Being a Jew he knows Antisemitism when he sees it :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=126436

for the most prevalent and virulent form of antisemitism currently on campus.

piece of crap assistant professor at Oberlin? I have a good Jewish friend who has a son there and is ready to pull him out. He's been communicating with the President of the university who is pretending his hands are tied because the poor dear is more worried about being called a bigot (prof is black) and using the ridiculous first amendment argument (like the lunatic prof is owed a fucking job).

Some of that lunatic's greatest hits include:

Among Dr. Karega-Mason's asinine calumnies: Jews were responsible for 9/11, while the murders at the satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and the subsequent murders of Jews in a kosher deli in Paris were false-flag operations undertaken not by the people caught and killed but by unnamed Jews.

Those attuned to 9/11 conspiracy theories will note that Karega-Mason is parroting Nation of Islam leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan, who challenges Jews to prove that they were not agents of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/oberlin_college_professors_ant_1.html

their funding (alumni always asked for money), then they'll pay attention. If this were targeted at any group other than Jews (not Israeli's, Jews), liberals (real liberals) would be shouting from the rooftops. Then they argue anti semitism has nothing to do with it. Freeking hypocrites.

Yes, people have been boycotting and excluding and accusing and cursing and killing Jews and blaming them for all things evil in countries around the world for 2000 years. But this time it is for social justice.

Well, anti-semites usually don't call themselves that. Even Ted Nugent after his recent screed tried to cover his ass (with words, not a squirrel tail).

Why the trouble for Jewish students and what the fuck does that have to do with social justice? I'm open to being convinced the perps are not repulsive anti-semites.

Though I have to admit I have a bias against claims of false-flag operations. I know there have been false-flag operations at some point in human history, yet still I roll my eyes whenever I hear the term. I know I have a bias, but I can't shake the feeling that most false-flag claims are total bullshit.

Source: Reuters

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:06 PM - Edit history (2)

You cannot deny the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in at least some part of their ancient homeland and not be anti-Jewish. It's like saying you are against the United States, but not anti-American. It's a stupid and deceitful argument.

but I am not against the people who live within these make-believe borders. I am against the United States, but I am pro-American. I love humanity, but I don't love all of our fairy tales. I don't love all of our violence.

What you claim to love (Americanism) is only fully expressed in a country called the United States. It's the same for virtually every other nationality. If you are against a people having a country, then you are hostile to that people. If you are against all countries, then in reality, you are anti-human.

I don't understand the logic.

One of the most important expressions of humanity is our culture, usually expressed as the idea of the nation. A state (country) is merely the governing apparatus of a nation. The state exists to create, protect, maintain and promote that national identity. They are necessary complements to each other. The nation tells the state what to do and gives it meaning. The state gives a nation physical cohesion. They can't exist without each other. Without a national identity the state shatters or collapses, and without a state, the nation eventually dissipates and withers away. That's why it's not possible to be be against the United States and also pro-American. It's like saying you like someone, but you don't want them to do what's necessary to stay alive.

Question: Do you feel the same about religion as you feel about countries?

Humans had tribes longer than we had countries. Culture doesn't rely on borders and bureaucracy. The US has many cultures. There's no one American culture. Trump's culture is completely different than my Native friends from the reservation. There's no comparison. They have extremely little in common. The US treats Trump like a king and the Natives like they're subhuman.

We don't live in tribes anymore.

Everyone ought to know that. I tried to find the amendment where the fallacious passage connecting anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was amended, but I couldn't find it. (http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar16/e1.pdf)

Either way, it seems as if the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federations of North America and American Jewish Committee haven't got a clue about what anti-Semitism is, or perhaps they're just pro-Israel shills who have no moral qualms against accusing those who are opposed to Israel's policies of anti-Semitism.

You cannot deny the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in at least some part of their ancient homeland and not be anti-Jewish. It's like saying you are against the United States, but not anti-American. It's a stupid and deceitful argument.

simply because I believe that all persons have a right to live in their ancestral homeland. The idea of a state for only one people in the ancestral homeland of two peoples is discriminatory, and that discrimination is based on ethnicity only. It wouldn't be discriminatory to say that Jews have a right to live in their ancestral homeland, it's that "on their own" that makes it racist. How can the rights of Jews trump the rights of Palestinians and vice versa? I think all persons have a right to live in their ancestral homeland, and that includes both Palestinians and Jews.

You seem to think that the idea of equal rights for Palestinians and Jews is anti-Jewish.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but neither the Jews nor the Palestinians have all of their ancestral homeland, nor the right to live in every part of it. You would have to take land from Jordan to accomplish that, and the Jordanians would rightfully object. What you don't seem to understand is that what is important is that a people have some place (a nation state) where they can live their own way, by their own customs and their own laws. That means a separate state for Palestinians and one for the Jews. Neither side has an exclusive right to all of the territory. It is far more important that each side has a place that it rules than that each side has access to the whole of the territory. Doing things your way denies both Jews and Palestinians something far more important than what you would be giving them.

nationalism as a political idea.

The way I see it, the notion that every people has a right to a state of their own is a really bad idea that doesn't correspond to reality. Idon't believe that peoples have any rights, only individuals do. I also believe that all forms of nationalism are discriminatory, and that when nationalism is allowed to dominate, things go pear-shaped pretty quickly.

That's what I believe, and if you perceive that it's an uphill struggle to convince me, that's probably why.

BTW, I'm just curious, what part of Jordan is part of the Palestinian ancestral homeland?

environment.

There's nothing that says that anti-Semitism is harder to get rid of than other forms of racism. There's no reason whatsoever to give up on Jews anywhere and encourage them to leave their countries for a Jewish state of their own. Besides, a history of discrimination means that things should be changed to enforce equality, not entitlement.

First, nationalism isn't so much a political idea (it is partly), as it is a cultural idea. Think about it this way.

One of the major rights of individuals is the right of association. The right to be with whom you want, and to form groups that relate together and work together. It's natural for people to congregate with people who speak like, think like, and do things like they do. In fact, without that, group cooperation isn't possible, and that means that civilization itself isn't possible unless people have some shared values, traditions, and ways of doing things. That's what nationalism is. The shared culture of a group large enough to govern itself. Without that, there are no countries. Nationalism isn't discriminatory. It's necessary. And it ultimately derives from the individual right of people to work together with people like themselves.

So your beliefs don't square with what humans do in the real world. In fact, humans are what they believe, and the principal ideological identification of most humans is their nationality. So your beliefs make you anti-everyone.

As for what part of Jordan is the Palestinian national homeland. Pretty much all of it. the majority population is Palestinian, and since a "homeland" is where a nation came into existence, Jordan is as much that as any other place. It's also part of the Jewish homeland as the ancient Israelite kingdoms included parts of the East Bank of the Jordan River.

related to the populations in the surrounding countries?

This is not the first time that I've been told that Palestinians don't come from Palestine, you know...

The original inhabitants of Palestine were the Canaanites, of which the Hebrews were one tribe. The Hebrews eventually united the other tribes into one nation called the Israelites. There are three peoples that clam ancestry from the Israelites. The Jews, The Samaritans, and the Palestinians. Of those, the ones that are closest in relation to the surrounding peoples are the Palestinians. They are most closely related to the Arab invaders of the 7th century.

Here's where it gets tricky. A people develops over time. It isn't simply some group that has a genetic commonality. It's a group of people that has a common cultural identity and self identity. The Jews and Samaritans developed those things thousands of years ago. The Palestinians only developed a group identity in the last century. This is why the argument that the Palestinians are related to the Canaanites doesn't have much weight. They may have some genetic relation to the Canaanites, but their cultural relation is thin at best. For example, their native language is not a Canaanite language. Instead the speak Arabic. ON the other hand the Jews do speak an ancient Canaanite language: Hebrew.

Since a homeland is where the group identity is created Jordan is arguably part of the Palestinian homeland. It's also part of the Jewish homeland. My point was not to suggest that the Palestinians get Jordan. Just the opposite. That they and the Jews can't have Jordan even though parts of Jordan are part of their ancestral homeland. National identity and rights of sovereignty count for more than territorial integrity.

Jewish culture trumps the Palestinian one, due to it being older, more original and superior in many ways. I simply don't believe that the culture of one people is better than another, and I think you're creating a historical narrative that supports your own arguments about Jews and Palestinians.

The history of the peoples in the region is an interesting subject, but I won't discuss it here and now - I'm trying to extricate myself from this thread.

Why does it have to be one or the other? That's not fair is it? That's why I'm for two separate states. The issue is that you don't think that nationalism is a good idea at all, so it doesn't matter to you if one or both sides is denied their own place.

LT is a Postnationalist.

Postnationalism started out as basically an observation that nation states were losing control and authority to international organizations, think WTO, EU, UN.

Now that has morphed into the idea that nationalism and nation states are bad.

Go figure.

Except when we all came to the US, we decided to live as Americans.

And here, we do not insist on living in our own separate parts of the country according to the traditions of our ancestors. We get along just fine with each other by respecting and enjoying our different traditions and cultures.

Israel, as a country, enjoys democracy, peace and prosperity within its borders. It is advanced in terms of technology and the wise use of its resources.

Some of its neighbors would do well to not just accept Israel as a neighbor but to seek assistance from Israelis in trying to develop as nations to be as democratic, peaceful and prosperous as Israel.

Palestinians should try to watch and learn from Israel not destroy it.

It took you awhile to accept that a Holocaust denying POS like Gilad Atzmon was antisemitic.

But you know better than any Jewish Federation what Jew hate looks like.

That's where my views differ from those of the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America and the American Jewish Committee. Apart from that small detail, I don't think we have different views on what anti-Semitism is.

....wasn't an antisemite.

You don't know anything about anti-semitism.

Jews are an ideologically based ethnicity. Antisemitism is a form of bigotry, but it simply isn't racism. What you seem to be arguing for is your own personal definition of antisemitism that excuses your own antisemitic beliefs.

There's no need to reinvent new definitions for anti-Semitism - the old ones will do just fine. Actually, It's outright dangerous to decouple anti-Semitism from being a subset of racism. You're opening up for a trivialization of anti-Semitism that will in the end only profit actual, Jew-hating racists.

Is it really worth it?

( speaking in general )



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=126568

interferes with free speech.

If criticism of a political ideology, in this case anti-Zionism, is labeled discrimination, it will interfere with the right of people to promote a political opinion. There are many groups that would love to be able to decide what constitutes discrimination against them. In fact, what you're proposing is in many ways parallel to religious groups being forced to participate in practices (birth-control, abortions) and provide services to certain people (LGBT), and then complaining that they're being discriminated against by being forced to do so. Now they can only complain about discrimination, but what if they had the right to decide that it actually was discrimination in the legal sense?

I think it's irresponsible to allow groups of people to decide themselves what's to be considered discrimination against them. On the surface, it's a pleasing argument to give the Jewish community the privilege to decide themselves what constitutes discrimination against them, but it's a privilege that is bound to be abused.

I think the current debate in the US and elsewhere about what constitutes anti-Semitism is needed. Currently, it seems as if "Stupid" in the form of various pro-Israel groups has the upper hand, but there's excellent constitutional protection of free speech in the US which will eventually trump any attempts to stifle criticism of Israel.

I'm afraid that's not up for debate.

I'm wondering, because post-Zionism is definitely challenging the very core of Zionism, and some would say it's even anti-Zionism...

Black peoples get to decide what is racist against black people , and no white person gets to decide that.

Muslims get to decide what's Islamaphobic and it's none of my business what they define it to be.

Gay people decide what's homophobia and no straight person gets to set me straight on that issue .

And us Jews get to arbitrate what is and isn't Antisemitism, and no fucking way somebody else is going to condescendingly teach us what is and is not.

AntiZionism is fucking Antisemitism and there is no room for debate on this issue.... It is what it is.

Period !

How batshit insane. Just as insane as Jews having no right to decide what Jew hatred looks like.

I think you're on the wrong forum.

constitutes discrimination against them.

I've always assumed that ethnic and religious groups were not allowed to decide these things, as it would potentially interfere with the rights of others. I know personally people (white Europeans) who consider themselves discriminated against in their own countries, and I know that there are Christians in the US who consider it discrimination against their religious beliefs to be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple. I would never want to give these groups of people the right to decide what's considered to be discrimination against them.

How does this right to determine what's considered discrimination work, and what groups are eligible to decide this for themselves?

One wonders of antisemitism exists at all or if it ever existed .

I think the UN should establish a council of non Jewish states to decide what is and what is not antisemitism.
No need to reinvent the wheel , the UNHRC can fill this function.
As long as Israel is not involved it should be legit.

There are a lot of unfounded accusations and statements in this thread, and it seems as if there's not much use in asking for any facts backing up these arguments. I still don't know how it is that anti-Semitism isn't a form of racism, how the right for groups to decide their standards for discrimination works, and what Atzmon has done to be called a Holocaust denier.

You have at least managed to give a pretty convincing account for how you see the Palestinian connection to Palestine. Too bad that it sounds more like a narrative justifying a point of view and that I dismiss the whole idea of peoplehood out of hand in favor of democratic values. At least I know why I disagree with you.

I like to understand the arguments of the other side as much as I like to promote my own, but I feel that it won't happen in this thread.

...who admits he hates Jews, argued that burning down a synagogue is a rational act, & claims Jews persecuting Hitler was a factor in his decision against Jews.

You couldn't find racism in any of that.

Atzmon is one of THE most obvious examples of a Jew hating bigot there is, yet you refused to acknowledge it because you think anything goes when it comes to bashing & inciting against the Jewish people & their state.

I must have missed that. I know he's commented on people's attitudes towards the Holocaust, but I'm not aware of him disputing any actual facts. It's not really important, I think that Atzmon bad enough as it is, but there's no need to invent charges against him.

There is no such thing as being an antiZionist and not being a bigoted Jew hating antisemite.

Is he a bigoted Jew-hating antisemite?

Have no ide about your room mate but if indeed is an antiZionist, you should explain that Antisemitism is Antisemitism and so is antizionism .
It certainly is not a value of the Democratic Party.

And you calling your roommate Jewish doesn't give him or her a pass , Gilad Atzmon , Bobby Fisher , Richard Falk and That Weiss guy are Jewish too.

He's either an antisemite or an ignorant fool.