Anti-Israel = anti-Semitism
 

A group of anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian protesters on France has been arrested and apparently faces charges on incitement of racial hatred due to their outspoken rebuke of Israel's policies in relation to Gaza and the West Bank. The suggestion would seem to be that, at least for this French prosecutor, criticizing Israel is the same thing as anti-Semitism.

This isn't the first time this association has been made. A few years ago, Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch (and a Jewish man himself, son of a Jewish man who fled Nazi Germany), openly criticized Israel for it's indiscriminate attacks on Lebanese civilians. The response to his criticism was fairly serious. The New York Sun suggested that Roth had a pro-Hezbollah bias and suggested that he was engaging in the de-legitimization of Judaism, which is the basis for anti-Semitism. Among those charged with anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel or voicing support for Palestine are Jimmy Carter, Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Bertrand Russell, Mahatma Gandhi, Arnold Toynbee, and George Orwell.

While I can imagine that criticizing Israel could be a politically correct way for an anti-Semite to vent their feelings about the Jewish people, I'm concerned that the labeling of Israel's critics as anti-Semites is ultimately dangerous. On the one hand, it's clearly an attempt at censorship. Being called anti-Semetic is one of the worst charges on can face in the court of public opinion, and people who want to criticize Israel's (Israel meaning the Israeli government and IDF, generally) policies could be silenced by the threat of such serious charges. In addition to that, mislabeling dissidents as anti-Semetic actually gives aid and comfort to real anti-Semites because as more people recognize the charge is being used incorrectly, the label will become less and less meaningful.

In his book, Necessary Illusions, Noam Chomsky wrote, "It is now necessary to identify criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitism – or in the case of Jews, as "self-hatred," so that all possible cases are covered." Noam Chomsky concluded that labeling dissidents as anti-Semetic is less about people being uninformed and more about essentially removing any criticism of the state of Israel from any discussion or debate.

Where do you come down on this question? Do you believe that some criticism of Israel is just masked anti-Semitism? Do you believe all criticism of Israel is anti-Semetic or borderline anti-Semetic? Are you at all concerned that labeling criticism of Israel as anti-Semetic may be censoring legitimate dissent? Could the use of the anti-Semite label actually cause the term to lose some of its meaning?

Here's a question. Can you be critical of Israel without being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic?

I would say it's very possible.

My wife is Jewish and I hate Israel's politics.

The whole 'you are an anti-Semite' because you criticize the barbarism Israel is currently involved in is just plain pathetic. Its like in the Bush era when people called protesters anti-American.

Israel is the perfect victim because there has never been a race so thoroughly prosecuted in our history yet now the politicians are playing that card to do the same thing against Palestine.

It would be like me seeing some person who can walk and I murder him and say 'but I'm handicapped. You're against cripples if you arrest me!"

pure 100% bullshit.

All tigers are cats and not all cats are tigers. Yes you can be against Israel actions and not be anti-Semetic. However if you are anti-Semetic you almost definitely are against Israel. I will say that when discussing Israel with people who are anti-Israel I have numerously ran across comments consisting basically of "You Jews" or something that made my eyebrows go, ok this person is anti-Semetic so no point in having a conversation any longer. Personally in my limited experience I find that to a large extend the majority are anti-Semetic as well.

I will also say just because you are Jewish, does not mean you can not be anti-semetic, I hate hearing that, the biggest haters are Jewish themselves and use the fact that their mothers were Jewish as a shield.

thats interesting....

here's one for you Xazy...

how do jews ( orthodox and non orthodox) view John Stewart?

i know he mixes his jewish jokes into his show, and he gets away with it because he is jewish. Do jews find it offensive? Or is it water under the bridge because he's jewish?

a muslim comedian telling the same jokes would cop a scathing attack in the same way that a white dude telling black jokes would cop a mouthful.


your thoughts?

I think it is a people's right to peacefully demonstrate against a government they feel is guilty of illegal actions.

I could see this becoming a VERY serious problem in the future. An example that we could use today would be people in the US peacefully demonstrating against Mid East tyrants Mubarak, Khaddaffi, the Saud family, etc and having our government arrest the protesters and chaqrging them with hate crimes against Muslims.

How is speaking out against that which you deem is illegal or evil a crime? It is one's opinion and as long as peacefully demonstrated, who cares?

People around the world have demonstrated against the US, burning our flag and kidnapping our people as long as I have been alive, that is criminal. They are inserting criminal acts into their demonstrations and thus should be arrested, but probably won't be and will be looked upon or have been looked upon as heroes to their countrymen.

pan: am i misunderstanding your post? are you trying to defend some imaginary right to be a racist? because you don't like muslims? seriously? are you really going there? i'd like to be wrong...


=====


on the op: there's obviously no necessary relation between opposing the current israeli apartheid system and anti-semitism. there isn't even a connection between opposing the current israeli apartheid system and opposing israel per se---the problem is the apartheid system and the settlement policy that makes it appear necessary and the surreal notion of a jewish state....but these are political choices that could be otherwise in the context of a different type of israel, one that would be more functional internally and internationally.

but the first step is to stop building the settlements. the next step is to take the existing ones down. the third is to break the back of the fascist extreme right that's based in the settlements.

there are lots of possibilities.

the only people who equate the two are people who are looking to foreclose opposition to the settlements, to the far right, to the colonial system they perpetuate.

i have no idea what your point is with this post. nor do i even know how to respond to it.

These 'criminal acts' that you mention, are they crimes against their own laws set by their government? or are you talking about burning effigies and flags of western nations? in any case, if someone carried out an action that is not against the laws of the country and does not break international law, techinically its not a crime no matter how despicable it may seem.

people who can't separate comedy from real discussion baffles me.

Stewart makes fun of everyone including Jews. Mencia akes fun of everyone. Chapellle makes fun of everyone..

I think you are seriously over thinking some things. If it were actual discussions of importance I'd agree 100%

I worked on a project with a couple of Israeli engineers. They were very critical of some of the more aggressive political policies, but would immediate become defensive if a non-Israeli said anything similar.

The paradigm is similar to the reaction each year when some department store greets customers by wishing them "happy holidays". Suddenly, there are loud cries about persecution of Christians. An African American comedian can use slang names to describe African Americans that would be labeled as racism should a white comedian use them. We see politicians use the same tactics.

Being critical of a particular political policy or action is not the same as denigrating a nation or religion, but playing the victim card has proven to be an effective ploy.

It was san example of the "hate crimes" being levied in the OP. My thinking and granted it was on little to no sleep, is why all of a sudden is France arresting people for demonstrating against a country? What laws did these people break?

And now because I use an example I am a racist? wow big leap there RB. But I guess you all have labelled me since I didn't drink the Obama Kool Aid in 08, that it is ok to continue doing so. the point I was making or trying to make that you seem to want to jump on me for, is simple..... IF people can be arrested for hate crimes and called anti-semitic for demonstrating against Isrealian policies, then it could be taken a step further if people stood in support of the rebellions in Egypt, Libya, Saudi and elsewhere..... since they are primarily conservative Muslim run governments. Why is that different than demonstrating against Isreal and not being anti semitic? Because they are muslim countries? If that was an attempt at humor, I'm sorry, I didn't get it.... been called racist here too often for my views because they aren't deemed acceptable. But they are just my opinions and in no way am I prejudiced. I have my own problems to care about than someone's race, religion, sex orientation and so on.

i asked for clarification of your argument and noted that i hoped i was wrong.

the writing didn't make much sense in your post.

happens to most people at one point or another...

I find Jon Stewart like Sarah Silverman a comedian. I do not take him seriously since I do not think he even takes his jokes seriously.

I laugh at racial jokes but if you think about it, does a racial joke help remove barriers psychologically or reinforce them. I can not honestly say, but I do enjoy a good joke.

Most orthodox jews would not know who either are or have seen any of their programs. The modern-orthodox who have television, see movies would see him as a comedian. The rest I can not say since they probably do not care at all about him or even know who he is.

But this is just a my general opinion how they would take it. As to non-orthodox I really can not say I would assume they would feel like modern-orthodox.

Part of the problem is your talking countries that heavily mix ideology and thier governmental or political systems and indeed culture itself. In all of these countries including Israel, christians either come under fire or are persecuted in no less of a way than muslims often are here. hell the Muslims can barely get along amongst themselves. Sure racism exists against Israelis and Arabs, but anymore its not so much about Arab or israeli as it is Jews and Muslims. I'm not suggesting this is okay at all on any front, just pointing out the truth of it.

What a stupid set of things to ahte and argue about when all of these religions are supposed to teach understanding, acceptance, and forbid judgement for a judgeent of the self and your spiritual position. because religion is a tool, a from of crowd control anymore. Not saying its wrong I'm justs aying it is easily exploited.

If you look at all the violence, war, and death and in one way or another it is all related to religion or money or both, even if its atheists figting religion... its still about religion. I believe in a creator, god if you will. I'm not too specific beyond that and I have to say... In the movie Book of Eli, I thought yeah, that makes sense... How long until we are tired of this. Tired of the more issues than positives? I odnt agree it should happen, but i could see and really understand how people could get there, get to a point where they just want it to go away rather than deal with its bullshit that inevitably happens.

Everything in the middle east is to either support a religion, debunk one, stop one or create one. Even Qadaffi... from a coup thta united the tribal communities and to keep that certain flavor of islam out so he is sure to keep hold of power.

So is that racist? Profiling? Or maing a reasonable assumption given the statistics, the probable outcome, the eventual?Fear them equally but I guess dont fool yourself about the inevitability, possibility... the likelihood.

------------
\holy crap was I tired when i wrote that...

The point was supposed to be that so many of these decisions they make are based in their ideologies rather than as countries alone. would they fight or even be separate countries as they are now, if the theocracies and ideologies were not present?

So i think it is essentially at this time impossible to be critical without being jewish and not, to them, come off or be considered anti-semitic, and that goes for Islam as well. It's crap but... its just how it is. I think we should though, i really think we should call them all out at the same time by saying hey, your all doing some messed up crap that doesnt make sense and using the same God as an excuse against each other, grow up and try living by the harder morals of your ideologies of sharing, finding peace, and being the best people you can be to both the people you love AND hate.

I wouldnt expect to make or keep some friends though.

:hmm:

Another variation of the question is can someone be against Zionism without being anti Semitic? IMO, absolutely. I have been to Israel many times and met friendly people on both sides.

Two of the more heated debates on the subject I have seen on TFP:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ttlements.html

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...-crimes-2.html

I will try saying this as diplomatically as possible and I’m sure I will be informed if it’s inappropriate. The dialogue within those threads shows the possible difficulty in debating with a hardcore Zionist. (If that’s inappropriate please edit) The only reason I feel OK saying that is because the person I am speaking about has stated he is a proud Zionist here in the forum. I do have my opinions about Zionism but in an attempt not appear as labeling someone, I’ll phrase I have had difficulty debating with some Zionists in the past.

I firmly believe that the small section of land known as the West Bank is problem if left unresolved has the potential in igniting a global conflict. It doesn’t mean I’m blaming the entire world’s problems on the Jewish population.

Oh my! Are we going to get into Sephardic vs Ashkenazi Jews in Israeli policy? Zionism vs rationalism? It is interesting to listen to US politicians expound on why unquestioning support of Israel is vital.

Some actually admit that it is because they believe that Israel can trigger Armageddon, and thus bring about the end of the world, so they can gloat over those not "saved".

Others say that the land belongs to Israel because the book written by those living in Israel says so.

So the US helps them with nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong? How could a nation known for hot-headed overreaction to the slightest provocation possibly impact world peace (or the pursuit thereof)?

Is this topic about whether anti-semitism = anti-israel and vice versa or is this about israel policy?

Xazy: Both. Elsewhere, I've been accused of being anti-Semetic because of my disagreements with Israeli policy.

Yeah...so I think the fine line exists between being anti-Israel vs. critical of Israeli policies. Being in the former position will likely mean antisemitism, while being in the latter probably puts you in a somewhat difficult spot of having to balance your criticism adequately...but it doesn't make you antisemitic necessarily.

Being critical of the Obama administration doesn't make you anti-American.
Being critical of the Pope doesn't make you anti-Christian.
Being critical of Big Oil doesn't make you anti–free enterprise.

I notice that this topic comes up a lot. But what doesn't come up a lot is the question as to whether being critical of the violence coming out of the Palestinian territories means you have a hatred towards Arabs and/or Muslims.

Are Israelis guilty of hatred towards Arabs/Muslims? Is this question antisemitic?

Do you have a better example I could have used????????? :no:

So whats the bottom line? We unfairly support one side of a conflict over a piece of land that is disputed for ideological reasons. Nearly everyone in the government claims to be christian, not that I believe they are, it just gets votes or more so stops you from being removed. So we have to protect them cause in that ideology they are Gods chosen people. It's not like the guy who owns the temple is the only one who gets to go to heaven or something, its all the same god, so sharing is just not possible I guess. :shakehead:

I find it funny that christians just love the people who swear jesus was not the son of god or a valid prophet and often that he didnt even exist, but hate the people who at least admit he existed at all. :no:

I think criticizing Obama seems to make you more American according to the way it seems.

Criticizing Bush was "great, let's make jokes, it's the patriotic thing to do."

Criticizing Obama means you are "a racist, a nazi and are a right winged nut job, who only gets information from Fox News, Limbaugh and Beck."

Again what one group says and when caught doing the exact opposite, it's ok. But when one group stands firm and true to their beliefs and convictions..... they are horswaggled and brainwashed.

There you go with emotions again, exaggerating a perceived attack against you. It doesn't help your position, at all.

I don't want this thread to be about you and racism. I want this thread to be about what anti-Semtisim is or Israeli foreign policy or dissent or freedom of speech and censorship.

Politics and religion are the 2 things people should never argue because they are held by most individuals to be extremely self identifying and thus people for the most part become emotional. I do because I am passionate about my beliefs, right or wrong I say my piece. The only issue I have here is once I was called a racist, I had someone constantly bringing it up in almost EVERY thread I would post in and then when I would rightfully say something because what he would say was pure attack and had very little to do with the OP, I became someone "playing victim" and thus what I said seemed to not matter.

I did not say there was a percieved attack, in here.... was just telling it like it is and how I see things, in other words MY OPINION, nothing more nothing less. I am trying very hard to keep my patience. BUT I DID NOT COME BACK FOR BULLSHIT. There is that what you wanted from me???????? Seems to be.

The same people who yelled and screamed it was "patriotic and the right thing to do" when criticizing Bush and told people that defended him how stupid they were...... are now for the most part steadfastly defending Obama the same way those who defended Bush did. The difference is and it is a fact that people love to pull that race card on people that criticize Obama. When race truly has nothing to do with what are his plans in Afghaniston? Why do you cut vet benefits and still pay contractors HUNDREDS of MILLIONS? Why are you cutting benefits to the people and going on a 2 front war, when you criticized 2 front wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) before you were in power? Why did you bail out banks, when all they did was raise fees and interest rates and kept foreclosing on homes you funded an agency to help with yet, how many were ripped off and preyed upon and told to "wait" while they lost their homes? Why are people forced to pay more for meds than they make in a month? How do you live with yourself when you show nothing but contradiction and not leadership? True leadership is sticking by your beliefs right or wrong, not trying to appease people. Here's news you were elected president because a majority believed in you as a leader. Now lead for Christ's sake. Stop being a namby pamby and stand up for your beliefs. Life is too short to try to play both sides. The people who play both sides are usually starving for approval and will never get it by people who truly matter. This country has people with no job, no income, needing meds and you sit and bail out banks???????? And people who criticize this are wrong? wow......

But that doesn't matter, all the above is still Bush's fault and the GOP. :shakehead:

And if anyone does have the nerve to voice an opinion not Dem. approved, we label them so that we can disregard what they say. And we hound them until they show emotion..... and then we can claim victory.... F(&*^*&^% that Bullshit. I am me, I am not a fucking label. Am I emotional at times? YES. Is this one of the times? YES

Are there excuses?

I can name numerous, hounded on here for what 3 years and called racist and just battered because I have emotion and passion for my beliefs, right or wrong. A divorce last year, loss of job, a son who has literally said he doesn't care if I live or die when I got home from a stroke, a brain infection, near death, 3 craniotomies, a craniectomy..... still have infection they have no idea what it is and may operate again just to get a culture and see why the flagyl and rocephin aren't touching it. On IV antibiotics twice a day, with a picc line in my arm, that gets taped up so it doesn't get caught on my sleeves, can't sleep worth shit, the ambian and trazadone combined don't help.

Yes, there are all kinds of excuses, but I don't want to use them, because I don't believe in excuses. I'm not a martyr nor do I want to be. But I will remain true to who I am. I will stand for what I believe in. One thing all this has taught me is how short life is and how in the end all you truly have are your beliefs and convictions. I come here like most to just share them and make friends. Which was hard to do when unrightfully labelled and harrassed until I became emotional. I don't come here to "win points on my political views". I express my opinion, pure and simple. Take from it what you want.

So believe what you want DC. I do not have to answer to you or anyone but myself. There are other places I can go and you can always put me on ignore if you don't like what I say. I truly don't care.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

Really?????? WHEN DID I BRING IT UP?????????? Maybe after this post from Roachboy........

So exactly WHERE did I start the BULLSHIT..... or are you backing off because you couldn't come up with better examples when I asked you to? :thumbsup:

And it is easier to paint the picture of me playing victime when it wasn't even started by me......

Ya know what FUCK YOU..... I'M GONE FUCKING BAN ME

Name one lefty in here who hasn't been critical of Obama.

I have no problem with rational criticism of Obama. However, a lot of it isn't rational and a lot of it is clearly motivated by racial considerations.

Forgive me if I am naive, but antisemitism is a dislike for and/or prejudice against the Jewish people, only some of which live in Israel and only some of which support Israeli political policy. I don't understand how disagreeing with political policy translates to antisemitism.

In this paragraph from my last post name one question that isn't rational and is racially motivated:

Or am I going to be attacked again and told I'm bringing race into all this? Pathetic. And oh by the way people who defended Bush also criticized him. It's easy to say "well I criticize too." but ignore the hard questions and refuse to ask them yourself. Bush defenders did it with him, Obama's defenders do it with him also. To me there isn't much difference, except, instead of being "unpatriotic" you are now "racist".

It has been my experience that the race card card is used way more often than the race card. Maybe I hang out with the wrong people.

Pan... As much as you always try to make it so, it isn't always about you.

Filtherton's point was not about you per se. Rather it was a statement that said:

His point was simply this: Nobody here on the, so called, left has not been critical of Obama. Not one has supported him without question. If you feel otherwise, you are not reading enough posts.

Filtherton further goes on to say that he has no issue with rational criticism of Obama but finds that a lot of the criticism isn't rational and is racially motivated. Nowhere in that does he point a finger at you or even nod in your general direction. He is making a grand sweeping statement about much of the criticism that has been made about Obama that is not a rational criticism.

Pan... you really need to stop looking for knives in every word written here.

No. You need to grow up, Pan. This isn't going to be another tantrum where you get banned and then you go on thinking that the whole world is against you.

You posted something that really didn't make any sense, Roachboy asked you to clarify, not making a single accusation, and suddenly we're back to the same outburst we've seen several times already. You accuse people of calling you a racist, which never actually happened if you read the thread. I might back you on this, because RB posted the 'seriously?' thing, except this has happened before several times. You say something which kinda has something to do with race, someone asks you to clarify, and you fly off the handle.

I'm asking you, nicely, to just assume no one is calling you a racist unless someone actually comes out and calls you a racist, in which case we'll look at the evidence and if it's found lacking I'll back you 100%. Otherwise, just let it drop. All caps don't serve anyone, yourself included, and I'll tell you the absolute most important rule of internet forums: don't be angry on the internet. It's never worth it, I promise you. If someone online posts something that offends you to your very core, step back, take a breather, and come at it relaxed, objective, and clear. Nothing in all caps has ever changed anyone's mind.

Now, let's get back to the thread topic.

I think... think, the point was that it seems like anymore if you are critical of Israeli policy your quickly labeled anti-semetic, not that it truly is or makes you anti-semetic.

Thats my feeling anyway. We're so married to this path and it is deeply and wholly centered in our ideology and its relation to their ideology when it comes to your average christian voter. Thats where most of it comes from, beyond that its politicians using that need to be approved of for obvious reasons. When it comes to others though, there is in my opinion a group who feels like that keeps a window open between us in which we maintain our foothold, our only foothold in the middle east in which we have an interest where we arent completely hated. So, there is a sort of mutually assured abandonment in parallel to the destruction. Over there though, almost no one likes the Israelis, and pretty much us. So, you stick with who likes you at all even if at times tenuous and you defend that.

In both those cases that defense does not have to be correct or even rational or reasonable.

I see. So instead of first asking he deems to say I am defending racists and implies such with the "I'd like to be wrong".........

Only AFTER I put in my defense does he come back and say this:

So instead of asking for clarification first he felt the need to bring out the racist topic. Knowing I would react.

Then of course you came out with the :shakehead: after a quote from me pointing out RB's original response to my post.

And when asked if you could come up with better examples or shown I had legitimate realistic questions for Obama. Both got ignored and turned into "Pan, stop it....... we arn't attacking you." Answer the questions, provide a better example and then I will believe you when you are saying you aren't calling me a racist or trying to dicredit me that way. Discredit mne by providing better examples, by ademitting that none of the questions I have for Obama are driven by anything but want for answers.

Now we are back to the old games, call or imply pan is a racist...... start hitting him by telling him he is playing victim if and when he allows himself to get emotional. Then tell him "you are imagining things".......... fine..... answer the questions, provide better examples of governments that YOU would demonstrate against here in the USA, that COULD get you labelled and tried for hate crimes, perhaps like those in the OP.

ok look. i wasn't going to do this, but obviously nothing else will do.

in your initial post, i took your scenario to be of a piece with the new and improved islamophobia of the sort legitimated by those ridiculous hearings that peter king jammed through the heimat security committee in the house on "radical islam"...i fit it into a context that way, but wasn't sure. so i asked---are you going in this direction? because it is the case---like it or not---that for people who have a Problem with ILLEGALS (remember?) and a pattern of writing arguments that use the same kind of trope to flirt with racist arguments, it's not unreasonable to ask the question.

when you clarified, i responded. i didn't feel any particular need to go further because i saw that you werent going in exactly that direction.

now you've been whining about it for post after post, acting all injured as if some Grievous Harm has been done you.

so---the **only** reason the question of which direction you were heading in came to my mind was because of **your** history of posts. period. based on that--and on the contextual factors above--and on the potentially contentious nature of the thread---i posed a question. i made no accusation.

if i had thought that you were heading down that path, you can believe i would have been all over you like white on rice.

but you weren't.

i won't apologize for asking a question. i thought my response clear.

so i don't know why you're reacting as you are. i don't see the point of it---again if there was to be a dust-up on the topic, it'd be above board and explicit. i do not back down from these things. but there isn't. you want there to be one. i don't know why.

get a grip.

I have to agree with Pan.

With Bush it was acceptable to make him the butt of all jokes is the point. Yes even his supporters criticized him, but he was mocked as if he a court jester rather then the president.

With Obama the same form of humor is unacceptable, if one does do it you are considered either unpatriotic or a racist. Any media that covers harsh criticism them are automatically dismissed as being a whack. True other media may criticize I find it to be slightly critical at best.

i don't see that in the media reality that i move through. maybe it's part of other media realities, given that it's entirely possible to assemble tunnels that one moves through on the net. any such media tunnel will have a self-confirming aspect to it if you aren't careful. i suspect that there are conservative tunnels within which that claim is understood as true. in the tunnels i move through, which are left-oriented, there's absolutely no such thing. the claim is, from my viewpoint, worthless. every left outlet that you read is critical of obama. he has no particular appeal to the "progressive" constituency---and he doesn't really govern as if that consituency is important to him. remember his complaints about the "professional left" of last year?

of course you don't. that's mean you'd have to rethink your absurd characterization of the political climate. i mean, the one that exists outside of rightwing outlets which have an interest in normalizing the previous 8 years of neo-fascism by projecting it onto others.

and for the record, the question i posed to pan was about "islamophobia" which is the republican-legitimated mode of routine racism that's abroad in the land these days. makes the american right a bit like those fine settler parties in the west bank, don't you think?

Still waiting for an answer to this:

All I want to see is someone on the left who supports Obama to answer these questions.

um pan---the thread is about whether accusations of anti-semitism function of shut down criticisms of israel. it is not about your delusional view of "obama supporters". if you want answers to your vital questions, start your own thread.

When has actual humor or criticism of Obama ever been deemed unacceptable? The "Barack the magic negro" and the whole type of "watermelons on the white house humor" is criticized because it is pretty openly racist, but where has actual criticism of him been deemed unacceptable?
If you haven't seen Jon Stewart and SNL mocking Obama for being ineffectual, aloof, contradicting his campaign promises, etc., his reliance on teleprompters, etc. Of course, it is not at the level of what was thrown at Bush, but that is because Bush was particularly easy to mock because of his common gaffes and his ultra low popularity.

And it must be a joke that there was no "unpatriotic" claims during the Bush years.



Just because you don't know about things doesn't mean they don't exist. The majority of the people on the actual left have been pointing things out from the start. Although I must admit that I think it is interesting that not too long ago you were complaining about how much of an extremist Obama was, and now you are complaining that he compromises too much.

Every single person on the left I know who still has any amount of support for Obama left, only supports him as being marginally better than the republicans.

I think you left out the phrase, "for democrats" there. Plenty of people defended Bush vehemently against anything negative said. What i most disagree with is this idea that you cant hate on Obama. No way. Thats all they do. No matter what Obama does he's an asshole, thats what I see everyday nearly all day.

I'd answer this.... but its not really on topic. Is there a thread? I'll post.

Roachboy didn't hit your caps lock or choose your words. You act as if you had no choice in how you react to what at most was a leading question.

Here's how I would have responded:
I actually agree with the point you were trying to make. Unfortunately, we live in a world where being called anti-Semetic is the ultimate charge whereas being anti-Muslim is normal, so it's not quite the same thing, but your point is still valid.

Here's one for you to debate, I didn't think much at first about it other than it's a bunch of rich guys infighting.... but my attitude changed at the very end. I won't comment on what I believe because the only way to see if you actually read it would be if your comments go with the article (in that, I mean showing you actually read it and just aren't forming an opinion to just be the opposite of mine).

Plan for mystery mega-mansion sparks furor in 90210 - Yahoo! News

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

If anything I am predictable, when the right buton is pushed. I take offense to being called racist and people know that but still use it to get a rise out of me, knowing it will. I don't care if I am called other names, they don't bother me. But because of the profession I want to be in being labelled "racist" will definitely cause me problems, I do not need. I don't care if people call me a mother f'er or a GD lying piece of poo, or whatever...... but the racist part is truly uncalled for.


That is a good response, but again my button was pushed and the person pushing it, because he views this as a "game", knew he pushed it and got the response he wanted, unfortunately. He pushed it so that he could start the whole "stop whining, I win" kid's game.

Well I am truly happy in my disaster of a response you got what I meant. Not that I care if you found it valid or not (I don't care how my points or opinions are found by others, because everyone should be allowed to find their own.) That is one reason TFP politics sucked me in..... a few years ago there were so many different voices and opinions and originality that it was fun because people shared their opinions and ideas and did so without having to be worried about a label. We label bananas and fruits and vegetables and everything in our society. Why must we label people? Must friendships be destroyed simply because the opinions differ? Isn't that a good thing in ANY relationship? I find having someone dissent with my opinions actually helps teach me. There is a huge difference between different opinions and trying to "put someone down" for the difference so that the one may feel superior.

Trust me, my self esteem is such these days that I KNOW I am not superior to anyone.

If you're thinking what I think your thinking... your probably right. Which is unfortunate. I'd want to believe its because he is royalty in a country that treats a lot of its people and all of its women like crap, but honestly, I doubt it.

Pan... if you know you have a button and from time to time people push it you really should learn to control your responses. Your CAPS LOCK, emotional, I am the victim here, tirades don't help the discussion or your position in that discussion.

Calm, rational, measured. You might not win the debate but at least you won't be dismissed out of hand.

A major issue is Israel was founded by Zionists. The country's whole premise gives it a spiritual permission to conduct its own manifest destiny. There is no seperation of synagogue and state. This provides an effective way of saying if a person is against what the government is doing they are against Jewish spirituality.

Good guess but not what I read into it. In fact I didn't even think of that.

Only clue I will give is the appearance could give a very good picture of the OP.

curiously i think the situation is changing around israel. netanyahu has said as much publicly--the old assumptions about political consent from the united states are eroding. the settlements and the resulting apartheid system in israel are becoming liabilities in an increasingly obvious way.

of course that hasn't stopped israel from bombing gaza again.

strange how silent the world is about that. i don't say that in a conspiratorial manner. it's just strange that so little attention is being paid to the israelis using military gear against a civilian population again.

on the other hand, it's only palestinians.

No, at the end the article states that Michael Ovitz seems to be pushing the hardest. It also states that he did something similar and was fought against, but won.

I found it interesting that a very powerful man of the Jewish persuasion would be the most outspoken against an Arab prince. Especially when he did the same thing (as the article points out).

Just my view and opinion from what I read.

this is an article from a more or less israeli left position that outlines the problems created by the right's attempts to eliminate the space for criticisms of israel in order to protect the colonial occupation of the west bank:

Strenger than Fiction-Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News source.

it's a shallow strategy used to death by the israeli right---which is the main obstacle to a viable palestine, the main obstacle to the peace process and the main blight that is eating away at israel itself.

This is such utter bullshit. NOT what you said, but the reality of it... thousands of years and we're still morons.

Not sure i follow that.. but that's what i thought. I've got a bit misanthropy in me, haha.

Thats what I've been trying to say.

Family in Texas massacred in their sleep.

Bomb hits bus #74 outside D.C. convention center injuring dozens and killing at least one.

Over 50 rockets and missiles continue falling in Fairfax, Virginia.

Do I have your attention? Oh wait it was Israel not the US my mistake.

Yes they have had a phosphorus missile attack this week, yet surprisingly there has been minimal coverage. Strange how the world has been silent and so little attention is being paid to the terrorists attacking civilian population again.

It is so absolutely disingenuous to reduce Israel's actions to counter terrorism as to be pathetic. Please indicate what parts of the settlement policies, the attacking of civilian centers, the closing of the borders, the restrictions on importing even basic supplies, the restrictions on use and access to water, the restrictions on political activities by Arab Israeli citizens, the restrictions on Palestinians ever becoming a Israeli citizen and so on are meant to stop those terrorist attacks?

Opposing the existence of Israel would be anti-Zionist. Opposing the Jewish religion would be anti-antisemitism. Being critical of the Israeli government is neither .

Criticism of Israel's government, or the actions of its military leadership, does not, by any means, have to equal anti-Semitism. I have criticized both on a number of occasions, and I consider myself something of a religious Zionist. Most of my friends-- rabbis, Jewish scholars, and other Jewish professionals-- have criticized Israel's government or military actions at one time or another. It doesn't make them self-hating Jews.

Where things get tricky are two places. First of all, there is a very fine line between criticizing the actions of Israel's government or military, and criticizing Israel as a nation entire. The former is not necessarily problematic, but the latter tends to slide seamlessly into a rejection of Israel's right to exist-- and that is problematic.

The second place where things get tricky is that anti-Zionism is very frequently a genteel cover for anti-Semitism. It is not so 100% of the time, I grant you-- it is possible to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. But it seems to be extremely, extremely rare, and the one or two times I have encountered it, the individuals holding the opinions had a very intricate and complex constellation of beliefs at work leading them to that rather precarious balance of thought, but they did make it work. However, they seem to be the exception, rather than the rule.

The majority of Jewish criticizers of Israel (rather than criticizers of specific actions of Israel's government or military) that I've run into or seen are generally well-intentioned, but either ignorant of history, or naive about the sociopolitical realities of the situation, or they are blind idealists with major complexes about misplaced Eurocentric colonial guilt. Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, and many of his contributors all seem to fall into one or more of these category. But there are a small, vocal minority of Jewish anti-Zionists who truly are self-hating Jews of some sort, and have crossed the boundary into absolutely unacceptable behavior. Noam Chomsky and his ilk fall into this category, as do (on the other side of the religious spectrum) the Neturei Karta movement.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict has a remarkably propensity for bringing out the worst in the adherents of both sides. And for those of us who do take a side, but would not be among those to have the worst brought out in them, it is a continuous challenge to balance criticism of what is truly unacceptable behavior and restraining criticism of what may be understandably necessary in the behavior of one side or another. If we are not careful, generalizations, totalizations, and lack of empathy for one another can devolve into name-calling, de-legitimization, and even more unfortunate actions.

Which all goes to my general opinion that, concerning Israel and "the situation," it is better, if in doubt, to be cautious or refrain from public debating about it at all. I do my best to keep my opinions to myself, and so do most of my friends. It's just easier that way.

I'd actually like to hear a bit more. If a rabbi and an atheist can discuss religion and remain polite and respectful, then we can walk into a bar with a priest. Or rather we can be civil about a sensitive socio/religious/political issue like Israel and Palestine.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Zionism's more religious aspects. I certainly understand the Jewish peoples' want to have a place to call home (well, I think I understand it. I've never been without a cultural homeland so it's a case of trying to imagine what it might be like), but I seem to recall a few other religions claiming they had legitimate property claims to the area and needless to say things didn't go well. It's simply impossible to wring the religion out of the situation or the location, apparently, and I think it's the minority of Zionists who are, forgive me, religious zealots, that turn me off to the whole thing. Cultural and national self-determination? Makes perfect sense to me, go for it with my blessing and support. God gave us this land? That's not going to go over well with the Palestinian Muslims who's house was just bulldozed.

To be fair, Will, I don't think it's supposed to. Religion seldom justifies anything to people outside its own community.

And I definitely agree that, as with so many other things involving religion, it's the extremely vocal minority of zealots who tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth.

What I am about to say is only my opinion, and I can imagine it may not be a popular one in some parts, so I hope it is not found to be unduly offensive.

I do believe that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jewish People, and that the return of great numbers of Jews to found a state in that Land may well be the first step on a long road toward the coming of the messiah.

But that said, where I differ from most Religious Zionists is that I also think that God does not love unnecessary bloodshed and suffering, no matter who is doing the shedding of blood or the suffering. And while God may, indeed, have given us the entirety of the Land of Israel, the State of Israel will never know peace if it tries to hold onto all that Land, and the Arabs living in what we now call the Palestinian Territories (both Gaza and the West Bank) have a legitimate de facto claim of residence upon those areas. And while it may behoove us as the Jewish People to defend ourselves and our land when necessary, it does not behoove us to shed more blood than necessary, or to prolong the suffering of others, or to forget our duties to the strangers among us.

While I vehemently believe in Israel's right to exist, and in its right to defend itself from terrorism, I also think that there are rules even in war. And some weapons should not be used, like phosphorus. That is a hideous weapon, and I am not even convinced it is ethical to use on professional soldiery, let alone in situations where civilian collateral damage is inevitable. Israel is wrong to use it (and so were those Palestinian terrorists who used it, the other day), and wrong to use cluster bombs-- another weapon of dubious ethicality.

And weaponry aside, it is a phenomenally bad idea for Israel to simply lock the Territories behind a fence and leave them to their own devices. Which isn't to say that I think the fence ought to be torn down-- it saves far too many lives for that. But we didn't just keep terrorists out of Israel, we kept too much potential economic aid out of the Territories. Now, admittedly, Gaza is a bit of a tough nut to crack, because Hamas are crazy and dangerous. But in the West Bank, which seems to be a somewhat less dangerous and fair pinch less crazy place, if the so-called Palestinian authorities aren't able to improve the infrastructure, build and supply hospitals and food stores, and so forth, then I believe it is the duty of Israel to go in and do those things, and not just let the Palestinians there become poorer and poorer and ever more bitter (and more apt to radicalize).

And what is more, there is a chronic problem in Israel itself of discrimination against Israeli Arabs, and widespread violations of their civil rights. And that has got to stop. It is profoundly unethical, and there are about a zillion different commandments in the Torah that specifically tell us not to oppress those who dwell among us, because we ourselves were once sojourners in a land not our own.

And I believe that ultimately, peace is going to require a land swap (especially since I personally don't believe in splitting Jerusalem again): whatever we keep, we have an obligation to give an equal portion to the Palestinians. And I feel strongly that when the time for this swap comes, just as we will doubtless tell Palestinians living in areas to be agreed as being permanently acknowledged to be Israel that they must either agree to Israeli citizenship or vacate the area, we must tell Jews living in Jewish towns in areas to be permanently ceded to the future Palestinian state that they must either agree to be legal residents or citizens of Palestine, or vacate the area.

I truly believe that God would rather see us give up some of our land to save lives and prevent suffering, then to keep it at a high cost in lives and trauma. And if it is truly His will that we once again have the entirety of the Land, then somehow it will come back to us, a hundred years or a thousand years from now. We are a people of millennia. We can afford to be patient. And if it is not His will, then we are all the more doing the right thing now to divide the land and save blood from being shed.

The leadership on both sides are prize arrangements of douchebags-- and what is worse, they are douchebags who also suffer from far too many internal crises to focus well on this problem. Some of my more right-wing friends say that the problem is that Israel has no dialogue partner in the Palestinian Authority government, and while that may or may not be true, it doesn't excuse the persistent dumbassery of the Israeli government on this issue. And some of my more left-wing friends think that we should just invite everyone to a seat at the table, and just take the word of Hamas that it would like to negotiate in good faith, despite its charter calling for the destruction of Israel. And this position, too, is dumbassery. Sure, sooner or later opposing sides have to talk, but I don't think it's out of line for one party to make a prerequisite that the other party first has to officially retract the death warrant they've put out on the first party.

Anyhow, I do think this situation is solvable, but we all have to face up to the fact that nobody is going to come away from this entirely happy, or with everything they want. But I think more people-- Israeli people and Palestinian people-- want peace than not.

And religiously, while I think it is a great good for there to be a Jewish State in the Jewish Land again, it is also a great good for us to seek peace, and to try and resolve our problems with our neighbors-- especially when they are also children of Abraham.

If it means anything to you, I certainly am not offended by that.

EDIT

It means something to me. Thanks.

this comment came appended to the side of an article about a kinda cool palestinian short film, a space exodus. the article is here:

"A Space Exodus": A Truly Palestinian Film

the film here:


there is an entirely legitimate counter-narrative based in the unfortunate experience of palestinians who have been herded about after expropriation, stuck in camps to rot since the 40s in some cases, subjected to serious brutalization since 67 in the name of the greater israel...colonial occupation dressed up as "the settlement program"...the economic crippling of the palestinian population, war crimes in gaza. on and on.


because i am neither palestinian nor israeli, i can have a simpler viewpoint.

i see no connection between anti-semitism and criticism of current israeli policy. but the ideological origins of israel make the separation delicate, i think, something that has to be periodically reiterated and understood between speakers in a conversation, made clear. so the separation ends up a matter of good faith between the speakers in an exchange.

it's possible to argue that the wrong sort of zionism had won by the early 50s, and that the sort of zionism that won has turned out to be racist (in its more rightwing forms) and its dominance has made of israel a de facto apartheid state. sp it is possible to simultaneously hold a zionist position and be very critical of the form of zionism that's come to dominate via the israeli right. i am not personally a zionist.


the problems between israelis and palestinians follow from political choices and nothing else. it seems to me that all of these unfortunate realities could be otherwise with different choices. which on it's own disconnects any such critique from a matter of imaginary "essence" to do with a people or religion.

i recognize there are more and less difficult issues...i personally support the right of return, but understand the argument to the contrary. i think that argument raises a basic question about the idea of a "religious" or "jewish" state as over against a secular nation-state (with all the qualifications about that category in place)...which seems, in turn, to recapitulate the basic intractability of some of these issues. this is a classical liberal type problem, a question in which either answer (support or oppose the right of return) results in one or the other party feeling that something fundamental about themselves gets erased.

the wider political questions are easier in that the basic ground the work on is a bit clearer. but the main one is the settlements. i think they are *the* central problem in the region and that they really have to be taken down. all of them. and there are no doubt heated arguments that could follow from and about that. but they're political questions, really.

unless you are on the ground on one side or the other.

not least because the brutality of colonialism makes everyone pathological. on this, fanon was right in wretched of the earth (in particular)...

imaginary right? where is it written that someone doesn't have a right to feel how they feel, no matter how ignorant, stupid, or wrong?

people can think inwardly whatever stupidities they want, but once they articulate them in a public space---particularly in a debate-oriented space---there's a symmetrical right to criticize those stupidities.

in a democratic environment, there'd be an assumption that you'd be able to mount arguments in defense of those positions. because it is simply not the case in a democracy that anything goes. not in one that actually exists or existed. there are standards of argumentation. if what a citizen thinks is really fucking stupid and he or she were to argue it in the agora, that'd likely be the end of their influence.

so no, there really is no "right" to be racist publicly, or be stupid publicly, if by that you mean some "right" to not be criticized for being racist or being stupid.

there is a right to not be arrested for being stupid discursively. but a "freedom" from being criticised?

say stupid shit, get criticized. it's not hard to figure out.. you have the right to be an asshole or racist. you do not have the right to say it and it not be called out on it.

every thought expressed has a consequence.

of course, we call this the 1st Amendment.

of course. just as it is every persons right to either ignore or publicly engage the idiot in his/her discourse.

i would agree.