The current uproar over Mick Davis's views


By Stanley Walinets
November 26, 2010
Share

I am full of admiration for UJIA leader Mick Davis for speaking out, and for the JC for giving his views such prominence. At last we in the diaspora are realising the true responsibilities of friendship. To be a friend of Israel does not mean we must never voice our concerns. A true friend shows his sincerity by telling his friend when he is harming himself. It is false friendship to encourage your friend to believe he can do no wrong, to encourage him to ignore uncomfortable truths.

Davis said Israel's actions impact on Jews in London. Absolutely true. But US Anti-Defamation League Abe Foxman's re-action is that that's "arrogant nonsense". Abe -- you are talking like an ostrich with its head deep in the sand. We need only read the regular reports in the JC of anti-Semitic acts over recent decades, to realise that the growth in anti-Semitism has gone hand in hand with Israel's increasingly unacceptable behaviour. After the Hollocaust, sympathy and respect for Jews was world-wide. The undeniable growth in anti-Semitism since then has been an inevitable response to Israel's behaviour since then. And we in the diaspora are its victims, along with our brethren in Israel itself. So we are very much entitled to comment on Israel's mistakes. We suffer too.

A simple analogy. If I'm in a car with my best friend and he's driving dangerously I'd certainly better tell him, before he kills us both. Mick Davis has bravely opened this discussion. It's time to say to Israel, especially its self-important, self-deceiving, extremist frummers, "Israel -- stop. Your behaviour as Jews cannot go on. You are destroying yourself. And you're destroying the rest of us with you."

We must speak out and say that to Israel. Then we can talk seriously about how to make Israel the State we can really be proud of -- humane, intelligent, achieving, an example to all nations. A legitimate State, in fact.

COMMENTS

jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 14:54

Rate this:

0 points

"Jose"....is there any internet evidence that you have ever said anything favorable about any country other than Israel? If not, we can only assume that you never have.

Myopic Iris, what are you talking about? Do you want me to say that with Mr. Hitler, trains were arriving sharp on schedule?

We are speaking of relevant criticism, here... It means that anyone who spends some time criticising Israel should spend much more time, logically, criticizing those countries that do much worse. If not, double standards are involved.

And double standards are a sure sign of antisemitism.

Zair, tspam, myopic iris are all using double standards.


telegramsam

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 14:57

Rate this:

0 points

Jose, I'm sorry to go about this, but I can only repeat Mr Olmert's last sentence.
"We’d do well not to forget the overall picture and the complex meaning of being an occupier."
He also said: “As long as this reality continues, it makes it possible to attack Israel and gives anti-Jewish sources the opportunity to be heard. The complicated situation we’re in encourages anti-Semitism."
Perhaps we can take a cold objective look at the monthly figures for antisemitic attacks in the UK. There were spikes around the time of the Lebanon War and about the time of Cast Lead.
Mr Olmert views Israel as occupying the West Bank, as did his predecessor, Ariel Sharon.
Bibi Netanyahu has also made it clear that the occupation is doing Israel no favours. Does that mean that Messrs Olmert, Sharon and Netanyahu are antisemites? Or does it really mean that once they are in the Prime Minister's Office "things you can see from here, you can't see from there", as I believe Yehudit Ravitz's song goes.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 14:59

Rate this:

0 points

Let's not forget Stanley Walinets, who is avowedly using these double standards, for whom Israel should be better than any other country. And he criticises it because he believes it is not up to his high expectations.
If he applied the same standards to France, UK, USA, he would criticise them as well. But he never does. For these countries, he has another set of standards. And then, he has an even lower standard for those that are not even at the normal level: Iran, China, Lybia, Syria, Lebanon. For them, no expectation whatsoever. So no criticism is necessary.
Conclusion: Stanley Walinets will always criticise Israel and never any bloody dictatorship.

Have you ever seen anything more stupid?


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 15:03

Rate this:

0 points

Tspam, your reading comprehension is below zero.
Olmert speaks of the complex meaning of being an occupier, not imply that he applies this term to Israel. Others like you do it and that is hate propaganda, which causes antisemitism.

Do you understand?


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 15:05

Rate this:

0 points

Tspam, there was a spike of antisemitism during WW II.
How do you explain that? With the future creation of Israel in 1948?

That will be the new sequel of "Back to the Future" !


telegramsam

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 15:30

Rate this:

0 points

Jose, it's interesting that you note that. Thank you. Yet, in what were very quiet years, there were sudden surges in antisemitism at about the same time as Lebanon II and Cast Lead. It would be hard to ignore the causality.
As for the "occupation", that was the term used by Olmert AND Sharon -- neither of whom could be considered anti-Israel or antisemitic.


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 16:10

Rate this:

0 points

OK, let's try to explain this VERY slowly for spammo's sake:

1. Israel is PRESENTED as an occupier.
1a. There are several meanings of occupier:
1.a.a: somebody who is in legal possession,
1.a.b: somebody who is in illegal possession.
1b. Israel is in legal possession. It is an occupier in the legal sense.

2. Israel is PRESENTED by antisemites as being an illegal occupier.

3. Therefore, this myth of Israel being an 'illegal' occupier informs the discourse of antisemites, and they use it in demonising Israel.

4. The spikes in antisemitism after Cast Lead etc are not caused by Israel's legal actions. They are caused by the antisemitic MISINTERPRETATION of Israel's actions as supposedly 'illegal'.
This is usually known in ordinary language as 'having an agenda', aka being biased.

All clear now? Will spammo (and other slow-witted losers like Mick Davis) be able to follow this?


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 16:14

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley Walinets is even worse than Jose presents him. Stanley Walinets claims that unless Israel behaves as he demands (and let's not forget that Israel is already behaving more morally than any other nation on earth), it is not a legitimate state.
That makes Stanley Walinets an antisemite.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 16:44

Rate this:

0 points

It would be hard to ignore the causality.

The fact that antisemites use times of war to intensify their hate propaganda, using "useful idiots" as you are, didn't strike you?

You again confuse cause and correlation. The cause is quite simple: antisemitism is cause by hateful propaganda, ie Jews harvest organs for transplants, Jews kill Muslim children for pleasure, take their blood for matzos, killed the Christ, and whatever.
What the hater make of the circumstances is irrelevant to the cause, and only idiots would confuse circumstances and causes.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 16:52

Rate this:

1 point

Yoni, this is very symptomatic of tspam's psychological problems and of why he is so vulnerable to hate propaganda and brainwashing.
The poor guy probably never had any scientific education, but even those with a scientific background sometimes don't grasp these very simple things.

Tspam theory cannot explain why there was antisemitism before the creation of the new state of Israel. Therefore he ignores the cause and always speaks about correlation without noticing the difference.

Remember tspam, to prove a cause implies to show that if the cause is not present, there is no effect at all, ie if there is an effect without the supposed cause, it can't be one.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:12

Rate this:

1 point

Now, let's take an example of tspam belief in the intrinsec meaning of words. Let's try with "occupation".

- occupation1: to ensure security for its citizens and to provide for Abbas failure to resist to terror groups (such as what happened in Gaza), Israel send troops in Judea Samaria.
It is evident that once the frontiers will be agreed and the security can be ensured by the local dictator, Israel will remove its troops.

- occupation2: to give lebensraum to its citizens, Muslims from former Ottoman Empire and elsewhere need, in addition to the 1/4th of the world they already control, the ridiculous part occupied by Israel. You can also replace Muslims with China and Israel with Tibet.

Intermediates are easily found elsewhere:
- occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
- occupation of South Lebanon by the UNIFIL
etc.

That, tspam, is the complex meaning of "occupation" to which Olmert and certainly Sharon also referred. So, if you are not able to understand what your betters say, shut up. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:25

Rate this:

-1 points

Lets take it even more slowly

There is an occupation

An occupation that was certainly legal in the first instance

Whether it remains legal is arguable and is not a very interesting question anyway so we needn't waste any time on it

What is clear is that the settling of the occupied territory is illegal, but again that is somewhat off topic.

I think both Stanley and Olmert are not quite right. i.e I don't think Israeli actions spike antisemitism but rather spikes antiIsraelism, and no they are not the same thing.

This indirectly spikes antisemitism due to the knee jerk spoiled child like rabid denouncing of any criticism as antisemitic. This is probably the biggest single impetus to antisemitism there is. In other words if you accuse someone of being antisemitic often enough and loud enough it is quite likely they will become so.

It seems impossible that this blogsite can be a forum for sensible discussion of the issues while the whole thing is overwhelmed by the rantings of eight or ten rabid fundamentalist fanatics. Not very bright ones at that.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:30

Rate this:

0 points

They know who they are


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:31

Rate this:

-1 points

They know who they are


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:37

Rate this:

0 points

"What is clear is that the settling of the occupied territory is illegal"

What is clear is that you are talking ignorant bollocks.

Kindly point to an actual real law that actually really defines what Israel is doing as illegal.


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:42

Rate this:

0 points

"I don't think Israeli actions spike antisemitism but rather spikes antiIsraelism, and no they are not the same thing"

You aren't very bright, are you? They most certainly are when (a) there is deranged non-stop focusing on Israel, (b) when there is deranged non-stop demonisation of Israel using Nazi imagery, when far far far far far less criticism is levelled at fascist murderous countries committing genocide.

And you don't really know what 'spike' means, do you?

"This indirectly spikes antisemitism due to the knee jerk spoiled child like rabid denouncing of any criticism as antisemitic"

You aren't very bright, are you? This statement is an antisemitic lie. Not all criticism is denounced as antisemitic, only the antisemitic criticism. Loop back to (a) and (b).


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:50

Rate this:

0 points

Like I said they know who they are


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:52

Rate this:

1 point

They know who they are

Name them, it will be more simple. And it will be easier to count them.

You know, the fact is that each time one Jew (or non-Jew) says "antisemite" there is one antisemite to explain him that it was just criticism (of Israel, of Zionism, of Judaism, etc.).
No doubt the author of the Protocols was just making criticism, the judges of Dreyfus were just judging and the French regime in Vichy was just criticising the cosmopolitan Jews - bloodsuckers of the French nation who brought disaster to it.

"criticism" is as complex a word as "occupation".


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:56

Rate this:

0 points

no need they are busy naming themselves


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 17:58

Rate this:

1 point

The official terminology is "disputed territory". "Occupied territory" is the 'Palestinian' narrative. Biased, as are all those who use this term.

These territories are disputed because, as they were promised to be part (like Jordan) of the national home for Jews, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1949.

Until negociations solves the problem, these territories will remain "disputed".


telegramsam

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:01

Rate this:

0 points

Jose and Yoni, you both make excellent points. However, as you have no doubt noticed, Lebanon 2 and Cast Lead both caused spikes in antisemitism in years that were quiet. That is what Mr Olmert was alluding to. And it was Mr Sharon who referred to the "occupation". Are either of you saying he was an antisemite or anti-Israeli?
Anyway, we are all going in round in circles on this very complex subject.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:03

Rate this:

-1 points

speak for yourself I am not going round in circles


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:07

Rate this:

1 point

Tspam, you are certainly running in circles pretending a correlation is a cause. I doubt not that these two notions are too difficult to grasp for your feeble brain.
Besides, what you call quiet never existed except in your imagination.
And you remember that it is the propagandists who speak of an occupation as a negative thing...
What Olmert was alluding to totally escaped your grasp. And among Olmert and you, there is only one antisemite, not two.


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:12

Rate this:

0 points

"However, as you have no doubt noticed, Lebanon 2 and Cast Lead both caused spikes in antisemitism in years that were quiet"

No, dear, they did not 'cause' it except in the sense that a woman who gets raped 'causes' the rape.

And the pathetic jandrsimonson is running and hiding when asked to put his money where his mouth is and provide evidence for his ludicrous claims. Mind you, that's probably all he can do, since no such evidence exists. Even so, he might be better off not shooting off his mouth about non-bright people, because he is a prime example.


Stanley Walinets

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:12

Rate this:

-1 points

Kahina. You say "The saddest thing in the Arab world, is the contempt Arab states have for the Palestinians. They could so easily help them and accept them as citizens, but they are kept as refugees and used as a tool to fight against the presence of a Jewish State in the region."
I don't particularly admire the Arab states. But your feeling they should "help the Palestinians by accepting them as citizens" is too simplified. The Palestinians are displaced people in their own land. If they become "citizens" in a different land, that is the same as accepting their displacement instead of clinging on in the hope that eventually they'll be allowed to stay in the country of their birth -- even if means they've been forced to move from their original part of their country to accept a 'two-state' solution.
_____________________________
Yoni1: "Stanley .... we are the iron fist now.....You must be one of the idiots who thinks it's morally superior to lie back and be murdered than to stand up for yourself."

You mean then, Yoni1, that it is morally superior to stand up for yourself rather than lie back and be murdered? I agree. Might the displaced Palestinians be feeling that way too?

Yoni1: You quote me: "Then we can talk seriously about how to make Israel the State we can really be proud of -- humane, intelligent, achieving, an example to all nations. A legitimate State, in fact." And you comment: "What a vile antisemitic statement."

And Yvetta: "Stanley is implying that Israel's legitimacy depends on Israel's conduct - or, rather, behaving as the JfJfP types would wish. Absolutely shameful."

Yoni1, Yvetta -- Do you really mean this? Do you really mean that it's anti-semitic to want to be proud of an Israel that is humane, intelligent, achieving, an example to all nations. A legitimate State?
Do you really mean that we should NOT judge Isreal -- or any other State -- on its conduct?
Perhaps you've both made a mistake -- do read what I said again...
________________________________________

amber: "Stanley, please provide an example where ANY criticism of Israel is labelled antisemitic.
That is what you said. Just one example."

I'm not sure what you mean, amber. Aren't almost ALL
the responses I'm receiving here examples of criticisms being labelled 'anti-semitic'? On reflection, perhaps you mean that criticisms of Israel are not said to be 'anti-semitic', they're simply 'anti-Israel'? Possibly that's so. But I think you're splitting hairs. I know very well the number of times I myself have expressed criticism of Israel's behaviour, only to be immediately condemned as a 'self-hater' -- which can only mean I'm a Jewish anti- semite. Can't it?
________________________________________

May I make a general point? Can anyone really tell me that the ever-increasing illegal take-over of West Bank Palestinians' land by settlers (currently about 500,000 of them), their attacks on Palestinians' homes, farms, etc, with the full support of Israel's Government, on the 'justification' that the land belonged to Jews several thousand years ago; and that it was given to the Jews by the the Deity they believe in, etc -- can you really tell me this is honourable behaviour on the part of Israel?
Can anyone deny that behaviour like this MUST be a factor in the growing world-wide condemnation of Israel's activities? Call it anti-semitism or anti-Israel, whatever you like: behaviour like this cannot be applauded, cannot do good for Israel's name. And our name as fellow Jews.
Does it REALLY help Israel if we Jews never say a word of criticism? Or does our determined silence simply say to the world "Israel and we can do no wrong. So leave us to get on with doing as we please. And if anyone says they also have rights to some of this land, we've got the bombs to prove them wrong."

I'll sign off for now. No doubt some will continue to ignore what this is all about... feel free.


telegramsam

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:14

Rate this:

0 points

Jose, nice points. However, in the months preceding Lebanon 2 and Cast Lead, Britain was on for a record low of reported antisemitic incidents. That's according to Britain excellent Community Security Trust.
And it isn't very nice of you to call a former Israeli PM an antisemite. That's just what Neturei Karta does.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:16

Rate this:

0 points

The precise fallacy tspam is committing is post hoc ergo propter hoc, ie if something happened after another one, then the first is the cause of the second.

No need to explain to anyone with a brain how wrong and disastrous that kind of "reasoning" can be. Propaganda and brainwashing are based on the victim's inability to deal correctly with such simple notions.


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:17

Rate this:

0 points

Yes, Stanley, it is antisemitic to say, as you do:
"THEN [my emphasis] we can talk seriously about how to make Israel the State we can really be proud of -- humane, intelligent, achieving, an example to all nations. A legitimate State, in fact."
Assuming that you have even passing acquaintance with the English language, this means that at the moment Israel is NOT a legitimate state. So either you are thick, or you are an antisemite. Which is it, Stanley?

"the ever-increasing illegal take-over of West Bank Palestinians' land" - you screech about it being 'illegal' all you like. It isn't.

"on the 'justification' that the land belonged to Jews several thousand years ago; and that it was given to the Jews by the the Deity they believe in" - bollocks. I am an atheist. It belongs to the Jews by virtue of 3000-year history, and because it doesn't belong to anyone else.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:19

Rate this:

1 point

And it isn't very nice of you to call a former Israeli PM an antisemite.

I didn't. I said one of you two is.

Please understand that you are unable to understand the two fallacies you committed: post hoc and appeal to authority.


telegramsam

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:21

Rate this:

-1 points

Jose, very good use of Latin. However, I'm afraid that with Lebanon 2 and Cast Lead and their connection with a spike in antisemitism it's more a case of quod erat demonstrandum. Have an excellent week.


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:21

Rate this:

1 point

Ah, but Jose, are we dealing here with brainy people? On the evidence of Spammo and Stanley and Simonson, I shouldn't have said so.


Yoni1

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:23

Rate this:

1 point

"it's more a case of quod erat demonstrandum"

Thick as two short planks. A very sad case.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:27

Rate this:

-1 points

Of course correlations do not invariably establish cause and effect. But the whole of science is nothing more or less than noted correlations.

We " know " that water boils at 100c at sea level because every time we heat water to 100c at sea level it boils

Enjoy the rest of your evening Stanley and you are indeed right

De Nial is not a river in Egypt


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:36

Rate this:

1 point

Stanley just repeats propaganda he heard among the people he goes out with, and who would probably reject him if he voiced another unbiased opinion.

First, most settlers are totally legal: they buy land to present owners and settle there, in a place where there is no state, just a dictator who says that anyone who sells his land to a Jew will be executed after a fair trial.

The few that are illegal and violent, are not so with any agreement of Israel. Indeed, they are caught by the police and put in jail like any other offender. And the Israeli Supreme Court sometimes also declare a settlement illegal.

Israel is a legitimate state, with or without Stanley's agreement. This decision is usually taken at levels way above Stanley's. It is called the UN and has authority to do it. The creation of Israel made it legitimate, even if the Muslim states rejected the decision and never accepted it up to now. Remember the notorious three "no"s at Karthum conference.
Remember that violence is the method used by 'Palestinians' to get rid of a legitimate state, as explicitely written in both HAMAS and Fatah Charters.
Remember that those who wanted peace with Israel (Egypt and Jordan) got it rather easily and made a good deal. All those who wanted war also got it, despite Israel. And they lost: money, infrastructures, lives. Yet, they continue to spread hate and propaganda, using "useful idiots" like Stanley and tspam, preparing the next war and hoping it will allow them to kill more Jews than the last one. Hopefully, as in Cast Lead, they might be disappointed.


Jon_i_Cohen

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:37

Rate this:

1 point

Perhaps we should remind Stanley Walinets of a blog post I made back in April, as he hasn't appeared much on these pages since then he may have forgotten.

The content of this also applies to telegramsam and the new found friend of the lefty's jandrsimonson.

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/time-for-stanley-and-all-his-lefty-friends...

By the way, well done and thank you to Robert Snodgrass for that excellent post.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:40

Rate this:

0 points

think I will just sit back and enjoy the jose and yoni show oh and look heres jon cohen

like I said they know who they are


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:41

Rate this:

1 point

We " know " that water boils at 100c at sea level because every time we heat water to 100c at sea level it boils

Well, you confuse cause and observation. Nothing to see with a correlation. Anyone can observe water boiling, no one can observe Israel's war on Lebanon cause a surge of antisemitism.
To deny a cause, I need only one counter-example: the presence of antisemitim without any Israeli action.
Such an example was given to the local idiot: antisemitism before WWII, the biggest surge in the century. No 'cause', but its effeft. Therefore, Israel cannot be the cause of antisemitism.


Jon_i_Cohen

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:42

Rate this:

1 point

Jose reminds us of the "3 no's" of Khartoum, I point out on another page that these "3 no's" have been repeated again this week-end by the so called "PA".

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/british-jewry-and-leadersheep


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:52

Rate this:

1 point

On the other hand, I can easily prove the presence of hate propaganda before any surge of antisemitism, be it the racist theories about the Jews at the time of the Dreyfus affair, the Protocols in Czarist Russian before the many pogroms at the beginning of the 20th century, Mein Kampf and the Nazi rise to power in the 1930s and now the relentless hate propaganda spread by Muslims in the whole world with the help of some "useful idiots". Years with more, years with less but antisemitism anyway, widespread in the alienated Muslim communities and ultra-left around the world. Having one thousand million plus brainwashed humans helps.

No need to add any sane voice to it.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 18:58

Rate this:

0 points

It is here:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/140860

(an extra "w" prevented access to the page)


Jon_i_Cohen

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:06

Rate this:

1 point

so, you've now read the link to the news report; where is the left-wing, quasi academic, pseudo-intellectual answer to what Abbas, (the terrorist in a suit), now says; come on jandrsimonson, Stanley Walinets and telegramsam, what do you now propose?


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:12

Rate this:

0 points

I can see that my mission to educate jose is going to take longer than the two weeks I had allowed but here goes...

the " know " was in quotations. Cause and effect is only ever inferential...........

while we can see water boiling it correlating with heating it to 100c is an observation.

When are we prepared to say that heating it to 100c caused it to boil ? If a surge of antisemitism was observed immediately after lebanon 2 and again immediately after cast lead then we have interesting correlations.

But the analogies are analogies and analogies are never on all fours with that which they are analogous of. Olmert and Stanley merely say that certain kinds of behaviour on the part of Israel have a tendency to cause a spike in antisemitism not that there is a law of physics.......

But if these correlations keep occuring then they need further investigation not knee jerk spoiled child tantrums. Maybe there is no cause and effect relationship( I don't beleive there is at least not a direct one see above ) but maybe there isent a cause and effect relationship between heating water to 100c and it boiling.

After all we are all familiar with the story of the turkey who noted that every time the man came in to its coup it got fed, a very definite correlation, and concluded that " man coming into the coup means I get fed " Then one thanksgiving moring the man came into the coup and wrung its neck


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:12

Rate this:

1 point

Here is an answer to Abbas. If he doesn't want to recognize any Jewish State because it is "based on religion", how come he:
- recognizes 22 Muslim states
- punish by death the selling of land based on religion
- forbids any Jew to settle in the disputed land

If that ever happened anywhere else and for any other religion of course, we would hear shoutings of "Racists!", "Ethnic cleansing!", etc.
But the lefties are always where the caviar is.


amber

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:23

Rate this:

1 point

simonson says:

"This indirectly spikes antisemitism due to the knee jerk spoiled child like rabid denouncing of any criticism as antisemitic. This is probably the biggest single impetus to antisemitism there is"

What an utterly despicable comment. Like Walinets, neither has been able to provide a single instance where ALL criticism of Israel is labelled antisemitic. They go on repeating ad nauseam that any criticism of Israel is immediately labelled antisemitic - yet fail to give us an example - except this blog (ane it isn't true here either!)

So teher you have it - Jews who believe they bring antisemitism on themselves.

Morally degenerate, and intellectually flawed.


amber

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:26

Rate this:

0 points

Telegramsam, whilst it is true that there were antisemitic spikes after Cast Leadfa nd Lebanon, what you fail to mention is that neither event would make one an antisemite, unless one already had such views. We are simply witnessing the physical manifestation of a rabid antisemitism, which expresses itself when the Jews dare to defend themselves against genocidal terror groups like Hamas and Hizbollah. The fault for such antisemitic attacks lies squarely with the antisemites committing such violence (most attacks are now carried out by Muslims), with a mainstream media which acts as an echop chamber to such antisemitic atavistic sentiments. It does NOT lie with the Jews, nor with the State of Israel.

To say so is to give tacit approval to the antisemites, and is morally repugnant.


amber

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:27

Rate this:

0 points

Come on Walinets and simonson, give ius an example where someone has said every criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

One example please.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:28

Rate this:

0 points

I can see that my mission to educate jose is going to take longer than the two weeks I had allowed but here goes...

I guess you won't learn yourself. Before teaching anyone, one must be able to take lessons. And obviously, you are not.

Cause and effect is only ever inferential

No, it is not. May be simplifying but not inferential. We do not 'correlate' water boiling at 100°C in the right conditions, we observe it. Not once in a while, not 9999 times out of 10000. Of course, one idiot might say that the next time, it won't boil. Then the burden of proof is on him. And I'm still waiting!

Olmert and Tspam (not Stanley) don't say at all the same thing. Tspam says "causes", Olmert implies "correlates" ("gives an opportunity").
Olmert clearly shows he understand that doing nothing will not stop antisemitism. Tspam pretends that it will or will limit it to a 'reasonable level' (if there ever was one). I proved him wrong once again as the highest surge of the 20th century happened without the presence of the state of Israel. Therefore causality is EXCLUDED (understand that term?)

But if these correlations keep occuring then they need further investigation not knee jerk spoiled child tantrums

Repeating propaganda will not do the job. Correlation is certainly occurring, cause is well known and it is not Israel who is the cause. And don't go into a knee jerk spoiled child tantrum. You're just wrong.


Jon_i_Cohen

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:28

Rate this:

0 points

exactly amber, point well made. It's symptomatic of the delusional, self-hating, left-wing useful idiots that take pleasure in "knocking" Israel at every opportunity.
and ------------ they know who they are!!


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:38

Rate this:

0 points

Haaaaaaaaaaaa theres Amber

like I said they know who they are


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 19:42

Rate this:

0 points

So let's repeat for the dumbest among us: antisemitism is caused, as usual for centuries, by hate propaganda, disseminated by antisemites and their "useful idiots".

Each time hate propaganda is allowed to disseminate, through any medium, such as books, biased TV and newspapers, racist segments of the community, a surge in antisemitism will follow. That is causal.

Of course, each time Israel has to defend its existence and strike back at its aggressors, the antisemites will step up their hate propaganda machine, because they could not 'win' otherwise. That is correlation, not cause. If Israel defended itself and there was no stepping up of the hate propaganda, the antisemitism would not surge. Therefore Israel is not the cause.

But Israel is the only state in the world who has no right of self-defence. Fortunately, it refuses to believe it.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.