a good deal of Jewish supremacism and violence.And just like "his blood be on us and on our children," people in general could benefit from an explanation about how it is that the Jewish God condones all this and in fact goes on to command Jews to slaughter men, women, children, babies specifically, even animals in retaliation for shit that'd happened a few hundred years before. When I first read Joshua and 1 Samuel as a kid--before I’d really even put those books together with Jews per se-- I thought they were Hitler's master plan. Seriously. These days, I wonder how it impacts people's worldviews when each year it's "I remember Amelek" for the holidays, along with the reminder that Amelek just hates Jews for the supernatural hell of it and that Amelek could manifest in anyone and anywhere. I’ve heard some Jews state that Amelek=Germany but there is a more prosaic explanation: Lord Rothchild's money arguably turned WWI against Germany in 1916 and losing the war in turn led to widespread hardship in Germany in the '20s exacerbated by the new threat of the Soviet Union, which was founded by a Jew, then led by another Jew, based on a governmental system invented by a Jew. A majority of NKVD (forerunner to KGB) were Jews. (I've heard as high as 80 percent based on Solzhenitsyn's new book, which if it ever comes out in English I can verify.) None of this excuses what happened to Jews afterward, but it does illustrate how something like this definitely could happen to any group. If Rothchild, Trotsky, Marx and Lenin all happened to be Catholic and then a virulent anti-Catholic, anti-Communist nut came to power, is it possible that Catholics might have been the main target? Even that many Jews might be indifferent or worse to their plight? I think you can put any two groups in that category and it is at least a possibility. If there's any kind of parallel to today, it's in 9/11 and the aftermath and how that's used and how it could be used to justify treatment of millions of Arabs that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all. You'd think Jews as a group would be hugely enraged and engaged collectively to ensure "never again" for anyone, but there’s little evidence of this. Why? Is it because those millions are Arabs? Because history is so supplanted by Amelek that such a mass suffering of other innocents cannot even be considered a possibility? Because many feel too Ameleked by Germany and enraptured by Israel to really care? I’m not accusing. I’m asking because I really don’t know, No matter the layers of midrash, this and the theme of “chosenness� and “Israelness� remain as undeniable and as important as matrilineal descent and who is and is not in the House of David. Excuse me, but isn't the point to be a good person? Who gives a shit about being of the “best� lineage other than animal breeders or racists?

Hate and intolerance--or at least hateful and intolerant interpretations--in the Koran or the New Testament have influenced Muslims and Christians and it’s been healthy to say how. It’s only fair to point out what Torah/Tanakh has in that department and how it influences Jews. Not doing so is preferential treatment that by definition prefers others less just because they’re others.. That is racism and it's just as bad whether it happens to Jews or to someone else.

Epinoia

I have said over and over again that Jews suck...as much as everyone else. Not that they're worse than, but that they aren't better than either. I've said this at least five times over the past three weeks. Quit saying I've said shit I haven't. You wouldn't like it if someone made up shit wholesale about you, and a high post count doesn't mean you're somehow exempt from the rules.

I do not ever recall "rationalizing some forms of racism but not others" either. Point to where I've actually said that. Or is this just another subjective interpretation by you that you then frame into false statements of fact that you attribute to me? Say whatever you think about what I write, but don't go off saying that I said shit I didn't. That's called libel and it is clearly out of bounds.

As to...

...and as much sense as forming perceptions of Palestinians just because of what li'l ol Islamic Jihad and Hamas do. Uh, right? Fact is that when prominent orgs repping a group and the group's most prominent individuals and a buttload of others are over in one corner and a couple scruffy scragglers are over in another, people tend to conclude that the group favors one position over another. Not saying it's fair. Not arguing it's right. Just saying it's the way that things largely are, in Israel, in the U.S., and most everywhere else.

P.S.: Neocons hate to consider this, but yeah, actually 9/11 is related to what the largely white powers that be have done to ensure that gas remains cheaper after inflation now than in 1953. Better to drive bigger SUVs, you see. As this is a whole 'nother discussion, I won't digress any further.