Anthony Lawson on Gaza: Comments please

I just received the link to this piece from someone on my Class of ’71 Listserv. She presents herself to everyone as a lover of peace, but she apparently is drawn to some of the worst war-mongering propaganda around. I don’t have time to tackle this right now. I welcome your comments both on the film itself (and its two authors Joe Mowrey, scriptwriter, and Anthony Lawson), and the way in which such a piece of work can appeal to people who think they are in the peace camp.

506 Responses to Anthony Lawson on Gaza: Comments please

  1. Ben says:

    I wish you hadn’t posted this drek. Messrs. Mowery and Lawson have created a cynical paean to Palestinian suffering that is rife with subterfuge and devoid of humanity. They are voyeurs and sadists. They are black-hearted hucksters dealing in human flesh and misery. They hate Israel. They hate America. They hate Jews. They are Nazis.

  2. Richard L says:

    What’s your gripe Richard? It all sounds very true to me.
    Are you really trying to tell me those blackened infant bodies are a fake or that this is justified self defence? Answer me, are you?
    Are you still trying to pretend this is the work of the ‘most moral army in the world’?
    Face up to reality for once in your life, this has got war crimes and crimes against humanity written clearly and unequivocally all over it.

  3. john krivine says:

    Richard, the narrator’s delivery is exactly that of Pat Condell. Pat Condell should be notified. Condell is an acute observer of the Muslim world, he is neither a Jew nor a zionist but he might well have something useful to say about this film and what it tells us about its makers.

  4. Ray in Seattle says:

    The film is a blatant recitation of the beliefs of the authors and sponsors. Their beliefs are under threat from reason and objectivity. Many normal people in the West have to wonder if the Palestinians are suffering so much deprivation why do they shoot Qassams at Israeli civilians and force Israel to enter gaza with force to stop them? And so the authors feel a strong need to defend their incredible reality-defying beliefs with emotional visual media such as this that make no attempt at objectivity.

    Content-wise they only recited their beliefs over and over using horrible images unsubstantiated claims as punctuation. But, it will still be effective in radicalizing those whose beliefs already lean in that direction and perhaps some in the middle.

    But where are the pro-Israel films opposing this? Why doesn’t Israel realize that these emotional weapons are what is being used to destroy Israel by chipping away at Israel’s support in the West? It’s not the Qassams.

    Anticipating this form of emotional visual attack Israel should have had their own videographers embedded with some of their troops showing the command decisions as they were being made, showing the human fear of the troops under fire, showing the real care that was taken to protect civilian lives and how difficult the job was.

    They should have followed one or more units on film for the duration. The same for some air force squadrons showing target decisions being made. They would now have the footage to produce a film to convey the convincing truth of the matter. That Israel was defending the lives of its citizens as best it could and with great care for Palestinian civilians’ lives.

  5. Fat Man says:

    You don’t have to guess whose side they are on.

  6. Ray in Seattle says:

    For anyone who thinks like Richard L,

    Are you actually trying to say that armies involved in self-defense don’t create blackened infant bodies? That if they were actually defending themselves that somehow their bombs and bullets would never hit an innocent? Who’s theory of warfare is that?

    Defense is made necessary by violent aggression.

    Qassams fired into civilian populations = violent aggression deserving of violent defense.

    As most of the non-deluded world understands.

    Most sane people watching this film will say that if The Palestinians don’t want the Israelis coming in and wrecking their lives and land – then they should stop attacking Israelis. It’s really a pretty simple concept. Most children understand it – and adults who minds are not infected with indulgent fantasies about reality.

    • Crichton says:

      Ray in Seattle said that defence is made necessary by violent aggression. He also said “if The Palestinians don’t want the Israelis coming in and wrecking their lives and land – then they should stop attacking Israelis. It’s really a pretty simple concept.”

      What Ray fails to understand is that the violent aggressor is “israel”. The Palestinians didn’t want anyone coming in and wrecking their lives and land, but Lo! the “israelis” just showed up with their guns and bombs and terrorism.

      To be absolutely clear: Palestine didn’t invade “israel”; “israel” invaded Palestine.

  7. Richard Landes says:

    i think Ray has put it quite well. Richard L. what are you thinking? the blackened bodies need not be fake (although the statistics certainly can and are). but isn’t the issue not that they’re dead but why? and doesn’t the fact that hamas is a insanely fanatic organization dedicated to killing israeli babies even if that path leads via the death of their own babies have any relevance?

    did you look at the pictures of dead israeli civilians blown up by hamas suicide bombers and talk about war crimes? or is it only when israelis do it that it bothers you?

    and as long as we’re asking questions, tell me, does it bother you that you’re being used and duped by people who are proud of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that they’ve committed and want to commit?

  8. Stan says:

    On the one hand they call the people of Gaza 6 generations of refugees – on the other hand they have (had) power plants, schools, mosques, hospitals etc etc. The best part is “even the pro-Zionist Goldstone is prepared to admit that serious war-crimes were committed”.
    So lets forget the Pasach Seder and other massacres, the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza, the unabating relief-aid flowing into Gaza for generations, the secondary explosions in schools, mosques, zoos etc, the use of human shields to maximize civilian casualties, the arab-on-arab violence that is killing hundreds of thousands all over the middle-east, the love of rule-by-fear policies which is the hall-mark of all peaceful arab states, the choice of the people of Gaza to freely elect a terrorist organisation to represent them – for who’s policies they are now accountable – and say that the video is somewhat distorted.
    What I don’t understand is what the left believe will happen if Israel (G-d forbid) were to be dismantled or whatever they see as a solution. Does the left really believe that these people are champing-at-the-bit to become model citizens giving religious and democratic freedom to all?? Gaza is a test case to see how ready they are for real freedom – similar to the frredom of choice presented the people of Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam – the outcome:chaos, anarchy, mass-murder. Does anyone believe Jewish Nation should rely on the liberal left to save them if they were to sign-on to this ‘enlightened’ way of thinking (evidently there are a great number who do)? I am sure that the people of Aushwitchz would have been comforted to know that Code Pink had unfurled a banner on the Berkley Lawns to protest their death.
    The sad part is that there are people out there expending their time making videos of this calibre in the name of human rights when there really are innocent people out there dying that could use their plight being made relevant.

  9. W. W. Wygart says:

    Three thoughts.

    First: the completely one sided nature of the narrative was for me best exemplified by the fact that the fist mention of “Palestinian militants” was not until minute 6:44, which would allow for even the possibility that the IDF had a military objective to Cast Lead at all, much less a legitimate one.

    Second: Minute 6:55 “Any suggestion to the contrary must be sharply and immediately ridiculed as absurd.” The narrative cannot be questioned, close your ears to ANY attempt at contradiction or debate of the narrative.

    Third: Well… everything that has ever been said on this blog about the exaggeration or fabrication of statistics, events and the cynical complicity of Palestinian leadership in the suffering and death of their own people.

    It really makes me ill to think that [apparently] intelligent and well educated people from the west can be so completely committed to their own internal narrative that they create a piece of propaganda like this in the sure knowledge [sic] that they are advancing the cause of peace [through lies].

    May peace prevail.

  10. E.G. says:

    I don’t know who the producer, the film editor, or the script writer are.
    This is propaganda, and nothing else.

    The anti-american end gives a clue about the authors’ “ideological” positioning.

    Another clue is the explicit instruction on how to think and how to react.

    Only a totalitarian regime (e.g., Nazi, Soviet), or a movement aspiring to become one, can fabricate such a film. The technology is 21st century. The content – archaic.

  11. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Propaganda, 100% proof.

    But, rl, your question could have been shifted in time: why did rational nice people believe in soviet propaganda in the fifties? why did they join the peace movement, which was quite obviously the union of anti-americans in democratic countries with the soviet block? I am afraid that the communist propaganda in the fifties wasn’t in any measure smarter than this filmlet.

    There were communist-led demonstrations in 1952 in Paris against “Ridgway la peste” (Ridgway-plague), the US general Matthew Ridgway having been accused of using bacteriological weapons in Korea.

    The level of the filmlet is the same as Ridgway-la-peste, it is the same as KGB propaganda describing how the west was miserable with unemployment, and the glorious east was prosperous.

    Having begun to read newspapers with “L’Humanité”, the communist daily received at home, I certainly remember Ridgway-la-peste, as a leitmotiv in communist articles. It was old news (I read fluently in 56), but it was there.

    Trusting the filmlet as peaceful propaganda means having a model of the world, where the US and Israel are the villains and the poor and dominated of the world (probably including the Saud family and Col. Ghedafi) are the good guys. One must fight for good and against evil, mustn’t one?

  12. obsy says:

    Ray: Their beliefs are under threat from reason and objectivity.

    Richard Landes (to someone else): tell me, does it bother you that you’re being used and duped by people who are proud of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that they’ve committed and want to commit?

    I think it does.

    That whole video is about rationalizing the believes of peace activists and enforcing a strict line of thought.

    In a nutshell:
    If the public debate or the UN deviates just one inch, it must be the Zionist’s influence. If someone tells you a good reason, you tell him that there cannot be any good reason and mock him.
    High-tech military and “colonialism” always bad — brutal antique societies always good.
    No need for background information whatsoever.

    While any neutral human being probably will feel that the producers attempt to pressure him, peace activist might feel relieved and energized.

    This video does not present new information. It presents an aggressive interpretation.

  13. Daph says:

    How would this Anthony Lawson describe what the allies did in second world war ? He sure does not know what war is like, does not care if Israel is destroyed and would not correct the lies that he spreads because he knows it all. For those who care to read

    http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=3345&TTL=A_Moral_Evaluation_of_the_Gaza_War_–_Operation_Cast_Lead

  14. Margie says:

    Why did Israel pass the Gaza strip over to the rule of the Palestinians if they were engaged in what the film claims or intended savage and barbaric punishment of the Gazans?

    If half of the inhabitants of Gaza are under fifteen then random killing would have ensured that half of those killed would have been under fifteen. Why did this not happen? Did the Israelis do violence to the laws of chance as well as to Gaza?

  15. E.G. says:

    Margie,

    Those diabolic Juice Israelis are well known for their infernal inventions. No law is too much for them to break.
    :-(

  16. Matt says:

    Pure, unapologetic propaganda, right down to the “tips for confronting pro-Israel supporters” section.

    This video is a good example of having a worldview and creating facts to fit it.
    Gaza is a helpless civilian population, therefore there is no need to mention the eight years of rocket attacks that caused Cast Lead, nor is there a need to mention the smuggling tunnels carrying weapons or the undeniable presence of Hamas militants among the population. Likewise, there is no reason to mention the rocket attacks continuing to land in Israel during Cast Lead, a war crime.
    Israel is a bloodthirsty aggressor, so therefore Israel’s attempts to avoid civilian casualties such as dropping leaflets must be transparently debunked (I suppose it never occurred to the creators of this film that a house could store weapons, and the five minutes Israel gave the residents would not have been enough to move the weapons out, thus making targeting the house a legitimate military strategy). Likewise, the Palestinian strategy of storing weapons and soldiers in civilian structures must be forgotten in the rush to film the destroyed house after the fact, with all context removed.

    This film is 9 minutes of waving the bloody shirt. Nothing more.

  17. Ben says:

    Richard Landes has already responded to RichardL, but I think another response is also fair:

    Of course the blackened infant bodies are not the work of “the most moral army in the world.” Those infants are “martyrs for Palestine” (as Nasrallah put it after a Hezbollah rocket killed two Arab children in Nazareth in 2006) courtesy of Hamas, genocidal terrorists who have imposed their ideology of death on the rest of the world, including those babies and every other human being unfortunate enough to be anywhere near them. But, like the Goldstone Report, this video says nothing of Hamas, of its oft-repeated goals and guiding principles, of its terrorism and aggression against Israel consistent with its goals and guiding principles, or of its activities during Cast Lead. Does it really “sound very true” to you, RichardL, that the Goldstone Report is “a document with severe pro-Zionist overtones issued by a declared Zionist and a supporter of Israel”? And does it really “sound very true” to you that “one of the most powerful military machines in the world” “bombed, bulldozed and terrorized” the “oppressed and brutalized” “captive and defenseless” population of Gaza “mercilessly” for 23 straight days, with more than “1,000 tons of bombs” in “savage and barbaric collective punishment” of civilians “held captive within a fenced enclosure and not allowed to escape the assault” in “monstrous disregard for the basic tenets of human decency” killing just 1,400 Palestinians out of 1.5 million? Really? Is that what you believe? Have you accepted Mowery’s invitation in the video to “verify” these “facts” on Google? And if you did, did you happen to notice the fate of the Palestinian people “disappearing down Google’s memory hole”? Maybe you should look more closely. Closer…. Closer….

  18. sshender says:

    If I didn’t know better I’d swear this was written by Chomsky. The rhetoric is only slightly more inflamatory than his usual ramblings. Especially revealing is the Goldstone part, where that typical “Even the Jews admit” tactic is employed to its fullest.

    What is unfortunate, is that there is hardly any pro-Israel material out there that can compete with the editing and the rhetorical impact of this video. I’d love to see a refutation video made, of the kind Richard has on the Second Draft. But then again, the issue is so complex that no video, however well done, can account for everything and refute every false accusations, many of them getting to the core of the conflict and highly disputed. It is far easier to make these videos with pseudo-empirical claims backed by highly emotional footage lacking in any nuance, than to take a sober look at the situation.

    We have has many threads here discussing they nut and bolts of Anti-Zionist sentiment, with many people proposing all kinds of explanations, including classical Christian antisemitism, post-colonial sentiments and many more. I think that for most uninformed and uninvolved people it is propaganda like that (which differ from the typical News bulletains only in its rhetoric) which accounts for many otherwise rational people siding with the homicidal maniacs of Hamas or the Iraqi insurgency.

  19. obsy says:

    Joe Mowrey:
    If it arouses your anger and compassion, please share it with as many people as possible.
    As people of conscience, we are obligated to express the truth in order to achieve justice.

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/gaza-in-plain-language/

    The commentators don’t look like ordinary peace activists to me. Much too conspiracy-loving and Hamas-friendly:
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/video-gaza-in-plain-language/

    In my opinion Mowrey and Lawson seem to be radical Jerks who believe in their cause but not in their own words. Unsuccessful wannabe-Michael-Moores with a Gaza-fetish. (20 Comments in total for their master pieces.)

  20. sshender says:

    Guys, any comments on the recent shouting down of Michael Oren and Ayalon? I think it deserves a post.

  21. obsy says:

    sshender: “What is unfortunate, is that there is hardly any pro-Israel material out there that can compete with the editing and the rhetorical impact of this video.”

    I don’t think this video is liked enough to have an impact:
    http://www.youtube.com/alawson911?gl=CA&hl=en

    Regarding the editing skills:
    Anthony Lawson seems to be a retired PR guy.
    “Anthony Lawson (known professionally as Tony Lawson) is a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad agency creative director and voice over. He used to be known for shooting humorous commercials”
    http://networkedblogs.com/p27144708

  22. Diane says:

    I couldn’t finish watching the whole film. I had to bail around half-time. There is a point beyond which I cannot bring myself to listen anymore. It is a hall of mirrors, disorienting and totally pointless. Why even try?

    I want to raise another film, however, that is being described in some quarters as pro-Palestinian: Avatar.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/01/israel-avatar-and-the-palestinian-blues.html
    I did sit through that, and the politics of it struck me as “Pocahantas in outer space.” The blue Na’vi reminded me — as director Cameron wanted them to — of Native Americans. How can this Spartan, deeply spiritual and stubbornly self-sufficient people be compared with the UNWRA-dependent Palestinians? And how can the greedy mining company mercenaries from Earth be compared with Israel? The only natural resource to be had in the Palestinian territories is an overabundance of death-seeking zealots. Gaza is the hell they created for themselves.

  23. JD says:

    “Especially revealing is the Goldstone part, where that typical “Even the Jews admit” tactic is employed to its fullest.”

    It’s a corollary to collective guilt. Chomsky is the recent master of this old anti-semitic rhetoric. Goldstone is the Good or Useful Jew that condemns them all. There is no need for context or explanation.

    The tone and the wording oozes English Leftist anti-semitic dreck. The “Zionists” word is not very shielded “Jews”.

    “Peace lovers” of her age are susceptible to such pseudo-intellectual things like “sociopathic Zionists” because it was part of the anti-Zionist discourse of her day. It was the stuff that was in fashion, and sounded “smart.”

    I did not watch the whole flick. I have no idea where those images are from, and the dead babies could have been from anywhere.

    Also, the “entire infrastructure” stuff is bizarre, the battles took place in a relatively small Hamas stronghold.

    There is nothing you can do for her. If she states she is a “peace lover” it is code for she is still mentally engaged in the Western Leftist obsession with Israel.

  24. E.G. says:

    Funny where some balance comes from:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8470100.stm

    As Albert put it, everything is relative…

  25. Diane says:

    Ray writes:

    Anticipating this form of emotional visual attack Israel should have had their own videographers embedded with some of their troops showing the command decisions as they were being made, showing the human fear of the troops under fire, showing the real care that was taken to protect civilian lives and how difficult the job was.

    They should have followed one or more units on film for the duration. The same for some air force squadrons showing target decisions being made. They would now have the footage to produce a film to convey the convincing truth of the matter.

    It’s tempting to contemplate this, until one realizes that the IDF already has a lot on its plate, and cameras in the war room (or embedded with the tank, helicopter or commando squad) is more than they can be expected to handle. If made, these self-defensive films, like the CIA interrogation films that were ordered destroyed, become a potential weapon in the hands of enemies, a blueprint for how the IDF works, and a weapon for post-hoc litigation. Israel should not have to hold itself up to a higher standard than every other army in the West by documenting its every move in the attempt to pre-empt possible attacks of human rights violations.

  26. JD says:

    Diane,

    The whole point of that is the LA Times’ desperation to find the “Good Israeli” who will confirm their limited worldview about Israel. There is one, a satirist, whose “satire” seems wholly devoid of consideration of what the opponent really thinks or does, a common characteristic of leftist world view arrogance. So he has been touted, and others.

    Actually, the satirist sounds like some Westerner/Haaretz type who though lives in Israel, sees his neighborhood through Western leftist eyes. As I have stated elsewhere I have conversed with these types, they think that everything that comes out of the West is good and smart and cannot sense anti-semitic contents having not lived in a culture where it exists–except where imported via leftist discourse.

    LA Times has had this crap forever.

  27. Diane says:

    Ray writes:

    Anticipating this form of emotional visual attack Israel should have had their own videographers embedded with some of their troops showing the command decisions as they were being made, showing the human fear of the troops under fire, showing the real care that was taken to protect civilian lives and how difficult the job was.

    They should have followed one or more units on film for the duration. The same for some air force squadrons showing target decisions being made. They would now have the footage to produce a film to convey the convincing truth of the matter.

    It’s tempting to contemplate this, until one realizes that the IDF already has a lot on its plate, and cameras in the war room (or embedded with the tank, helicopter or commando squad) is more than they can be expected to handle. If made, these self-defensive films, like the CIA interrogation films that were ordered destroyed, become a potential weapon in the hands of enemies, a blueprint for how the IDF works, and an invitation for post-hoc litigation. Israel should not have to hold itself up to a higher standard than every other army in the West by documenting its every move to pre-empt possible attacks of human rights violations.

    The burden is — and should be — on the victims to make their affirmative case of abuse, and not the army to make its negative case in every possible context.

  28. Diane says:

    Sorry for the double post.

  29. sshender says:

    I have no idea why John thinks that this monotonous and unconvincing narration has anything in common with Pat Condell’s brilliantly articulated and read “sermons” that I enjoy so much!

  30. L. King says:

    The final image is one of the children of Nizzar Rayan, Palestinian security chief. He’s the one who got a phone call from the IDF and kept his family from leaving. He invited his daughter in law to stay and become a martyr. She didn’t – that’s how we got the report from Maan news.

    This second part I’m not sure I’ve put together that well. I remember a video showing an extra large hole where a house had been. I got the impression it was the same house. A woman ex-army colonel was citing this as an example of Israeli overkill – the story reeked of a secondary explosion.

    To deconstruct the story start by identifying the images. The other deconstruction is the demolished or damaged refrain – obviously to emphasize the former but to enlarge it with the latter.

    The question is whether or not this particular video merely emblematic or is it singularly iconic, like the Al Dura video. I suspect the former for now.

  31. Richard L says:

    In response I want to comment about the introduction which I did not comment on in my earlier post, through haste. I shall then respond to posts 6 (Ray in Seattle), 7 (Richard Landes) and 15 (Ben). I shall not comment on any of the others.

    INTRODUCTION

    i) As I understand it the introduction describes the video as “some of the worst war-mongering propaganda around”. I haven’t got the inclination for an argument on the choice of the word “propaganda”, but “war-mongering” refers to somebody who is promoting war. These people may be promoting an argument but they are not promoting a war, either by Israel or Hamas. They are in fact condemning a war and your label in inaccurate.

    ii) I regard myself as being in the peace camp. (Anyone that disagrees please use reasoning rather than pure invective.) I wouldn’t say that the video “appeals” to me; rather that it reflects fairly accurately my condemnation of Israel’s aggression in Gaza. The fact that that the video does not deal with Hamas rocket attacks should not be construed that I approve of them. I will deal further with this in answer to post 7.

    POST 6 by Ray in Seattle

    i) The IDF was not “involved in self-defence” in Gaza. It was engaging in an undeclared offensive strike which had been comprehensively planned in advance. They did so with, amongst other weaponry, white phosphorus. This should never be used in densely populated areas and this is the most likely cause of the infants in question having been burnt to cinders.

    ii) Violent aggression does not excuse violent response (such as causing infants to be burnt to cinders, either by design or by neglect or recklessness). You may not like it but those are the rules of war. ANY such actions which contravene the rules of war should be condemned by anyone who believes in civilized behaviour and who is opposed to barbarism

    iii)”…if The Palestinians don’t want the Israelis coming in and wrecking their lives and land – then they should stop attacking Israelis.”
    On a point of fact this is through the looking glass.
    The correct assertion should be if Israelis don’t want their citizens attacked by rockets from Gaza they should stop attacking Gaza.
    To justify this I refer you to:
    http://www.mapc-web.de/archive/pal/GazaFa&RoDiagrams.html#diagr1
    These graphs clearly illustrate that during the period Dec 07 to Dec 08 Gazan rockets follow Israeli attacks and not the other way around. Also that Gazan rocket attacks were virtually non-existent through the truce of 2008 until Israel broke the truce on 4 November.

    POST 7 by Richard Landes

    i) Consequently I cannot agree with your opinion that “Ray has put it quite well”.

    ii) The issue is indeed that the bodies are dead. They are in fact infant bodies that have been charred to a cinder. The IDF (allegedly – and there are plenty of photographs to back this up) used white phosphorus in a way that is illegal and the IDF is (allegedly) responsible for this war crime. Even if (and I hope nobody misquotes me on this), even if Hamas had detonated a nuclear device in the centre of Tel Aviv, the rules of war still do not permit what has been perpetrated here. These child deaths are wrong, and I condemn it, without reservation.

    iii) But let me quickly add that I DO CONDEMN ATTACKS OF ANY SORT ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS. I think we should all acknowledge here that what is a civilian is sometimes difficult to define, and as an example I cite the dispute concerning the status on the Gazan police casualties. (However attacks on occupation military personnel and military personnel involved in aggression are generally legitimate. Such legitimate acts of resistance should not be referred to as “terrorism”)

    iv) “…does it bother you that you’re being used and duped by people who are proud of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that they’ve committed and want to commit?”

    No I’m not “bothered”. I am opposed to human rights abuse. How you choose to see that is beyond my control.

    v) So now that I have answered your questions will you now answer mine (which you have so far managed to avoid)?
    Do you think those blackened infant bodies are justified self defence?

    POST 15 by Ben

    i) I find it difficult to follow your reasoning but let us be clear about this. I have no reason not to believe that the infant deaths in question were the result of IDF actions since they have admitted using white phosphorus in Gaza. And on this particular point I am not interested in what Hamas or Hezbollah or the Lord’s Resistence Army were doing. The deaths appear to have been caused entirely by the IDF. This is one of the reasons why I support Goldstone in calling for a credible Israeli investigation, along with a credible Palestinian investigation, failing which I think the matter should be referred to the ICJ. I don’t think anybody on this planet should be denied the justice of seeing the perpetrators put on trial if they have witnessed this happening to their children.
    Do you agree with me or not? (No weasel words please.)

    ii) “…a document with severe pro-Zionist overtones issued by a declared Zionist and a supporter of Israel”?

    I will concede the section “a document with severe pro-Zionist overtones”. Thank you for putting me right. I presume you will accept the rest of this statement as a given.

    iii)”And does it really “sound very true” to you that “one of the most powerful military machines in the world” “bombed, bulldozed and terrorized” the “oppressed and brutalized” “captive and defenseless” population of Gaza “mercilessly” for 23 straight days, with more than “1,000 tons of bombs” in “savage and barbaric collective punishment” of civilians “held captive within a fenced enclosure and not allowed to escape the assault” in “monstrous disregard for the basic tenets of human decency” killing just 1,400 Palestinians out of 1.5 million?”

    Yes Ben, it does sound very true. What evidence can you provide to refute this? Because I have seen nothing in your post to refute any of it.

  32. sshender says:

    Richard L

    The IDF was not “involved in self-defence” in Gaza. It was engaging in an undeclared offensive strike which had been comprehensively planned in advance. They did so with, amongst other weaponry, white phosphorus. This should never be used in densely populated areas and this is the most likely cause of the infants in question having been burnt to cinders.

    1. Trying to stop the barrages of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians fits the defenition of self-defence.

    2. The strike was planned in as much as every military operation of such a scale is planned in advance.

    3. White phosphorus was not used as an anti-personell weapon in cast lead. It was used for smokescreens and proved to be highly efficient way to mask movement from the enemy, or to mask his fire. Its use as such is not in violation of the Geneva conventions. Indeed, it should not have been used in densely populated areas, but the blame for using it there lies squarely on the shoulders of Hamas who turned these areas into battlefields to begin with.

    For more read here:

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/01/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-white.html

    It is an unfortunate fact of war that civilians are going to get killed, including children. Words have not been spared outlining the dillema of protecting enemy civilians at the expense of the safety of your soldiers, but this of course requires nuance – something unheard of in your quarters.

    Violent aggression does not excuse violent response (such as causing infants to be burnt to cinders, either by design or by neglect or recklessness). You may not like it but those are the rules of war. ANY such actions which contravene the rules of war should be condemned by anyone who believes in civilized behaviour and who is opposed to barbarism

    Pacifist nonsense. Imagine someone assaulting you with a baby strapped to his bossom. After being stabbed multiple times you have no choice but to fire your gun at your assailant, injuring or killing the baby in the process. Now you tell me who is to blame for the baby’s harm.

    I suggest you acquaint yourself with Just War Theory before you rule what is permissable and what is not.

  33. Daniel Bielak says:

    Richard L,

    Jewish people are human beings.

    Jewish people are good people.

    Jewish Israelis are good people.

    Jewish Israeli people are under, and have been under, since several decades before 1948, a bigoted, intendedly genocidal, diplomatic, military, terroristic, and propagandic siege by many groups of people in the Middle-East and Western countries.

    Do you see Israel? That is how Jewish people look when they are being relentlessly intendedly genocidally attacked but when they are resisting having their society annihilated and when they are resisting being mass-murdered and when they have not emotionally, psychologically, and physically succumbed to the savage violent and non-violent attacks against themselves, and when they have not retaliated in kind to those savage attacks.

    Jewish Israeli people are not occupiers nor are they colonizers nor are they imperialists.

    You are unaware of many facts about the situation and you believe lies about the situation.

    However, I think that you are intelligent enough to be aware of some basic general facts about the situation that are facts that, if you believed that Jewish people (including Jewish Israeli people) were actual normal humans beings who are just like you, of if, even just, you you saw Jewish people as being just another group of people among all of the other groups of people that you see as being in the world, would be facts that your understanding of would be causing you to be holding views about the country of the Jewish people that would be much different than the views about the country of the Jewish people that you now express.

    The most minimal change would be your being as indifferent to the actions, both beneficial and harmful, of Jewish Israeli people as, I think that, you are to the actions, both beneficial and harmful, of almost all other groups of people in the world.

    “It’s easy to see the errors of others, but hard to see your own. You winnow like chaff the errors of others, but conceal your own — like a cheat, an unlucky throw. If you focus on the errors of others, constantly finding fault, your effluents flourish. You’re far from their ending.”
    -the Buddha (the Awakened One)

  34. sshender says:

    The correct assertion should be if Israelis don’t want their citizens attacked by rockets from Gaza they should stop attacking Gaza.

    Uhmmm… I guess that’s why Israel pulled out of Gaza in the first place; To make it a testing ground for its weaponry, right? Otherwise, following your logic of Palestinian innocence, nothing besides pure malice on Israel’s side can account for its attacks on Gaza, and it’s telling that you find a Western Liberal democracy malignant while you absolve a theocratic Islamist terror organization of any guilt. The truth is of course completely the contrary. Israel pulled out of Gaza with the naive hope that it would be left alone. Unsurprisingly, attacks from Gaza soon followed
    - both rockets, mortars and ground “operations” (one such operation resulted in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit). Hamas (and other groups) started this scuffle even before the pull out from Gaza was over and it is responsible for perpetuating it ever since. Any sane person should be able to understand that, and yet you can’t.

    These graphs clearly illustrate that during the period Dec 07 to Dec 08 Gazan rockets follow Israeli attacks and not the other way around. Also that Gazan rocket attacks were virtually non-existent through the truce of 2008 until Israel broke the truce on 4 November

    The truce went into effect on the 19th of June. Remember that any attack on during the ceasefire can be and in fact should be considered as breaking it.
    June 24 – 3 Qassams, 1 mortar. No Israeli strikes before. June 26th – 2Q. 27 and 28th – 2M each. And so on. In total, until November 4th 25 rockets and 15 mortars were launched into Israeli territory during the 4 and a half months of the “truce” with no Israeli provocation whatsoever.

    The so called breach of the truce by Israel was an Israeli operation to close a 250 meter cross-border abduction tunnel in Gaza. Would you suggest Israel did nothing and watch more soldiers being abducted from its territory? Of course not. Needless to mention that you blame the Israeli counter tunnel operation and not the 40 projectiles for breaking the ceasefire. As was apparent Hamas, who could no longer keep the lid on, used this as an excuse to end the “truce” and escalated its cross-border attacks.

  35. sshender says:

    I hope others, more articulate and knowledgable than me, will carry on refuting and putting in context all of your nonesense and appeals to emotions rather than logic.

  36. Ray in Seattle says:

    sshender, Thanks for your attempt. I read his comment and started to write a reply but then realized the obvious. His complete mind and identity are shaped around a very ugly set of beliefs that many on the left hold. It’s who he is. He divides the world into the “good people” that hate Israel and those who don’t hate Israel who he despises.

    At the very top of his belief pyramid sits his certain belief that Israel and Israelis are the consummate evil of humanity. Below that are all the necessary supporting corollaries; that Israel illegally sits on Arab land, that Arabs are rightfully defending their land when they “resist” by blowing up buses full of Jews in Haifa, that all the wars were started by Israel, that Israel enjoys humiliating and killing Palestinians, etc. I’ve had enough “conversations” with his kind that I know what’s in his mind better than he does.

    It makes no difference how obviously far from reality any of his beliefs are. There is absolutely nothing that anyone can say that would change his mind in the slightest. He didn’t come here to discuss these things anyway. He is only exercising his self-righteousness. It helps him maintain the fragile house of cards that fills his mind.

    I’d like to help you out but I just don’t have the stomach for another pretend logical discussion with a true-believer. Sometimes it can be interesting just to observe the bizarre disconnect from reality in real time – but in this case I find contact with such a viciously ideological mind depressing enough to let others deal with it if they think some good will come of it.

  37. Ray in Seattle says:

    BTW – I may abjure discussion with him but there is some educational value to his comments. It’s worth pointing out that a “belief” as I’m using it here (as I always use it) is the emotional valence that is associated with a situation and a behavior. So you can’t really use words to describe someone’s beliefs. The words I used in my last post to describe his beliefs are just proxies.

    And people’s words describing their own beliefs are not only non-informative, in a case of conflict they are likely to be deceptive as well. But in any case the emotions – which are the essential part of a belief – don’t translate so well to words. So really, you have to listen to what he says about other things and then from that you can deduce where his most potent emotional valences are found.

    For example, he shouts, “But let me quickly add that I DO CONDEMN ATTACKS OF ANY SORT ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS.”

    Ah yes, how many times have we heard such statements from these types. The fact that he shouts it is a dead giveaway. I am certain that if we could put him in an fMRI machine and ask a few questions we would find that his emotional response actually reveals a smug appreciation for attacks on Israeli civilians.

    How could he not when he talks about the bodies of burnt Palestinian infants and then says that Israel killed them on purpose and as the result of a carefully planned intention to do so. You can almost see the spittle on his keyboard.

    So it’s the emotional forces of beliefs that cause people to behave in certain ways and to adopt certain other beliefs that keep their dopamine flowing. For the same reason, what they publicly say to you about their beliefs is likely to be pure deception when they see you as an enemy in conflict.

    In some cases, where the ideology is particularly strong and they are heavily infected, such as this one, they even deceive themselves. I’ll bet he is momentarily confused by the pleasurable shot of dopamine his brain gets when he hears about a Palestinian killing a Jew.

  38. Margie says:

    The ancient Egyptians believed that the dead arrived in another world complete with that which had been buried with them. It is far less difficult to believe that Israel spent three weeks of intensive people-directed warfare while killing only 1,400 and that they managed to kill people in direction contradiction to their ratios in the population at that.

    It is also possible by this theory to both believe the IDF and to rely on its declaration, when it says it used white phosphorus and to disbelieve it when it was used only for legitimate purposes.

    RichardL is determined to believe what he wants to believe. He picks out those elements he chooses and disregards the rest as if they don’t exist. His argument shows the holes and falls pieces when held up to the light.

  39. obsy says:

    Richard L:
    “These graphs clearly illustrate that during the period Dec 07 to Dec 08 Gazan rockets follow Israeli attacks and not the other way around.”

    No, they do not!
    They show total numbers for given periods. In the first graph these totals are usually placed every 6 month. There is no information about which attack was motivated by which in this graph at all. Time steps of 6 month are completely useless for this. What you see is that somebody designed or saw a pattern that he wanted to use as argument. By the way: I don’t see anything clearly in this graph.

    The second graph looks better, but it describes a totally different situation. Nobody claims that during Cast Lead Israeli attacks were just immediate reactions to Hamas rockets. It was a long planned and enduring response to Hamas rockets.
    (By the way: I see only 9 attacks from the IDF in this graph. That does not correspond to the picture that the media delivered. Or do “peace lovers” tune their data how they want it when they feel like it?)

    But enough statistics, let’s have a look at reason:
    The IDF strikes back at some rocket attacks immediately for a reason. They don’t fire into Gaza just for revenge. They strike at the rocket launching areas, so that Hamas has to use small mobile rocket launching devices. Hamas can’t build up something more powerful or more unerring because it would risk to loose it in the IDF’s answer.

  40. obsy says:

    Richard L: “Also that Gazan rocket attacks were virtually non-existent through the truce of 2008 until Israel broke the truce on 4 November.”

    That is a weird expression for a “peace lover”.
    I hope that this “virtually non-existent” rockets will never be fired at your home!

    As sshender already mentioned: The truce was never respected by Hamas. Every single rocket from Hamas would have broken a truce — not the IDF!

    Also, it is obvious that you haven’t managed to speak just one bad word about Hamas even when the topic is addressed. All you managed to get out was something like: If somebody would do a bad thing, this would be bad. On the other hand, after people called Hamas terrorists, you came up with:

    “Such legitimate acts of resistance should not be referred to as “terrorism””

    Another weird thing to say for somebody who says he would be on the peace side. You haven’t addressed Hamas here specifically and you haven’t excused every deed of Hamas. Is it that you are willing to turn a blind eye on Hamas to beat the “greater devil” Israel?

  41. obsy says:

    Richard L: “Yes Ben, it does sound very true. What evidence can you provide to refute this? Because I have seen nothing in your post to refute any of it.”

    Richard, you haven’t seen any evidence to refute it, because you don’t want to see it. The argument that leaflets from the IDF that warn Palestinians are only a bad joke, because Gaza has a tight border so that the people of Gaza would have nowhere to flee to to avoid an attack is so stupid that I groaned when I heard it.
    1. Most of Gaza has not even seen one rocket during Cast Lead.
    2. Even if every inch of Gaza would have been attacked, it would not have been at the same time, so that even in that completely unrealistic scenario there would have been ample opportunity to avoid the temporary attacks.

    Tell me: If your home would be attacked, wouldn’t you prefer to be warned in advance?

    By the way: The guys that produced this propaganda video discredit the policy of warning people about attacks by calling it cynical and denying its reason.
    There is no way in which a real human rights activist could approve that. Those guys even put it against Israel by stating that it contradicts Israels statements, because it would not make sense to warn your enemies and allow them to flee.
    (Note that they even show a video clip of fleeing Gazans while they stated only seconds before that they could not flee from the attacks — you didn’t see that?)

    Let me put it in a way that even a “peace lover” must understand it:
    The attacks were carried out to destroy Terrorist infrastructure like weapon depositories.
    Israel does not want to kill Palestinians. That is only in your weird twisted minds. And therefor you try to assimilate “evidence” especially for this.
    Israel does not even want to kill people from Hamas (apart from a few exceptions in high command that are specifically targeted.)

    This fight that so often is called a genocide by morons all over the world is not even directed against people. Israel is trying very hard to limit victims. More than any acting army that I have heard of in all history. Thereby it would rightfully earn the title “most moral army”. Every real peace lover should admit this!

  42. obsy says:

    Oops, 1 month periods not 6.

  43. E.G. says:

    Richard L,

    Why do people in the Gaza strip, especially after Israel evacuated each and every inch of the strip, shoot rockets, mortars etc. into Israel?

  44. sshender says:

    E.G.

    They usually blame it on the “siege”, “open prison”, “concentration camp”, etc.

  45. E.G. says:

    I’m sure Richard L. can and will offer an original, in-depth analysis.

  46. E.G. says:

    סרגי

    תן לו להתאמץ לבד קודם. אח“כ נראה אותו מתמודד עם העובדות

  47. sshender says:

    The issue is indeed that the bodies are dead. They are in fact infant bodies that have been charred to a cinder. The IDF (allegedly – and there are plenty of photographs to back this up) used white phosphorus in a way that is illegal and the IDF is (allegedly) responsible for this war crime. Even if (and I hope nobody misquotes me on this), even if Hamas had detonated a nuclear device in the centre of Tel Aviv, the rules of war still do not permit what has been perpetrated here. These child deaths are wrong, and I condemn it, without reservation.

    I find your fetish for dead bodies disturbing, but that’s a distraction. You are not a military expert, and you have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF TELLING whether these burned bodies are the result of white phosphorous or ordinary muitions or fires cause by them. It is only illegal to use WP as an anti-personell weapon, and the IDF never used it as such, thus it is not responsible for war crimes, allegedly or otherwise. Your nuclear bomb scenario is so idiotic it does not even merit a response. But, alas, you leave me no choice. If Hamas detonated a nuclear device in Tel-Aviv, Israel has every moral right to go after the perpetrators, and if they in turn embedd themselves amidst civilians, any and all collateral damage as a result of the operation is the sole responsibility of Hamas. Otherwise, anyone can do whatever the want with impumity by hiding among civilians. I hope you can at least understand that.

  48. Ben says:

    OK, RichardL, I’ll engage you just a little further:

    1. Let’s be clear: the video isn’t so noble as to “condemn war.” It condemns Israel’s actions in the course of war without discussing the actions of Hamas and others which instigated those actions – as if Israel’s attack were completely unprovoked, as if there were no war. (Even the Goldstone Report gave some superficial treatment to the mortars and rockets fired at Israel by unnamed “armed groups”.) So the video really is “war-mongering”: its purpose in showing burnt and dismembered Palestinian children is to expose how evil Israel and her leaders are, to hold them up to the contempt and scorn and hatred of the world.
    2. I would be willing to accept as sincere your condemnation of attacks on Israeli civilians, but for your follow ups to that point. First, while it may indeed be difficult at times to define “civilian” for purposes of measuring civilian casualties during times of war against the standards of international law (or for broader purposes), the mortars and rockets fired into Southern Israel were intended to find their ways to the streets and homes and businesses of cities in Southern Israel and were bound to cause civilian deaths. I trust that you do not claim the rockets and mortars were aimed at non-civilian targets. Second, international law is violated when, as Hamas did during Cast Lead, combatants act in a way that prevents their enemies from distinguishing them from civilians. (These points are related to your view of the relevance of actions by Hamas and others before and during the IDF attack.)
    3. Your related point – that attacks on “occupation military personnel and military personnel involved in aggression” are legitimate “acts of resistance” and not “terrorism” – tracks closely with your observation that points made by Ray in Seattle about Hamas’ actions are “through the looking glass,” and with the “authority” you cite in support. This is the language, reasoning and argument of those who are unwilling to credit Hamas for any of the devastation.
    4. To your points directed at mine:
    A. I don’t think you find it difficult to follow my reasoning, RichardL, I think you find it impossible. I claim that Hamas bears full responsibility for the deaths of these children on account of its conduct before and during Cast Lead. If, as you insist, that conduct is irrelevant, who can blame you for being unable to follow my reasoning? (This presumes, by the way, that the infants were in fact killed by IDF bullets, bombs, explosives, white phosphorous, or other ordinance. What if the IDF had nothing to do with their deaths? I assume you will reject this out of hand, but if you read this blog, you must be aware that there is ample evidence of the defiling and desecration of dead Palestinian infants in Gaza for publicity purposes.)
    B. “I don’t think anybody on this planet should be denied the justice of seeing the perpetrators put on trial if they have witnessed this happening to their children. Do you agree with me or not? (No weasel words please.)”
    I can’t say I understand the question clearly enough to agree with you or not, with or without weasel words. (Alas, I speak English only and loaned my English/weasel dictionary to a friend who is on vacation somewhere with a new girlfriend.)
    But here are my comments:
    I agree that parents who witness the deaths of their children in war deserve justice. What that justice is, and who should mete it out, are questions without sufficient foundation in your comments. I am sure you would agree that justice is owed the parents in Sderot who watch their playing children perish in the explosion of a mortar launched from outside a schoolyard in Gaza. The brave lad that fired that mortar is surely someone’s son. If that lad’s proud mother and father watched their son shoot the mortar and then observed, to their horror, the spot where he was kneeling readying to fire another mortar blown up by a guided missile, they too would be entitled to some form of justice. Is there a difference in the “justice” owed the different sets of parents? What justice is owed to parents who encourage their children to don explosive vests to be detonated at border crossings, checkpoints, or other military locations? What about those parents who intend for their children to detonate in hotel lobbies, restaurants, markets, or bakeries, or on buses? What about those parents who intend for the children of other parents to blow themselves up? All deserve justice, don’t they? What about parents who fire mortars so ineptly made and aimed that they fly a few dozen feet and blow up on a playground where their own children are playing?
    By insisting that Hamas’ actions before and during Cast Lead are completely irrelevant to Israel’s actions which you condemn, you remove any concept of justice from the equation. Israel killed these children. Its reasons for taking actions which resulted in their deaths – the acts of Hamas – are irrelevant. Therefore, Israel had no excuse for killing these children. What monsters the Israelis are!
    C. Finally, I’m not sure what the final count was, so I am willing to accept that roughly 1,400 Palestinians died during Cast Lead. I accept none of the other statistics in the video as to how many were civilians, etc. But to your last point about mine it doesn’t matter. Let me re-phrase the point of my question:
    Israel is routinely accused of genocide against the Palestinians; of being a serial human rights violator; and of caring nothing for the people of Gaza except to the possible extent that some of them might have organs that might be useful or valuable. According to Goldstone, Cast Lead was a “rebuke” to the Palestinians for having the temerity to survive and for electing members of Hamas to a majority of seats in the PA. Israel has one of the most powerful militaries on Earth. It doesn’t hesitate to use illegal weapons. It makes no attempts to differentiate civilians from enemy combatants, unless, of course, it is to target civilians, which it does – with impunity. It doesn’t care what anyone else says or does. It dropped over 1,000 pounds of bombs on a densely-populated, fenced-in prison, where the captives had nowhere to run. And it killed just 1,400 Palestinians? If all of the “facts” recited above were indeed true, then why was anyone in Gaza left alive? How is it that less than one-tenth of 1% of Gazans (including non-civilians) were killed in Cast Lead amid all that devastation? Maybe the IDF is just incompetent?
    Or maybe, RichardL, relatively few Gazans died amid such devastation because the IDF isn’t incompetent. Maybe the IDF really didn’t target civilians. Maybe its efforts to avoid killing civilians as it destroyed Hamas’ ability to continue to fire mortars and rockets into Southern Israel from Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals, really were effective.
    If you want to talk about “justice,” you’ll have to establish a meaningful context for that discussion; otherwise, it will serve no purpose. The only purpose the video serves is to engender hatred against Israel. People who don’t care about what Israel was up against are the “convinced” for which the “proof” in this video abounds. For the rest of us, the video is an indefensible abomination.

  49. sshender says:

    Bravo Ben!

  50. Richard says:

    Beautifully put, Ben!

    Having argued with anti-Israel fanatics on different forums before, they are totally impervious to reason.

  51. Richard L says:

    My I seem to be hogging all the mail. Might have to be brief with the replies.

    Post 31 by sshender

    i) The main point here to me is the white phophorus. On this the Israeli military themselves state: “ …this protocol of the CCW [convention on conventional weapons] is meant to protect civilians and forbids making a population center a target for an incendiary weapon attack. Furthermore, it is forbidden to attack a military objective situated within a population center employing incendiary weapons.”

    Israel, Military Advocate General Headquarter, Laws of War in the Battlefield, 1998, p. 23.
    quoted in http://www.hrw.org/en/node/81726/section/7#_ftn100 (note [100])

    You point about Hamas may or may not count as mitigation, but the IDF alone was responsible for firing the white phosphorus into populated areas and therefore should be required to answer for these actions to an independent tribunal. Note that is does not even have to be a densely populated area.

    ii) “It is an unfortunate fact of war that civilians are going to get killed, including children.”

    Spare me your crocodile tears, I’m not interested.

    iii) On violent response:
    “…this hypothesis opens the way to utter lawlessness and to a degree of savagery beside which the horrors of earlier wars pale into insignificance. The consequence of an abdication of the rule of law…would produce absurd and monstrous results.” This is further explained in the document:

    François Bugnion, 2002; Just wars,wars of aggression and international humanitarian law, p10, From the International Review of the Red Cross.
    http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5FLCT4/$File/bugnion%20ang%20.pdf

    If you still think afterwards that it is pacifist nonsense you can take it up with M.Bugnion. I’m just telling you the best interpretation on the law that I can find.

    Post 32 by Daniel Bielak

    I’m not a Nazi Mr Bielak and I don’t hate Jews. I am complaining about apparent breaches of international law which I would like to see properly investigated.

    Post 33 by sshender

    “The truce went into effect on the 19th of June. Remember that any attack on during the ceasefire can be and in fact should be considered as breaking it.
    June 24 – 3 Qassams, 1 mortar. No Israeli strikes before. June 26th – 2Q. 27 and 28th – 2M each. And so on. In total, until November 4th 25 rockets and 15 mortars were launched into Israeli territory during the 4 and a half months of the “truce” with no Israeli provocation whatsoever.”

    Also I read today that there was one rocket fired the month before 4 November, on October 15. Might be right, might not, but I’m not disputing what you have written above, for the present at least.

    Bear with me please and take a step sideways here. The safest time slot for the people of Sderot and other victims of the Gazan rockets (Hamas or whoever) was during the ‘truce’. And it would appear that the truce was getting more successful until 4 November when it effectively ended. That suggests to me that peaceful resolution can be more effective than violent military action. As a means of securing the safety of people in southern Israel I suggest that Operation Cast Lead was a blunder. Much better for everybody concerned, including Israel with its current image problems, if both Israel and Hamas had undertaken peace negotiations to try to resolve this before the IDF went into Gaza.

    Where does that leave us now? I still think for the benefit of justice to the victims that legal proceedings need to undertaken against anyone suspected of criminality. But the talk at present of a new assault on Gaza and the prospect that such a military adventure should be authorized are, I think, criminally insane and should be strongly resisted. Not least for the benefit of the people of Sderot. I acknowledge there are rockets being fired at present, I am advocating urgent peace talks to try and negotiate an end to this menace. It has been done before so it is worth trying again.

    Posts 34/5/6/7

    No comment

    Posts 38 and 41 by obsy

    If you want me to comment on this perhaps you had better rephrase your comments in line with the error acknowledged in 41, and then we will both might know what you are saying. Regarding the reason I would refer you to my hypothesis set out in the two paragraphs above.

    Post 39 by obsy

    Perhaps I have not made myself clear here, so I will try again.

    Firing rockets indiscriminately into southern Israel is a terrorist activity which is in contravention of international law. As such I condemn it.

    Engaging in fighting against an occupying army is an act of resistance which per se is not an act of terrorism and under certain circumstances it is permissible under international law.

    Post 40 by obsy

    i) There remains nothing in Ben’s post to refute what he was complaining about, which is the point I made.

    ii) There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that at the very least Israeli forces were reckless in their behaviour, e.g.

    1. The double strike techniques where one strike is followed by another to the same site about four minutes later i.e. when rescuers might be expected to be there (pers. comm.. with Gaza medical volunteer Mar 2009),
    2. Eleven civilians killed and at least eight wounded after having been fired on while carrying white flags HRW 13 August 2009 Israel: Investigate ‘White Flag’ Shootings of Gaza Civilians
    3. Attacks on many medical facilities and in particular the white phosphorus attack on al-Quds hospital on 15 January 2009. e.g. http://www.helpdoctors.org/index.php/2009/01/15/261-breaking-news-hopital-al-quds-totalement-detruit

    Post 42/3/4/5

    I’m not going to reply to this.

  52. E.G. says:

    I’m certainly not going to thank Richard L. for not replying to my question, and since he doesn’t even bother to provide a reason for his refusal, I conclude he either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care about Gaza strip criminals deliberately targeting Israeli civilians.

    That’s clearly a distorted notion of the meaning of justice.

    If that’s a peace-seeking person, I wonder what a war-mongering one is.

  53. Richard L says:

    Post 47 by Ben

    i) The video is not promoting war, which is different to condemning one side or the other. That is to say they are not actively encouraging Hamas or anyone else to indulge in war. So they are not war mongering.

    ii) I accept this point.

    iii) Sorry I don’t follow your point here. I have already condemned without reservation the rocket attacks (by Hamas and others on southern Israel). I am unwilling to comment further until I understand what you mean. Can you restate please.

    iv) (regarding point 4A) No you will have to be more specific here. What exactly are you saying and what are your references?

    v) Never a lender of borrower be.

    If they all get justice what are we arguing about? At the moment there are a lot of nasty deaths on both sides of the barrier that have not been properly investigated. Goldstone has at least got leaders to talk about investigation but we are a long way yet from justice. Take away Goldstone as many people are suggesting and you have absolutely nothing, which seems to suit many leaders on both sides. I think this is nihilistic and unacceptable.

    Israel is answerable for its actions, and Hamas is answerable for those carried out under its control. Try
    François Bugnion, 2002; Just wars,wars of aggression and international humanitarian law, p10, From the International Review of the Red Cross.
    http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5FLCT4/$File/bugnion%20ang%20.pdf

    vi) I think the war was an indefensible abomination, principally because I think it was avoidable. I also think it is long past the time that the restrictions on goods and services entering Gaza were removed, that Israel stops attacking Gazan fishermen and stops shooting people within the exclusion zones inside the border. I am also against any abuses against human rights within or from Gaza (by Hamas or anyone else) that there is evidence of.

    And finally:

    “The fate of Israel depends on two factors: her strength and her rectitude.” And again. “The State of Israel will not be tried by its riches, army or techniques, but by its moral image and human values.” David Ben-Gurion quoted in State of denial: Robert Fisk searches for peace in Israel 11 Feb 2010

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/state-of-denial-robert-fisk-searches-for-peace-in-israel-1895568.html

    Post 49 by Richard

    No sign of the answer to my question yet!

  54. sshender says:

    BTW, have you guys noticed that the person(s) responsible for this video also happen(s) to be a 9/11 troofer? What a shock…(yawn)

  55. obsy says:

    Richard L,

    Have you ever tried to compare cast lead to other wars?

    I know it is hard to answer every question at once, but I suggest that you take your time to think about them later after you left defense mode. You might learn something.

    Also do me a favor and write at least once that Hamas are bad mother f&*!ers.

    By the way: Richard from post 49 is very likely not Mr. Landes.

  56. E.G. says:

    Re- my post #51

    It is also possible (even likely) that Richard L. has a psychological difficulty addressing Israelis directly.

  57. obsy says:

    Richard L,

    Considering the warmongering claim: What is it that is missing for you to call this video warmongering?

    Is there any video out there that you would consider warmongering? Again, have you ever tried to compare?

    Watch it again and substitute mentally Israel/Jews for Gaza/Palestinians and Muslim world for USA.

  58. obsy says:

    56. obsy,

    I forgot to say:
    also substitute Gaza/Palestinians for Israel/Jews.

  59. Ben says:

    RichardL:
    Your response to my point about justice suggests I was not clear enough. Justice is not merely an outcome or consequence; it is also a process that leads to that consequence. Your earlier mention of a trial for those who kill children suggests you understand this. But if the reasons for, and facts surrounding, a child’s death don’t matter, then the trial you seek can accomplish nothing more than, perhaps, the meting out of punishment. The harshest punishment may be richly deserved for a guilty defendant, but the defendant must be guilty. A trial in which the court will allow no defense and hear no justification simply cannot result in a just verdict. The absolute criminal culpability you advocate for the deaths of these Palestinian children during Cast Lead, by insisting on the irrelevance of Hamas’ actions and the inexcusability of Israel’s, allows no inquiry into the events which lead up to that tragedy. Those who seek peace are wise to understand why it is so elusive and how setbacks in its quest can occur.
    All parents who lose children in war do not have the same claim to justice. For most of us in the West, parents who encourage their children to kill themselves in order to kill others are undeserving of the same justice reserved for parents who try unsuccessfully to protect their children.
    You say “Israel is answerable for its actions, and Hamas is answerable for those carried out under its control.” You are only half-right. Israel is answerable; Hamas is not.
    As for the Goldstone Report, it may have gotten some leaders talking about investigating Cast Lead, but not Israel’s. Israel began investigations into alleged war crimes (the allegations were inevitable, and the Israeli’s knew it) long before the Report was issued.
    A claim that without Goldstone there would be no investigation is false.
    You suggest that doing away with the Goldstone Report is nihilistic and unacceptable. Do you not Goldstone’s disregard for the plight of the ordinary Palestinian forced to bear the brunt of Israel’s hostility for Hamas’ actions as nihilistic and unacceptable? You really should.

  60. Daniel Bielak says:

    Richard L,

    I know that you, as you say, are not a Nazi, and I know that you have not come to hold the views that you now hold because of having felt predisposed malice toward Jewish people.

    I know that you do not believe that the views that you hold are bigoted or biased or prejudiced, and I know that you believe that you are just observing reality.

    However, you are unaware that there are people who are waging a racist intendedly genocidal war against the country of the Jewish people, and that those people are doing so with a conscious strategy of deceit, and that those people hold views that are, in fact, a direct legacy of the Nazi ideology.

    You are unaware of the nature of the psychology of very many Jewish people and which has caused, for centuries, Jewish people to enable the propagation of, and to be the most influential propagators of, lies which have, for centuries have vilified Jewish people, and of lies which, for the past three decades, and, especially, for the past 10 years, have been vilifying the country of the Jewish people.

    Almost all Jewish people experience, to varying degrees, and almost all Jewish people have, throughout history, experienced, to varying degrees, a deep profound form of Stockholm-Syndrome.

    I myself have, in the past, experienced that Stockholm Syndrome.

    That Stockholm Syndrom causes, and has, for centuries, caused, Jewish people to, in various ways, some subtle and some gross, dishonestly appeasingly falsely “confess” to fictitious crimes that Jewish people are, at that time, being falsely accused of, and to verbally defend, in various ways, some ways that are subtle, and some ways that are gross, people who are attacking them or who are attacking Jewish people with whom the falsely “confessing” Jewish people do not want to be seen as being associated with, and that Stockholm Syndrome causes Jewish people to do so even when they are trying to verbally defend themselves, and when they are trying to verbally defend Jewish people.

    That Stockholm Syndrome also causes, and has, for centuries, also caused, Jewish people who are experiencing severe forms of that Stockholm Syndrome, to be the most influential propagators of lies which vilify Jewish people.

    The following is an article which accurately describes this Stockholm Syndrome.

    “The Psychology of Populations under Chronic Siege”, a paper by Dr. Kenneth Levin
    http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-046-levin.htm

    One example of the influential propagation, by someone who was Jewish, of a false accusation against Jewish people, of a lie which vilified Jewish poeple, is the child-murder-cannibalism libel, called the “Blood Libel”, of Christian Europe, against Jewish people. The child-murder-cannibalism libel, called the “Blood Libel”, of Christian Europe, against Jewish people, which was an vicious obscene false accusation, which was a vicious obscene lie, that Jewish people killed Christian Europen children and made bread with their blood as part of the religious ceremony Pesah of the traditional religion of the Jewish people, Judaism, was a lie that was most influentially propagated in Europe in England in the 1100′s by an English Christian cleric named Thomas of Monmouth and by an ethnically Jewish man who converted to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge who accompanied him and who propagated that lie by falsely professing (“confessing”) that lie to be true.

    That particular false accusation may seem grotesque, and absurd, and obviously false, to you, and that particular false accustation may seem to you to be in no way related to what you are currently believing to be what you are percieving to be reality, but what you are perceiving to be reality is, in fact, the same thing as what the English people of Norwich England in the late 1100s were falsely percieving to be reality.

    The foundations of anti-Jewish bigotry have always been, and continue to be, wrong views which are based on lies – which are lies that have always been most influentially propagated by people who are Jewish, and which are lies that continue to be most influentially propagated by people who are Jewish, and which are lies that almost no Jewish people have ever effectively engaged in refuting, and which are lies that almost no Jewish people effectively engage in refuting, and which are lies that could be dispelled with simple, clear, accurate, honest speech spoken with mindfulness and discernment.

    Bigoted, taken-for-granted-as-being-true, wrong views about Jewish people are a normal, normative, pervasive, profound, un-examined, part of Western culture.

    “Worth a Thousand Words: Picturing the Antisemitic Imagination”, by Dr. Catherine Chatterley
    http://web.mac.com/catherinechatterley/Catherine_Chatterley/Publications.html (article is further down from the top of the page)

    “Western Culture, The Holocaust, and the Persistence of Antisemitism”, by Dr. Catherine Chatterley
    http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/chatterleypaper3509.pdf

    You are unaware that images that you see in, and the articles, many of which by Jewish poeple, that you read in, mainstream Western newspapers do not accurately, and do not comprehensively, present the factual history of, and the current reality of, the situation.

    You are unaware that the presentation of the situation to the world by European, American, Israeli, ethnically Jewish, ethnically non-Jewish, politically Liberal, politically Neo-Leftist, and politically Paleo-Conservative, journalists, editors, academics, politicians, political activists, and intellectuals is false.

    There are many factors that are involved in having caused, and in causing, the dominant presentation of the situation to be false, and in having caused, and in causing, the perception of the situation, by most people in the world, to be false.

    At this time it is very important to know the following.

    An almost completely ignored, and almost completely unmentioned, part of history (which is a part of history which is the main factor that caused World War II and the Shoah) is the fact that self-proclaimed “Pacifist” politically Liberal non-Jewish people in Western countries who had, before the 1930′s, been advocates of, and champions of, Jewish people, during the 1930′s began to believe, and promoted, a narrative of “Warmongering Exaggerating Jews and Maligned Victimized Germans” which was a narrative that was seeded by, and exploited by, National Socialist (Nazi) German propaganda.

    This fact, and the factors that were involved in having caused that to have been the case, are important to know and understand in order to understand the current situation.

    In the 1930′s in Western countries, among non-Jewish people, it was mainly only politically Conservative people who understood the threat that was being posed by the National Socialist regime of Germany.

    One of the most prominent of those politically Conservative people was Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill was despised, and reviled, and ridiculed, by the majority of his colleagues in the British Parliament for his relentless calls for Britain and Western countries to oppose the National Socialist regime of Germany before it would be too late. When the majority of politicians in Brittain finally realized the reality of the situation only after Germany broke the treaty that Adolf Hitler had signed with the British Prime Minister Chaimberlain and invaded Poland, Winston Churchill considered his efforts to have been a failure because he had been unsuccessful in averting war.

    In the 1930′s even some prominent politically Liberal Jewish people in the United States played-down and obfuscated he danger of the National Socialist regime of Germany, and even, in some cases, verbally attacked politically conservative people who warned of the danger.

    People in Western countries had been traumatized by World War I and they didn’t want to be involved in any sort of international conflict and they didn’t want to go to war. World War I had been horrific and they didn’t to repeat it.

    Those prominent Jewish liberals didn’t want to be seen as, and didn’t want to be seen as being associated with Jewish people who were seen as, warmongering.

    However, if the majority of politicians in Western countries had understood much earlier than they eventually did the danger that was being posed to the world by the National Socialist regime of Germany then World War II could probably have been averted if political leaders in Western countries had taken non-violent action in the early and mid 1930′s to thwart the National Socialist regime of Germany before it had developed military strength.

    I have written, in this message, a list of documents, videos and audio recordings, in order to show you a more complete, and an accurate, view of the situation.

    The part of the list that lists videos and audio recordings is constituted of two parts. The names of the two parts are the following.

    O Some Aspects of the Situation
    O Israeli Society

    I have also written a summary of some important facts which are necessary to know in order to understand the current situation in the world.

    I hope that you will read, and watch, and listen, to the documents, and videos, and audio recordings.

    I hope also that you will read my comments in the list, and that you will also read the summary of important facts which I have written.

    The following is some information about me.

    My ethnicity is Jewish (Jewish-Russian(Ukrianian)-Polish).
    The political views that I hold are a balance between Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism.
    The existential view that I hold, and the existential practice that I strive to follow, is Theravada Buddhism.
    I live in, and I am a citizen of, the United States.

    Sincerely,
    Daniel Bielak

    Documents

    What Does “Pro-Palestinian” Really Mean?, by Khaled Abu Toameh; Khaled Abu Toameh is an Isareli Arab / Israeli Arab journalist
    http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/11/what-does-pro-palestinian-really-mean.php

    Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic antisemitism and the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood, by Dr. Matthias Kuentzel
    http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/hitlers-legacy-islamic-antisemitism-and-the-impact-of-the-muslim-brotherhood

    Iranian Antisemitism: Stepchild of German National Socialism, by Dr. Matthias Kuentzel
    http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/iranian-antisemitism-stepchild-of-german-national-socialism

    The Nazi Roots of Middle Eastern Anti-Semitism, by StandWithUs
    http://www.standwithus.com/images/online_booklets/nazi/Nazi.pdf

    What Iranian Leaders Really Say About Doing Away with Israel – A Refutation of the Campaign to Excuse Ahmadinejad’s Incitement to Genocide, by Joshua Teitelbaum
    http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

    Videos and Audio Recordings

    Some Aspects of the War Against Israel

    “Are We Reliving the 1930s? How West European Philosemites became Antisemites before the Second World War”, (Video) talk by Dr. Simcha Epstein; (The video is on the website of the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs in the section “Lectures Online” (the website is hosted on http://www.jcpa.org, and, it seems, the website can be accessed at the address http://www.jewishaffairs.org)
    Address of page with the embeded video: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=723&FID=799&PID=0
    Direct address to the streaming video file: mms://forest-ht.media-line.co.il/jcpa//Phas/phas-epstein-251109.wmv

    “Hitler, The Mufti Of Jerusalem And Modern Islamo Nazism”, (Video) German TV Documentary News Report; About Amin Al Husseini, who was the founder of what Arab leaders, and members of the Soviet KGB (secret service and propaganda) agency, began to call, in the 1960′s, the “Palestinian” movement; Amin Al Husseini was one of the most revered and influencial leaders in Muslim countries in the Middle East in the 20th century; Amin Al Husseini led massacres of Jewish people from 1920 to the 1930′s, in what was then called the Mandate of Palestine; Amin Al Husseini was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; the Muslim Brotherhood is the Sunni Muslim Islamic-Supemacist political organization that was founded in 1928 by Hassan Al Bann in Egypt; hassan Al Banna was an admirer of, and was influenced by the Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion-Jewish-conspiracy-theory-based ideology of, Adolf Hitler; Amin Al Husseini founded Fatah in 1958; Amin Al Husseini was the mentor of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, and Amin Al Husseini appointed Yasser Arafat as his succuessor as the leader of Fatah; Amin Al Husseini was an integral member of the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Germany regime during World War II; Amin Al Husseini was a confidant of Adolf Hitler; Amin Al Husseini was a co-architect, with Heinrich Himmler, of the genicde of the Jewish people of Europe; Amin Al Husseini planned, with Adolf Hitler, to mass-murder all of the Jewish people in the Middle East; From 1939 to 1945, Amin Al Husseini broadcasted Protocols-of-the-elders-of-Zion-Jewish-conspiracy-theory-based, explicitely genocidally anti-Jewish, and anti-United-States, anti-British, and pro-Nazi Islamic radio programs in Arabic, Turkish, and Persian to all of the countries in the Middle East from the most powerful shortwave radio station that existed in Germany at that time, Radio Zeesen, which was built for Amin AL Husseini for that purpose by the officials of the German Nazi regime; those radio progams became very popular in Muslim countries in the Middle East; Ruhhula Khomeini, who several decades later, founded and led the Shia Muslim branch of the Islamic-Supremacist modern political movement, was, as a young man in Iran, a regular and dedicated listener of the those radio broadcasts by Amin Al Husseini from Radio Zeesen; During World War II Amin Al Husseini created Muslim Nazi S.S. divisions in the Balkans which killed tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Serbian people, and which killed tens of thousands of Jewish people, and which killed tens of thousands of Roma (gypsy) people; (Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser and members of the Soviet KGB agency created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. Yasser Arafat, as the leader of Fatah, took over the PLO in the 1970′s)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d51poygEXYU
    OR
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd1dmD1Fry4

    “The Trojan Horse”, (Video) Documentary by Pierre Rehov; about the contemporary manifestation of the “Palestinian” movement as manifested by the organization the PLO/Fatah/Palestinian Authority
    http://www.veoh.com/videos/v17400528DThBhmcA

    “Hostages of Hatred”, (Video) Documentary by Pierre Rehov; about the situation of the Arab refugees of, and of the descendents of the Arab refugees, of the 1948 Arab attack on the country of the Jewish people, who have been held in “refugee camps” in Arab countries, and in Arab-occupied territory, since 1948 by UNRWA and by Arab leaders (The Arab refugees of, and of the descendents of the Arab refugees of, the 1948 Arab attack on the country of the Jewish people, began to be called, in the 1960′s, by Amin al Husseini, and by other Arab leaders, “Palestinians”; UNRWA is one of the two agencies of the United Nations whose officially stated function is to help, and to solve the problem of, refugees in the world. UNRWA is the Agency of the United Nations that has been established as having it’s only offically stated function as being that of dealing with only the situation of the Arab refugees of, and of the descendents of the Arab refugees of, the 1948 Arab attack on the country of the Jewish people. UNRWA is the only United Nations agency that has ever been set up for any one particular group of refugees (and who are the only refugees that have ever existed in the world whose definition, defined by the United Nations, includes their descendants, and are the only refugees that have ever existed in the world whose definition, as defined by the United Nations, includes the number of years they had lived in the country from which they fled or were expelled, and the number of years of which is *two* years; The approximately 700,000 Arab refugees of the 1948 Arab attack on Israel are the only refugees in the world, of the tens of millions of refugees that have come to exist in the world since 1945, who have not been absorbed by, and relocated to, the countries to which they fled or were expelled (such as from the Sudantenlands of Poland to Germany, and from India to Pakistan, and from Muslim countries in the Middle-East to Israel, etc); (The largest and controlling voting bloc in the United Nations is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC); The OIC is a coalition of 57 Musim countries; The United Nations is dominated and controled by the OIC by votes, and the United Nations is controlled by the OIC by political influence because the world’s main engergy commodity, oil, is produced almost entirely by Muslim countries, which are countries that are members of the OIC; European Neo-Marxist politicians, and Neo-Marxist European Union autocrats, and European U.N. representatives are craven, corrupt, immoral, ammoral, self-deceiveing, dishonest, authoritarian, criminally pro-Islamic-Supremacist, patronizingly racist pro-Arab, maliciously racist anti-Jewish, sanctimbigots)
    http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6994502yE2tGdab
    or
    http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-3936205950313759056

    “The Road to Jenin”, (Video) Documentary by Pierre Rehov; about the PLO/Fatah/PalestinianAuthority propaganda, and Western journalism media, hoax of the so-called “Jenin Massacre”; documentary about how the predomiant false narrative about the situation is propagated by Western journalists and editors
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3079049095214906504

    “The Diaspora (Al-Shatat)”, (Video) one of several widely, and often, broadcast dramatical, self-purportedly historical, television program series (this one Syrian-produced) that are based on the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and on hateful, libelous, false, charges of child-murdering cannabalism that were made against Jewish people by Christian European people during the Middle Ages in Europe, and that is an example of the “Protocols of the Elders Zion” Jewish-conspiracy-theory-based and child-murder-libel-based genocidally anti-Jewish propaganda that is now ubiquitous in, and is now a main part of, mainstream mass media in Muslim Arab countries in the Middle East
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20Al-Shatat.html

    “Hamas In Their Own Voices”, (Video); Hamas was created in 1988; Hamas is an official arm of the Muslim Brotherhood; Hamas is in a war with Fatah/PLO/PalestinianAuthority for the position of the “official” leadership of the Arab refugees of, and the several million descendants of the approximately 700,000 Arab refugees of, the 1948 Arab attack on Israel.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg

    “FTR #514 Interview with John Loftus about the Muslim Brotherhood”, (Audio) Recorded on Jun. 12, 2005; John Loftus talks about the German Nazi legacy of the Muslim Brotherhood and about the covert actions of senior members of British and United States government intelligence and foreign policy agencies, which were actions done, in part, out of ammoral greed, but mainly, out of bigoted hatred had by those members of British and United States intelligence and foreign policy government agencies towards Jewish people, in support of and in co-operation with, from the 1920′s until the present time, the actions by the officials of the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Germany and the actions by the founders and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, of commiting genocide against the Jewish people and, before 1948, to prevent the founding of the country of the Jewish people, and after the country of the Jewish people was officialy voted as a country by the United Nations in 1948, to destroy the country of the Jewish people; John Loftus, as a lawyer, worked for the Attorney General of the United States government during the Carter and Reagan adminstrations, and in that position, had above-top-secret clearance to classified United States government documents, and discovered and researched and uncovered classified United States governments
    http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-514-interview-with-john-loftus-about-the-muslim-brotherhood/
    Audio (RealAudio): http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=15445

    “The Walls”, (Video) a video, by YouTube User Vandoren333, showing many separation walls and separation barriers in the world; Fatah/PLO/PalestinianAuthority and Hamas, which are the leadership of the “Palestinian”-Arab people, and which govern and control the land that is currently called the West Bank and the land that is currently called the Gaza Strip, conducted *hundreds*, of mass-murder/suicide bombing operations that targeted civilian Jewish Israeli men, women, and children, and which killed, in total, *over a thousand*, civilian Jewish Israeli men women and children, between the years 2000 and 2006. The Israeli government did not, and does not, disseminate images and videos of the gruesome and heartwrenching scenes of those attacks, and Israelis did not and do not want to see images and videos of those attacks. Western journalists and editors did not, and do not, disseminate images and videos of those attacks, and barely even mentioned, and barely even mention, those attacks. However Fatah/PLO/PalestinianAuthority and Hamas, which are the leadership of the “Palestinian”-Arab people in the territories that were, and are, controlled by and governed by Fatah/PLO/PA and Hamas (and that were at that time humanitarianly and finacially supported by Israel!), which are the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, created graphic representational scenes of those attacks as walk-thru entertainment presentations to the populations of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and many “Palestinian”-Arab people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip revelled in those entertainment presentations of, those attacks. In 2006 the Israeli government built a separation barrier (some of it wall and most of it fence) to protect Israeli people from being murdered by “Palestinian”-Arab mass-murder/suicide bombers and snipers. There are many separation walls that exist in the world that have been built by the governments of many countries, and which are countries which, unlike Israel, are not under a multi-fronted, multi-faceted, multi-national, intendedly genocidal threat. The large manifested difference between the response of non-Arab and non-Muslim people in Western countries who call themselves “anti-Zionists” and “Pro-Palestinians” to those walls and separation barriers that were built by the governments of other countries and to the separation barrier that was built by the government of Israel to protect Israeli people from being murdered is caused by the fact that the governments of those countries that are not Israel are, unlike Israel, not the government of the country of the Jewish people but, rather, are the government of the country of the Irish people, and the government of the country of the Italian people, and the government of the country of the Egyptian people, and the goverenment of the country of the Spanish people, and the government of the country of the Morroccan people, and the Saudi regime of Saudi Arabia, and the government of the country of the Turkish people, etc.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0sawJGxj3k

    Israeli Society

    “The Forgotten Refugees”, (Video; Parts 1 to 5 of 5) Documentary; about the approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries to Israel after the 1948 Arab attack on Israel; the still living of these Jewish refugees, and the descendants of these refugees, constitute approximately 50% of the Jewish population of Israel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nwI2hzPjrA&feature=PlayList&p=DED3FB5A02EDC198&index=0&playnext=1

    “Tel Aviv, the gorgeous city in Israel”; (Video) a slideshow of photos of people and places in Tel Aviv
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzd8WIcoOs8

    “Bracha Cochen in the transparent Studio”; (Video) Video clip, from Israeli music TV program, of interview with, and performance by, Jewish Yemeni Israeli Singer Bracha Cohen, whose name is misspelled in the title of this video on YouTube; Bracha Cohen is popular among Jewish Yemeni Israelis; (the sound quality of this video is poor);
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YQmiCq-FU

    “ביקורו של שרי שרי ראווי שאנקאר”
    Indian spiritual leader (Hindu?), Sri Sri Ravi Shankar speaks and answers questions from the audience, in English, at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Oct.19 2009
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fao_QTJ7voc

    “Compassionate Listening in Palestine and Israel”, (Video); One of the very many Jewish-Arab “Peace” and “Dialogue” organizations that have been created in Israel and in the United States throughout the past several decades by Jewish Americans and by Jewish Israelis
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZM69RV6OjI

    “Ariel Zilber – A Smoke Curtain (אריאל זילבר – מסך עשן) (A Smoke Screen?)”; (Video) Song by Israeli singer-songwriter Ariel Zilber; Ariel Zilber became a religious adherent of the traditional religion of the Jewish people, Judaism, and became politically active with political views that, in Israel, are considered as being “Far-Right-Wing” (but which are views that are actually “normal”, “human”, views, and that, by standards that have been set by almost all non-Jewish people (and by all non-Jewish European, and by all non-Jewish Middle-Eastern people) that have ever been in even remotely as dire situations as that which Jewish Israeli people are in, are “reasonable” views that are being held by normal human beings, who are some Jewish Israeli people who hold political views that are called “Far-Right-Wing” political views, who are members of a country, Israel, which is under an, and whose people are under an, overwhelming, psychologically traumatic, intendedly genocidally, military, terroristic, diplomatic, and propagandic seige, though that are views that are not wise views, and that are not beneficial views.)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VFuAC0lr9I

    “Milim Yafot Me’eleh translated with English subtitles”; (Audio (Video)) One of my favorite songs by The Idan Raichael Project; Idan Raichel is an ethnically Jewish Russian Israeli musician who writes the songs of, and leads, The Idan Raichel Project, a musical collaboration project with core members who include, and a musical collaboration project which works with guest musicians who include, Jewish Israelis of various cultural and mixed ethnic backgrounds (including Jewish Ethiopian and Jewish Indian and Jewish European), and non-Jewish Israelis of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and non-Israelis of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds; Idan Raichel was inspired by the music that he heard that the underprivileged Jewish Ethopian Israeli kids that he worked with when he was as teacher in Israel listened to
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcqjsKkYvO0&fmt=18

    “Arabs supporting Israel”; (Video (Parts 1 to 2 of 2) Video by a young man who is Israeli Arab / Arab Israeli, and who speaks out supporting Israel, and who, in this video, refers to himself being “an Arab living in Israel”
    Part 1 of 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbrIWyEhl8A
    Part 2 of 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1rSbJ6g2_4

    “Israel Through the Eyes of an Israeli Muslim”, (Video) Talk by Ishmael Khaldi, who is Bedouin Israeli, and who is the deputy consul general of Israel for the Pacific Northwest in the United States
    http://fora.tv/2007/05/31/Israel_Through_the_Eyes_of_an_Israeli_Muslim

    “Interview on Dennis Prager show with Khaled Abu Toameh”, (Audio) Interview with Khaled Abu Toameh, who is a Muslim Arab Israeli / Israeli Arab journalist who writes for the Jerusalem Post
    http://www.standwithus.com/audio/Khaled_Interview.asp
    Direct link to audio file: http://www.standwithus.com/audio/Khaled_Interview.mp3

    “Peace is a hug away: Free Hugs in Jaffa, Israel”, (Video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRyA3CXIk4Y

    Summary of Important Facts

    The Muslim Brotherhood

    O Sunni Muslim Islamic-Supremacist political organization founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan Al Bana
    O The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is based on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” Jewish-conspiracy theory-based genocidally anti-Jewish totalitarian German National Socialist ideology of Adolf Hitler, and is based on the genocidally supremacist, totalitarian, political and religious ideology of the orthodox Wahabi and Salafi sects of Sunni Islam.
    O The Muslim Brotherhood is the original, and the founding, and the main, organization of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” Jewish-consiracy-theory-based, genocidally anti-Jewish, genocidally anti-Gay, and anti-Western, anti-democracy, anti-non-Muslim, fanatical, religious, totalitarian, Sunni Muslim Islamic-Supremacist modern political movement
    O The official stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to destroy Western civilization and to destroy all democratic countries and to establish a single Islamic state that encompasses the whole world.
    O The official outlined strategic methodology of the Muslim Brotherhood is a strategic methodology of covert, overt, violent, and non-violent actions.
    O The official primary initial intendedly catalytic effort of the Muslim Brotherhood is the use of Israel as an “Agent Provocateur” by vilifying, and destroying Israel.
    O The leaders and adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood formed an alliance with the officials of the National Socialist regime of Germany during the 1930′s and during WOrld War II.
    O After World War II thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members who had become official members of the National Socialist regime of Germany escaped to Egypt and to other Muslim countries in the Middle East.
    O After World War II, some German senior officials of the National Socialist regime of Germany escaped to Egypt and other Muslim countries and converted to Islam and joined the Muslim Brotherhood.
    O After World War II, German senior officials of the National Socialist regime of Germany escaped to Egypt and to other Muslim countries and took positions as officials in the “Ministries of Information” of those countries.
    O Almost all of the official Muslim organizations in Western countries, such as, in the United States, Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American Society (MAS), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North Americ (ICNA), Muslim Students Association (MSA), etc, are official branches of the Muslim Brotherhood

    Hassan Al Banna

    O Hassan Al Banna was an early admirer of Adolf Hitler in the 1920′s and wrote letters of admiration to Adolf Hitler in the 1920′s
    O Hassan Al Banna’s religious political ideology was influenced by the Wahabi orthodox supremacist sect of the religion Sunni Islam and was influenced by the Jewish-Conspriacy-theory-based genocidally anti-Jewish ideology that was promoted by the European intendedly anti-Jewish hate-inciting fictional book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that was promoted by Adolf Hitler.

    Amin Al Husseini

    O Amin Al Husseini was the most influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood in history
    O from 1920 to the 1930′s, with the aid of some senior British officials, he organized and led massacres of Jewish populations in what was then called the British Mandate of Palestine.
    O in 1920 he was appointed by British officials to the position of “Grand Mufti of Jerusalem” which was a position that was created by those British officials
    O he allied with the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Germany in the 1930′s
    O in the late 1930′s most British officials opposed him
    O he moved to Germany in 1938
    O he was an adjoined member of the German Nazi regime during World War II
    O he became a confidant of Adolf Hitler
    O he was the co-architect, with Adolf Eichman, of, and participated in the implementation of, the genocide against the Jewish people in Europe during World War II.
    O he was the founder of Muslim Nazi SS divisions which murdered hundreds of thousands Serbian people, and tens of thousands of Jewish people, and tens of thousands of Roma (Gypsy) people, during World War II
    O he broadcasted Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion-Jewish-conspiracy-theory-based, genocidally anti-Jewish, and anti-United-States, anti-British, pro-Nazi, Islamic regularly scheduled radio programs in Arabic, Turskish, and Persian to all of the countries in the Middle East from 1939 to 1945 from the most powerful radio station in Germany that existed at that time, Radio Zeesen, which was built for Amin Al Husseini for that purpose by the officials of the National Socialist regime of Germany
    O he planned, with Adolf Hitler, a genocide against the Jewish people in the Middle-East
    O after World War II he was captured by Allied forces and was held in France to be tried for war crimes.
    O he released from France in 1945 covertly by some senior British and French officials as a strategic political gift to leaders of oil-producing Arab countries and fled to Egypt
    O after his release to Egypt, he formed anti-Jewish militias in what was then called the Mandate of Palestinian, which, with the aid of the British government, attacked Jewish populations in pre-nascent Israel.
    O he was a leader of Arab military divisions in the 1948 war on Israel by the armies of five Arab countries
    O he founded the political organization and militia Fatah in 1958 with two of his proteges, Egypian Yasser Arafat, and Mahmoud Abbas; Fatah was the pre-eminent political organization and militia of what Arab leaders initially called the “Arab Nationalist” movement, and then, in the 1960′s, began to call the “Palestinian” movement.
    O He Appointed Yasser Arafat, as his successor as the leader of Fatah

    Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)

    O The PLO was founded in 1964 by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser and members of the Soviet KGB agency
    O The official constitution of the PLO, which was written in 1964, calls for the elimination of the country of the Jewish people, Israel
    O The official constitution of the PLO originally explicitely stated that the PLO did not claim the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as part of what the PLO called “Palestine”; in 1964 the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt and th the land
    O In 1968, after Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip after Israel attacked and defeated the armies of five Arab countries whose armies had gathered along the borders of Israel and were preparing to attack Israel, the constitution of the PLO was modified to explicitely state that the PLO claimed the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as being part of what the PLO called “Palestine”
    O The PLO was taken over by Yasser Arafat and Fatah in the 1970′s
    O it was officially recognized, funded, and armed in the 1970′s by officials of European governments.
    O it was almost destroyed in 1981 by the army of Israel, but it was then revived and brought into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States

    KGB Secret Service and Propaganda Aggency of the Soviet Regime of Russia

    O In the 1960′s, the members of the KGB propaganda departments of the Soviet regime of Russia cynically propagated anti-United-States and anti-Israel ideologies, and propagated the anti-United-States term “anti-Imperialism” and the anti-Israel term “anti-Zionism” through so-called “intellectual exchange” programs which the members of the KGB propaganda departments developed towards, and in which they hosted, very imperceptive, very egocentric, intellectually and morally bankrupt, politically Left academics, journalists, and intellectuals from democratic countries. Those academics, journalists, and intellectuals from democrati
    O The members of the KGB created, trained the leaders of, financed, and armed, all of the so-called “Liberation” militias that were created in the world during the 1960′s, 1970′s and 1980′s

    Palestinian Authority (PA)

    O The Palestinian Authority is the official Fatah-PLO governmental body that was established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip after the Osolo agreements and that was, and still is, supported by, funded by, and armed by, European governments and the United States Government, and was, until the second antifada, funded and armed also by the Israeli government
    O The PA is in a war with Hamas for the position of the official leadership of the several million descendants of the approximately 700,000 Arab refugees from the 1948 Arab war on Israel who are now called “Palestinians”
    O The PA was violently defeated by Hamas in the Gaza Strip in 2004 and now no longer governs the Gaza Strip but now governs the West Bank

    Hamas

    O Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood political organization and militia that was established in 1988
    O The official charter of Hamas paraphrases the concepts promoted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and explicitly refers to the intendedly anti-Jewish hate-inciting fictional book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a reference document, and explicitely calls for the murder of every living Jewish person in the world, and explicitely calls for the destruction of the United States, and explicitely calls for the establishment of a single global Islamic-Supremacist world government
    O it is at war against Fatah-PLO-PA for the position of the official leadership of the several million descendants of the approximately 700,000 Arab refugees from the 1948 Arab war on Israel who are now called “Palestinians”
    O it violently defeated Fatah-PLO-PA in the Gaza Strip in 2004 and now governs the Gaza Strip
    O it is financed and armed by the Shia Muslim Islamic-Supremacist current regime of Iran

    Hizbolla

    O Hizbolla is a Shia Muslim Islamic-Supremacist militia that was created by, and that is official arm of, the Shia Muslim Islamic-Supremacist regime of Iran.

    Rohullah Khomeini

    O Rohullah Khomeini was, as a young man in Iran, a regular and dedicated listener to the radio broadcast of Amin Al Husseini on Radio Zeesen
    O Rohullah Khomeini founded and led the Shia Muslim Islamic-Supremacist modern poltical movement.
    O In 1979, Instigated a takeover of Iran by the Shia Muslim Islamic-Supremacist movement, and founded, and became the first ruler of, the Shi Muslim Islamic-Supremacist regime of Iran.

    The Regime of The Islamic Republic of Iran

    O was created in 1979 by the founder and leader of the Shia Muslim Islamic-Surpremacist modern political movement, Rohullah Khomeini
    O created a religious militia called the Revolutionary Gaurds originally to protect the leaders of the regime.
    O the positions of the political officials of the regime are religious and political positions and the religious poltical officials who are members of the governing body of the regime are called “Ayatollas”.
    O the official leader of the regime is a religious political official, an “Ayatolla”, called “The Supreme Leader”.
    O Currently, the religious military leadership of Revolutionary Gaurds, which is led by the President of the regime, Mahmood Amadinejad, have become politically dominant within the regime, and there is a political struggle occuring between the religious political officials of the regime who support, and whoare supported by, the religious military leadership of the revolutionary gaurds, and those who oppose the religious military leadership of the Revolutionary Gaurds.
    O The official goal of the regime of Iran is the destruction of the United States, Israel, and all democratic societies, and is the establishment of the rule of the whole world by the Shia Muslim Islamic-Supremaicst regime of Iran
    O Senior officials of the regime have repeatedly stated their intention of annilating Israel.
    O The faction of the regime which supports, and which is supproted by , the Revolutionary Gaurds, and which is led by the President of the regime, Mahmoud Amedinejad, believes that an apocalypse will bring about the manifestation into the whorld of a messianic figure, called, “The Twelf Imam”, who will then create an Islamic dominionship over the whole world and who will create a heaven on earth.
    O The President of the regime of Iran, Mahmoud Amedinejad, has repeatedly made speeches in Iran, and in various countries throughout the world, and in the United Nations, in which he has referred to Israel as a “filthy black microbe” and as “The Zionist Entity”, and in which he has repeatedly said that the world is controlled by a small malevolent group of beings called “Zionists” and in which he has called for the annihilation of the country of the Jewish people.
    O Officials of the regime of Iran have made statements in which they have said that a nuclear war with Israel would only damage Iran but that a war with Israel would annihilate Israel and that such a war would therefore be advantageous to Islam.
    O The current regime of Islamic Republic of Iran are developing nuclear weapons.
    O The regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran funds and arms most Islamic-Supremacist militias, both Shia and Sunni, throughout the world, including Hizbolla, Hamas, and Al Qaeda.

    Saudi Arabia

    O Saudi Arabia is named after, and governed by a monarchic and Sunni Muslim theocratic dictatorship, the Saudi family.
    O in 1979, Mecca, which is the capital city of Saudi Arabia, and which is the most religiously significant city in the religion Islam, was violently taken over for two weeks by members of a Sunni Muslim Islamic-Supremacist modern poltical group who believed that the Saudi regime was not authentically adhering to the prescription of Islam to wage war against non-Muslims. After that attack, the members of the Saudi regime were terrified, and in order protect themselves, they began to fund, with billions of petro-dollars, the violent, and non-violent, and overt, and covert, efforts of the members of the Sunni Muslim Islamic-Supremaicst modern political movement throughout the world. The following is now the case.
    O The Saudi regime has built, with billions of petro-dollars, thousands of Sunni Muslim Islamic- Supremacist Mosques in Western countries.
    O The curriculum, the salaries of the faculty, the hiring and firing of the faculty, and the infrastructure, of the Middle East Studies departments of all of the most prominent colleges and universities in Western countries are financed and controlled by the Saudi regime.
    O Members of the Saudi regime finance the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood front-groups in Western countries, which are efforts which include the action of bringing frivolous, legally constitutionally unwinnable, but financially prohibitive, and therefore censurious, lawsuits against individuals and organizations in Western countries who try to make known the affiliation of, and actions of, and nature of, those Muslim Brotherhood front-groups in Western countries. That practice is called “lawfare” by those who have been victims of it and by those who are trying to combat it.

    The United Nations

    O The largest, and the controlling, voting bloc in the United Nations is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC). The OIC is an alliance of 57 Muslim states.
    O The United Nations is dominated and controled by the OIC by votes, and the United Nations is controlled by the OIC by political influence which is caused by the world’s main energy commodity, oil, being produced almost entirely by Muslim countries, which are countries that are members of the OIC
    O The information that representatives of countries in the United Nations use as reference for their votes in the United Nations is provided mainly by what are called Non-Governenmental Organizations (NGOs). The members of the NGOs which focus on the particularly defined manifestations of the war against Israel (which are manifestations that used to be euphamistically called “The Arab-Israeli Conflict” and which are now perversely euphamistically called “The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”) rely primarily on reports made by, and testimony given by, Fatah/PLO/PAlestinianAuthority, Hamas, and anti-Israeli political activism groups (which are political activism groups that are funded primarily by Socialist European governments such as Sweden and Norway). The membership of the NGOs which focus on the so-called “Arab-Israeli”/”Palestinian-Israeli” conflict is made up of ignorant non-Arab, non-Muslim, people, and in some cases, includes members of Fatah/PLO/PA and Hamas.

    Population of Israel

    O There are approximately 7,000,000 citizens of Israel
    O Approximately 1,500,000 of the citizens of Israel are non-Jewish Arab-Israelis
    O Approximately 50% of all of the Jewish citizens of Israel are descendants of the approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim Middle-Eastern countries who were forced out of those Arab and Muslim Middle-Eastern countries by the governments of those Arab and Muslim Middle-Eastern countries after the 1948 Arab war on Israel.

    The Central Intelligence Agency of the United States

    O After World War II The Central Intelligence Agency of the United States gave amnesty to, and recruited, several thousand former German Nazi officers
    O Out of anti-Jewish bigotry, and out of desire for oil from oil-producing Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East, most senior members of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States have been engaging in a covert effort to prevent the refounding of, and then to destroy, the country of the Jewish people, Israel, since before Israel was officially refounded in 1948.

    The State Department of the United States

    O Out of anti-Jewish bigotry, and out of desire for oil from oil-producing Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East, most senior members of the State Department of the United States have been engaging in a covert effort to prevent the refounding of, and then to destroy, the country of the Jewish people, Israel, since before Israel was officially refounded in 1948.

    The Central Intelligent Service of Brittain and the Foreign Office of Brittain

    O Out of mainly anti-Jewish bigotry, most members of the Central Intelligent Service of Britain and of the Foreign Office of Brittain have been engaging in a covert effort to prevent the refounding of, and then have been engaging in a covert effort to destroy, most members

    A Form of Stockholm Syndrome That is Experienced by Very Many People Who Are Jewish

    O Almost all Jewish people experience, to varying degrees,and have experienced, for over two thousand years, a particular form of Stackholm Syndrome that prevents almost Jewish people from being able to effectively verbally defend themselves when they are falsely accused, and which is a particular form of Stockholm syndrome that causes almost all Jewish people to internalize, to varying degrees, false accusations that are made against Jewish people, and which is a Stockholm Sydrome that, in some cases which are cases that are severe, causes those Jewish people experiencing it to promote and propagate false accusations against the Jewish people. These Jewish people who propagate false accusations against the Jewish people are, and have been for centuries, the people in the world who are the most influential propagator and promoterthat are severe, in severe case, causes some cause

    Commentarial Addendum: Some Factors that are involved in the current situation

    O OIC majority-voting-bloc control of the United Nations

    O Muslim-Brotherhood-controlled-blackmailed-Saudi-regime financial-political-ideological takeover of Middle-Eastern Studies and Foreign Policy Departments of Colleges and Universities in the United States and other democratic countries countries

    O complete control of Social Sciences departments in Colleges and Universities in western countries by political activists indoctrinated with and adherent to the ideological legacy of Soviet KGB Novosti propaganda agency “intellectual exchange” programs in the 1960’s indoctrinating imperceptive egocentric politically Left academics and intellectuals in democratic countries

    O utter total ignorance about, and misinformedness about factual history had by, and lack of being taught how to reason had by, the current generation of young people, and to, a lesser degree, had by previous generation of young people, who are now journalists, academics, intellectuals and politicians

    O take-over of European governments by ignorant indoctrinated, Soviet-sympathetic, politically Neo-Left, pathologically anti-Israel, perversely patronizingly pro-ethnically-non-European pro-ethnically-non-Jewish racist, maliciously anti-Jewish racist, Islamic-Supremacism-colluding, sanctimonious authoritarians

    O utter and total Stockholm-Syndrome-induced ineptness of Jewish people who try to verbally defend Israel from the current prevalent inaccurate perverse obscene malicious Nazi-influenced-Islamic-Supremacist / Soviet anti-Jewish narrative.

    O ignorance, and Stockholm-Syndrome-induced delusion and prominent vocality, and and in some cases, ignorance, and Stockholm-Syndrome-induced derangement and prominent vocality of, Jewish academics, intellectuals, and journalists who have been the people in western countries who have been some of the original, and who have been the most influential, propagators of the current prevalent perverse obscene malicious Nazi-influenced-Islamic-Supremacist / Soviet lies about Israel and about the Nazi-influenced-Islamic-Supremacist /Soviet war against Israel.

  61. E.G. says:

    An interesting though hardly surprising report:
    Israel faces global delegitimization campaign

  62. E.G. says:

    An interesting though hardly surprising report:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149274.html

  63. obsy says:

    Richard L: “There remains nothing in Ben’s post to refute what he was complaining about, which is the point I made.”

    I should have cared more about this answer. In fact, you are telling that those internal contradictions and improbabilities in the video which Ben summarized do not refute themselves.
    You have done this repeatedly, even when we double checked and explained explicitly. I gave you the shadow of a doubt that you haven’t quite understood things or that there might be ambiguity in your answers.
    I do no more. The minimum we have to require for a discussion to yield any result on the topic level is that the arguments must be consistent.

    It is not that you ignore arguments — you do. That is quite normal. It is that you ignore the internal validity of arguments. Once somebody accepts this, everything comes down to a matter of taste or which images create the stronger emotions. (“Oh, this point of view feels much better. Let’s take it.”)

    I join Ray and stop arguing with you — at least on topic level.

    May I ask where you get your information from and what sources you think of as reliable?
    Are Mowrey and Lawson reliable sources?

  64. Eliyahu says:

    obsy, RichardL , EG and others:

    Many otherwise decent or relatively decent folk in the West have been taken in by the nearly ubiquitous anti-Israel propaganda, agitprop in the MSM, the univs, the high schools, many churches, etc.

    The basic structure of the campaign to vilify Israel/Jews is the paradigm of Jesus’ Passion. Israel –the symbolic Jew– is repeatedly crucifying the poor “palestinians” on the cross of their inexplicable cruelty, etc. The “palestinians” are symbolically a collective Jesus. News broadcasts about Israel often take the form of a passion play with all that that entails.

    That is one reason why it was necessary for the major Judeophobes in the world to invent the “palestinian people”, a people which had never existed in history. If they had continued to be called merely Arabs, it would have been harder to place them in the role of a collective Jesus.

    The PLO charter of course states that “the Palestinian Arabs are a part of the Arab nation and Palestine is an integral part of the great Arab fatherland.” [article One].

  65. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    Please don’t forget the ends. It’s Israel’s turn to be crucified. Isn’t it fair?

  66. obsy says:

    Eliyahu,

    I don’t know where the new Antisemitism in the USA comes from. I guess it is strongly coupled with anti-american self-hate.

    In Europe we have two major influences:

    1. A significant part of our lower class are moderate Muslims.

    2. Socialism is far more popular here then in the US.

    Both points combined are a killer combination. Almost all Muslims hate Jews and moderate Muslims tend to love socialism. Socialists on the other hand love the poor. Intellectuals tend to be Socialists.

    Add that people in media often have to work under economical unstable conditions and constant fear of social decline. Given the fact that you already have a solid bank of Jew haters (1+2 from above) that wants to see their believes confirmed, it is not hard to see where things were going.

    The good thing is that most Jew haters still do not like radical Islamic groups. They are merely willing to ignore them. But the number of apologists I encounter is rising. (Hamas has its right of self defense against the illegal occupation force blah-blah)

    (Anybody care to see Hamas in action?
    http://www.youtube.com/v/J08GqXMr3YE
    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/02/just-like-us-video.html
    I don’t even want to think about the Martyr and Jew-hate education for Palestinian children.)

    Daniel,

    nice post — even if I have only read a fraction of it.
    I want to add that France was very well aware of its fate and prepared huge defense structures. (The Nazis later ignored these and went through Belgium’s borders instead). Unfortunately the rest of the world did not take France’s fears serious.

  67. Richard L says:

    Post 52 by E.G.

    Jeez, how many times do I have to write this?

    I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel.

    I feel like I am at an AA meeting – My name is Richard and I am an alcoholic. Well It’s enough to drive anyone to drink. I wrote in it capitals and that was wrong. I wrote in lower case and now that is not acknowledged. I am not going to write at the top of every answer.

    Post 55 by obsy

    I don’t see the purpose of comparing the Gaza war with others. If you were still writing you could have explained the reasoning for this.

    I am not going to descend to the use of expletives.

    And thanks for the point about post 50. It was bothering me that the Prof would write in those terms.

    Post 56 by E.G.

    No comment

    Post 57 by obsy

    As I understand the video it is condemning war, not promoting it. It is expressing stong disapproval, I have seen nothing in it (in my one viewing) to suggest that it considers the Gaza war was a good thing or that anyone should go out and try to repeat it or emulate it.

    I consider plenty of films to be war mongering. Anything that treats war as a game or an entertainment. Lord of the Rings, especially part two for example where the dwarf and the elf were havng a competition to kill the most orcs. But video games are probably a better example. They do worry me.

    Post 58 by obsy

    I had previously thought about the charred infants transposed to an attack on Sderot. I get the same acute horror,no more, no less. You could put them where you like, Chechenya, Sri Lanka, wherever. (The LRA has probably committed even worse acts.) They all reflect a failure of our aspirations to be civilized. You can change the guilty and the victims around as much as you like, but does this ever help us to prevent it happening again? Does it prevent the apparent inevitability of it happening again, to Jew or Arab, Chechen or Tamil or to whoever? It is still an outrage. It still has to be wrong. It should still be condemned and resisted.

    Post 59 by Ben

    I think we are saying the same thing. I believe fundamentally in the judicial process, and I am totally opposed to kangaroo courts and summary justice. I am not trying to pre-empt a court,that’s where the ‘reasons for’ and ‘facts surrounding’ should all be properly considered. Does that correspond at all with what you are saying?

    You say that Hamas is not answerable. Goldstone seems to think they are, in the ICJ if need be. All the more reason to support the report.

    Israel’s investigations are inadequate. Even now Netanyahu, Barak and Ashkenazi can’t agree on whether they should conduct further enquiries while others are calling for a fully independent enquiry. This would have all been wrapped up months ago without Goldstone.

    I am afraid your last point is lost because of a typo, so I can’t comment

    Post 60 by Daniel Bielak

    I am very sorry Mr Bielak but this is way above my head and I really don’t have the time to work my way through it. Please accept my sincere apologies.

    Post 61 and 62 by E.G.

    I don’t know if this was for me or not. I did see this earlier. I thought there was not enough emphasis on the difference between regarding Israel as a pariah state and denying its right to exist.

    Post 63 by obsy

    Go in your corner and sulk then.

    And no you can’t ask anything, you’ve left the game, remember.

    (It should be me that’s wanting out. I’m getting tired of being the Aunt Sally.)

    Post 64 by Eliyahu

    Doesn’t really matter whether they are classified as Arabs or Palestinians when if comes to the application of human rights. Nationhood of course is different but we don’t know where that is leading yet.

  68. E.G. says:

    Richard L.,

    The question was WHY do Gazans shoot, not whether you condemn it.

  69. obsy says:

    I looked a while through the net to find comments from peacers who liked the video. After passing lots and lots of terror supporters and 911-truthers I finely came along someone who could be in the peace camp:

    “And isn’t it ironic how a nation composed of people who survived one holocaust, has turned around to become a perpetrator of the very crime–genocide–it once swore never to let happen again?”

    http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/2010/02/gaza_in_plain_language.html

    That really sounds like the usual thoughtless peacer garbage. Boy, Mowrey and Lawson must have hit the wrong note. Virtually nobody in the peace camp (apart from the radical lunatics) seems to like their crap.

  70. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Not even at the CiF?

  71. Ben says:

    RichardL,

    We are not saying the same thing. We are saying the complete opposite.
    I say Hamas is responsible for the deaths of the Palestinian children because of its actions before and during Cast Lead. You say that Hamas’ conduct before and during Cast Lead is irrelevant. That’s an irreconcilable difference.
    Your comment about Hamas’ accountability and the Goldstone Report is mistaken: the report makes no recommendation as to Hamas, referring instead to “Palestinian armed groups.” If you can explain this, be my guest.
    And while you’re at it, maybe you can support your claim that “Israel’s investigations are inadequate.”
    My last point was nonsensical as written (on account of the typo) and I suspect will have no traction with you in any event, but I’ll say it this way:
    Leaving aside its numerous severe flaws, the Goldstone exercise was the best opportunity the world had to examine the plight of those piteous residents of Gaza who do not want war with Israel, and to examine the warfare waged by those like Hamas and Hezbollah which essentially converts civilized people and communities into unwilling Trojan Horses. For whatever reason, Hamas’ proud boasts that it used human shields was insufficient to persuade Goldstone of that fact, as were videos clearly showing that was happening. The Palestinians of Gaza know all too well what Goldstone pretends not to. It is those people, trapped between Hamas’ genocidal terror and the IDF’s armed response, whom Goldstone has foresaken.

  72. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    What about this?
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/gaza-in-plain-language/
    “Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice”?

    Also check in there the article by Alan Hart who “has been engaged with events in the Middle East and globally as a researcher, author, and a correspondent for ITN and the BBC.”

    I first thought this one was a parody on the people’s cube…
    http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=30232

  73. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    What is CiF?

    I searched for sites that linked to that video and checked what kind of people they were.
    I don’t think that this video is popular enough that you can do it the other way round. I can’t imagine that the typical Hippy-minded type girl will be attracted to this garbage.

    “Dissident Voice” was one of the first that I found. It is the source of the text for the video. But the commentators seemed to me to be fans of Hamas, so I don’t count them as real peacers:

    “Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza; hamas forces are the national guard of gaza, called out to defend the territory from the illegal invasion, illegal attacks, and illegal occupation of the genocidal IDF”

    and

    “Hamas was elected in elections demanded by Israel and the US. When they were not allowed to govern they drove Fatah out and have governed since. They have acted responsibly toward their constituency and are the only thing keeping the population under control.
    The idea that the Gazans must comply with Israel’s ideas of what their government should be is ridiculous beyond words and no sovereign people would agree to that.”

    And to much in favor of conspiracy theories:

    “I am glad that the issue of Google’s censorship of the Net was raised in the video.”

    and

    “Israel being “a victim” is one of many myths created by Zionists to keep the westerners caged in their guilty conscience (the Holocaust stuff).”

    and

    “the Zionist propaganda apparatus, either directly on the ground through their ‘humanitarian’ representatives, or through the well-trained hyenas of the Western media, see Haiti as a grand opportunity for pro-Israel agit-prop.”

    and

    “Apparently mainstream media is the insane “force” by which we are supposed to distract ourselves from the unbearable truth. Thank you, Joe Mowrey, for keeping us sane.”

  74. obsy says:

    By the way:

    I’m often astonished why so many people keep telling that Hamas is rightfully elected and we therefor have to accept them and their evil deeds.
    Have they already forgotten that the Nazis were rightfully elected as well?

    I believe they just do not care.
    They don’t care about Palestinians. If Hamas is responsible, then they are not.
    What they do care about are Jews and Americans.

    I’m glad that the allies in the 40th were more caring than the people of today. Almost all Germans that I know agree that living in a free state is preferable to a rightfully elected suppressive Nazi-government. This did hold true even under the years of occupation.

  75. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Cif is the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” online section.
    A delightful nook for all lovers of peace and preachers of hate.

    The Hippy Love&Peace is a gone-by species. Not that the new “peaceniks” are less clueless – indeed perfectly ignorant of what Hamas is and does – they’re just seeped in Judeophobia.
    Peace is Newspeak for “someone – anyone but Juice – should rule”. And “Human Rights” is rights for everyone but Juice.

  76. Dave says:

    It looks like the ‘Defend Israel’ summer-camp crowd has really swarmed around this one. Actually, it’s quite simple. A ‘Jewish’ state forced into multi-ethnic Palestine is violent racism as plain as it can ever get. End of argument. The constant expansion of new ‘Jewish Only’ subdivisions is just more proof. All the horrors – on ‘both sides’ – are simply the natural predictable face of ethnic-supremacy forcing itself in broad daylight into a multi-ethnic region. Those who make excuses for Israel’s openly racist violence, or who blame the indigenous population for honoring their obligation to shoot back at the racist settlers, are simply identifying themselves as the violent racists of our time and place. Israel would not be able to get away with its crimes, were it not for the fact that the Zionists among us – those who gain personally from official Jewish advantage in the Middle East – have been lying about the realities for decades, and exploiting the trust and compassion of the majority. The truth about all of this is rapidly coming to the surface at last. And no one has to be a ‘peacnik’ or ‘leftist’ to understand how our Constitution has been subverted by a well-organized and highly interested fifth column, consisting of millions of Jewish-supremacists distorting information, determining elections, and destroying the best interests of the US.

  77. obsy says:

    I took a look at Noam’s site yesterday and was extremely disappointed. He is currently addressing American Jews directly to fight “racism” in Israel (*cough*).

    Noam: “interesting point about the Jews who criticize Israel ultimately tend to start distancing themselves from Judaism.”

    (Yes, interesting. I just warned you almost a year ago …)

    “One wonders how many community leaders are sensitive to the dangers – not just the benefits – of identifying Judaism with Israel.”

    (Benefits like the only country in the world that you can trust to take in fleeing Jews during the next holocaust? The rest of the world had a quite poor record last time.)

    “What will happen if things get uglier here? Will it turn more people away from their heritage?”

    (The real question is: What will happen if jerks increase anti-Israel coverage about this country that some of their audience do barely know personally?
    But it turns out that Noam is not interested in this question. Go on: fight Israeli “racism” in America.)

  78. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Small fish go after the big fish. There’s an interview in (Hebrew only) Maariv with Naomi Hazan, head of the NIF, complaining about the harassment she is suffering.

    It ends this way (brackets by me):
    Q: The opinions you express here [Israel should be a multi/bi-national state] will certainly invite a few more ads condemning you.
    A: I hope not. I’m a Sabra who was born and grew up in Jerusalem, still living here these days. Me- I am [represent] the true Israel lover. Whoever loves the state should think like me.

    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/056/497.html

    And she’s complaining about muzzling, lack of pluralism, intolerance…

  79. Eliyahu says:

    Psychologically wounded –and therefore exploitable– people like Noam cannot conceive of racism on the Arab side or on the part of Western govts towards Israel.

    Just to enlighten Noam and richard L, after the Arab conquest, Arabs/Muslims instituted a system of occupation in the conquered countries which included exploitation, humiliation, suppression, degradation, etc. This affected Jews in Arab-occupied Israel and in other Muslim-ruled countries.
    Arab nationalists and Islamist supported the Nazis, emulated the Nazis, provided sanctuary for Nazi war criminals after WW2, etc.

    Most notable among Arab Nazi collaborators was Haj Amin el-Husseini, British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem [sometime incorrectly called "Grand Mufti"]. He spent most of the WW2 years in the Nazi-fascist domain in Europe, fervently encouraging the Holocaust. He urged Eastern European satellite countries of the Nazis to send Jewish children to Poland, where, he said, they would be “under active supervision.”

    Since Israel’s independence, Arab states have driven out almost all of their Jewish inhabitants who numbered about 900,000 in 1940. The view of the Arabs as victims of Jews is a very big lie, fostered of course by Judeophobic Westerners, such as Arnold Toynbee, Christopher Mayhew, Ernest Bevin, etc.

    Noam and richard L ought to go to the links that Daniel Bielak posted.

  80. E.G. says:

    Just came across this:
    http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/01/the-good-old-days-beofre-peace.php

    (though terror attacks, including car-bombings, were heard of)

  81. JD says:

    Dear Dave (David Duke?)

    “and exploiting the trust and compassion of the majority”

    I can guarantee you that trust and probably compassion are wholly absent in your psychological make up.

    Stick to the right wing domestic stuff. You do not pull off the left wing Israel obsession well.

  82. Daniel Bielak says:

    CORRECTIONS to my previous post:

    In my previous post I wrote wrong dates of some events (I was writing entirely from my memory of documents and articles and video and audio that I had read, seen, and heard). I apologize.

    The following are corrections to the dates of events whose dates I wrote incorrectly in my previous post. There may also be some other wrong dates in my previous post, but I think that the dates that I wrote in my previous post are relatively accurate (and if there are mistakes in the dates, I think that the discrepancies between the wrong dates that I may have written and the accurate dates are within a range of a just a few years.). I apologize for the following mistakes about dates that I know for sure that I made in my previous post, and I apologize for other mistakes about dates, and about other things, that I may have made in my previous post. I hope that people who are more capable than me might further, and completely accurately, communicate the information that I have tried to accurately communicate.

    O Amin Al Husseini moved to Germany in 1941 not in 1938.

    O Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 (after winning elections there and, I think, violently fighting subsequent resistance from Fatah/PLO/PalestinianAuthority) not in 2004

  83. Daniel Bielak says:

    “…I hope that people who are more capable than me…”

    …I hope that people who are more capable than I am…

  84. E.G. says:

    JD,

    What, are you going to answer any delirious hallucination that RL’s openness lets appear?

    Why, such imbecilities are not even worth spending the time reading them.

  85. JD says:

    I find them fascinating. Help! ;)

  86. Ray in Seattle says:

    Dave @ 76 says, “A ‘Jewish’ state forced into multi-ethnic Palestine is violent racism as plain as it can ever get. End of argument.”

    Ha ha. Where’s the argument? That’s just an unsupported assertion. Arf, arf!

    Dave says, “A ‘Jewish’ state forced into multi-ethnic Palestine is violent racism as plain as it can ever get. End of argument”.

    So, the Palestinain state “forced” onto the several hundred thousand Jews who lived in the territory in 1947 by the Partition Plan was also “violent racism as plain as it can ever get”? If not, how is it different? Arabs were freely allowed to settle in the territory leading up the 1947. Jews were only able to do so at great sacrifice and against the British Mandatory power for the most part. Many of those who failed went to the gas chambers. Do think maybe not enough Jews including Jewish children were gassed and so too many were let in? And you have the gall to complain about “violent racism”?

    Dave says, “All the horrors – on ‘both sides’ – are simply the natural predictable face of ethnic-supremacy forcing itself in broad daylight into a multi-ethnic region.”

    Ha again! The Partition Plan made no ethnic demands on anyone nor required that anyone move from where they lived nor sell their property. You are simply deluded by your own toxic ideology.

    The rest of your comment is equally nonsensical and this is too easy to be interesting. Are you capable of making one coherent argument? Why not give it a try – or are you just as incapable as Richard L? Take your best shot. So far I’ve seen only drivel.

  87. Richard says:

    The problem with people like Noam Chomsky is that they are systematically dishonest.
    These are the fascist left who preach war and call it peace.

    On the one hand: Israel, a pluralist, liberal, open democracy. On the other hand, the Palestinians, a society convulsed and consumed by hatred, where murderers are celebrated but this is not reported in the mainstream because it does not fit the ruling paradigm.
    If you made a documentary about the true nature of the Palestinian cause and society, you would be accused of being a racist for the rest of your life.

  88. Richard says:

    And yes, I am not Richard Landes. If I was I’d be richer!

  89. Daniel Bielak says:

    obsy,

    Thank for your appreciation of my comment.

    In one of your coments you wrote that you did not know why anti-Jewish bigotry was increasing and coming to the surface in the United States.

    Anti-Jewish bigotry is a normal, normative, deeply engrained, part of all Western (Christian-European-based, profoundly-Jewish-influenced) societies, including the United States.

    The following paper, which I listed in my previous comment, accurately describes the anti-Jewish bigotry that is a normal, normative, deeply engrained, part of the contemporary culture in the United States, and in other Western societies.

    “Western Culture, The Holocaust, and the Persistence of Antisemitism”, by Dr. Catherine Chatterley
    http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/chatterleypaper3509.pdf

    The paper is the text of a talk that Dr. Chatterley gave at the The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA) at Yale University.

    The following are links to the streaming video file (RealMedia) of the talk and the link to the page that contains the links to the document file of the talk and to the streaming video of the talk.

    O Video of Talk (Streaming Video (RealMedia)): http://streaming.yale.edu:8080/ramgen/cmibroadcast/yiisa/chatterley_030509.rm
    O Direct Link to streaming video file: rtsp://128.36.236.13:554/cmibroadcast/yiisa/chatterley_030509.rm?cloakport=8080,554
    O Page of Seminars that contain the links: http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/seminars0809.htm

    (The founder and host of YIISA is Dr. Charles Small. He is, as I am, Jewish, and he is, as I am, very concerned about the anti-Israeli anti-Jewish bigotry that has surged in the world today, and he is, as I am, very concerned about the danger that the current regime of Iran is posing to Israel.

    One may observe how, *even in spite of Dr. Charles Small’s being concered about those things*, after Dr. Chatterley’s excellent talk, Dr. Charles Small reflexively, in a reflexive, unmindful, irrational, harmful, so-called “self-critical”, way that is common among many Jewish people, made obfuscating irrational remarks to challenge, as did also an off-camera young audience member (who, I discern, is, most likely, Jewish), some facts that Dr. Chatterley articulated very well during her excellent talk.)

    (YIISA is one of only, I think, three academic institutes in the world that were founded to study anti-Jewish bigotry, and is one of the two of those academic institutions that actually do study anti-Jewish bigotry. The other one of those two institutes that actually study anti-Jewish bigotry is in Israel. The other one of the three academic institutions that were founded to study anti-Jewish bigotry is in Germany and its faculty and staff have become complicit in propagating anti-Jewish bigotry and in defending the Islamic-Supremacist political movement by engaging in actions such as ignoring, denying, and obfuscating, the reality of, and the cause of, the explicit *intendedly genocidal* anti-Jewish bigotry of the Islamic-Supremacist movement, and by explicitly promoting, and advocating for the use of, the term “Islamopbobia”.

    O http://clemensheni.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/why-prof-wolfgang-benz-is-headed-in-the-wrong-direction/
    O http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/islamophobia-or-truthophobia
    Or (Google’s cache of the page): http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/islamophobia-or-truthophobia
    (Matthias Kuentzel’s site seems to be down at the time of my writing this))
    O http://clemensheni.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/how-to-deny-the-iranian-threat-the-zfa-summer-school-2009/)

    The following is a short, concise, accurate, well-articulated overview of anti-Jewish bigotry.

    “Antisemitism – from ancient times to the post-9/11 world”, by Clemens Heni
    http://clemensheni.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/antisemitism-from-ancient-times-to-the-post-911-world/

    Right after the attack on the Twin Towers in New York City I anticipated that, and I was afraid that, because of the total ignorance about, and because of the propagation of misinformation about, the war against Israel (the so-called “Arab-Israeli conflict”), many people in the United States would begin to blame Israel and the United States’ government’s publicly self-declared so-called (but, truly, non-existant) “support” for Israel, for causing violent adherents of the Islamic-Supremacist modern political movement to violently attack the United States, and that anti-Jewish anti-Israeli bigotry would increase in the United States. What I anticipated would happen, and what I was afraid would happen, has happened.

    Another event which hugely caused anti-Jewish bigotry to increase was the anti-Jewish hate-inciting Christian “passion play” movie by Mel Gibson “The Passion of the Christ”.

    The anti-Jewish hate-inciting Christian “passion play” movie by Mel Gibson “The Passion of the Christ” was hugely popular in, and widely viewed in, the United States. Later, after Mel Gibson spouted a tirade of anti-Jewish remarks after he was arrested for driving while he was drunk, some people in the media attempted to excuse and play down his bigoted anti-Jewish remarks and had discussions about whether what one says when one is drunk is actually what one truly believes. Several weeks after Mel Gibson launched that tirade of anti-Jewish bigoted remarks, Jay Leno, a popular Late-Night TV talk show host, had Mel Gibson on as a guest as if nothing had happened, and at the beginning of the show that night when Jay Leno announced which guests would be on his show that night he announced Mel Gibson as “our good friend, Mel Gibson”, which was responded to by the audience with loud cheers and loud applause. From what I have heard, and read, by Christpher Hitchens, and by others, Mel Gibson is, as is his father Mel Gibson Sr., an influential member of an explicitely anti-Jewish religious Catholic Christian splinter sect which explicitely refers to “The Jews” as “Christ-Killers”, and Mel Gibson’s father said that the Jewish population of Germany actually increased during Hitler’s time, and Mel Gibson once responded to questions about those views that were expressed by his father by saying that “my father has never told me a lie”.

    “Mel Gibson’s Meltdown”, by Christopher Hitchens
    http://www.slate.com/id/2146880/

    “Is the Pope Catholic . . . Enough?”, by Christopher Noxon
    http://www.christophernoxon.com/nyt_sub_pope.html

    There are many manifestations, some subtle and some gross, of the anti-Jewish bigotry that is just right below the surface of the society of the United States.

    Expressions of anti-Jewish bigotry, including anti-Israeli bigotry, which is bigotry that, in most cases, is expressed subtly, are everywhere in the mainstream entertainment media in the United States (and, in many cases, that anti-Jewish bigotry is expressed and propagated, in ways that are subtle and in ways that are gross, by ethnically Jewish comedians, ethnically Jewish entertainers, and ethnically Jewish TV drama series writers). The anti-Israeli narrative is what is entirely propagated in the mainstream TV and print news media in the United States in news coverage about the manifestations of the war against Israel that are the manifestations that used to be referred to in the media as the “Israeli-Arab” and “Arab-Israeli” conflict, and are now referred to in the media, euphemistically as the “Middle-East conflict” and the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, and the anti-Israeli narrative is propagated in the mainstream TV and print news media in the United States most influentially by Jewish journalists, academics, and intellectuals. However, the anti-Israeli narrative is propagated in the mainstream TV and print news media in the United States, still, much less blatantly than, and much less relentlessly than, and much less obscenely than, is done in the mainstream news media in countries in Europe.

    Colleges and Universities in the United States (through Saudi-financed Middle East Studies departments and Neo-Leftist-Faculty-Controlled Social Science departments and Muslim Brotherhood and Neo-Leftist so-called “Pro-Palestinian” and so-called “anti-Zionist” activist campus groups) have become centers of the generation and dissemination of anti-Israeli anti-Jewish propaganda lies and bigotry.

    Even though all of this is the case, what is also the case, and what I am very grateful for, is that, American people, in general, are much less bigoted toward Jewish people than European people, in general, are, and American people, in general, are much less bigoted, in general, than European people, in general, are.

    There is much less deep, deeply engrained, intense, anti-Jewish bigotry as part of the culture of American society that there is as part of the culture of European societies.

    I think that American people, in general, are much more open, are much more open-minded and open-hearted, that European people, in general, are.

    For that reason, I feel deep gratitude to, and great appreciation for, American people.

    America is truly a beautiful, wonderful, country. (At least it, currently, still is. Though, things in the United States are getting bad (with things such as the utter ignorance of the situation that is had by almost all people in the United States, and the resultant arising of the multi-classed Neo-Left ideology, mindset, and political movement, and the covert non-violent infiltration of, and influence on, societal, educational, and governmental institutions by adherents of the Islamic-Supremacist modern political movement (members of front-groups of the Muslim Brotherhood, and of front-groups of other Islamic-Supremacist organizations (such as the Islamic-Supremacist regime of Iran))

    If Jewish people who are aware of the situation work with non-Jewish (nationally American, European, and other, and ethnically European, Arab, Iranian, Indian, and other) people who are aware of situation to communicate the situation to the world, then the situation will become better.

  90. Daniel Bielak says:

    “Academic Fictions”, by Dr. Denis MacEoin; from Dr. Denis MacEoin’s blog “A Liberal Defense of Israel”
    http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2008/11/academic-fictions.html

    “…This tiresome series of analogies (Jews=Nazis, Israel=apartheid South Africa) are, in one sense, remarkable. They are manifest fiction, yet large numbers of well-educated academics, writers, intellectuals, and commentators believe in them with an almost religious fervour…

    …While some conspiracy theorists may be intelligent, it is rare to find mainstream academics, lawyers, scientists and others among them (I think I’m right in saying that).

    But the IDF soldier/Nazi stormtrooper analogy and all the others that cluster around this trope have become the conspiracy theory that has been made respectable by intellectuals and academics worldwide, to the point where patently false history has been allowed to replace archived records as the basis on which political decisions are take…

    …Making the Palestinians victims ‘fits’ a perverted theology, combining the old view that the Jews killed Jesus with a new dimension, all of which meshes in the believer’s mind because it feels somehow ‘right’…”

    “Why Many, or Most Anti-Zionists are Anti-Semites”, by Paul Austin Murphy; from Paul Austin Murphy’s blog “Islam, Islamism, and the Far/Hard Left”
    http://islamthefarleftandmisc.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-many-or-most-anti-zionists-are-anti.html

    “The following is a good question to ask about anti-Zionists and those loudly against Israel:

    Do anti-Zionists begin by hating Jews and end up hating Israel and Zionists? Or do they begin by hating Israel and Zionists and end up hating Jews?

    My hunch is that the former is the case in many – if not most – cases of anti-Zionism. This is unequivocally the case for Islamists and the Far Right; but it is not so straightforwardly the case for Far Leftists…

    …When the Far Left and others claim the following two incredible things

    i) That Israel is the world’s only ‘pariah state’.
    ii) That Israel is the ‘root cause’ of all the world’s terrorism and war.

    why don’t they go the whole way by adding a third statement to this almost-classic set of anti-Semitic clichés? Why don’t they add this? –

    iii) That the Jews are a cosmic and evil tribe which has the supernatural power to bring chaos and disorder to the whole universe…

    …Middle-class Far Leftists don’t usually like being football hooligans or behaving like the yobs of the Far Right (with their honest anti-Semitism and hooliganism). But they too like aggression and violence. So Far Leftist anti-Zionists feel the need to justify or intellectualise their aggressive anti-Semitism. Thus they tuck into the complete works of Chomsky every evening and sometimes even indulge in a bit of Norman Finklestein when they are feeling particularly hateful or vindictive towards the Jews. (And they are Jews. So they can’t be anti-Semitic.)…

    …Is it just me, or do other people also think that there is something very strange about the obsession with Israel and the plight of the Palestinians? It may, I think, have something to do with anti-Semitism. It is something which can certainly be explained by anti-Semitism. In fact, it is something which can only be explained by anti-Semitism…

    …It is amazing to think that many New Leftists, before the 1967 war, believed that the Israeli state to be the only democracy in the Middle East. (It still is.) They saw the Jews of Israel as a persecuted and over-criticised group. (They still are.) But when the Arabs states attacked Israel in 1967, all that changed – literally over night…

    …That most definitely suggests that before the Arab attack on Israel, or on the Jews, the Jews were seen as a minority by the Far Left. That suddenly changed. Why? Was it because a more politically-hip group had come to blows with the once ‘Jewish minority’? The new minority was made up of brown people. Not only that, they were Muslim and Arabic brown people. In the Far Left’s crude calculus or politically-correct right and wrong, this trumped the Jews’ minority and oppressed status. That is because the Jews, from then on, were seen as ‘white’. And from then on Israel was also seen as the vanguard of American imperialism and thus it became a fashionable leftist’s enemy…

    …Isn’t strange how important boycotts have become to the anti-Zionist or anti-Israel campaign? They are primarily, so they say, campaigning against what they call ‘the Occupation’. Note the definite article and the platonic capital ‘O’. It’s not an occupation. It is the Occupation. That is, it is not the occupation (with a small ‘o’) of Tibet by China. It is not the occupation of Kurdistan by Iraq, Turkey and Syria. It is not even the occupation of Chechnya by Russia. It is the Occupation (with a large ‘O’) of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel…

    …To give another example of this strange and neurotic obsession with the crimes of the Jews… sorry, the Zionists and the state of Israel, think about those other occupiers which are even closer to home than the occupiers of Tibet, Kurdistan, etc. Take the occupiers, or ex-occupiers, Jordan and Egypt. These two countries, between 1948 and 1967, occupied Gaza and the West Bank. No one talked about ‘the Occupation’ with a capital ‘O’ then. No. The Occupation began, all of a sudden, in 1967, when the Jews… sorry, the Israelis Occupied the West Bank and Gaza after defeating and pushing back the Arab aggressors. Why didn’t Egypt and Jordan create a Palestinian state then? Why did they help create and sustain the Palestinian refugee camps? Why? Why did Jordan go to war with the PLO around this time? Why do the Arab states seem to need the Palestinian refugees? They needed them to help the Arab and Islamic cause as well as the cause that is Israel’s annihilation….

    …We hear a lot about ‘the right of return’ for the Palestinian refugees who ‘fled’ from the ‘marauding Jews’ who raped everyone, even the goats, in 1947/8. Do the Jews also have a right of return to, say, Jordan or Iraq; places in which they had lived for hundreds sometimes for over a thousand years before they were kicked out by the Muslim Arabs? Well, they certainly can’t ‘return’ to Jordan because no Jew can be a citizen there. And if Muslims are very busy killing other Muslims in Iraq, why the hell would Jews want to return to that country? (However, for suicidal Jews it would be a good idea to return to the Arab countries they once lived in.)…

    …I personally experienced Kristallnacht-like anti-Semitism at the University of Birmingham during a protest about Gaza in Dec/Jan 2008/9. On a march at that time, probably organised by the SWP or Hizb-ut-Tahrir (under its latest pseudonym), I saw a huge effigy of a massive-nosed Jew eating a darling little Palestinian child. Straight out of Der Stürmer it was. (Or straight from Palestinian daytime TV.) I thought to myself: What the *uck has this got to do with anti-Zionism and the Israeli Government? It was pure, unadulterated racism…

    …Is all this Far Leftist anti-Semitism beginning to sound like, well, Far Rightist or Nazi anti-Semitism? That’s not surprising. They have more in common than many, but not the anarchists, think…”

  91. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…I think that American people, in general, are much more open, are much more open-minded and open-hearted, that European people, in general, are…”

    I think that American people, in general, are much more open, are much more open-minded and open-hearted, than European people, in general, are.

    I don’t know if that is true or not, and I think that that may not be true. I know that it was wrong of me to say that. I apologize.

  92. obsy says:

    Dave: “Actually, it’s quite simple.

    It is not.
    You have to start from a fact, make a correct implication and get a true result.
    Now try again.

    The truth about all of this is rapidly coming to the surface at last.

    So you have heard of the protocols, too?

    Notice:
    1. There is more that drives the world then racism.
    Have a look at religious, cultural, social issues for a start.
    2. The Jewish state does not say anything about race at all.
    3. The Jewish people are multi-ethnic — the Palestinians (aka: Non-Jewish Arabs who lived in Israel in the first half of last century) not so much.
    4. “indigenous population for honoring their obligation” you must be very angry at the native Americans that they do not honor their obligation to shoot back at the European, Asian and African US-settlers any more, but try to profit from the multi-ethnic attainments that came along with them as well as to contribute to a better living for all Americans.
    5. For someone who sees the world in terms of racism only, you are quite indifferent that this “indigenous population” and “Israel is ruling the world” crap is exactly the talk of modern day fascist racists around the world in their struggle to keep “clean” bloodlines and honor the antisemitism of their idols. I honestly would not call you “peacnik” or “leftist”.

  93. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    I prefixed, but it was incorrect for me to have prefixed, Denis MacEoin’s name with the prefix “Dr.”.

    I apologize.

  94. obsy says:

    Dave: “Those who make excuses for Israel’s openly racist violence, or who blame the indigenous population for honoring their obligation to shoot back at the racist settlers, are simply identifying themselves as the violent racists of our time and place.”

    1. You make here as well as in other sentences strong use of suppositions. While I first thought that you are trying to be manipulative and didn’t recognize the scientific factual nature of this blog, I guess it is just the kind of “argument” that you are used to. Which would mean that you really should be more careful to select whom to believe. Because you prefer it simple, I will put it like this: People that trick you are not your friends! Now go and read up suppositions.

    2. Even in one of the rare cases of true racism and racist settlers, racist soldiers, … in Israel, there is good reason to complain about its coverage, when it is not in proper context.
    To emphasis (and invent) evil deeds of one people (as done with Jews) while ignoring those of others is nothing but psychological warfare and warmongering.
    (By the way: many Anti-Islamists in Europe do this against moderate Muslims, instead of focusing on the real issues.)
    Ignoring circumstances is as evil.

    You cannot judge without taking the context into account. It is not simple. It never is.
    As American you should be more sensitive to this issue. You suffer from biases against Americans as well. If you read European MSM, you might come to the conclusion, the the USA hasn’t done anything right since the end of the cold war.

  95. obsy says:

    Oops again: “presupposition” instead of “supposition”.

  96. Ben says:

    I think JD (no. 82) nailed it… “Dave” is David Duke, or at least shares his pyschopathological view of the world. I suppose Dave’s contribution might have some trifling value – to show the now-pedestrian but ever-inexplicable convergence of his obvious fascist mindset with the slightly more subtle ultra-liberal views of a RichardL.
    “A ‘Jewish’ state forced into multi-ethnic Palestine is violent racism as plain as it can ever get.”??? Wow. How “multi-ethnic” is “Palestine” Dave? And how “multi-ethnic” does the majority power in the PA strive for “Palestine” to be?
    “And no one has to be a ‘peacnik’ or ‘leftist’ to understand how our Constitution has been subverted by a well-organized and highly interested fifth column, consisting of millions of Jewish-supremacists distorting information, determining elections, and destroying the best interests of the US.”
    Whoa!!! Hard-core, Dave, hard-core! Face it, mein herr, you’re just pissed because the “millions of Jewish-supremacists” you fancy and fear don’t have to put up with your anti-Jewish supremacism: your halcyon days of fascist glory ended over fifty years ago. Go find a puppy to kick – you’ll feel better.

  97. Arye Ben harav says:

    The Author begins by using the terms ‘sociopathic behavior’ of Israel and ends by linking Israel to the US War in Iraq which he claims to have killed 1 M people and destroyed a country of 26 M. So from the outset we understand that this is an anti US & anti Israel propaganda piece. The narator further states that 1.5 million refugees , 2nd, 3rd and 4rth generation are living in Gaza. Why are they still refugees? It’s been 60 years. When will Arabs allow them to integrate back into the Arab World? Palestinians have 4 ( count ‘em ) four Palestinian States where they can now live legally. Israel, Jordan, PA under Fatah, and Gaza under Hamas. 4 States. Plain enough for ya there Mr. Mowry? The narative continues with terms like ravaged, criminal, barbaric and then accuses Google of conspiring with Israel / USA. Jonathan Miller of Ch 4 claims to have reported on lots of terrible storms, tsunamis, and earthquakes and not to have seen such devastation as in Gaza. Jonathan, war is hell. Gaza has a Nazi Style regime. Complete fascism and a ‘murder the Jews’ mentality. It ain’t pretty. Neither was Dresden, Stalingrad, Berlin. It’s a war between those who would never allow you to open your mouth, force you to become Muslim, and those who allow, no – guaranty you the freedom to live and report as you see fit. BTW, somewhere in this twisted logic of yours you forgot to mention 8000 rockets fired at Israel from Gaza. Try that one on the peace loving Swedes. Let’s see how long they or the French or the Canadians would put up with it. ( In 1970, Canada declared Marshall Law after only 5 explosions )
    The naration goes on to present Golstone as a Zionist (as if Zionist is a bad thing) and shows the now -famous Agri Vandalism photo of the Magen David ploughed by a tank in a Gaza field by a couple of bored tank crewmen. Boys will be boys. They should be disciplined, but it ain’t a war crime. Let me know if you have trouble understanding what a war crime is and is not. I will direct you to what the Japanese and Germans did between 1933 and 1945. I will direct you to any Arab country and give you hundreds if not thousands of their actual ‘War crimes’. Of course, you can’t report on any of them. The Arabs will kill you if you do.
    I happen to like the Magen David photo and use it as a screen saver. If anyone knows where I can get a better original of it, please let me know. I want to frame copies of it and send them out to friends and make a better screen saver.

    Anyhow, towards the end the film asks what kind of regime and what kind of country could do this sort of damage and then shows US Stealths dropping fifty bomb payloads. Great advertisement for US deterrence but nothing to do with Gaza. Sorry.

    The film ends with a collage of photos. I ask you, if the civilian targets were so numerous, why is photo #4 included? It was taken from the 2006 Lebanon War. And why is photo #5 included. #5 is a photo of some of the 70 uniformed dead Hamas cadets killed by the IAF during their graduation ceremony during the opening moments of Cast Lead. Legitimate targets. Nice Shootin’ fly boys!! Mowry, Lawson, it’s back to propaganda school for you. This is just amateur rhetoric.

  98. E.G. says:

    Don’t forget the multi-confessional well-known feature:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWprs_t3rV0

  99. Stan says:

    It’s incredible to what lengths you need to go to to explain to mute individuals that the use of WP munitions that are designed and used to provide an obscurant for an army that is about to enter an area that contains hostile forces that have sniper and anti-tank capabilities is not only legal under international law, but is essential in the protection of of these forces who otherwise could suffer unneccessary casualties. (like in Cast Lead).
    It’s also incredible how these individuals grasp at a word (WP) and immediatly begin sprouting uneducated opinions blindly thereby indicating their personal bias towards a cause. It would be the which same to say that the people of Gaza are being gassed – which is definately true if you consider that they breathe air.

  100. sshender says:

    E.G.

    The “youth” one I have not seen yet – and what a treat. There appears to be a longer version of it as well (with the same excerpt including other “news”. You should not miss out the “Syrian representative smiling to the Israeli one”. That was so hilarious and SOOOO true!

  101. Joanne says:

    I’m used to wondering how people on the right seem to live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world. And this video shows another fantasy world, another parallel universe.

    It seems the penchant of the makers of this video to make assertions about Israeli intentions that it cannot offer any evidence to support. There is also the tendency to use whatever statistics, real or apocryphal, that support one’s point of view, while ignoring any stats or arguments to the contrary, except for brief references just to ridicule them.

    The narrator talks about blunt language, but I guess “blunt” doesn’t always mean “honest” or “common sense.”

    When he mentions the Goldstone report as being influenced by Zionists, or that opposing viewpoints must be ridiculed…well, what better proof than that that we’re dealing with truly questionable types here.

  102. Eliyahu says:

    It’s not just Arabs who make up weird Jewish conspiracy stories. Lady Jenny Tonge, a member of the British House of Lords, accuses the Israeli medical mission in Haiti of stealing organs from Haitian patients. She demands that Israel must undertake an independent inquiry in order to disprove her unsubstantiated charges.

  103. obsy says:

    Is anyone else expecting the next RichardL to jump in saying like:
    “What’s your gripe Eliyahu? It all sounds very true to me.
    Are you really trying to tell me those Haitian bodies are a fake or that this is just humanitarian aid? Answer me, are you?
    Face up to reality for once in your life, this has got crimes against humanity written clearly and unequivocally all over it.”

  104. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    apropos “youth”:

    There has been an election campaign by one of the big German politicians two years ago against youth crime:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Koch

    All media and all those on the left started to fight against this and called it “racist campaign” for months without any proof. (After weeks trying very hard to push anyone to “admit” the true nature of the campaign, they came up with some lower guy in the election campaign who said something like “foreigner youth crime”.) If you follow the election link in wikipedia you will find this interpretation there as well: “campaign against immigrant youth violence”

    As far as I can tell, it was not. Roland Koch was governor of that region and still is ― without any consequences for foreigners or even Muslims.
    It turned out to be a brilliant campaign against blurred media coverage. All the media who wanted to fight against it had to somehow admit that they blurred their coverage. They did not admit explicitly. Instead they went for very telling violent verbal attacks.
    This “youth = Muslim” revealment campaign is still a hurting thorn in the consciousness of the German Left and media coverage has improved ― at least a little.

  105. E.G. says:

    sshender,

    Yes, I saw the longer newscast.

  106. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Youths is a code-word in most media, with variants according to countries (e.g., Asian youths in GB – either Chinese don’t seem to mind, or their protests are not taken into account). And European youthfulness is getting extended to the early forties too.

  107. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    Wasn’t Lady Tonge dismissed?

  108. Eliyahu says:

    she still sits in the House of Lords but was dismissed as the Lib Dem party spokesperson on children’s affairs. But she’s still in the Lib Dem party.

    She was somewhat demoted and slapped on the wrist but not dismissed from the party. I understand that she “apologized” for her unwarranted remarks. Check it out on google or other search engine.

  109. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Wasn’t Lady Tonge dismissed?

    That was just tonge in cheek!

    She is still in the game.

  110. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    With regard to your youtube link in #98 what nobody seems to pay attention to is that the Church leaders in Jerusalem, Anglican, Vatican and Orthodox are more concerned in indicting Israel (Sabeel etc.) than worrying about their flock in Gaza.
    1970s Lebanon deja vu.

  111. Cynic says:

    I keep on hearing that he/she/it/they

    demands that Israel must undertake an independent inquiry

    Who/what will make up this “independent” inquiry that will suffice. that will please them, that will appease them?
    George Galloway,
    Idi Amin,
    Haled Maashal,
    Goldstone,Hina Jilani, Desmond Travers and Christine Chinkin,
    Gadaffi, Chomsky and Shalom Sand
    Maybe even Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC?

  112. E.G. says:

    Cynic #111

    Why would they? Are they Jewish?
    The Israelis seem to care – saw a report from the 2nd Israeli TV chain about the very uncomfortable situation of Christians in the Gaza strip.

    #110 Tongue in House :-/

  113. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Cynic,

    maybe the inquiry should be made by a robot, or alternatively by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the conflict. For instance, an aboriginal inhabitant of the Andaman islands. Provided that he or she agrees to talk with foreigners – some don’t.

  114. E.G. says:

    Michelle,

    I’d agree on one condition: that s/he knows nothing about weapons, rules of war, or Intl. Law and conventions.
    Oh, wait! Haven’t we tried this already?
    http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168391

  115. Michelle Schatzman says:

    E.G.,

    yes, this makes sense: someone who knows nothing about the modern contemporary world, its ruels, its history and its technology.

    We *do* need the Andamanese aborigenes. Even better if they refuse to talk to strangers, then we are sure that they are the most appropriate judges on the planet.

    Yes, but how do we encourage them to talk to strangers?

    Maybe we could appeal to some retired KGB operative, what do you think? They knew how to make people talk, didn’t they?

  116. obsy says:

    Israel defends human rights of Arabs while Arab nations do not:

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/02/irony-in-geneva-israel-defends-arab.html

    I guess that is the difference between a people who really care about humans and a sect that wants to destroy a people according to a “holy” book and generations of hate-mongering.

  117. E.G. says:

    Michelle,

    Talk or no talk doesn’t really matter when the inquiry only serves as a prop to a verdict that’s already pronounced.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3850411,00.html

  118. Ray in Seattle says:

    Obsy @118, What an amazing occurrence. Thanks for posting the link.

  119. Daniel Bielak says:

    Dear obsy,

    I want to tell you that I appreciate very much your support and your contributions.

    I want to apologize to you personally for my earlier remark that I apologized for to everyone, but mainly, specifically, to European people (European readers of this blog).

    I apologize for making that remark in my reply to you. When I wrote that remark I wasn’t being mindful that I had addressed that comment to you, who I appreciate very much, and who I do not want to hurt in any way.

    I hope that I did not hurt your feelings. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

    Sincerely,
    Dan

  120. sshender says:

    A quote I could not resist posting here from the book Sucker Punch: The Hard Left Hook That Dazed Ali and Killed King’s Dream :

    Today, those who shape our culture — writers, critics, publishers, broadcasters, movie and TV producers — routinely calculate the essence of individuals, especially racial minorities, not as the sum of their blessings but rather as the sum of their grievances. In the traditional hero saga, the individual is expected to overcome hardship and injustice. In the grievance narrative, he nurses them like grudges. If they seem inadequate to evoke guilt or anger — the two desired responses from the audience — the narrator reserves the right to embellish or even invent additional offenses…”

    Dead On!

  121. sshender says:

    Also noteworthy:

    I’ve sent Richard (Landes, that is) an email but got no response so far so I might as well let you in on it too.

    I’ve recently seen a BBC documentary titled Generation Jihad which deals with the radicalization of Young British Muslims. The first part was broadcast a few days ago and I’ve found it and downloaded it. When the narrator began explaining the ’causes” for their radicalization I was dumbstruck to hear him utter the “In september 2000 a 12 year old Muhammad al-Durah was shot dead by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza strip”. Not “allegedly”. Not “according to Pal. sources”. By Israeli soldiers plain and simple! (see minute 27 into the movie).

    You can catch it on Utube @:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpdhdcWIHo

    Or download the whole thing @

    http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-generation-jihad-1-of-3.html

    I’m thinking about contacting CAMERA and Honest Reporting.
    Thank you.

  122. Ray in Seattle says:

    Ah, a comment about the AI conflict. A breath of fresh air. Thanks for the link to Gen. Jihad. I noticed that, although they did say that al Dura was killed by the IDF, shortly after, the program somewhat vindicates that statement at 8:07 with:

    As with so many other things, Generation Jihad sees the conflict in black and white, ignoring alternative versions of such events and the atrocities that Palestinian groups have inflicted on Israel.

    But still, their first statement states outright that the IDF killed al Dura. That’s what will stick in the viewers mind. Most, who don’t know that Israel’s culpability in the matter is far from an established fact, will go on believing that there is no question about it at all. That’s inexcusable IMO and casts serious doubt on either their competence or their honesty.

    They could, at the least, have labeled the Pal / France 2 version as just that.

  123. E.G. says:

    I wonder whether such “peace” pieces can be considered under the label of moral hypocrisy.

    As an introduction to the notion, here’s an article narrating some work done in the field.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/141525

    I briefly read the original articles – anyone interested in the links?

  124. E.G. says:

    sshender,

    Thanks for posting the Beeb kink. I went straight to the Al Dura sequence and encourage you to write to Camera & HR. The devastating impact of this specific incident is in part revealed by what the affected “youth” says right afterwards.

    Indeed, the narrator “balances” the account – but only with words. No images. A bit of a tilted balance, I’d say.

    The quote is indeed spot on. Reminded me of this:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/what_is_a_legitimate_palestini.html

  125. E.G. says:

    Sorry! I meant Link!

  126. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Oooh! A kink in the link? Freudian by any chance?

    From M-W: an imperfection likely to cause difficulties in the operation of something

  127. E.G. says:

    I saw it coming!
    Yes, well, a slip of a keyboard… :-D

  128. obsy says:

    Daniel,

    I did not even notice your two posts before. They must have been in moderation ― too many links I’d guess. When I read your correction post, it didn’t make sense and I wasn’t smart enough to think of moderation delays.

    I wasn’t offended after reading the open-hearted and open-minded comparison. Others might be. I don’t know.

    Also note that there are two sides to the stories of both words:
    Social bondage takes some effort.
    Considering the open-mindedness ― there is a saying:
    “Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything.”
    Which somehow describes an issue that is known as “bias-variance trade-off”.

    I personally like to live in current Europe. I only regret its further future decline.

  129. E.G. says:

    Daniel and obsy,

    FWIW, I think one’s view is affected by one’s current milieu as well as by one’s more or less direct experience in/with other social circles.

    But there’s little doubt that Americans express their hearts and minds differently than Europeans. This said, generalising about hundreds of millions of people is a bit risky, no?

    obsy surely means bonding.

  130. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    For a minute I rassled with this concept, envisioning in my flu doused brain an until death do us part social attribute.
    Thanks for relieving the suspense.

  131. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Tsk-Tsk.
    I wish I could relieve you from your flu!

  132. Ben says:

    To E.G.,
    I have enjoyed your posts, and those of Daniel and obsy to whom you directed your most recent comment. Of contrasting American with European expressions of hearts and minds I suggest that the differences might not be fully appreciated without also considering how we actually understand each other’s expressions (assuming as I do that speaking and listening are two distinct disciplines). For me, then, your simply-stated observation is the proverbial tip of an invigorating, almost Earth-sized iceberg, the base of which is language.
    If words are the currency of dialogue, then there must be universal agreement as to their meaning. Too often, words are turned into slugs -blank substitutes with the familiar mass and feel of the genuine article – in order manipulate the undiscerning. Taken from Jimmy Carter’s pocket, for example, the word “apartheid” is a slug. Taken from Richard Goldstone’s, well take your pick. That Israel is accused of engaging in genocide at all is a grotesque insult, an abomination. But the fact that Israel is so routinely and repeatedly accused of genocide is an attack on the very word itself, a word whose importance cannot be overstated in a world that witnessed genocides in Asia, Africa, and Europe AFTER the Holocaust.
    And yes, generalizing about hundreds of millions of people is risky. But it isn’t necessarily wrong. So much of our Western traditions and culture draw from notions of privacy and individuality that are in many respects foreign to China, differences exemplified, perhaps, by the opening ceremonies in the Beijing and Vancouver Olymic Games.
    And it’s “generalizing” not “generalising”. ;>)

  133. E.G. says:

    Ben,

    Thank you. I too appreciated your comments.

    Of course the comparison of modes of expression is a simple summary. And there are many non-linguistic modes of expression that count in communication, and that differ across populations.

    I fail to understand exactly what you mean in your 2nd paragraph.

    Regarding generalisation, see http://psy.st-andrews.ac.uk/resources/glossary.shtml#G
    ;-)

  134. Ray in Seattle says:

    Ben says, “But the fact that Israel is so routinely and repeatedly accused of genocide is an attack on the very word itself, a word whose importance cannot be overstated in a world that witnessed genocides in Asia, Africa, and Europe AFTER the Holocaust.”

    I disagree. It’s an attack on Israel. The emotional potency of the word – the emotions it stirs in those who read it in association with “Israel” – is what makes it a useful weapon. To say that those who use the word in that way are attacking the word is a way to discredit their language skills – which seems a bit disingenuous to me or perhaps just grossly beside the point. It’s an effete response to a viscous slander by those who are out to destroy Israel. It only reinforces their “belief” that Jews are weak.

    The action in such exchanges is not at the level of semantics and cognitive meaning. It’s at the level of the visceral emotions that can be stirred in the cause of one’s ideology. That can be done with words or with visual art or other means. The art is easier as not many words have the necessary potency and the few that do get stale from overuse. Also, the art can speak more directly to the emotions.

    The word “genocide” is not important at all. The emotional images the word evokes in another person’s mind is the only part that actually does anything.

  135. E.G. says:

    Ben,

    Do you mean that the repetitious false accusation of Israel committing genocide is both a trivialisation of the true genocides that did/do occur and extracting the meaning out of the concept that this word represents?

  136. Ben says:

    To E.G.: The point of my second paragraph, perhaps off topic if not ill-advised, was that the role of “privacy” in the West differs dramatically from its role in China. In America, notions of individual rights, animated by privacy concerns, have guided our experience. In China, the rights and needs of the collective have long dominated. I think it is probably fair to conclude that what most Americans and Europeans regard as private may not be seen as such by most Chinese.
    To Ray: Your points are well-taken, and I apologize for not having been more clear as to my meaning. I certainly agree that accusing Israel of engaging in genocide is vile and an attack on Israel and Jews. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Perhaps I put too much faith in my earlier sentence (calling such accusations a grotesque insult and an abomination) to convey the level of contempt you and I share on this charge. I agree with your analysis of how and why the allegation is effective. My point was not to discredit language skills (a petty and limp response to such slander).
    But I disagree with your assessment of the importance of the word genocide. (Her obnoxious comments about Israel aside, Samantha Power painstakingly details the origin of the word “genocide” in her book “A Problem From Hell.” Despite an underlying sophomoric political bitterness, it’s a very good book.) I believe words are important precisely because of their impact on others, emotional or otherwise. It is the effect of the word “genocide” to evoke terror and helplessness that draws the malevolent to its misuse and abuse. Those who accuse Israel of genocide against the Palestinians are mindful of the horrors of the Holocaust (even as they deny its occurrence), and strive to destroy Israel’s legitimacy by declaring piteous Palestinians as modern day sufferers facing the same threat-from yesterday’s victims. The grotesque claim is absurdly far-fetched in the extreme. If the claim cannot be proven, then one must wonder if its repeated assertion is meant to serve any other purposes (besides insult). Repeated often enough, the claim that Israel is guilty of genocide will dilute the word’s meaning, and, in the minds of those who see her right to exist as grounded in the Holocaust, it will erode Israel’s legitimacy.

    Calling Zionism racism distorts the meanings of both words. But it sure lends traction to claims of Israeli apartheid. As a result, the efficacy of words relating a people’s right to nationhood, the invalidity of determining rights on the basis of race, and a specific regime of discriminatory laws to convey those meanings has been undermined.

    As a species, we seem to be as prone to killing off helpless segments of our population as ever. When the words we use to describe that phenomenon lose meaning…

    And finally, to E.G.’s last comment, yes.

  137. obsy says:

    I think Ray is right.
    Though, meaning of “genocide” may come in in two different ways:

    1. As a defense (or the lack of it) for this emotional attack in a debating situation. Increasing its credibility.

    2. Ben might have pointed to a communication problem which is exploited. Many people (especially when young) do not know much violence beyond pub fights, car accidents or a stormy night. (In cinema is suspension of disbelieve.)
    A couple of bombed houses and two corpses may be the closest thing that they have ever seen to a genocide (in the real world).

    If an army of ignorants tell by conviction that Israelis commit genocide, those who know better will get a wrong impression and feel a wrong impact. (Also, willingness to defend someone who commit genocide may show you in a bad light ― even if no genocide was commit.)

    Alas, those points are combinable. There can be no doubt that many Muslims (especially in Palestine) are trying to steal the past of the Jews (without any wish to actually experience it themselves). This puts Pro-Israelis in a horrible position when debating. Anytime you address the past, someone might come up and say “and now the Palestinians are exactly in the same situation and the Jews are …” and an ignorant crowd might applaud.

    In this case it would help a lot to reduce ignorance in the first place.

  138. Ray in Seattle says:

    Ben, Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree for the most part. Semantics seems to have taken on great importance in this thread and I think it’s a good topic to explore. So, if you will allow me to comment on a few of your words please correct me as needed.

    Ben: “I believe words are important precisely because of their impact on others, emotional or otherwise. It is the effect of the word “genocide” to evoke terror and helplessness that draws the malevolent to its misuse and abuse.”

    Your second sentence above is exactly correct IMO. I’d say though that the emotional impact is the only one that counts in the present context.

    Ben: “If the claim cannot be proven, then one must wonder if its repeated assertion is meant to serve any other purposes (besides insult).”

    No-one really cares if it can be proven. The emotional case has already been proven. The purpose it serves is both to allow Israel’s enemies to express their rage at their greatest enemy and to associate Israel with the extremely negative emotions evoked by the term – and thereby recruit more soldiers to their cause. It serves as an insult but I think that’s far down the list.

    It is mostly the spreading and reinforcement of a meme. Although I don’t like the term “meme” as a psychological term I think it works pretty well for marketing. I’d say that the marketing version applies very well here.

    Ben: “Repeated often enough, the claim that Israel is guilty of genocide will dilute the word’s meaning,”

    I just don’t see this as very relevant. It still has plenty of emotional impact. Some people are effectively associating those horrible emotions with Israel. The pro-Pal PR images of Cast Lead are far more effective in making that emotional connection than old pictures of the Warsaw Ghetto from another generation make anyone feel sympathetic toward Israel. In fact, those old images work in the favor of Israel’s enemies – they can be turned into a man bites dog (Jew bites poor Palestinian) story.

    Repeated often enough the claim that Israel is guilty of genocide will tarnish Israel’s image and cause people to question Israel’s legitimacy. That’s what’s important IMO.

    Ben: “. . and, in the minds of those who see her right to exist as grounded in the Holocaust, it will erode Israel’s legitimacy.”

    Yes, but not because the word “genocide” is being used incorrectly. Israel’s legitimacy will be eroded in proportion to how others apply the emotional abhorrence the term evokes to Israel. No-one really cares about the technical definition. That’s why bringing it up is counterproductive.

    Of course, Israel’s defenders like me agree with you. But IMO agnostics will see it as nit-picking and a diversion from the argument. They’ll wonder why you are arguing about definitions when they are seeing pictures of dead and blackened infants’ bodies in Gaza. The easy connection for them is that Israeli bullets and bombs were the proximate cause.

    Ben: “Calling Zionism racism distorts the meanings of both words. But it sure lends traction to claims of Israeli apartheid. As a result, the efficacy of words relating a people’s right to nationhood, the invalidity of determining rights on the basis of race, and a specific regime of discriminatory laws to convey those meanings has been undermined.”

    Sorry, but nobody cares except most Israeli Jews and some non-Israel Jews. Others will reject the insidious false claims in direct proportion to how effectively Israel refutes them – on the emotional level. No-one is going to listen to the Israeli ambassador to the UN rail about the semantic transgressions of Israel’s enemies.

    If I could offer advice to Israel it would be to stop arguing so much with words and do a better job conveying the truthful emotions that justify Israel’s cause. Nothing conveys those emotions like actions. The recent Mossad action against Mabhouh did a lot for Israel. That’s exactly what any democracy would do if they were being targeted by Islamist fanatics. It sent a powerful emotional message to Israel’s detractors and to free world democracies. I think Israel is getting it these days – and now others will too – I hope.

    I don’t offer these thoughts in any sense of saying I am right and you or others are wrong. It’s more an attempt to describe a different way of looking at the same thing. Thanks for your patience.

  139. Ben says:

    Ray,
    I don’t see it simply as a matter of semantics, but I obviously haven’t made my point in the concrete terms and context in your comments. I suppose it’s true that the actual meanings of words used in the language of diplomacy is no longer as important or relevant as the reaction those words are calculated to get.
    To your point that the “recent Mossad action against Mabhouh did a lot for Israel. That’s exactly what any democracy would do if they were being targeted by Islamist fanatics.” I hope you are right (assuming that, indeed, it was the Mossad :) – particularly the part about what “any democracy would do…”

  140. Ray in Seattle says:

    Ben, I think I agree with you more than my comment shows and that you made your point. Sometimes I get carried away on a particular tack while writing a comment. I focus too closely on one thing and lose the ability to see the whole picture. I can usually see it after a couple of days but blog comments like this go by too fast. I’ll try to be more careful. About Mossad, if they did it I think it’s possible no-one will ever know for sure ;-)

  141. Cynic says:

    Ray,

    The action in such exchanges is not at the level of semantics and cognitive meaning. It’s at the level of the visceral emotions that can be stirred in the cause of one’s ideology.

    You got it down to a point for those who remember the anti-apartheid crowds, in London especially, and the use of the “apartheid” expletive to bludgeon Israel especially by such experts on the subject as Tutu and Goldstone are.
    Tutu the archetypal demagogue knows better than anyone the difference between Israel and his pre-Independence world but what better red flag for rousing the “bulls” than that word.
    It has become synonymous for the horrors of the “gulag”.

  142. E.G. says:

    Ben,

    I think you’re spot on distinguishing intention, use, and impact of key-words.

    Diverting words of their initial meanings, either by assigning them a different connotation or by rendering them ambiguous and confused, or by emptying them of their content is an old psy-ops/cog-war/ propaganda technique that works.

    Indeed, grounding Israel’s birthright in the Holocaust is a lie, and using Nazi terms and allusions regarding Israeli actions is part of the delegitimization campaign. Apparently, for those who feel guilty about having let the Holocaust happen, returning the accusation of Nazi behaviour or active/passive support of such stigmatised acts against survivors’ children and grand-children, provides them with some otherwise impossible rehabilitation, and a “moral” Justice sense.
    (BTW, this connects to my comment #125 above).

  143. E.G. says:

    One massacre that didn’t happen is the 2002 Jenin one. Pierre Rehov’s film:

    The Road to Jenin

    Has any of the terrible attacks 9/11, 7/7, Madrid… was named “massacre”?

    And, whose victims are the refugees?

    THE HOSTAGES OF HATRED

  144. E.G. says:

    Please excuse this slight O/T (but it’s about delegitimization and “useful journalists”)

    A Father At The Times, A Son In The IDF

    The demand by pro-Palestinian bloggers and e-mailers that current Times Israeli correspondent Ethan Bronner be removed from his post because his son enlisted in the Israeli army is the latest evidence that this so-called electronic intifada is drawing blood.

  145. Cynic says:

    Ben,

    A lot of the words used today have become clichés and employed in imposing a political agenda.
    As I’ve mocked in other comments terms like “human rights” depend entirely on which human and what rights are being considered.

    As to the Mossad “operation” there is a lot of doubt that they pulled it off because firstly the passport business was completely amateurish. Secondly people have been pointing out that the video distributed by Dubai to the media looks like something out of the Marx Bros (Israel’s 2nd channel aired its weekly “Wonderful Land” comedy show, Friday night, in which they had a field day with the Dubailliwood blockbuster).
    Thirdly Jordan arrested two Palestinians for involvement and Hamas is screaming.

  146. obsy says:

    Ben,

    I haven’t seen the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. I should do. Maybe my post will miss your point entirely.
    But, looking at such an organized event to derive cultural is error-prone. It is more about how China “wants” to be seen by the world and by the Chinese people.

    There certainly are differences between different cultures, but I think much of our current perception of Chinese culture is just an economists wet dream ― underpinned by affirmative perception biases.
    What we “see” in China may be more a temporal condition and biased perception than ant-like society social values at work. An economic decline could very well rip this country apart.

    Society influences at least what we long for (motivation), what we see as limits to allowed and demanded behavior (rules) and under which conditions we can function comfortably.
    Also, the behavior that we see depends on a given situation and a good deal of randomness.

    I have deleted most of this post (where I tried to fit my knowledge of China in this scheme), because I noticed that I know far to little (even though the post got far to long).

    Think of Chinas past,
    Chinas current treatment of their own citizens ― especially at the beginning of the economical crisis,
    the harsh social differences between rural areas and big cities …

    This community does not live completely from the free will of its members to contribute to its rise and not the whole community is rising. It also is freer now than it has been in many decades.

  147. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    My first reaction to your 1st paragraph was “yes, of course”. But I then recalled the template set in 1936…

  148. E.G. says:

    Ben,

    Let me know if that’s what you meant.
    Different societies/cultures vary in their position on an individualistic-collectivist continuum?

    I certainly agree with that. But how does it relate to word distortion?

  149. obsy says:

    E.G.: “Has anyone tried this test?

    Now, I did.

    I also took a look at RichardL’s post again. For some reason he did leave out something in his quote that HRW was at least honest enough to show. I’ll set it in bold font:

    Israel is a party to the CCW but not Protocol III. However, a 1998 Israeli military manual states:

    Incendiary arms are not banned…. Nevertheless, because of their wide range of cover, this protocol of the CCW is meant to protect civilians and forbids making a population center a target for an incendiary weapon attack. Furthermore, it is forbidden to attack a military objective situated within a population center employing incendiary weapons. The protocol does not ban the use of these arms during combat (for instance, in flushing out bunkers)

    Quite telling?
    That only on top of the already stated facts.

  150. E.G. says:

    Ben,

    In today’s Haaretz Hebrew edition there’s an op.-ed. by (Hebrew U., History) Dr. Dimitry Shumsky.

    Referring to the comparison between the Iranian threat and the Holocaust that is often made by Israelis (political leaders and intellectuals), he argues that Iran’s declared threat is not the physical annihilation but the deletion of Jewish-Israeli sovereignty.
    He elaborates a scenario (Iranian action taken) in which former Israeli Jews are expelled and sovereignty is bestowed on the Palestinians who, having benefited from close relationship with the Israeli democracy, will probably build a democratic state, granting rights to the Jewish minority left.
    He projects situation which is a mirror image of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian “rebellion movement”, reversing the roles between the first and the second.

    He then argues that comparing the Holocaust to national oppression is absurd, distorted, and unsurprising:
    “For if there is one aspect in which modern nationalism is a clear alternative to religion, it is in it providing an answer for the individual’s need to cope with the inevitability of death. While religion promises him the resurrection of the dead, nationalism endows him with the feeling that his private death would not be a total non-existence as long as the individual is survived by the sovereign and free nation to which he belongs.

    Hence, seeing Ahamdinejad’s threats to strip us from our sovereignty as equivalent to the intent “to murder six more million”, indeed authentically reflects the psychological-national feelings of many Israelis, for whom deprivation of national liberty is definitely tantamount to a “second Holocaust”. However, if by our national perception the status of national subjugation is equivalent to physical death, why are we so revolted by those who present the deprivation of Palestinian national liberty as genocide?

    There you have it.

  151. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    in which former Israeli Jews are expelled and sovereignty is bestowed on the Palestinians who, having benefited from close relationship with the Israeli democracy, will probably build a democratic state, granting rights to the Jewish minority left.

    Oh good grief, what balderdash.
    So the “close” existence with Israeli Jews wiped the cultural slate clean? The foreign Arabs who would immediately infiltrate the halls of power would accede to that?
    Iran, the Wahabbis, the Muslim Brotherhood, uncle ttTom Cobley and all shake hands, sit down and sing kumbaya?

  152. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    … nationalism endows him with the feeling that his private death would not be a total non-existence as long as the individual is survived by the sovereign and free nation to which he belongs.

    This guy really took the wrong people to make his argument. There is no need for a nation and nationalism. The Jewish culture survived 2000 years dispersed in various nations around the world.

    I guess Israelis are more afraid of how Ahamdinejad may want to wipe Israel of the map. The only realistic option requires physical death ― lots of it.

    If Dr. Shumsky really wants to test his theory that Israelis only are afraid to loose their sovereign nation and that this is because they need it as replacement for religion, then he should check if religious Jews are not. After all, that is what his theory would suggest.

  153. Eliyahu says:

    two answers to the mad shumsky:

    1– ahmadinajad and his mullahs also want to murder Jews en masse. How can he separate destroying the Jewish state from the desire to slaughter large numbers of Jews? After all, by denying the Holocaust, while knowing that he is lying, A-jad wants to repeat it.
    Shumsky’s interpretation here reminds me of old style communist anti-Zionism. We don’t think that Jews should be killed. It’s just that they shouldn’t have a state.
    That is said as if Jews lacking a state would not be the target of mass murderers, persecution, pogroms, etc. It seems that shumsky got out of the old USSR but the old USSR did not get out of him. He still takes stalin’s position on the Jewish Question [Yevreisky voprosy?], which was followed up in the anti-Zionism of Khrushchov, Brezhnev, Andropov and the others whose names I forget.
    It is interesting that the anti-Zionism of the Soviet and other Communists converges with that of high officials in the UK, France and USA.

    2– shumsky’s second gross error is his failure to understand that the very reason for the invention of the “palestinian people” notion which was developed in the 1950s, was to facilitate the destruction of Israel and, thereafter, future genocide of the Jews. There never was a “palestinian people” in history so the “palestinian” people had to be invented in order to induce people to think in terms of a “palestinian liberty struggle”.

    There is no end to the foolishness of professors.

  154. E.G. says:

    French Jews were granted access to citizenship (full civil rights) on the condition they abandon their reference to the Jewish people. Comte de Clermont-Tonnerre’s famous December 1789 speech stated the axiom of Emancipation à la française : « Il faut tout refuser aux Juifs comme nation, et tout accorder aux Juifs comme individus ». (Refuse everything to Jews as a nation, and grant them everything as individuals).

    French Emancipation denied the national character of Judaism. Could one speak of the French Emancipation of Jews as genocide?

    Was the consecutive anti-Semitism that Herzl observed a century later, during the Dreyfus trial, linked in his mind to the vulnerability of Jews who were benefiting from full rights as individuals but denied even their existence as a nation?

  155. E.G. says:

    Shumsky operates a mélange of concrete and symbolic and metaphoric levels.

    Sovereignty means both state as a structure (institutions) and as a symbol (independence, belonging, identity). The Zionist enterprise was about joining both (the concrete and symbolic levels).

    Eliyahu is right pointing out the false equivalence Shumsky establishes, between the Jewish nation and the “Palestinian” non-nation. This is how, on one hand, he conflates the concrete aspects of oppression suffered by both with the symbolic aspect of (fear of) statelessness and, on the other hand, he uses the metaphorical sense of genocide done to “Palestinians” by denying them their national character vs. the concrete sense of genocide experienced and feared by Jews and Israelis.

    And, to add to Cynic’s note:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lets-share-power-says-moderate-arab/story-e6frg6so-1225800332923

  156. Eliyahu says:

    by the way, EG’s quote from Clermont-Tonnerre demonstrates the falsehood of shlomo Sand’s claim that the Jewish people or nation was invented in the 19th century. Clermont-Tonnerre’s words indicate that up to his time the Jews were in fact considered a nation by everybody –Jews and non-Jews– and their legal status in various countries confirmed that. They were considered aliens [or resident aliens] of one sort or another throughout Europe. This is really elementary Jewish history. But sand doesn’t know it or, better said, doesn’t want to know it, to acknowledge it. In the Islamic world, Jews belonged to the inferior caste of dhimmis, etc.

    Now what happened in France and elsewhere is that after the Jews’ Emancipation and their becoming local citizens, not only were they still considered aliens but –in various places– suffered worse violence than before Emancipation. So in fact, things did not work out as Clermont-Tonnerre would have had his audience believe. After all, Proud’hon, Drumont, and other French Judeophobes appeared after Emancipation.

  157. Eliyahu says:

    “Was the consecutive anti-Semitism that Herzl observed a century later, during the Dreyfus trial, linked in his mind to the vulnerability of Jews who were benefiting from full rights as individuals but denied even their existence as a nation?” –EG

    Actually, I don’t think that the Jews had full equality in countries where there had been Emancipation. In Imperial Germany, even by law, I don’t think that there was full equality. In France, there may have been full equality by law but not in practice in Herzl’s day, as far as I know.
    So, despite giving up Jewish nationality, they were not accepted fully and did not enjoy full equal rights.

    By the way, the historian Kenneth Stow argues that the Europeans as a whole saw Jews as alien since they did not belong to the corpus Christi, the Body of Christ, that is, the body of Christian believers in a mystic sense. I hold that such ideas and attitudes lasted into the 20th and 21st centuries.

    As to Shumsky, not only does he fraudulently compare apples and oranges [as EG points out, real genocide of the Jews with denial of a "palestinian nationality" which the PLO charter also denies and the official palestinian Arab spokesmen denied in the 1940s], but he forgets or deliberately overlooks the reality of Arab-Muslim oppression of Jews throughout the Islamic domain [dar al-Islam], varying in severity by time and place, but also in the Land of Israel where it was more severe than in some other places.

  158. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    Full rights was the de jure and, if not exactly the de facto situation, things improved and the future looked bright. The Dreyfus affair showed that even the de jure wasn’t valid.

    So here are French Jews who compromised on one of the two essential features of their essence – nationhood – in order to be able to maintain the other feature – religion – as free and equal citizens merged in another nation, only to find out that the contract is not respected by their partners.
    Sounds familiar?

  159. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    With regard to your link in #161
    “I think the only solution now is one state where the Palestinians are the majority and the Jews are a protected minority, just like the whites are now in South Africa.

    This is risible because right now in South Africa there is a growing awareness of what will become of the “protected miniority” if the likes of Baleka Mmakota Mbete, currently deputy president, comes to power.

    As to the other arguments made in the piece:
    the “protected minority” will do the hardcore miltary training of three years before starting their studies for a profession to enter the job market, while the “majority” gets a 6 to 7 year advantage on jobs, and then the infernal annual reserve duty messing with their jobs while the many of the “uncontrolled majority” will suck on the teat of National Insurance while Mr Aweidah holds onto the cash.
    And who is going to “subsidize”this? Will Obama tack it onto his Medicare and bankrupt Social Security?

    And Mr Aweidah who doesn’t get involved in politics or religion is going to guarantee the behaviour of the Imams, the individual clans, the theo-political movements (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood -Egypt has a tough enough time with them) and States like Iran, Syria and Saudi Aabia.

    Asked of Israelis who would resist his vision out of fear for the end of the Jewish state, he said: “But it would be the birth of the Jewish canton. Don’t worry, we will be good to them. They will be treated as a protected minority. We are not interested in oppressing them. Historically, we don’t have a problem with Jews. Anti-semitism is not an Arab or Muslim thing, it’s primarily been a Christian thing.” Mr Aweidah says his views are typical today.

    And what will the “canton” look like, the ghetto in Baghdad or the Copt’s Canton in Cairo?

    Taquiya, Taquiya, Taquiya
    I just met a spiel called taquiya
    All the beautiful words of the world in a single spiel . .
    Taquiya, Taquiya, Taquiya . . .
    Taquiya!
    I’ve just met a spiel named Taquiya,
    And suddenly the facts
    Will never be the same
    …………..

    “What have we got from 15 years of negotiating since Oslo?” Mr Aweidah said. “Today we’re sitting behind a wall with 500,000 Jewish settlers.

    Why, why, why? Suddenly a wall for no rhyme or reason?
    Oh dear. Deary me, who’s going to run with this ball after Arafat’s “Peace of the Brave” lies.

    He argues that Mr Abbas’s successor be Nasser al-Qudwa, nephew of the late PLO chief Yasser Arafat,

    Right, another Husseini.

    rather than the contender who polls highest among Palestinians, the jailed Marwan Bargouti.

    Eliyahu help me out please, Purim is still days away.

  160. Ben says:

    To E.G. re post 156:
    Thanks. There I have it, indeed.
    Cynic’s assessment of Shumsky’s piece as balderdash is spot on.
    Eliyahu picks up on what I regard as the more pressing issue -the campaign to recast Ahamdinejad’s statements of genocidal intent as mere polemic. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and, more recently, Hamas, organizations pledged unabashedly and unequivocally to Israel’s destruction through violence, and the unflinching, steady fidelity of those groups to their stated mission, should end any debate about Ahamdinejad’s meaning.
    (Of your assessment of professors and their foolishness, Eliyahu, anonymous sycophancy – what could possibly be more pathetic? – constrains me to point out that discussions here are in no small part courtesy of a professor.)
    Finally, Cynic, the Taquiya ditty… I’m trying to put it to Tonight from West Side Story. What am I doing wrong?

  161. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Still having difficulties to choose between disguises? Either the perilous Humty-dumpty @Billin “wall” or the poor ducky on the T.-A. municipality roof?
    Not to worry, Adoni!

    A tico-Takiya-ti,
    A tico-Takiya-ta,
    The cannon-fodder Yaoodi
    Shabab da-ba!

  162. E.G. says:

    Ben,

    And what would this one be?

    Dhimmi Dhimmi Dhimmi
    Al Yahood in Canton,
    Dhimmi Dhimmi Dhimmi
    Is Umma’s good-friend!

    (no, it’s not I had a little Dreidl)

  163. Cynic says:

    Ben,

    Finally, Cynic, the Taquiya ditty… I’m trying to put it to Tonight from West Side Story. What am I doing wrong?

    Nothing, it’s just my karaoke rendition :-)

    Maria, Maria, Taquiya ……

  164. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Eliyahu, E.G.,

    de jure and de facto, the french Jews were integrated in the 19th century.

    - First jewish député (representative) : 1834

    - First minister of the government : 1848 (some of them has a long career: Adolphe Crémieux who gave his name to the 1870 decision trnsforming the Jews from Algeria from indigenous people into french citizens).

    - Elected as representative in 1842, Max-Théodore Cerfberr was an officer of Napoléon and continued in the army before going into politics. He peaked as a lieutenant-colonel in 1839.

    - Alfred Naquet, born in 1834, was a professor in medical school, where he taught organic chemistry. He was an ardent republican, was elected as a representative in 1871 (after the fall of Napoleon III). He was the instigator of a law that legalized divorce, which he pushed in 1882 among the representatives. He became a senator and pushed the same law in the senate in 1884.

    The first jewish general was Léopold Sée, in 1870. There were many judges, civil servants, university professors (including in the Collège de France) before 1870.

    I am not mentioning journalists and journal owners, musicians, actors, bankers, etc…, which are expected jewish professions, and of course, there were also poor people in a (still) very unequal society.

    Therefore, the Dreyfus affair is indeed a regression with respect to the previous situation. For instance, there has always been a large number of jewish doctors, and many professors of medicine were jewish before the Dreyfus affair. Then, their number dropped considerably and it took many years for them to return to academical jobs. The army was not as bad as the medical profession: there were a number of jewish french generals during WWI : Brisac, Valabrègue, Heymann, Alexandre, Dennery, Grumbach.

    The Dreyfus affair did not change the french laws, it changed the de facto situation.

    The first jewish “président du conseil” (chief of government before de Gaulle reinforced the power of the president in 1958) was Léon Blum in 1936. The second was Pierre Mendès-France in 1954.

    There were no jewish ambassadors until very recently (but I don’t know how to find the date when the first one was chosen), since this body of high level civil servants was mainly taken by people form (formerly) noble families, the Republic deeming that in order to be represented in foreign countries, it could not choose people who would not be “representative”. The antisemitism in the Quai d’Orsay is unfortunately not quite a legend.

    French jews (…) compromised on one of the two essential features of their essence

    I’m afraid that they did not have the power to discuss the conditions of the emancipation. Before they were emancipated, they did not have political rights. At the time of the great Sanhedrin summoned by Napoléon in 1806, France was not precisely a democracy. Napoleon was not particularly friendly to the jews, the rabbis and “notables” toiled in order to satisfy the emperor, protect the community and not to yield to impossible demands.

    It is after 1818, when the last restrictions on the Jews’ residence in France are lifted, that the question of integration vs. remaining in the ghetto starts. It took very long for mixed marriages to take place. It was still unheard of among alsatian jews from lower and middle class in the 1950′s… read the memories of Annie Kriegel, and one gets an impression of how the french Jews kept to themselves. It was different in the upper class, for artists or in the show business.

    I still remember my parents being so proud of having befriended in the 1950′s a catholic family who would go to mass every Sunday, and even prouder when, at last, they managed to invite at home a german colleague of my father and his wife (after having probably made sure that the colleague had been OK or too young during WWII, can’t remember the details, and that was around 1966).

    Eliyahu and E.G., I believe that you have a much too schematic vision of the situation of Jews in France. What happened, really, was that the Jews kept to themselves, in the 1950′s – but the french jewish community was a sad thing, with many rabbis and leaders having died in WWII. Even before WWII, the level of learning was low, and the synagogues were not full. It did not get better after one third of french Jews were assassinated, in particular because the most jewish of the Jews were killed.

    In your #164, E.G., you are asking a very zionist question: is it possible to live in a country that may well not respect the contract you thought you had with that country? Since I am obnoxious, I’d like to reverse it: would it be possible for Israel to live without any jews among the citizens of other countries in the world?

    In fact, I know no answer to either question.

  165. E.G. says:

    Michelle,

    Please get off your big horses.
    French Jews is not the main issue – I only mentioned them a propos the nationhood – genocide association, to show its absurdity.

    Regarding the Emancipation conditions, of course the Jews had no negotiating capacity, and obviously they wanted to integrate into French society, which they quickly and successfully did. On the Dreyfus trials, the law wasn’t changed, it was distorted.
    And that’s the breach of contract (the terms of which were very clear): unilaterally by the Republic.

    My “Zionist” question was different. I referred to the situation of pre-acquitted Dreyfus’ days, and to the unease with which Dreyfus’ treason (lack of loyalty to his nation – French), explained by anti-Semitic attributions to his Jewish stereotypical character, caused.
    It reminded me of another partnership based on concessions and compromises (see: peace) that broke.

    Neither do I know the answer to your questions.

  166. E.G. says:

    Michelle,

    Alfred Dreyfus was himself a “successful integration story”. And he was married to Hadamard’s daughter or niece.

  167. Michelle Schatzman says:

    E.G.,

    OK, I’m getting off my horse. Anyway, Alfred Dreyfus and Jacques Hadamard are some of my remote cousins… the Rhineland side of my mishpoche.

  168. Cynic says:

    Michelle,

    Referring to the last paragraph in #171, on the one hand, I suppose that on ordinary terms, not philosophical, it would depend on the person as to how much his beliefs interfere with his emotions.
    On the obnoxious side now, maybe Israel would get by in a better way without having “some of those Jews” making up the citizenry of other countries.
    I suppose in a sense the situation would be akin to the ghetto of the middle ages but on a larger scale.

    The questions are not simple but demand that many parameters be considered. What were you contemplating when you asked it?

  169. E.G. says:

    Cynic (and Michelle),

    re-”very Zionist” question.
    A Jewish person living in a country that may well not respect the contract you thought you had with that country has nowadays the choice to relocate elsewhere, Israel included. Michelle’s Occidental Ashkenazia’s ancestors didn’t.
    I think this partly answers the obnoxious part too.

    I don’t see where beliefs and emotions come into the equation, ordinarily speaking.

  170. E.G. says:

    One more thing. The accusation of double loyalty or allegiance of Jews in the Diaspora has re-surfaced recently.

  171. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Some people knuckle down and swallow frogs when the “social contract” is not good cause there is some other reason that they stay.

    The dual-loyalty bit has been observable for many years. It’s just that one had to be in the right situation to see it especially if one did not look the part.

  172. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    The funny part is that people in Israel-friendly (in principle at least) countries turn on their fellow Jewish citizens with this kind of accusation, as if Israeli interests were systematically contradictory (or even pernicious) to their country’s ones. They tend to go silent (and come up with other accusations) when reminded of these facts, or after a brief reminder about their government having been democratically elected.

  173. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    It’s very impolite to talk about frog swallowing on a forum hosting a frog or two! ;-)

    Whichever place one chooses to live in is in some way a compromise, and post-choice rationalisation is practically the rule. Its function is more to increase conviction (intensity of belief) rather than the belief itself.

  174. Eliyahu says:

    Michelle et al.
    My wife and I visited the Camondo Museum in Paris. The story of this family’s tragic end demonstrates that some French Jews were very foolish to assume that acceptance and good will towards them would continue. The last Camondo children and their parents were taken to German death camps despite their wealth, their contribution to French society [the art works in the museum], their military service [one brother died in WW I as a French military pilot], etc.

    Now while Michelle was listing Jewish achievers in France in the 19th century, Cremieux and others, a Judeophobic movement was taking shape [not called antisemitism until about 1870 with the German scribbler Wilhelm Marr]. Maybe we should go back to Abbe Barruel who saw the French Revolution as –in part– a Jewish conspiracy, if I rightly remember Taguieff’s books on this subject. Barruel and fellow believers in Jewish conspiracies were writing in the early 19th century from what we might call a “rightist” or “reactionary” clerical perspective. Then came Proudhon –a genuine, bona fide “leftist.” Then there came Drumont and others whose names I can’t recall.

    And how can we forget French official behavior in 1840 around the Damascus Affair? France under PM Thiers encouraged persecution of the Jews in Damascus on the grounds of alleged ritual murder of a European Catholic missionary. Moreover, we need to recall the pogroms in France around the Dreyfus Case –what Americans call a frame up. Jews in Algiers were attacked by both Arabs and French immigrants –jointly. Meanwhile, the Jews listed by Michelle were succeeding in their careers.

    Proudhon, Drumont, et al. were doing their work while French Jews were progressing in their careers. Indeed, I think that France gave Jews more opportunities than Germany did.

    Meanwhile, in Britain in the 2nd half of the 19th cent., the “humor” magazine Punch ridiculed the Sassoon family, Jews originally from Baghdad who became wealthy in India, and then some of them settled in Britain. Punch didn’t like them because they were dark and one of them had the talents at sports and hunting that are supposed to be the mark of an English gentleman. We can’t tolerate a Jew who has the talents that we admire. And this cheeky fellow had the insolence to become a friend of the Prince of Wales [who needed friends with money]. An illustrator for Punch, George DuMaurier, originally a Frenchman, wrote the insidious Judeophobic novel Trilby, in which the Jewish villain is described as a swarthy Jew from Poland. This work was a bestseller for years. Then there was The 39 Steps published after 1900, I think.

    Meanwhile, back in France Proust was writing about French high society and its Judeophobia, among other subjects. I should say, however, that it is my impression that French literature in the 19th cent. was less hostile to Jews than British.

    Of course, if you only count the Jews who got into meidical school or became army officers, then everything looked fine –at least in France. How many Jews became officers in imperial Germany? Probably less than in France.

  175. Michelle Schatzman says:

    My very zionist question: I feel very concerned with the possibility that no one will carry a reasonable zionist?proisraeli voice in democratic countries. There are the jews or non-jews who are identified with propalestine-antiisraeli discourse, and can be considered as unteachable. There are the jews who are unable to explain anything, because they don’t understand the non-jewish world, and thus they cannot talk to it. There are the MSNM, which just want to sell paper or ads, and have not one molecule of integrity left. There are the people who make a job of being loudspeakers for israeli politics (and usually are in the same time boring and obnoxious).

    A reasonable proisraeli voice should say that (a) Israel is no more perfect than many other places (b) its policies must be judged by the same standards as any other state, given that it is an island of (imperfect) democracy in a sea of dictatures (c) delivering Israel to the dogs of political islam amounts to suicide for the west (if such a thing exists and still has potential for suicicde).

    Relocation:

    In fact, my Rhineland ancestors did relocate: to France. My eastern european ancestors did relocate: also to France.

    Not everybody can relocate. And even if most Jews relocated to Israel or the US (for instance), would that be good? Imagine a nightmare: Europe becoming more and more frightened, more and more subject to internal muslim pressure and little Israel encircled by an even larger number of hostile countries than now.

    What would any relocation change, then? Globalization has been going on for sometime. Think of the story of the man who bought land on a quiet island in the Pacific Ocean in the late thirties. Island was called Guadalcanal.

    Relocation, shmelocation?

    Frog, shmog?

    Have you heard the very silly declarations of Kouchner yesterday: “declare a palestinian state, even before defining its borders”

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3852433,00.html

    Sarkozy said otherwise today, recalling the Clinton parameters:

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3853031,00.html

    Sarkozy is all talk and very little action – he’d need perseverance for that, but he is jumping from one thing to another, not delegating enough, not following questions. AD/HD?

    Sarkozy, shmarkozy?

  176. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    And who is responsible for Moshe Dayan’s eye loss?

    OTOH, would the Camondos (and others) have remained in France until WWII (and afterwards) if things were awful? Recall, there was a great affluence of Jewish (but not only) immigration to France between the 2 WW. And those Eastern-European newcomers were the first and foremost hurt during WWII – for example, they were the ones who got first stripped of their newly acquired citizenship – not French enough to count as French nationals.

    Anyway, again, I only mentioned this case because it’s a clear case of nationhood denial. In itself, it’s hard to argue it was a genocidal act.
    That it was consented and adopted by one party only is another thing.

  177. obsy says:

    Michelle,

    thank you for your posts. You came in just when things started to sound too nationalistic for my taste.

    As for your question and its answer:
    The most impressive pro-israeli voice that I have heard was from a zionist religious Muslim with tanned skin who prayed three times a day. A student who did not get money from Israel as far as I know. There are still some people left in the world who can tell right from wrong without help of Jews. Of course I wish they were more numerous.

    Nevertheless, I agree that it is better to have many Jews scattered around the world. The more voices the better.
    Also, given the diverse preferences of individuals, it would be a shame for the rest of the world if one people had to completely retract to one place.
    Also, Ahmadinejad would be to happy to have all the Jews at the same spot.

  178. Cynic says:

    Update with regard to #165:
    I made a mistake, an error.

    I gave the name of Baleka Mmakota Mbete in the second paragraph which is the wrong person, for which I appologize.
    I should have written Julius Malema who is president of the ANC Youth League, and apparently being groomed for leadership of the ANC.

  179. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    It’s very impolite to talk about frog swallowing on a forum hosting a frog or two! ;-)

    We have precedent on suffering brought on by frogs, a few thousand years actually. Wonder why the Egyptians never patented the use of that expression?
    Funnily enough it is also used in Brazil.

    By the way with regard to #179 and dual loyalty did you read this Ynet article
    A two-way street

    The February 2010 visit to Israel by Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, sheds light on the larger context of US-Israel relations, which transcends the Arab-Israeli conflict, leverages Israel’s unique capabilities, and benefits both the US and Israel. The visit reaffirms that US policy toward Israel is based, primarily, on regional and global strategic interests and not on domestic politics. US-Israel relations do not resemble a one-way-street (the US gives and Israel receives), but a mutually-beneficial two-way street.

    Now when one considers the comments made by such as James Baker, the FBI, Walt&Moonshine et al, naivety and ignorance are not on the table.

  180. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    I linked to Ettinger’s article in #170.
    Thanks for putting it back on the table! ;-)

  181. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Ribbit! Ribbit! Ribbit!

    I should upgrade my Croquemichelle cartoon
    into a frog with curly hair and devil’s horns. The french press is almost uniformly in its israel-is-the devil-mode. It is surprising that they suddenly become so sanctimonious – Rainbow Warrior, brutal repelling of illegal foreigners, and so many adds for sex based on little charming devils.

    By the way, the midrash tells that some frogs in Egypt disappeared by letting themselves burn in ovens for the sanctification of the Name. They were also able to pierce the hardest metals and walls made out of stone.

    Ribbit! ribbit! ribbit! This frog has to pierce some hard mathematical problems – beware!

  182. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    OTOH, would the Camondos (and others) have remained in France until WWII (and afterwards) if things were awful?

    One cannot generalize like that. I knew two families, one from Germany who got out a few months before war broke out. They were trapped until the opportunity arose to physically move.
    Don’t forget how Western govts., put obstacles in the way of those trying to get out of Germany (Evian).
    SS Saint Louis.
    That I can see happening again.

  183. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    just when things started to sound too nationalistic for my taste.

    It’s not a matter of taste but of definition. In the first place, nationhood (the state of being a nation) and nationalism (the advocacy of nationhood, often connoted by its excessive forms such as chauvinism – note the French source – and superiority/supremacy claims) are not the same. Secondly, it is by virtue of national, not religious, rights that a nation (as people) is entitled to claim sovereignty on a land.

    The most impressive pro-israeli voice that I have heard was from a zionist religious Muslim with tanned skin who prayed three times a day.

    Oy! He wasn’t very religious if he only prayed 3 times instead of the 5 required ones. And his skin colour is really irrelevant.
    What was he arguing?

  184. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Between being in a flu induced stupor and seeing to other daily necessities I have not been very methodical in reading lately. Mind you, you did pin O/T so maybe I gave it a pass trying to keep to the thread, whatever it may have been in my mind at the time.
    I’m sorry if I did not accord your link more respect. Genuflect, genuf……………… :-))

    Maybe if you had slipped in a snippet of a quote to whet one’s appetite?

  185. E.G. says:

    Cynic #189,

    On the contrary: the Camondos had the means and opportunity to get out. But, unlike the Rothschilds, they did not have the motive. They were oblivious to the danger.
    Poor rich Beatrice née Camondo, too sure of her status and fond of her horses, used to ride them in occupied Paris. After all, her brother was a French pilot who died heroically for France during WWI. She, her husband and their children ended up as smoke in Auschwitz.

    Many more others indeed had the motives and much less, if any, the means and the opportunity.

  186. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Your neurons connected to a different aspect than mine. I’d have cited the UAV Israeli tech and know-how that enables innocent life saving. (Relating to the main entry’s topic)

    It’s my non-flu mind that failed to see the connection to the sub-topic we’re discussing. Reverential bow. ;-)

  187. E.G. says:

    Michelle could be happy(?) to ack:

    Sharansky puts Jewish identity ahead of aliyah on Jewish Agency agenda

    The Jewish Agency’s main priority is no longer to bring more Jews to Israel, but to help preserve Jewish identity worldwide, Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Shransky announced last week…

    For French readers – the Dreyfus Affair
    http://www.sabix.org/documents/dreyfus95.html

    On notera pour terminer que la communauté juive ne s’est pas plus mobilisée que la communauté polytechnicienne pour venir en aide à Dreyfus, mais pour d’autres raisons, tenant à sa crainte d’accentuer l’antisémitisme alors qu’elle aspire de toutes ses forces à l’assimilation.

    Ainsi le grand rabbin Zadoc-Kahn pouvait dire à l’occasion des cérémonies du centenaire de l’École polytechnique, le 19 mai 1894, en présence du président de la République Sadi Carnot (56, ingénieur des Ponts), qui devait malheureusement être assassiné un mois plus tard par un anarchiste :

    L’École polytechnique a été un des principaux instruments de notre relèvement, un des leviers puissants de notre activité affranchie.

    Brûlant d’impatience de justifier la confiance de la France dans ses nouveaux enfants adoptés par cette mère généreuse avec un amour sans réserve, d’infliger un démenti sans réplique à ceux qui affectaient de taxer d’imprudence ce qui n’était après tout qu’un simple acte de justice et d’humanité, de montrer aussi promptement que possible que nous entendions prendre au sérieux nos charges civiques et l’obligation de nous consacrer à notre pays, nos familles, notre jeunesse ont considéré l’École polytechnique comme la meilleure initiation aux devoirs patriotiques et comme le moyen le plus efficace de nous élever à la hauteur de notre nouvelle situation et de mettre en œuvre nos réserves d’énergie amassées par des siècles d’inaction forcée…

    Pour la petite histoire, on notera que c’est pour les mêmes raisons que les notables juifs français n’appuieront pas le projet de création d’un État juif qui leur est proposé en 1896 par Théodore Herzl. Correspondant à Paris d’un journal viennois, ce dernier avait suivi pour son journal le procès Dreyfus et en avait tiré la conclusion que les juifs devaient avoir un État à eux. Ses réflexions, publiées en 1896 sous le titre de L’État juif, sont à l’origine de la déclaration Balfour de 1917 et de la création de l’État d’Israël par les Nations Unies en 1948.

  188. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu – side note:

    The Camondos weren’t Zionists. They (former Ottoman subjects) did however purchase several real-estate properties in Jerusalem, that they later donated (or left) to the French state.

  189. Eliyahu says:

    EG, I knew that the Camondos were not Zionists. As to real estate in Jerusalem, are you sure you’re not confusing the Camondos with the Pereires? The latter family purchased the site of the Tomb of the Kings [Tombeau des Rois] in Jerusalem, near the Orient House and the American Colony Hotel. Diverse sources and methods have shown that the tomb, containing about 50 burial niches, I think, was the tomb of Helen of Adiabene and her family, kings of Adiabene [חדיב ]in Kurdistan. These methods included Archeology, study of Pausanias’ books on Greece and of the Talmud. The Pereires bought the site of the Tomb, which was once quite splendid, and transferred it to the French state [ca. 1880] on condition that France show reverence for those buried there [assumed at that time to be the House of David] and for the greats of the House of Israel. France has violated those conditions as you might expect.
    The French consulate, in cahoots with the EU and other Euro-criminal states and south africa, sponsors a yearly Arab music festival there on the grounds, using the physical remains of an ancient Jewish tomb.

    I think that the Camondo daughter believed that what happened to poor Jews could not happen to her and her family, with her connections and ties to the state, etc. As to the Rothschilds, I think some of them did stay in Paris during the war and were left alone, unlike the Camondos.

    Another noteworthy point about the Camondos. They first made their fortune as bankers in the Ottoman Empire, then took their money and moved to Paris circa 1860, like the Sassoons moving to India from Baghdad and then to London. Why didn’t the Camondos stay in Constantinople?? Why didn’t the Sassoons stay in Baghdad?? If things were so good for Jews in the Ottoman Empire, why did they leave in the 19th century??

  190. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    You’re right, it’s the Pereires. Sorry and thanks.
    http://www.consulfrance-jerusalem.org/france_jerusalem/spip.php?article275
    (funny, it’s not on their English site)

    But, to the best of my knowledge, all the Rothschilds fled.
    If “things” were good enough for Jews here or there, they were better elsewhere: better education and/or business and professional opportunities. Plus more Human Rights, that made life easier in some ways.
    And the Camondos were very active in these domains.
    http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JFrench/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1265206492212
    (I didn’t find this one on the English Jpost!)

  191. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu
    p.s. You’ll probably find this paper of interest
    http://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=RI_122_0047

  192. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Eliyahu,

    The Jews in the Ottoman empire were very much attracted to France: they learnt the language art school (the schools of the Alliance Israélite Universelle efficiently imported french culture into the society at large), they admired everything french, they thought that France was the best place in the world – except for the most most most traditional who stuck to djudezmo and learning. Besides, after Greece conquered Macedonia and Thessaloniki in 1912, the situation for Jews became pretty bad, and since this city was the largest jewish concentration in the Ottoman empire, there was little incentive to stay there – and all the more after WWI, when Turkey lost its empire, and became a very nationalistic place with little place for its minorities.

  193. Michelle Schatzman says:

    E.G.,

    what I like in Sharanski’s report is the idea of thinking globally. What is the point of bringing Jews to Israel if they go away soon because they underestimated the difficulty of making alya, they had too high expectations or they simply did not adapt to whatever : society, climate, language, or anything else.

    By the way, it is wrong to say that the Jews did not organize to help Dreyfus. They did it in a very quiet way, so as not to reinforce antisemitic forces. But they did. This is something I know from family tradition. I’d have to dig for historical sources.

  194. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    and know-how that enables innocent life saving.

    Clinton recently had “stents” inserted in veins/arteries to keep him alive, devices that an Israeli fighter pilot created (from imagination to reality).
    Would that qualify that as “innocent life” saving? :-()

    I have never ceased to be amazed at the innovation displayed and have often wondered what would have been of Bill Gates who got his big start with DOS for the PC if some Israelis had not worked on Intels 8086 chip to provide IBM with their PC-able processor the 8088.
    These modifications of the basic 8086 design were one of the first jobs assigned to Intel’s then new design office and laboratory in Haifa Israel.

  195. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Cynic: I agree with the atmosphere of creativity in Israel. There was a time when I would work about 1.5 month of every year in Israel, I had a good colleague with whom I produced a number of articles. The israeli atmosphere idd a lot for our success.

  196. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    The French consulate, in cahoots with the EU and other Euro-criminal states and south africa, sponsors a yearly Arab music festival there on the grounds, using the physical remains of an ancient Jewish tomb.

    (sarcasm)
    this resounds so nicely with Muslim outrage at the building Simon Wiesenthal Centre is putting up in Jerusalem
    (/sarcasm)

  197. Cynic says:

    Michelle,

    Some years back I came across the interview of a biotechnologist who left a six figure income in Silicon Valley to return and on being asked why he gave it up replied that he was not creative there and the atmosphere not conducive to the satisfaction he craved.

    Last summer our son treated my wife and me to a few days in Paris and I did not even know to visit the Camondo museum E.G. mentioned, instead of walking my feet off with half of China, three quarters of Japan and all of Eastern Europe.

  198. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Cynic,

    par. 1 – absolutely, and people also move or move back to France, though the salaries are not wonderful, because team work gets more recognition in science here, where the research environment is not as much conducive to the war of all against all.

    par. 2 – get a better guidebook! it’s always a good idea to waste time in bookstores and libraries before travelling.

  199. E.G. says:

    Michelle #199,

    If you read the link to the JPost article in my #197 you’ll get an idea of how much the Camondos did for the Empire and its Jews (and there’s more detail in Assouline’s book).

  200. Eliyahu says:

    Speaking of French policy, it goes from bad to worse. Did anyone see PM Francois Fillon whine about the poor, mistreated French passport used in the execution of Mabhouh in Dubai?? Fillon made these complaints while standing with bashir assad in damascus. Now assad has been happily slaughtering any prominent Lebanese personality standing in the way of Syrian control of Lebanon. Fillon shamelessly complains abour Israel in front of him.

    Sarkozy was bad with abu mazen.

  201. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    It’s Eliyahu that wrote about the museum, a little gem indeed. I’m not sure there’s an English version of this film:
    http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xbmgpq

    This is from the French wiki (Tomb of the Kings):

    En 1878, le site fut acheté par les frères Pereire afin de le donner au gouvernement français pour le conserver à la science et à la vénération des fidèles enfants d’Israël. Du fait de la législation ottomane qui ne connait pas la personne morale, le site ne fut pas donné à la France, mais directement au consul de France à Jérusalem.

    Since Ottoman legislation did not recognise institutional ownership, the site was not donated to the state of France but to France’s Jerusalem Consul (the person acting as).

    The reason for the transaction is found on the Hebrew wiki – the excavations, first Ottoman (very damaging) then British and finally French, came up with bones found in Sarcophagus, that were removed (sent to Paris Louvre) and this hurt the local Jews who turned to Montefiore, Rothschild and Pereire requesting them to do something to stop the desecration.

    The donation was made so as to ensure the site is “conserved for the science and veneration of the children of Israel”.

    The Hebrew wiki further tells that Herzl visited the site in 1898 and wrote about the Pereire donation that “It seems so remote and avoided that the Jews themselves will ever have here some inheritance”.

  202. E.G. says:

    Michelle

    What is the point of bringing Jews to Israel if they go away soon…

    Let’s not generalise, please.
    Before Israel existed, most Jews didn’t have or even consider Palestine as a realistic choice option. Few constantly did, and some only came to live their last days there, like my ancestor buried at the Mount of Olives (and what a mess the grave – stoneless, of course – looked like in June 1967…).

    Most immigrants to Israel in the decades pre- and post- her establishment came to this place as their only refuge (which doesn’t mean they were not Zionists too). Some left, most stayed, despite the very difficult conditions they found themselves in. It’s never easy to immigrate/emigrate anywhere. And the Jewish Agency’s functioning during all those years has been very far from perfect.

    At present, there are practically no more Jews living under oppressive regimes to rescue. It’s the Israeli government’s task to keep and make Israel a place of choice for Jews to come and stay in. Sharansky’s shift reflects this reality, and hopefully, the JA will help make expectations and prospects more realistic and integration easier. Although I know quite a few people who never dreamt of achieving as much as they actually did when they embarked on their Israeli adventure. Despite still suffering from the heat.

    So you’re linked to Zadoc-Kahn too?

  203. Michelle Schatzman says:

    I was trying not to generalize… lots of french people tried Israel and gave up. Not only french people, of course. Russians too.

    Making alya just after high school and working hard to get a good command of hebrew is the best formula, it seems. If one got a degree outside of Israel, it may be really difficult to integrate. I have a friend who is a psychiatrist. She absolutely wants to stay, but I must say she is having a hard time.

    Maybe the JA can do better…

    I looked into this enormous genealogy file, and yes, Zadoc Kahn is there. The file is a list of descendants of Mayer Hadamar (died in 1709 in Metz) and Cheinlé Cahen (died in 1713 in Metz too). A prodigious piece of work by the people who established this document.

  204. E.G. says:

    Michelle,

    You seem to share Anschel Rothschild’s mindset – send each of the 5 kids to another country – if not his fortune… Are you sure he’s not somewhere in your tree?

    Relocating with Rothschild means (and, later on, reputation) is surely easier than with what the JA could provide one.
    Anyway, freedom to come and go is part of the democratic game. Compared to the millions who’re in Israel, the million or so Israelis that left (and we’re not sure it’s a definitive departure, are we?) since 1948 is a fair “price”, I think.

  205. Eliyahu says:

    Here, I found an article that talks about the Tombeau des Rois from a more Jewish outlook.

    http://www.think-israel.org/green.frenchjerusalem.html

    Getting back to sarko and fillon, French policy seems to be getting almost as bad as British policy on Israel. but it’s hard to beat British hypocrisy, even for the French. I do know that there are good people in those countries too. I even knew a Belgian countess who was sympathetic and active for Israel.

    Speaking of hypocrisy, our comrades at amnesty international got a slap in the face from Salman Rushdie. He called them hypocrites or worse –in so many words.

  206. E.G. says:

    More on genocide:

    http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/kramer/entry/smear_intifada_posted_by_martin
    Being accused of advocating genocide by people who daily call for Israel to be wiped off the map of the Middle East is rich.

    BTW,Who declared this?
    “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

  207. sshender says:

    The Pierre Rehov docs are my uploads :)

    Also, here are a few videos similar to the one that started this thread:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frm8xv5wuvs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bznLR3-kCtU

    Get to know your enemy

  208. Eliyahu says:

    #213

    the quote about a massacre like the Mongolian massacres and Crusades is from Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League in 1947-48 [maybe he was the first sec'y-gen'l from 1945]. He actually said similar things on a few occasions. One time was a day or so before Israel’s declaration of independence.

    EG, you probably knew that already.

  209. E.G. says:

    sshender,

    Thanks!

    In the same spirit (O/T – related to a previous topic/discussion)
    http://hevra.haifa.ac.il/~soc/lecturers/smooha/files/1769.pdf.

  210. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    Indeed.
    Quoted by the NYT, May 16th 1948:
    On the day that Israel declared its independence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, at Cairo press conference declared “jihad”, a holy war. He said that the Arab states rejected partition and would set up a “United State of Palestine.” Pasha added: ‘This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.’

  211. Eliyahu says:

    Here’s an exhibition bringing together art works belonging to the Camondo family. It’s at the Museum of Jewish Art and History in Paris, although few if any of the objets-d’art on exhibit have anything to do with Jews or Judaism in any way. However, this year France and Paris are honoring Turkey and France’s relations with it. So, in order to fill out the range of special exhibitions, and maybe too to make Turkey look more “tolerant” than it was or is, they’re bringing in the Camondos’ connection to Constantinople. Of course, the Camondos got out of there and went to Paris, even moving the bank’s headquarters to Paris. So what does that tell us about the Camondo affection for or loyalty to the Ottoman Empire?? The Turks are treating the Jews there worse than in a very long time. Now that they have gotten rid of the Greeks and Armenians, only the Jews are left as resident non-Muslims.

    http://www.mahj.org/fr/3_expositions/expo-Splendeur-Camondo.php?niv=2&ssniv=1

    A few years ago, 2007, Paris hosted a series of Armenian exhibits and the year was proclaimed some sort of Armenian heritage year. So maybe the French thought that they had to make up for their gesture to the Armenians [there is also a big Armenian community in France] with a gesture to Turkey.

    by the way, the Camondos –or some of them– had the title of Baron. This came not from France or Turkey but from the King of Italy. One of the Camondos helped finance Italian unification and was ennobled as a reward.

  212. Eliyahu says:

    EG, do you note that in the NYTimes article quoted in #218, they call the man “Pasha”? That is wrong. Pasha was not his name but his title. It is a Turkish title, speaking of Turks, but many Arabs had it. It is placed after the name, as in “Azzam Pasha.”

    What gets me is the bald-faced lies told by Arab apologists today, as if the Arab leaders were not commonly talking like that in those days. Never in history did an aggressor nation have so many apologists outside its own sphere of political control. Indeed, with all the encouragement that the jihadis have gotten from the EU & USA & Russia, the apologists too are intended victims, eventually. What form has the support of the Trot-Commie Olivier Besancenot for the Arab cause taken? He is one of those that I have in mind.

  213. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    I’m sure it’s not news for you that many European rulers used Jews, inter alia, as bridges with other rulers, Oriental ones included. For example, who brought Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus) Harun al-Rashid’s clock and many other presents? His Jewish envoy, Isaac (but not only him).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid–Carolingian_alliance
    (some J’lem “affairs” in there too…)

    My view of the specific Camondo exhibition is different than yours. I see it as part of the demonstration of Jewish heritage in the Diaspora. This heritage is systematically linked to substantial contributions to the hosting (and sometimes hostile) community. It’s the story of a singular integration, assimilating local customs and ways, yet always preserving its distinctive features.

    p.s. I’m afraid this line of discussion, fascinating as it is, is drifting.

  214. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    On second thought, maybe the alliance mentioned above can shade light some of today’s alliances?
    http://www.france-israel.org/articles.ahd?idart=117

  215. Cynic says:

    E.G., Eliyahu,

    Forgive me for intruding into affaires historique which is not quite my affair but would you consider my considering mental processes and additions to the corps connaissance of a nation as distinctive features providing substantial contributions to that society?

    I was thinking of what those who were received at Ellis Island, without art and money, but contributed to America’s development and progress through the power of their minds only to be accused by the powers that be of dual loyalty.

    I see in the use of the Camondos’ art collection to honour Turkey the insensitivity of something akin to honouring Germany by displaying Einstein’s brain.

  216. Cynic says:

    sshender,

    Your link in #217 gives me “404 not found”.

  217. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    would you consider my considering mental processes and additions to the corps connaissance of a nation as distinctive features providing substantial contributions to that society?

    Of course. It’s a matter of, as Teviye/Topol used to sing: “Tradition!”

    I think the “Turkish season” is merely a pretext, an opportunity seized by the Jewish museum (it’s a City of Paris and state museum, not the Jewish community’s) to fund and publicise this exhibition.

    There’s not much honour to Turkey in there (see the link in English and, if interested, the Press release), except for the fact that the family originated from what is now Turkey.

    http://www.mahj.org/en/3_expositions/expo-Splendeur-Camondo.php?niv=2&ssniv=1

  218. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Yes, but; as Eliyahu wrote:
    However, this year France and Paris are honoring Turkey and France’s relations with it.
    How many of the public are going to make the distinction you made?
    Anyway they are using a Jewish family’s contribution to the richness of France to honour a state without honour and only too willing to lend itself to blood libels against Jews by way of its TV novelas.

    By the way went to do some shopping in the “canyon” like mall :-) and, maybe because Purim is just around the corner, I seemed to hear more French than Hebrew in the hustle and bustle.
    A case of the Comondos?

  219. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    How many of the public even recall the umbrella idea?
    How many people are even aware of the recent (or ancient, for that matter) Judeophobic events in Turkey?
    Of course, had the Jews of Paris reacted in “some appropriate manner” to the terrible offence done, awareness would have increased…

    And they all purchased Bernard-Henri Levy costumes? Here’s for looking for a good Herring at a Kanyon!

    Looks like your flu is gone with the wind!
    So maybe now you’d like to reply to my #125?

  220. sshender says:

    Cynic,

    It’s E.G.’s, not mine, but in order for the link to work simply remove the dot at the end of the url.

    E.G. I’ve also uploaded some other realted videos back on the time Google Video was still allowing uploads like Schapira’s Al-Durah film and Suicide Killers, and many popular scientific docs.
    Unfortunately, Google video “refined” its look and disabled the view “more videos from user” option (along with ratings and comments).

    As per the subject of that link, I’ll give it a go, but judging from the title it looks like a valid point directed at the wrong person. And no, I’m not in denial.

  221. E.G. says:

    sshender,

    I haven’t read that paper, just briefly went through it (IOW, as of yet I can’t agree with his thesis).
    Let me know where you think the author’s making twists and glitches (like in the Hebrew article above).
    He seems to be a very bright boy. I guess oao would say very well schooled.

  222. Eliyahu says:

    Cynic, I think that you well made the point that I wanted to make. Honoring Germany with an Einstein exposition. Honoring Muslim Spain with a Maimonides exhibit. I think that Spain named a tiny plaza [plazuela??] in Toledo or Cordova, or wherever Maimonides was born, after him. Lithuania is now making a big deal about the Gaon of Vilna. Anyhow, letting the Arabs take credit for Maimonides [who did some of his writing in Arabic, to be sure] is the most ridiculous offense to reason and right. Maimonides himself wrote [Iggeret Teyman -- Letter to Yemen] that the Arabs were the most hostile people toward the Jews, the harshest persecutors, etc. But there are some Arab propagandists who like to cite Maimonides as a great example of Arab/Muslim tolerance and hospitality. They try to coopt him.

    btw, we should tell readers that the Hebrew word qenyon simply means shopping center. If you came to Jerusalem, you would hear a lot of Arabic spoken in the qenyonim. The Arabs just love shopping centers. But poor jimmy carter. What are those Arabs doing to his claim that Israel is an apartheid state? The Arabs should be more considerate of jimmy’s tender sensitivities. How would you feel if you had made a Big Lie a part of your personality [as Ray says] and here people are contradicting you, practically shaming you, showing you up for the fool that you are? Don’t the Arab shopping center shoppers have any concern over poor jimmy’s ego, his sacred honor??

    Now EG mentions Charlemagne. He was the ruler who first allowed Jews into Germany, thereby enabling foundation of the Ashkenazi Jewish community [815 CE]. It wasn’t nice of Charley to spoil Shlomo Sand’s claim made 1200 years later that the Ashkenazim are really descendants of the Khazars who lived north of the Caucasus between the Black and Caspian seas. The first Ashkenazim came from northern France into Germany, and later other Jews migrated from Italy northwards. The oldest words in the Yiddish vocabulary, aside from Hebrew and Aramaic words, come from old French and Italian [bentshn = bendicere]. If you had told Charley that a creature named shlomo sand would turn up in the world 1200 years later, he would not have believed it.

    Did you mention that France officially believes that Caliph Harun al-Rashid gave France real estate in Jerusalem and recognized special French rights there [= here; I am in Jerusalem]. The Domaine national sites, like the Tomb of the Kings [Tombeau des Rois], are said to take their original authority from Harun’s favors to Charlemagne.

  223. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    As a matter of belief, I have strong doubts about Charlemagne. His obsession about bathing (and Gewashing), learning and schools, and proper governance, plus lack of anti-Semitism, make him a highly suspicious figure.
    Yes, he did seek some arrangements with Harun al-Rashid about J’lem. I didn’t look much into this. But the Crusaders did establish a French Kingdom in Israel. There is a belief at the Mosquai that Israel will last about as long as that Kingdom did.

    Maimo’s plaza is in Cordoba, with a statue in its midst. It’s tiny but proportionate to the Juderia’ size.

    There is a part of hypocrisy, of course, in appropriating Jewish heritage where it’s been destroyed and Jews oppressed and chased and murdered. At the same time, acknowledging the Jewish contribution to those places’ prosperity (on both material and intellectual levels) is recognising the historical truth.

    And there is always a gap between fact and propagandistic distortion. Each idiocy such as the “great tolerance” can be refuted. Like many other things, tolerance too was relative, to paraphrase Einstein ;-)

    Finally, Kanyon is a superb Ben-Yehudaism (in fact, the Hebrew Academy). The root is the old Hebrew Kanah (acquire) – for ex. “Shape yourself a Rabbi (teacher) and acquire yourself a friend” (Sayings of the Fathers).
    Maybe the Arabs are just trying to buy friends at the J’lem (and many other Israeli) Kanyon?
    Because they seriously lack well-formed teachers – like Rashi – to tell them that friends are acquired in a different kind of transaction…

  224. Cynic says:

    sshender,

    Sorry for dragging your name into this.
    I have been making quite a few mistakes when reading lately. Earlier on I accredited E.G. with something Eliyahu said.
    Could it be that E.G. hath fixed me with one of those Oxford rituals?

  225. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Elementary electronic warfare.
    ABTO (Always blame the Other) syndrome induced by subconscious reference to cue-key-words, via colourful magic.
    One flu over the cue-coo’s nest :-D

  226. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Of course, had the Jews of Paris reacted in “some appropriate manner” to the terrible offence done, awareness would have increased…

    of course, but maybe most of them are already in other places?
    All I saw were devils, ballet dancers and a few Marilyn Monroes.

    My flu has not flown but bides its time to strike at the most inopportune moments.
    I read the link but had no thoughts at the time being more involved with la grippe.
    Will attempt a more fluid flow of lucid thoughts capable of gracing this space.

    By the way have you read the following?
    Judith Butler: As a Jew, I was taught it was ethically imperative to speak up

    I found my attention drifting and could not focus on the whole article.If I have to do any concerted looking I’d prefer to watch Alice in Wonderland .

  227. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    EEW! What an explanation.
    No blame implied, just positing a plausible explanation for the insertion of a Dybbuk.

    Just looked at that link again, and one thing which caught my eye:

    Scientists have long bickered over whether hypocrisy is driven by emotion or by reason—that is, by our gut instinct to cast a halo over ourselves, or by efforts to rationalize and justify our own transgressions.

    a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    So how do “rationalize” and “justify” fit the use of a façade to hide the “crime”?
    Firstly, I feel, it is a cover-up not a display.
    Secondly I feel it comes about from cowardice to stand by one’s pious platitudes uttered previously.

    Will that do for now?

  228. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    I just read the Butler “interview”.
    That non-gendered thing is a PoMo icon. Warped in all directions.

    How can one suppress the fact that Bir-Zeit only became a University in 1975 (internationally recognised as such in 1976 or 1977) ? It was a college in 1967.
    http://www.birzeit.edu/about_bzu/p/2652

    Additionally, this place is one of the notorious anti-Israeli “activism” nests, including homicide operations planning and execution.

  229. Ray in Seattle says:

    “Scientists have long bickered over whether hypocrisy is driven by emotion or by reason—that is, by our gut instinct to cast a halo over ourselves, or by efforts to rationalize and justify our own transgressions.”

    Yes they have. IMO, topics for which hypocrisy can be applied, are seldom, if ever, driven by reason. We may use reason to devise a plan to do it or to justify it afterward. Rational brains are very good at that. But, the action itself is driven by strong emotions over which we have no control. (It’s possible that such actions may also be reasonable. But that is not what drives them.)

    Hypocrisy is the inevitable result of the design of the human brain. We, like all complex animals, follow our emotions (intuitions) on matters that we intuit are important to our survival.

    Some choose to believe that Israel attacked Gaza last year because Israelis are brutal imperialists, in this case out to teach the poor Arabs of Gaza a lesson – or something like that. This view of Israel is part of their identity. Every ME event will be seen through that lens – because that lens defined who they are, emotionally.

    When challenged with the huge amount of evidence in opposition to that view, they will invest extreme cognitive effort to justify it. In this case they established a UN investigation led by an Israel-basher, R. Goldstone – who dutifully produced a long detailed report (justification for the view).

    In these situations evidence to the contrary is intuitively sensed as a threat to one’s identity and so they have no choice but to defend their views cognitively – even when those views totally defy all reason. This is why I see cognitive dissonance as a misunderstanding about how the brain works. Strong survival emotions control behavior in these situations. The irrationality of one’s views has no effect at all – because brains defending their identity do not recognize their own irrationality.

    Arguing about the irrationality of their justifications and claiming that they are idiots or “lack critical thinking skills” is hardly useful. Targeted killings of Hamas operatives and leaders will work much better.

  230. Eliyahu says:

    Bir Zeit was started in 1891 as a school for girls, I believe by an Christian Arab woman influenced by Anglican missionaries. After various changes and upgradings it became a “university” in the mid-1970s. It appears to me that this was done under pressure from the US State Dept. You can follow stories about Bir Zeit that made it into the international press. The State Dept habitually shows more concern for Bir Zeit students than for students in Teheran’s universities.

  231. E.G. says:

    Moral Hypocrisy- 2 Academic papers (pdf)

    Why Don’t Moral People Act Morally? Motivational Considerations

    It is often assumed that moral individuals want to be moral, to display moral integrity. But our re- search suggests that at least some individuals want to appear moral while, if possible, avoiding the cost of actually being moral. We call this motive moral hypocrisy.

    This one takes a dual processing approach:
    The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite

  232. obsy says:

    E.G.: “He wasn’t very religious if he only prayed 3 times instead of the 5 required ones. And his skin colour is really irrelevant.
    What was he arguing?”

    Sunnites pray 5 times ― Shiites 3 times a day.
    His skin color is relevant ― to some people it is just about skin color.

    He was arguing that not Israel is oppressing Muslims, but that Muslims are oppressing Muslims. Culturally as well as spiritually.

    I should have said “Pro-Israeli” instead of Zionist, because it may be just Zionist side-effects that appealed to him. I think he called himself Zionist, but it is too long ago that I could tell for sure.

  233. obsy says:

    I meant “only about” instead of “just about”.

  234. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    The Bir-Zeit elementary girls school was founded in 1924.

    Developing the educational system in the disputed territories, in contrast to the Jordanian (and Egyptian) policy, was Moshe Dayan’s initiative, and that became the “occupation” policy, that counts about 10 Universities these days, out of 0 in 1967.

    Among Bir Zeit’s famous alumni are Marwan Barghuti and Yahiya Ayash (the “Engineer” spending his afterlife with 72 virgins).

    Hamas won the 2007 elections for this University’s board.

  235. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Thanks!
    By your description your praying friend was fact-oriented, indeed not Zionist. And not necessarily pro-Israeli. Unless one thinks of the Darfuri and Sudanese that flock to Israel seeking asylum as pro-Israeli.

    May the Schwartz be with you!© ;-)

  236. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Here’s an article to provide cheer for for this thread
    Journalists say ads trying to involve Israelis in global PR represent them as ‘ignorant, gullible’

    Ynet learned Friday that the Foreign Press Association in Israel had met to discuss a new PR website’s commercials, which many journalists say represent them as “stupid”
    ………
    “Foreign correspondents are depicted as ignorant and gullible in a new series of spoof videos by the Israeli government,” says a Telegraph byline on the new campaign aimed at getting Israelis to improve their country’s image in the world.
    ……………………..

    He said the ads would only aggravate further the tension between Israel and foreign journalists “already facing an unfriendly working atmosphere which does not fit with a democratic state”.

    Democratic states do not get uptight with hypocritical journalists and misleading reporting?

  237. E.G. says:

    Re- Shumsky’s paper.
    Why didn’t anyone call my attention to at least one precedent of using the genocide term?

    http://www.ginsburgh.net/textes/Symbolic_Genocide_Grinberg.html

    Also – to those who may recall that sinister example of the Arab father who was served his son’s cooked body – by the same author:
    http://www.hagada.org.il/eng/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=307

  238. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    From your Hagada link

    Israel still has quite a few characteristics of a democratic state. Even these days of alarmingly enhanced erosion of the democratic spirit ….

    Yes. Nasty isn’t it, depicting foreign journalists as ignorant and gullible, apart from being “stupid”. How democracy has eroded.

    I see that Britain has now voted for the Goldstone Report
    Britain hardens line in support of Goldstone Report

    Wait until those people far from having the liberty to swear allegiance to anything will end up being beaten into submitting to a sharia state.

    As to that tale of the father serving his son’s cooked body, please remind because I think I made a comment but cannot for the life of me remember what I said.

  239. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    See comment #49:
    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/12/21/ireland-vs-israel-the-value-of-the-comparison/#comments
    (at least now I know how to spell her name)

    Hagada HaSmalit (The Left Bank) is one radical Left site, closely linked to Kibush.org & Co.

    I just read an article on the Hebrew Azure, by Assaf Sagiv, arguing that radical Left “activists” are not attained by self-hatred but by despair leading them to self-exclusion.
    I hope it’ll soon be translated into English (it’s long!).

  240. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    The countries voting for the Goldstone follow-up are getting themselves into big trouble. Especially those involved in armed conflicts.

    Compare Cohen’s approach
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

    to Kenneth Anderson’s
    p://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/predators-over-pakistan

  241. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Thanks for the link. Was it that long ago?

    Just flipped through Anderson’s piece and it seems that there is a mindset incapable of perceiving reality.
    That some people cannot be put to sleep with a kumbaya melody.

    As for Cohen’s piece, anyone who would consider it based on fact is a fool. It is all hearsay as the lawyers would cry out.

    He uses another journalist’s ramblings surmising on things as evidence for his conclusion:
    Note the “probably:” That’s insufficient grounds for extrajudicial execution.

    But then having read the rubbish he wrote on Iran I would not expect better.

    That’s why 9/11 had to occur because had they cottoned onto what could “probably” occur all hell would have descended onto the heads of those responsible for security for forestalling the death and destruction and not having as evidence a written and signed guarantee by ObL and witnessed in the New York office for such stuff, that Atta the Saudis under the tutelage of KSM were going to pull off the “stunt”.

    I wouldn’t mind if those countries that vote for the GR get themselves into big trouble. It’s just that I’d like to get off the playing field and into the stand to watch and not participate.

  242. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Have you read this?
    Jews with six arms

    Here’s something the writer Pilar Rahola, coined which I find amusingly apt:

    The historical journalists, who knew the roots of a conflict, still exist, but they are an endangered species, devoured by that “fast food” journalism which offers hamburger news to readers who want fast-food information.
    ………….
    Defeat of critical thinking. To all this one must add the ethical relativism which defines the present times.

  243. LK says:

    Small point Lowry. Rockets from Gaza were targeted into Israel. An act of war. Israel was the right to inflict as much damage, both military, infrastructure and civilian, as is required to make it impossible for its enemies to shoot more rockets.

    Remember Pearl Harbor and the A bombs, the mining of German dams to flood and ruin their industrial capacity. War is hell. When Tokyo was bombed a river in Tokyo similar to the Hudson river in size boiled for ten minutes.

    You are lucky we don’t smash the Palestinians and scatter them to the winds.

    Hey Lowry, who said we were civilized, anyway?

  244. Cynic says:

    Hamburger news is made from fresh produce: Victims, guilty, humans, rights, enough freedom to mix and liberty to bond while being cooked up in plenty of transfacts.
    Mustn’t forget to note that Israel for not considering that a wholesome kosher dish made by idiots of fast food journalism, is very low on democracy.

    Thanks for the article by the man who saved us from Manbearpig.

  245. Cynic says:

    Actually that may be a bit premature that “saved us from” bit.

    ManBearPig Returns! Pens Op-Ed In Fish Wrap Of Record, But Still Won’t Debate

    But, now, he returns in pure first stage of grief mode, completely denying that his science money tree has collapsed:

    with this op-ed:
    We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change

    It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

  246. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    The produce is not always fresh. Sometimes (e.g., Swedish “cook”) it contains rancid ingredients.

  247. E.G. says:

    I do not want to wish
    I do not want to wash
    I do not feel like squish
    And neither would I squash.
    Gosh.
    Why so much tosh?!

  248. Ray in Seattle says:

    A couple of interesting papers:

    “The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief”

    http://www.reasonproject.org/images/uploads/contest/Harris_Kaplan_2009.pdf

    and . .

    “Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief and Uncertainty”

    http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/Harris_Sheth_Cohen.pdf

    From the first, above . .

    Overall, what the research has uncovered, is that the brain seems to treat propositions and thoughts about propositions in very similar ways to other sensory inputs. Decisions taken about the truth of statements seem mediated by emotional responses, with truth and falsehood eliciting respective feelings of pleasure and pain. This appears to be independent of the content of the statements and applies equally to natural and supernatural claims. This is an important step forward in understanding the neurology of belief. It also suggests that our lexical distinction between knowledge and belief may be much finer than we expected. To the believer, the belief is knowledge, and the brain reinforces this through its pleasure circuits. The mutual incomprehension between religious believers and non-believers starts to make sense. But it also means that an individual’s supposed rational internal dialogue is also subject to the same processes. A person’s mental map of the universe may thus be deeply flawed and yet trying to change it is a painful process that few are willing to undergo – in some ways we are all addicted to our prejudices.

  249. Cynic says:

    Seeing this is the only post in town there is an excuse for an OT comment, not that we need excuses. :-)

    Purim is slowly passing and Richard Silverstein naively ignorant of Jewish customs treads heavily in a post against the Israelis only to discover

    The Jokes on You Little Dickie

    that he was fooled by a Purim prank in Haaretz.
    Read all about it, read Haaretz

    The Western Wall Heritage Center plans to open an ad sales division, and sell wall space on a per-stone basis. Prices are expected to be upward of NIS 1,000 per stone per day. When no advertising is running, the wall will have the message “What are you waiting for? The Third Temple? Advertise now!” a source in the Heritage Center said.

    Some companies that have already expressed an interest in the project, including Bank Discount (“Feel like you’re talking to a brick wall? Talk to us instead”), Netvision (“If God didn’t get your note, why not send an e-mail?”) and Ytong (“If it’s not Ytong, I’m not praying”). G. Yafit is reportedly also in talks to have her likeness beamed onto the wall 24 hours a day.

    According to Hidud, the money raised will be used to replace the paper skullcaps that are stolen by the thousands by

  250. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    One has to be totally disconnected from Israel and Jewishness and Hebrew to fall prey to such a prank:

    -MK Mordechai Hidud (not only invented but a. Mordechai, b. Hidud means witticism)

    -The company – the brainchild of U.S.-born Joe King (no joking!)

    -G. Yafit – infomercial king!

    And the final Happy Purim!

  251. E.G. says:

    Ray,

    From “Neuroimaging of belief”…

    The acceptance and rejection of propositional truth-claims appear to be governed, in part, by the same regions that judge the pleasantness of tastes and odors.

    Very illuminating. So what does it mean?
    Does this explain a differential attitude towards the same images with different/contradictory voice-overs? Or is it the other way around? IOW, are people disgusted by fakes and delighted by truths, or does taste convene some sense of veracity?

    Can this explain “adhering” to a “narrative” telling Nazi responsibility with Auschwitz images and not “adhering” (accepting as true, believing) to a “narrative” such as the Gaza one above?

  252. Eliyahu says:

    FYI, the actress Gimel Yafit is a sixtyish woman who seems to get the lioness’ share of work in commercials that call for a woman of her age. She is, EG, the Queen of Commercials, מלכת התשדירים.

  253. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    Isn’t she the one who coined “If they have no bread let them eat Halla”?

    Vive la Reine!

    פורים שמח ומבדח

    P.S.
    I got in my email the new Kiddush version:
    Baruch Ata… Melech HaOlam
    Who made it possible for Mordechai and Esther
    Do all they did
    Without forging passports.

  254. Simon says:

    An example of an open minded “academic”? Unfortunately the universities in Australia and full of these left wing fanatics. Funded by the tax payer of course.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/it-is-time-for-israels-friends-to-condemn-its-acts-of-terrorism-20100228-pb2n.html

  255. Ray in Seattle says:

    Barry Rubin says: (parenths added, mine)

    But American public opinion has more common sense (intuitive knowledge) to see through these myths. It understands (intuits) that there are huge differences between democracies and dictatorship. It (intuitively) knows demagoguery and extremist ideology on sight and doesn’t like them (reacts emotionally). Thus, matters are precisely the opposite of what much of the elite thinks: public opinion, not elite institutions, accurately predicts where policy on these issues will go in future.

    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/03/americans-love-israel-even-more-than.html

    Intuitive, emotional conclusions that drive behavior are not less “smart” are more likely to be wrong. Intuition means we have internalized the belief and don’t need so much cognition to apply it appropriately.

    IMO, the most effective form of human behavior choice applies a finely tuned intuition – that’s edited regularly by logically consistent cognition as a background task.

  256. Ray in Seattle says:

    In above, I wrote:

    Intuitive, emotional conclusions that drive behavior are not less “smart” are more likely to be wrong. Intuition means we have internalized the belief and don’t need so much cognition to apply it appropriately.

    I should have written:

    Intuitive, emotional conclusions that drive behavior are not less “smart” or more likely to be wrong. Intuition means we have internalized the belief and don’t need so much cognition to apply it appropriately.

  257. E.G. says:

    Intuition, as well as educated intuition, is doing what feels right. Nobody (except for preachers of stupidity and hatred ) ever claimed intuition was dumb.

  258. E.G. says:

    Well worth reading.
    What a hutzpa

  259. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Incredible. What would be deemed anti-Semitic? The shape of the nose of that eating man?

  260. obsy says:

    Aussie Dave’s experiences with Palestinian Avatar peace activists:

    http://www.israellycool.com/2010/03/02/aussie-dave-gets-threatened-with-death/

  261. obsy says:

    E.G.: “What would be deemed anti-Semitic?”

    I don’t know.

    Maybe such rulings result from hard hate crime laws. I think, if found guilty, the law would require a minimum of one year imprisonment.

  262. E.G. says:

    And I just ran into this, by Matthias Küntzel:

    Iranian Antisemitism: Stepchild of German National Socialism

  263. Cynic says:

    Ray, E.G.,

    On my daily meanderings through the blog world I came across this link on Jewish World Review
    Grasping The Name of Your Life Game

    a talk of some 8 minutes where a little snippet of Judah Loew ben Bezalel’s thoughts are mentioned in which this 16th century scholar in classifying a human as being comprised of the Physical, the Emotional and the Intellect/Spiritual considers the Emotional to be far stronger than the Intellect/Spiritual.

    Does anybody have more readily readable info on this?

    By the way considering some of the intellects loose in academia and such, isn’t defining something as Intellectual Property with the implied quality somewhat of a misnomer now?

  264. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    One can go back to the 7th century Before and After, and even farther, to find people reflecting on Human complexity, drives and behavior, and what takes precedence over other stuff. The issue is still far from being solved or even clear.
    I won’t deny the interest it obviously raises. But I think it very tangentially relates to most topics discussed here.

    Regarding Intellectual Property, I’m all for it. All proprietors should be held accountable for their production thus defined. Better still, all proprietors should accompany their drugs with appropriate instructions for use and warnings of abuse, or else – face all legal and moral consequences of such immoral neglect.

  265. Eliyahu says:

    Here’s some fodder for those old horses that have made the man made climate change notion & AGW into inseparable parts of their personalities, according to Ray’s theory of political belief.

    Walter R Mead takes on the MSM’s failure to question or challenge the “science” of AGW.

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/03/03/treason-is-a-matter-of-dates/

  266. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    You in a humorous mood?
    Better still, all proprietors should accompany their drugs with appropriate instructions for use and warnings of abuse,
    Hmm, I can see the guy in the alleyway adhering to your directive.

    By the way something that tangentially relates to some of the topics here is this
    A Blizzard Of Lies

    Al Gore resurfaces in an op-ed to say that nobody’s perfect, everybody makes mistakes and climate change is still real. And he has some oceanfront property in the Himalayas to sell you.

    If hyperbole and chutzpah had a child, it would be the opening paragraph of Gore’s op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times. Gore surfaced from the global warming witness-protection program to opine that despite admissions of error and evidence of fraud by various agencies, we still face “an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, ….

  267. Ray in Seattle says:

    I apologize for being busy lately and slow to respond. In Cynic @274, I’m not really sure on what topic you are asking for more reading material. If you explain that a bit I might be able to help.

    About Gore and the climate wars: This is a good example of the deeply ideological state of US politics. The more ideologically committed someone is – the less their reason will be available to understanding a problem and finding solutions to it – and the more their reason will be applied to seeking the victory of their ideological beliefs over anyone who questions them.

    Scientists, more so than average citizens, develop a strong belief system around objectivity in their profession. Their reputations depend, to a great extent, on how well they can keep ideological beliefs out of their conclusions. When a scientist is attacked and their professional integrity is publicly impugned, it is difficult for them to not become ideologically defensive. Hence, the reaction of Phil Jones of the CRU. The emails do not show bad science. They show someone trying to hide ammunition from those who were launching personal ideological attacks against him.

    There are several outright lies in the IBD article. Can anyone here spot them? Probably not. That’s because of the power of ideological belief. The over-riding beliefs of many here are that climate scientists are liberals out to force their non-scientific ideological anti-economic growth opinions on the rest of us. Also, that those questioning the scientific consensus on climate warming are the few brave souls who can see through the bad ideologically-motivated science and are being persecuted by the MSM for their stalwart refusal to go along with the crowd.

    It’s amazing how, when people’s minds are completely controlled by their ideology – how much it seems to them as if they are being logically objective – and how much it appears to them that anyone who disagree are craven deceptive liars out to destroy everything good and true in the world. It’s an astoundingly durable and pervasive illusion of human nature. The one sure way to know if that has happened is to notice the emotional force with which someone puts forth their opinions on something and their emotional reaction when someone disagrees. Science does not require strong emotions. In fact they are anathema to good science (or any objective analysis).

    Those out to destroy the credibility of the AGW meme in the minds of the public know this, of course. By using strong emotional attacks on climate scientists – which are likely to elicit emotional defensive reactions – they are more likely to achieve their goal. If they had a scientific basis for their objections they’d use that channel. They don’t. If a few individual scientists from the many thousands worldwide working on climate science respond emotionally to those attacks they can be accused of ideology by RW media like IBD (who sells their advertising to carbon producing / polluting industries) – no matter the quality of their work – and their premise is devalued in the voting public’s eye. Mission accomplished.

    Al Gore has been set up as a political proxy for all this venom. He never said he invented the Internet, he did not claim that he discovered Love Canal and he’s substantially correct about global warming – at least about the science that predicts we are probably facing a very serious problem for humanity that could be mitigated with intelligent focus and planning. But I also know there’s nothing that I or anyone else can say that will convince anyone here of that who’s already convinced otherwise.

    I don’t say this to accuse anyone of being dishonest or deceptive or unintelligent about their beliefs on this nor to say that I consider myself as more enlightened. Ideological belief and its effect on behavior is what human nature is mostly about. I blame no-one for being human and I can be just as blinded by my own ideology at times.

    It’s just that I’ve looked at the AGW and climate warming arguments as best I can and this is what I see. I could be wrong but if one uses the “strong emotion test” regarding the arguments of each side – and more significantly, if one looks at the overall mass of data and evidence and the scientific conclusions drawn from it all – the conclusion seems pretty clear to me.

  268. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    And what is the difference between the guy in the alleyway, the healer in a den, and the chap ex Cathedra selling snake-oil if not poison?

  269. Ray in Seattle says:

    In #280 I said,

    . . they can be accused of ideology by RW media like IBD (who sells their advertising to carbon producing / polluting industries) . .

    That’s not correct. IBD sells their advertising to stock brokers and the securities services industry. These in-turn make money from an economic environment where lots of speculative money can change hands free from government regulation and where there are few regulatory impediments on invested capital. But the point is the same.

  270. obsy says:

    “Scientists, more so than average citizens, develop a strong belief system around objectivity in their profession.”

    Actually, I stopped to believe that most science is objective, because of my experiences as scientist.

    “Their reputations depend, to a great extent, on how well they can keep ideological beliefs out of their conclusions.”

    Which is actually a big problem. When you are risking much, it is more likely that nobody will harm you. Also, scientific language is so polite that unless you faked your data, no real claims are done. The worst to fear (apart from not getting published this time) is that somebody will write that there are other interpretations possible.

    “When a scientist is attacked and their professional integrity is publicly impugned, it is difficult for them to not become ideologically defensive.”

    That is true. The best strategy is to postpone an answer.

    “The over-riding beliefs of many here are that climate scientists are liberals out to force their non-scientific ideological anti-economic growth opinions on the rest of us.”

    Well, I think that most modern day climate scientists are frauds who fit their data or models into vague but accepted concepts. It must be heaven for con artists! Millions of ideologists are willing to defend them without having any clue about the specific work. Results can be checked in a decade or two.

    “It’s amazing how, when people’s minds are completely controlled by their ideology – how much it seems to them as if they are being logically objective – and how much it appears to them that anyone who disagree are craven deceptive liars out to destroy everything good and true in the world.”

    I usually prefer the “poor misdirected soul” over the “evil liar”.
    Have you ever changed a strong believe of yours?
    If you have, you might have experienced a period where you were guide-less and vulnerable in this concern. This is clearly not the kind of situation you want to be in when someone attacks you. Even it is only with words.
    Also, note that you share many believes with the community you live in. Defending the believe can mean defending the community. Changing your believe could mean, having to leave (or suffering disrespect in) your community. Social bondage (uhmmm) binding is usually more important than truth.

    “The one sure way to know if that has happened is to notice the emotional force with which someone puts forth their opinions on something and their emotional reaction when someone disagrees.”

    I strongly disagree that this is a “sure way”!
    There are many causes for strong emotions. You also will have problems to know for sure which believes a statement might have attacked.

    “Science does not require strong emotions. In fact they are anathema to good science (or any objective analysis).”

    Another good position would be that strong emotions are the main driving force which forces scientist to work hard on proving something that they believe in, instead of going after a currently well financed trend issue ― telling the donor exactly what he wants to hear.

    “Al Gore has been set up as a political proxy for all this venom.”

    Al Gore has accepted a Nobel Prize and knows too well how the game works. He does not get any pity from me.

    There are three problems in climate science politics:
    1. Some people claim that they have put up models that can correctly calculate our climate and give those to politicians and businessmen.
    People under pressure are often looking for a way to get rid of responsibility. Give them concrete numbers as a guideline and they will be soooo happy.
    2. Diplomacy is completely overvalued and I don’t see any reasonable way how the worlds oil-consume will be stopped before the last drop of oil is drilled from this earth.
    3. Many young people believe climate politics should be by far the most important part in politics and neglect issues that determine their lives and that of others.

    By the way: All green parties in Europe I have encountered spread far more fear and guilt than any other parties. They learned better from the Nazis than all others. I hate it when somebody tries to manipulate me to get what he want. If he tries to make me feel bad, I hate it even more.

  271. obsy says:

    A religion of peace a liberal country:

    Roughly 20% of Malmö’s 290,000 residents are of Muslim, mostly Arab, origin. Their widespread hatred of Israel together with traditional Swedish anti-Zionism-the result of the left’s ideological supremacy here-form an explosive cocktail.

    Faced with these attacks on the city’s Jewish population, Malmö’s mayor, Ilmar Reepalu, seems curiously unperturbed by, if not sympathetic to, the attackers. Asked to condemn anti-Semitism in his city, the Social Democrat suggested in a January interview to Skånska Dagbladet-published on International Holocaust Memorial Day, no less-that it’s partly the Jews’ own fault. Their crime? They didn’t “distance” themselves from Israel and the Gaza war. “The community chose to hold a pro-Israel demonstration,” Mr. Reepalu said, a move that “may convey the wrong message.” Besides, Zionism is just as bad as anti-Semitism, the mayor added. Both are “extremists who want to set themselves over other groups.”

    Mr. Reepalu’s suggested solution for Europe ‘s Jews is a sort of post-Christian baptism. If conversion to Christianity was the ticket out of the ghetto in earlier times, conversion to Israel-bashing may do the trick today. If Jews “distance” themselves from the Jewish state, they will be safe, maybe even accepted in polite company.

    http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/eurabia_is_a_place_in_sweden/

  272. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy, I thank you for the reply @283. It has solid statements of your beliefs (not puzzles) without personal ridicule or attacks. I welcome that because it’s a chance to find out which of us is more correct on those issues which I think are all very interesting question (it could be you that’s more correct).

    I’m busy with a project these days but I’ll try to reply to each of your points as I get the chance so keep checking back. I look forward to learning more about your views on these things.

    Could I ask what area of science you work in and where in the world you do this? Don’t answer if you think any of that is too personal. Thanks

  273. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    The social bonds are getting loose in Malmö, and so does the mayor’s logic. Communities are like pudding, sticking together through social bonding.
    May this serve as a mnemo-technique: puddING bondING (or you’ll have to go through the 100 times writing drill…) ;-)

    And, coercion and intimidation don’t rhyme with bondING. No pudding there, but very little choice left between compliance and conversion.

  274. obsy says:

    Ray: “Could I ask what area of science you work in and where in the world you do this? Don’t answer if you think any of that is too personal.”

    Indeed, it is. But, I am willing to say that I have never worked in climate science.

    By the way:
    I believe somewhat in man made climate change. But I wouldn’t bet much on it.

  275. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    so it is neither “bondage” nor “binding”.
    I should talk of “social pudding” for a while. It might help.

  276. Stan says:

    #246 E.G – Symbolic Genocide

    Amazing link – to an article written by a Jew who calls what Israel is doing/did symbolic genocide !!!

    Let’s see – is that the same as genocide except without people being killed !! or mass murder without the masses !!! or a car-crash without a car !!

    An atrocity on the use of the word genocide.

  277. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy, You said that your ” . . experiences as a scientist . .” led you to conclude that most science is not objective. Are you able to describe that experience? It’s OK if you don’t want to – but that kind of makes your claim of personal experience a bit empty. I assume you know that one’s claims must be falsifiable or they don’t count.

  278. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy, you said, “Well, I think that most modern day climate scientists are frauds who fit their data or models into vague but accepted concepts.”

    There are several thousand climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports. That means that you believe that over half of them consciously “fit their data” according to some non-scientific agenda rather than reveal what the data really show. That’s a pretty strong statement for a scientist to make.

    Can you show just me one clear instance where such a purposeful fraud has occurred? I’m not saying it didn’t happen but this would be a good place to start to make your case.

  279. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy, You ask, “Have you ever changed a strong believe of yours?” Yes

    You say, “I strongly disagree that this is a “sure way”! There are many causes for strong emotions.”

    If a scientist disagrees with another scientist over a claim (that is supported by some evidence and is falsifiable) there is no reason to be emotional because that’s what science is. It’s a process of homing in on reality by comparing different premises according to their supporting evidence.

    A hypothesis that’s is falsified is just as valuable as one that survives because it reveals a part of nature. Even a hypothesis that survives and becomes generally accepted and useful for prediction can never be said to be “true”. It just hasn’t been falsified yet or replaced with a better model. So scientific “truths” are never closed cases. I think that’s why some conservatives are so antagonistic toward science. It never gives “absolutely for sure” answers – like religion, for example. The answers are always as close as we can get at the time.

    If someone gets upset over that process then they are not a real scientist because that’s what scientists do for a living. As a scientist you understand all this. Right?

  280. E.G. says:

    Stan,

    Let’s see – is that the same as genocide except without people being killed !! or mass murder without the masses !!! or a car-crash without a car !!

    Or as apartheid without racial/ethnic legislation.

  281. E.G. says:

    Highly recommended, Latma’s weekly edition:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsjifQk-Jh4

  282. obsy says:

    “It’s OK if you don’t want to – but that kind of makes your claim of personal experience a bit empty. I assume you know that one’s claims must be falsifiable or they don’t count.”

    Which is precisely the reason why I won’t state them.

    “obsy, you said, “Well, I think that most modern day climate scientists are frauds who fit their data or models into vague but accepted concepts.”

    There are several thousand climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports. That means that you believe that over half of them consciously “fit their data” according to some non-scientific agenda rather than reveal what the data really show.”

    OK, first notice that I did not talk about a selection of scientists as you do.
    Second I did not talk about wrong data, but about wrong data or models. (Why did you do it?)
    I know more about the theoretical issues. I would have chosen this to talk about and will do so below.

    “That’s a pretty strong statement for a scientist to make.”

    Not really. As you noticed, it is a statement of believe.

    “Can you show just me one clear instance where such a purposeful fraud has occurred?”

    Though I haven’t watched closely at climate science ― isn’t this just what the climate scientist email talk was about? I don’t know. I just skimmed little more than the headlines.

    “If a scientist disagrees with another scientist over a claim (that is supported by some evidence and is falsifiable) there is no reason to be emotional because that’s what science is.”

    We don’t need a reason to become emotional, we simply are.
    I wasn’t talking about scientist to scientist communication, because I thought that you proposed your method for all people. But OK, scientist are normal people too. This is a topic of pragmatics, habits of thinking and self image. You adjust the way you talk and the level you reason to the situation.

    I can skip most of the rest of your questions, because you talk of falsifiable hypotheses. That is not how I see most science these days.
    What kind of experiment do you suggest to test climate models? Do the theories count as falsifiable if we can see their validity in 20 years (only)? Do you think that data from the past that is accessible to the modeler as well is useful to falsify his model? Can current and past data really describe something that is supposed to change? When is a model falsified? (If different models propose different sea-level rises from one to ten meters, do they confirm mutually or do they contradict? Are they ready for public/political/economical debate?)

    “A hypothesis that’s is falsified is just as valuable as one that survives because it reveals a part of nature.”

    I’m almost sure you that you want to rephrase this statement in a less relativistic form.

    “Even a hypothesis that survives and becomes generally accepted and useful for prediction can never be said to be “true”.”

    I really like useful hypotheses.

    “It just hasn’t been falsified yet or replaced with a better model. So scientific “truths” are never closed cases. I think that’s why some conservatives are so antagonistic toward science. It never gives “absolutely for sure” answers – like religion, for example. The answers are always as close as we can get at the time.”

    Religion is a science as well. You can get your PhD in religious studies. Religion is not closed but very much open to interpretation. You can build a hypothesis based on quotes and history and wait until somebody falsifies it with another quote or historical observation. Because of this process we end up with better and better answers on this topic and someday all religious believes might converge toward the true meaning.

    “If someone gets upset over that process then they are not a real scientist because that’s what scientists do for a living. As a scientist you understand all this. Right?”

    I am frustrated enough to take that as a compliment.
    I guess that scientists need to do something for a living is currently a hugh problem in science. Actually I should care more about this right now.

  283. E.G. says:

    Bogus intellectuals join forces with Islamic zealots to condemn Israel
    Beware phony liberals

    There’s a part 2 as well.

  284. Ray in Seattle says:

    I just want to add a couple of things on this. I really don’t know how “objective” scientists are based on scientifically collected data and analysis of the question. I’m going by my experience and intuition. I know a few scientists personally and my wife has done what could loosely be called scientific research when she was employed by the US Dept of Education. When I say that scientists generally understand the need to separate ideological belief from facts and conclusions – I think I mean that they understand it is wrong to use deception to sway conclusions. That doesn’t mean that they don’t become enthusiastic about a pet theory (that may bring them some fame and fortune) if it turns out to be justified.

    I think such motivations are part of human nature and scientists are human. That’s why there is peer reviewed publishing where you have to publicly publish your hypothesis and support it and expose it to criticism. Granted it is not a perfect system but my sense is that someone who wishes to oppose the current paradigm in almost any field of science has an avenue available to do that. It’s not easy to oppose the status quo in any institution and in that regard, science is as conservative as others. At least no-one is burned at the stake these days for suggesting other than Godly forces at work in the universe.

    I suspect that in all the intellectual professions there is plenty of ideologically-motivated skull-duggery to go around. But, like democracy, also a human institution, science is set up to eventually be self-correcting over time – at least as far as human effort can approach objective reality. But I think the record on that is pretty good in terms of lives made better and longer and happier as a result of the hard work of real science. I think that the great majority of scientists are somewhat better than average at keeping unfounded ideological motivations out of their work. Not perfect but pretty good by and large. My personal experience with the few scientists I know is that they tend to have respect for the process – one for which the public has little appreciation or understanding.

    But, I’m willing to look at evidence to the contrary. Maybe my experience is not typical for most scientists for some reason but I think it’s an important question worth exploring. I’d hope that anyone here with valid evidence one way or the other would bring it forward.

    To clarify my view, I think that some scientists, being human, are susceptible to aligning themselves with hypotheses, for a variety of reasons, that may not be well-founded on fact – some scientists more than others. But I believe that the great majority of scientists are willing to subject their views to peer criticism and accept the results if their views are found to be unsupported by the evidence. Also, I believe that the great majority of scientists would not bypass the system and use PR to promote a theory that was scientifically rejected. Yes, there are some who would do that and there are some that have sold out their soul to moneyed interests. But I think most scientists know who those few are and reject their work and their methods.

    The bottom line for me, is that when major scientific effort is applied to a potentially serious human problem – such as global climate change – then we are wise to listen to the scientific analysis of the problem, objectively examine the quality of their work, and take it as seriously as it deserves. We ultimately have the responsibility to purge ideological motives from our own evaluation of their results – and we will all suffer if we do it poorly.

    So far it appears to me that the scientists have done a pretty good job providing us the data – but we (the media and our governmental system, our elected representatives, meaning us) are doing a very poor job of intelligently (non-ideologically) following up on the data they have given us. We have allowed moneyed interests and their bought politicians and PR firms to pollute the results and we and our children will probably pay dearly for that in the coming years.

  285. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy @296, Most of this comment has statements that I have trouble understanding well enough to reply cogently. I suspect that’s because English is not your native language and I apologize for my inability to fully understand you. But, you say,

    Religion is a science as well. You can get your PhD in religious studies. Religion is not closed but very much open to interpretation. You can build a hypothesis based on quotes and history and wait until somebody falsifies it with another quote or historical observation. Because of this process we end up with better and better answers on this topic and someday all religious believes might converge toward the true meaning.

    Religion is not a science. Religion is based on faith – which is ideological belief – the opposite of science. In science there is no such thing as a “true meaning” – only hypotheses that have not been discredited, yet. If religion was based on falsifiable hypotheses then it would be science, not religion. Just because a PhD is offered does not make it science.

  286. obsy says:

    Ray,

    there are probably different definitions of science. There are certainly differences between religion and english literature ― physics and chemistry ― math and computer science.

    If you don’t think of religion as science, you can still see what I wrote as analogy. Religious schoolars make statements about the world based on their theories. They can say the world is six thousand years old. When they come to the conclusion that this is false, they can improve their theory. Certain religious splinter groups have proposed a date for the end of the world and changed their theory after that date has past. It is a constant improvement of their theory, because it fits the real observations better. There may be something wrong much deeper in their theory. Let’s say, the specific holy book could be less holy as thought of. This would be just a wrong assumption somewhere very deep in their theory and all those improved models of world ending would be as good as random guesses.

    As too my English. It would take me more time than I am willing to spend to get everything right and I would need to restrict my phrases to structures that I am 100% sure that they are correct.

    I didn’t know that it was that bad though ― apart from the pudding and some European grammatical variations.

  287. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy @301, It’s not that your English is that bad. It’s really quite good for most informal discussions. However, I try to understand exactly what you mean so I can accurately respond and not waste our time talking past each other. On a topic like this I prefer to know precisely what you are saying. I am having some trouble with that in some of your comments. I invite you to restate anything important in different words and I’ll do my best to understand you.

    You said,

    They can say the world is six thousand years old. When they come to the conclusion that this is false, they can improve their theory. Certain religious splinter groups have proposed a date for the end of the world and changed their theory after that date has past. It is a constant improvement of their theory, because it fits the real observations better.

    I’d suggest that you don’t fully understand what a scientific theory is. It is not comparable to the above at all. It would be difficult for me to explain this in a blog comment – but scientific theories must be based on existing accepted knowledge of nature, supported by observation and must be subject to testing that can show it wrong.

    The religious prediction that the Earth was 6000 years old was not a theory in that sense. It was doctrine – believed because the bible (the word of God) said so. It was never tested against reality by any believer because testing would have been an admission of lack of faith.

    When scientists pointed out the absurdity of such a claim the church devised a revised “theory” that wasn’t so absurd. But it was then selected for its resistance to ridicule, not for its scientific validity. When confronted with irrefutable evidence that they are wrong the church doesn’t perform scientific experiments to come up with a new age for the Earth or a new date for the end times. What they produce is dogma – not science.

    Please don’t take this as an insult but I’m afraid your mistrust of science (and global climate change) is not based on a very good understanding of what science is. I don’t begrudge you your faith – but that is not science.

  288. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Don’t worry about your English, it’s well understandable.
    Ihre Englisch ist besser als mein Deutsch.
    Only when I suspected it might become confusing for other readers did I come up with pudding (initially I wanted to write Riesling but was afraid of Eliyahu scolding me ;-) ).

    Anyway, that pudding (which I invite you to return me whenever you deem necessary) has nothing to do with scientific practices and ideological crusades, which are a complete diversion of the topic.

  289. E.G. says:

    In the essay below, Gunnar Heinsohn argues theta the uniqueness of the Holocaust resides in the Nazi (Hitlerian) will to uproot Judaism’s essential contribution to Humanity – the ten commandments and, in particular, the 6th: thou shalt not kill (a mistranslation of “murder”, but in this context it doesn’t make a substantial difference). The Hitlerian project was to return to the previous value system, when human sacrifice and other forms of killing were normative. The physical annihilation was only part of the plan to eradicate all and any trace of Jewish thinking, values, ethics, etc. that became (even converted to Christianity) European heritage from the Nazi-German spirit.

    http://migs.concordia.ca/documents/HeinsohnHitlerandtheJewishPeopleJGR.pdf

    In light of this, Matthias Küntzel’s recent article showing the German antisemitic ideology brought to Tehran in Farsi via a Berlin-based short-wave radio transmitter (Radio Zeesen) since the 1930′s (I tried to post the reference twice, will try again, separately, below), and the Jerusalem Mufti al-Hussayni’s Arabic Nazi propaganda (including radio programmes), I suspect the intoxication consists not only of demonizing Jews but also de-Judeising (à la Hitler) the Moslems: “deprogramming” them of the 6th commandment.

  290. E.G. says:

    Sorry, the link to Kuntzel’s article (on his site) is systematically “swallowed”.
    Maybe the published version will make it:
    http://israelcfr.com/documents/4-9-Matthias-Kuntzel.pdf

  291. obsy says:

    “However, I try to understand exactly what you mean so I can accurately respond and not waste our time talking past each other.”

    I guess that is not possible unless you have enough statistical background.
    I will better try to formulate a take-home message.

    A theory can be the best there is, but nevertheless completely unreliable and useless. IMO this currently happens more often than the production of useful theories. If you stick to modern science results, you will be much ahead of random guesses, because of the useful results among it. But it is not always about random guesses.

    Here starts the real problem:
    When we make decisions, we have to take different points into account. Also, different theories can describe (among other things) the same part of reality that we are interested in. Now we have to take the reliability of the theories into account. We can’t base our decision on the fact that theory A is the best there is about point A and theory B is only the second best about point B. (IMO it is generally a good thing stick to those things that you are sure that work. That is why I call myself conservative.)

    We sometimes have to rely on other people to judge such decisions for us.

    “I’d suggest that you don’t fully understand what a scientific theory is.”

    Maybe.

    “scientific theories must be based on existing accepted knowledge of nature”

    Are you sure?
    I don’t get what this concretely means. In a way it sounds extremely restrictive, but at the same time too vague to be any restriction at all.

    Let’s see: It is a accepted knowledge of nature that their exists a bible. It is also accepted that some things that are written in it are true.
    Sounds roughly the same as all objects falling down hit the ground with Force = g * t * m.
    The true phrases or the mass “m” will be estimated by our data.

    If your data is only good for parts of some phrases, the best estimator will be based on these parts alone. Nevertheless the correctness will be stated for the whole statements.
    Done!

    “supported by observation”

    Very important!

    must be subject to testing that can show it wrong.

    Theoretically this is always the case.
    In the bible case: wait until you die. If you are neither in heaven nor hell, the theory was wrong.

    But I guess those restrictions make wrong theories easier to spot.

  292. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    Vôtre allemand est probablement meilleur que mon français.

    “Only when I suspected it might become confusing for other readers did I come up with pudding.”

    I am glad that I have learned something.

    “… has nothing to do with scientific practices and ideological crusades, which are a complete diversion of the topic.”

    Yes. So back to the topic: Anthony Lawson and his ideological crusade hasn’t got significantly more friends in the recent weeks than after its first days on youtube. Also, only about 1% of his new friends are interested in his lifetime achievements ― as the upload of one of his old commercial clips suggests.

  293. obsy says:

    This brings us to a problem: why do so many people, especially self-described ‘realists’ when it comes to Middle East policy, find it mysterious that American foreign policy supports Israel? Surely in a democratic republic, when policy over a long period of time tracks with public sentiment, there is very little to explain. American politicians vote for pro-Israel policies because that is what voters want them to do. Case closed, I would think. Late breaking news flash: water runs downhill.

    Yet many otherwise intelligent people are drawn over and over again to the idea that a mysteriously powerful Jewish lobby is somehow thwarting democracy to bend American foreign policy to its nefarious will. Polls, reason, history, none of this matters. America supports Israel because of ‘the Jews’

    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/03/middle-east-realists-anti-semites-or-jus/

    On the other hand: Obama’s tough line against Israel cannot be seen as the will of the american majority.
    But no talk of any lobby here.

    I doubt that the inventors of the protocols of Zion back then would have believed the amount of impact of their work a century after it has been refuted.

  294. Cynic says:

    obsy,

    I doubt that the inventors of the protocols of Zion back then would have believed ….

    I doubt that they had the intuition to imagine that general education levels would fall to such a degree
    (if oao was around he would be on about this) and that media manipulation of facts rise to such levels that the ordinary man in the street would end up in the first decade of the 21st Century as ignorant of recent history and its context as the majority of the West’s elites are that Helicobacter pylori bacterium are responsible for stomach ulcers and not stress.

  295. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Do you have any knowledge of oao’s whereabouts?

  296. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    I wanted to ask you the same question.

    Perhaps Spring will spring him out of his retreat?

  297. Stan says:

    #296 EG

    “Or as apartheid without racial/ethnic legislation.”

    Thats exactly it – without legislation there is no apartheid.
    In South Africa (I am South African and have lived in the Apartheid Era) and here the main issue here was that the Apartheid Laws were legislated – this is what made the system so abhorant.
    People of different ethnic backrounds (and South Africa has many) ARE different and will see life differently, and so long as there is no legislation that enforces these differences there is NO APARTHEID. In fact divirsity is desirable. People sould have a right to practice their beliefs.
    Under Arab rule Jews were denied the right to practice their religion freely, and currently there is a strong drive by the Arabs to keep Jews out – Gaza is free of Jews but suicide bombers and rockets reign down – THIS is Apartheid.
    Take a look at the Hamas and Fatah charters and you will see that Jews are to be violrntly gotten rid of. Look at events even before the establishment of Israel in 48 and you will see by the porgroms that occurred(Jaffa, Hebron, Jerusalem)by the people that lived there, that this was no idle threat. The ANC Charter NEVER included statements to say that the Europeans were to be sent back to Europe.
    Why is the Arab tack not to include the current Jewish populations in their future state and to undertake (now by demonstration)how they will protect them and allow them to thrive like the Jews did in Europe where they were a minority? To show them SOME respect for their ancestoral heritage and in general cash-in economically?
    I’ll tell you why – the Arabs have no-intention to allow Jews to live ANYWHERE in the land of Israel (both current and biblical) because Jews are considered Infidels (Kaffirs) and it is an affront to their dignity to even think of a Jews as an equal (never mind women + gay rights).
    Sure we can re-write history, corrupt the media and make Jews out to be child-killers and illegal occupiers – but listen carefully – no amount of tongue twisting will convince me that the Arabs are fighting in order to embrace Western Style Liberal Democracy that in the future will show respect to Jews and their diverse culture. The Arabs are the ones that practice and seek to continue to practice Apartheid (it is written into their charters i.e. legislated).

  298. Cynic says:

    Stan,

    You ask
    Why is the Arab tack not to include the current Jewish populations in their future state and to undertake (now by demonstration)how they will protect them and allow them to thrive like the Jews did in Europe where they were a minority?

    and the answer is because of their culture.
    Islam is a 1400 year old theological-political movement of intense hatred of the Jews and intense dislike of other infidels (Kafirs – from the 7th Century onwards in their march to conquer and occupy they slaughtered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists in the Indian sub continent to the East and to Northern Africa in the West) as their Sharia, “religious” law dictates life on earth.
    Ignorance of the contents of their three “holy” books, the Qur’an, Hadith (the doings of Mohammad which every upright Muslim should imitate/follow) and Sira leads to naive expectations of the Arabs reacting as we do.
    That is cognitive egocentrism as RL has defined in this blog.

    That other people do not see that it is the Arabs who practice Apartheid is because they are using the Arabs as tools to get at the Jews while “keeping their hands clean”.
    In similar fashion the Palestinians/Arabs have been used as cannon fodder for the last 60 odd years to grind down the Jews of the region.

  299. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic says,

    That other people do not see that it is the Arabs who practice Apartheid is because they are using the Arabs as tools to get at the Jews while “keeping their hands clean”. In similar fashion the Palestinians/Arabs have been used as cannon fodder for the last 60 odd years to grind down the Jews of the region.

    This is very true IMO. It underlies the whole conflict and history on many levels. It exists in the form of beliefs that have great emotional potency – even though many (most?) who behave and react according to those internal forces would deny any possibility of antisemitism in their views. All the talking about it that is done is just a dance that they do to sell others a story about their own morality. It is done as much to sell themselves the same story. But as always it’s the emotions that lie beneath the surface that determine their actions.

  300. Daniel Bielak says:

    The modern Islamic-Supremacist ideology and political movement began in the 1920′s.

    The modern Islamic-Supremacist political movement gained momentum and surged in the late 1970′s.

    The strategy consciously developed and adhered to by the developers and adherents of the modern Islamic-Supremacist political movement includes the conscious deliberate use of violent action, non-violent action, covert action, and overt action.

    Hassan Al Bana (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood):

    O influenced by Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf
    O early admirer of Adolf Hitler (writer of admiring letters to Adolf Hitler)
    O founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood is the founding organization of the modern of Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion-based, Wahabi-Salafi-Sunni-Muslim-Islamic-based, ideologically genocidally anti-Jewish, and anti-democracy, anti-Western (anti-America, anti-Europe), fanatically religious, totalitarian, Islamic Supremacist political movement)

    Amin Al Husseini (Founder of what, in the 1960′s, Arab leaders and Soviet officials began to call the “Palestinian movement”):

    O organizer and leader of anti-Jewish massacrs in the Mandate of Palestine from 1920 to the 1930s
    O member of the Muslim Brotherhood
    O officially adjoined German Nazi official from 1941 to 1945
    O close confidant of Adolf Hitler
    O co-developer, with Heinrich Himmler, and co-perpetrator, during World War II, of the genocide against the Jewish people in Europe.
    O broadcaster of Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion-based, explicitely genocidally anti-Jewish, and anti-American, anti-European, and anti-democracy, Islamicly-themed, radio-transmitted propaganda in Arabic language, Turkish language, and Persian language, to all of the countries in the Middle-East from 1941 to 1945 from a powerful shortwave radio station (Radio Zeesen) in Germany which was built for him by the German officials of the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Germany (Ruholla Khomeini, who later founded the Shia Muslim Islamic-Supremacist movement, was, as a young man in Iran, was a dedicated listener of the radio programs by Amin Al Husseini on Radio Zeesen)
    O founder of German Nazi SS all-Muslim-member divisions in the Balkans which killed many thousands of Serbian people, Jewish people, and Roma (Gypsy) people
    O founder of Fatah in 1958
    O military leader of Arab military divisions in the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 (which were divisions which Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were members of)
    O appointer of his protege, Egyptian-born, Yasser Arafat, as his successor as the leader of Fatah (the so-called Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 by Egyptian president Abdul Gamal Nasser and members of the Soviet KGB; Yasser Arafat, as leader of Fatah, took over the PLO in the 1970′s)

  301. obsy says:

    I have noticed that http://badnewsfromthenetherlands.blogspot.com/ is not linked in the sidebar. That blog’s concept is just brilliant!

    I guess Americans won’t understand it. In Europe, we have “learned” that nothing good comes from Israel.

  302. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    Daniel Bielak might know this better. Have a look above at his Comment 90 for background information. The dismissal looks new. I will have to check some sources.

  303. obsy says:

    I was busy in January and missed the whole month. Seems that the dismissal was known and nobody cared about the reinstatement until now.

  304. obsy says:

    A weird article about the bad guy:
    http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/2010/01/30/antisemitismus-6/

    Roughly translated snippet:

    A few days ago, Benz repeated his thesis in the daily newspaper “Süddeutsche Zeitung” (SZ) that, as Antisemitism-Researcher, he must look for structural similarities or identities in activities of discrimination: “It is a task of science to make use of insights of analyses of antisemitic resentments.”
    Benz sees exactly two such structural similarities to “Feindbild Islam”.
    First, as in Antisemitism, the mechanism of false generalization is used. Then it is mixed with negative and fictive rumors about the victim.

    We should expect that his thesis ― shortly after half of Europe expressed strong feelings about the swiss referendum on bans on minarets ― would be greeted in some degree of goodwill and appreciation.

    The comments at hagalil (as well as the original anti-right-extremism site) mostly disagree with this article.

    Shouldn’t Benz also look for dissimilarities before presenting his thesis and presenting them as well? Hasn’t his supervisor told him that?
    Well, it would be a bad advise to listen to that supervisor anyway.

  305. obsy says:

    A true friend of Israel:

    Erdogan, who described Palestine as an open prison, urged Palestinians to unite and end their internal division “because it is not in favor of the Palestinians, but in the the interest of their enemies. He added:” I love my brothers in Fatah And my brothers in Hamas wherever they are.”

    The Turkish Prime Minister also stressed the necessity of lifting the siege on Gaza, saying “the Gaza Strip crossings did not allow the process of reconstruction after the devastating war and here I urge the Islamic world to take a serious steps In this area. “

    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/03/erdogan-erases-jewish-history/

    This guy is a real shame for Atatürk’s nation.

  306. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    OT.
    In #234 I mentioned an article by Judith Butler, well here’s a sort of resumé of her accomplishments.

    To remove all doubt, Butler made it clear that she objects to Israel’s presence not only in the West Bank, where she was doing her Terrorism Grand Tour. She also wants Israel removed from within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.

    Bios of a Bias

    Reading this I now understand why I found my thoughts wandering off onto other matters while trying to read the link I post previously.
    She won first-prize in the Bad Writing Contest sponsored by the academic journal Philosophy and Literature.
    The sentence that won her the prize makes me wonder how these people get to the academic level mentioned.
    oao would have a fit.

  307. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Naaah, he’d dismiss her with a simple, straightforward, “idiot”.
    Not that it’s wrong, but crucially lacks bloviation.

    This (prize winning) style is an American elaboration on its European model. And, FYI, I did get through both parts of that interview!

    Shall we call Jeeves for that L’Hayim I deserve (and invite you to share)?

  308. Daniel Bielak says:

    obsy,

    Thank you for your referral to me and to my previous comment.

    I did read a while ago, on, I think, Clemens Heni’s blog, about the dismissal of Clemens Heni from the board from which he was dismissed.

    I’m glad that Clemens Heni has been reinstated.

    I feel compassion for Wolfgang Benz.

    I think that he doesn’t understand why he is wrong.

    I watched, a year or two, or more, ago, a video of a talk given by Wolfgang Benz at YIISA. He seemed sincere.

    I haven’t read through about Wolfgang Benz’s refusal to denounce or distance himself from his doctoral supervisor, a Nazi, and from his mentor, a pro-Hitler ideologue. From my seeing this and from what I saw of him by his talk, I think that he does not have understanding about some things. I think that he is confused. I think that he has conflicting things going on in him (it is Germany – in the 1930′s and 1940′s almost all German people in Germany were intensely pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi – today almost every German person’s mother and father or grandmother and grandfather were pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler). I think that what is involved in what is happening in his mind involves things, about self-identity belief, that Ray has talked about on this blog.

  309. Daniel Bielak says:

    “…I did read a while ago, on, I think, Clemens Heni’s blog, about the dismissal of Clemens Heni from the board from which he was dismissed…”

    …the board of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism.

  310. Daniel Bielak says:

    The last comment that I saw by oao was a scolding comment that he made to someone. She replied with a very harsh comment. I think that oao was very hurt by that.

  311. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…in the 1930’s and 1940’s almost all German people in Germany were intensely pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi…”

    …in the 1930′s and 1940′s almost all German people in Germany were pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi (and many were intensely pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi)…

  312. E.G. says:

    Daniel #328

    ROFL!

  313. Ray in Seattle says:

    Thanks for the link. Although I’d hate to think I’ve caused you to cast some more of your pearls before the swine ;)

    The problem with the article is that it sees belief almost entirely as part of conscious cognition; reasoning and intellect. In that area its description(s) of the various schools of thought about belief is quite interesting.

    Where it fails is in recognizing that behavior is caused by the emotions that underlie belief. In fact, those emotional forces are what the brain is designed to compute, store and deliver when its time to choose a behavior to fit a certain situation.

    The cognitive dimension, such as the words we ascribe to a belief we may hold, are a reflection of those emotions, or may be a reflection of other, even stronger emotions. For example, most persons who’s behavior is consistently antisemitic, can offer “justifications” that exonerate them of the charge. Their brains have constructed belief narratives to relieve the negative emotional state that results from public suspicions of their bigotry. Their brain has its cake and gets to eat it too. But that just scratches the surface.

    Belief is only relevant to behavior as far as its emotional potency provides motivation for it. Logical validity has no inherent power to guide behavior – unless it is within a context where our well-being, as sensed by our brain, is at stake – which provides the necessary emotions to participate in a behavior choice decision.

    Intellectual discussions about belief as provided in the link, are interesting, but largely miss the point when it comes to explaining behavior IMO.

  314. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    “Daniel #328

    ROFL!”

    I think that oao is very sensitive. He is irascible, and “doesn’t suffer fools gladly”, but I think that he is very sensitive. I think that what I said in my previous comment is true. I think that he was hurt, and maybe, or maybe mainly, completely exasperated about things.

  315. Daniel Bielak says:

    “Anti-Semitism in the U.S. since 1945″, blog entry by Clemens Heni
    (url to German language original post) http://clemensheni.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/antisemitismus-in-den-usa-seit-1945/
    (url to (automaticly English) translation, by Google Translate): http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=/language_tools&u=http://clemensheni.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/antisemitismus-in-den-usa-seit-1945/

    The blog post consists mainly of excerpts from a paper, by Clemens Heni, with the same name as the title of the blog post.

    The blog post includes a link to the paper (which is in German language, and which is made available in (only) the form of a pdf file; http://www.tribuene-verlag.de/T193_Antisemitismus.pdf)

    I read the paper by using google translate (I selected all of the text of the paper and posted it into the input form on the Google Translate home page).

    The paper is excellent. I have been, for a long time, completely aware of, and I have been very distressed by, everything that Clemens Heni wrote in the paper.

    What I wrote in my previous comment about anti-Jewish bigotry in the United States, was, in part, wishful thinking (was polyanna-ish) on my part.

    Yes, the United States is the least anti-Jewish Western country in the world, but that’s “not saying much”.

    I may post, here as a comment, the contents of the paper (translated by google translate).

  316. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…I think that he was hurt, and maybe, or maybe mainly, completely exasperated about things…”

    …I think that he was hurt, and maybe, or maybe mainly, completely exasperated by “things”/”everything”…

  317. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    The correct title of the blog post and the title, translated to English, of the paper is,

    “Antisemitism in the U.S. since 1945″

    not

    “Anti-Semitism in the U.S. since 1945″

    The German language original title is,

    “Antisemitismus in den USA seit 1945″

    The correct spelling of the term, the spelling without a hyphen, minimizes the wrongness of the term. The term “anti-semitism”/”antisemitism” is a euphamistic, imprecise term that was invented in the 1800′s by a bigoted anti-Jewish “race theorist” with the intention of propagating and maintaining the cultural legitimacy anti-Jewish bigotry in Western societies in the 1800′s with a term that had the veneer of modern science.

  318. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…the cultural legitimacy anti-Jewish bigotry…”

    …the cultural legitimacy of anti-Jewish bigotry…

  319. Daniel Bielak says:

    I suggest to Jewish people,

    Start thinking about language and the terms and contexts of conversation and communication.

    Jewish people just complete swallow everything thrown at them.

    Jewish people, be mindful, be discerning. Communicate with mindfulness and discernment.

  320. Daniel Bielak says:

    “…Jewish people just complete swallow everything thrown at them…”

    ..Jewish people just completely swallow everything, every poisonous thing, thrown at them…

    Jewish people, do not swallow (do not accept) poisonous things.

  321. Daniel Bielak says:

    Clarification:

    I suggest to Jewish people,

    Do not swallow (do not accept) poisonous things.

  322. Daniel Bielak says:

    A more clear expression of what I tried to express:

    It is the case that Jewish people just completely swallow everything thrown at them, every poisonous thing thrown at them.

    I suggest to Jewish people,

    Do not swallow (do not accept) poisonous things.

    Start thinking about language and the terms and contexts of conversation and communication.

    Be mindful, and be discerning. Communicate with mindfulness and discernment.

  323. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    The current term is Judeophobia.
    I don’t particularly like it, especially the phobia part is a miss (fear ≠ hatred), but at least it’s not a nazi term.

    BTW, did you look at the link in #306?
    Yes, the one I posted with a horrendous mistake…
    (You’re doing well following my bad example ;-) Keep up and I’ll invite you to L’Hayim over a cup of chicken-soup!)

    Your language and communication suggestions are valid for all people, not only Jewish.

  324. Daniel Bielak says:

    “…Your language and communication suggestions are valid for all people, not only Jewish…”

    Excellent point.

    However, instructions on how to swim are most beneficial to one who has been thrown into very deep water and who does not know at all how to swim.

  325. E.G. says:

    No Daniel,

    That’s too late.
    One’d better know how to swim (plus some survival “tricks”) at that moment.

    Jews have had plenty of occasions to know the value such teachings.

    Or are you referring to Israeli Jews specifically?

  326. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    I did, earlier, look at (skim over) the paper that you linked to, and I did read your comments about what the paper talked about.

    I read something in the paper that I did not know – that Adolf Hitler explicitly, unambiguously, said that he did not view Jewish people as being a “race” the way that he viewed other groups of people as being particular “races” and that he explicitly, unambiguously, said that, rather, he viewed Jewish people as being a “community of the spirit”, a group of people with a particular “spirit” (a group of people with a particular frame of mind, a particular way of thinking).

  327. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    Indeed. And he set out to eradicate this spirit. The spirit of “Thou shalt not murder”, and of “Love your friend as you love yourself”. According to Heinsohn, Hitler wanted to go back to the days when Human sacrifice was the norm.
    And what are Human shields and suicide-murderers if not Human sacrifice?

  328. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    It is never too late, as long as one is breathing.

    “…Or are you referring to Israeli Jews specifically…”

    I was referring to all Jewish people, most importantly about Israel, and what I said is very important for Jewish Israeli people.

    How and what non-Israeli Jewish people communicate about Israel and the situation is very influential in how Israel and the situation is viewed by non-Jewish people in Western societies, and resultantly, in the world. The actions of non-Israeli (and Israeli) Jewish propagators of lies that villy Israel have been, and are, detrimental, and the way that non-Israeli (and Israeli) Jewish people who try to advocate for Israel has not been very beneficial.

    In order to make the situation better Jewish Israeli people need to wisely come together and wisely communicate together about the situation and about what to do, and Jewish Israeli people need to come together with, and communicate with non-Israeli Jewish people.

    In order to make the situation better Jewish people need to work with non-Jewish (and especially Arab, and ex-Muslim, and truly reform-Muslim) people who are aware of the situation.

    In order to make the situation better Jewish-Israeli people need to come together with, work with, and communicate to the world with, Arab-Israeli people who are aware of the situation.

  329. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…It is never too late, as long as one is breathing…”

    When one is breathing, it is never too late.

  330. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    In my comment “villy” should be “vilify”.

  331. sshender says:

    Pheeew, more than a 100 new comments since I’d last visited here! It’s a least a partial consolation to Richard’s long absence. BTW, been reading about the concept of the Clash of Civilizations lately (Huntington, Fukoyama Harris, Harrison, Kagan etc.) and David Landes’ name came up. Anyone knows whether they’re related.

    Some afterthoughts:

    I especially enjoyed Ray’s lenghty replies to obsy in 282, 301 and 304. You have literally taken the words out of my mouth – I couldn’t have said it better myself. Really – I just couldn’t.

    In this whole debate AGW, science and bias, what strikes me here – besides the disinformation – is that people who claim to practice science know not how it works or what it means. On second thought, for someone who considers religion science any occupation may qualify, however far removed from real science.

    Obsy, I’m no scientist. Far from that. But even I can see that you have not the slightest clue as to what qualifies as sceince and what its methods are. You are lucky Ray is going easy on you here, because your mumblings are perfect comedy material for some of the people I know. I wholeheartedly suggest you do yourself a favour and learn about the philosophy of science before you go about accusing it of mass fraud. (on the basis of nothing but ideology).

    On a side issue, I too read the Barry Rubin article about the overwhelming US support of Israel, but I beg to differ with his analysis. I think he overstates it when he attributes this to rational decision making on the part of the American people. It is my contention, and I stand on solid ground here, that most support for Israel is ideologically driven, but not the ideology Rubin espouses. Indeed, these are the Evangelical Christian – Revalations, End-Times, Armageddon freaks – who are behind most of the numbers. And this is hardly good news for either the US or Israel.

  332. sshender says:

    Ray,

    I see you take a special interest in the cognitive aspects of religious belief. I admit I’m a fan too.
    Can I recommend some reading material on the subject?

    I found “The God part of the Brain” and “Religion Explained” to be two fascinating reads on the matter. I believe I have both of them in pdf. Also, I have the Scientific American Mind edition you reffered to which has many things not available online.

    Let me know if you’re interested.

  333. obsy says:

    Daniel: “Start thinking about language and the terms and contexts of conversation and communication.”

    I think Jews back then made the biggest mistake when they started to talk of Arabs when they meant Muslims. Now many things sound racist that in reality deal with an ideology.

  334. E.G. says:

    ‘Closet-Nazi’ running for Austrian president

    her local priest revealed she had left the Church years ago and that none of her ten children – who carry old German names like Mechthild, Hildrun, Arne or Sonnhild – had been baptized.

  335. obsy says:

    sshender:
    Obsy, I’m no scientist. Far from that. But even I can see that you have not the slightest clue as to what qualifies as sceince and what its methods are.

    Thanks. Feel free to talk to oao about what scientific research become last century. For the definition of the word “science” have a look at its German equivalent word “Wissenschaft” (or at the French word “science”). I hope google translation is good enough.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaft#Wissenschaftsbereiche

    Also check the word “Religionswissenschaft”.
    I value metalanguage talk not as Daniel, but it definitely can be useful and is sometimes necessary for understanding.

    You are lucky Ray is going easy on you …

    I am. I think he tried to understand what I said and thought that discussion would not be fruitful.

    I wholeheartedly suggest you do yourself a favour and learn about the philosophy of science before you go about accusing it of mass fraud. (on the basis of nothing but ideology).

    If you read again, you may notice that I did not accuse anything on the basis of any ideology. It was when I was convinced that our discussion would mostly be a waste of time for Ray and me (and the other readers), that tried to look at it from a different angle. Based on what I have seen in Rays comments, I indicated a problem that does not rely on my view of current science and is not even limited to science. After that I added my way of dealing with that problem. This is the step where the ideology came in.

    Philosophy of science isn’t currently on my reading list. Feel free to interpret that as you want.

    Global worming does not interest me. I learn something from time to time, but that happens mostly unintentional. I stated from the start that I don’t see any real political opportunities for independence from oil before it runs out. If there were any, I would embrace them even without global worming. So there is simply no point.

  336. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    You can bring a horse to water… and whisper foreign idioms to his ears too…

    There’s no point in discussing science and epistemology here (at least not at length), if only because this blog is not about these issues. It’s mainly about media ethics.

    That some commentators are anchored on viewing phenomena from a specific perspective and tend to attribute that same vision to others is a nice illustration of “cognitive egocentrism”.

  337. E.G. says:

    sshender,

    Any insights about that Shumsky paper?

  338. Daniel Bielak says:

    “…I value metalanguage talk not as Daniel…”

    The way I communicate is a result of the limitations of my ability to communicate (which is a limited way of communicating, and which is a limitation, that I am conscious of). It is not because I value a characteristic of how I communicate in writing (which I am aware is a characterisc of how I communicate, and which you have, I think, aptly, called “metalanguage”).

    I wish that I was not limited in the way that I am (by a disability and also by (a resultant) lack of development of communication skills).

  339. Daniel Bielak says:

    Also,

    I try to communicate very simply and clearly and I try to communicate “root level” of understanding that I have which may be wrongly perceived by others as being naive, simplistic, unsophisticated, and dull-minded.

  340. Daniel Bielak says:

    To Clarify,

    “…I wish that I was not limited in the way that I am (by a disability and also by (a resultant) lack of development of communication skills)…”

    My ability to communicate (most especially in writing) (among other of (my) abilities) is limited by a disability that I have, and my ability to communicate in writing is also limited by a lack of development of (my) (among other things) communication skills, which is a lack of development of abilities and skills that has occurred mainly because of my disability.

  341. Daniel Bielak says:

    I wrote my last previous comments in response to obsy’s comment, but my last previous comments were addressed to, not just obsy, but to everyone.

  342. Daniel Bielak says:

    Clarifying Correction:

    “…my last previous comments were addressed to, not just obsy, but to everyone…”

    …my last previous comments were addressed to, not only obsy, but to everyone…

  343. Cynic says:

    Daniel,

    You are being too sensitive. I find your communication lucid. If I found something somewhat obtuse I would query it.
    My English usage is not American nor British though I have picked up some of the vernacular over the ages, but at some stage in these discussions with others we have talked “past each other”, so to speak, and there were then differences of opinion.
    Amazing how words which meant one thing yesterday have today come to mean something else.
    As oao would do, blame it on the crass idiocy of ideology in the politicization of education.

  344. Daniel Bielak says:

    “…I think Jews back then made the biggest mistake when they started to talk of Arabs when they meant Muslims. Now many things sound racist that in reality deal with an ideology…”

    That may be partly true, but what is more the case is more than that. It involves total wrong communication by Jewish people and it involves total ignorance about the situation by almost all people in Western societies.

    American and European people could and did talk about “Germans” and Germany in the 1940s and they and everyone knew what they were talking about, and it would not even occur to anyone then, nor today, of thinking that American and European people were being “racist” or bigoted, and what Americans and Europeans communicated when they referred to “Germans” and “Germany” was, in the context of the situation at that time, accurate.

  345. Daniel Bielak says:

    Western ethnically European people who describe themselves as “Anti-Racists” are profoundly and deeply racist and profoundly and deeply bigoted.

    They hold bigoted views about, and feel bigoted patronizing sympathy toward, ethnically non-European, ethnically non-Jewish, people, and they hold bigoted views about, and feel bigoted malicious antipathy toward, ethnically Jewish people and they express that malicious antipathy that they feel towards Jewish people towards Jewish Israeli people, and toward non-Israeli Jewish people who verbally defend Jewish Israeli people, and toward non-Jewish people who defend Jewish Israeli people.

  346. Daniel Bielak says:

    What people, Western and non-Western, and ethnically European and ethnically non-European, who call themselves “Anti-Racists” are referring to with the term “Anti-Racism” is anti-Jewish racism.

  347. Daniel Bielak says:

    Western ethnically European people who describe themselves as “Anti-Racists” feel bigoted patronizing sympathy mainly toward, and especially toward, people who they percieve as being the enemies of, and who they pretend to believe to be victims of, ethnically Jewish people.

  348. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…and who they pretend to believe to be victims of…”

    …and who they pretend to be the victims of…

  349. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction of previous correction:

    …people who they perceive as being the enemies of, and who they pretend to believe (who their mind, as a result of the mental processes involved in their holding of wrong views, believes to be) the victims of, ethnically Jewish people.

  350. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    …and who they pretend to believe to be (who their mind,…

  351. Cynic says:

    Daniel,

    I should have included some examples of the use of words and the one that springs immediately to mind is Wolfgang Benz trying to equate Antisemitism with Islamophobia where hatred is the same as fear or phobia
    (That seems to be the PC mind at work trying to be “fair & balanced” instead of disinterested.)
    which Clemens objected to.
    Now that interpretation could be laid at the door of the media which in its ignorance of the language could not find a way to say what it wanted without twisting the meaning of the word.

    Now how many English mother tongue speakers today know that disinterested does not mean not interested?
    And so it goes with many speaking out on a topic but having no idea of what the audience will understand from the words used.

  352. Daniel Bielak says:

    Cynic,

    Thank you for saying that you find my communication lucid.

    I’m glad that you find my communication lucid.

    I agree with what you say about the current deficient state of understanding in Western societies and about the current corrupt state of the use of language in Western societies which is a result of, and which is a cause of, the current deficient state of understanding in Western societies.

  353. Daniel Bielak says:

    …not only in Western societies, but in the whole world.

  354. Daniel Bielak says:

    Clarifying edition of a comment which I previously made:

    What people, Western and non-Western, and ethnically European and ethnically non-European, who call themselves “Anti-Racists” are referring to with, and advocating with, the term “Anti-Racism” is anti-Jewish racism.

  355. Daniel Bielak says:

    States of being, situations, are caused by factors.

    The changing of situations is caused by the changing of factors.

    The situation that Jewish people are in has remained relatively the same for several thousand years.

    One of the factors that has caused the situation that Jewish have been in for several thousand years is the conglomerate of some wrong types of thought (ways of thinking, holding of views) by, and some wrong types of speech by, and some wrong types of action by, Jewish people, which are types of thought, types of speech, and types of action that have remained relatively the same for several thousand years.

    If that factor changes, then the resulting situation will change.

  356. Daniel Bielak says:

    Wrong action causes harmful results.

    Right action causes beneficial results.

  357. Daniel Bielak says:

    I do not mean to sound blaming, and I apologize if what I wrote came across that way.

    I think that Jewish people, in general, in order to make the situation better, really need to start to be mindful and discerning, and really need to start to communicate with mindfulness and discernment.

  358. E.G. says:

    I agree with Cynic on both Daniel’s communicative skills and word laundering.

  359. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    One of the factors that has caused the situation that Jewish have been in for several thousand years is the conglomerate of some wrong types of thought (ways of thinking, holding of views) by, and some wrong types of speech by, and some wrong types of action by, Jewish people, which are types of thought, types of speech, and types of action that have remained relatively the same for several thousand years.

    For example?

  360. Daniel Bielak says:

    I think that it was harmful and wrong of me to write that comment (comment 375). I apologize.

    Because of my condition, and because of not being mindful, which is often, but not always, mainly a result of my being in a painful detrimental state of mind that is caused by my condition, I often say harmful things.

    I am distressed by the situation that I am in and my character is flawed (I have a flawed (egocentric, normal human).

    I strive to cause no harm.

    I apologize for any harm that I have caused.

  361. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    “For example?”

    Mainly what I have been talking about here in many of my comments on various threads,

    The various ways that Jewish people (in general) do not effectively dispel (and, involved in that, unintentionally even propagate) lies that vilify Jewish people (which are currently lies that vilify Israel), and the ways that some Jewish people believe, and intentionally propagate, lies that vilify Jewish people (which are currently lies that vilify Israel).

  362. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    …I have a flawed (egocentric, normal human) character.

  363. Daniel Bielak says:

    I strive to cause no harm.

  364. Ray in Seattle says:

    sshender @352, Yes, I am interested in those two pdf’s. Thanks very much for your offer. It’s good to see you back here. A link would be fine or if you need to email them, please use: ray_readstoomuch@yahoo.com

    I welcome anyone else to use this mail address in case they’d like to send a file or anything, except for evil spells and such ;-)

    Re: the Scientific American issue. I let my subscription lapse but now have renewed it so I should get that issue in the mail soon I hope.

    Thanks again for your consideration.

  365. Daniel Bielak says:

    Clarifying Correction:

    …(and, involved in that, who unintentionally even propagate)…

  366. Cynic says:

    Daniel,

    Stop apologizing for your appraisal.
    In a way it is accurate in that the most prolific way of thinking, in spreading among untold generations, has been the “Shhh, keep quiet, don’t say anything, It will go away” attempt to not attract attention and hope to survive.
    This was relatively recent in modern history where no violence was involved but just politicians ranting to distract their “proletariat”.

  367. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy @355, I’m sorry you felt that our further discussion would be unproductive. I am inspired by Daniel’s exceptional efforts to make himself understood in these discussions as precisely as possible. The exchange of ideas is a challenging and noble pursuit IMO and deserves the great respect that only some few, like Daniel, give it. If I fail to understand you, or others, and I’m sure I will do so in the future at times, please try again. I respect any ideas that are offered honestly – no matter how much I may disagree with them.

  368. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    WRT #325, I’ll drink to your success. What will it be, Port?

  369. E.G. says:

    Daniel #379,

    It was a bit obscure, but not harmful (I’ve seen much worse, and it was obvious the intention wasn’t bad).
    I’ll be back soon.

  370. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Jeeves, twice Port “on the fire”, please!

    And this O/T should buy Eliyahu’s silence ;-)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7385584/Row-over-leaked-climate-emails-may-undermine-reputation-of-science.html

  371. E.G. says:

    Daniel and Cynic,

    Dispelling is a tricky business.
    In the first place, it’s hard if not impossible to dispel stigma and prejudice. Especially when it’s in some way institutionalized and widely accepted.

    Secondly, it has to be done cleverly because once a myth or a bad image is in place (in people’s minds), its sensitivity to additional, especially contradictory, evidence or arguments is low. IOW, the smear sticks. And it risks to stick even more by merely reviving its recollection while refuting it.

    One point in the below lecture is that people (all of us) use very few cues to come up with a “story” – an account with some structured coherence and causality – and rarely bother to check it against “reality” or facts, going on quite confidently with it… Reminds you of someone?

    (It starts in Hebrew, the lecture per se is in English at around 10-12 minutes on)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjOKYRWfLzw

  372. sshender says:

    Obsy, in 355

    oao has nothing to do with it. His gripe is with the dire state of the Social “Sciences”, where too often fashion and ideology replaces real scholarship. The natural sciences, thanks to their methodology, are all but “immune” to those kinds of bias, which makes your accusation of mass fraud in the Global Warming community utterly ridiculous.

    Philosophy of science isn’t currently on my reading list. Feel free to interpret that as you want.

    Seems like it never was, too. I don’t know what kind of a scientist you are, but I honestly hope that your colleagues are more qualified than you are and at least understand the philosophical foundations of their creed.

    Global worming does not interest me. I learn something from time to time, but that happens mostly unintentional.

    And yet you still feel the need to pass judgment. Do you not agree that we should leave matters to the experts, or, in case we laymen have doubts, read the scientific literature before jumping to outrageous conclusions?

    I stated from the start that I don’t see any real political opportunities for independence from oil before it runs out. If there were any, I would embrace them even without global worming. So there is simply no point.

    This is a non-sequitur. That you see no viable solution to the near future, does not mean you should wallow in denial or accuse hard-working scientists of bad faith.

    Here’s a bit of reading on the scientific method vs. faith-based dogma:

    Science is, first of all, a process of studying the surrounding world. Therefore the second element of science, no less important than the facts, is the methodology itself – the agglomeration of methods, by the use of which science establishes scientific facts, that is, it obtains knowledge about objects and phenomena of the surrounding world and separates opinions about actually existing objects and phenomena from opinions about those imagined, that is, invented.

    An opinion about the existence of an object or phenomenon (hereinafter, an opinion about the existence) is viewed by science as equal to the reality if and only if it is proved by scientific methods the main one of which is experimental observation of this object or phenomenon. For observation is not an isolated event, but [one] in numerous experiments conducted by different researchers independently of one another in different scientific laboratories. Each experiment is viewed by the scientific community as having been done only after publication of a report about it indicating all its special features and critical details allowing each researcher to repeat the experiment in any laboratory. Only after such a procedure of verification with the attainment of positive results in all experiments without exception does an opinion about the existence move to the status of knowledge.

    Some opinions about the existence without the status of knowledge are viewed by science as conjectural. Such opinions are called hypotheses. The identification of those which match the status of the hypothesis from all possible opinions is one of the most important steps of scientific knowledge. An unproven opinion about existence obtains the status of a hypothesis only in the event it is based on earlier acquired knowledge and logically follows from it.

    The ability of science to separate opinions about existence having the status of knowledge or hypotheses from all other, random, opinions about existence can be called the basic principle of scientific knowledge. This principle was empirically formed over many thousands of years in the process of Man’s perception of the surrounding world.

    All natural science theories are either based directly on experimental premises or are the generalization of other more specific theoretical ideas which, in turn, were also based on experimental premises. The original premises of natural science theories and the theories themselves are viewed as knowledge by virtue of the fact that all the results of these theories agree with the results of experiments. The natural scientist researcher observes the existing world and, relying on observations, creates an approximate model of it, a scientific theory. The basic task of a natural scientist researcher is to refine the original premises by observing the existing world and to accordingly change the model created in order that the results ensuing from this model also agree with the observations of the existing world in the best way.

    A mathematician who is creating a theory at the same time creates his own abstract world completely suitable to this theory and dependent on this theory. Therefore he can accept initial premises independent of observations of the existing world which are immutable and absolute for his construct. Such premises are also called axioms. Thus, for example, if we stay in the abstract world of Euclidean geometry, then inside this world an axiom about parallel lines is and always will be an absolute and immutable truth.

    Now we turn to the more complex issue of what is “faith”? Let’s examine this question from the viewpoint of science and leave theological treatises to the theologians. Only such things which have the status of knowledge or hypotheses are classed as scientific opinions about existence. Science does not regard as scientific any other opinions about existence as scientific and in general does not examine [them]. In particular, science never views as scientific any opinion about existence based only on the fantasies of a specific individual or group of people (however great and authoritative this group is). If an opinion about existence does not aspire to the status of scientific, for example, [if] it has a routine nature, then science simply passes over it, and generally does not take notice of it. It is another matter when someone disseminates an opinion about existence which is not scientific but calls it scientific. Science regards such activities as a deception of the public, as pseudoscience, and the people who engage in this are called pseudoscientists. Often the mass media support such activity by virtue of incompetence in an eagerness for sensations or from mercantile considerations. The participation in such acts by people who have scientific degrees or titles is especially dangerous (unfortunately, there are such people). Often they try to introduce pseudoscience into the educational process.

    An opinion about existence which is not scientific but is offered to the public in the name of science is regarded by science as a pseudoscientific myth. But a person’s attitude toward a pseudoscientific myth, as to knowledge, ought to be called faith in a pseudoscientific myth, from the viewpoint of science.

    The term “faith” might be used in various meanings. And although in the context of this article it has a sufficiently defined meaning it ought to be noted that any faith is foreign to science, even in such cases where we are talking about scientific opinions. For example, in reply to the question, “Do you believe in the existence of the planet Neptune?”, a person familiar with science would most likely shrug his shoulders [and say]: “Generally speaking, I know that the planet Neptune exists”. A scientist would not use the term “faith” not only in a scientific article but, as a rule, in speaking to a wide audience about research in a scientific field in which he is a specialist. Faith is not required if there is knowledge. At the same time there are many questions for which science has no answers. When commenting on them a real scientist will not become like a pseudoscientist and pass off a pseudoscientific myth as science and will give the only possible honest answer, “I don’t know”, even in routine conversations with colleagues who among scientists will rarely say “I believe” or “I don’t believe”.

  373. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G., Ray, cynic,

    Thank you for your words of appreciation and support. I appreciate them very much. They are a support to me.

  374. Daniel Bielak says:

    I will be back later.

  375. sshender says:

    Obsy, (and all others)

    Take a look at this exchange between Dawkins and a creationist. The techniques that woman employ are similar to the ones Global Warming deniers and the anti-Israel crowd uses all too often; I have no evidence to back up my views (or I distort it) but I expect to be treated with respect, regardless.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

  376. E.G. says:

    sshender,

    I fail to see the similarities (with anti-Zionists in particular, I’m not versed in the Climate Change stuff). Are you comparing the Lady’s complaints about “evidence” to the demands for “inquiries” after rumors?
    Anything else?

  377. Ray in Seattle says:

    sshender @393, I see many similarities. The first (and the indicator that ideology, not reason is at stake) is that the arguments are delivered with a lot of strong emotion and certainty along with a palpable animosity toward anyone who holds the opposite view.

    This almost always indicates that someone’s ideological beliefs are being threatened. Why should a simple difference of opinion that could be resolved by a marshaling of evidence cause anger? That also explains why they (creationists, AGW deniers, Israel haters, etc.) can be so certain that they’re right. Ideological beliefs provide their own emotional motivation for the brains they are in to create whatever justifications are needed to defend them – as well as to hate and attack anyone who disagrees. They also cause the brain to filter or block out any evidence that they could be wrong.

    Strong ideology is dangerous to society and those who hold it because the stronger the emotional attachment the more impervious it is to reason – and the more likely it will cause destructive behavior.

  378. obsy says:

    Daniel,

    I’m not a native speaker, but I didn’t recognize unusual flaws in your texts. I actually haven’t thought about your corrections when I wrote what I have written, but of your suggestions to think about the language that is used.

    As I see it, Anti-Racists try to protect the weak ― no matter what the circumstances are. Which is completetly destructive for several reasons and prone to contradictions that have to be coped with. (They are probably the last people understand racism.)

    A problem for Jews is that they are “known” to rule the universe.

    Ray,

    alas there is a difference between knowledge and communication. I think for multiple reasons that I would not be able to communicate to you what I would like to be understood.
    On the other hand, you must understand that, even when you cannot accept my unexpressed experiences as arguments for you, they certainly are valid for me. There is virtually nothing that you could say that could make me forget what I have observed.

  379. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy, Why would I ever want you to forget what you have observed? I only pointed out that if you want to offer your observations as justification for your beliefs – then you need to describe them. Otherwise, your assertion remains unsupported. And so why even state it in a forum like this if you have no intention of supporting it? It’s yours to support or not, not mine.

  380. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Just a slight return to the augean stables :-)

    ABC’s Defective Toyota Coverage

    The Toyota engineers found that the tort stooge, Prof. David Gilbert of Southern Illinois University–Carbondale, had “re-enacted” Toyota’s defect by stripping insulation from wires connecting the accelerator pedal to the throttle — then connecting them to nearby wires normally too far apart to touch. It’s a procedure that can be duplicated on many vehicles.
    “Dr. Gilbert’s demonstration is not evidence of a design flaw or a safety risk,” engineer Chris Gerdes of Stanford put it diplomatically. “Dr. Gilbert provides no evidence that his scenario occurs in the real world.” That’s sugarcoating it. What ABC did was fraudulent.

    Seems that at last the truth has come out, that in a genetic manner, Academia and the pompous media are no different from the common proletariat in the market place.

  381. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Stables indeed!

    In other words, Ross took footage of a parked Toyota revving to 6,000 RPM — then falsely portrayed the shot as having occurred while he was driving the car. ABC insists this was necessary because the actual footage was too “shaky.”

    Wasn’t splicing, among other editing techniques, what the court reproached to Ilana Dayan?

  382. E.G. says:

    Here’s another, much funnier, but nonetheless “teachable” return to the stables:

    http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2010/03/carla-nicolas-and-media-mischief.html

  383. obsy says:

    sshender,

    this is a beautiful and extremely tense video that was sometimes hard to watch. You can basically feel the emotions boiling under the surface.

    I too fail to see specific similarities. Especially: is the wish to be treated with respect really characteristic for anything but being human?

    Ray,

    there still are plenty of reasons why people get emotional. I think that Dawkins did a pretty good job staying calm. He became more aggressive and I think his face reddened. Do you really believe, that an arbitrary Evolution-Scientist would have stayed as calm, because he too would have knowledge of all the evidence?

    As for your comment towards me:

    I did not write about your intentions. I constantly write things that I might be not willing to back up with evidence. Look at my usage of “I believe”, “I think”, “maybe” and “probably”. Sometimes it will be up to you to look for evidence, if you think it is important enough to you.

    Finally, I should point out that not everything in writing is about reason ― not even about communication.
    I used an alliteration somewhere in my comments. I have to confess that I did not choose the wording of this alliteration to transmit the essence of what I wanted to say as best as possible.

    If you want to think about talk as strict reasoning, go for my “Why did you do it” question in comment 298. I’m not terribly interested. It is a question that you and only you can answer all by yourself.

  384. Daniel Bielak says:

    obsy,

    I apologize for not replying earlier to your earlier reply to my earlier apology to you.

    I wrote the faulty, harmful, wrong remark, about European people, that I wrote in my earlier comment because I was hurt and frustrated and angry. I apologize. Soon after I wrote that remark I knew the faultiness of it, I knew all of the faulty aspects of it, and I knew that it was harmful and wrong of me to write it. I apologize if it was hurtful to you.

    I know, and appreciate, and agree with all of the things that you wrote in your reply to my apology to you.

    In your most recent message to me you wrote.

    “I’m not a native speaker, but I didn’t recognize unusual flaws in your texts. I actually haven’t thought about your corrections when I wrote what I have written, but of your suggestions to think about the language that is used.”

    I appreciate that. Thank you.

    “A problem for Jews is that they are “known” to rule the universe.”

    Yes, I know. That wrong belief that is held by people is very problematic for Jewish people.

    More about the following that you wrote in an earlier message,

    “I think Jews back then made the biggest mistake when they started to talk of Arabs when they meant Muslims. Now many things sound racist that in reality deal with an ideology.”

    Jewish people then just knew, and took for granted, that people hated them and wanted to kill them, and that people hated them and wanted to kill them because they held deranged wrong views about Jewish people. Most Jewish people, and especially most culturally Western Jewish people, including European Jewish people who were Zionist immigrants to pre-Israel and Israel, didn’t really know the specifics about why Arab people in the Middle East hated them and wanted to kill them.

  385. Daniel Bielak says:

    Clarification:

    …That wrong belief that is held by non-Jewish people is very harmful to Jewish people, and that wrong belief is a wrong belief that Jewish people have not been able to dispel, and that wrong belief is a wrong belief that is caused by several factors which involve each other, of which one is, and which involves, and which is involved in, the inability of Jewish people to dispel that wrong belief…

  386. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction (in which what I am presenting as the correct formation of words resembles a formation of words that obsy used, with an, I think, similar intention, and which is a correction that I am making because of being “self-conscious” because of my thinking about what obsy wrote about my suggestion of using clear communication):

    …”Jewish people then just knew that”…

    …Jewish people at that time just knew that…

  387. Daniel Bielak says:

    More correct than saying that Jewish people are viewed by non-Jewish people as controlling the world is it to say that Jewish people are wrongly viewed by non-Jewish people as being, as a group, inherently evil, and are wrongly viewed, by non-Jewish people, as an abstract collective entity, and are wrongly viewed, by non-Jewish, as controlling the world.

  388. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    …and are wrongly viewed, by non-Jewish people, as controlling the world.

  389. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy said,

    there still are plenty of reasons why people get emotional. I think that Dawkins did a pretty good job staying calm. He became more aggressive and I think his face reddened. Do you really believe, that an arbitrary Evolution-Scientist would have stayed as calm, because he too would have knowledge of all the evidence?

    I’m not sure what question you are asking in that last senetence. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me.

    But regarding causes of emotion – emotion is a sign that the brain senses that something that affects its well-being (survival) is occurring. The emotions can be positive or negative depending on whether the brain senses the promise of a coming reward or the threat of a coming punishment.

    Beliefs are a major source of behavior guidance emotions. If someone tries to force you to jump out of a vehicle traveling 60 mph you will have a strong emotional reaction because you believe that it probably will kill you. The strong emotions prepare you to refuse and resist if necessary.

    Ideological beliefs are similar. Evolution directly threatens many Christians’ belief in God, their hoped-for afterlife in heaven, their belief that they understand what life is about, etc. They react emotionally when confronted with credible evidence for evolution as you can see the woman react in the clip.

    Dawkins’ belief in evolution was not threatened by her belief in God. IMO his reaction was to her duplicity. He believes that discussions should be carried out honestly with each party only presenting evidence that is relevant and justified – not simply as a ruse to avoid agreeing with the other person. As a scientist this is a strong belief for him. That means it forms a part of his identity and therefore elicits strong emotions when it is challenged. He has built his professional identity around the efficacy of such honesty to reveal the secrets of nature.

    Her responses were duplicitous and in that way directly challenged that belief – and that explains his emotional reaction IMO. I’m sure he was reacting to her methods as I am absolutely certain that what she said did not threaten his belief in the scientific validity of evolution.

  390. obsy says:

    sshender,

    I only saw the linked video clip before my last comment. That is part 1 of those videos. Now that I have seen the rest, I am disappointed. Both speakers had long monologues in the second part and calmed down to a moderate level. Really boring after the tense first part. But thanks, the first part was really good.

    About the respect part, I have spoken already.
    The “no evidence to back up my views (or I distort it)” thing (if you so will) is repeated often. I think that this repetition is characteristic of every professional spokesperson. What I perceive in the video is usual spin. You could have compared this video to the “George Bush is dumb” meme or whatever you want.

  391. obsy says:

    Ray,

    in a way you did already a good jop answering my question in your defense for Dawkins. You do not claim that Dawkins is not backed up by facts when he get emotional.
    Which was what I thought your test was all about. “A Scientist shows emotions -> bang: he has no facts!”

    Strong ideology is dangerous to society and those who hold it because the stronger the emotional attachment the more impervious it is to reason – and the more likely it will cause destructive behavior.

    As this was addressed in the video, I assume that it touched a high level believe of yours?

  392. Daniel Bielak says:

    Ray,

    Thank you for your support. I appreciate your support very much.

    I also appreciate everything, in general, that you have written.

  393. Daniel Bielak says:

    obsy,

    I wrote,

    “I wrote the faulty, harmful, wrong remark, about European people, that I wrote in my earlier comment because I was hurt and frustrated and angry. I apologize.”

    I was not feeling hurt by, and I was not frustrated by, and I was not angry at, you. I was feeling hurt by, and I was frustrated by (the holding of the wrong views held by, and, the resultant) words and actions of, and I was angry about (the holding of the wrong views held by, and, the resultant) words and actions of, and I was angry at, European people in general.

  394. Daniel Bielak says:

    I know that the debate about the origin of the world, including about the origin of life, that is being engaged in on this forum has occured as a result of that topic being thought about, by those who are engaing in that debate, in relation to the topic of the nature of, and nature of the relationship between, emotions and beliefs, and that the topic of the nature of, and nature of the relationship between, emotions and beliefs, is related to the topic that is the main topic of this blog, which is the topic of how wrong beliefs about the war against Israel, and about, involved with that, the Islamic-Supremacist modern political movement, are formed.

    However, it is, particularly on this forum, unbeneficial to debate about the origin of the world, including about the origin of life.

  395. obsy says:

    CNN about the “Mossad” supermarket ad:

    http://www.israellycool.com/2010/03/12/tasteless/

  396. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Isn’t CNN’s insensitivity to humour amazing?

  397. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    the main topic of this blog, which is the topic of how wrong beliefs about the war against Israel, and about, involved with that, the Islamic-Supremacist modern political movement, are formed.

    This may be your interpretation, but it’s hardly the only one and definitely not the sole legitimate one.

  398. obsy says:

    Daniel,

    you don’t have to apologize to me.
    1. I really am not hurt.
    2. I see leftism as root cause of most problems in the west and rarely miss an opportunity to anonymously attack this IMO stupid and self-destructive way of thinking. As I am not willing to apologize for this, I can’t expect others to apologize for expressing their believes.

  399. Daniel BIelak says:

    It would be considered natural by, and it would be taken for granted by, people, such very many Western journalists, who hold perversely wrong beliefs about Israel and about, involved with that, the Islamic-Supremacist modern political movement, for people who were not Jewish and Israeli, such as Americans and non-German Europeans during World War II, to be making harsh, offensive, existentially (morally) harmful, jokes about killing members of a group of people, (such as Nazi Germans during World War II), who held a genocidal ideology (which Nazi Germans had toward, and which members of the Islamic-Supremacist political movement, and involved with that, member of the so-called “Palestinian” movement founded by Amin Al Husseini, have toward, primarily, Jewish people) and who were trying to mass-murder them and who were tryin to annihilate their society (which Nazi Germans were trying to do to, and which adherents of the Islamic-Supremacist political movement, and involved with that, members of the so-called “Palestinian” movement founded by Amin Al Husseini, have been trying to do to, primarily, Jewish people).

    In the view of many people in the world, “there are people”, and then, in a separate category, “there are Jewish people”.

    Jewish people, after 2,000 years of being persecuted refugees, now, like almost every other ethnic group people in the world, have a country of their own which is under global, multi-national, transnational, military, terroristic, diplomatic, propagandic, covert, overt, intendedly genocidal seige, and which has, since several decades before it’s birth, been under global, multi-national, trans-national, military, terroristic, diplomatic, propagandic, covert, overt, intendedly genocidal, seige.

  400. Daniel BIelak says:

    E.G.

    You wrote,

    “This may be your interpretation, but it’s hardly the only one and definitely not the sole legitimate one.”

    Yes, I agree. I agree that it is not the only one and that it is not the sole legitimate one.

  401. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    I’m not saying you’re wrong or “not-natural”. I’m saying that there is more than one way to interpret that with which the stables are full of: what it is, how it accumulates, where it originates from, where it’s leading, etc.

  402. E.G. says:

    Sorry Daniel,

    I thought #420 was your reply.

  403. Daniel Bielak says:

    obsy,

    You wrote,

    “I really am not hurt.”

    O.K., good.

  404. Daniel Bielak says:

    Clarifying Correction:

    “…have a country of their own which is under…”

    …have a country of their own which, unlike any other country that exists in the world, and unlike any other country that has ever, in known history, existed in the world, is under…

  405. Daniel Bielak says:

    obsy,

    You wrote,

    “I see leftism as root cause of most problems in the west and rarely miss an opportunity to anonymously attack this IMO stupid and self-destructive way of thinking. As I am not willing to apologize for this, I can’t expect others to apologize for expressing their believes).”

    I see wrong views as the root cause of most problems in the world.

    The main, and most beneficial, aspects of Jewish culture are egalitarianism and aversion to injustice.

    Formalized versions of anti-Jewish bigotry are, and have always been, viewed, by their developers and adherents, as being ideologies of altruism, egalitarianism, and aversion to injustice.

    I see anti-Jewish bigotry, including, and especially, ideologies which are formalized versions of anti-Jewish bigotry, such as Christianity, Islam, and Marxism (with its derivatives such as Russian Bolshevism, German National Socialism (Nazism), Soviet Communism, and the contemporary political Far-Left and, increasingly, contemporary mainstream political Left), and which are ideologies that have often been at odds with each other, as being the most harmful wrong view in the world.

  406. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    Yes, my comment #420 was not in reply to your comment to me.

    My comment #421 was in reply to your comment to me.

    My comment #420 was in response to the coverage, itself, of, and what I presume to be the nature of the coverage of, the Israeli supermarket’s unbeneficial, but humanly normal, ad. I have not watched the CNN clip nor the, what I think was, British news clip. I watched just a few seconds of the beginning of the British news clip. I don’t want to watch those news clips. It’s distressing to me to see anti-Israeli bigotry being propagated in the news media of Western countries.

  407. Daniel Bielak says:

    I don’t even know what the ad is or what it is like. Just by my know of the ad’s existence from my knowing the basic description of what it is, and by comments on the blog with the embeded video of the CNN news story and by the comments here, I have an idea about what the nature of the ad is, and I think that it is morally harmful, but that the level of its harmfulness is quite lesser than the things that are involved in having caused that ad and that are involved in having caused the Gaza war, and that almost all Western journalists and editors do not, and are unwilling to, report about.

  408. Daniel Bielak says:

    …and those things that have caused that ad, and that are involved in having caused the Gaza war, include the those reporter’s and journalists propagation of resultantly genocidal anti-Israel propaganda by lying by omission, and by distortion, and by blantantly lying.

  409. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…those reporter’s and journalists…”

    …those reporters’ and editors’…

  410. Daniel Bielak says:

    Corrected and more articulate version of what I wrote:

    …and those things that have caused that ad, and that are involved in having cuased the Gaza war, of what is subtly and indirectly genocidal anti-Israeli propaganda, include those reporters’ and editors’ propagation, by lying by ommision, and by lying by distortion, and by lying blatantly. The subtly and indirectly genocidal anti-Israeli propaganda that those reporters and editors have propagated has caused and catalyzed gross blatant directly genocidal anti-Israeli propaganda.

    I accuse those reporters and editors of the crime of incitement to genocide.

  411. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “…of what is subtly and indirectly genocidal anti-Israeli propaganda, include those reporters’ and editors’ propagation,…

    …include those reporters’ and editors’ propagation of what is subtly and indirectly genocidal anti-Israeli propaganda…

  412. Daniel Bielak says:

    I wrote,

    “…I accuse those reporters and editors of the crime of incitement to genocide…”

    What I wrote is wrong.

    It is not quite true that those reporters and editors have incited to genocide.

    However, those reporters and editors have propagated lies which have been, and which are, the foundations of perversely wrong, and in many cases, genocidal perversely wrong, views, and antipathetic, and in many cases genocidally malicious, feelings, that are had by very many people in the world about Israel.

  413. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    Comment #432:

    “…However,…”

    …However, what is the case is that,…

  414. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    I still haven’t found the ad itself on the net, but was able to realise its good-faithed humour/satire. It’s true that the demonisation in this specific case is disproportionate. The amount of bad faith presuming (but presenting it as fact) that the Mossad did kill that murderer, omitting that murderer’s actions that fully justify his labeling as a murderer, and presuming again that the ad has any other intention than to advertise that supermarket is not only stupid but mean. It’s propagating inter alia the Jew-money infamous libel.

    That’s not journalism, it’s indoctrination. (I think this is more accurate than incitement)

  415. Daniel Bielak says:

    “…It is not quite true that those reporters and editors have incited to genocide…”

    Not all of them have done so, however, some European journalistic editorialists and editors, and, most influentially, many British reporters, journalistic editorialists, and editors, have been inciting to genocide against the country of the Jewish people.

    Libel is against the law.

    Lying in journalism is against the law.

    These journalists and journalistic institutions are commiting severe moral crimes and are commiting legal crimes.

  416. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    Yes, I agree with what you have written in comment #434.

  417. Daniel Bielak says:

    Almost all journalists who have been covering the war against Israel, have been commiting libel and have been indoctrinating the world with lies, and have, knowingly and unknowingly, been complicit in the war against Israel, and I think that some European journalistic editorialists and editors, and, most influentially, many British reporters, journalistic editorialists, and editors, have, in fact, been inciting to genocide against the country of the Jewish people.

    I say to them,

    J’accuse.

  418. Daniel Bielak says:

    I wrote,

    “I say to them,

    J’accuse.”

    I wrote that because of emotion (indignant anger) that I felt.

    I think that it may have been unbeneficial for me to have written that, to have added that.

  419. Cynic says:

    Daniel,

    With regard to the topic of this blog E.G. and I got into a ping pong match over the definitions of words according to the Oxford English Dictionary versus the Merriam-Webster one. :-)

    The initial topic that Professor Landes introduced was an attempt to take on the media excesses in lies, distortions and omissions and clean up the stables, especially with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian media circus (too many horses ; and elephants) but humans being what they are all sorts of sub-topics crept in between the folds; and on a quiet day when RL is away the “mice” do play and it it becomes a forum one’s pet peeves.

  420. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Exactly.
    Cava?

  421. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    I too have J’accuse moments.
    I think we all have.

    This ad case should become a classic in journalism schools.

  422. obsy says:

    Daniel,

    concerning the Dubai-Mossad issue:

    1. The investigation is ridiculous. EoZ has written about it on his blog.

    2. The media coverage and the credibility that it gives Dubai is ridiculous too.
    It also violates media standards that in other situations are kept holy. MSM helped distributing pictures, video clips and a few names of people that may have nothing to do with this assassination. This in a situation where it is not too far fetched that a Muslim fanatic might think to recognize somebody and decide to take the law into his own hands.

    3. If it was the Mossad, those Dubai guys will never find out what really happened and Israelis would have every right to be proud of their ability to get their enemies anywhere they want.
    Again I have to mention the media here: If it was the case, that the Mossad was involved and Dubai would have done excellent work, the media would still have helped to undermine an allied country.

    I think the supermarket guys don’t care by which of those three points they appeal. But their target audience probably falls into point 2. The guys that are mainly attracted by point 3 don’t wear tennis outfit but those “Mossad” T-shirts (also seen at EoZ).

    CNN tries to put them all into category 3. They picked the moment of the evilest smile from the supermarket guy, did not show any contrary position (like the comments of the actors) and put their spin on top.
    If you ask me, they are mad that finally the people of a small nation stood up to rightfully question and mock media news coverage.
    And that is the reason why I like the ad. Even if it is just marketing that shows something that lies deeper.

  423. Cynic says:

    Daniel,

    I agree with your final paragraph in #430 and many a time have railed against according the journalists/editors and TV anchors the excuse of naivety, ignorance or fear when considering what they produce in writing or video when omitting, exaggerating and distorting the “facts” of a particular story besides not providing the context necessary for understanding.

  424. Daniel Bielak says:

    My mind is a damaged diamond in the rough,
    and my heart is seething with outrage,
    and I strive to do no harm and I strive to cultivate good.

  425. Daniel Bielak says:

    Sorry for that self-indulgent little outburst.

  426. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Can you do me a favour, please?
    Have a Bretzel and/or a Berliner with your favorite drink on me!
    (we’ll settle the IOU somehow)

  427. Daniel Bielak says:

    …the egocentric self-indulgent little outburst being the comment that I wrote right before my last previous comment.

  428. Daniel Bielak says:

    I’m just overwhelmed.

    I apologize.

  429. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    If you don’t stop over-apologising — no chicken soup! Especially not on a Friday!

  430. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    :-)

  431. Ray in Seattle says:

    Time for some housekeeping – something that Daniel does frequently and that I should do more often. Daniel is correct that I discuss emotion and belief because of my desire to understand such events as the Arab/Israeli conflict and the behavior of those involved. My views are based on what I have been able to learn about the current science of psychology. It gives me a lens into the conflict that makes sense for me. I have no need to convince anyone that it’s the only possible lens for this purpose.

    But it does raise the possibility that other events like the AGW science/AGW deniers debate and others can be similarly analyzed. My only interest in discussing those is to show why belief and emotion underlie almost all human behavior. I usually only get into those topics when someone else brings it up.

    When I said that I respect all beliefs that are honestly given – I did not mean that I accept them as true. I meant that I respect those who honestly set out their beliefs in a public forum like this where they can be criticized. I try to be as honest as I can as well.

    I have a low opinion of those who criticize others’ views – often viciously – but who are not courageous enough to offer their own views as honestly as those they attack. For them, discussions like these are a kind of online game. One way to tell the difference between the two motivations is that one group is very careful to be sure they are understood and that they understand what others say. The other group often hide their beliefs and the meaning of what they say as far as possible so others can’t attack them. Although I had strong disagreements with oao’s he was always up-front about his beliefs. I respected him for that and was saddened that his ideological anger prevented us from having a reasonable discussion of his beliefs.

    This is a free medium and pretty much anybody is welcome and that’s good. But it’s also good to recognize what’s going on in our heads while we’re doing it.

  432. Cynic says:

    Daniel,

    The MSM are all uptight in their hypocrisy because a terrorist was killed, not by anyone they approve of but supposedly by Jews.
    And now they continue with it because the ad was not tasteful.

    But even Haaretz had to admit to some sense of humour in this latest news circus
    Haaretz’s Dubai look-alike: Even my mother asked if I’d been abroad

    In what would have been typical of British journalistic class many years ago

    Between the tomatoes and eggplants in my local supermarket yesterday, just as I finished loudly blowing my nose and cursing my recent allergy attacks, an elderly woman approached me and tapped my shoulder. “Good for you,” she said. “You showed those Arabs.”
    I nodded in agreement, quickly put away the tissue and straightened my back. After all, my new position as a high-ranking Mossad agent requires a certain dignified mien.
    ……..
    Then others called, congratulating me on the outstanding cover story I’d chosen as Haaretz education correspondent, and asking why I hadn’t brought them cigarettes from the Duty Free in Dubai.

  433. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Do you think it would have been (almost) the same if the CIA were suspect n°1 and the Israeli PR agency produced the same ad?

  434. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Nah, the average Israeli doesn’t have the same feel for the CIA so the ad if any would have soured the tomatoes and eggplants.

    By the way here’s a bit of, in my opinion, sour grapes from the heraldscotland because even years after WW II they were all for the “boorish” humour directed at the Germans.
    Maybe someone should do a supermarket ad on the release of the Lockerbie Bomber, who killed hundreds of humans, on the grounds of terminal cancer, and who is still running around in Lybia months after his expected demise.

    It is time to get tough with the bully Israel has become

    This is a nation that in recent months has insulted neighbours, stolen the identities and passports of other nations, and has been accused of carrying out extrajudicial executions. This week alone, its boorishness was grotesquely apparent when an Israeli supermarket chain was allowed to shoot a television advertising campaign based on the alleged Mossad killing in Dubai of Hamas commander Mahmoud

    The emphasis is mine.
    This from an unsigned writer not brave enough (I couldn’t find a name I could attribute this to).

  435. Cynic says:

    Oh boy,
    My construction is bad
    the Lockerbie Bomber, who killed hundreds of humans, on the grounds of terminal cancer,

    should have been
    the Lockerbie Bomber on the grounds of terminal cancer, who killed hundreds of humans,

    Anybody who got uptight with the first draft my apologies. :-)

  436. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    I meant, would the Intl. media go into this indignation-fest if it were suspected the CIA had done it and that Israel produced the ad.
    IOW, same scenario except for the substitution of Mossad by CIA.

  437. E.G. says:

    Cynic,
    from your link:

    is it not reasonable to expect that Netanyahu might have insisted his interior ministry hold fire on spilling the beans for the time being at least?

    Like Abu Mazen postponed the naming of a piazza in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi?

    Once again, Jerusalem has shown itself to be a loose political cannon playing hard and fast with the hopes and aspirations of countless people who wish to live their lives in peace.

    JERUSALEM! YES!
    As for the “countless people who wish to live their lives in peace.” Let’s count. Count them, not on them any more.

  438. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Even if the CIA “dun it” if there were any Juice involved it would be tickets.
    That the Israelis were making fun using the CIA would be bad.
    The Intl. media only permits the Intl. media to do that sort of thing, unless of course it is Roberto Bernini.

    Here’s a mock but don’t tell CNN that it was a Scotsman.
    a href=http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/2010/02/let-mossad-air-take-you-there.html”>Let Mossad Air take you there.

    “Electrifying!”, said Mahmud al-Mabouh, “I went to meet my Hamas colleagues in Dubai, and I ended up meeting my maker thanks to Mossad Air”. “I never knew who I was, ‘till I discovered Mossad.Air. Or was rather they found me.” said Mrs X of Berkhampstead.

  439. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G., Ray, cynic, obsy,

    Thanks for all the comments.

    What I appreciate especially, E.G., Ray, and cynic, is that you were addressing me even after my embarassing comment, the comment which I felt very embarassed to have made, and after which your addressing me was a big relief to me.

  440. Daniel Bielak says:

    …actually, as a result of my fearing how I would be perceived after I had made that comment, and because I feared that my comment would have a harmful detrimental effect for other people, because I felt that my egocentric embarassing comment might discrediting other things which I have said which I think are beneficial, I did not feel mere embarrassment, I felt humiliated, and ashamed, and despondent.

    But then I thought, “Well, this is who I am. What is is what is. What I am is what I am. The presentation of myself that I have presented by my egocentric comment has presented myself accurately to others. Others are seeing an accurate picture of who I am, of what I am. What other people are seeing of me is not inaccurate. What other people are seeing of me is accurate. Other people’s seeing that aspect of me gives them a presentation of me that is not inaccurate and that is accurate. It’s (therefore) O.K. What is the case should be known to be what is the case.”

  441. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Makes sense. Though the ad actually makes fun of the Dubai CCTV (and indirectly, of its chief inspector Cluseau). So follow the money trail?

    An interesting slip (?) from that heraldscotland article:

    when an Israeli supermarket chain was allowed to shoot a television advertising campaign based on the alleged Mossad killing in Dubai

    Since when (and where?) do adverts need to be “allowed”? Not in Israel, anyway.

    Why hasn’t anyone raised a voice about that “Goody-Goody” Yoplait ad? Or has one? (I already see the Indian Ambassador protesting… UN condemnation…)

    The blog entry – well, yes. No ROFL.

  442. Ray in Seattle says:

    Here’s an interesting clip by a fellow named Douglas Murray in England. I like his answers to the questions about the Arab/Israeli conflict and Hamas.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdU5SBOnlkQ&feature=player_embedded

    At about 5:14 global warming comes up. His words are not entirely clear but I think he said that global warming is happening. He said it is questionable if it is all caused by humans. I would agree. I don’t think most climate scientists believe that all global warming is caused by humans. Causation is a complex question of inter-related factors. But I think humans are causing some of it certainly and are probably amplifying the effect of natural causes. He also said it is not certain that we can do anything about it. I also agree with him on that. I’m not sure we have the political will nor what practical measures would make sense. I’m not yet convinced we should do anything but that’s because the debate so far has been drowned out by the deniers to the extent that no reasonable dialog has taken place yet that I know of. I’m open to any and all ideas on that.

  443. Ray in Seattle says:

    Daniel, I wish I had a dollar for every forum comment I made that I wish I could retract. This is a tough medium. The comments come fast and then everyone’s on to another topic. There’s little time for reflection. I think everyone understands that what we say is often a poor reflection of what we intended to say. I try to give people some slack on that. They can always clarify their meaning in a follow-up if it’s important. There’s little need to apologize IMO.

  444. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    None of the commentators’ persons are fully represented here. Only a few more or less sketchy dimensions are apparent. So our images are very incomplete. It’s enough for some readers to form a fuller impression about each personality – but that doesn’t make the impression correct or realistic.

    Besides, both Cynic and me explicitly confessed we also have similar reactions (it may not be a great consolation for you but still, at least you know you’re not alone).
    Get over it.
    Even without that reaction there are readers who think we’re a bunch of nuts, Zionists, conspiracists and who-cares-what.

  445. Daniel Bielak says:

    Seeing E.G.’s comment to me right after my apology for my embarassing egocentric comment made me feel much better and was a big relief to me.

    Ray’s comment then made me feel even better.

    And then seeing that cynic was still addressing me made me feel even better.

    I hope that I haven’t talked about this too much.

  446. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    You wrote,

    “Besides, both Cynic and me explicitly confessed we also have similar reactions (it may not be a great consolation for you but still, at least you know you’re not alone).”

    Yes, it is a consolation for me.

    “Get over it”

    O.K.

    I’ll get over.

    “Even without that reaction there are readers who think we’re a bunch of nuts, Zionists, conspiracists and who-cares-what.”

    You’re right.

    I’ll get over it.

  447. Daniel Bielak says:

    Correction:

    “I’ll get over.”

    I’ll get over it.

  448. Daniel Bielak says:

    Ray,

    Thank you for your comforting counsel and advice.

  449. Daniel Bielak says:

    Ray,

    I know of, and like Douglas Murray. (I agree with, and appreciate, the views that I have heard Douglas Murray express.)

    I did not watch, but I have, earlier, seen, on youtube, the listing of the the video which you listed.

    I want to avoid watching something that will distress me, and I think that because there are other panelists on that British TV Panel-Talk-Show who may be ignorant about the reality of the situation involving, and who may be intransigently bigoted toward, Israel I don’t want to watch that video right now.

    The following is a link to a video that I have watched in which Douglas Murray is one of the speakers.

    “Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam” (Part 5 of 5)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogjXDTo-VXo

  450. Daniel Bielak says:

    There are some comments throughout that whole video that are very important.

    I have watched, I think, much of, and I recommend, the other video parts (1 through 4) of that multi-parted video of that conference.

  451. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    I’ll postpone my Brezel until it is warm enough to sit outside in Lederhosen with a beer stein.

    The second article reminds me of Noam:

    Around $73,000 was directed towards former IDF soldiers. It wasn’t to help them with trauma or reward them for a “shared citizenship.” It was to get them to “break the silence” about what they witnessed while in the army

    He seemed so convinced (almost exactly) one year ago that the IDF was bad:

    Now the soldiers themselves are talking. Note that the publication in Haaretz was from a closed event at a pre-army college. No reporters there, no one even asked the soldiers to speak about war crimes. They just did, at their own will.

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/03/20/what-happened-to-the-evidence-barry-rubin-analyzes-the-accusations-against-the-idf/

    At their own will! They ju$t did it.
    If you fail to see reality, history will eventually come around and bite you in your …

  452. obsy says:

    Ray: “Therefore one must first learn (acquire) the very high level belief that acquiring only objective and rational beliefs is a desirable task that should be part of one’s personality (identity).”

    I forgot about that. So my question was kind of answered one year before I posed it.

  453. Ray in Seattle says:

    Daniel, The clip that I linked to only shows Douglas’ responses. The others are edited out in case you want to watch it. Thanks for the link to the other Douglas Murray video.

  454. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy, yeah, it’s interesting. Being critical of unfounded views before adopting them into one’s belief system and being ready to edit out any garbage that gets in once you figure that out takes a lot of personal energy. And it doesn’t feel good because you have to start with the understanding that you could be wrong. Most of us aren’t very good at it. I catch myself attracted to “feel good” ideas all the time. I’m sure my brain is full of lots of garbage. But it helps, I think, if one starts by accepting that.

  455. Ray in Seattle says:

    Hmmm, so you’re searching back through years of my comments. Let me know if you find anything interesting ;-)

  456. Daniel Bielak says:

    Ray,

    One of the statements that is especially important in that video (Part 5), is the reply that Douglas Murray makes to what is a question that is posed by, and what is a statement that is made by the moderator at around 24:00.

  457. Daniel Bielak says:

    Ray, thanks for telling me that the video which you listed has in it only Douglas Murray’s statements.

  458. Daniel Bielak says:

    Cynic,

    Thank you for your sympathy and consolation.

    I agree with all of the things that you said in your responses to my comments.

  459. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Whenever you enjoy the Brezel & Co. most – just do it!

    Noam is part of a vocal minority (his journalistic career was in the sports column). It can be very misleading about the actual zeitgeist, because “regular” opinion seldom makes headlines. So if one’s not in touch with a sufficiently large sample, the marginal highlighted and sometimes carefully edited by the MSM gives a distorted impression.

  460. Cynic says:

    obsy,

    I’ll postpone my Brezel until it is warm enough to sit outside in Lederhosen with a beer stein.

    By any chance would you be accompanying that stein with Limburger? :-)

  461. Cynic says:

    Ray with regard to your statement of a year ago which obsy cited

    Ray: “Therefore one must first learn (acquire) the very high level belief that acquiring only objective and rational beliefs is a desirable task that should be part of one’s personality (identity).”

    How does one identify such beliefs to include them into our personal data base given that with today’s world given over to deconstruction it seems that one man’s object is another’s subject and that rational is relative? :-)

    I think that one has to rise to levels above the abilities of today’s “proletariat” if one tries to assess, outside of hard mathematical facts, the psychological and philosophical aspects for a belief system to compete and succeed in a world where the original rules for a society are slowly being thrown out.

  462. obsy says:

    Ray: “Hmmm, so you’re searching back through years of my comments.

    Well, you could say so, but this would be a bit misleading. The quote of the article reminded me of what Noam said when he was attacking RL. So I went back and was amazed how well his statement fitted this quote. Only afterwards, I started looking through the other comments and again was surprised when I saw yours answering a question that I posted only this week.

    Let me know if you find anything interesting

    There were a lot of interesting things that helped me deciding which topics to go into further. In retrospect it is hard to say which; or how I arrived where I am today ― or even where I conceptually was a year ago.

  463. obsy says:

    E.G.,

    it’s true what you write about zeitgeist and MSM.

    I should confess that I’m not wearing lederhosen ― no matter what’s the temperature.

    Cynic,

    no chance for a limburger!

  464. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic says, “How does one identify such beliefs to include them into our personal data base given that with today’s world given over to deconstruction it seems that one man’s object is another’s subject and that rational is relative? :-)”

    I think of this as an emotionally driven process. So, the decision to approach life as a quest for objectivity (which, I know, sounds hopelessly idealistic) is, I believe, made at a young age and slowly comes together by the teen years (when such idealism is common).

    I think this means that some kids develop effective BS detectors, probably initiated by early encounters with Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, and other adult promoted fantasies including religion in many cases (mine). Kids interpret these as adult betrayal (lies). I’m guessing this then sets them on course in life to see things sceptically – especially things that appeal to emotions rather than one’s reason.

    But, however it comes about, some of these kids no doubt become attracted to science or at least scientific inquiry and their personalities develop around the value of rejecting BS generally and on the professional level.

    The question, how does one identify such beliefs, comes back then to the emotional content of a belief being the important part. I don’t think it is usually a conscious cognitive process. One acquires such fundamental identity beliefs (one’s intuitive BS detector) like one acquires a taste for Mozart or Italian country cooking. In most cases it was just there in your life, providing positive and rewarding experiences that made you feel good about yourself as you were growing up – while you were forming the emotional drivers for your personality, while you were becoming who you now are.

    I also think it’s possible to have some epiphany later in life that motivates one to come around to this world view. But that’s not nearly as common, I suspect, and probably takes place as part of some major re-direction in life. This could happen when one’s personality is torn apart by some terrible event (like the loss of a child or loved one for example) and can then (sometimes and with great effort) be consciously put back together.

    It’s not so easy to use cognition to examine a non-cognitive process that we can only observe by its effects. I hope I answered your good question.

  465. Ray in Seattle says:

    Cynic, In case my wordy explanation still leaves you unfulfilled, I’d add that the cognitive process of objective inquiry is then more a matter of training in school, trial and error and practice in life. What’s necessary first is the internalized emotional reaction to look at life as honestly as possible. to reject BS and the willingness to forgo the good feelings that most false beliefs provide. Once that intuition is established one naturally learns the methods that work best for them.

  466. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G.,

    Thank you for your comforting, consoling, helpful, advice, and support.

  467. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    I should confess that I’m not wearing lederhosen

    I’m shocked! What, not even in Beyreuth, especially during festival time????

    Looks like your internal emotional identity beliefs are in conflict with your external identity emotionally driven ones. This is clear evidence of your ideological cognitive proceeding, which is necessarily indicative of your intuitive disruptive motives.

  468. E.G. says:

    Daniel,

    Don’t mention it (or just whisper it above on Yom Kippur). Isn’t a bissele empathy just normal?

  469. Daniel Bielak says:

    E.G,

    Your empathy for me, and your kindness to me, was rescuing for me. Your empathy for me, and your kindness to me, was rescuing for my emotional-psychological well-being. I appreciated your empathy for me, and your kindness to me, very much.

    Thank you for your empathy for me, and for your kindness to me.

    Empathy is precious.

  470. Daniel Bielak says:

    Empathy and kindness are precious.

  471. Daniel Bielak says:

    Empathy and kindness are very valuable and very beneficial.

  472. Daniel Bielak says:

    Ray,

    Your kindness to me was very supporting for me, and very consoling to me, and very helpful to me. I appreciated very much your kindness to me. Thank you for your kindness to me.

    I appreciate very much your understanding, of things in general, and I appreciate very much your mindfulness, and I appreciate very much all of the kind, helpful things that you have written to me.

  473. Daniel Bielak says:

    Ray,

    Your kindness to me, which you gave to me with your generous earnestness, was rescuing to me. Your kindness to me, which you gave to me with your generous earnestness, was rescuing to my emotional-psychological well-being. I appreciated very much your kindness to me which you gave to me with your generous earnestness. Thank you for your kindness to me.

  474. Daniel Bielak says:

    This is a note to readers.

    Many of the numbers of the comments that are numbers that are referred to by commenters, including myself, in comments on this blog post are inaccurate because of the delayed, but accurately dated, and accurately ordered, inserted posting, into the comments section, by the blog’s automatic server, of comments whose posting, into the comments section, was delayed by the blog’s automatic server.

  475. Daniel Bielak says:

    …the posting of at least one of my much earlier comments was delayed until, and was posted, by the blog’s automatic server, just very recently.

  476. Mike says:

    “Propaganda”…..so none of those bombs really hit Palestine, no injured, none killed!….wow…..Anthony Lawson has an AMAZING version of sony vegas video editor….where can I get it? Does it cost extra to come with palestine gifs and jpegs?
    Thanks for the jews on here who commented :) You just…………………………….dug your own grave? Oy Vey!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>