Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12376)	5/7/2002 3:57:14 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Opposition to Sharon's policies, if it is measured, non- hysterical, and acknowledges that kibbitzing from the sidelines is a lot different from wondering which cafe will be blown up next, is fine. That is not the tone of a lot of this stuff. Being tepid on Zionism is fine, but acknowledging that the Israelis are, by international law, legitimately in possession of that country; that many have built their lives there; and that there is no real binational solution at this juncture, is a prerequisite to understanding that Israel is a sovereign state defending itself against implacable enemies, and has reasonable security concerns. Acting as if Israel is unprovoked, or as if it has a duty to suffer attacks that no other state would let pass, well, that sounds like anti- semitism to me......

To: Lane3 who wrote (12376)	5/8/2002 6:32:47 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I think it might even be possible to be tepid on Zionism without being anti-Semitic. I think there may also be a trans-Atlantic difference here. "Zionism" here is understood to be the support of Israel's biblical claims to land - eretz Israel - including the West Bank (or, as Zionists term them, Judaea and Samaria) and chunks of Lebanon, Syria and possibly elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, that's way less valid than Russia's claim to Alaska. 3000-year-old myth-based religious texts depicting an empire 1000 years previously... as the basis for a modern land claim?? I think not. If you mean it simply as the right of the state of Israel to exist, at a minimum within 1967 borders - hey, different matter. That goes without saying in every circle I know (admittedly I don't exactly move in extreme Muslim circles <g>). It's not debatable and I think that these days you'd see even the EU fight to defend that (the UK obviously...). So if you interpret anti-Zionist as anti-Israel... no wonder you think Europe's anti-Semitic. But the conflation of the two terms by the hawkish right has here done you a big disfavour.

To: Lane3 who wrote (12376)	5/10/2002 3:21:13 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"Likewise, I don't think that opposition to Sharon policies necessarily means anti-Semitism. I think it might even be possible to be tepid on Zionism without being anti-Semitic" Karen, this reminds me of a squabble I had with a rather corybantic fellow a few weeks back. I had commented that the Old Testament (like most primitive religious writings) was a record of tribal hatred and racism characterized by genocide, enslavement, dehumanization, and such. This recognition mirrors an opinion which is mainstream in modern thought, and is beyond serious dispute. This certain fellow (not being mainstream, but rather extremist and rabid) challenged the point. Needless to say, it was a rather simple matter to point him to the quotes and chapters of the Old Testament, and show him that the 12 Tribes of Israel believed themselves to be chosen by a supernatural entity as having divine favour over all others. Rather than concede the point he attempted to obfuscate by transporting the discussion into modern day situations. He appealed to a Jewish movement called Jewish Universalism which is a commendable attempt by certain members of the Jewish community to soften some of the implications of fundamentalist Judaism. When he found no argument from me against these commendable efforts, he then resorted to the ugly tactic of those lacking a sense of social class, and uttered vile obscenities. This was a personal attack which he is apparently still carrying on. It is somewhat perplexing to face such crass insults on a regular basis, yet, fortunately, it does not overly task my reserves. I have said repeatedly that most religions originated within tribes or groups as a method of controlling the group--as well as granting a unique relationship with the group to a "creator" who favoured them and incensed them against those "others" who were led by a different "God". In tribal perspectives, "God" is almost synonymous with "General" as He was the war leader against the enemies of "the people". This is not unique to the Old Testament. It is seen in literally hundreds of tribal religions. There are people who pretend to a self righteous and holy Puritanism as a cover for hypocrisy, dishonesty, and malice. Their cover is ratcheted so tight by "moral" extremism that they generally fool even themselves. This fellow was very much like that. His prejudice is as obvious as his selective and partial responses to practically every topic. One never finds from him an acknowledgement that there are two sides. One never finds the awareness that "balance" requires bringing the ends toward the middle. He demonstrates such a fierce opposition to certain religious/cultural entities that one is left with a feeling of disquietude as to the roots of his animus: Perhaps it is merely a sense of superior culture which he defends. It is only very recently that racism has been viewed as inhuman or immoral in any universal sense. In the days of the Old Testament, racism and slavery of "inferior" or different humans was normative. Only a fool, or one of extreme bias, would argue the point that Judaism and most religions did not take root in the maelstrom of racial hate and enmity, and the desire to preserve ones own "group" as being more worthy, more deserving, and more pure...and representative of supernatural desire and authority. The Jews were not the only people who took racial slaves in the Old Testament. The Jewish people are a religious grouping whose identity is based on a combination of ancestry and devotion to the peculiar Jewish mythology. One not born a Jew by bloodline may not become a Jew, without demonstrating at the highest levels, a full and complete acceptance and dedication to the Jewish mythology as structured around the core belief that they were chosen by Yahweh as His special children, and that they live under a special covenant of favour with him including the promise of the land of Canaan. As part of their covenant, they believe that they were granted particular land by a supernatural entity. They consider this land to have been bequeathed by divine authority to the 12 Tribes of Israel--NOT to gentiles, and NOT to people of any other religion whom worship a different God. I certainly do not dislike them for believing this. But I do find it silly; and it is distressing (in conjunction with other people who run with God) for the rest of us to need to act as mediators and arbitrators of the neverending claims and warfare. One just wishes they could all lose their colour, their special blood, their religion...and just be Human Beings instead of Jews, Muslims, and all the rest...

To: Lane3 who wrote (12376)	5/10/2002 3:32:55 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 21057

"I'm not sure, though, how much anti-Semitism there is in some of the ideas and expressions to which that label has been applied. I think it's a mistake to overuse labels like that." I agree with you. It is very unfortunate that the cry of "anti-semitism" is used to silence legitmate criticism of policies and initiatives. In the end, it harms the efforts of civilized people to stamp out racism...much as in the analogy of the boy who cried wolf. The Jewish people need to reign in their extremists and their nuts (yes, even Jews have their nuts and fools--just as do any other people). It is up to them, for we are not allowed to comment...

To: Lane3 who wrote (12376)	5/10/2002 6:10:44 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"The thread was recently looking a definitions of homophobia. One point of view was that those who didn't favor marriage between gays were homophobes. IMO, that's just plain silly" I recall Tim saying that he was not a homophobe just by virtue of that...and nobody disagreed. But he was not responding to anything on this thread, that I recall. I did not read any posts on this thread trying to equate an opinion on marriage contracts as necessitating hatred of homosexuals. Might this have been on another thread, Karen? Of course, I might have missed a post...or you may be referring to a gratuitous "defense" which was merely contrived, and mistaking it for a point of view expressed by someone on this thread. Do you recall?