|
« Goebbels grotto
Main |
December 05, 2003
Oldest hatred, latest chapter
The suppressed EU report on antisemitism in Europe has now been published on the Board of Deputies website, and a powerful, sobering and important read it is. It records a wave of antisemitism across Europe in the wake of the outbreak of the present terror campaign against Israel after the Camp David talks in 2000. It says the physical attacks on Jews have been perpetrated mainly by extreme right wing groups and young Muslims mostly of Arab descent, who themselves were often victims of racism. 'Desecration of synagogues, cemeteries, swastika graffiti, threatening and insulting mail as well as the denial of the Holocaust as a theme, particularly on the Internet. These are the forms of action to be primarily assigned to the far-right. Physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts often committed by young Muslim perpetrators in the monitoring period. Many of these attacks occurred either during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hurling verbal abuse. In addition, radical Islamist circles were responsible for placing anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and in Arab-language media'. Even more significant is that it records the convergence of the radical left, the far right and Islamists in this outbreak of Jew-hatred: 'Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the “Zionist lobby”, and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalisation from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries'. Having drawn attention to the explosion of far-right internet sites with links to Islamists (and noted -- startlingly -- that far-right music glorifying antisemitic violence is distributed mainly from Scandinavia), it points out that antisemitism is different from racism in that it centres on demonising the Jews as a nationally and internationally influential group, allegedly controlling politics and the economy. And it also tackles the canard that the claim of resurgent antisemitism is only being made to conceal or sanitise the wrongdoings of Israel. Helpfully, it establishes some pointers to where the line is crossed from legitimate criticism of Israel into antisemitism, making clear that this line has indeed been breached. Key paragraph: 'Following September 11, 2001, some hold that Islamist terrorism is a natural consequence of the unsolved Middle East conflict, for which Israel alone is held responsible. They ascribe to Jews a major influence over the USA’s allegedly biased pro-Israel policies. This is where anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes could converge and conspiracy theories over “Jewish world domination” might flare up again. The assumption of close ties between the US and Israel gives rise to a further motive for an anti-Semitic attitude. Amongst the political left, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are very closely tied together. Due to its occupation policy, sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation as well as some Third World countries view Israel as aggressive, imperialistic and colonialist. Taken on its own terms this is naturally not to be viewed as anti-Semitic; and yet there are exaggerated formulations which witness a turn from criticism into anti-Semitism, for example when Israel and the Jews are reproached for replicating the most horrific crimes of the National Socialists like the Holocaust. In the form of anti-Semitism it could be said that the tradition of demonising Jews in the past is now being transferred to the state of Israel. In this way traditional anti-Semitism is translated into a new form, less deprived of legitimacy, whose employment today in Europe could become part of the political mainstream'. Exactly. Antisemitism is protean, and it has mutated into a new form yet again in which Israel is the collective Jew to be demonised, dehumanised and delegitimised. The fact that this report was suppressed speaks volumes about the political culture that it is describing. The fact that its details have nevertheless seeped out may mean that it now will be a little less easy for the antisemitism-deniers to blame the victims for their own demonisation. Posted by melanie at December 5, 2003
Comments
It’s an irony that many outspoken supporters of Israel (such as Melanie Philips) are considered very right wing/far right. The anti Semitism in Britain and on the continent is there, is tangible, and will only get worse. I wish that Tony Blair for one would take a firm stand and get in the faces of those members of the establishment who engage in the oldest hatred. Posted by: Travis at December 5, 2003 12:57 AMWait being a supporter of Israel means you are far right? Excuse me, what the hell are you on about? Your logic is completely incomprehensible. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 5, 2003 12:59 AMMike: I am not sure if you are serious but if you are your logic is seriously warped. Your attempt to conflate Arabs and Jews as both Semites is a patently ridiculous attempt to deflect criticism of anti-Semitism by reversing it back onto the one making the critique, in this case, Melanie. It is an old Arab canard to claim that Jews and Arabs are both Semites so therefore, by definition, any criticism of Arabs is anti-Semitism, too. Give us a break. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews and you know it. If you're joking, I' advise you to get better material. And, if you're just being anti-Semitic, by trying to point out some kind of contradiction in anti-Semitism, then you know where I think you should go.... Posted by: David at December 5, 2003 12:59 AMBut Andrew, that is how moonbats/idiotarians "argue." Logic is the least of their worries. Posted by: Susan at December 5, 2003 01:22 AMArabs are of mixed semitic races so are polysemites. Jews are semites. Maybe that's clear enough. Arabs are spending a lot of money on PR to divert the attention from Saudi Arabia who's funding terrorism and supporting it... the fact that America is involed in a multi trillion dollar business with Saudi could possibly be the reason for them not bombing them to smithereens. So the focus is on the minority - as always, the Jews! Is anyone surprised? Will anyone be surprised in 20 years when there is an Islamic Union of Europe... the global jihad started on 9/11 and radical Islam won't stop until the Khilafa is established! Posted by: nannette at December 5, 2003 02:15 AM"I wish that Tony Blair for one "
Once again Melanie is to be congratulated for highlighting the trully malevolent and potentially catastrophic phenomenon that is left-liberal antisemitism. The only point upon which I am regretfully forced to disagree with her analysis is in her characterisation of left-liberal antisemitism as something new. Very far from being new this particular strain is in fact the oldest form of the disease. It is in essence a latter day, post-Enlightenment manifestation of that pre-Christian, archaic antisemitism which found it's ultimate expression in the cataclysmic conflict between Hellenism and Judaism. I wholeheartedly agree that antisemitism is protean, that it is outwardly capable of mutating over time and in different locations and cultures, but it's root cause remains always and everywhere the same.Inasmuch as as the modern left-liberal expression is a manifestation of it's earliest and "purest" strain it merits close study and, once again, I congratulate Melanie for consistently exposing it to the light of day. Posted by: Kenny at December 5, 2003 09:39 AM ". . . Having drawn attention to the explosion of far-right internet sites with links to Islamists (and noted -- startlingly -- that far-right music glorifying antisemitic violence is distributed mainly from Scandinavia), it points out that antisemitism is different from racism in that it centres on demonising the Jews as a nationally and internationally influential group, allegedly controlling politics and the economy. . ." As I have been saying all along. . . No matter how much they deny it, the EU has been letting this happen all in the guise of being "anti-Israeli." All one has to do is to speak to ordinary people on the street anywhere in Europe and the anti-Semitism is palpable. It has always been there. . . but now, there is an excuse that makes it seem "legitimate" AGAIN—Israel. The Euros are anti-Muslim as well, but don't have the guts to speak very loudly about that because the "Religion of Pieces" screams, "Say we are the Religion of Peace or we shall kill you!" The EU does not have the cojones to be anti-Islamic terrorism and call for a Reformation in Islam for FEAR of being seen as anti-Muslim. Being anti-Muslim is not the same as being anti-Islamic terrorism. Why is it that the EU does not call out and respond to the blatant anti-Semitism as well as the bigotry and the misogyny found in any and all Islamic literature, especially the Qu'ran? What about the EU speaking out against the Friday sermons by Islamic clerics inciting the "true believers" to murderous jihad against the Jews and the "infidel"? What about the EU protesting those Islamic school books and the madrassas that instill hatred of Jews and the "other" all across the Islamic world? As the report states, many of those Islamic hate websites originate in Europe—in those countries that constantly blow their own horns for being "oh so fair and non-racist"—Scandinavia. Why is it that holier-than-thou Europe, which always bills itself as so much less racist than the US, does not speak out against Islamic misanthropy? After all, the Islamists are trying to do EXACTLY what they accuse the Jews of having already done—take over the world, this time in the name of Islam. When economies go sour and socialist government policies fail, there must be a scapegoat. The Jews have always been a very convenient one. Good thing they are smart enough and strong enough to counter this. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. Suicide bombers have nothing on a bunch of intellectual Jews with computers. Thanks to the Jews this report was not permitted to be pushed under the rug. As they say, "Never again!" Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose! Lili "Saudi Arabia who's "
All one has to do is to speak to ordinary people on the street anywhere in Europe and the anti-Semitism is palpable. The Euros are anti-Muslim as well" Well Lilith, at least they can live in harmony with the others. Maybe it is importing squabbles from the Middle East into Europe that has caused the problem, don't you think ? Posted by: Didact at December 5, 2003 10:33 AM"Well Lilith, at least they can live in harmony with the others. Maybe it is importing squabbles from the Middle East into Europe that has caused the problem, don't you think ?" That "living in harmony" is a bit new, Didact. Europe was quite war like and imperialistic for millennia. As to importing squabbles from the Middle East. Do you really believe that if Israel disappeared tomorrow that radical Islam would stop terrorizing the whole world? Lili Nothing wrong with Empires.....it is just that the US is having great difficulty trying to structure one. Imported from the Middle East refers to parties which have imported a quarrel into Europe each trying to drag other peoples into their convoluted problems. Posted by: Didact at December 5, 2003 12:21 PMThe French have always been openly anti-semitic. I was in France for a month of so after an Apple expo to wait for my mother arrive for a business trip (pre-9/11). I was amazed, yes cynical ole' me, when I heard several of our French contacts saysing "X, who is a Jew you know, did this (or said this." I have never heard anyone in the UK express it this blunt way in common communication. I certainly hope that Michael Howard has good police protection. I am sure there are those who are not pleased to have a Jewish man poised to assume the job of PM. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 5, 2003 12:44 PMLabour MPS have criticised Tony Blair for daring to associate himself with people of Jewish ancestry (like the anti-Israel Jack Straw). They also don't like that the fact that there are Jews in the American administration. So can you imagine what they'd be like if we had a Jewish priminister? I just hope we get to find out. Posted by: Richard at December 5, 2003 12:57 PMI certainly hope that Michael Howard has good police protection. I am sure there are those who are not pleased to have a Jewish man poised to assume the job of PM. "
Once, the left believed in "Liberation Theology" - the idea that the socialist paradise could be attained through terrorism. That belief has mutated into an admiration for islamic terrorism directed against a "capitalist-imperialist" Israel. Add an underlying hostility to Jewish capitalists (or moneylenders) and you have the modern leftist anti-semitism. I notice some journalists and commentators have begun using the word "Judeophobic" to avoid the ambiguity of the word "antiSemitic". Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at December 5, 2003 10:17 PMIt is tiresome to have continually to repeat this for the particularly ignorant, but "antisemitism" never meant anything except hatred of Jews. The term was coined by the hater of Jews Wilhelm Marr in the late 19th Century to replace "Judenhass" because the latter term was not, as we might now say, trendy enough. Antisemitism seemed much more "scientific" and modern to Marr and his pals. Antisemites have never hesitated to cooperate with Arabs, indeed the Nazis were very supportive of them and their wish to make Palestine and the rest of the Middle East judenrein. Someone arguing that antisemitism in any way refers to Arabs is either grossly ignorant or arguing in bad faith. Take your pick. Posted by: Michael Lonie at December 6, 2003 02:39 AMAndrew, to add to your observations. I was in Paris recently and noticed a suburb in the South is called "Villejuif", which I think is roughly translated to "Jew City". So, in some sense it's still out in the open and I would hope someone would petition they change the name of that place -- it's an affront to humanity! Posted by: AlaEnt at December 6, 2003 09:58 AM"Nothing wrong with Empires.....it is just that the US is having great difficulty trying to structure one. Imported from the Middle East refers to parties which have imported a quarrel into Europe each trying to drag other peoples into their convoluted problems." Didact, the US has never had nor will it ever have an "empire" in the same manner that European countries built empires in ages past. Let us not forget that Europe, specifically Britain, set up Israel in an effort to assuage their guilt for having been complicit in decimating 6 million Jews. The US had NOTHING to do with Balfour! If you want to talk about "importing" problems from the Middle East, I would talk about exporting the problems that Europe originally created to the rest of the world. While the US also has its problems with bigotry and prejudice—we have come a long way, Europe still has a long way to go in admitting its bigotries as evidenced by the recent suppression of the anti-Semitism report. Now, there are reports that al Qaeda is recruiting not only in the ME but all over Europe!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/international/europe/06QAED.html "Over the past year, the officials estimate, the network of recruiters working in at least six European countries — Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Britain and Norway — has assisted hundreds of young men trying to get to Iraq. The network provided high quality fake documents, training, money, and infiltration routes into the country, the officials said. They said the evidence indicated that the campaign to recruit young militant Muslims for Iraq had become better organized and coordinated in recent months. . . . . . "We have seen an intensification of movement by people who are under investigation," said Armando Spataro, coordinator of terrorism investigations at Milan's Justice Department. "They were going to Iraq or to training camps. We have seen that movement across Europe." The evidence gathered by Italian investigators indicates that fighters entering Iraq from Italy have been active in recent attacks on coalition forces there, Italian judicial and military officials said. One official said there was evidence that a recruit from Italy, Morchidi Kamal, was involved in the October rocket attack on the Rashid hotel in Baghdad, where the American assistant defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was staying at the time. . . " However, there is hope: "Chirac Denounces Muslim Head Scarves on Schoolgirls" ". . .Speaking on a visit to Tunisia, Mr. Chirac said the strictly secular French state could not let students wear what he called "ostentatious signs of religious proselytism" and saw "something aggressive" in the wearing of traditional Muslim veils. . . " http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/international/europe/06SCAR.html All I can say is, it's about time! Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 6, 2003 04:08 PMI never knew Arthur Balfour set up a Jewish State....actually, he fell under the spell of his sister I thought....besides he was only at the FO u1916-19 when Mosley's father-in-law Lord Curzon succeeded, and I really don't think Great Britain ever pushed for Israel to be set up Lilith. You are such a revisionist - so Hitler "decimated" the Jews did he ? Only 10% were killed......you are one of those extemists I see. I'll stick with the full 6 million not the 10% you claim. "specifically Britain, set up Israel in an effort to assuage their guilt for having been complicit in decimating 6 million "
Didact, That is the weirdest post yet. What ARE you talking about? None of it makes ANY sense! Lili Posted by: Lili at December 6, 2003 10:49 PMSimply this Lilith. You accuse Britain of being allied with Germany in cremating Jews, and that Britain is 'guilty'. I see your point. Had Britain NOT declared war on Germany none of this would have happened. Chamberlain was wrong to declare war, FDR was too clever to do that.....it would have probably been better for Britain NOT to have gone to war with Germany....and Chamberlain made a big error in declaring war, which France recognised almost immediately and ceased hostilities within 8 months; the Us kept aloof from; and Britain foolishly pursued. You note than no Jews were gassed until October 1942, and it is probable that had Britain settled in October 1939, none of these terrible events would have unfolded. You have persuaded me Lilith, that had Britain gone the extra mile to secure agreement with Adolf Hitler. none of this would have been necessary. Posted by: Didact at December 7, 2003 07:37 AMDidact, I suggest you re-read my posts. "You note than no Jews were gassed until October 1942, and it is probable that had Britain settled in October 1939, none of these terrible events would have unfolded." I have not said any of what you claim. Please produce the quote. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? I do "accuse," as you put it, all of Europe as well as the US of having been anti-Semitic during WW II and before. Currently, I believe that Europe is STILL anti-Semitic. There is plenty of evidence to prove that. As to appeasement, I am the one speaking against appeasement of Islam a la Chamberlain of the Nazis. You are confused. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 7, 2003 09:41 AM"Let us not forget that Europe, specifically Britain, set up Israel in an effort to assuage their guilt for having been complicit in decimating 6 million Jews. The US had NOTHING to do with Balfour! " The fact remains that Chamberlain was a very strong Prime Minister who pursued a policy and removed those who opposed him. It was a highly popular policy, and it was internationally acclaimed for preserving peace in Europe....only by his volte-face on 3rd September 1939 did he plunge Great Britain into a ruinous war and bring Soviet Russia into the heart of Europe. Read the German-Soviet Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939, and see how ready both USSR and Germany were for an alliance with The British Empire......with Britain, USSR, Italy, France, Germany and Japan allied there would have been no need for the destruction of Central Europe and the USA could have continued in its comfortable neutrality. It was the fact theat Britain declared war on Germany for the second time in a generation; whereas all Germany wanted was British neutrality. Had Chamberlain been less intemperate, he could have declared Britain neutral like the United States......it was a far more sensible policy and would have been less damaging to British interests. Britain did not set up "Israel" it did not even recognise the State. Jews were not "decimated"...they were "exterminated".....do use the English language correctly.
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_118.shtml
The statement, which became known as the Balfour Declaration, was, in part, payment to the Jews for their support of the British against the Turks during World War I. After the war, the League of Nations ratified the declaration and in 1922 appointed Britain to rule Palestine When Harry S. Truman took office, he made clear that his sympathies were with the Jews and accepted the Balfour Declaration, explaining that it was in keeping with former President Woodrow Wilson's principle of "self-determination." Britain and the United States, in a joint effort to examine the dilemma, established the "Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry." In April 1946 the committee submitted recommendations that Palestine not be dominated by either Arabs or Jews. British, Arab, and Jewish reactions to the recommendations were not favorable. Britain, anxious to rid itself of the problem, set the United Nations in motion, formally requesting on April 2, 1947, that the UN General Assembly set up the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). This committee recommended that the British mandate over Palestine be ended The U.S. delegates to the UN and top-ranking State Department officials were angered that Truman released his recognition statement to the press without notifying them first. Britain recognised Israel in 1950 - hardly the same as "specifically Britain, set up Israel " "Had Chamberlain been less intemperate, he could have declared Britain neutral like the United States......it was a far more sensible policy and would have been less damaging to British interests." Duke, Britain knew that the Nazis were "exterminating" Jews and other "Untermenschen" in Germany and ultimately Europe. The fact is that Jews of Europe, especially in Germany, were DECIMATED with the help of most of Europe! Are you suggesting that Britain should have continued to ignore this atrocity with "neutrality"? That is rather the same as turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and those happening in Africa. Europe appears to wants to be "neutral" about those atrocities and genocides as well. It appears that might be a "more sensible policy" less damaging to Britain and Europe 's "interests." "Britain did not set up "Israel" it did not even recognize the State. Jews were not "decimated"...they were "exterminated".....do use the English language correctly." Of course, they were BOTH exterminated and decimated. We do want to use the Queen's English correctly. ;-) Britain was the author of the Balfour agreement and is widely recognized/blamed for the partitioning of the Palestinian territories. Israel declared itself a country in 1948. The Palestinians could have done the same anytime since then! A good time might have been 1967 or even 2000 at Camp David. But, no, they called another murderous intefadah because the Palestinians want it all. "Britain recognised Israel in 1950 - hardly the same as "specifically Britain, set up Israel " Read your own post Trundle. It contradicts the above statement. The Arabs "blame" Britain and Europe for creating the Israeli problem and blames the US and the rest of the West for perpetuating it. Had the world not turned a blind eye to Hitler's mission to exterminate the Jews with the "Final Solution" then perhaps international Jewry would still be gracing other lands instead of so many having returned to their historical homeland. Amazing that not only don't the Arabs never take responsibility for anything, but now, you claim that Britain or the Europeans have not had a hand in any of this. LOL So, my questions are: What will Europe and the UK do to help solve this problem? Why is it always the US that is asked to "fix" everything and then damned for whatever it does? Where is European responsibility for world peace in all of this? After all, Europe as well as the Arabs have supported and funded the Palestinians—and with that the terrorists. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 7, 2003 05:49 PMNannette wrote: "Arabs are of mixed semitic races so are polysemites. Jews are semites. Maybe that's clear enough." How patently absurd. I have not heard such nonsensical racial exclusivity asserted since the Third Reich. And based on what? Todays Jews are descended from people all over the planet, as they themselves live all over the planet, and their forebears, to varying degrees, assimilated with local populations. I'm afraid that realistically, only the Gulf Arabs can claim to have any Semitic heritage whatsoever. And can therefore be the only ones to rightfully claim to be the victims of any "anti-Semitic" prejudice. Most Jewish people assert that they are not a "race" but a "people". They are not even that much. They are a bunch of religious adherents. Mike, that is actually not true. It also depends on which ilk of Jews you are speaking of, Askanazi (sic) or Sepharidic. The fact that Jews tend to inter-marry means their links to semitic peoples is a lot stronger than you might imagine. If fact, although it is sometimes a pain to gentiles who fall for Jews, part of the Jews strength of survival is the fact that they stick to their own quite a lot. They have retained not only their religion, but their cultural heritage despite being spread all over the world (either by choice or by force). I would recomend Why the Jews?, a very interesting examination of anti-semiticism/Jewry. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 8, 2003 11:29 AM"I'm afraid that realistically, only the Gulf Arabs can claim to have any Semitic heritage whatsoever. And can therefore be the only ones to rightfully claim to be the victims of any "anti-Semitic" prejudice." Perhaps you can write a letter to the makers of dictionaries and definitions, Mr. Talisman? LOL Interestingly enough, it is the Jews who have been persecuted throughout history FOR NO REASON! Arabs are the ones who brought forth Islam with its anti-"non-believers" and anti-Jews tenets in the Qu'ran. That to me, is bigotry of the first order. "Islam über alles" is what the Qu'ran says. Islam must rule over the world; those who will not "submit" to Islam must be killed. "Slay those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay jaziah out of hand and are utterly subdued Surah Al-Tawbah (Repentence), Ayah 29, . . " I can never fathom WHY Jews have been so persecuted through the ages? They are an intelligent, talented people (religious group) who have done much for humanity—certainly much more than either the Arabs or Islam EVER have. Perhaps jealousies are more of a motivator for bigotry than anything else at all? "Seeing the West as "God's Enemy" http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm In the grand scheme of things, if one takes the long, very long, view—Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitism will do much to move Islam toward Reformation and enlightenment. Unfortunately, like in all wars, it will cost legions of lives. Lili Andrew wrote: "If fact, although it is sometimes a pain to gentiles who fall for Jews, part of the Jews strength of survival is the fact that they stick to their own quite a lot. They have retained not only their religion, but their cultural heritage despite being spread all over the world (either by choice or by force)." Andrew, while I can (kinda) understand why you might see this intentional insularity as some kind of display of discipline and unity, it is, however, to my mind, a deliberate, anti-universalistic attitude that is more counter-productive than it is profitable to the greater humanity. Call me an old fashioned guy, but I thought that what we were striving towards wasn't further trivial division among the species, but greater unity through an assimilated universalist, humanist culture that we can all share in. "I would recomend Why the Jews?, a very interesting examination of anti-semiticism/Jewry." Thanks for the reference, I shall try to find and read it. Lilith wrote: "Interestingly enough, it is the Jews who have been persecuted throughout history FOR NO REASON!" Not all of your brethen seem to concur with you on that one Lilith. As the Jewish author Alan Edelstein noted: "Reason and documentation ... attest to the fact that anti-Jewish hostility has not been (and is not) constant and ubiquitous. If it had been, the conclusion is obvious: Jews could not have survived individually or collectively, religiously or ethnically." Seems a reasonable assertion to me. My ancestors were Celts, and we were hunted and slaughtered by Germanic peoples from 500AD onwards. We went from being the first masters of Europe to clinging desperately to the very edges of the British Isles, most of our ancient language and culture expunged. Yet I know that the persecution could not have been constant or universal, or I simply would not exist today. "Arabs are the ones who brought forth Islam with its anti-"non-believers" and anti-Jews tenets in the Qu'ran. That to me, is bigotry of the first order. "Islam über alles" is what the Qu'ran says. Islam must rule over the world; those who will not "submit" to Islam must be killed." And there are verses in the Talmud that advocate a pious Jew allow an imperiled Gentile to die, rather than save him. There are verses in the Old Testament that advocate everything from slavery to murder. Show me any book written before the dark ages that doesn't say some pretty damn silly things. "Slay those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay jaziah out of hand and are utterly subdued Surah Al-Tawbah (Repentence), Ayah 29, . . " And in contemporary news, Rabbi Daniel Lapin wrote an entire book in 1999 about Jewry's defamation of Christianity. As he notes: "A scenario I have seen several times took place during a Rotary luncheon I once attended. The invocation was given as it always is, but on this occasion, unbeknownst to me, the presenter violated an unwritten rule by invoking the name of Jesus. One of the prominent members who is also a leader of the local Jewish community exploded in a paroxysm of rage ... Why do Jews think it acceptable to decree how Christians may pray? Why do so many Jews feel that they must take offense and react angrily at the invoking of the name of Jesus?" The lesson to be learned here? Most religions that are thousands of years old still tend to bear a thread of intolerance for their competitors. "I can never fathom WHY Jews have been so persecuted through the ages? They are an intelligent, talented people (religious group) who have done much for humanity—certainly much more than either the Arabs or Islam EVER have." A highly subjective assertion. Can any of us say with authority what discovery, when, was more important than any another? I've spent the better part of a decade studying history, and I'm pretty sure I can't. "Interestingly enough, it is the Jews who have been persecuted throughout history FOR NO REASON!" "Not all of your brethen seem to concur with you on that one Lilith. As the Jewish author Alan Edelstein noted:" "Reason and documentation ... attest to the fact that anti-Jewish hostility has not been (and is not) constant and ubiquitous. If it had been, the conclusion is obvious: Jews could not have survived individually or collectively, religiously or ethnically." Mr. T, you really should learn to read more carefully. "Throughout history" does not say "constant" or "ubiquitous." My "brethren"? LOL I am not Jewish, Mr. T. "And there are verses in the Talmud that advocate a pious Jew allow an imperiled Gentile to die, rather than save him. There are verses in the Old Testament that advocate everything from slavery to murder. Show me any book written before the dark ages that doesn't say some pretty damn silly things. There are very few such verses compared to the Qu'ran that has hundreds. Regardless, modern Jews do not invoke Joshua, strap bombs onto themselves and murder Gentiles in pizza parlors and babies in their mother's arms for Yaweh all over the world. Try reading the New Testament. There is no "kill the non believers" sort of talk from Jesus. And in case you are wondering I am not a Christian. The Qu'ran is FULL of violent passages against the "Unbeliever" and these are the latter passages, those that supersede the previous versions "revealed" in Mecca. Therefore, the Islamists are actually following the commands of Allah to the letter. "The lesson to be learned here? Most religions that are thousands of years old still tend to bear a thread of intolerance for their competitors." Regardless, NO other religion is committing terror world wide on anyone who is not of that religion except—Islam! There are no clerics of Christian, Jewish, Budhhist, Hindu, Zoroastran, Shinto or whatever religion standing in their houses of worship inciting their faithful to murder the "Unbelievers" via suicidal jihad in the name of their God. "A highly subjective assertion. Can any of us say with authority what discovery, when, was more important than any another? I've spent the better part of a decade studying history, and I'm pretty sure I can't." Please let us know Mr. T. what Islam has produced to move humanity forward in the last 500 years? Do provide some links of inventions, technological developments, agricultural or scientific progress, etc. Arafat's Nobel Peace prize does not count! As far as I know, since we are talking about the contribution of Jews vs. Muslims, Jews have dozens of Nobel Prizes in everything from hard sciences to medicine to literature while Muslims have but a handful—and that out of 1.5 BILLION people. Indeed, most Muslims are illiterate. And 85% of those illiteracy rates are among Muslim women. The fact remains that Islam is a misanthropic, misogynistic cultural, social and political system, that masquerades as a religion. And radical Islam is a fascist, mind-controlling, 7th century death cult, that will take us all down into one dark night. If Islam had a Reformation and therewith gained enlightenment, there might be an Islamic renaissance. Until that happens Muslims will continue to be, in the words of President Musharraf, himself a Muslim: ". . . internally involved in fratricidal conflicts and perceived by the outside world as terrorists with little attention being given on their uplift," he said. "Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race . . " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1824455.stm Lili Posted by: Lilith Paloma at December 9, 2003 09:01 AMMight I suggest ignoring Talismann and his Jew hatred, which he seeks to camouflage (unsuccessfully) in a welter of pseudo verbiage? Feeding the trolls just makes them stronger. BTW. use of the term "your brethren" is a dead giveaway, lowlife. Posted by: Dave F at December 9, 2003 10:40 AMDave; the man who confuses censorship with victory, has never won a debate in his life without resorting to slurs. Not that he won any of those anyhow. I suggest you raise the bar here Dave, or Melanie will, quite rightly, ban us both. “Mr. T, you really should learn to read more carefully. "Throughout history" does not say "constant" or "ubiquitous."” “My "brethren"? LOL I am not Jewish, Mr. T.” Yeah, but you are a part of the general uncritical advocacy club. “There are very few such verses compared to the Qu'ran that has hundreds. Regardless, modern Jews do not invoke Joshua, strap bombs onto themselves and murder Gentiles in pizza parlors and babies in their mother's arms for Yaweh all over the world. Try reading the New Testament. There is no "kill the non believers" sort of talk from Jesus. And in case you are wondering I am not a Christian. The Qu'ran is FULL of violent passages against the "Unbeliever" and these are the latter passages, those that supersede the previous versions "revealed" in Mecca. Therefore, the Islamists are actually following the commands of Allah to the letter.” I don’t doubt any of what you claim here. At this point I would like to state clearly that I am not an Islamicist, or an advocate or supporter of any Islamic political, theological or any other precept of any kind. I am not partisan, taking one “side” over another like a spectator at a football match. I don’t really support either side, because neither side seems particularly altruistic, or even genuinely attempting policies that approach a progressive regime aimed at limitation or de-escalation of the conflict. “Regardless, NO other religion is committing terror world wide on anyone who is not of that religion except—Islam! There are no clerics of Christian, Jewish, Budhhist, Hindu, Zoroastran, Shinto or whatever religion standing in their houses of worship inciting their faithful to murder the "Unbelievers" via suicidal jihad in the name of their God.” I think you’ll find that over the secular topic of Kashmir, Hindu fanatics have killed rather a large amount of Muslims in the region, as have many Muslims of the region killed many Hindus. “Please let us know Mr. T. what Islam has produced to move humanity forward in the last 500 years? Do provide some links of inventions, technological developments, agricultural or scientific progress, etc. Arafat's Nobel Peace prize does not count! As far as I know, since we are talking about the contribution of Jews vs. Muslims, Jews have dozens of Nobel Prizes in everything from hard sciences to medicine to literature while Muslims have but a handful—and that out of 1.5 BILLION people. Indeed, most Muslims are illiterate. And 85% of those illiteracy rates are among Muslim women.” Only over the last 500 years? What about those crucial discoveries that were made before 500 years ago, acting as the foundation upon which many modern discoveries were able to be made? Now, keeping in mind that I am not interested in acting as an advocate of Islam in any way, here are some examples that I will submit purely in the nature of scholarly debate: I. Medical Science II. Hospitals III. Pharmacology IV. Industry V. Geography VI. Chemistry VII. Mathematics VIII. Art IX. Mechanical Engineering Preface WATERMILLS WINDMILLS FINE TECHNOLOGY WATER CLOCKS This clock did not record equal hours of 60 minutes each, but temporal hours, that is to say, the hours of daylight or darkness were divided by 12 to give hours that varied with the seasons. This measurement required another piece of equipment: the pipe from the float chamber leading into a flow regulator, a device that allowed the orifice to be turned through a complete circle and thus to vary the static head below the surface of the water in the reservoir. Previous flow regulators had all been inaccurate , but al-Jazari describes how he calibrated the instrument accurately by painstaking tial-and-error methods. Another type of clock, which may have been al-Jazari's own invention, incorporates a closed-loop system: the clock worked as long as it was kept loaded with metal balls with which to strike a gong. CANDLE CLOCKS MISCELLANEOUS We see for the first time in al-Jazari's work several concepts important for both design and construction: the lamination of timber to minimize warping, the static balancing of wheels, the use of wooden templates (a kind of pattern), the use of paper models to establish designs, the calibration of orifices, the grinding of the seats and plugs of valves together with emery powder to obtain a watertight fit, and the casting of metals in closed mold boxes with sand. http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm That is the site I took that information from verbatim, and I cannot vouch for its authenticity or accuracy. I doubt it will turn out to be far off the mark however, in what it asserts. “The fact remains that Islam is a misanthropic, misogynistic cultural, social and political system, that masquerades as a religion. And radical Islam is a fascist, mind-controlling, 7th century death cult, that will take us all down into one dark night. If Islam had a Reformation and therewith gained enlightenment, there might be an Islamic renaissance. Until that happens Muslims will continue to be, in the words of President Musharraf, himself a Muslim: ". . . internally involved in fratricidal conflicts and perceived by the outside world as terrorists with little attention being given on their uplift," he said. Yep, it is all-round crappy. I’m not arguing with that, in any way. I never suggested otherwise. I do however, argue against our tendency to see those that do horrible things on one side of a conflict as the only barbaric transgressors, and those on the other side, who might come across rather better, thanks to powerful and slippery lobbyists and spin-managers in the west, who do the same stuff, but come out of it looking whiter-than-white. Lilith, the bulk of that post was quoted from a US site. Britain was probably wrong to go to war. Yes it is true until October 1942, the prisoners in Auschwitz were Soviet Soldiers and Poles, and the first exterminated. This happened after Britain and France declared war, and AFTER the US declared neutrality. You have made me consider these events more carefully. War between Britain and Germany was not inevitable and was probably wrong. The Friendship Treaty between USSR and Germany showsc a desire for peace with Britain and France......and no doubt none of these events you describe would have occurred had Britain settled in September/October 1939. In this the United States pursued a more sensible policy, whereas Britain bankrupted itself and lost influence in Europe. I thank you Lilith for showing me that it was not inevitable that Britain should fight Germany, merely the irrascible reaction of Neville Chamberlain. Posted by: Trundle at December 10, 2003 08:02 AM"Britain knew that the Nazis were "exterminating" Jews and other "Untermenschen" in Germany and ultimately Europe. The fact is that Jews of Europe, especially in Germany, were DECIMATED with the help of most of Europe! Are you suggesting that Britain should have continued to ignore this atrocity with "neutrality"?"
It Jews were "decimated" that means 90% survived, which is not as melodramatic as you paint things. However, I disagree on two counts: a) many more than 10% were eventually killed b) perhaps none would have been exterminated had war not occurred, and it was not inevitable.
So yes, Lilith, you are right to blame Britain....had it sensibly stayed neutral, Europe might have been spared a devastating war. Posted by: Trundle at December 10, 2003 08:09 AM |
