Skip to main content

[Repost from '07. With I/P wars heating up again, it seems worth doing. Please note, I give no opinion as to what is happening in Gaza now.]

I am going to attempt to address a single issue which continuously arises in I/P debates, to everybody's consternation- accusations of anti-Semitism, and cross- accusations of abuse with same.  I am going to write about the "dog whistles" of anti-Semitism.

A dog whistle is a whistle used to train dogs- it works in a frequency inaudible to human ears. "Dog Whistle Politics" plays on the term, defining words in speeches intended only for a limited crowd, words that just slip by everybody else.  Gorge W. Bush (or his speechwriters, to be exact) is a master of dog whistle politics when addressing the nation but speaking to his "base."  His mention of the Dred Scott decision in the '04 State of the Union Address is a perfect example- most people just said "Whaaaat?," but the anti-choice crowd heard If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Curiously, the concept of the dog whistle, in a negative use, can explain both how anti-Semitism can be hidden within apparently legitimate debate, and how those who can't hear in the right frequency INSIST that it's just not there.

There are really four classic anti-Semitic themes that have been for centuries to justify mass murder, mass expulsion, or both.  They are that Jews have control the world's media, that Jews have an international conspiracy to control the world's money, that Jews join national governments and undermine them from within for their own purposes, and the "blood libel," a claim that Jews use the blood of Gentiles, usually children, to bake their Passover matzoh.  Below I will try to define each of them, discuss their history, and explain why they remain important to this very day.

BLOOD LIBEL

Let me start with the last, the "blood libel."  There are a couple of different forms of the blood libel.  One is that Jews drink Christian or Muslim blood outright, and the other is that Jews use Christian or Muslim blood in matzoh.  This is a slander with a long and inglorious history.  The first iteration was the the story of William of Norwich, recorded in the Peterborough Chronicle.  This story from 1144 alleged that a boy, William of Norwich, was kidnapped by Jews, tied to a cross, stabbed in the head to stimulate Jesus' crown of thorns, and killed.  His blood was drunk and used in matzoh.  This story was a rumor and the Jews were vindicated by five different Popes, but the legend lived on.  But it was more than a legend.  It was an excuse for slaughter and mayhem.

Jewish leader in the area around Norwich were executed in response to the rumor, and that was just the beginning.  Twenty-seven years later, in Blois, France, the accusation arose again, and every Jew in town was burned alive.  A contemporary history survives:

At the wicked ruler's command they were taken and put into a wooden house around which were placed thornbushes and faggots. As they were led forth they were told: "Save your lives. Leave your religion and turn to us." They mistreated them, beat them, and tortured them, hoping that they would exchange their glorious religion for something worthless, but they refused. Rather did they encourage each other and say to one another: "Persist in the religion of the Almighty!" [A Christian historian of that time says that some did convert.] ...

It was also reported in that letter that as the flames mounted high, the martyrs began to sing in unison a melody that began softly but ended with a full voice. The Christian people came and asked us s "What kind of a song is this for we have never heard such a sweet melody?" We knew it well for it was the song: "It is incumbent upon us to praise the Lord of all." [This prayer, the Alenu, or Adoration, now recited daily, was then a New Year's prayer with a special] melody].

O daughters of Israel, weep for the thirty­one souls that were burnt for the sanctification of the Name, and let your brothers, the] entire house of Israel, bewail the burning.

Because of our sins these men were not even given a Jewish burial but were left at the bottom of the hill on the very spot where they had been burnt. It was only later the Jews came and buried the s bones. There were about thirty­two holy souls who offered themselves as a sacrifice to their Creator; and God smelled the sweet savor, for him whom He has chosen does He cause to come night unto Him.

In 1181, the same year Jews were expelled from France, three boys disappeared on a frozen river.  Witnesses said Jews slaughtered the boys and three hundred Jews were burned at the stake.  The boys bodies were found after the spring thaw, drowned to death but otherwise untouched.

In 1199 the same accusations arose in Erfurt, Bischofsheim, and in 1235 again in Lauda, Fulda.  In both, Jews were executed.

The accusations kept on coming, and Jews were executed, throughout the centuries, and across Europe.  They were revitalized by the Nazis, and have found a new home in the Arab States today.

The blood libel found its way to the Arab States from a claim in Damascus, in 1840.  There, an elderly priest, Padre Tommaso, and his servant disappeared in the Jewish part of town.  Jewish leaders were seized and tortured.  Sixty of their children were taken and starved to force confessions. Several were ultimately executed.  The Tommaso story remains part of the Arab mythos of anti-Semitism.  The Matzoh of Zion, a book said to have been written by Syria's Minister of Defense, reiterates this slander.  It is even being made into a movie by Egyptian producer Munir Radhi.

It's not just a movie, either.  Egypt's biggest newspaper, Al-Ahram, ran an article on October 28, 2001, entitled "A Jewish Matzah Made from Arab Blood."  It concluded:

The bestial drive to knead Passover matzahs with the blood of non-Jews is [confirmed] in the records of the Palestinian police where there are many recorded cases of the bodies of Arab children who had disappeared being found, torn to pieces without a single drop of blood. The most reasonable explanation is that the blood was taken to be kneaded into the dough of extremist Jews to be used in matzahs to be devoured during Passover.

The libel persists in non-Arab states as well.  You can read about it on lots of Western sites as well. I will not link them, for they are far too loathsome.  But I will quote them.  

At the dawn of civilization, the blood rite, in which human blood is drunk from the body of a still-living victim, was known to many tribes. However, only one people, that has never progressed beyond the Stone Age, has continued to practice the blood rite and ritual murder. This people are know to the world as Jews. Arnold Toynbee, a noted scholar, has called the Jews "a fossil people."

In so doing, he must have been aware of the fact that they still practice ritual murder and the drinking of human blood (especially Christian blood). As a scholar, he could not have failed to note the many attested incidents of this practice of the Jews, for hundreds of example of ritual murder by the Jews are cited in official Catholic books, in every European literature, and in the court records of all the European nations. ...

They believed that by drinking the blood of a Christian victim who was perfect in every way, they could overcome their physical short comings and become as powerful as the intelligent civilized beings among whom they had formed their parasitic communities. Because of this belief, the Jews are known to have practiced drinking blood since they made their first appearance in history.

The Jews are under a terrible suspicion the world over. Who does not know this, does not understand the Jewish problem. Anyone who merely sees the Jews, as Heinrich Heine (Chaim Bueckberg) described them, "a tribe which secures its existence with exchange and old trousers, and whose uniforms are the long noses," is being misled. But anyone who knows the monstrous accusation that has been raised against the Jews since the beginning of time, will view these people in a different light. He will begin to see not only a peculiar, strangely fascinating nation; but criminals, murderers, and devils in human form. He will be filled with holy anger and hatred against these people.

The suspicion under which the Jews are held is murder. They are charged with enticing Gentile children and Gentile adults, butchering them, and draining their blood. They are charged with mixing this blood into their masses (unleavened bread) and using it to practice superstitious magic. They are charged with torturing their victims, especially the children; and during this torture they shout threats, curses, and cast spells against the Gentiles. This systematic murder has a special name. It is called RITUAL MURDER. ...

"It is also befalling other nations. The accusation is immediately raised loudly, anywhere in the world, where a body is found which bears the marks of ritual murder. Historically, the accusation is raised only against the Jews. Hundreds and hundreds of other races, tribes, and nations live on this earth, but no one has ever attempted to accuse them of the planned murder of children for religious purposes. All nations have hurled this accusation against the Jews, and many great men have confirmed the accusation. Dr. Martin Luther writes in his book THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES: "They stabbed and pierced the body of the young boy Simon of Trent. They have also murdered other children...The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they, who imagine themselves to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. Jesus Christ, the Almighty Preacher from Nazareth, spoke to the Jews: 'Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning.'"

So what is the point of writing this essay? First, I will tell you what it is not.  It is not to claim that Jews are the only victims of ___ism in the world. It is also not to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism for, as you can see, nothing here is about Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, etc.  No, it is far simpler.  It is a primer, an attempt to alert diarists and commenters that there is a certain delicacy in certain accusations, a delicacy (ironically) written in blood.  It is to explain why, if you write a diary in the superheated environment of the I-P debates, and choose to describe the people on one side of the issue as "blood-suckers," or "vampires," you are going to hit a nerve that is going to distract from your argument.  It is to explain why some phrases, in certain areas, are more hurtful than others.  Finally, it is to explain why what you perceive as a perfectly innocent statement, or a criticism of AIPAC, or Likud, or the third Israeli soldier from the right, will be HEARD as coming from an uglier place, with an uglier agenda.

This is not an attempt to censor anybody's writing. It is, quite simply, an attempt to explain why some writing might be unwittingly vituperative, and hence far less effective. As a sideline, it can also be heard as a request NOT to repeat the ancient slanders that have led to so much misery and death.

Okay, next.

Jewish Disloyalty

The most famous example of this theme is the German post-WWI theme of the "stab in the back."  

The Stab in the Back myth claimed that the German Army was victorious along the battle lines, but suffered a "stab in the back" from disloyal Jews.  I hope I need not go into any detail as to where this led.

At the same time Hitler was exercising his Final Solution, Jews were being sent to Siberia by the Soviets.  Jewish disloyalty has been a common theme throughout Russian history, and led to the pogroms of the late 19th century.

Another famous case of accusation of disloyalty is the Dreyfus Affair (also a source for one of my cartoons- it took hours to draw so I'm going to post it here, relevant or not.  It was part of a "Cheney through history" series):




Alfred Dreyfus was a French artillery officer.  He was accused of being a German spy and was railroaded all the way to Devil's Island.  The entire case was not about anti-Semitism, but the hue and cry from the right-wing press MADE it a case about Dreyfus' Jewishness.  

But even this was not the beginning of claims of Jewish disloyalty.  That is another old canard, and another one responsible for a tremendous amount of tragedy.

In 1278 the King of England needed a way to finance his war in Wales.  So Edward I taxed Jewish moneylenders.  When they ran out of money he accused them of disloyalty.  300 Jewish leaders were arrested and killed.  Jews were expelled from England in 1290, with loss of life, as well as the property that was the REAL reason for the King's actions.

Expulsions occured throughout Jewish history, including Spain in 1492, France in 1182, Portugal in 1497, Germany, repeatedly in individual cities (1236 Emperor Frederick II issued the Servi Camerae Nostrae making Jews the property of the State), and on and on and on.  

But expulsion based upon accusations of disloyalty is not just history.  It has happened in modern post-WWII times, including in Poland in 1968, where Jews were banned from holding jobs and were forced to emigrate:

The campaign equated Jewish origins with Zionist sympathies and thus disloyalty to Poland. Jewish organizations were shut down, Yiddish was banned and anti-Semitic slogans were used in rallies.

By 1968, most of Poland's 40,000 remaining Jews were assimilated into Polish society, but over the next year, they became the center of an organized campaign to equate Jewish origins with Zionist sympathies and thus disloyalty to Poland. Approximately 20,000 Jews lost their jobs and had to emigrate. The campaign, despite being ostensibly directed at Jews who had held office during the Stalin era and their families, affected most of the remaining Polish Jews, regardless of background.

Even today, accsuations of Jewish disloyalty, often as claims that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country, are common.  A recent survey of 2,714 people in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland found that 51 percent of respondents believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries they live in.

David Duke has a lot more to say on the subject, but I won't link to him here.

So, again, what is my point?  Is it to shut down one half of the I-P debate, or to say you can't argue about AIPAC?  Nope.  Not at all. It is to explain both the canard, and how the use of it is more likely to shut down debate than to enhance it.  If you are writing a diary or a comment about Israel, or Palestine, or AIPAC, etc., if you include an accusation that some of the people involved are disloyal, or more loyal to Israel, or have "dual loyalties" and therefore can't be trusted, you are blowing a dog whistle and will be greeted with rage.  It might be a rage you do not understand, but it is not false rage calculated to shut you up.  It is rage based upon a thousand years of tribulations, of slaughters and evictions.  

Jewish Bankers

This one flows from history, and can be seen throughout history.  The "Jewish money-lender" is the central figure in The Merchant of Venice, and actually has some historic validity.  You see, usury was considered unChristian (remember Jesus and the money-lenders) and was therefore illegal for Christians. That put people trying to pay for wars or put in new crops (which would not generate cash until the harvest was in) in a difficult position, as nobody was willing to lend money without interest. From this came a fairly common theme- Kings and nobles borrowed money from Jews, paid the interest as long as they thought they needed access to more money, then took all the Jews' property, prosecuted them for usery, or expelled them from the country.  Another variation was simply declaring the Jews themselves property of the State.  

The word "ghetto" comes from the history of Jews in Venice.  Jews were required to live an old foundry, or getti, though they were allowed to leave during daylight hours to lend money.  

Jews in the Middle Ages were very restricted in permitted employment.  A Rabbi discusses the history HERE:

The same was true during the Middle Ages, long before anybody acknowledged the fact of the time value of money. Feudal lords, for example, needed money to plant their crops, at a season when they might not have much cash on hand. At the same period of time, Jews were generally not permitted to own or work the land, which was really the only way to support a family back then. With regret, Jews often turned to the practice of lending money to gentiles on interest. The Torah permitted the practice, but Jewish money lenders knew that their business was viewed as less than noble. Moreover, the practice of money lending often cast Jews in a bad light, in the eyes of their Christian neighbors. Too many times in our history, Jewish people were persecuted, even murdered or expelled from their homes, when the Christians to whom they lent money could not repay the loans. Even more often, when wealthy medieval lords faced an economic crunch, they continued to live high on the hog, while their serfs suffered. When the poor workers would begin to rebel, they would be told not to blame the wealthy Christian land owners, but rather that the fault rested with supposedly greedy Jewish money lenders. Inevitably, a pogrom would ensue, as understandably angry serfs, their rage displaced, would attack the Jewish village. Tragically, these violent outbreaks of anti-Semitism were not isolated and did not end in the pre-modern era. Hitler, too, utilized calumnies against Jewish bankers to stir up anti-Semitism among his people and to justify genocide.

The Jewish people need not be ashamed of our history as money lenders to gentiles in medieval Europe. The oppressors offered our ancestors very few legitimate methods of earning a living, and in fact needed Jewish money lenders. In some times, and in some places, Jews were highly valued and greatly respected by European nobles who knew they could not achieve their goals and feed their people without borrowing money on interest from Jews.

From this history flows another of history's canards- Jewish control of the world's finances.  This Jewish banking conspiracy was not only a big piece of the "Stab in the Back" myth, but also provided the basis for the fictional Czarist "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," perhaps THE classic anti-Semitic screed.  The Protocols were used to justify horrible pogroms in Czarist Russia.  Modern American history is not immune, either, as the Jewish banker was a theme in Henry Ford's "The International Jew."  

Even today if you google "Jewish Banker" you will find things like (and no, I won't link this crap):

The "Jewish Banker Conspiracy" is not a chimera. It is the plan of Rothschild-controlled central bankers to create a totalitarian system to protect their illegal private monopoly of the world's credit. They print government currency for the price of the paper and then lend it to the government with interest.

In 1180 Phillip Augustus of France expelled the Jews and cancelled all debts owed to them, including his own.

In 1356 Charles IV of Germany alienated all Jewish property rights, expelling them from some areas and permitting them to reside in others.  

Etc., etc., etc.

So, again, why do I write this?  To stifle debate? Not at all.  I write it to inform, to tell you that if you are writing a diary and want your words to be read, you should probably avoid references to Jewish banking or Jewish money-lending.  Dressing it up in different clothes probably won't help for if you mention "AIPAC money-lenders" (a real example from a Daily Kos comment), there is a very strong probability that you will be accused of being anti-Semitic, not to shut you up, but because you are repeating an ancient and modern canard, one that is a "dog whistle" to those who have personally, and historically, been grossly abused as a result.

Jew control the media

This one seems to come directly from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  It was enhanced and reprinted by Ford in "The International Jew."  Father Charles Coughlin used his enormous radio following to perpetrate these lies.  

Claims that Jews run the media are common today.  That alone might be a generalization based upon ownership and participation at a rate higher than the percentage of Jewish population.  But "Jews control the media" is only the first half of the claim.  The other half is "... and they use that control for their own evil ends."  Here is one example (and again, I won't link to sites like Jew Watch or its ilk):

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media — television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people which might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world — a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt a flood of non-White aliens from pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends — and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. ...

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, under Eisner the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and gratuitous violence. ...

Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a new genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.  ...

Redstone, who actually owns 76 percent of the shares of Viacom ($3 billion), offers Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and Europe. ...

And how do Jews control the media?  Through their control of commerce:

Since the beginning of this century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers — primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.

Newspapers, you see, are Jewish-run enterprises, especially PARTICULAR newspapers:

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J. Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld. Both of the latter are also Jews.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R. McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, the industry czar in America during the First World War.

The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She is the principal stockholder and board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co.

The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

William Pierce pushed this lie in The Turner Diaries.  You might recall a little something that flowed from that particular text.

But the Oklahoma bombing was not the only result.  

This man, Buford Furrow,



attacked a Jewish day care center, trying to murder Jewish children.



Why?  I guess we will never really know the underlying pathology, but part of what makes somebody feel that it is okay to shoot at children because of their (parent's, really) religion must be a feeling of helplessness, that the people you hate are so powerful you have no other recourse.  Perpetuating lies has consequences.

Again, why am I writing this?  Just to tell you that if you are writing a diary and decide to talk about how a group with any affiliation with Jews "runs the media," or "controls the New York Times," or anything like that, you are stepping close enough to another old lie to reek of something unpleasant, even if you did not mean to. The result will be to lose the power of your argument, and to start an unneccesary storm of recriminations and counter-recriminations.

Conclusion

I know this will probably turn into another pie fight, but it need not.  Nowhere here have I accused anybody of being anti-Semitic. Instead, I have done my best to do a few things.  First, to explain why certain "dog whistles" are so strongly heard as anti-Semitic by some while others are either completely confused or absolutley sure the accusations are a conspiracy to censor.  Second, to discuss why those "dog whistles" are so shrill to some, as they are not just a matter of "sticks and stones," but have repeatedly led to murder and mayhem, century after century, and can again.  Third, to note that these particular "dog whistles" will actually REDUCE the effectiveness of whatever you are trying to say, as they are far more of a distraction that a contribution to any theme you might have.  And fourth, and finally, simply to educate, because I know there are people out there, people of good intentions, who simply don't get where this is all coming from.  It is coming from the graves of millions, from England to Russia, and all points in between, from Edward I to today, and all times in between.  

Originally posted to Palate Press: The online wine magazine on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 05:48 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't accept tips from mohels (269+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, reef the dog, cdreid, exsimo2, Trix, m3, brittain33, hester, Brainwrap, ogre, Adam B, jneufnyc, burrow owl, peggy, TrueBlueMajority, livosh1, ScientistMom in NY, bread and roses, LynChi, m maddog, Jay C, ChurchofBruce, x, frisco, shpilk, Matilda, marge, redwagon, bronte17, susans, cardinal, JDRhoades, Wee Mama, nyceve, DAVE DIAL, KMc, JPhurst, skwimmer, TheNightfly, BruinKid, mollyd, sidnora, Melanchthon, resa, hhex65, jsmagid, elmo, grannyhelen, TiaRachel, delphine, exiledfromTN, desmoinesdem, noveocanes, Bluehawk, snakelass, renaissance grrrl, jmknapp, arielle, kalmoth, dufffbeer, walkshills, outragedinSF, Luftmensch, Nova Land, furi kuri, salmo, Skaje, blueyedace2, LivingOxymoron, Tonedevil, dnyedwab, KnotIookin, NeilDB, scottso, Dobber, eru, WinSmith, LNK, indiemcemopants, Karmafish, LABobsterofAnaheim, Saxman, Shappy, sofia, kaliope, wiscmass, serrano, word is bond, northanger, Crisis Corps Volunteer, begone, lgmcp, dwindling, martini, pico, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, dharmafarmer, Kimball Cross, mooshter, LanceBoyle, InsultComicDog, dougymi, XStryker, Naniboujou, Alexandra Lynch, mr Z, erratic, Lashe, harrylimelives, nonnie9999, gooderservice, Bob Sackamento, Caoimhin Laochdha, KbThorn In Massachusetts, Frank Cocozzelli, Preston S, MBNYC, fiddlingnero, means are the ends, blueness, Doodad, Temmoku, blueintheface, GoldnI, Thinking Fella, Red Sox, marykk, turn Virginia blue, BeninSC, ibonewits, dotsright, willie horton, JFinNe, Mom to Miss M, terryhallinan, EdSF, Stwriley, LillithMc, Dcoronata, Matt Z, flumptytail, zemblan, sfbob, Steviey99, malharden, vbdietz, Newzie, Moderation, jhop7, Rumarhazzit, Terra Mystica, condorcet, ruthhmiller, Grousefinder, wyvern, Fischer, Baron Dave, brklyngrl, sandbox, angel65, bugscuffle, lavorare, mikeconwell, beltane, baudelairien, Brian A, mayim, NogodsnomastersMary, Liberal Of Limeyland, pragprogress, dmnyct, PJ Jefferson, Jacques, luckylizard, BlueStateRedhead, nokkonwud, nzanne, ConnDadFrank, tethys, dont think, palantir, Futuristic Dreamer, lostboyjim, Fiddlegirl, rubyclaire, Ripeness Is All, MufsMom, arainsb123, rsmpdx, Mordoch, snackdoodle, Twistyman, be the change you seek, Sarge in Seattle, futurebird, SciVo, mrchumchum, mkor7, Hopeful Monster, Daily Activist, beegee kochav, JStrass, Virginian in Spain, Angry Mouse, sanglug, Dark UltraValia, Munchkn, XNeeOhCon, Living in Gin, Livvy5, deviant24x, Lazar, CalGal47, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Sardaukar, YellerDog, BrighidG, sovery, TFinSF, ArtSchmart, marsanges, princss6, Rustbelt Dem, BFSkinner, ramara, aggregatescience, NYWheeler, sharonsz, kyeo, halef, Micheline, nickrud, Caerus, Pay It Forward, sniperfire, Oh Mary Oh, bicycle Hussein paladin, watershed, Jane Lew, Colorado is the Shiznit, charliehall, cleomeo, sboucher, msazdem, BardoOne, Olon, thebluecrayon, taodog, itzik shpitzik, guilford caswell, miranda2060, miscanthus, Jed L, vegjeannie, north40th, giyoret, Denji, leftymama, blueash, hikerbiker, FrozeAgain, phoebesdatter, 4 Borders Pundit, AgnesBee, EthanPeretz, Square Knot, Borat Sagdiyev, Randy Neal

    all others are welcome.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 05:49:08 AM PST

    •  Even if when rubbed they become briefcases? (18+ / 0-)

      Economic Left/Right: 6.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

      by BFSkinner on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 05:57:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The wallet that becomes an overnight bag (10+ / 0-)

        so many variations...

      •  one of the weaker diarys about Israel/Palestine (0+ / 0-)

        the diarist did say 'jew' alot in this diary.

        •  Not weak. Powerful. (30+ / 0-)

          For the past week or so I've felt conflicted, hurt, and really uncomfortable every time on of these I/P diaries came up.

          I appreciate people's passion for the suffering of Palestinian civilians, because they really are suffering, but when I read some comment or diary about "Zionist aggression" or the description "blood-thirsty" (or equivalent) to describe Israeli soldiers I wanted to cringe. It was involuntary, Pavlovian. And I didn't have adequate words to explain to anyone why this was so.

          So thanks from the bottom of my heart. I really, really appreciate that you were able to put pen to virtual paper and express what was in my heart better than I ever could.

          •  is saying (7+ / 0-)

            zionist aggression anti semite?

            i thought zionist was political in nature (the government of israel is zionist)? isn't it compatable w/ saying american aggression wrt the violence in iraq?

            and if it is, which of the 4 categories might it align with?

            •  It certainly is used as a dog-whistle... (12+ / 0-)

              wherever the context has nothing to do with the ideology of Zionism (which, narrowly speaking, reached its goals and expired as soon as the state of Israel was created).

              "Zionist aggression" still might be adequate in the context of describing some settlers going for a land grab in the West Bank. In most of the contexts it is used today, however, it is a dog-whistle.

              •  thank you for answering me (5+ / 0-)

                reached its goals and expired as soon as the state of Israel was created

                i didn't know this. i thought it was somewhat ongoing and was associated w/the one jerusalem goal and the whole issue of east jerusalem.

                also, the settlements are a very big issue in the negotiations, and not something i would condense into a concept of 'some settlers' (i don't think that is fair to construe the most radical of any group to be representing the whole).

                the whole idea of having a two state solution (which is the official US goal) involves dividing the land, and i'm not familiar enough with exactly how 'the ideology of Zionism' impacts that.

                besides, is zionism only an ideology, or doesn't it also serve as a practicing political tool, or something?

                excuse me for picking you brain but i'm unaccoustomed to merging religion and politics and isn't this sort of what zionism does, or part of what it does?

                so, if the knesset is a zionist government, how is it when they go to war it is not zionist aggression? because it is zionist defense?

                is the government a zionist government, or isn't it?

                •  your mileage on interpretation may vary... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zannie, Tonedevil, Matt Z

                  especially if you are talking with one of those settler guys with a knit yarmulke and an automatic weapon...

                •  Another answer (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  arielle, zemblan

                  First of all, if "Zionist aggression" is an antisemitic dogwhistle, I don't think it falls into one of the four categories described in the diary. But there are other categories, and one of them is that the Jewish people do not have the same rights as other peoples, or are to be judged by a different standard than other peoples.

                  This category of prejudice has, among its antecedents, the belief held historically by some Christians that Jews are doomed to wander forever as punishment for the crucifixion. It also finds its expression in statements (which sometimes seem philosemitic) that as "the people of the Book", or as the most powerful military force in the region, or as the victims of persecution, Jews should be more moral, tolerant or passive than other groups.

                  The word "Zionism" simply denotes the nationalistic aspirations of the Jewish people. As a modern political movement, it grew in Europe at a time when other peoples were also experiencing a growth of national sentiment. Its goal was the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the historic Jewish homeland, and it takes the form today of support for the development and security of Israel as a Jewish state.

                  To describe Zionism as either an ideology or a political tool seems to miss the mark. How do you categorize concepts like "independence" and "self-determination"? Those are the concepts that Zionism represents to Jews.

                  Now comes the tricky part: what is the meaning of the phrase "Zionist aggression"?

                  If the phrase suggests that Zionism is inherently aggressive, it is a dogwhistle because it implies that Jews do not have the same right to a national movement as other peoples. Historically, the early stages of modern Zionism were clearly non-aggressive. Under the Ottoman Empire, the Jews who moved into the area now Israel did so without violence and purchased their land legally. Under the British Mandate, this process continued and was sanctioned by the League of Nations (although some Jews entered in violation of British immigration quotas). In 1947, the Jewish community of Palestine accepted a partition plan that divided the land and allocated to them only a small part of the habitable area of the Mandate, which indicates that there was no ideological commitment to any specific territorial borders.

                  Since 1948, Israel has been engaged in a series of wars and military actions. People may disagree on whether Israel was the aggressor in a particular case, but if Israel was the aggressor why not call it Israeli aggression? These are policies and decisions of the Israeli national government. The only people who call all actions of the Israeli government "Zionist" are people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel. To speak of Zionist aggression is either to reject the legitimacy of Israel, or to imply that the Jewish claim to national expression in Israel is inherently aggressive.

                  I want to address the violent settlers in the West Bank separately. These are people who engage in aggressive behavior and who base their actions on their particular view of how to implement the Zionist idea. To avoid implicating the entire Zionist community in the conduct of this group, it seems appropriate to refer to their actions as "settler aggression" or at most "aggression by Zionist extremist settlers".

                  Last point. You mentioned Zionism merging religion and politics. I don't think Zionism has much of a religious component, although obviously religious beliefs support the commitment of some Jews to Zionism (while other Jews have religious views that are not aligned with Zionism). Rather than religion, I think the factors that unite Jews, both in Israel and around the world, are (a) a common history, (b) an awareness of difference, having been treated as an alien people almost everywhere Jews have lived for most of the last 2000 years, and (c) an assumption of some shared cultural characteristics. The Jewish identity is neither wholly religious nor wholly separable from religion (as is the case with many other peoples as well), but the reasons are historical rather than a consequence of Zionism.

                  Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

                  by word is bond on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:35:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What an excellent comment (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    arielle, word is bond

                    wow, just great.  Thanks.

                    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

                    by dhonig on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:05:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

                      for your timely repost of a diary that I appreciated the first time around as well. While writing my lengthy comment, the thread got so long that my computer is not handling it very easily. If I am able to read through all the comments, I suspect I will find that your diary was not only timely but sorely needed.

                      Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

                      by word is bond on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:42:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Why say Zionist (10+ / 0-)

              when Israeli is what you mean?  Zionist a much more general term and implies (screams, rather) JEWISH while Israeli means the actions of the Israeli government.  When we talk of any other country, we use the country's ajectival form, don't we?

              The diarist is merely pointing out how such language is perceived, and why.  It really is up to each writer what word s/he chooses to use.

              If not me, who? If not now, when?

              by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:04:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You misunderstand the subject (7+ / 0-)

                Zionism (currently) refers to the goal of far right isrealis and others (most noteably the american right) to expand the state of Israel and possibly expel non-Jews from whatever territories are gained. Jew, Isreali, and Zionist are three completely different things.. perhaps more than three as there are nonbelievers of Jewish descent, converted Jewish believers and on and on and on.

                I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

                by cdreid on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:18:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then say that. (7+ / 0-)

                  I am telling you how the word is heard by a Jew who agrees with you about the policy, and yet gets into an argument about a word.  I think this is the point of the diary, that we can stop arguing about words and get onto what we can do about policies.  I find that preferable, and if you do, reconsider your use of the word.

                  If not me, who? If not now, when?

                  by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:25:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I dont give a damn (6+ / 0-)

                    how you hear it. Well.. actually i do as i wish you didnt have the experiences that caused you to be kneejerk.

                    But requiring everyone in any debate or conversation to fit your framework quickly devolves into a nonconversation dominated by political correctness at its worst.

                    This kind of thinking led to our downfall under Carter and the near destruction of the left. We can no longer afford to spend all our time devoted to not offending the weakest amongst us. It leads to  leaders like Pelosi, Read, Clinton, Carter.. and to far right wing takeover.

                    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

                    by cdreid on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:32:42 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And I am saying just the opposite. (7+ / 0-)

                      That use of a word so loaded with layers of meaning keeps us from having a real conversation.

                      If not me, who? If not now, when?

                      by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 01:11:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  no, what you are saying (0+ / 0-)

                        is that you want to load (and restrict) the conversation with your words.  What word would you use, after all, to describe adherents to a movement that believes that there should be a "Jewish State" in Palestine accomplished by the expulsion of the previous (Palestinian) inhabitants?

                        Isn't that what "Zionism" means ? ? ?

                        •  no it isn't n/t (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          zemblan

                          If not me, who? If not now, when?

                          by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:00:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  so what word would you use to describe the scenar (0+ / 0-)

                            scenario he just mentioned?

                            Please don't duck the question. You're being very strict about semantics, so please use a word, so we understand which words would be met with approval elsewhere.

                            --
                            -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

                            by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:53:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There have always been (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rhfactor, zemblan

                            Jews in Palestine living alongside the Arabs.  There is is Jewish connection to the land there, and attempts to ignore this lead us to talk across one another.  There were Jews under the Turks and under the British.  The movement for a homeland was connected to that particular bit of land;  it was not picked at random by Europeans out of guilt.  

                            That much is true, though from a different perspective.  The Palestinian Arabs could have chosen to stay and live at peace.  Part of the land was offered to them for their own country.  They chose a different path.  Not all Arab areas were destroyed, some are there to this day.  Before there was a state, the Arabs had faught for the Nazis, offering to exterminate the Jews of Palestine it they were granted independence when the Germans won the war.  None of this was in response to a flood of refugees;  they hated the British, and bet on the wrong side.  If I can find the link I posted months ago as a reference for this, I will post it as a reply to this.

                            As someone else commented on one of these threads, no one comes up smelling like roses.  But the post war influx of refugees from Europe did not cause the hatred of the Jews.

                            The implication of the question is that Israel has no right to exist, and there is no possible answer that will satisfy.  That original Zionism, that formed the state, that I accept.  But it is confusing to inject it into a thread about the settler movement and ways to find common ground.
                            I reject the premise that the original Jewish Zionists (early 20th C.) came to displace the Arab population.  This is actually what the diary was about - how confusing it is to use one word for more than one thing.

                            If not me, who? If not now, when?

                            by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:05:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's the link (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rhfactor

                            to the site about Ali al-Husseini during WWII:

                            http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.c...

                            If not me, who? If not now, when?

                            by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:32:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  wow, that is amazing. thank you for link (0+ / 0-)

                            It's so hard to understand what lies inside a man who would sew seeds of destruction that devastate for centuries. If we didn't have the past 8 years of Dick Cheney, I would have no tangible reference point for someone living in my lifetime who schemes and plots in those manners.

                            Inasmuch as I know the prevailing view at dKos is that all I/P discussions disintegrate and therefore serve no purpose, I still hold out hope. In the area I live in San Francisco, almost all the proprietors of stores and restaurants in a very tight-knit 6-square-block neighborhood are from all those regions: Israeli proprietors, Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese. And of course as expected when removed from the hot zone, everyone not only gets along, but they share so much of the exact culture -- that you'd have to ask just to find out from which country the owner and his children came.

                            And for the Past 10 years I have watched these storeowners have children, or their children grow from elementary school to college, and there is a very clear generational change. Many of these families go back to Israel, Ramalla, Jerusalem --- for long visits, and they don't make these distinctions vociferously. There's a real fatigue in the perpetuation of the cycle of violence.

                            This is my only reference point, but these are people who are always on the phone with family back home, not just during these kinds of times, but always.  Every one of them from all these adjacent lands wants a two-state solution. But this younger, college aged generation, it seems to break their hearts more, because so many have lived amongst each other around Ramalla and Jerusalem, and they have everyday friendships -- that get divided by the actions of political leaders. But I still have hope. And THAT's why I was furious the other day with all the cynical smartasses here prolonging the notion that nothing will ever change. It just made me sick to my stomach -- people laughing and applauding those stupid kossacks just going round and round smacking each other, but getting nowhere.

                            Bullshit. Why don't all the naysayers just get the f*** out of here. You don't add any energy of hope and solution. That's what ticks me off.

                            --
                            -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

                            by rhfactor on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:23:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you very much for replying! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ramara

                            And I know the history of this region is so complicated.. which is why those of us (like me) who are not deeply schooled in it, have lots to learn to grasp the real thrulines of various peoples as conquerors lay out borders and draw maps. Last week I went to wikipedia, simply for the listing "Palestine". The maps alone there are extraordinary in helping to tell just the geographic story.

                            You said, I think referring to the previous poster:

                            The implication of the question is that Israel has no right to exist,

                            but I didn't read it that way, i really didn't. I could be wrong but I doubt that very seriously.

                            is that you want to load (and restrict) the conversation with your words.  What word would you use, after all, to describe adherents to a movement that believes that there should be a "Jewish State" in Palestine accomplished by the expulsion of the previous (Palestinian) inhabitants?

                            I read it as the poster arguing with you about what he thought to be too strict a declaration of language you were using as related to everything encompassing the I side of the I/P complex, and I thought his point was that there seemed to be no discussion in this thread about language precision when it came to the P side of the issues.

                            The reason I asked you a followup was because the focus of your post preceding my comment was making a different & important point -- and I really was curious to hear your answer to his question ... since this whole diary seemed premised on terminology, and the signals they send.

                            Back to wikipedia, though...

                            I think those who authored that entry did a great service to all in splitting apart any political discussions of establishments of states, etc -- saving that for other full wikipedia entries -- and instead focusing this particular thread on JUST the geography. What peoples lived where when, and the changes that took place over centuries as lands were called different things, and different eras of regional rulers and conquerors seemingly arbitrarily drew lines that surely put into motion the issues still being wrestled with today.

                            It's really hard for me to imagine, even intellectually, let alone from a view of emotional identity to one's roots, how so many stages of human existence have taken place in that continental area of the globe.

                            This is the Canaan Map dated 1882 -- BC !LINK

                            But they have historical records dating back to 500,000 Years BC. Kind of unfathomable for me, living in a country under 300 years old.

                            --
                            -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

                            by rhfactor on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:03:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is so interesting (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rhfactor

                            to hear about your neighborhood.  I believe there is hope.  And thank you for the link.  

                            The dog-whistle words in the previous post are the more general ones - the use of Jewish State in quotes felt like a blow, with anger behind it, and the idea that the purpose of Zionism was to get rid of the previous residents - there is no separation between the idea of a Jewish state and the eviction of previous residents, as if there was only one way to make a Jewish state, meaning mass evictions, as if there were no reason to put Israel there rather than in Europe or Australia or South America.  There is no way to answer that definition of Zionism.  It's like when did you stop beating your wife - the presupposition it guilt.

                            I found this thread fascinating because it is full of actual content and give and take, rather than these gothcha questions.

                            If not me, who? If not now, when?

                            by ramara on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:17:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  If you don't give a damn (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      arielle

                      then that would explain why you're claiming the poster misunderstood the point.  Actually that was the point.  If you say Zionist that refers to most Jews.  It doesn't only refer to right-wing Israeli settlers.

                      •  Sorry but (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rhfactor, Tonedevil, deadatom

                        you dont know what you're talking about here

                        If you say Zionist that refers to most Jews.

                        Zionism is a particular political ideal, not a reference to a race. There are nonisreali as well as nonjewish zionists.

                        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

                        by cdreid on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 05:05:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  yes (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cdreid, Tonedevil, ramara

                    i can agree we don't want to argue about the words. but if i say israel every time i mean zionist (the ideology) aren't i implying the whole state of israel, when it is only the particular ideology i am addressing?

                    I am telling you how the word is heard by a Jew who agrees with you about the policy, and yet gets into an argument about a word.

                    excuse me for being bold, but wouldn't that be an issue for someone to address the way they are hearing things? or does it mean we have to sort of set aside that word because it is imflammatory, when in fact it could be the ideology that cause the inflamation?

                    that word is a little sticky because it has double usage, one in religion, and one in policy, and then they merge.

                    wouldn't it sort of be as if the US consitution was a christian document and then when you criticized the christianity in it you were accused of criticizing christians?

                    seriously i find this very confusing. but what exactly is wrong w/criticizing zionism as infused in the politics of israel?

                    also, in the diary there was not a segment of past stuff that explained why zionism is included. is there a story like the others to explain this aversion to criticizing parts of the zionist ideology? when you say ' how the word is heard by a Jew'.. why? why this word?

                    also, the model of having separate nations divided by secs or religions, this is sort of a weird concept in itself (to me). i can accept this is what israel is, but that idea extended into the middle east (ie:like many people want iraq divided by religion, and say the baluch region in pakistan), how is that different than a zionist ideology?

                    i think i will ask the diariest if he can explain why the word zionist fits in w/these other understandable examples of anti semitism (like bloodthirsty).

                    •  When I want to talk about (5+ / 0-)

                      what you call Zionism, I call it the settler movement.  Israeli expansionism also works.  The trouble with Zionism is that the meaning you give it is not universally understood, and it is used by those who think the State of Israel should not exist as well as by you.

                      Gandhi had not wanted independent India divided by religion, but religious wars broke out when the British left and Pakistan (which included Bangladesh) was founded as a Muslim state with very bloody wars.  The British leave, and religious war breaks out.  Sound like I/P?  

                      As for separate countries based on religion, check out the history of Europe since the Reformation.  This is something that happens all over the world.  This is why separation of church and state is such an important and such an American concept.

                      If not me, who? If not now, when?

                      by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:50:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I am not an expert (4+ / 0-)

                      on the history of Zionism.  It originally grew as an idea as an alternative to oppression in Europe.  So the history of Jews in Europe is relevant to the history of Zionism.  The first opposition to it was from ultra-Orthodox Jews who considered the idea of a return to the Holy Land as a sacriledge since only when the Messiah comes will the nation rise again.  But in the late 19th century, European Jews began moving to Palestine, which was under Turkish rule until after WWI, and then English rule.  The British kept Jews out of Palestine as other countries of the world did during the Holocaust.  The Holocaust kind of shocked the world, and especially the Jewish world, into a belief that perhaps the time for a Jewish state had come.  

                      So at that point, Zionism was a positive thing.  That is important.  When the word is used to express something negative, it is a betrayal of that.  By the way, there are still some ultra-Orthodox Jews who deny the validity of the State of Israel.  So use of the word throws you into a huge mess of meanings, and to me seems pointless when it can so easily be avoided.

                      I suppose it's like the use of civil rights law to go back to asserting white priority.

                      If not me, who? If not now, when?

                      by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 01:06:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I would welcome the Diarist (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rhfactor

                    To talk about the policy. As I've noted elsewhere, the diary doest the subject of dog whistle politics justice, but the current situation none.

                    Rather than get bogged-down in semantics and language, can we discussl policy because I think a majority of users here are educated and sophisticated enough to understand the language.

                    You are free to comment to my other comments on this thread, and I do try to approach the situation in the contenxt of the turn in world opinion against Israel in this situation, an importiant subject that is the subtext for re-publishing this old diary, diverting attention from the subject at hand by waving the flag of outrage at anti-Semitism.

                    I think the majority of Kos users are not anti-Semitic (although we have a few extremists from all sides) and can decode the language, so can we discuss issues rather than language.

                    I'd presonally be more interested in the Diarist's opinon on the situation, whatever that opinion is.

                    Or let him/her depoliticize the issue by just talking about Dog Whistle Politics in general.

                    Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                    by koNko on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:59:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you don't know my opinion on the subject (0+ / 0-)

                      you haven't been paying attention, for I have been quite open about my point of view on I/P matters for many years.  In fact, if you really wanted to know my opinion, you could look at my previous diaries and comments.  They were not appropriate here, though, as they were not the subject about which I was writing.  

                      If, on the other hand, you are not curious, but instead are just trying to make a slanderous and false accusation about my intent, well, you can just go screw yourself.

                      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

                      by dhonig on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:40:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Lucky it's you writing this, because if someone (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        koNko

                        else said about you, you can go screw yourself, that person would be dealt an HR.

                        Typical one-way-streeter.

                        "It's okay if I do it. When I do it, it's not wrong or HR-worthy."

                        Sounds like some Presidents.

                        --
                        -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

                        by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:58:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually, I am, so I will. (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't think I've slandered you or made any false accusations by suggesting this diary is waving flags, which is clearly presented as my own personal opinion.

                        That's my perception. I could be mistaken. Maybe I need to screw myself. Perhaps your own anger suggests I'm not completely wrong.

                        BTW, in case there is any doubt, what I'd like is your opinion on the current situation, particularly the increasing perception that Israel is acting unjustly or inappropriately to provoke further bloodshed, one of the finer points being the actions taken to turn back ships attempting to deliver humanitarian aid. This is not playing well in the rest of the world and serious political miscalculation on the part of Israel's leadership.

                        Personally, I think Israel is doing it's own cause harm, particularly with regard to the pending change in American administrations, making it harder for Obama to support Israel in the unequivical terms of previous administrations; his silence speaks volumes.

                        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                        by koNko on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:03:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  OK I have. (0+ / 0-)

                        I went through your Diaries for the past year.

                        What I found speaks mainly to the issue of anti-Semitism directly, rather like the present diary. As I've noted eleswhere, I think you speak elequently on the subject. From these Diaries I also get some flavor of your opinions on I/P conflict although not a very coherent picture, perhaps for same reason, it's not the central subject of these diaries. Perhaps searching your remarks would provide a more complete picture but I haven't really got the time today since I"m just back from the holiday and quite busy.

                        Getting back to my assertion that this diary distracts from substansive discussion on the issues, I'll agree that, since it doesn't purport to do that, perhaps I was casting a bit far. However, I find we are not so far apart given your own remarks to the effect ....

                        Third, to note that these particular "dog whistles" will actually REDUCE the effectiveness of whatever you are trying to say, as they are far more of a distraction that a contribution to any theme you might have.

                        As one of a relatively few Chinese Kos members, I'm no stranger to the dog whistles and "yellow menace" memes that creep into the discourse on liberal blogs including this one. Particularly ironic are the remarks of self-described labor advocates tha rail against (evil) "Communists" and Socialists" of the "Capitalist" Chinese government (really, I have seen tese put together in numerous remarks).

                        I find the rather archaic cold war attitudes and low information nonsense that underpins some of these remarks to be quite revealing and have occasionally remaked upon it.  The typical response - one I'm sure you can relate to - is that I'm "too sensitive". Generally that is not the case, but occasionally it may be; Chinese do carry some open wounds from history and sometimes we do over react to what is said or even filter what is legitimate criticism through our own lenses. Given time, I could probably search my own remarks and find examples of both - or diaries/comments so inflammatory I just didn't bother (which is probably incorrect, but possibly reasonable).

                        So were it lands, finally,  is disussion of issues and what I haven't seen much discussion of is how current events are playing on an international stage at the cost of moral authority Israel claims (and to some degree, posesses).

                        I see this; the present case, particularly the interferrence with aid organizations trying to enter Gaza, is playing strongly negative against Israel for real reasons, and this also becomes the grist for the anti-Semite mill that is always ready to turn. It's a miscalculation.

                        I don't know what is playing on US TV thes past 2 weeks, but the international media has really turned negative and it's not doing Israel any good. And it's not purely fiction or anti-Semitic propaganda, there are some real humanitarian issues that can turn otherwise supportive or neutral people against Israel.

                        Your comments ________________ .

                        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                        by koNko on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:08:26 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I stopped commenting on the specifics of I/P (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          koNko, zemblan, ancblu

                          a while ago, for many reasons.  Most important, though, is that so many are so grossly uneducated about it, and so sure they KNOW the history when they really only know the propaganda that fits their opinion, that conversation was impossible without grand exposition, and nobody was interested in that.  I wrote my opinion on what should happen, though, and it is here- Palestine Independence Day.  I also tried to do a small exposition on the recent history of the region in History did not start in 1967. That one was really frustrating.  You can see from the comments that even a well-supported and neutral history turned into a debate, because people hate it when facts interfere with favored myths.

                          You comment about dog whistles and Chinese Daily Kos members fascinates me.  I am, I readily confess, completely unatuned to them.  Can you write a diary about it?  If you write one, them maybe somebody else will do Muslims, or Indians, etc. It could be a very informative series, IMHO. Heck, half a dozen people in this diary asked about Palestinian dog whistles.  Unfortunately, it seemed to usually be a challenge or invitation to debate, rather than an offer.

                          Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

                          by dhonig on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:15:01 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for your reply. (0+ / 0-)

                            At work, will try to reply within one day.

                            I agree some subjects are a gaurented 3rd rail here, and I/P is certianly one.

                            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                            by koNko on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:04:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My slow response (0+ / 0-)

                            Sorry the delay, very busy these past 2 days. OK, fast & raw ...

                            Your idea of a "Dog Whistle" series is intriguing. That would be far more interesting and effective than a lone diary. If I take you up on it I will advise.

                            Based on the purpose/audience of Kos I have avoided posting diaries on controversial subjects about China or US/China relations, but comment on Chinese issues when raised. Also, given the electoral focus of the past year, I hesitated to invest time on subjects that would get lost, but lately I have reconsidered since it’s time to move on to issues Dems will face as a majority party – recent events suggest head in the sand isolationism is not an option but certainly the orientation of many liberals. In fact, my joining Kos was prompted by concern the US (including the Left) had grown so self-absorbed it was doing harm. Presently, I have a list of 5 potential topics, 2 suggesting multiple diaries.

                            I lived in the US for several years in the 80’s, have friends there and visit occasionally, so have enough context to understand the environment that shapes public opinion. The general observations I’d make about attitudes toward China/Chinese at Kos are:

                            a) A cold war mentality about US/China relations persists. Some incredibly regresive stuff comes from otherwise liberal minds. We don’t hate you & we’re not trying to kill you. Nuclear war is not imminent across the Taiwan Straits. The NBA has millions of fans and kids who quote stats.

                            b) The Evil Commie/Evil Capitalist Meme ... is very interesting. Our government is not inherently evil and enslaving 1.3 Billion people. Actually, the Central Government and certain Provincial/City governments are fairly progressive and competent, but there is a very significant gap between them and most Provincial bodies. China is a big country with a lot of problems & significant regional income disparities, and progress comes in steps with talent attracted by bright lights not impoverished backwaters – hardly a unique situation. Americans have little information (why would they) and it goes through filters on the way in. People fill-in the blanks with popular myth and there are enough real problems to spark imagination. I once read a great snarc diary along these lines, if I can find it I'll send a link. Very funny.

                            c) "China owns us and will pull the plug". Economic issues certainly color the picture. There is a lot of built-in stress and I often find Kos members projecting their own misgivings about the down-side of Capitalism and it’s affects on the situation; China makes as convenient a bogyman as Japan did. It’s a fact many Americans lost their jobs to China. Suggesting reverse investment might benefit some of them is not well received. Certainly China is an emerging global power, but the ship has enough leaks to keep the crew bailing. Globally, the worst performing stock market this year was the Shanghai Exchange, which lost more than 60% value, predominantly small investors. Whenever I read that China will pull the plug I wonder if we really have such an economic death-wish. I’d hope the current crisis puts the world back on better balance and cooperation between the USA and China will be essential – one topic for the list.

                            d) Prejudice & racism comes in many flavors along with tone deafness. I don’t suppose this needs much explanation; apparently Jews & Chinese have many traits in common – family values, an irrational penchant for savings accounts & education, whatever – this must explain our Diaspora we want to steal the best seats at Harvard.  Deep topic, but difficult to approach as a dairy, I’m more inclined to question it when encountered.  

                            A: "OK, let’s replace the word Chinese with Black, Jew or Mexican, what do you think?"

                            B: "You are over-reacting, that has nothing to do with the subject."

                            Sometimes the case, I suppose, but that salt you’re rubbing in my wound hurts. I occasionally get my buttons pushed.

                            ::

                            I found your two diaries very interesting and learned a lot, including quite a bit from the comments, save the ad nausea arguments. A notable Chinese blogger interviewed recently replied to a question about the success of his site remarking he measures that by the quality of arguments, not hit counts.  Basically he said "When people express themselves honestly I feel it is worthwhile, even when they are angry and rude. They can come back and read their own remarks the next day."  I share that opinion. Good blogs produce more understanding than damage.

                            My feeling about the Israel/Palestine situation is it is very much weighed-down by history that is difficult to cast aside for the sake of pragmatic solutions. This is a common situation in regions with ancient cultures. We could draw lines from the Mid-East across Central Asia to the Far East, and North-South from Mongolia to India and find the same phenomena, particularly along trade routes. Empires, nomads, farmers, cities. Your geography lesson perfectly encapsulates this; pick the date you like, re-draw the map, and there you go, instant dogma.

                            It may sound far-fetched, but I have a notion to diary the situation in Tibet in exactly that way. Complex history, highly politicized and poorly understood. Trace the linguistic, geographic and historical roots and a much different picture emerges. Mongolian nomads migrated across China and Central Asia to Europe conquering in their path. Some eventually settled in the area of present day South-West China and Tibet (along with Central Asian nomads and numerous South-East Asians) intermarrying with locals. This area stands at the cross-roads of two major historical trade routes, The Silk Road and The Horse & Tea Trail (which, I suspect, few Kossaks have ever heard of); significant historical facts.  A CIA map of "Communist China, Ethno-linguistic" shows a patchwork of 26 distinct groups in this region. Tibetan extremists now lay claim to a swath of land back to Mongolia based on historical imperative – they rode their horses there. It’s not going to happen and stands in the way of dialogue and progress others would like to realize including many Chinese. It polarizes the issues and hardens positions, holding the Dali Lama and Chinese Leaders hostage to the situation, just as moderate Israeli and Palestinian leaders are by respective extremists. This issue is very hot and could only be approached with a very well researched and reasoned diary so I really need to take the time (opposite of this post!).

                            ::

                            You say there will be peace when Palestinian leaders prepare their people for it. That is one essential component, but is it a prerequisite or a process?

                            If history did not start in 1967 and negotiation is open, how can it be initiated to build trust, or lacking that, constructing international stewardship that could defuse the bomb by improving security for both sides and the material situation in Palestine to draw this society back from the edge?

                            Both of these practical concerns are essential; perhaps they must come first. Trust is built by positive experience and the perception of shared interest; it is not merely explained or mandated. At this point, neither side can do it on their own or seems likely to take the first step. Israel could draw in external brokers by doing so, but do they want that? Actions may signal motives.

                            Consider the following:

                            a) Israel could/should take the first step. No doubt they have the stronger military and political positions. That being the case, they have more to lose by failing to do so and political sands are starting to shift beneath their feet – how far must this go before they, too, realize history is a continuum?  I’ve wondered recently if the present posture is to plant a foot in a closing door of unconditional American (hence international) support or more related to the pending elections – any thoughts?

                            b) Hamas must be recognized and get a seat at the table to be de-fanged. They were elected. They have a constituency/audience that stretches far beyond their borders. They can be silenced, but their supporters will not go away, they must be persuaded. Is the international system so weak they cannot deal with Hamas ?  The PLO had a far stronger base. I don’t believe a majority of responsible actors in the international community want to see Hamas empowered, but clearly isolation has not worked. With the Iraq war winding-down and relationships thawing, political consensus can be built to contain and co-opt Hamas.

                            c) Blocking humanitarian support is a blind spot and a loser. There is no moral or strategic ground to be gained. If the IDF can surgically bomb tunnels, why use such blunt, self-defeating tactics? Third-party channels could be established for the asking to ensure weapons do not filter in.

                            d) You also suggest Israel give up Gaza and the West Bank, but I would not expect this to happen under any circumstances where a majority of Israelis lack confidence in security and the political will to force the settlers to stand-down, a very remote possibility now.

                            e) You discount the possibility of Jerusalem returning to the status of an international zone, but I see that as the only long-term option and possibly the best means to flip the table to produce a political break-through. Resistance from the Right within Israel makes this an equally remote possibility, but I think it has better prospects than Gaza and the West Bank. See next point.

                            f) I don’t believe the two parties can make progress without outside intervention. The situation calls for a combined process of internationally sponsored multi-lateral and bi-lateral talks, ideally supported by a UN Peace Keeping Mission to provide the necessary degree of separation and a cooling-off period. Such talks might hasten the end of Hamas support within Palestine if they fail to cooperate and deliver, a likely outcome.

                            Your thoughts?

                            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                            by koNko on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:55:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  thank you for answering me. (6+ / 0-)

                  Zionism (currently) refers to the goal of far right isrealis and others (most noteably the american right) to expand the state of Israel

                  this has been my understanding. is this debatable, or is it anti semite to say this? because there is a goal among many israelis to expand the state of israel is there not?

                  that impacts the whole border issues of exactly where the borders for a palestinian state would be, does it not?

                  is it not part of the ideology behind the expansion? or is expansion too hot a word?

                •  Except that many self-identified "pro-Israeli" (5+ / 0-)

                  contributers here, who equally identify themselves as liberals, progressives or otherwise on the left and not the right let alone the far right, fully equate Zionism with the existential identity of the state of Israel.  They are "Zionists" because it is an indispensible construct for the protection of Israel's fundamental right of existence.  

                  My view, in contrast, is that Israel's right of existence within the modern international state system, born as it was in the post-WWII process of decolonization and break-up of empires, does not depend upon Zionism or its perpetuation as policy framework.  Indeed, the perpetuation of Zionism that emphasizes the primacy of Jewishness in all its manifestations runs directly counter to the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural secularism emphases of nation-states that associate themselves with the Western liberal democratic tradition.

                  Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                  by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:48:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I should hasten to add (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snakelass

                  that my observation is in no respect a blanket or generalized statement about "all" liberal or progressive Jewish and non-Jewish advocates of Israel's fundamental right of existence -- as I am and you as well no doubt based on this important point you made:

                  Jew, Isreali, and Zionist are three completely different things

                  Much of the difficulty I find in these discussions is establising a common understanding about how these three identifiers overlap or remain wholly distinct. I observe that there is no consensus on either side of the I/P debate.

                  Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                  by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:17:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's what opponents claim Zionism means (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snakelass, arielle, BFSkinner, ramara

                  That's why it's such a point of contention when immediately labeling any or all pro-Israel posters with the label "Zionist" (used as an insult) and a noun as in "Zionist troll."

                  Zionism has a very broad definition.  Generally by today's Jewish population's parlance, it means believing the state of Israel has a right to exist. A very large percentage of Jews believe Israel has a right to exist and so take offense at the "Zionist" insults.  

                  Furthermore, taking the tack that "Zionist" is an insult and using it in the context you mentioned is actually (whether you realize it or not) coopting language that has been used by anti-semites for decades and language that is common in the Arabic world when protesting the existance of Israel.  

                  It is not the equivalent of calling someone "conservative" or "right-wing" in a domestic political debate.

                  •  but proponents of Zionism (0+ / 0-)

                    make the very same mistake you allege anti-Zionists are making -- claiming as a categorical matter that it to be not about "Jewishness" but instead about Israel and it's existence.  That viewpoint allows one to see anti-semitism or an existential threat to Israel wherever and whenever criticism of Zionism is presented.

                    Zionism always has been about establishing and protecting a Jewish national homeland in Palestine -- not a Jewish/Arab/Christian/fill-in the blank homeland.  As a result, Zionist policies must reinforce principles of religious, ethnic or cultural Jewish purity and at the expense of any other identifiable group.  That is an essential and indisputable tension surrounding the entire I/P history in the modern era.

                    Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                    by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 04:53:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Who defines "Zionism" - Zionists or opponents? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zemblan

                  As you wrote,

                  requiring everyone in any debate or conversation to fit your framework quickly devolves into a nonconversation dominated by political correctness at its worst.

                  Nevertheless, you want to impose a definition of Zionism that most Zionists would reject. That's not how it works. Members of a movement or organization get to define their program, not their opponents.

                  The definition you want to impose refers to the ideas of a minority. It is a definition that is used by opponents of Zionism in an attempt to demonize it.

                  An analogy would be saying that "Gay Rights" means "promoting a lifestyle that is an abomination and possibly encouraging our children to adopt it".

                  Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

                  by word is bond on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:21:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  that is what (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snakelass

                i am trying to figure out. i just ask kalmoth to answer some questions for me.

                i don't think of zionism as screaming jewish, i thought it was speaking more directly to an ideological option. because all jews aren't zionists, are they?

                •  There are (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sidnora, snakelass, zannie

                  plenty of non-Jews that are Zionist, though it's mostly for a racist reason (ie: get them all to Israel, so we don't have to deal with them here) and there are also sects of Jews that are very anti-Zionist. In their mind, the only was Jews can be allowed back in Israel is if the Messiah comes and any State of Israel made by man is doomed to failure until then.

                •  Yes, most Jews are Zionist (6+ / 0-)

                  The vast majority of Jews are Zionists -- that is, according to the original definition of Zionism which simply means believing in the right of the State of Isael to exist.

                  When people use the term "Zionism" to mean all sorts of things it reminds me a bit of Humpty Dumpty, who thought words meant whatever he wanted them to mean.

                  To me, it makes no sense when someone expresses hatred of Zionists, then gets very defensive and says no one has a right to call them anti-Semitic, because they hate only Zionists, not all Jews.  It makes no sense to me, because according to the original definition, the only Jews who are not Zionists are a handful of the ultra-Orthodox, who object to the existence Israel on religious grounds, and an equally small handful of people who object to the existence of Israel on political grounds.

                  To my ear, it would be as if someone were to say they didn't hate all people in the U.S. -- only the ones who believed that the U.S. had a right to continue to exist as a country.  Well, that would cover pretty much everyone in the U.S. (and most of the rest of the world's population as well) except for a handful of cranks.

                  Again to my ear, when someone says they hate "Zionists," I cringe because I think they mean me.  

                  The parsing of "Zionists" to mean "the bad Jews" and "other Jews" to mean "the good Jews" also grates, and seems to my ear to often be a way to make general derogatory statements about Jews while simultaneously denying one is doing so.

                  The use of "Zionism" to mean "right-wing politics" is confusing, because that's not what Zionism means.

                  And finally, sometimes I think people use "Zionist," especially in formulations like "the Zionist entity," when they don't want to use "Israel" because that would be acknowledging the existence of a state that they don't believe has a legitimate existence.

                  I think it would be much clearer, and wouldn't set off dog whistles, if people used "Zionism" in its original meaning -- a movement to establish the State of Israel.  If people mean "right-wing politics," why not say that?  If they mean "support of settlers," again why not say specifically that?

              •  And presuming Israeli aggression is unfair, too. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mayim, ramara

                The Israeli bombing of Gaza was preceded by Hamas missile attacks on Israel. So why do you assume Israel was the aggressor here?

                There is by now such a long cycle of mutual retaliation neither Israelis nor Palestinians can pretend to be the innocent victims of unprovoked aggression.

                No lasting peace can be achieved unless both sides are willing to put aside grievance and vendetta. Neither side appears ready to do this, and it's the height of naivete to think US diplomacy can be accepted as neutrally "mediating" and impose a peace plan Israelis and Palestinians will abide by.

                •  while it might perceived as unfair (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  by you, it is not anti semite. or do you think it is?

                  although 'the aggressor' implies the initiator, aggresson per se does not denote anything about who started it. when you drop bombs on someone you are acting w/aggression. when your political ideology allows for, or helps justify the position you are in, and you act to defend yourself or your ideology using aggression, is that not ideologically driven aggression? ie zionist aggression?

                  because it is my understanding that religious fanatics of another ideology, when they act aggressively as an expression of their ideology, they get called out for it.

                  and it's the height of naivete to think US diplomacy can be accepted as neutrally "mediating" and impose a peace plan Israelis and Palestinians will abide by.

                  well, our alternative is to keep on doing what we've been doing, which hasn't worked. naive or not naive we have to give it our best shot. and i don't think we've been doing that.

                  •  A small point (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    snakelass, Tonedevil, Munchkn

                    "anti-semite" is not an adjective. It's a noun. Using it as an adjective sounds a lot like the wingnut habit of using "Democrat" as an adjective.

                    So, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is an anti-semitic text, but Hitler was an anti-semite.

                    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

                    by sidnora on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:40:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Immediately blaming "Zionist aggression" (7+ / 0-)

                    while ignoring the Hamas rocket attacks-- and the whole cycle of mutual retribution going back 60 years-- suggests a lack of objectivity. I would not presume to call it antisemitism-- I don't know you, and anyway I think throwing that word around too automatically and freely has only debased the discourse.

                    What we're seeing happen in Gaza is all the more tragic because there is no clear villain, no pure victim, and no solution visible on the horizon.

                    Americans want to step in and "fix" the I/P problem because they're genuinely appalled and want to assuage suffering-- but also because their delusions of grandeur and exceptionality lead them to think they have the power to make everything right through simple diplomacy. But that's an illusion. The US doesn't even have credibility as a truly neutral mediator yet-- it's perceived as having supported Israel too unequivocally for too long. "Reasonable" Palestinian leaders who accept US mediation are immediately repudiated by the Palestinian masses (hence the election of Hamas). And no matter how even-handed and carefully crafted the peace plan the Americans offer, the peace will inevitably be broken again by embittered radicals on both sides (Israeli settlers, Palestinian militias). Put another way-- a peace could be negotiated but it cannot be imposed, made to stick, for not enough Palestinians and Israelis are ready yet to put aside their fears and resentments to keep the peace. Someday this may change. But the assassination of Rabin, the continued popularity of Likud, and the Fatah-Hamas Civil War suggest that time is still far off.

                    So what can the US do? If it cannot succeed in pressing Israeli and Palestinian leaders to compromise, it can nevertheless continue to condemn violence, call for ceasefires and negotiations, and provide humanitarian aid to both sides. That doesn't sound like much, but that's all that's within our power at this time.    

                    •  to be fair (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      snakelass, Tonedevil, ramara

                      in the context of this term entrenched into the thread, nobody 'immediately blamed' anyone and nobody ignored hamas rocket attacks.

                      msblucow  said this

                      when I read some comment or diary about "Zionist aggression" or the description "blood-thirsty" (or equivalent) to describe Israeli soldiers I wanted to cringe.

                      so i naively thought, on this diary this might be a good time to ask about the term that you also have an issue with or you wouldn't have said

                      I think throwing that word around too automatically and freely has only debased the discourse.

                      then when might you find it appropriate?

                      this is a hot botton issue apparently, one that does not seem to come with a story behind it, as demonstrated in this diary. but i have often heard people complaining of this term so this is nothing new.

                      do you believe zionist aggression exists? frankly, it just seems like we aren't supposed to discuss it because everytime it comes up, all heck breaks loose.

                      it's like 'let's talk about I/P but skip a big part of the issue'. does it not? how is facing part of the problem head on debasing the issue?

                      i completely agree this is a big mess.

                      That doesn't sound like much, but that's all that's within our power at this time.    

                      actually, also within our power doing a little more oversite in terms of that 'humanitarian aid' . it is also hypocritcal to be calling for ceasefires, and then preventing the UN from calling for one with our vote. we probably have the power to vote differently to actually guarentee a ceasefire occurs.

                      we could also perhaps attempt to slow down the continued growth of settlements since some people perceive them to be a form of aggression, of a zionist nature.

                      •  I certainly agree that (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        zannie, Tonedevil, ramara

                        the US should be more even-handed in humanitarian aid, fairer and less hypocritical in demanding ceasefires from one side and excusing continued operations from another, firmer and more consistent in pressing for dismantling of illegal settlements, etc. We must put an end to the US habit of demanding adherence to some UN resolutions while conveniently ignoring or defying others.  Past US administrations have been so grossly unfair and hypocritical in their I/P poilicy that the US has a long way to go to demonstrate its credibility as a reliable mediator. (This is why I don't put much faith in US-led pace talks at this point in history.)

                        In that sense the kind of policy shift I'm calling for demands MORE of us-- more patience, fair play and humility-- than what we've done in the past.

                        As for the issue of antisemitism:
                        I've witnessed a great deal of antisemitism growing up in the US and I have no doubt much of it is still out there, even if it is a little less brazen and more sublimated in the way it expresses itself nowadays. So antisemitism may motivate some of the attacks we see on Israel's actions in the world. There is a lot of thinly veiled antisemitism still around, on the Left as well as on the Right.  

                        But I would never presume that every criticism of Israel MUST necessarily be motivated by antisemitism. It's bullying and intellectually dishonest-- as well as counterproductive tactically-- to dismiss as an antisemite anyone who dares expresses reservations about the religiously exclusivist variant of Zionism or doubts that Likud's policies have been good for Israel.

                        I also believe Israel would be able to find more realistic and flexible ways of dealing with the Palestinian problem-- would better be able to guarantee its survival-- if it did not so readily chill or stifle its own political discourse by dismissing all criticisms or calls for compromise as antisemitism or the bad faith of "self-hating Jews."  

                         

                        •  excellent response (0+ / 0-)

                          i agree w/everything you said.

                          regarding 'self hating jews', i read something today that i really found disturbing. here. the author used the term Israel-hating Israelis about 10 times. is this new? i have never heard it before. very sad, but i am sort of used to it from the right. being called anti american. but the word hate is so nasty. especially to label another persons supposed hatred. i imagine all israelis probably love their country even as they wrestle with its policies. it the ones (both here and there) who have a blind patriotism that prevents them/us from being critical and impartial to the suffering of others or how our actions impacts and effects others.

                          it is always easier to imagine the evil ones as being far different than ourselves, or a completely different nature altogether, but that just isn't likely.
                          its those fanatics that will bring us down as a civilization.

                          being a secular person it is very difficult for me to grasp what moves religious people, or how their religious doctrines or ideologies determines their decisions. it scars me because i just don't have it in me. not that i think all religions are bad.  it seems religious beliefs tend to allow people a certain slack that us secular folks don't get.

                          i feel the same way about crusading christians, it just scars the hell out of me.

                  •  No (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ramara
                    The aggressor is the initiator.
                    Random House Unabridged Dictionary:

                    a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

                    "There -- it's -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --GWB

                    by denise b on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:10:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  NO (0+ / 0-)

                      i will stick w/webster, since random house is a publishing company, and webster is a dictionary company.

                      aggressor

                      : one that commits or practices aggression  

                      answers (on the google definition link)

                      One that engages in aggression.

                      besides, to assume israel is not an aggressor would be to buy the 'victim defense' hook line and sinker. we already have headlines screaming israel broke the ceasefire, on nov 4th the day of the election when nobody is going to be paying attention. was that a coincidence?

                      so lets for the sake of argument assume boths side have acted w/aggression.

              •  is zionist to Israeli (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil

                what terrorist is to Palestinian?

                thinkbridge "A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

                by thinkbridge on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 04:44:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  It's not usually a dog-whistle. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              snakelass, Tonedevil, qi motuoche

              For Arabs, Zionism meant mass-migration of foreigners into a mostly Arab country that was under British rule, causing massive ethnic cleansing in the process, and depriving those Palestinians who remained in their homes of any hope of self-determination. That is not the only valid way to see Zionism, but it is a valid way to see Zionism. You may argue that Zionist leaders never intended to drive hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, but that is what happened. Saying Arabs should respect Zionism because it espoused progressive socialist principles is pretty thin sauce. For Arabs, and Muslims, Zionism was Europe dumping a population they (Europeans) did not want, and did not respect into the land of Arab and Muslim governments who had no choice but to accept them. That is what made this so different from Ottomans welcoming Jewish refugees from the Inquisition into Muslim lands 300 years earlier: in the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire was practically a superpower in Europe and it took Jewish refugees in voluntarily, not because it was being forced to by aggressive foreign powers In the 1800s, not only was the settling of Jewish immigrants being imposed by outsiders, but Palestinian Arabs were beginning to see themselves more in terms of a local national identity--Palestinian Arabs--than as Muslims, members of a global Muslim community. Also, it was obvious to the Palestinians, from the beginning of the Zionist movement to the end, that Jewish immigrants were benefiting from the support and superior economic and military power, and technology, of the newly-modernized European nations.

              So to say that Arabs suddenly "turned against the Jews" and started buying into European anti-Semitism because they were bitter about losing the "clash of civilizations" to Europe is just ridiculous. They were in a very new geopolitical situation which made them

              1. vulnerable
              1. forced to respect and learn from European Christendom in a way they had not needed to before.

              Given that, it isn't surprising that a new kind of European anti-Semitism was transmitted to the Middle East along with modern steam engines, the telegraph, and Marxism.

              So if somebody says "Zionist aggression" outside the context of actual Zionism and the state of Israel, then yeah, I would say that's likely a dog whistle. But I think it's pretty safe to say that Palestinians and other Arabs can say the words "Zionist aggression" and the first thing that comes to mind should not be anti-Semitism.

          •  It is starting to play that way. (0+ / 0-)

            I realize that to an American audiance accustomed to a pro-Israeli bias, the turn in world opinion on the present situation may be alarming, but perhaps it suggests Americans open their eyes a little wider regardless of where they stand to see what others see, and consider how damaging to the Israeli cause this ultimately is.

            I personally support the right of Israel to exist and hence I disagree with the opposite from Hammas, but their mere existance is the product of a conflict where Palistinians have long been on the losing end and the world sees this fact.

            Objectively, Israel has it's share of millitant warmongers and extremists, including settlers who have been used as pawns in a dangerous game played for years, often to provoke conflict. Now we see another round of what has evolved into a circle of self-justifying violance on both sides.

            That make my heart sick, and don't see leaders from either side standing on any high ground.

            Ultimately, it's rocks against guns and the Israelis know that, underlining the point as often and as harshly as they chose. I really hate to use the term "body count" but the facts ultimately point there and so does the message, however it is cloaked - Israel would like Hammas to know they will take 2 eyes for an eye.

            Regretably, the long term safety and stability of Israel is once again in the hands of right-wingers willing to gamble on militarism instead of diplomacy. It is a gamble.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:46:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snakelass, Tonedevil, Matt Z, ramara

          This is one of the most interesting and substantive diaries I've seen in many days.

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi

          by Triscula on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 02:02:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You need to stop (5+ / 0-)

        talking about rubbing certain things, Skinner :-D

        Hehe.

        Warning: this comment may contain sarcasm or satire.

        by MBNYC on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:07:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  um, what is a mohel? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      ... or do I need to Wiki ?

    •  So does this include... (25+ / 0-)

      If you are writing a diary or a comment about Israel, or Palestine, or AIPAC, etc., if you include an accusation that some of the people involved are disloyal, or more loyal to Israel, or have "dual loyalties" and therefore can't be trusted, you are blowing a dog whistle and will be greeted with rage.

      ...discussion of Joe Lieberman and the other neocons in the administration?  I mean, I certainly don't view the hawkishness they're pushing as being in the best interests of the U.S.  Though I also think that while they're trying to help Israel, they're actually helping push Israel off a cliff with their actions, which are only inflaming more anger at Israel and the U.S. among the Arab world.

      Can I say that I don't trust a single damn thing that comes out of these neocons' mouths?  If Bill Kristol suggests anything having to do with foreign policy (heck, domestic policy, for that matter), is it wrong for me to think that we should do the exact opposite of what he suggests?

      •  Let me assure, BruinKid, (9+ / 0-)

        that as a Jew, nothing that you have written above is even close to anti-Semitic.

        "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell

        by Karmafish on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:06:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (20+ / 0-)

          Numerous people on the left have implied that Kristol and Lieberman argue their positions because of dual loyalty due to their Jewishness.  It is nonsensical, as the entire war room that Bush used to invade Iraq was non-Jewish.

          Some of the most virulent critics of Israeli policy are from Jews like Noam Chomsky or Glenn Greenwald.  Then, of course, there's the fact that Jewish politicians are far more likely to be Democrats than Neo-Cons (Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, incoming senator Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Carl Levin, Jerry Nadler, etc. etc.)

          When we start to link Jewish Neo-Cons together, using their Jewishness, and then connecting it to a "dual loyalty" accusation, as I've read many times directed at the odious Joe Lieberman here on DailyKos, it IS the very dog-whistle anti-Semitism this diary warns about.

          Lieberman is an asshole.  His nonsensical foreign policy blunders are due to his narcissism, his navel gazing, and his need to feel like a "heroic military warrior."  But these are the same problems that plague George W. Bush, and the rest of the pro-war armchair warriors on the right.

          To invoke Lieberman as "loyal to Israel over America" is anti-Semitism in its purest form.  It doesn't get any clearer than that.

          •  Interesting that you mention Greenwald (6+ / 0-)

            Because he has often noted how unique and strange it is that American politicians--both Jewish and gentile--routinely trumpet their support of Israel in a way that an American politician could never do so for another country, least of all one they have ties to.  For this, he has often gotten flack in the comments section of his blog to the effect that he is repeating the 'dual loyalty' slur you and this diary speak of.

            "While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free!" -Eugene V. Debs

            by leftneck on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:45:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also interesting that he mentions Chomsky (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              snakelass, Tonedevil, leftneck

              who has been dogged by accusations of antisemitism for most of his career, most notably from folks like Dershowitz.  His response:

              If you identify the country, the people, the culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then yeah, it's anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and anti-American to criticize the American policy, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this.

              •  I'm not defending Chomsky or Greenwald (4+ / 0-)

                In fact I disagree with both on this issue.  I'm simply pointing out that implying someone being "Jewish" immediately means we should suspect them of dual loyalties and favoring Israel is nonsensical.  And yes, it is anti-Semitic.

                Joe Lieberman uncritically supports Israel for the same reason he uncritically supports wars on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan -- because he is a clueless narcissist.  His being Jewish is not a factor, and those who raise it are engaging in an age-old anti-Semitic smear by implying we can never trust Jews to be fully loyal to the country they live in.

                •  I am (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BruinKid, Tonedevil, Balam, deadatom

                  That even a Jewish person has to face down accusations of anti-semitism when criticizing the approach American politicians take towards Israel is, to me, incredible. There is, in fact, a whole complex of ideas, the "self-hating Jew," that some Jewish people appear to use against other Jewish people who are otherwise able to pursue critiques denied to gentiles via accusations of anti-semitism.  I've seen it used against Greenwald at least once.

                  Yes, anyone who assumes that any Jew harbors dual loyalties without evidence is an anti-semite.  But does that mean no individual person, Jewish or otherwise, can have such mixed motives?  No one flinches when people note that some apocalyptic evangelical Christians support Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with the interests of America; is it healthy to categorically exclude individual Jewish people from the same, despite the possibility of far more direct and rational motives?  Hell, it isn't even wrong for people to be motivated by interests external to America--this is a democracy, and you are not a traitor just because you are not a nationalist to the exclusion of all other factors.  Yet even the whisper of such a motivation regarding Israel remains off-limits.

                  "While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free!" -Eugene V. Debs

                  by leftneck on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 01:55:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You went to a stunning amount of effort (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rhfactor, ivorybill, Balam, golconda2, leftneck

            to confuse and pasturise the issues. The poster was specifically talking about Lieberman. Somehow you conflate Lieberman and his motivations with those of the far right.. which you may recall Lieberman was NOT supposedly a part of.

            It is the strong suspicion of Many, including those of the Jewish faith or descent, that Joseph Liebermans religious extremism has led him to betray his party and the nation in favor of some 'inspired' religious quest. Much like many of us believe Bush's motivations are in part due to his faux-christian zealotry.

            You should perhaps consider what makes it unaccpetable to point out what is a likely truth because of Liebermans religion but the same acceptable in the case of Bush and company.

            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

            by cdreid on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:24:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  why is dual loyalty (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            leftneck

            always perceived as an 'accusation'. especially if a person has dual citizenship? why would a person hold citizenship to any country if he didn't have any loyalty to it?

            in the case of the diariests example, i absolutely can understand how this accusation was used in an anti semetic inappropriate way. but as a matter of course are we supposed to ignore a persons dual loyalties if they have them?

            'dual' does not imply loyal to one over another. for example a child has 2 parents, they are loyal to both of them. would pointing this out be an accusation or merely stating a fact?

            furthermore are we supposed to place a wide net around these terms and not use them for fear of how they may be heard, or can we use them when they apply.

            •  Historically it's been used frequently (8+ / 0-)

              as an excuse to persecute Jews: claiming that they were "disloyal" to their country and more loyal to "world Jewry," whatever that means.

              harps and angels! harps and angels!

              by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:35:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  World Jewry (6+ / 0-)

                what a hilarious notion.

                We're a faith with no generally recognized hierarchy, with very little consistent liturgy, with a range of theological positions that stretches from extreme mindless fundamentalism to "cultural" Judaism that doesn't even recognize a higher being.

                Any two random Jews have trouble agreeing on what Jewishness means, but we're suspected of giving our primary loyalty to collective Jewry?

                The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

                by sidnora on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:53:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  weird /nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                leftneck

                isn't it sort of natural for people to have an affinity for people of their own faith no matter where they are in the world?

                christians do it. i'm not religious, but if i was i woulod align w/people of my own faith.

                i belong to a international political community thru a blog. it is people from all over the world that think in the same way. i am much more 'loyal' politically to them, than to america. that is because i think of myself as a citizen of planet earth first, before my country. besides, how can i be completely loyal to america politically, when it is being run by a combination of gop/neocon/war criminal/torturing fruitcakes!

                anyway, there is nothing wrong w/dual loyalty.

                i heard this come up over rahm's appointment and i thought to myself, well if we are going to be trying to forge a path to peace wouldn't it be normal to have people on our team who will be also trusted by people we are trying to negotiate with? realistically, if we have palestinian americans as well as israeli americans involved w/negotiation that would be a good thing. that is just my take on it.

              •  whoops (0+ / 0-)

                i just made a comment to you and accidentally  left the /nt in the subject line. you may want to check it. the one that says weird, sorry.

            •  does dual loyalty "truth" advance your argument, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              redwagon, snakelass

              or is it pretty much irrelevant? In a public discourse about which policies need to be pursued, somebody like Kristol or Greenwald has to argue a policy because of the good it does the U.S., or Israel, or the world. And, if you don't like the policy idea then you have to make an argument about the merits of the policy, not who the person proposing the policy "pals around with."

              And the diarist's point is that if you "go there," you will stop real discussion. Reminds me of the ayers question in the last debate.

              All currency is neurotic currency. --Norman O. Brown

              by MikeRayinBerkeley on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 01:35:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  only as much (0+ / 0-)

                as loyalty at all is relevant.

                in math problems, does it matter whether a person is loyal to america when they add 2 plus 2?

                if you were going in for heart surgery, would you be more likely to trust an american plumber, or a chinese heart surgeon?

                only when a persons loyalty might impact the choice they make would it make a difference, OR if the people one is negotiating with are more likely to trust you if they believe you have your and their best interests to heart.

                And, if you don't like the policy idea then you have to make an argument about the merits of the policy, not who the person proposing the policy "pals around with."

                keep in mind tho, that a persons affinity for a policy is likely going to be impacted by their loyalty. who you hang around with may very well impact your decisions.

                for example, if you knew your child was drowning in a pool with 10 other children and only one lifeguard was on duty, would you be more comfortable trusting your spouse to be there choosing which kid to grab out of the pool first, or the school nurse? you would choose your spouse, because you know he would have your best interest at heart, but also the best interest of your child, because it is his child too.
                (your spouse has dual loyalty) while the nurse may have loyalty to all the kids, she may not have the ability to save them all and would likely choose a course that would lead to saving more of the children, as opposed to making sure yours was rescued.

                this is natural. and while i agree it might stop discussion if you 'go there' sometimes you just have to look something directly in the face and ask how impartial you can be, or should be.

                we have a situation here where some people think there is no difference between what is good for israel, and what is good for the US. and then there are those who think that it is never appropriate to think 2 countries will always have identical security needs.

                so, we aren't figuring out a math problem. these aren't numbers, they are people, and people DO have loyalties. sometimes people with loyalties can work in your favor, sometimes they don't. but pretending loyalyies don't exist, or to avoid talking about them because it will shut down the topic is foolish in my opinion. i think it is better to just not consider it an 'accusation' any more than it would be normal of 'accusing' someone of being loyal to their own family.

                •  I don't dispute the fact that loyalties (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zannie

                  affect political tendencies, but this seems more a matter of electoral strategy than policy debate, as in, "I think Florida will go for Lieberman because he's Jewish." You could say, "Disregaurd that policy position because his loyalities cloud his judgement," but that is not an argument about the merits of a policy. It's dismissing an argument based on the speaker's identity as you construe it.

                  More problematicallly, one could say,"There's a conspiracy to control the bounds of the discussion because jewish loyalties don't permit the discussion outside a certain range of loyalty to israel." The problem with that is that your target now becomes a group of people via their identity, and you haven't done anything, again, to advance a counter argument. And, there's also a certain acceptance of powerlessness in that approach, an assumed victimization: I am not being allowed to be who I am because of the loyalties of this group of people, I am powerless because they exist, and so now I need to go after the group, even if in an only passive-aggressive way.

                  In the end, it all sounds antithetical to the type of discussion you would hope, through your efforts, to foster. To go back to your drowning kids analogy, you want to get to a place where you can say, "What is the best way to get all of these kids out of here safely?" and be able to talk about that, and it is partly the role of public discourse to push people into this kind of defense of their position, so that their selfishness becomes softened, and community solutions become more possible.

                  All currency is neurotic currency. --Norman O. Brown

                  by MikeRayinBerkeley on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 03:23:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                    i agree, especially w/your last paragraph w/the caveat that sometimes when people feel pushed into a kind of defense of their position, they harden. and for this very reason a person w/a dual citizenship (to 2 countries) can be a real facilitator because a perceived adversary of yours may be more likely to soften if a person as part of your negotiating team is trusted by them because they are 'one of them'.

                    this is interesting:

                    ,"There's a conspiracy to control the bounds of the discussion because jewish loyalties don't permit the discussion outside a certain range of loyalty to israel."

                    i really wouldn't say that in general at all because i know too many jews.

                    but 'in general ' aside, if you gathered a bunch of radical rightwing jews and stacked them all in some powerful policy making position (like say..the office of special plans) well..then i might have to go there, but i still wouldn't call it 'jewish loyalties', i would think of it as zionist loyalties to israel. and then i would be called a conspiracy freak, but sorry, i just don't trust those neocons whether they're jewish or not. too much doublespeak.

                    so i guess for me, it does come back to this zionist thing, because zionism is political (to me), being  jewish is not. but then it even gets more complicated (for me) because as i understand it (tho i really don't understand it) zionism is both, political and religious.

              •  If you are old enough to remember (4+ / 0-)

                that was the argument against JFK, that he would have dual loyalties, to the Pope and Church, as well as to the US.  It is said in anti-immigration and has been with every new wave of immigrants.  It is one of those dog-whistle phrases that does not apply only to Jews, and we should all be aware of it as such.

                If not me, who? If not now, when?

                by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 03:05:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's also how the right has avoided issues (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snakelass, zannie, ramara

                  by focusing instead on who knows who, and how scary that is for America. Again, the Will Ayers or Reverend Wright "controversies," or whoever. Kossacks would generally agree that the right does this because if they engage on the issues, they will lose.

                  My feeling sometimes is that people get so frustrated with the complexity and intractability of the I/P issue, that they throw up their hands and go for some version of an identity politics approach, which allows blame to substitute for constructive solutions. Then, the problem is, that before you can even get to the thorny problem itself, you have to back off from a toxic discussion about somebody's identity, so now you have two thorny problems, and meanwhile, EVERYBODY'S kids are downing in that swimming pool.

                  All currency is neurotic currency. --Norman O. Brown

                  by MikeRayinBerkeley on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 03:37:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Surprisingly, it never came up when Lieberman ran (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ramara

                  People said it would, but it never did...Strangely, his Orthodox views were considered a plus in the environment of 2000.

                  Don't ask me how these things come to be...

            •  Because it was used so often as a tool (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zemblan

              to rid nations of their Jewish population.

              They would scream, "assimilate!!" but apparently that meant also giving up practicing your religion.

              So then they would scream, "you can't be [insert nationality here] because you are Jewish and will always but Jews ahead of your fellow countrymen!"

              And then blood would spill.

              The most assimilated into society Jews had ever been was in Germany before WWII.

              That is why it is such a touchy accusation even now, even here in America.  

              Members of various branches of my family going back to the beginning (my mother's hobby is genealogy) have been kicked out of, of course, Israel, Spain, the Pelopponesus, Morocco, England, Alsace, Italy, and a chunk of eastern Europe.

              Party like it's 1929!

              by arielle on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:03:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  As a fellow Jew, (0+ / 0-)

          nothing you could ever write about Joe Blow Lieberman could ever be misconstrued as anti-Semitic either.  He is a cancer on the Jewish People, America, and the world.  Might as well call it the "Connecticut Likud for Lieberman" party because that's what he is.

      •  I don't trust the neocons either (6+ / 0-)

        but I leave religion out of it. I don't even know what the religion of most of them is, anyway.

      •  You're not disagreeing with Kristol because he's (22+ / 0-)

        Jewish; you're disagreeing with him because he is an idiot.  

      •  Some people retreat into a NeoCon world view (0+ / 0-)

        whenever an issue involves Israel or the Palestinians.

        (¯`*(¯`*-INAUGURATE-*'¯)*'¯)

        by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:01:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This applies more to the appointment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        redwagon

        of Rahm Emmanuel and the left's response.  His father was former Irgun, he has dual citizenship, how can we trust him, there goes our ability to get peace in I/P.  The wingnuts are the wingnuts, and Emmanuel is not a wingnut, but the response was amazing.

        If not me, who? If not now, when?

        by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 02:56:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  My first experience (38+ / 0-)

      My first experience with these types of anti-Semitic propaganda began in the summer of 2000. I had been on the internet for years, but never really went to message boards or forums. But when Grant Hill was a free agent and seemed headed to Orlando, I decided to go to the Orlando Sentinel message board.

      That's when I met a person I still consider a friend today. Her name was Cindy and she was a Jewish lawyer from Florida. I had eased from talking about sports to politics when I noticed some postings that looked interesting. Cindy was often in discussions with people that were claiming that there was no Holocaust. They were citing these "facts" about Cyclon-B and temperatures, and Cindy was tireless in providing true facts and picture in defending the real truth.

      I learned fast that seemingly legitimate questions hid anti-Semitic propaganda. Questions tinged with innuendos. It's when I first learned of the Protocols of Zion. I had now met people who actually believed that Jews drank the blood of Gentile children and had a worldwide conspiracy to control the Earth and kill Gentiles.

      Thanks for this diary, it's a reminder of the sickness out there that seeks to revitalize this type of demented thinking.

      That's not to say there are not legitimate views and disagreements, but the people on the opposing side of this issue would do well to ferret out the frothing lunatics that hide their hate with innuendos. Most people who do want peace and a two-State solution will never give an inch as long as there is the threat of these people to push their disgusting agenda.

      McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

      by DAVE DIAL on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:39:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In my early days of stumbling around the internet (11+ / 0-)

        I found myself on a message board where the claim was that Jews controlled food production and that any food marked as "Kosher" was part of a Jewish conspiracy to make money off of inspecting food for Jewishness.  The cry was, "Why should I pay more for my food just so that a minority group can have a Rabbi inspect it for Jewishness?" Or some such nonsense.

        People are nuts.

        I live in a Blue State now!

        by Newzie on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:52:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've also heard that, and... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snakelass, Matt Z, Newzie

          ...it might be true that there is some increase in marginal cost to ensure/maintain a product's "kosherness," but what I don't get is why these people think that they are required to buy such products.

          If they want to buy non-kosher hot dogs, they are certainly welcome. I'm sure the "prok byproducts" that make them non-kosher also add a distinctive flavor.

          Can anyone think of a food labeled as kosher that isn't also available in a non-kosher variation? Isn't it really the same as food that's labeled "organic?" If you want the label, then pay the extra cost. Otherwise, don't.

          "That which I am writing about so tediously may be obvious to someone whose mind is less decrepit." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

          by Mad Dog Rackham on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:34:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Great diary (13+ / 0-)

      People on all sides of the current flare up up would be well advised to read this.

    •  WOW (9+ / 0-)

      I never knew about that blood libel BS--- that is some serious ... oh I don't even have a word for it, but damn. Yeah thanks for sharing this history.

      •  I once had a chilling talk (11+ / 0-)

        with a man I liked and respected, who is a non-profit administrator, one of the good guys.  I had brought matzahs to work during Passover and was sitting in the lunch area (non-profits don't have lunch rooms) when he joined me.  I should perhaps mention that is is of Polish Catholic descent.  He said something about the holiday, and I said I loved it, and he said he never could understand why we celebrated the murder of children.  He was talking about the killing of the firstborn.  I heard for the first time a rationale for the blood libel, and it terrified me.  I never was able to think of him the same way again.

        If not me, who? If not now, when?

        by ramara on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:16:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who thought 07 wld be a welcome add to 09? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arielle

      Unless it was a new double 0 7. But then it took the courage of 007 to republish this. Nicely done, many thanks. Historical accuracy flows from your pen like honey.*

      *Honig = honey.

    •  Excellent diary! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zemblan, msazdem

      I've been increasingly alarmed by the number of anti-Semitic dog whistle comments I've seen popping up here lately, between the Israel diaries, the Madoff diaries, and the Lieberman diaries.

      A few things you did miss, though: the historical association of Jews with horns, and why it is a dog whistle to call a Jewish politician (however much you may disagree with him) a "Judas."

      Rahm Emanuel is my bishie!

      by Elsinora on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 05:43:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for teaching. (0+ / 0-)

      My sincere appreciation.

      "Watch what you watchin'. Fox keeps feeding us toxins. Stop sleeping, start thinking outside of the box and unplug from The Matrix doctrine." -Nas

      by malharden on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:15:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would you consider (0+ / 0-)

      Simply the subject of Dog Whistle Politics?

      Not tipped or rec'd, because you are being intellectually dishonest when implying some sort of neutrality on the current troubles. Clearly not. Context is a bitch, even when denied.

      As a commentary on anti-semitism, it's an excellent piece, but the motivation is clear.

      Well, so much for my TU status, doubt it will survive 10 minutes on this thread.

      Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

      by koNko on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:28:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those are examples of Anti-semitism. (12+ / 0-)

    Some great examples of the roots of semitism or maybe it is a chicken and egg scenario. Good work.

    But don't confuse arguing for antisemitism with arguing for Palestinian sovereignty.

    You Suck at Photoshop.

    by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:00:30 AM PST

      •  A long time ago, maybe it was last year (23+ / 0-)

        or 2 days ago, whichever comes first someone had posted that the root cause of Antisemitism was Semitism.

        You'd think it was buried a long time ago in the past.

        Its still with us.

      •  well he did say that those arguments are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zannie, borkitekt

        illegitimate and then goes on to site real examples of antisemitism confounding them.

        Curiously, the concept of the dog whistle, in a negative use, can explain both how anti-Semitism can be hidden within apparently legitimate debate, and how those who can't hear in the right frequency INSIST that it's just not there.

        You are right I can't hear the connection.

        You Suck at Photoshop.

        by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:08:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You probably could (36+ / 0-)

          You are right I can't hear the connection.

          Let's look at two hypothetical comments wrt Israel:

          1. Israel is acting with absurdly disproportionate force.  She is responsible for creating a humanitarian nightmare in Gaza. The collective punishment is inhumane, and Israel is massacring hundreds of Palestinians, most of them civilians, while targeting areas where they know innocent people, including children, will be devastated.
          1. Israel has finally become an emulation of what led to the state's mistaken creation in the first place. We never hear about it in the States, because the media and government are firmly controlled by one special interest. These people don't have their first loyalty to America, but only to their own wealth and to Israel. Imagine a country that blew up the USS Liberty and controls our government, manages to suck us dry to the tune of $3 billion a year.

          Now, neither of those comments mention any religion. Both of them mention Israel at length. And yet if you were to call the latter anti-Semitic you would both be right, and you would be accused by the Israel Sucks Caucus here of using the term to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.

          •  I see your point on the second one. (7+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jagger, lgmcp, borkitekt, ibonewits, Balam, jds1978, kyeo

            They don't control our government - thats absurd. AIPAC is well funded and they have a lot of power but I attribute the strong relationship between the countries having more to do with oil company and military contractor power more than anything else.

            Its obvious that its our Military/Industrial complex who is behind the problem here and the one in Israel on their own government. They are mutually reinforcing one another.

            The Media always follows the lead of the State and Defense departments. Like they did with the Iraq war they did as well with this case. Jews are in the no doubt but they don't control it exclusively.

            However it does make sense that they would mention Israel. How could you discuss the Iraq war without mentioning the US?

            You Suck at Photoshop.

            by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:37:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, therein lies the issue (15+ / 0-)

              However it does make sense that they would mention Israel. How could you discuss the Iraq war without mentioning the US?

              It absolutely makes sense to mention Israel. And you'll have to search high and low for regular contributors here who would call you an anti-Semite for "mention[ing] Israel" where germane to the conversation. The reality is that it is tactically beneficial for bona fide anti-Semites to wrap themselves in "criticism of Israel" when engaging in spreading their Jew-hatred to those who would reject more overt bigotry. It is of further benefit for strident critics of Israeli policy who are not bigoted to grossly, wildly overstate how aggrieved they are with such spurious accusations.

              Not everyone who is either anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian, or some mixture thereof engages in these tactics. But quite a few do.

              •  I have had some friends who HATE (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snakelass, zannie, Derfel, Balam

                absolutely hate israel they happen to be Palestinian and Armenian heritage but they did have a problem with me being Jewish (In fact my mothers last name is Israel,) and the Palestinian friend was dating a jewish girl the entire time I knew him.

                I feel you can separate hatred of a government with hatred of a people. Case in point my feelings at times for the US government at times I hate it but never would I say I hate the American people.

                The reality is that it is tactically beneficial for bona fide anti-Semites to wrap themselves in "criticism of Israel" when engaging in spreading their Jew-hatred to those who would reject more overt bigotry.

                I know, all I am saying is that you shouldn't let one argument taint the other. You have to understand that they are separate which I think you do by mentioning them in same sentence (very clever):

                Not everyone who is either anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian, or some mixture thereof engages in these tactics. But quite a few do

                You Suck at Photoshop.

                by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:55:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  correction (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zannie

                  but they did have a problem with me being Jewish (In fact my mothers last name is Israel,

                  They didn't I mean to say.

                  I think the experience must be the same for folks who defend Israel because they are Jewish and how they could be confounded with the Neo-cons and Fundamentalist end timers. No?

                  Not everyone who is either pro-Israel, Neo-con, Fundamentalist, or some mixture thereof engages in these tactics. But quite a few do

                  Weird parallel.

                  You Suck at Photoshop.

                  by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:01:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I got a problem with this one (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BFSkinner

              The Media always follows the lead of the State and Defense departments. Like they did with the Iraq war they did as well with this case. Jews are in the no doubt but they don't control it exclusively.

              Blaming the media is something I am used to seeing on redstate.com.

              And I'm unaware of ANY major media conglomerate that today is primarily owned by Jews.

              •  My point wasn't that they own it. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                golconda2

                But that there are Jewish writers out there and that doesn't explain their near universal pro-war slants.

                And Kossacks and progressives are always talking about the the conservative corporate media controlling the discussion. What do you think Media Matters is about?

                You Suck at Photoshop.

                by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:07:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Near Universal pro-war Slants? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snakelass, zannie, Balam, Munchkn

                  You're talking about the msm, not Jewish writers, right? We Jews are overwhelmingly liberal.  Unfortunately there is a small but vocal contingent (that basically only exists in America)of us who are heavily involved in the neo-conservative movement.  However, they are highly non-representative of the Jewish community as a whole.  

                •  NOT (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snakelass

                  near universal pro-war slants.

                  crazy! most jews are not extreme right, at all. but the right is very very loud.

                  •  you need to look at the context of the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Balam

                    comment. go up to where I was responding to red sox. You will see I am making points about the corporate media in American NOT a jewish journalist controlled media.

                    I don't even know how you two got that.

                    You don't have to explain the basics of what or who jews are -    
                    I happen to be one too.

                    Repeat you guys need to go back are reread my original comment reply to Red sox and then my one to charlie. I hope it is obvious that I am talking about the media not jews. I was shutting away ANY possibility that it would be due to Jewfluence(TM).

                    Unfortunately there is a small but vocal contingent (that basically only exists in America)of us who are heavily involved in the neo-conservative movement.

                    I know some of the most die hard pro-Palestinian people are Jewish. But then again some of the most die hard pro-Israel are Jewish.  We come in all shapes and sizes like most other communities.

                    You Suck at Photoshop.

                    by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 01:55:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  sorry (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      snakelass, thethinveil

                      i was responding to this

                      But that there are Jewish writers out there and that doesn't explain their near universal pro-war slants.

                      when you said 'their' you meant the mass media and i interpretted it to mean the jewish writers you referred to. again, sorry sorry.

                      •  I apologize as well (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        thethinveil

                        I frankly don't usually know what writer is Jewish and what writer is not.

                        I think the alleged Jewish media control conspiracy theorists (who mostly live on hate sites like stormfront) date back from the days when the New York Times (Sulzberger family), the Washington Post (Meyer family), CBS (William Paley), NBC (David Sarnoff), and most of the motion picture studios actually were owned or run by Jews. But the families that control the Times and Post haven't been Jewish for generations, and just about everything else is owned either by publically owned media conglomerates (even News Corp. is publically owned) or in rare cases a private equity firm. (I also have to point this out to my right wing Jewish friends who complain about Hollywood's lack or morals.)

                        •  It all resulted from a few stupid typos. (0+ / 0-)

                          I was hoping for what philosophers call "charity" or the benefit of the doubt.

                          From wikipedia:

                          In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity is an approach to understanding a speaker's statements by interpreting the speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, rendering the best, strongest possible interpretation of an argument. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the statements of others, when there is another coherent, rational interpretation of the statements. According to Simon Blackburn (1994), "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings

                          Thanks for taking another look.

                          You Suck at Photoshop.

                          by thethinveil on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:40:16 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  I blame our corporate media (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snakelass, zannie, Balam, thethinveil

                for keeping the American people dumb, but entertained.  I think this is the general agenda, with some notable exceptions.  

                I don't think religion or nationality has a thing to do with it.  It is CORPORATE interests that are ruling here.

                "The very scenario that the Americans feared the most came to pass because of their intervention to prevent it."

                by dancewater on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:14:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly my point. (0+ / 0-)

                  Military Industrial Complex controlling the state and defense departments controlling the corporate media - who happen to overlap heavily with the Military Industrial Complex. In both directions the government is being led by the nose.

                  You Suck at Photoshop.

                  by thethinveil on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:43:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Seriously??? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                thethinveil

                Blaming the media is something I am used to seeing on redstate.com.

                You never heard of media matters?  The MSM, as it's lovingly referred to is one of the most hated institutions on the left because of its continued legitimization of bullshit right-wing/corporate propaganda.  You bet your ass the media "follows the lead of the State and Defense departments."  Shit, ain't you ever heard of Judith fucking Miller???

          •  You know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thethinveil

            if Neo-Con replaced Israel in that paragraph, it would be perfectly acceptable. I really think while people should be enlightened of their use of tainted language, a prejudice relies on intent.

            Moving on, finally.

            by fisheye on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:54:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Israel does suck, if . . . (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snakelass, thethinveil

            what you say in 1. is true.  OK, the actions of its government and military would suck if what you say is true.  (Which it seems to be.)

            In a perverse way, it is the idea in 2. that tends to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.  At least with me it does.  "Zionist" makes me cringe.  Landgrabbing, nationalism, aggression - if that's what it is call it that.  

             

            •  Zionism is simply the generic name of the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zannie, ancblu

              movement which began in the late 19-century to establish a Jewish state in what was called Palestine.

              Some Zionists were very concerned about the welfare of the local Palestinian population, and tried to make the creation of the Jewish state a peaceful, productive process with input from the Arabs.

              Unfortunately, there were some other Zionists who were ruthless fanatics; they were racists who advocated using brutal violent tactics to ethnically cleanse Palestinian natives from their homes in almost exactly the same way that the Nazis used to ethnically cleanse Poland and the western Soviet Union of Jews - go in with guns blazing and kill every Arab who doesn't flee.

              It is these Right Wing Zionists who are largely to blame for the current state of affairs. To make matters worse, many of these Right Wing Zionists went on to become influential politicians and "heroes".  

              Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

              by sean oliver on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:42:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know that - still makes me cringe n/t (6+ / 0-)

                Zionism was a movement to establish the state.  Right wing nationalism is a better way to describe what is now happening.  

              •  I have a question: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snakelass

                Does not the creation and perpetuation of a "Jewish" state as an existential policy also create an inevitable tension, perhaps even an irreconciliable one, with the western liberal democratic tradition that emphasizes multi-cultural, multi-ethnic secularism as an existential policy?

                It is very difficult for me to see how the Zionist movement -- whether advocated from the right or the left -- cannot help but perpetuate principles of purity at the expense of more egalitarian precepts.

                Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 01:39:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Multiculturalism (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  charliehall
                  The Israelis Jews: 5 million people, 8000 sq. miles
                  Arab world: 24 countries, 300 million people, 5 million square miles.

                  Israel is a speck in an ocean of Muslim, Arabic-speaking lands. They want their tiny place where their language is official, their culture is fully expressed, their legal system reflects their values and where they are safe. In this they are no different from most of the world. If they were to end up being a minority in another Arabic- and Muslim-majority country, that would hardly reflect our ideals either.

                  "There -- it's -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --GWB

                  by denise b on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:41:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  then honestly ... (0+ / 0-)

                    Israel should continue to promote anti-democratic principles and practices more typically associated with theocracies and authoritarian regimes because that is how such standards of religious and cultural purity can best be advanced and maintained.

                    With such emphasis, Israel may be no different than most of the world, but it would be starkly different from the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic secular states that have embraced the Western liberal democratic tradition.

                    Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                    by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:53:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Most Zionists (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      zemblan, ancblu

                      are (small 'd') democrats. Very few want to expel Arabs -- that extreme movement has very little support. And most Jewish Israelis are rather lax in their religious observance. Even the Orthodox Zionists don't want a theocratic state. There is just no desire for either theocracy or autocracy among Jewish Israelis.

                      But Jewish Israelis don't want to continue having to dodge rocket attacks.

                      •  fair enough ... (0+ / 0-)

                        but I am struck with those who first and foremost emphasize the Hamas Charter, or persistent rocket attacks, of child suicide bombers and yet do not question why or how Palestinian life has become so marginalized or cheap that such militant extremism can continue to flourish.

                        I certainly do appreciate the deepest passions of those who subscribe to the inherent worth of and necessity for a Jewish state, and yet as I implied  above I do submit that the preservation of status distinctions inherently required by this existential policy will always foster the resentments and hostility of others who have equal entitlement to the same lands and social rights and privileges.

                        Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                        by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:14:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  What about gender segregation in buses (0+ / 0-)

                        in Israel as an out growth of the Orthodoxy's power?  Doesn't this tell you something about the political changes occurring there?

                        You Suck at Photoshop.

                        by thethinveil on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:24:59 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Of course. I think Zionism was a bad solution (0+ / 0-)
                  to European anti-semitism for a number of reasons, and that contradiction is one of them.

                  The other is the very common 19th century notion that European Jews were ethnically & racially superior to the "dirty uncivilized Arabs" who lived in Palestine. This assumption gave the Zionists their rationale for invading ("emigrating to") Palestinian homes and lands in the first place.
                  This is why I can't sympathize very much with Israelis who claim that violence against Palestinians is necessary for their own security.

                  Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                  by sean oliver on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:44:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  thethinveil was drawing an important distinction (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zannie, Jagger, Lib Dem FoP, thethinveil

        which in no way contradicts OP's concerns.

        40% of the Obama voters don't pay taxes. The dems retain power by keeping people dependent on hand-outs. -- From a post at RaptureReady.com

        by Kimball Cross on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:36:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  O.K. I'll ask. (8+ / 0-)

        How is the above statement by 'thethinveil' in any way considered antisemite.  Arguing for Palestinian sovereignty is totally different than using 'dog whistles' as is talked about here in the same room with bigotry.

        But then I am still stuck with the term 'even handed' being a curse word.  Just ask Howard Dean who was sent a 'sternly worded letter' by Pelosi about the terrible use of the term.  

        But the diary was an excellent learning read for me, who had not heard about the history.  I cannot forget the Jewish young woman I worked along side for many years.  A woman so dominated by her father and afraid of every shadow, whose father refused her to even socialize with non-Jews, she spent her days frightened of everyone.  She said she was told nightly to watch out for everyone 'else'.  That thinking has led, IMO, to the far right thinking of many in Israel.  Just my opinion though.

        •  I don't think it fair to generalize from (11+ / 0-)

          your experience, with all due respect, GrandmaJ.

          Most Israelis are secular Jews, not Orthodox, like your former co-worker must have been. I hope you have been acquainted with other Jews in your life.

          "And tell me how does god choose whose prayers does he refuse?" Tom Waits

          by madaprn on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:48:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And even us Orthodox Jews (12+ / 0-)

            don't have a problem associating with non-Jews.

            We can't eat food you've cooked, but you are welcome to come to our homes for a Shabat meal. (We won't be serving any meals on Yom Kippur, though.)

            We can't marry your children, but if they want to become Jews by converting we COULD marry them. No matter what their racial or religious background. (Having two religions in a couple just doesn't work when one of them has as many rules as we have.)

            But we work with non-Jews, live in the same communities, and go to the same Broadway shows and sporting events. (All the sports arenas in the New York area have kosher food stands! I remember the first such stand in Baltimore; it got lots of business from non-Jews because the food was cheaper and of higher quality than that from the official concessionaire.)

            I apologize for the treatment you have received at the hands of Jews. It is not the way we are supposed to act.

            •  This sounds like a cliche (6+ / 0-)

              but some of my best friends are Jewish :).

              I've been to their homes, and they've been to mine (no, I've never fed the few that keep kosher :)). I've been to a Seder, to a Brit, and to a Bat Mitzvah, and I've been to a traditional Jewish wedding (which is a hell of a lot of fun).

              Yes, the ones that are married all married fellow Jews. One of them, who happens to be one of the ones that keeps Kosher, did it quite deliberately. But my best HS friend, who is Reform and doesn't keep kosher, wasn't necessarily looking for a Jew, he just happened to find one :). (By the way, I said "best High School friend"? It was a Catholic high school!)

              So, yeah, and I say this with all gentleness, GrandmaJ needs to get out more :). That one Jewish girl she met, well, she has an asshole for a father and she's scared of him. That happens in all religions.

              CoB, who lives on the North Shore of MA...there are lots of Jews around here!

              What do you call a parent that believes in abstinence only sex ed? A Grandparent.

              by ChurchofBruce on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:03:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  strange things happen (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snakelass, mayim

                It was a Catholic high school!

                I know someone who was going to an Orthodox Jewish high school and was so sick of the narrowminded attitude (note: not all Orthodox schools are like that) that she almost gave up religion.

                So her parents pulled her out and sent her to a WASPish independent private school. She absolutely thrived as the token Jew, finding pride in her observance and in showing all the non-Jews there what it meant to live a Jewish lifestyle.

                She is now at an Orthodox Jewish college (one much less narrowminded than that high school) and loving it.

                •  This HS (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snakelass, golconda2, Munchkn, slr249

                  is run by the Xaverian Brothers, but it's known in the area for its fantastic academics. My buddy was not by any means the only Jew in my graduating class. Jews go there for the academics. Jews (any non Catholics, actually) don't have to take the otherwise required Religion classes :) and, if you didn't take those, the atmosphere of Catholicism was decidedly non oppressive. The Xaverians are educators first, "men of the cloth" second.

                  My standard reposte to the anti evolutionaries is, "There was no organized prayer in my school, evolution was completely discussed, creationism was never mentioned....and I went to a Catholic school!"

                  What do you call a parent that believes in abstinence only sex ed? A Grandparent.

                  by ChurchofBruce on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:15:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  it may not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snakelass

                be a matter of getting out more, it may just be she doesn't recognize the jews around her as being jewish.

                i was 18 til someone from the east coast explained to me some ways you could tell someone was jewish. (she had told me a story of her best friend having to wait outside at a country club (as in not allowed inside) and when i interupted her i ask why, she explained her friend was jewish, i was aghast..this was the 60's and i had never heard of this in marin..separate country clubs!) growing up in mill valley calif they were everywhere, i just didn't know it because i was never raised to identify people like that. the catholics kids on my block went to a different school, so their uniforms kind of gave them away (joke). it was in this way i found out some of my best friends i had gone to school with since kindergarden, partied with, had overnights with etc..were jewish. needless to say they had names like katz, goldsmith, hoffman but i was totally clueless. it wasn't til i was a freshman in college visiting my boyfriends house in LA to meet his parents that i experienced my differentness, as they REALLY had a problem w/me not being jewish. that just isn't anything that had ever been part of my experience before growing up in northern calif. we're intergrated here, thank god!

            •  This moves away from the serious discussion (0+ / 0-)

              But, do they really have kosher food stands in New York sports arenas?!? In Cleveland sports stadiums we have places that sell kosher hotdogs and whatnot (meaning the brand of hotdog has an OU) but they're certainly not halachically prepared. That's amazing if you've got actual kosher vendors.

        •  You can ask, but (12+ / 0-)

          ...I don't know what you're asking that particular question.

          How is the above statement by 'thethinveil' in any way considered antisemite.

          I don't mean to sound rude, but I really wish you had read the comment a little more closely and perhaps clicked on the link in that comment.

          My first comment: "Now wait for the cavalcade of 'you just call us anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel' memes to sprout up."

          thethinveil's comment: "But don't confuse arguing for antisemitism with arguing for Palestinian sovereignty."

          My reply: Sorry, dhonig, but I toldja so.

          At no time did I say or even imply that "the above statement by 'thethinveil' [is] in any way considered antisemit[ic]."

          Arguing for Palestinian sovereignty is totally different than using 'dog whistles' as is talked about here in the same room with bigotry.

          Absolutely, which was my very point here.

        •  how is (0+ / 0-)

          even handed a curse word?

          is this another coded reference? what's wrong w/being even handed for heavens sake?

      •  This confuzles me (0+ / 0-)

        "for anti..." It seems illogical that you could be "for anti" anything. You can be for something, or anti-something, but how can you be "for anti"?

        Any logicians out there?

        •  I have taken several courses in (0+ / 0-)

          Philosophical Logic and Semantics it is correct. for, or  pro, against something. think 1+(- 5)= 4.

          But rereading it, it sound awkward - a mathematician would approve but Literature teacher wouldn't.

          You Suck at Photoshop.

          by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:36:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Something can be both (14+ / 0-)

      When an argument for Palestinian sovereignty is cast using classic antisemitic memes -- "Israelis want to ritually murder Palestinians," etc. -- then the fact that it's intended as an argument for Palestinian sovereignty doesn't undo the fact that it is also antisemitic. That's what the argument is about; the former fact doesn't magically undo the latter, but there are posters here who apparently think it does.

      harps and angels! harps and angels!

      by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:21:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Never claimed it did have that effect. (8+ / 0-)

        But antisemitism isn't an essential or even part of all arguments for Palestinian sovereignty. They are separable. Not all arguments against Israel are antisemitic but granted some are.

        You Suck at Photoshop.

        by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:40:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But...But... (15+ / 0-)

        ....where in the world have you heard the argument cast that way?  Granted, the internet - and even Kos - is a very big place, but I swear to Dog I have not head ANYONE accuse Israelis of desiring ritual murder.  Murder and massacre, yes - but "ritual murder? no.  And the difference is the difference between dog whistling and not dog whistling, right?

        I get that pro-Israel people HEAR these dog whistles in a lot of things.  And if they're hanging out in some places they are almost certainly right to hear them.  But for the most part HERE, not so much.  Here they are used to shut down VALID, LEGITIMATE criticisms and discussion.

        Committed discussion requires some sensitivity and awareness of underlying intention...but it requires it on BOTH sides. One has to, for example, be able to discuss the vast distorting effect and power of the Israel lobby here in the Us without being accused of believing that "the Jews run our media and government".

        Happy New Year

        •  Happens all the time (5+ / 0-)

          But... But... where in the world have you heard the argument cast that way?

          I'd like to be able to say I'm making it up, but I'm not.

          See for yourself.

          But for the most part HERE, not so much.  Here they are used to shut down VALID, LEGITIMATE criticisms and discussion.

          Actually, no. Believe me, there have been more than enough uses of the dog-whistle here on Daily Kos to justify listening for it.

          harps and angels! harps and angels!

          by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:41:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Guess I Wasn't Clear (5+ / 0-)

             I was asking for example HERE.  My point I guess is that this diary has very little bearing on discussion HERE.  Only the dual loyalty/media government conspiracy thing of all the ones in the diary appears here in any form (outside perhaps the stray coment of obvious trolls)....

              And that one comes up much more often in false positives (those who "hear" the dog whistle where it wasn't issued) that harm the discussion than it does invalid detections, imo.

              Ignorance of real dogwhistles is a problem. Hypersensitivity and hearing them where they aren't is - imo - a much, much bigger problem here. From what I see the false accusations poison the well of the conversation to a greater degree. Maybe I'm wrong.

             But in both cases the rush to judgement and refusal to really listen to what's being said is the real underlying problem.

            IMO.  Happy New Year.

            •  As I've said elsewhere in this thread (7+ / 0-)

              I wouldn't presume to tell blacks or gays that, for the good of the discussion, they should simply be silent when they hear dog-whistles directed against them, and I will not be silent when I hear dog-whistles directed against the Jews.

              harps and angels! harps and angels!

              by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:47:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Convenient (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                deadatom

                I wouldn't presume to tell blacks or gays that, for the good of the discussion, they should simply be silent when they hear dog-whistles directed against them, and I will not be silent when I hear dog-whistles directed against the Jews.

                Very convenient for shutting down discussion.  Silence is not to the benefit of justice or knowledge.  Nor is it beneficial to peace in the Middle East.

                •  Oh, horseshit (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  askew, redwagon, snakelass

                  Very convenient for shutting down discussion.

                  Only if the person I'm talking to is so rhetorically incompetent he or she can't recast her argument without relying on dog-whistle messages and can only choose silence as a response because otherwise the word-bag is empty.

                  harps and angels! harps and angels!

                  by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:34:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  BS (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bluehawk, deadatom

                    Only if the person I'm talking to is so rhetorically incompetent he or she can't recast her argument without relying on dog-whistle messages and can only choose silence as a response because otherwise the word-bag is empty.

                    Ahh...bullshit.

                    Everytime the discussion focuses on some barbaric bullshit that Israel pulls in the Middle East, out comes the anti-semite accusations.  Lets not talk about the death and destruction launched by Israel, lets talk about anti-semites.   Nice distraction for those with simple minds, but doesn't change the reality of what Israel is doing.

                    If we want to discuss racism in America, I think we should start with the treatment of blacks, hispanics, muslem-Americans and native indians whom are not well integrated into American society.  American Jews are well up the ladder when it comes to integration into American society compared to so many others.

                    And then I see the treatment of arabs by Israeli society....  Where is the Jewish-American sensitivity towards the oppression of the Palestinian people???  If you really believed in justice for the oppressed, your first goal would be helping the Palestinian people.  If you spent half the time protesting the injustices against the Palestinian people as you do your own self advancement in America, maybe we would have peace in the Middle East.

                    I smell the wiff of hypocrisy and self interest in this diary.

                    •  Ah, I see. (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      askew, redwagon, susans, snakelass, arielle

                      Jews shouldn't complain about antisemitism because they're too far up the ladder.

                      Sorry for being so uppity, massah.

                      If you spent half the time protesting the injustices against the Palestinian people as you do your own self advancement in America, maybe we would have peace in the Middle East.

                      Oh, damn, why do I have to be so greedy and self-serving? Maybe it's genetic.

                      harps and angels! harps and angels!

                      by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:53:53 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Counterargument (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        deadatom

                        Your counterargument floored me!

                        I guess you aren't being self serving, distracting and hypocritical in your victimhood here in 21st Century America.  I now understand that you stand up against oppression anywhere it exists including Israel.  I am proud of you.

                         

              •  Well I Think It's Healthier To (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                leftneck

                ..not worry so much about presumption.  Remember when this site lost its collective mind last spring and started calling Bill Clinton  a racist(!!!!)  based on the abilities of some to hear silly non-existent dogwhistles?  A little presumption might've helped then.

                If you think someone is being too sensitive and seeing things that aren't there then you should feel free to (politely!) suggest as much to them.  Otherwise you are sacrificing truth and honesty to sensibility....never a very good bargain in my opinion.

                And I'm not asking you to be silent when you hear dogwhistles.  I'm only asking that a)  you carefully consider the chilling effect of accusations and the degree of certainty you have in your hearing before raising any specific alarm and that b) you not take it personally when I suggest that our hearing may be off in any given instance  ;)  

            •  for examples (9+ / 0-)

              of the types of recced-up anti-semitism that regularly appear on this site, go here. In the comments that follow one may also view the sort of ludicrous denialism that ritually occurs here.

            •  Here's one that's so common here (10+ / 0-)

              you must have seen it.

              "You're arguing in favor of Israel...so, are you an AIPAC plant?"

              That's the disloyalty dog whistle and the "Teh Jooooz control everything!" dog whistle.

              And it comes up here every single day.

              What do you call a parent that believes in abstinence only sex ed? A Grandparent.

              by ChurchofBruce on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:10:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Outstanding comment (0+ / 0-)

              (¯`*(¯`*-INAUGURATE-*'¯)*'¯)

              by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:09:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not directly, so far as I know, (4+ / 0-)

          but I've seen (hidden) comments along the theme that israelis/jews seek to exterminate palestinians because obedience to their religion demands it... and any comment of the 'they love to kill, especially children' variety, as well as the 'bloodsuckers' comment that dhonig mentioned also sets off that particular trigger.

          Something important to remember when this sort of discussion comes up: some of these anti- tropes are  deeply embedded in the language and social culture. The person using them may not realize that they're participating in a form of oppression -- someone used to the casual mention that someone 'jewed' or 'gypped' another probably doesn't realize that those terms refer to supposed traits of the jewish and romany (gypsy) ethnic groups. Doesn't change the fact that embedded in those terms are the assumptions that jews and gypsies can't be trusted in business dealings. And in another sort of example, I remember my father explaining to my grandfather, sometime in the early 70s, why it was sometimes offensive to refer to a 9 or 10 year old black child as a 'boy.' Yes, a young male around that age is a boy, but the word was used to refer to any black male, of any age, and carried the echoes of patronizing oppression.

    •  It actually is pretty easy (33+ / 0-)

      You see, I advocate for Palestinian sovereignty AND for Israeli security. The problem is when all the blame is placed on Israel or when people automatically say "Jews" when they mean Israelis. Or when claims like "Jews own the media" are brought up.

      I begin from the belief that Israel and Palestine have the exact same right to exist because neither had a modern existence before 1948. I also give them the same validity as nations like Albania, Macedonia, etc. which all were formed from nationalist movements during the break up of an Empire (ultimately the break up of the Ottoman Empire, just like Israel and Palestine). I recognize that it was the Arab nations that denied Palestine sovereignty when they invaded BOTH Israel and Palestine. They were beaten back by the former and occupied the latter. I recognize the need for prosperity for Palestinians and security for Israel (or, really, peace and prosperity for both) and believe that the Palestinians need to themselves stand up to Palestinian terrorists and the Israelis need to stand up to the settlers (like they did in Sinai and Gaza...and will eventually need to do in West Bank). SO I manage to build an arguement that respects both sides, blames the extremists on both sides and basically recognize that the two modern nations ONLY exist by the same act of the UN.

  •  Never before heard of blood and matzoh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluehawk, WisVoter, PeggyD

    Surely no one buys this idiocy today?

    What then to make of Roman Catholics Transubstantiation?  The Priest bless the wafer and wine and magically it turns into the actual body and blood of Christ?

    "Man's life's a vapor Full of woe. He cuts a caper, Down he goes. Down de down de down he goes.

    by JFinNe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:07:52 AM PST

  •  90% of I/P piefights could be avoided (12+ / 0-)

    if people just avoided certain phrases.  Such as saying "the Jews" instead of "Israel".  People may think the terms are synonymous, but obviously they are not.  Referencing any of the four smears in your diary will also bring rational discussion to an end real quick.

    •  No. (16+ / 0-)

      One of the real problems these days is people taking their classic anti-Semitism, changing the word "Jew" to "Israel", and passing it off as acceptable.

      Frankly, I'd rather they keep the word "Jew" and be honest about it.

      •  Perhaps (4+ / 0-)

        because the country is called Israel. It was the Israeli military that did what they did.

      •  One thing I particularly enjoy is being preached (2+ / 0-)

        to.

        Here are some TV whistles. See if anyone can spot them. At least though the international media permit deeper debate than America's Conglomerate Media.

        Part 2 continues here:
        http://www.youtube.com/...

        I found it interesting all way around.

        --
        -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

        by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:11:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  heres honesty for ya (6+ / 0-)

        Don't call people anti-semites for not supporting israel in its every fucking move you asshole.  I nor others appreciate it.  It doesnt contribute anything to the discussion when you say this dumb troll shit.

        Metal Gear?!? "It's our daunted restraint that keeps us silent in shame"

        by deadatom on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:41:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fail. n/t (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          susans, KMc, TiaRachel, kalmoth, blueness

          harps and angels! harps and angels!

          by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:00:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  yet another ad-moniem attack (0+ / 0-)

          uprated several times.  This would have been hidden with zero recs if it were directed against anyone other than a Jew.

          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

          by fizziks on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:33:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He's not directing it at a Jew... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deadatom

            he's directing it at anyone who supports Israel so totally, that they can't stand anyone disagreeing with what they believe, and so they just call the person they disagree with "anti-semitic" to shut them up.

            There's a difference.  

            •  What about the stuff aimed at (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              susans, arielle, fizziks, zemblan, charliehall

              anyone who hates Israel so totally that they can't stand anyone disagreeing with what they believe, and so they just call the person they disagree with an "Israel apologist" to shut them up?

              Then there's the infamous "Now don't go calling me anti-semitic" comment, aimed at someone who hasn't said that at all, but bringing the term in pro-actively to keep it from being used legitimately.

              "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

              by delphine on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:06:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know any examples of that... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                deadatom

                to comment on.  

                I called someone an Israel apologist because after they said I was being dishonest about something I claimed about Israel, and then I provided the information proving I was correct, which they researched further, they then posted some material which further proved I was correct.  And then they had the nerve to claim the exact opposite of what the material they posted said.  They said it proved Israel had not committed any acts of terror.  Which was the very OPPOSITE of what it said.

                That's pretty much a perfect example of an Israel apologist.

                But like I said, there was nothing about the poster's comment (in this discussion) that would lead anyone to believe he had directed it at someone because they were a Jew.  It was straight to the point.  The poster was tired of being called anti-Semitic because he disagreed with things Israel does.  The second poster was just whining and falsely claiming it was because it was directed at a Jew that someone was getting away with something.  

                Hey, if you have a beef, write about it.  I've never seen those things you mentioned....but then I don't get attacked that way, I get the opposite.

                •  sorry but you can't deny (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zemblan

                  that a comment calling a non-troll an 'asshole' and a 'dumb troll shit' would be HR'd if it was on any other topic.  But if it is taking an anti-Israel stance, then it gets uprated.

                  All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                  by fizziks on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:37:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

                    some people are just assholes.  :)

                    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

                    by dhonig on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:20:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey, I admit it was trollish & (0+ / 0-)

                    VERY bad language! But bad language doesn't bother me & I don't HR anyone for bad language.  

                    I think people uprated it because it was so blunt & hit right at the outrage we feel when we get called anti-semitic when we know damn well we aren't anti-semtic.  It gets frustrating and that post captured that frustration.

                    BTW, the bad language poster WASN'T taking any stance....he was just voicing his anger for being called A-S.  And I see no evidence that he did it because the other poster was a Jew.  He seemed to do it because the other poster had accused him falsely in the past of being A-S.

                    I know I always worry about writing everything so I don't offend anyone, and yet, just because of my difference in opinion I get called pro-Hamas and A-S.  I hate it.  There's no other group of people here that I fear more than those who don't agree with me about Israel. So it goes both ways, ya know?  :)

                    Oh yeah, later in the discussion I noticed that the guy who that bad language guy wrote to, he seems to have a history here of calling people A-S.  So maybe that's why that guy was so fed-up.

                    Just sayin'....I don't know either party.  peace!

        •  now tell us how ya rilly feel n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  But the Jews are different from Israel (4+ / 0-)

        Just because some jerks get them confused doesn't take away our capacity to distinguish them.

        The "criticizing Israel is automatically antisemetic" line is absurd, and would leave about half of the world's Jews labeled as anti-semites.

        There is a real distinction between the two, and right now happens to be one of the times when Israel deserves a great deal of condemnation.

    •  What is wrong with saying Israel? (20+ / 0-)

      I never say the "the Jews" because my argument is not with the Jewish people it's with the Israeli government.

      •  Depends (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, Saxman, condorcet, kyeo

        I don't even have a fight with Israel or the whole of the Israeli gov't, just as I don't have a fight with the whole of Congress.

        If your bone is with specific policies favored by the hardliners, you should probably be careful to say so.

        Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

        by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:51:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know... (14+ / 0-)

          It is the Israeli government whose policies permit the actions I find disgraceful.  I believe saying the Israeli government is good enough.  

          I am not anti-semitic, and I don't see the need to tip-toe around people who damn well haven't tip-toped around me.  They have called ME names personally.....hateful names.  I certainly did not do that to them when I wrote "Israeli government" or "Israeli army".

          •  I'm not 'tip-toe'ing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KMc, thethinveil

            I'm just being specific in what I mean so it isn't misinterpreted.

            I don't believe that every member of the Israeli gov't is to blame - that would be like assuming every Congressperson was a Republican.

            Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

            by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:02:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not referring to you... (7+ / 0-)

              I wrote that I don't feel the need to overly concern myself about particular people's feelings here when they have written HEARTLESS things to me.  That's not you.

              But your argument doesn't really make sense.  It IS the Israeli government who creates the policies that I take issue with.  So "Israeli government" is the correct term.  It IS the Israeli army who carries out the acts that I take issue with.  

              There is no need to be any more specific than that.

              •  A parallel, if you will... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                susans, elliott, drbloodaxe

                I've been hanging out here at Daily Kos for a looooong time. Over the years I have made some very, very critical remarks about U.S. foreign policy, about the Cheney/Bush administration, and also about certain dangerous blind spots in American culture.

                I have been careful to be precise. I have never, I think, said that "Americans" advocate torture. I know who it is in the U.S. who has been engaging in war crimes over the last seven years, and I try not to paint with a broader brush than necessary. But when a criminal group has gained control of the American government, it is not wrong to say that the "American government" has done these things.

                And it is not wrong, either, to criticize American exceptionalism when I see it.

                Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

                by Canadian Reader on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:20:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is also a difference (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  susans

                  between saying "Americans" and "America", since the former refers to the populace, and the latter often refers to the government. Same thing should hold for Israelis and Israel.

                •  In all the time I have been alive... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deward Hastings, western star

                  I have not been aware of any time when Israel had a government in power that did not hold to the same policies as they do now.  Policies which I consider terrorism & oppression.  

                  There have been times when some in power were much worse than others, but in recent history, they've all been pretty damn bad.

                  So I see no problem when I use the term "Israeli government".

                  I would never say "Americans" advocate torture either.  And I have never said "Israelis" advocate terrorism.  AAMOF, I even point out that many Israelis think exactly the same way as I do; they are also critical of their government's policies.

                  So I am in the clear, and should not be abused or criticized here on DailyKos anymore. :)

        •  yes. careful. Just as Bush's Press Secy warned (1+ / 2-)
          Recommended by:
          RubyGal
          Hidden by:
          arielle, watershed

          all Democrats after 9/11:  Be careful what you say

          you should probably be careful to say so.

          Usually that line of directive is pounded here at dKos. But occasionally it's very very important to be careful what you say. That's the fallacy of open discussion at dKos. Some topics require primers and warnings and intimidation and pre-emptive discussions.

          Can't we just assign the parties, countries, religions, peoples, governments, civilians, races all different colors, so it wouldn't be so important not to slip up and say purple, for instance, when the diarist would remind us violet is the correct color, purple being intentionally derogative.

          I would love to see his color chart all mapped out with at least 500 line items of differentiated usages for when the color tangerine is code for foreign sounding oranges, or why did you say cyan when you obviously mean turquoise.

          God you discussion chaperones disgust me. Will you ever grow up?

          --
          -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

          by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:22:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In other words (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TiaRachel, eru, nzanne, Oh Mary Oh

            Some topics require primers and warnings and intimidation and pre-emptive discussions.

            In other words, some topics have a historical weight that should be honored rather than derided.

            harps and angels! harps and angels!

            by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:02:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, exactly. Historical weight. Which is why I (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deadatom, ChiTownBlue2000

              find it completely unacceptable to see THIS diary occupy the rec list at dKos for most of a day:

              Blah blah blah Israel blah blah blah Gaza

              Yet quite a lot of people here hah hah hah'd this subject of historical weight. Do you condemn or approve that diary, or some dog whistle tone in between?

              --
              -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

              by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:14:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There's a difference (5+ / 0-)

                between ridiculing a topic and ridiculing the way people are talking about the topic. Especially when the 'discusson', absent whichever particular events have triggered it this time, has exactly the same dynamic every time it comes up.

                •  oh. so ridiculing the whole topic is (2+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Boreal Ecologist, Neglected Duty
                  Hidden by:
                  watershed

                  not any cause for concern.

                  See that's the irony.

                  A large percentage of site members believe it is impossible to make any headway at all in even broaching the subject matter... and they may indeed be right. But my own opinion is that when the whole topic-area is turned into a macro (I/P), it predetermines the conditions that preclude everything that will be said is merely cyclical bullshit.

                  This is the point of the hilarious blah blah blah diary.

                  So then, if on the one hand so many people here dismiss the very idea of having any discussion at all, and front-pagers follow the boss' dictates that these subjects will not be tolerated at dKos, then why, on the other hand, must we be issued a dictum, a Primer, a pre-emptive chill about how one COULD talk about the subject.

                  It's complete hypocritical bullshit.

                  Pick your poison. You want to be part of the dismissive "hah hah hah, all I/P discussions are stupid and fruitless" ... or do you want to be part of the freedom to discuss difficult topics here. If the latter, then why are all these in-the-know rulesets being sprinkled onto the discussion field.

                  Either discuss or not. But enough bullshit about "this is appropriate" "that is not" "that's a dog whistle" "this is not" ... It's a very smug, superior stance that suggests some people have the ability to see the issues clearly, and others, well, others are just out to call people derogatory names, or worse, simply imply it with clever language.

                  This is all like a really bad PhD dissertation.

                  So, I'm curious, are you in favor of having the "macro-named" discussed here, or are you in favor of dismissing the topic. If the former, we don't have to spend months determining the shape of the table at the Paris Peace Talks. That's what these Primers are all about. If they work for you, knock yourself out and be on hair-trigger-alert to make sure you don't even come close to a word you haven't thoroughly examined for consequecnes of usage before using such words. That's my objection. This diarist, never fails, is always trying to establish what TO HIM are appropriate methods and parameters of discourse. I personally think that's bullshit. He might as well join the blah blah blah crowd.

                  --
                  -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

                  by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:48:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ? (7+ / 0-)

                    Me, "in favor or not?"

                    Who cares?

                    I'm all in favor of people writing what they want. There tends to be a progression around here, about this kind of topic: first, the "Breaking! Something happened!"  diaries, then the "this is awful I need to vent" and  the "not such a big deal (pay attention to my issues)" (not so frequent in I/P terms) diaries, followed by a few rounds of "you're an idiot. No, you're the idiot!" back-and-forths, frequently spurred my misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and just plain working-from-different-knowledge-base issues, eventually leading to some sort of reconciliation or to topic fatigue, as some other shiny new outrage must be blogged furiously against.

                    In my several years of experience here, any I/P event seems to jump very quickly into the "vent" and "you're an idiot" phases -- and (almost) never leaves. Same same same.

                    I'm not quite sure what your problem with this particular diary is. It seems to me to be a discussion of some of the reasons why the argument never progresses -- different people come to the topic with different sets of assumptions, and so end up essentially having different arguments. I think it's a valuable thing to consider why people are disagreeing, rather than just keep yelling that the other guy's wrong.

                    You do get the concept of 'meta', right?

          •  Uprated to offset inappropriate hide-rate... (0+ / 0-)

            This said, the comment I just uprated is dumb as a sack of hammers.

            •  HR was for (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne

              this trollish and unacceptable behaviour

              This is not what we need here...

              'UBUNTU = umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu ("a person is a person through (other) persons")

              by watershed on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:19:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  this user... (0+ / 0-)

                will give you plenty of opportunities to hide-rate stuff that actually directly deserves hide-rating, just give him|her|it a little time.

              •  And the diary which generated (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rhfactor

                such reaction, together with all the recommends that got it onto the rec list, is what we need here instead?

                Going ballistic seems to me like wasted emotional energy on a blog, but holy cow was that diary a stinking POS -- derivative, unfunny, vacuous and self-rightous all in one fell swoop.  Why then HR the outraged over that and promote the meme that the critic is the troll.

                Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:40:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  thank you -- it's just plain bizarre (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ancblu

                  I've had this so-called power to troll-rate for many years longer than most of these newcomers to DailyKos. But in all those years, I troll-rated 5 times... in over 5 years. I choose not to use that little system as the cute little punishment tool it is used for here.

                  Supposedly all these wonderful people are protecting the best interest of kossacks by getting their jollies on Rent-A-Cop tactics.  It's always been Orwellian to me.

                  It's perfectly aligned though with my views about Israeli Govt actions in Gaza: disproportional response. It really isn't necessary to stalk me with the magnifying glass to assess my words and dole out the HR's. It's childish. which is what I said before re this whole tendency to shut down thought that doesn't meet someone else's criteria.

                  And btw, ancblu, I don't presume for a moment that you are supporting my thoughts on all of this. I just appreciate that you can extract this micro-behavior from the thread at large. Amidst the dross, there are always high-value posters here.

                  --
                  -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

                  by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:17:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  agreed -- the sanctimonious use of the HR (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rhfactor

                    merely for disagreement with opinion or form of expression always offends my progressive sensibilities to the core.  I get most pissed when some flag-waving member of the habitual HR Brigade spouts the nonsense that free speech doesn't apply here because it is a private and not a governmental site -- as though free speech is not a broadly applicable principle of liberalism worth protecting irrespective of such a contrived self-justifying excuse.  With such logic, one would also expect similar acquiesence to discriminatory though thoroughly private odes against women, blacks, gays ... hell, fill in the blank.  

                    Oh well ... so much for my self-image as the model of non-ballistic restraint.

                    Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

                    by ancblu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:39:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "habitual HR Brigade" -- I like that (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ancblu

                      It's always the same people. I think it's a mental illness myself. Like Rodney Dangerfield's classic routine, they don't get respect at home from spouse or kids or mother, and they don't get it at work -- people rejecting their ideas or even, gasp, disagreeing with them. Which is why it is so appealing to come here and hang out for 12 hours, where they can then have at least ONE area of authority in their lives where by god people will have THEM to deal with if they don't behave or follow their codes.

                      It's also nothing new. I've been using online forums since 1986 on a 300-baud modem, pre-web, and it has never changed throughout iteration after iteration of community software -- from usenet to DejaNews to The Well to vBulletin forums to phpBB to the sudden invention of blogs ( a step backwards in my view, but that's another story )... It's part of a predictable life-cycle in the course of the development & growth of a community. Once it gets beyond critical mass, moderators are recruited to help distribute the load of watching for abuse on a site.

                      Then, the forum software designers were the first to figure out that if you "rewarded" people for X number of posts or threads started, they not only were loyal to the site, but you could slos get them to do the monitoring for you, by designating them a Rent-a-Cop, thereby beginning this cycle of personalities drawn like moths to a light source, where they can satisfy their quest to exert some authority in some area of life, to compensate for lack thereof elsewhere.

                      Then it becomes addictive. It's fun. Whole meta-language develops around the very practice of it, as in kos-land "have a donut" etc.  When you think about it, it's rather sad to view that issuing a few "donuts" could be the greatest thing that happened to them that day. Which creates an addiction pattern to want to do it again, the next day, and the day after.

                      After a while, it's so habitual that the ironies set it, just as you have listed. They become that which they despise outside of DailyKos (or other forum).

                      So,  enjoy it from a sociology experiment point of view. Which is why, every now & then, for particularly odious types within the "habitual HR Brigade", I admittedly do enjoy provoking them. Because then it's like clockwork. They swarm in, and go grab their buddies, and they all show up to hotbox the subject.

                      But what's most hilarious is while they're sanctimonious about some of the RULES that govern site standards for use of HRs, they blatantly violate other of the rules -- because they believe that in their case, the rules don't apply to them.

                      Specifically: It is forbidden to use HR's as compensation tools. Thus, despite HR abuse, one is not supposed to go uprate or downrate the posts of an HR abuser. Yet you see it is this thread, as broad as daylight. And again, so cock-cure they are on the side of righteousness.

                      One of the reasons I've been a strong proponent of video since the Dean campaign in 03 is that it encourages personal accountability. When you have your name or likeness attached to your behaviors, the dynamic changes.

                      This is why TPM is building itself into a first rate new-era journalistic organization. They embrace the new tools quickly, and start to use them to reshape the way news is presented.

                      Thanks again for your post, have a happy new year.

                      --
                      -- FEEDBACK: CHANGE.gov - empty "marketing" of citizen access, or real idea-submit mechanism?

                      by rhfactor on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:37:04 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  It doesn't matter (17+ / 0-)

      I have criticized Israel's disproportionate response over the last week, yet I have been called anti-semitic and pro-Hamas. It simply doesn't matter...

    •  IMO, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      susans, ariel, zemblan

      the diary gives relatively valid instances of antisemitism. Do we as a community agree with these? If so, why don't we agree to troll rate comments that contain these?

      Furthermore, why don't we agree that any comment that is legitimately critical of Israel and doesn't contain these, or anything else relatively clearly antisemitic, cannot be called antisemitic, and if the commenter is called an antisemite, the name calling should be troll rated. Other valid reasons for troll ratings could be comparing either side to the Nazis, or saying the poster supports terrorists (without clear evidence).

      If we crack down on these inflammatory accusations, the dialogue here may become more productive.

      You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

      by Opakapaka on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:24:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's another thing that should be (4+ / 0-)

        added to your fine suggestion.  

        People should not be calling other people pro-Hamas.  They shouldn't DEMAND that someone take issue with OTHER COUNTRIES' abuses as some sort of TEST of anti-Semitism.  Especially when these same people refuse to condemn ANY abuses by the Israeli government......which for some reason they find absolutely perfect, and above & beyond any reproach.

        •  I discussed this with someone last night. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ariel, Kayakbiker

          You can be neutral in a conflict--criticizing party A in the A vs. B war is not the same as supporting party B. You could be calling for a neutral policy.

          You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

          by Opakapaka on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:08:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Loyalty (9+ / 0-)

    Even today, accusations of Jewish disloyalty, often as claims that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country, are common.  A recent survey of 2,714 people in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland found that 51 percent of respondents believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries they live in.

    The irony in the U.S., of course, is that so many Republicans/conservatives/right-wing Christians and other war pigs a various denominations are all too willing to sell the welfare of the U.S. down the river for what they claim & falsely believe benefits the "security" of Israel.  

    It is a gross mistake that seems to infuriate, with equal dignity, both my Jewish and non-Jewish fellow travelers. It is also a sick behavior that too many uncritically attribute to "Jewish interests" - an excuse that misses the point of what the U.S. govt. is doing while also perpetuating the "loyalty" myth.

    sláinte,

    cl

    Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

    by Caoimhin Laochdha on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:19:39 AM PST

  •  Being black, I can surely relate to the concept (22+ / 0-)

    of "dog whistles".  Black folk, as you can imagine, have a pretty lengthy list of dog whistles of our own, some of which aren't even very subtle.

    "Do not judge your neighbor until you walk two moons in his moccasins." Cheyenne

    by maracatu on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:30:22 AM PST

  •  Israel wins...the war is over..the winner is (7+ / 0-)

    Israel..they have the mighty military..they have the support of the greatest super power ever known to man..they have wealth and prosperity and support all around..they are not despised by the media..their point of view is always presented and the opposite point of view is rarely presented..

    Israel wins..!!!  What has Israel won?

    •  Israel has won (11+ / 0-)

      60 years of independence and democracy, peace with Jordan and Egypt, complete cessation of violence on its northern (Lebanese) and Syrian borders and quiet in the West Bank, prosperity, civil liberties, the existence of safe harbor for all the jews in the world.

      What have their opponents won by waging non stop wars and carrying out all those terror attacks, what did Hezbollah win, what did Hamas win, what did the Palestinians win when upon Israel's withdrawal from Gaza they elected Hamas which kept firing rockets at Israel?

      •  whoop borat is here (8+ / 0-)

        The thread has officialy gone to shit.  wheres my random zombie youtube video?

        Im outa here.  The diary is now doomed.  Its official.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

        Metal Gear?!? "It's our daunted restraint that keeps us silent in shame"

        by deadatom on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:48:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well .. heaven forbid the democratic processes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deadatom, Neglected Duty

        should disappoint people..

        But then.. well the PLO was providing such good medical services, great schools..enough food for people to eat..great housing .. houses that withstood the onslaught of John Deer Tractors..not to mention great roads and streets with lovely shrubbery and plantings .. so asthetic..so lovely..

        •  the democratic proceses (4+ / 0-)

          make people responsible for the choices they make. Did not they teach you nothing in school? Democratically elected Hitler is still Hitler, democratically elected Bush, Ahmadinejad, Olmert, Putin, Hamas are still Bush, Ahmadinejad, Olmert, Putin, Hamas.

          Regardless, when your government (even democratically elected) wages a war against your neighbor (and government firing rockets is an undeniable act of war) you can't  expect good things to happen, can you.

          At any rate, my previous post was primarily in response to your question what Israel has won. Thank you for asking.

          •  By your logic, no country is respected..chaos (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thethinveil

            rules supreme..are you nuts..??

            So Bush was democratically elected..?  Were you here for the 2000 election?  

            Your logic is flawed as is your thinking.  And yes, I was taught in school what every American is taught..George Washington never told a lie and he did not chop down that cherry tree..

            Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

            The Soviet Union was our enemy so that is why we had to duck and cover..

          •  give it up, (8+ / 0-)

            you're talking to a wall.

            Here is your essential RubyGal:

            The Israelis are a cruel people...they are by their nature cruel...

            •  You forgot this ...I think this is quite astute (0+ / 0-)

              In 1954 we over threw Musadeg in Iran and (0+ / 3-)
              Hidden by:sofia, BlueInARedState, Predictor
              installed the Shah who employed a secret police that tortured its own citizens....he was overthrown when Ayatollah Khomeni became the theocratic ruler of that land..we then supported Iraq in the war between the two nations..but at the same time..Reagan sold Toe missiles to Iran..hence the Iran/Contra debacle..which also used BCCI to launder the worst actors money in both the trafficking of narcotics and the trafficking of weapons to terrorist organizations..Osama Bin Laden's brother in law was a shareholder in BCCI..BCCI was founded in 1972 with Bank of America having been a 30% owner of that bank..Adnan Khashoggi was a weapons dealer in the Middle East at the time.  He graduated from Chico State in California in the late 1960's and bought banks in the San Francisco Bay Area..his brother still lives in the Bay Area.. he was the uncle of Dodi Fayed..the man that Princess Diana died with..but what is really curious is that the woman in Florida responsible for the butterfly ballot..Lapore..had worked for Khashoggi as a flight attendant on his private jets..

              So you see..it is not that difficult to understand the Middle East..follow the money..follow the drugs and follow the weapons..it is as simple as that..

              What I object to is Theocracy..I think Theocracy is not a good form of governance..

              I am a patriot

              by RubyGal on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The PLO is gien too much credit here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RubyGal, ancblu

          They were corrupt and many services weren't reaching the people but Hamas did charity and social work and were elected because of it.

          You Suck at Photoshop.

          by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:14:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the PLO is given no credit here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            charliehall

            they are the lesser of two evils and by a very small margin at that.

            Regardless of the reason Hamas was elected the residents of Gaza knew the deal perfectly well, Hamas's charter is well publicized, they had waged the war against Israel for decades and they had no intention of stopping and/or moderating their position once elected.

            It's too bad Gaza did not have a pro-peace political party. It's too bad the Gazans did not have better choices, nevertheless unfortunately both they and the Israelis will have to live with the consequences of the choice they made.

            •  I thought that Hamas when it was created in (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eiron

              1987 or 1988 was financed in part by Israel to offset the political power of the PLO..now the Israelis got what they wanted ..PLO is gone..Arafat is dead...Hamas, their creation, is still there..

  •  If I understand this correctly (3+ / 0-)

    some people are just dogs and they hear something that people who aren't dogs don't hear.

    My New Year resolution: I promise I will whistleblow when I start seeing myself using a dog whistle or hear what I hear, but shouldn't hear. Do you hear what I hear? No?

    You are lucky. I tell you life is not easy if you are a dog.

    But I am a rat. So, there is a chance for me in 2009.

  •  A great book recommendation (4+ / 0-)

    "Mistress of the Art of Death" is about the alleged murder by Jews of the English boy you describe, and efforts to solve the crime.

    And I compliment you on your diary. I've been trying to attune my ear to "dog whistles" these days. For example, saying Caroline Kennedy is "untested" means "she hasn't taken any big money donations so we don't know how she'll vote."

  •  Thanks for the diary (6+ / 0-)

    Most people here who post are in no ways anti-semetic.  They might be a part of the ignorant unwashed masses in knowing all of a culture's sensitivies.  So its good to educate people on these issues.

    However some people such as those who post in israelforum.com or tlf.org and other ultra pro israeli/nationalist sites make it a habit to derail I/P discussions.  With talking points like these and these .  I do not identify the people who spam these talking points as jews.  I indentify them as TROLLS who copy and paste the same crap over and over.  

    Sorry about the rant.  Thanks for the dairy again.

    Metal Gear?!? "It's our daunted restraint that keeps us silent in shame"

    by deadatom on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:34:43 AM PST

  •  Funny, (9+ / 0-)

    the diarist forgot the oldest dog-whistle of all (goes back to Early Christianity):

    Jew are heartless, because by definition they are those who saw Our Savior's sufferings on the Cross and were not moved to become Christians.

    I, for one, am disgusted by those people who have promoted the typical dog-whistle image of Jews as people who actually rejoice in killing civilians, and whose hearts are cold to the sufferings of any but their own.

    Anti-semitic scum, you know who you are...

    Founder and CFO, The Giddiyap Society.

    by Trotsky the Horse on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:35:28 AM PST

    •  Strangely (9+ / 0-)

      I most frequently see comments describing Palestinians that way from supporters of the Israeli hardliner policies.

      Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

      by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:42:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What disgusts me is (5+ / 0-)

      we cannot talk about real Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians that are unreasonable, hateful and malicious without someone conflating it with the "Jews."

      I, for one, am disgusted by those people who have promoted the typical dog-whistle image of Jews as people who actually rejoice in killing civilians, and whose hearts are cold to the sufferings of any but their own.

      This, as well as this diary, is rather crafty political maneuvering but it's still deeply fallacious. What you are doing in polluting the discussion to keep people from addressing a reality about Israelis you don't want to acknowledge, that they are culpable and that they are accountable for their own malice.

      We have to discuss Israeli attitudes too understand the escalation of violence in Gaza, and we have to discuss them soberly, without people accusing us of siding with terrorist groups and throwing out the anti-Semite card.

      I'm sorry, but I won't play this game with you people anymore. The Israelis -- not the the "Jews," the Israelis -- have to account for themselves and for their words and acts that have contributed to the violence. When an Israeli says Palestinians are "dogs" who deserved to be "killed" it is the same as a Palestinian calling Israelis "dogs" who deserved to be "killed." When the Israeli government decides to bomb Gaza excessively and with superior force without regard to civilian life, it is really not that ideologically different than Hamas firing rockets at Israel. When Israeli press puts out "news" that is so slanted and so biased that you need a swig of kool-aid to help it go down, it is not far removed from the anti-Israel propaganda put out by Hamas and Hezbollah. One is not more deserving a white wash than the other simply because historically European Christians have held anti-Semitic attitudes over the centuries and we Americans are expected to feel irrational, disproportionate guilt about it.

      You cannot in good conscience ask us to apologize for opposing hate, injustice, terrorism and murder. You cannot in good conscience expect us to excuse one group of people for their own unjust acts because they are "Jews." So throw out all the catch phases you want -- anti-Semitism, "dog whistles," whatever. I refused to be played by these guilt politics anymore. Thankfully, many of my fellow Americans are getting tired of it too.  

      -8.50, -7.64 "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that there was within me an invincible summer." - Camus

      by croyal on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:28:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Three-card Judaism. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        susans, zemblan

        Is "Israeli" a subsection of "Jew", so that all Israelis are Jews, but not all Jews are Israelis?

        Is "Israeli" a totally distinct totality?

        Are "Israeli" equivalent to "Jew"?

        Thank you for clarifying your position, croyal. Isn't the problem precisely that too many people on all sides are all too happy to play around with the syllogisms?

        Founder and CFO, The Giddiyap Society.

        by Trotsky the Horse on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:00:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, and BTW, croyal (0+ / 0-)

          I never said that those who performed these disgusting anti-semitic caricatures drew a distinction between being Jewish and being Israeli. It would have been nice if they had: if you're going to provide the world with a vicious image of the Israeli-as-Shylock, then I think any self-respecting Jew would insist you draw the distinction. Not to be.

          Founder and CFO, The Giddiyap Society.

          by Trotsky the Horse on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:24:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So when the Palestinians (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hester, susans, charliehall

        elect a government whose charter includes wiping Israel off the map, are they equally deserving of your malice?

        "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

        by delphine on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:16:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zemblan

        You cannot in good conscience ask us to apologize for opposing hate, injustice, terrorism and murder.

        And that is why I want Hamas put out of business.

        For good.

    •  From Chaucer to Wagner and beyond, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kalmoth

      unfortunately it's a major line of thought in Western art, which makes appreciating some of those works a bit cringe-worthy.  Contemporary Russian literature has this problem, too: nearly an entire school of writers (village prosaists) suffer from this.  "Secret" Jews (often scientists) who are to blame for the decline of the country.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:46:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One of the reasons I stopped (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, RubyGal

    ...considering myself a Xtian is the anti-Jewish strain that runs throughout it's philosophical history.  I try to practice a mix of Christian/Buddhist Ethics...but I don't bother with the metaphysics

    BTW:  A semite doesn't just refer to people of the Jewish faith.  The IDF regularly practices anti-semitism when it unloads ordinance on a random village filled with Palestinians

    "Go Away! I'm tired of the horrible things that happen when you're around." - Charlie the Unicorn

    by jds1978 on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:36:49 AM PST

    •  You seem like a nice person (19+ / 0-)

      So I'll be gentle with this mild admonition.

      Antisemitism is a German expression, invented sometime in the late 1800's (accounts differ) to describe specifically a movement against Jews.

      Depending upon the source, the inventor was either in favor of said movement, or against it.

      Antisemitism is not anti-Semitic races, but very specifically Anti-Jew.

      This is a common mistake, which is why you'll see so many people forced to make this correction.

      •  You know why the confusion exists (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jds1978, eroded47095

        In reality Anti-Semitism is Anti-Jew, but also the Palestinians and other Arabs are Semites (coming from one of Noah's children (Shem)...

        You know all this stuff...

      •  The meaning of "anti-semitism" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jds1978

          "There's glory for you!"
          "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
          Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
          "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
          "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
          "The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
          "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

        Unless the Humpty Dumpty rule is in effect, convention is our best guide to how to understand what others mean by the words that they choose, and how to use words so that others understand what we mean.

        However: The conventions of language are as corruptible as any human institution, and tend to encode the prejudices and oversights of the societies which have cultivated them.

        I suspect that there weren't a lot of people around in the Germanies of the 1700s representing the other branches of Shem's legacy. So it is that a term which is etymologically broad is locks in the perspective of the time and place of its invention. If the word were coined today, it would mean something different.

        I don't think a "correction" is called for, because jds1978 is not making a mistake -- (s)he's taking issue with a linguistic convention.

        That said, considering that the convention is well-established and carries so much historical and emotional freight, a "knock-down argument" challenging the conventional meaning is unlikely to be made in an aside.

  •  Ya know, the ONLY one of those I've seen pop up (16+ / 0-)

    on in our recent round of IP on DK is accusations of control of the media.

    Now admittedly I might not be looking very hard, since I dip in and out of IP, and don't go into every single one.

    But #1 sounds like something you'd only expect a raving lunatic to say.

    #2 appears to be a very history/timeperiod specific bit of propaganda.

    #3 is again, historical in nature, and not relevant to the current conflict.

    #4 could be said to have some limited validity as every country of late (especially the US) seems to try and feed propaganda to the new media.  Thus it can be expected that Israel and Palestine both are doing their best to control media reports in this conflict, and feed the propaganda they want out to the media.  While Israel does not control US media, the US government supports Israel, and thus it can be expected that our own government propaganda wing is doing what it can to do the same on behalf of Israel, just as they would on behalf of Palestine if decades of US policy was support of Palestine.

    So while this was certainly an interesting diary, I'm not sure what real use it is in relation to the current IP conflict.

    Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

    by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:39:28 AM PST

    •  Well (10+ / 0-)

      I hear the disloyalty claim all the time. It is probably the main one I hear around here...media control coming in second.

      Blood libel actually is far more common than you might think around the world, though not around DK. I am always amazed at how many pogroms throughout the world right down to the 1950's centered on blood libel. I don't know if it is still happening, though, at least in its original form. I have heard more subtle, more modern versions, but not so often.

      As to Jewish bankers, this was revived after the Madoff scandal came to light. This led to a great deal of anti-Semitic comments about Jews and money, though again, not really so much around DK.

      •  The Blood Libel survives here, (5+ / 0-)

        in slightly mutated form, as hysteria about abortion. Open explicit antisemitism is no longer widely tolerated, so it adopts new code: "liberals" and "secular humanists" = Jews and those who support Jews, "abortion" = "mass murder" of unborn children (whose souls, as unborn, all still belong to the Christian God).

        The rabid implacable extremism of many "pro-life" protestors owes to the fact that they are possessed by an especially ancient, powerful meme-- that of the Blood Libel.

         

        •  I don't see it that way (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego, charliehall

          Interesting. I don't see them as related, but I'll have to think about that. It is true that there is considerable overlap between anti-choice fanatics and those who believe in an apocalyptic form of Christianity where Jews all have to move to Israel for the second coming to happen.

          •  The Blood Libel (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego, kalmoth

            has been levelled most often against the Jews, but it also loans itself to the task of demonizing practically any despised/feared religious or cultural minority. Some Roman writers even used it against the early Christians (seizing upon the ritual cannibalist aspects of the Christian communion). See Norman Cohen.

        •  anti-abortionists and the blood libel (6+ / 0-)

          I never thought of the connection before, but I think you're on to something.

          When I was a Planned Parenthood escort, spending hours standing outside our local PP office as a sort of buffer between the fetus fanatics with their signs and bullhorns, and the patients going inside, we escorts did not engage the demonstrators in conversation, but they often commented on us and to us. And they seemed very interested in figuring out which of us was Jewish, saying things like, "that one looks Jewish," or "Are you Jewish?"

          And Dr. Barnett Slepian, the OB/GYN in Buffalo who was shot to death by domestic terrorist and anti-abortion activist James Kopp in 1998, was Jewish.

          And a quick Google search on the words "Jewish" and "abortionist" turns up many links too revolting to follow, including an article titled "Jews murder Gentile babies in USA."

        •  I've never thought of that before (0+ / 0-)

          But I see your point.

          I don't think it's a direct relationship, but certainly the seeds existed to make the arguments believable.

      •  Actually, the disloyalty one (0+ / 0-)

        was probably used about the African American voting percentages in the Obama campaign in a somewhat mutated form, and seems very close to what we were hearing from the nutjobs when Colin Powell came out in support of Obama.

        Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

        by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:55:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The "disloyal" thing comes in (0+ / 0-)

      with comments like "You can't help but support Israel due to your tribal affiliation", etc.

      Accusations of being more loyal to Israel because of my ethnic background.  

      "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

      by delphine on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:19:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jesus pied for your sins (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, jds1978, DSinIA

    •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

      I hear those Catholics eat flesh and blood.  Buncha bloodsuckers.

      Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

      by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:41:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cannibalistic..even (0+ / 0-)

        I never did like that part of the Catholic Mass..the last supper .. eating the bread which is the body of Christ..and sipping the wine which is the blood of Christ..think about it..really..

        I do prefer the Buddhist practices..I loved Zen Center in Marin County..I loved going there in the early 1980's before the throngs of people started going there.  I remember Ed Espe Brown..the writer of Tassajara Bread Book speaking in the discussions after the Zendo mediation..he was funny..what a sense of humor..

        I started going there after Suzuki Roshi died in the 1970's..those days will never return.

        •  Well, it's all part (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi9, RubyGal

          of the way most religions co-opt earlier customs and legends and pretends they came up with them anyway.

          Eat the body of the slain and gain some of its power.

          Steal flood and virgin birth myths from other religions.

          Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

          by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:59:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Catholic church has done so much harm (0+ / 0-)

            to so many people on this planet..over such a long period of centuries..I am a Catholic .. so I can criticize the religion .. it is like the Mafia..once you are  Catholic .. they claim you for life..and afterwards.

            I prefer the Buddhist teachings and found it difficult when the Taliban blew up the ancient Buddhist sculptures in Afghanistan some years ago..what a tragedy..I really did not care for the Taliban before that happened..but after that happened..I really really did not like the people who did that.  I discriminated against the people who did that..I made judgements about them..

            I still have the image of those tall statues in my minds eye but it is not the same..

        •  We all have our preferences (0+ / 0-)

          As long as people's private religious practices don't translate into bad behavior toward other people, I don't see a reason to judge any of them as better than any other.

  •  Jewish Anti-Zionists (9+ / 0-)

    As the Zionism movement began to find its legs in the last decades of the 19th century there was resistance by some prominent Jews to the rhetoric and rationale used to support the movement.

    One was an argument made by some zionists that the Jew was fundamentally unable to assimilate and have undivided loyalty to their home nation, (Therefore, the argument went, they should have a nationalist homeland)

    Lord Montagu, a prominent British Jew was very concerned about this argument, and feared that the Zionist movement would have the result of some european nations encouraging or forcing Jewish emigration, or altering the civil status of their Jewish populations.

    Note the last sentence of the Balfour Declaration.  From Wiki

    "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" with the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:42:54 AM PST

    •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, charliehall, thethinveil

      The change in "the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews" across Europe in World War II even without a Jewish state in Palestine rendered that objection academic. It was going to happen anyway, so at least have a haven instead of a refugee crisis no other country wants a part of.

      He was right, though... the creation of Israel did lead to the departure of 800,000 Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, where it was now easier for nationalists to drive them out and confiscate their property. (I'm not raising this point to "rub it in" or "deflect from the Palestinians" or whatnot. It's directly relevant to the point you cite.)

    •  Damned if they do, damned if they don't (8+ / 0-)

      Antisemites declared that Jews would remain forever an alien element, a parasite on the nation, because they were incapable of assimilating.

      Antisemites declared Jews who did assimilate were burrowing subverters, a cancer that had to be exposed and excised.

      Antisemites declared that Jews were incapable of establishing their own homeland because they were rootless cosmopolitans devoid of the "national idea" (see Treitschke).

      Antisemites declared that Jews who did establish their own homeland were guided by a national idea that was racist and exclusionist-- unlike the antisemite's own national ideas, which had sanctioned pogrom and holocaust.

    •  ...existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brizzlefoshizzle

      Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...

      It's good to be reminded of this line of the Balfour Declaration as you watch TV these days.

  •  It's only a dog whistle if the author or speaker (7+ / 0-)

    intends it to be. Otherwise he's unwittingly propagating a dog whistler's words or he genuinely believes that in the context of his statement what he's communicating is direct and meaningful to all of his audience. It's important to keep that in mind before accusing somebody of blowing dog whistles.

  •  I've never in my life (15+ / 0-)

    used any of these dog whistles.

    Yet as recently as two days ago I get shit like "loud mouthed Israel hater" flung at me simply for asking a couple of questions and doing some dispassionate analysis of the response I got.

    I think you're way underplaying the pervasive nature of this accusation.

    "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jrooth on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:45:20 AM PST

    •  Broadbrushing is wrong no matter who does it. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, jrooth, blueness, thethinveil

      Your question deserved a measured and thoughtful answer but it got an emotional over reaction.

      That happens in any heated discussion whether it is abortion, gay rights, etc.

      Party like it's 1929!

      by arielle on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:18:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  An influx of trolls (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bicycle Hussein paladin

      Yeah that dude (and others)seems to be posting 24/7 in IP diaries.  I seem to see the same crap talking points with more insults mixed with it.  Reasonable debate destroyed, troll mission accomplished.

      Metal Gear?!? "It's our daunted restraint that keeps us silent in shame"

      by deadatom on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:20:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Given the firepower the IAF and IDF uses, (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, delphine, jrooth, zemblan, Mordoch

      the death toll would be much higher if they were randomly attacking locations and not taking care to avoid civilians. Hamas, like Hezbollah deliberately places themselves in civilian areas, this has been clearly condemned by even the UN.

      However, the use of force is still wrong in response to the rocket attacks, in my opinion.

      2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

      by shpilk on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:36:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, yeah. (0+ / 0-)

        Which is why I challenge people who accuse the Israelis of being heartless indiscriminate killers.  But this reasoning presupposes that a military response is the appropriate one.

        I agree with your concluding sentence.  In my opinion, containment combined with diplomacy is a far more effective strategy than it is given credit for.  Particularly in cases like Israel and Palestine (or the US and Iraq) where the balance of power is so radically out of proportion.

        "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by jrooth on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:02:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And... (0+ / 0-)

        However, the use of force is still wrong in response to the rocket attacks, in my opinion.

        How would you suggest stopping them?

      •  But your opinion of Hamas' intentions is not the (0+ / 0-)

        point, even if you were right, accusing the commenter of anti-Semitism inflames/shuts down the debate and stops people from sorting out the facts.

    •  I don't read your comments as (0+ / 0-)

      dispassionate.  There is an underlying current of accusation - in support of an earlier comment implying that Israel was in fact targeting civilians.

      This goes along with the "genocide" meme - If Israel wanted to wipe Palestinians off the map, it could have done so years ago.

      Israel makes the same mistake every time.  No matter how careful they are, they will kill innocent civilians every time they try to go in and "surgically" strike Hamas or Hezbollah or whomever.  Military action will never achieve Israel's goals, will never make them safe.  It just makes more enemies.

      You didn't deserve to be called a "loud mouth Israel hater", but "dispassionate" doesn't really describe your comments.

      "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

      by delphine on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:25:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You make my point (0+ / 0-)

        By reading something I didn't write.

        I was attempting to analyze the claims made on both sides.  Nothing more.

        Now I have certainly made comments in other threads that I think this policy is destructive all around, but I quite consciously and explicitly did not do so in that thread.  Furthermore, my questions were aimed at both sides - I looked for information that would call the journalist's reporting into question as well as critically examining the defense of Israel's actions.

        "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by jrooth on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:37:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Historical Question? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arielle

    To what degree did the ability to lend money allow for the protection of Jews in the middle east prior to the 18th-19th century secularization of Christian and Muslim debtor dogmas?

  •  Wouldn't the blood matzoh be traife? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lockewasright, Mordoch, charliehall

    Seriously.  That would seem to be the easiest rebuttal.

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:48:51 AM PST

  •  How about the idea that AIPIC (5+ / 0-)

    Has disproportionate control in the US government and is directing our country to act against its own interest, in favor of Israel's?  Do you think:

    1. this fits into one of your four
    1. this is all or partially true
    1. something else entirely

    That's the assertion I see around here a lot (advanced to some degree, not fully).  I don't know anything about the situation, so I guess it could be true.  But it also makes me feel uncomfortable, as if it might simply be a version of "Jewish Disloyalty."

    http://www.amazon.com/Underwater-Lengths-Single-Benjamin-Grossberg/dp/0912592583

    by claytonben on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:49:12 AM PST

    •  Now, as you say (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks

      there is an accusation I actually see here on DK.

      Is there a similar Palestinian lobby group?

      Hi. If I quit replying to your comments, I've either A) left the thread, B) felt it didn't require a reply, or C) decided you're an idiot. You choose.

      by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:56:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  AIPAC does have considerably more weight (5+ / 0-)

      than the Muslim lobby groups - which I think is worth comparing because of the facts of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

      There are 2 million Muslims in the US and 7 million Jews.  

      In terms of the conflict, though, this is more because Palestinians have no natural group to support their interest.  Most Arab nations can't stand them and have no interest in supporting them.  And, they have very little resources of their own.

      If we were to break down dog-whistles in Muslim politics it would be that the sects are monolithic.

      •  That's what I don't get about this whole mess. (0+ / 0-)

        Most Arab nations can't stand them and have no interest in supporting them.  And, they have very little resources of their own.

        Let's say Hamas wins, and get everything they want, drive the Israelis totally out. What will they "win"? A ruined land, surrounded by well armed, oil rich countries that hate them almost as much as they hate the present occupants.

        That's winning?

        Yes, winning was nice, but we go back to work 01-21-09. Remember what FDR said, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." -8.25, -6.21

        by Jacques on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 11:08:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's the big jewish conspiracy. It's been used (8+ / 0-)

      over and over again.  Jews control everything.  They are pulling all of the strings behind the scenes, probably as a way to get all of the money.

      There certainly is an AIPAC lobby in DC and it certainly is powerful, but that truth is then stretched to fit the disloyalty dog whistle and to accuse "the jewish lobby" of a greater degree of control that actually exists.

      Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

      by lockewasright on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:19:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is false (12+ / 0-)

      for numerous reasons, but the most important, for this discussion, is the unique idea that US Senators and Congress-critters act AGAINST the United States' interest in response to this lobby.  Do they act in the lobby's interest?  Sure.  See NRA, NEA, and plenty of other lobbies. Where it gets weird, though, is (a) the false assertion that AIPAC is the MOST influential (did I mention the NRA?) and (b) the baseless claim that they act AGAINST America's interest (which usually means what the speaker thinks America should do because of their own beliefs).  Those assertions are so blatantly false that they are really only believable through the lens of ancient, and modern, prejudices.

      I hope this answered your question.

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

      by dhonig on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:26:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dvschase

        to everyone who responded to my question.  Lots of stuff to think about.  And thanks to everyone for not pointing out that I misspelled "AIPAC" (ugh).

        Ben

        http://www.amazon.com/Underwater-Lengths-Single-Benjamin-Grossberg/dp/0912592583

        by claytonben on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:29:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You just lost me. (4+ / 0-)


        ...but the most important, for this discussion, is the unique idea that US Senators and Congress-critters act AGAINST the United States' interest in response to this lobby... Those assertions are so blatantly false that they are really only believable through the lens of ancient, and modern, prejudices

        Congress acts against the best interests of this country all the time due to powerful lobbies: NRA (guns in national parks), big pharma (no negotiation on Medicare drugs), financial conglomerates (bankruptcy bill), telecoms (FISA immunity).

        To call the very reasonable belief that AIPAC is another lobby with untoward influence as being the result of 'ancient and modern prejudices' is so far beyond naive as to be a disingenuous dog-whistle of its own.

        What other lobby annually receives a parade of the U.S. Vice President, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, leaders of the Senate, leaders of Congress, and dozens of other Senators and Congresspersons, as well as Pentagon officials?

        What other lobby receives public pledges of U.S. policy in marchstep with its own positions, including public threats of war against another nation?

        You may see that as 'in the best interests' of this country. But I sure don't -- and it ain't because of 'ancient and modern prejudices'.

        The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

        by two roads on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:06:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are inserting opinion on motives (4+ / 0-)

          without support for your argument.

          Someone else who has a different opinion would note that supporting the right to keep your concealed carry as you drive into a park is in the nations best interest.

          That's just one example, the same flaw exists with your other arguments as well.

          •  Context and nuance apparently not being... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jagger


            ...your strong suits, allow me to simplify:

            One can reasonably oppose a lobby's influence without it being driven by 'ancient and modern prejudices'.

            p.s. Somebody who believes concealed weapons are appropriate in national parks is an idiot.

            But that's just my opinion.

            The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

            by two roads on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:28:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Uh huh (0+ / 0-)

              p.s. Somebody who believes concealed weapons are appropriate in national parks is an idiot.

              I really don't see any logic in that position.  There are a broad number of reasons why concealed carry laws in national parks should be uniform with the local state laws.

              If you've ever been out West, if you live in the area around a national park, sometimes the only way to get from where you are to where you need to be is by driving through the park.  The parks are quite large, and the number of roads are limited.

      •  NRA is not advocating on behalf of a foreign govt (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, I have to take the bait.

        Your comparision of AIPAC to the NRA, for example, is specious.

        I find the NRA obnoxious, but they are NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE INTERESTS OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. However, AIPAC is. So there's a big difference.

        The NRA is advocating for the interests of American gun-owners, and I agree they have way too disproportionate influence in Washington, but, hey, they are certainly American.

        Imagine if we had a lobbying group of the size of AIPAC advocating for, say, the interests of France. Could you imagine the outrage?

    •  AIPAC is an organization that itself CLAIMS (5+ / 0-)

      huge influence. Portions of their web site reads like an anti-semitic screed, in fact. The board of AIPAC thinks quite a bit of themselves.

      In reality, I don't believe they have much influence at all.  Their mission is to enhance Israeli-American relations, which is fairly innocuous. But in reality, each American President for the last 20 years has basically tried to ignore the holy land as much as possible - which is why nothing ever happens to resolve the conflict. Perhaps they are successful in getting Israel the US funding, but that's about it. Money in and of itself doesn't dictate policy. And frankly, if AIPAC disappeared tomorrow, would that funding? I doubt it. It's a default position that makes American politicians feel they've gotten themselves "off the hook" on I/P.

      AIPAC is also hamstrung by an apparent desire not to disagree with the current regime in Israel, which means they used to be more liberal, then became more conservative, and now are just plain confused. If Netanyahu is elected (a disaster for Israel if he is, in my opinion), expect them to take a hard right turn.   They don't know what else to do. All the real thinkers left AIPAC a while ago and joined other organizations.

    •  Depends on how it's put. (10+ / 0-)

      Is it something like

      American foreign policy is skewed toward Israel, in part by the actions of AIPAC and the impact of the Jewish pro-Israel vote

      or

      The Zionists of AIPAC hold our government in an unbreakable iron grip, destroying any politician who dares counter it

      I've certainly seen my share of both here at DailyKos, and my share of people who can't see what's so problematic about the latter.

      harps and angels! harps and angels!

      by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:15:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  this is (5+ / 0-)

      by far the most common slur on this site. Anybody who knows a damn thing about how things work in this country knows that the banking and insurance industries, arms manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies, to name just three, all wield far more influence over government officials than does AIPAC. To believe otherwise one must be either ignorant, or anti-semitic.

  •  I remember that day care center attack (6+ / 0-)

    I am almost positive I went to that Jewish childcare center when I was a kid. I remember seeing the footage of the attack and had that viceral reaction like recognizing a place from childhood you haven't seen since. I know I was sent to a Jewish child care center in that area.

    Thanks for reposting this. The disloyalty canard is especially egrigeous since part of Talmudic teaching says that it is the duty of every Jew to be loyal to the nation he/she lives in.

    •  Interesting lil debate the other day (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno

      About it.  Starting with karmafish's comment .  I believe you are correct though.  Karmafish's comment was probably more of a knee jerk reaction to all these I/P diaries and the wedges that a lot of the massive trolling in them has caused.

      In the end people are people and will do as people have always done.  

      Metal Gear?!? "It's our daunted restraint that keeps us silent in shame"

      by deadatom on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:07:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting (11+ / 0-)

        I do see where karmafish is coming from. I read a lot of history, including Jewish history. And one thing that really strikes me is how for most of history Jews really had no place to go (except arguably India and China if they could get there) when things got bad. I grew up with the question "why didn't they just leave" when discussing Jews in Germany during the rise of Nazism. I finally realized they had no place to go. Some did escape...to places that  Germany then invaded. Some tried to get to the US or Britain...and were more often than not turned back. In fact, for a while they could only get to safety through illegal immigration (people should keep that in mind when discussing illegal immigrants today).

        What is different now? The existence of Israel. My wife and I are only nominally Jewish. But my wife's view is, I think, illistrative. She says, "We are Jewish because there are people out there who want to kill us because we're Jews." The existence of Israel means there is  one place where being Jewish is normal rather than unusual...and potentially despised. It gives some comfort even living in NYC to know that Israel exists. Is this a conflict of loyalty? NOt that I have ever felt. I have always been an American and only nominally Jewish. But the same kind of pride an Irish-American might have for Ireland I feel for Israel...and the comfort that there is one place wherre I would be accepted as a Jew should worse come to worst.

        Not sure if that makes sense to others, but IF I felt I was being FORCED to choose between Israel and other loyalties, I would consider putting Israel first. Don't know if would, but the key is if I felt I was being forced to choose such loyalties, I would feel something was deeply wrong and it would remind me of the centuries of hostility Jews have faced over the years. I have never felt that kind of pressure and I suspect Karmafish really hasn't either. But I do kind of understand where he is coming from. I too, as a Jew, feel very threatened when I/P diaries get out of hand. And I think this diary does a good job of explaining why. And I DO feel sympathy for Palestine and dislike the policies of Likud and the settlers.

        •  I don't put Israel ahead of the US (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BFSkinner

          My family has been in America far longer than that of most Jews and America is very good to Jews.

          But if the Democratic Party ever decides to follow the lead of the Dailykos commenters and support Hamas in a conflict with Israel, I'm changing my registration. As will a lot of other folks. New York will no longer be a blue state. (And neither will a lot of other states.)

          Fortunately that won't happen. See Nancy Pelosi's recent comment:

          or Immediate Release
          12/27/2008
          Pelosi Statement on the Situation in Gaza

          Washington, D.C. -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on the situation in Gaza:

          "Peace between Israelis and Palestinians cannot result from daily barrages of rocket and mortar fire from Hamas-controlled Gaza.   Hamas and its supporters must understand that Gaza cannot and will not be allowed to be a sanctuary for attacks on Israel.

          "The United States must continue to do all it can to promote peace in the region and a negotiated settlement to differences between Israelis and Palestinians.  Humanitarian needs of all innocent civilians must also be addressed.  But when Israel is attacked, the United States must continue to stand strongly with its friend and democratic ally."

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            The Democratic Party is solidly pro-Israel. Honestly,, so is most of DK. I think when Israel starts bombing, it tends to sway many who are generally neutral or slightly pro-Israel into anger towards Israel. It is the progressive love of the underdog. The American left loved Israel when it was the underdog. Now the Palestinians are the underdog so there is a gut level favoring of them by some.

            DK is not pro-Hamas in general. Just a vocal minority within it.

            •  Well, there's progressive love of the underdog, (0+ / 0-)

              but what thinking Zionist doesn't feel for innocent people caught in the crossfire? I don't have any sympathy for rifle-wielding Hamas troopers who get blown up in a missile strike, but if some poor sucker who happened to be selling them hot dogs also gets blown up, that's somebody killed by an agent or agency that had no grudge against him. He was no threat, he had committed no crime.

              I would say that if the firepower used to attack the riflemen was reasonable (that is, a weapon that would strike only their immediate area, not scatter itself all over the landscape or crumble walls for many yards around), then the death of a person standing among them with his hot dogs is probably not a crime, but that doesn't make it any less tragic. First off, he's a human being in his own right, with all that means in terms of his history, the things he had to teach others or learn from or do, you know? Second, merely as an economic and political actor, his... violent removal from the economy and the political discourse will tend to warp things. Credit might get more expensive, and scared people are more politically extreme.

              And so on. You get the idea.

              You can't simply ignore tragedy that your favored faction inflicts on another faction's civilians or citizens, merely because you oppose those poor suckers' views.

              My nametag says, "Yes, I can help you." Don't believe everything you read.

              by Shaviv on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 12:13:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ideally... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zemblan, charliehall

                Ideally I agree...and often do feel that Israel has a tendency to either sit in stoic silence while the rockets rain down, or hit with all they've got. Sometimes it seems like they don't have an in between. But I honestly have not heard anyone give a viable alternative. Gaza is under Palestinian control. A handful of terrorists, probably with full Hamas support, fires rockets and mortars from right where those hot dog salesmen (Halal I hope!!) live and work. And this goes on, and on. Tightening security and closing the border is criticized because it causes suffering. Building fences gets criticized (probably rightly so). Targeted assassination gets criticized. Going in with ground troops gets criticized. Bombing gets criticized.

                What action by Israel would be acceptable? What action would actually work? I felt the attack on Lebanon was excessive...but Hezbollah DID quiet down afterwards. Israel pulls out of Gaza and attacks increase. Israel bombs the hell out of Lebanon and Hezbollah quiets down. These lessons are terrible lessons, but they are logical lessons...at least short term. Long term I think they are false lessons, but what can Israel do?

                So I basically agree with you, at least in the ideal. But I have no real solution to offer Israel under the circumstances where they get attacked when they give in and things quiet down when they hit with excessive force.

                •  important (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mole333

                  What action by Israel would be acceptable? What action would actually work? I felt the attack on Lebanon was excessive...but Hezbollah DID quiet down afterwards. Israel pulls out of Gaza and attacks increase. Israel bombs the hell out of Lebanon and Hezbollah quiets down. These lessons are terrible lessons, but they are logical lessons...at least short term. Long term I think they are false lessons, but what can Israel do?

                  You have just hit the nail on the head. Israeli force works. Israeli negotiations and unilateral concessions do not. The Arabs are giving Israel exactly the wrong lesson, at least as far as we on DK are concerned. But can you blame Israel for learning it?

  •  Arabs are Semitic people. Religion is the problem (4+ / 0-)

    Title should be "...an anti-Jewish primer".

    The term Semitic refers to people who speak a set of languages, both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages.  Accusing Arabs of antisemitism is a tautology of the ignorant, the same ignorance that uses the term to describe anti-Jewish bigotry.

    Religion is the root of the prejudices, Jews prejudice against Muslims and Christians, Christians against Muslims and Jews, Muslim against Jews and Christians.

    Like competing car companies, each of the religions denigrates the other in order to gain paying customers. Add in the normal human tribal tendency to to view other groups as a threat. Top it off with political groups using the bias as a wedge or distraction to maintain power and control. The witches brew of religious bigotry.

    •  Speaking of tautologies of the ignorant... (14+ / 0-)

      That would be a great argument...if you lived in the 17th Century.

      For over 100 years, the only accepted definition of "anti-Semitism" is as follows:

         

      an·ti–Sem·i·tism
      Pronunciation:
         \ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\
      Function:
         noun
      Date:
         1882

      : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

      So, yes, Arabs can very easily be guilty of anti-Semitism, since it has nothing to do with whether you are a Semitic-speaking people.

      •  not "only" (0+ / 0-)

        Please encourage all to vote by absentee ballot

        by Killer on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:10:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From that same link (7+ / 0-)

          "The term "anti-Semitic" (or "anti-Semite") usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1873 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Jewry over Germandom". Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the "League for Anti-Semitism"."

          I'm not quite sure if this is what you had in mind.  If yes, thanks.

          If no, then I hope this shuts you up.

          •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thethinveil

            Yes, this is just what I am refering to. Useing the term to refer to Jews only is an added definition to a word that had a clear meaning before 1873. I do not suggest that the more modern definition is not widely understood, just that there is an original meaning of the word that implies a close connection between the peoples of that area of the world. I also think that we could choose not to use that word as defined by Wilhelm Marr.  He's not my kind of guy.

            Please encourage all to vote by absentee ballot

            by Killer on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:31:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As a linguist I can tell you that (0+ / 0-)

              semitic is still used in that profession to this day to describe languages from that entire area just not in political contexts.

              Your point is true. But it undermines his cause to be associated with other middle easterners? I guess that explains his reaction?

              You Suck at Photoshop.

              by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:14:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you are a linguist (0+ / 0-)

                then you'll understand that the original derivation of a word matters.  In this case, the original derivation of Antisemitism was never, and I'll repeat for emphasis, NEVER intended to mean anything other than Jew.

                •  Actually usage takes precedent over etymolgy. (0+ / 0-)

                  If people were to use semitic in such a way in political contexts, frequently enough that it catches on, then it would by default obtain that meaning.

                  The only place where Etymology has enjoyed such priority are in the works of Heidegger (a famous Nazi and lover of Hannah Ardent.)

                  I'll repeat for emphasis, NEVER intended to mean anything other than Jew.

                  Wasn't it until relatively recently (1871) that the usage of antisemitism as hatred of jews grew to prominence. While the wider meaning was prevalent for hundreds and thousands of years prior.

                  But again I agree with your first statement with regard to this subject: Antisemitism signifies hatred of jews because that is the way it is used commonly within a political context. The forum we are in qualifies as such and I see no reason to adopt the broader linguistic and historical usage (although I do believe in language growth and change as essential to any language.)

                  You Suck at Photoshop.

                  by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 05:44:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                    Wasn't it until relatively recently (1871) that the usage of antisemitism as hatred of jews grew to prominence. While the wider meaning was prevalent for hundreds and thousands of years prior.

                    Nope. Simply wrong. There is simply no record of the word being used before the 1870s. It didn't exist. There was no "thousands of years prior." The historians and the lexicographers are agreed on this. Check your local OED. This is all very clear and well documented. "Antisemitism" is not a "hijacked" word, it is an invented word spread through the world with its current meaning from its very beginning -- "hatred of Jews."

                    harps and angels! harps and angels!

                    by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:11:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  see now there you stuble upon something (0+ / 0-)

                      this is the difference between privileging morphological reading over usage. True the word antisemitism has always meant hatred of Jews yet the Term Semitic has been used for a quite a long time to mean more a region of middle-eastern people. If we were to take the original meaning of semitic and add the modifier anti to it we would arrive at an entirely different meaning of antisemitism than what is actually used.

                      So I was indeed wrong to use antisemitism as an example of this usage change when it is more accurate to say that antisemitism represents a usage change from the word semitic itself. Changing the very meaning of word itself. So it is those who are looking to the still present usage of semitic to redefine the use of antisemitic who are the prescriptionists. Attempting to impose logic on language root combination. how silly. Not all rules are uniform across a given language.

                      You Suck at Photoshop.

                      by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 09:31:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I find both sides ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                        on this count. One group is attempting to redefine anti-antisemitism while the other is trying to redefine the  head of the word - Semite.  So which side to take?

                        Clearly it has become a cultural battle despite common use of both words with their legitimate meanings in context.

                        Language evolves and each group is free to redefine as they will.

                        It is not uncommon to see politicized redefinition of terms - N!@#$% taking on meaning as fellow African-American, is obvious example as well a "womyn" as a orthographic renunciation of men as a starting point for the (mis)understanding of the determining factors of the other gender.

                        To each their own and let language flourish!

                        You Suck at Photoshop.

                        by thethinveil on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:04:02 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not quite (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          zemblan

                          The word "Semite" has a broader historical meaning while the word "Antisemite" was a word specifically created to have a specific meaning.  One "evolved" through time, the other was invented.  It also deals with ownership; Semite was a word that existed in several languages, Antisemite was created in one and only one language, for a meaning that through time amplified itself to such an extend that it ended up causing the extermination of millions of people.

                          •  a misunderstanding. (0+ / 0-)

                            One "evolved" through time, the other was invented.

                            Semite was invented as was Antisemite - all words at some point were invented:

                               From "Online Etymology."

                            1847, "Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan," from Mod.L. Semita, from L.L. Sem "Shem," one of the three sons of Noah (Gen. x:21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in the days when anthropology was still bound by the Bible), from Heb. Shem. Semitic (1813 of languages, 1826 of persons) is probably from Ger. semitisch (first used by Ger. historian August Schlözer, 1781), denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc. In recent use often with the specific sense "Jewish," but not historically so limited

                            Here we have the evolution of both meaings of the words - semite (to refer to jews) and semitic (to refer to a larger group of middle-eastern people.

                            One was obviously featured in a more public venue - Antisemite.

                            While one was more limited to the linguistic profession - semitisch - where the word semitic originated from. All words evolve and all words have a historical development.

                            Words change over time and are contested by various group refitting them to their own liking. Each side of this argument exhibits the signs of a various communities using it for their own purposes.

                            [Does someone have a subscription to the OED so they can post their etymology?]

                            Antisemite was created in one and only one language, for a meaning that through time amplified itself to such an extend that it ended up causing the extermination of millions of people

                            Entirely a political statement. I don't disagree with it but is a rendering but still an attempt for one group to monopolize the word.

                            At this time there is little cultural relevancy of the redefinition of "antisemite" but that may change and will change if we see a wider application. Maybe it will have its day at  a later time in history.

                            As for this new meanings usefulness to the general person, it seems that middle easterners is better word because it will not be confused with only referencing the Jewish people.

                            You Suck at Photoshop.

                            by thethinveil on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:27:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  You repeat the ignorance to justify it. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dcoronata, notquitedelilah

        The MISUSE of the term anti-Semitism is attributed to ignorant bigots in Germany in the 1900's.

        You then repeat their ignorance to justify it.

    •  This shit again? (19+ / 0-)

      Can we put to rest this absurd and sophomoric exercise that someone trots out in almost all of these diaries? Look up the definition of anti-Semitism. Merriam-Webster, for example, is quite straightforward: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."

      Semitic peoples includes Arabs. So too would American peoples be inclusive of Guatemalans. But the term anti-Semitic is defined as being bigoted toward Jews, just as being anti-American really only refers to residents of the United States, not the remainder of North America or South America.

    •  Within a few seconds of my posting a reply (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, blueness, zemblan

      to another incorrect application of the phrase, this pops up!

    •  Pedantry is not needed. (0+ / 0-)

      We all get the distinction.

      2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

      by shpilk on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:22:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

      Although there is some factual basis to what you say, the truth is it is deeper than religion. Sometimes those who are most closely related fight over whatever differences they can find. Serbs and Croats are for all intents and purposes identical...except for the churches they go to (yes...religion) and the alphabet they write. But their conflict is framed in ethnic terms and thousands of people have been brutalized and killed over differences that seem trivial to you or me.

      Tutsis and Hutus are even closer. From what I have read (though there is some controversy) these terms were never considered hard and fast until the colonial (French I think) government forced it on the people. The distinction between Tutsi and Hutu was based on how many cows they owned, so was, nominally, an economic difference. Yet now people brutalize and kill eachother over the difference they see as ethnic but really seems trivial to the rest of us.

      Israelis and Palestinians try to deny  eachother's ethnic validity in the fight over I/P.Israelis are accused of not really being descended from natives (even though Jews have lived there continually for millenia and even though genetic evidence shows they are descended from natives) and Palestinians are accused of "just" being Arabs under a different name. To me this is dumb. Both groups have been given a nation and those nations are valid entities. Furthermore, Jews and Palestinians are closely related to eachother genetically. To me that means their ethnic identities and national identities are related. But they try to deny the other validity based on ethnic terms more than religious terms.

      •  Not entirely true (0+ / 0-)

        Palestinians are accused of "just" being Arabs under a different name. To me this is dumb. Both groups have been given a nation and those nations are valid entities.

        Hamas doesn't really accept the concept of nation states. The concept really didn't exist in the Muslim world until the 20th century.

        Jews and Palestinians are closely related to each other genetically.

        Not really. Jews come in all races.

        •  Nation states (0+ / 0-)

          Well, there certainly has been nationalism among Muslims as well. Just ask those Chechens and Kurds. But you are right that it wasn't as strong.

          As to genetics, yes, they really are closely related. It is true that Jews have mixed with other groups, but there is a clear Near Eastern (and specifically Palestinian) connection that can be seen with genetic markers. This applies to most Jewish groups around the world, at least to some degree. ALmost all Jewish groups are closely related compared with other populations and are next closely related to Palestinians. Even about a third of the lemba tribe (a black South African tribe claiming Jewish descent) shows the same Near Eastern connection (the other 2/3 being Bantu related).

          One interesting exception are the Ashkinazi Levites. The rest of the Ashkinazim fit the same genetic clustering as other groups. But the Ashkinazi Levites are not closely related to other Jews, being more related to a small Germanic population near where the Yiddish language seems to have evolved.

    •  ugh (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BFSkinner, Lolo08, charliehall

      Jews are not just a religion, they are a people.  Hence Jewish athiests got Hitler's gas chambers just as much as religious ones did.

      Ergo, there exists prejudice against Jewish people independent from their religion.  And there is a universally accepted term for that prejudice and hate, and the term is "anti-semitic"  Get with the fucking program.

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:42:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  nope (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, Lolo08

      each of the religions denigrates the other in order to gain paying customers

      Judaism does not actively solicit converts, and does not have major objections to Islam since it is a monotheistic religion.

  •  Question: (10+ / 0-)

    .
    Very good diary.  Bang on and worth doing, certainly.

    Rhetorical question, though:  is it o.k. to disagree sharply and vehemently with the Israeli bombings of Gaza and killing of all the innocent people who live(d) there?  Just as much as one despises the suicide bombings of innocent Israelis?

    bg
    __________________________________________

    "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

    by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:57:17 AM PST

    •  Yes n/t (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, arielle, blueness, thebluecrayon

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

      by dhonig on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:12:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course it is. (3+ / 0-)

      These horrible actions and wrong decisions of the Israeli government were made a group of individuals at the top of that government.

      Just like the US makes it's horrible decisions and commits it's crimes against humanity.

      Period.

      2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

      by shpilk on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:30:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  IDF bombing of Gaza: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi

        Understandable retaliation for Hamas missile attacks, but not rational and effective retaliation. It is unlikely to eradicate Hamas and will probably strengthen Hamas' resolve and prestige, much as Olmert's invasion of Lebanon strengthened Hezbollah.

        The I/P Crisis cannot be resolved by military power because it involves asymmetric warfare, neither mode of which can prevail over the other.
        The I/P Crisis cannot yet be resolved by diplomacy because there are still too many Palestinians and Israelis unwilling to abide by a peace agreement.

         

    •  Of course you will get a bunch of "Yes" answers (4+ / 0-)

      But go to the next step - how do you actually influence Israeli policy - and you run into trouble.

      Since (I assume) you are not an Israeli but a U.S. citizen, the next step, after making your opinion known, is to pressure your elected representatives.

      To do what? Cut military aid to Israel? Create trade sanctions against Israel? Express mild disapproval? Doubt Israeli policy in the slightest?

      Obviously none of these things are remotely possible for any U.S. politician.

      Why?

      You see, by asking that, I  must have blown some kind of whistle.

      •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, charliehall

        Because, as poll after poll demonstrates, the American people have consistently sided with Israel in the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

        Simple question, simple answer.

        harps and angels! harps and angels!

        by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:23:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, not quite. (3+ / 0-)

          I understand your basic point, but read Glenn Greenwald more.

          A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.

          Polls taken in the U.S. during the 2006 Israeli incursion into Lebanon bolster the above point regarding American public opinion.  A USA Today/Gallup poll (.pdf) asked:  "In the current conflict, do you think the United States should take Israel's side, take the side of Hezbollah, or not take either side?"  A large majority (65%) answered "neither," while only 31% wanted to take Israel's side.

          A Washington Post poll actually found that a plurality of Americans (46%) blamed "both sides equally" (Israel and Hezbollah) for the war and believed (48%) that Israel's claimed "bombing [of] rocket launchers and other Hezbollah targets located in civilian areas" was "not justified."  The lockstep, uncritical support for everything Israel does in the political class is completely unrepresentative of American public opinion.

          Perhaps Glenn is just whistling?

          http://www.salon.com/...

      •  Very well put. - nt - (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HeavyJ

        "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

        by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:29:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  why yes you did blow a whistle (0+ / 0-)

        because you are implying that Jews and nefarious "Jewish interests" are "in charge" of the United States government, and nobody can run counter to them.

        The real answer to your question, by the way, is that a majority of the American public, or at least the voting public, or at least the vocal voting public, believes that our Israel policy is not radically wrong.  Now there is a legitimate argument that they are wrong and that their opinions should be changed.  But guess what, you aren't going to change many opinions by flinging borderline conspiracy theories.

        All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

        by fizziks on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:50:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "flinging borderline conspiracy theories" (0+ / 0-)

          You illustrate my point perfectly by responding to an imaginary whistle. Thanks.

          Also, this is a very weak argument:

          a majority of the American public, or at least the voting public, or at least the vocal voting public, believes that our Israel policy is not radically wrong.

          This simply does not justify current lockstep U.S./Israeli policy. Obviously.

  •  Straw Dog whistles (15+ / 0-)

    I fully agree that the conspiricist "Jews control xxxx (Media, Finance, Government, Major League Soccer, etc)" is danger close to to the kind of anti-semitism that has resulted in anti-Jewish atrocities in the past.  Especially when employed to scapegoat the Jews for causing xxxx  (Plagues, economic depression, really bad Musical Theater).    I also note that some folks are insensitive and un aware of the resonances of some of these statements amongst Jews and other victims of bigotry.  Thanks for the reminder.  

    It becomes a straw dog whistle when someone says " AIPAC is a very influential Lobby, and their efforts in support of House Bill xxx helped its its passage.    "  or "JINSA's role in National Security Policy is too close to the republican  party's military-industrial policy".

    Then, an accusation of bigotry and evocation of the accusation of anti-semitism really rings hollow, and distracts form the discussion of the topic at hand.  Which, I fear is the goal of some who are a bit too quick to make the accusation.

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:59:29 AM PST

  •  here's the probelm with dog whistles (9+ / 0-)

    sometimes a spade is just a spade.

    I have no doubt that sometimes specific lanuage is used to reach a target audience and even used to disguise intent to all but a select group.

    That said, there comes a point when accusing someone of a dog whistle reaches or surpasses the point of paranora.

    I'm not sure which incidents here at DK you're referencing and frankly not going to get drawn into a long discussion on this. But I do want to point out that one should always be careful of going to 'well it's dog whistle politics'.

    As for your diary, it's nicely put together but  the overall point seems weak. You've put together ~4 strong anaylsises (the last 2 kinda of fall a little flat as there's some truth in each of them; which is probably why they make such great lies) but you're overall point about dog whistle politics just doesn't seem to be there.

    •  if you accidentally blow the dog whistle (8+ / 0-)

      wouldn't you want to be educated to not use that language/thinking anymore?  Although it is my responsibility to educate myself about racism/sexism/anti-semitism/anti-gay cultural threads around me and inside me, I always appreciate it when I am educated by others if I repeat something without understanding the underlying symbol language. We can all educate each other.

      In the heat of argument it is not always easy to communicate the underlying root. Thanks for this diary taking some time to remind us.

      •  here's my probelm with that (0+ / 0-)

        I say what I mean to say and generally go out of my way to make my intent clear.

        I don't care for dog whistles nor even really subtly most of the time. Why? Because subtly is lost on many people and what seems clear to me, might not be clear to you.

        Further there's a huge point here where some people especially on DK not being able to disagree without being disagreeable accuse those they disagree with of all sorts of things and 'dog whistling' is perhaps the most insidious.

        There does come a time when you're massively overinterprating someone and unless you've got a small mountain of suspicious activity or direct evidence to back up any accusation of dog whistling.

        I'm sorry but this diary doesn't remind me of anything other then we need to be careful what we accuse others of, especially when we do so without proof.

    •  I would not demand (5+ / 0-)

      that, for the sake of peace on earth or whatever, blacks or gays should ignore dog-whistles directed against them. Similarly, I will not allow myself to be expected to ignore dog-whistles directed against me.

      harps and angels! harps and angels!

      by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:25:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too broad (8+ / 0-)

    You rightly characterize the classic allegations of disloyalty as anti-Semitism as these were based on the religion of those accused been seen as "other" to the country they were citizens of. Just the same as questioning the loyalty of Muslim Americans because they are Muslim.

    However the position has changed since 1948. Since then there has been a separate nation state called Israel and the position is by no means as clear cut. There are well known cases of spying on behalf of Israel. Do these people not have divided loyalty or is it purely anti-Semitism to suggest so as this commentator seems to think.

    The Franklin/AIPAC Case and its high profile exposure in the media is a consequence of the failure of Israel and Jewish leaders to defend Israel and the Jewish community against attacks by US officials directed against them in the media via the mistreatment of Jonathan Pollard and the grossly exaggerated sentence he received. Jewish leaders' attempts to shift the blame for anti-Semitic attacks to Pollard, instead of dealing with the US officials who perpetrate them has led to a spate of other cases impugning Israel and the Jews, including the Mega Spy Scandal, the Defense Memo Affair, the Ciralsky and Tanenbaum cases, and now the Franklin/AIPAC Case.

    That would seem to come very close to arguing it's anti-Semitic to prosecute anybody spying for Israel. Such arguments make it very easy for anti-semitic charges of divided loyalty to be applied to all Jews.

    Rosa sat so Martin could walk, Martin walked so Barack could run, Barack ran so our children could soar

    by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:11:07 AM PST

    •  Nope n/t (4+ / 0-)

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

      by dhonig on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:13:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Explain (3+ / 0-)

        That is not a constructive response. If you wish to explain why somebody does not have divided or at least shared loyalties if they hold joint citizenship of two countries, please do so. Again, it is Israel's citizenship policies which complicates matters.

        It would be anti-Semetic to suggest that ALL Jewish Americans have such divided or shared loyalty. Discovering that somebody has acted against the interests of the USA, has passed classified information to Israel or its agents and then prosecuting them for doing so is not anti-Semitic.

        Rosa sat so Martin could walk, Martin walked so Barack could run, Barack ran so our children could soar

        by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:35:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Divided loyalty" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, blueness, charliehall

      Keep in mind that until recently Catholics were also assumed to have divided loyalty. Bismarck found this meme so powerful he exploited it in his Kulturkampf.

      If someone commits treason against his country he can be prosecuted for it. If someone is suspected of inclination to treason because he belongs to a "cosmopolitan" cultural category, that's injustice. And we should be very uncomfortable when we see efforts to "explain" someone's treason in terms of their cultural identity.

      •  injustice? (0+ / 0-)

        If someone is suspected of inclination to treason because he belongs to a "cosmopolitan" cultural category, that's injustice

        Anyone, who belongs to a "cosmopolitan cultural category" and wants to join the US military (I am thinking of non-white non-citizens of the US or what others call "greencard" soldiers) is suspected of inclination to treason and has to earn his "security clearance" (the trust of 100 percent loyalty toward the US governments policies) by offering to die for this country in war time. That should be injustice than as well, or not?

        •   Yes, it does-- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lolo08

          at least in my eyes. It holds such people to a double standard, presuming their guilt because they are not "organically" (racially and culturally) already part of the nation. The doctrine of organic nationalism is evil and destructive.

          But I had in mind the example of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two. These were people who had given loyalty oaths as citizens, paid taxes, obeyed US laws-- as individuals they had already "proved" their loyalty as much as their Anglo neighbors had. But they were condemned as a group-- as a cultural category, regardless of their ties and actions as individuals.

          Once we start presuming that our neighbors have suspect "divided" loyalties because they belong to certain cultural categories we start moving down a very dangerous road. Not only does it lead to the persecution of innocent people, but it encourages the state to expect the total, undivided loyalty of its citizens-- which it has no right claiming.

        •  Yes this is injustice (0+ / 0-)

          I agree.

          And it is stupid. After 9/11 the government realized it needed Arabic translators. Hundreds of Syrian Jews in NYC, with native Arabic fluency, applied and were turned down because they had been born in Syria, an enemy country.

          OUR STUPID GOVERNMENT DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THE REASON THEY WERE HERE WAS BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN KICKED OUT OF SYRIA!

          Hooray for the Bush administration.

  •  So (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raboof, Eiron, Neglected Duty

    So, what, do we also need a helpful primer on anti-Arab propaganda, apparently considering discussions here and elsewhere? Maybe dhonig could take that up in his next diary, so as to not implicate anyone indirectly. Love to see that.

    •  Probably not, because (5+ / 0-)

      the anti-Arab propaganda is far more blatant and easily identified.  The problem with the anti-Semitic dog whistles is that they are so deeply dug into our psyche.  When a neighbor and friend uses the phrase "Jewed them down" to me, knowing I'm Jewish, it is not an indication of hate, but of deeply ingrained ignorance.  Ditto beliefs about "Jewish bankers" and "the Jewish media."  We don't have those sorts of problem with Arabs, because the hatred is so new, hence less of a need to explain to people things they might think "normal" are, in fact, hurtful.

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

      by dhonig on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:16:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  help me out (0+ / 0-)

        Please identify them for me, with regard to arguments made about I/P.

      •  I'm not sure the hatred IS so new (4+ / 0-)

        though of course it is undergoing a remarkable resurgence and expansions.

        I was reading an entertaining fiction about a rich college boy in Ireland, written in 1969, and a suburban matron who is alarmed by finding him drunk in her garden late at night, starts screeching about incursions by the Moslem hordes.  It's broadly drawn, but was clearly riffing on some news reports of the day.

        Then, going further back, I find that Mark Twain's travel writing alludes frequently to the attitudes of English-speaking travellers towards the filthy Moslems.

        In other words, this "class of civilizations" that Bush has so disastrously re-animated, has long antecedents.

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:24:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, much newer, but I can find literary example (9+ / 0-)

        going back throughout English literature. A more recent one is the 1950's Narnia books - the god "Tash" and the various references to the evil Telmarines are rather obvious references to Islam, in particular.  The British term "swarthy" was applied often to evil characters, and could mean either Jew or Arab, depending on the context.

        But it is more easily seen today than some forms of antisemitism, that's for sure. In my view, the diarist Kieth Moon is deeply arabophobic. He uses the common practice of finding all of the worst elements of an arab society and packaging them together as representative of the entire society, with an strongly eliminationist tone. His diaries are obsessive and paranoid. Why he has not been banned is beyond me.

        And I would point out that constant references to Palestinians not having legitimate claim to the land, and the various permutations of that, are well understood in some circles as dog whistles to the anti-Palestinian movements. The famous quote "there is no such thing as palestinians" generated many years of people claiming that Palestinians are "fake" people with no real rights. That is sometimes used subtly enough that it isn't obvious to the uninitiated.  Sadly, I've even seen some folk here at dkos buy into it - elminationism is reprehensible, no matter who the target.  

    •  Anti-Paelstinian dog whistles (5+ / 0-)

      There are anti-Palestinian dog whistles used by those who do not wish to see a Palestinian state which include:

      "Israel has the right to protect itself" by which they mean the Israeli government can do anything contrary to International Law or basic humanity.

      "They only have themselves to blame for electing Hamas"

      More subtly there are disinformation tactics that for example conflate the social, religious, political and militant sides of Hamas. This enables schools, food distribution centers, ministries, mosques and police stations to be bombed on the grounds they are "Hamas controlled".

      Rosa sat so Martin could walk, Martin walked so Barack could run, Barack ran so our children could soar

      by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:05:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Israel has the right to protect itself" (7+ / 0-)

        is a dog whistle?

        Srsly?

        The second example I agree is specious on its face.  That's like blaming all Americans for Bush and ignoring the fact that Fatah, at the time, was horribly corrupt and ineffective at governing.

        Party like it's 1929!

        by arielle on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:21:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  message from the Twilight Zone. (8+ / 0-)

        "Israel has the right to protect itself" by which they mean the Israeli government can do anything contrary to International Law or basic humanity

        Welcome, Rod Serling.

        A few years ago I watched my son play a video game -- don't remember which one -- in which there were some serious anti-Islamic undertones projected on some space creatures (I think they might have been called "the cult") that "had no respect for life," committed suicide bombings, hated our freedoms, etc. So, yes, there are anti-Islamic dog-whistles, and I've heard them.

        harps and angels! harps and angels!

        by zemblan on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:30:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  here you go (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thethinveil

      anti arab propaghanda talking points.  Easy to spot in the million troll comments in all of the I/P diaries.

      http://docstalk.blogspot.com/...

      Metal Gear?!? "It's our daunted restraint that keeps us silent in shame"

      by deadatom on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:20:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, glad to say I seem to clock out clean (5+ / 0-)

    on all of the dogwhistles and libels carefully laid out here.  So I give myself a pass on any overt anti-semitism (though I suppose we all take in subtle negative messages against this and many other groups from the wider culture).

    Yet I STILL have persistent negative feelings towards the overall behavior of the nation of Israel. So maybe what I have is a plain old political opinion, as opposed to an "ism".

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:15:05 AM PST

  •  You have "no opinion" on what's happening in Gaza (8+ / 0-)

    Please take some time to think about the situation there, then.  Because Israel's actions are not only futile and counter-productive, they are greatly benefiting anti-semites everywhere who think that Israeli's are blinded by their feelings of Jewish exceptionalism.  (Please see the diary below on American exceptionalism for reference.)
    Every criticism of the actions of the government of Israel does not arise from anti-semitism.  I am a gentile who is very grateful for all the many contributions that Jews everywhere have made to humankind.  I want Israel to survive and prosper.  The actions of the current government are making that possibility smaller, not greater, I fear.  They only contribute to the cycle of violence, and an ever deepening hatred between two peoples who can both lay claim to one plot of land.  That these peoples are unable to lay aside their hatred and embrace a two-state solution is very, very sad.

    One cannot deny the humanity of another without diminishing one's own. James Baldwin

    by CarolynC967 on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:19:19 AM PST

  •  Timely indeed. (8+ / 0-)

    Dog whistle, indeed.

    Yesterday, there was a top rated diary which went to great lengths implying that [paraphrasing] "if only the Jews would change the way they think about the Holocaust, everything would be magically better".

    Why just Jews?

    Since all Jews are apparently are so weak and craven to the recollection of the Shoah that they all act like Pavlov's dogs in response to, well .. any threat [if one is to believe the author of the article quoted in that diary, and the diarist], it's the Jews who must do the changing.  

    It's funny.

    If someone posted a diary saying that all Muslims must change, [or all blacks or Hispanics or American Indians] because they all were monolithic in their response [and by implication dangerous] as a result of their past history of being oppressed, they'd be run out of here on a rail.

    Nope, not here at the New Left Frontier. Only the Jews rate such special attention, and be extension what is inside my head needs to be changed, because as a Jew, there is something wrong with the way I think.

    As fast as you could say Boston Creme or Raspberry filled, the troll ratings would pile up if one were to attack a specific ethnic group, religion or race like that diary did, but if it's about Jews well, anything goes.

    It's those pesky Jews that must change, because of what Hitler did to them. Unlike any other people on the planet, they have been conditioned to behave a certain way because of what they went through, and they must change because they are a threat to world peace otherwise.

    Nothing else will do.

    What a way to start the New Year.

    2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

    by shpilk on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:19:40 AM PST

    •  I actually enjoyed yesterday's diary... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zemblan, Lolo08

      but I struggled with one particular quote that was cited in the diary:

      "Two people emerged from Auschwitz," wrote Professor Yehuda Elkana, a wise man, a Shoah survivor, and an early mentor to me, "a minority that claims 'this will never happen again,' and a frightened majority that claims 'this will never happen to us again'"

      In fact, I had a pretty long talk about it last night with my husband.  On the one hand, I know the "correct" response, the humanitarian response, the response I have from a purely rational place.  

      I should be on the side of , "This will never happen again."

      But then I feel like I'm having an identity (politics) crisis.  I start thinking about how, throughout history, Jews have been so accommodating in their persecution, just trying to go along to get along.  They "converted" to save their lives.  They practiced their faith in secret so as not to draw attention to themselves.  They got on the trains because they didn't know they would be murdered.

      So then I start to feel like my bottom line is: I can't help you if I'm dead.  Which means, first and foremost, I defend myself, my family, my people.  Period.  

      And I don't admit to that emotional reaction easily.  It makes me feel dirty and wrong and very uncomfortable, even as I know it's just my emotions talking, and not my brain.  I feel like those emotions are in total conflict with my principles, with everything I believe about the concepts of humanity and justice for all.

      So I continue to struggle with what it means to be Jewish, and Jewish in America.  

      For all the flame wars and shouting and ugliness, I'm also grateful for the thoughtful diaries that raise important questions and help me to continue on this journey of understanding.

      Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. Now shut the fuck up and stay there. Also.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:13:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing wrong with continuing to struggle (0+ / 0-)

        with what it means, at all.

        I just get tired of others telling me what is inside my head, because I happen to be a member of a particular group, and reserve the right to defend not only myself, but every other person who would be painted with the brush of bigotry.

        I don't presume to get inside the heads of people who are Muslim, Catholic, Arabic, black, Hispanic, Irish, Norwegian or otherwise just because they belong to a certain group. I'll make an exception for members of Fred Phelp's church, and believers of other Xtian insanity, however.

        The other groups I do that with are Republicans, KluKlux Klanners, Stormfronters, Red Staters and denizens of The Magic Cheetoh-land and Doughy Pantload of Freeperville.

        2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

        by shpilk on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 04:09:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Totally different (5+ / 0-)

    Arabs and Moslems have no historical parallel to the individual and group atrocities visited upon the Jews, such as  in the Pogroms in Poland, or the displacements in medieval Western-Europe, or restricting their movements and forcing their habitation into squalid ghettos, much less the awful consequences of Nazi racial propaganda.

    Well, wait a minute, until recently, that is.  Never mind.

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 07:20:56 AM PST

  •  I'll bite (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deadatom, PeggyD

    What surprises me is people with a knowledge of language , who study the history of language use the term Anti-Semitic .
    Semitic is a regional people-like Palestinians , Afghans , Jordanians , Syrians , Israelites and so on.

    Semitic does not mean Jew, it refers to a regional people. I guess ,technically, when we bomb innocent people in Afghanistan so Chevron can continue to build their pipeline it is acceptable Anti-Semitism ?

    Language has changed since the Reagan years-like Corporatism and Fascism were once interchangeable , now both words are not used but widely practiced .

    Anyway , until the UN applies international law to all countries , like Myanmar , Israel or Palestine or even the US this debate is mute. Settlements are illegal and that is the root of the problem, and when one disenfranchises a majority of Semitic people by using ANTI, language will always lead to conflict.