Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Required Reading on What is AntiSemitism
swhitebull    8/18/2006 2:23:33 PM
Excellent analysis when people say that Arabs are semites, too, so they cant be "anti-semitic" Jonah Goldberg, National Review, 2003: ANTI-SEMITISM [Jonah Goldberg] Stanley's post reminded me of a point I've been meaning to bring up for a while. Many Arab anti-Semites like to say "I can't be anti-Semitic, I am a Semite!" This is, of course, an ignorant dodge. The word "anti-Semitism" was coined by Wilhelm Marr in Germany in 1879 because the common word for Jew-hatred, Judenhass, had gone out of style. The only major population of "semites" in Germany at the time were, of course, Jews and Marr hated them. Anyway, because the word is a dodge, many Jew-haters in the US get to play silly games with it too. But the opposition to this war by the anti-Semites simply underscores how they really are Jew-haters. After all, a real anti-Semite should love this war because Arabs are, in fact, Semites too. In this sense the US is simply hunting where the ducks are. Yet even at this level these guys are hypocrites, because its not Semites they dislike, it's just the Hebrew ones. Just a thought. swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Ezekiel       10/22/2007 1:33:33 AM



read deuteronomy it spells it out.

Also sartre's "anti semite & jew"



Where in Deut? Oh and as a side note I thought I heard somewhere that your version doesn't use chapter-and-verse(admitedly arbitrary, but convenient) like ours and uses a different system-if so can it be "translated" so I can find it?

Deuteronomy chapter 29, the Hebrew label for this portion is called 'Nitzavim'
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/24/2007 11:59:21 AM







read deuteronomy it spells it out.

Also sartre's "anti semite & jew"




Where in Deut? Oh and as a side note I thought I heard somewhere that your version doesn't use chapter-and-verse(admitedly arbitrary, but convenient) like ours and uses a different system-if so can it be "translated" so I can find it?


Deuteronomy chapter 29, the Hebrew label for this portion is called 'Nitzavim'
Because they "abandoned the Covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers"? Well haven't we all, though there are covenants and The Covenant and all. But again, haven't we all?
But still that's kind of "Christ-killer" sort of thing, isn't it? And isn't that rather God's business? I never understood why people consider it their job to make it more excruciating. But I suppose bullies always find an excuse wherever they can get it. And I never understood that either.
Fr. John Neuhaus once wrote that he was raised to believe in "Christ-killer" doctrinally but no one in his town dreamed of thinking that gave them a right to "avenge" Christ on the Jews in his town. Which shows there are different people and different choices, and the excuse doesn't always make the action.
So again, I never understood it.
 
Quote    Reply

Ezekiel       10/24/2007 1:31:32 PM














read deuteronomy it spells it out.

Also sartre's "anti semite & jew"





Where in Deut? Oh and as a side note I thought I heard somewhere that your version doesn't use chapter-and-verse(admitedly arbitrary, but convenient) like ours and uses a different system-if so can it be "translated" so I can find it?



Deuteronomy chapter 29, the Hebrew label for this portion is called 'Nitzavim'

Because they "abandoned the Covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers"? Well haven't we all, though there are covenants and The Covenant and all. But again, haven't we all?
But still that's kind of "Christ-killer" sort of thing, isn't it? And isn't that rather God's business? I never understood why people consider it their job to make it more excruciating. But I suppose bullies always find an excuse wherever they can get it. And I never understood that either.
Fr. John Neuhaus once wrote that he was raised to believe in "Christ-killer" doctrinally but no one in his town dreamed of thinking that gave them a right to "avenge" Christ on the Jews in his town. Which shows there are different people and different choices, and the excuse doesn't always make the action.
So again, I never understood it.
Bear in mind the significance that this was foretold three millenia past, however your theological temprements run, facts are facts. He foretold great calamity, upheaval and suffering if the Jews do not abide by their side of the bargain. It was a choice that moses offered and Judaism is pre-eminently concerned with Justice (the law) the finding of a harmony. The Jews though are still bound to the covenant and G-d does not renig on an oath made within his essence. By the way if you read further in the dialogue Moses also speaks of Gods love for his nation that inevitably would lead to a miraculous return from exile....The fact that Israel exists takes this liturgy to even greater relevancy. There is some accurate stuff found  concerning anti semitism, however you decide to churn this information it cannot be ignored within the dialogue of the origins of Anti semitism.

As it seems to me the Jew has suffered much, but has learned much. Maybe the father must demand his son to go out in the world and find that necessary wisdom to transform and become a man. For whatever reason you may subscribe too the fact is that anti semitism  has not destroyed the Jews into the oblivion of history, but rather fortified them, they are still here and have now miraculously re-established statehood.

So what you see as melovolence may be the tough love which is the necessary consequence if there is to be  free choice, consequences shaped to ensure Jewish survival. More clearly, goals to a degree justify means, which is wholly dependent on the goal in which is under debate. As the saying goes "the purist gold must go through the fiery  furnace."

I don't know if I agree with this line of thinking I was just giving you some food for thought, but in the very least I assirt that  these considerations are legitimate concerning the text and the reality which history attests to.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/24/2007 3:21:48 PM

























read deuteronomy it spells it out.

Also sartre's "anti semite & jew"






Where in Deut? Oh and as a side note I thought I heard somewhere that your version doesn't use chapter-and-verse(admitedly arbitrary, but convenient) like ours and uses a different system-if so can it be "translated" so I can find it?




Deuteronomy chapter 29, the Hebrew label for this portion is called 'Nitzavim'


Because they "abandoned the Covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers"? Well haven't we all, though there are covenants and The Covenant and all. But again, haven't we all?
But still that's kind of "Christ-killer" sort of thing, isn't it? And isn't that rather God's business? I never understood why people consider it their job to make it more excruciating. But I suppose bullies always find an excuse wherever they can get it. And I never understood that either.
Fr. John Neuhaus once wrote that he was raised to believe in "Christ-killer" doctrinally but no one in his town dreamed of thinking that gave them a right to "avenge" Christ on the Jews in his town. Which shows there are different people and different choices, and the excuse doesn't always make the action.
So again, I never understood it.

Bear in mind the significance that this was foretold three millenia past, however your theological temprements run, facts are facts. He foretold great calamity, upheaval and suffering if the Jews do not abide by their side of the bargain. It was a choice that moses offered and Judaism is pre-eminently concerned with Justice (the law) the finding of a harmony. The Jews though are still bound to the covenant and G-d does not renig on an oath made within his essence. By the way if you read further in the dialogue Moses also speaks of Gods love for his nation that inevitably would lead to a miraculous return from exile....The fact that Israel exists takes this liturgy to even greater relevancy. There is some accurate stuff found  concerning anti semitism, however you decide to churn this information it cannot be ignored within the dialogue of the origins of Anti semitism.

As it seems to me the Jew has suffered much, but has learned much. Maybe the father must demand his son to go out in the world and find that necessary wisdom to transform and become a man. For whatever reason you may subscribe too the fact is that anti semitism  has not destroyed the Jews into the oblivion of history, but rather fortified them, they are still here and have now miraculously re-established statehood.

So what you see as melovolence may be the tough love which is the necessary consequence if there is to be  free choice, consequences shaped to ensure Jewish survival. More clearly, goals to a degree justify means, which is wholly dependent on the goal in which is under debate. As the saying goes "the purist gold must go through the fiery  furnace."

I don't know if I agree with this line of thinking I was just giving you some food for thought, but in the very least I assirt that  these considerations are legitimate concerning the text and the reality which history attests to.



That's as may be. God is ultimately inscrutable in any case. I was saying I didn't understand why a person would want to be anti-semitic.

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    The Italians   10/24/2007 3:34:51 PM
It would be the Romans that are the Christ killers, which would be the Italians nowadays. Kindof strange how that is considered the fault of the Jews. All the Jews did was voice their preference of Barabas over Jesus if I'm to believe the Bible. That's what you get when you turn religion into a popularity vote, which is basically also the Roman's fault.

Which means we should be all Italian haters???
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/24/2007 6:33:41 PM

It would be the Romans that are the Christ killers, which would be the Italians nowadays. Kindof strange how that is considered the fault of the Jews. All the Jews did was voice their preference of Barabas over Jesus if I'm to believe the Bible. That's what you get when you turn religion into a popularity vote, which is basically also the Roman's fault.

Which means we should be all Italian haters???















Actually that was kind of the point I was making. That basing an explanation for anti-semitism on a punishment from God comes close to saying that the guilty are acting under God's orders or encouragement.
As for the "Jews" that "preferred Barrabas" they were obviously a typical Middle Eastern rent-a-mob. No Jew would say "we have no king but Caesar".
It wasn't the Roman's who were the main ones at fault. They did not care about the religious concerns of the Jewish folk except when it interfered with them(much as British did not care about the religious concerns of their Indian subjects). Pilate was a cowardly bureaucrat who cared more about SOP then justice(and thus below the bother of blaming) and the soldiers just thought they were carrying out another execution. The ones who were chiefly guilty were a small group of VIPs(who had motive-competition for influence-means and opportunity), most of whom happened to be Jews by ancestry-which means no more then the fact that many of the people arrested by the Tel-Aviv police are Jews by ancestry. It wasn't "the" Romans, or "the" Jews. In any case among Christ's last words were "Father forgive them".  The Christ-killer thing is not just a poor excuse but sacrilegious and heretical.
All this is a Red Herring. I was not bringing up "Christ-killer" to defend it. I was bringing it up to compare that with using Deuteronomy 29 as a reason for anti-semiteism. I wasn't saying "Christ-killer" is true. I was saying that that it was the motive of people I didn't understand, not why God should permit it which is a hard enough question but a different one. I was saying that the two questions must be addressed separately. I was saying that it sounded deterministic and in any case didn't quite address let alone answer what I was wondering about.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/24/2007 6:39:11 PM



It would be the Romans that are the Christ killers, which would be the Italians nowadays. Kindof strange how that is considered the fault of the Jews. All the Jews did was voice their preference of Barabas over Jesus if I'm to believe the Bible. That's what you get when you turn religion into a popularity vote, which is basically also the Roman's fault.

Which means we should be all Italian haters???
















Actually that was kind of the point I was making. That basing an explanation for anti-semitism on a punishment from God comes close to saying that the guilty are acting under God's orders or encouragement.
As for the "Jews" that "preferred Barrabas" they were obviously a typical Middle Eastern rent-a-mob. No Jew would say "we have no king but Caesar".
It wasn't the Roman's who were the main ones at fault. They did not care about the religious concerns of the Jewish folk except when it interfered with them(much as British did not care about the religious concerns of their Indian subjects). Pilate was a cowardly bureaucrat who cared more about SOP then justice(and thus below the bother of blaming) and the soldiers just thought they were carrying out another execution. The ones who were chiefly guilty were a small group of VIPs(who had motive-competition for influence-means and opportunity), most of whom happened to be Jews by ancestry-which means no more then the fact that many of the people arrested by the Tel-Aviv police are Jews by ancestry. It wasn't "the" Romans, or "the" Jews. In any case among Christ's last words were "Father forgive them".  The Christ-killer thing is not just a poor excuse but sacrilegious and heretical.
All this is a Red Herring. I was not bringing up "Christ-killer" to defend it. I was bringing it up to compare that with using Deuteronomy 29 as a reason for anti-semiteism. I wasn't saying "Christ-killer" is true. I was saying that that it was the motive of people I didn't understand, not why God should permit it which is a hard enough question but a different one. I was saying that the two questions must be addressed separately. I was saying that it sounded deterministic and in any case didn't quite address let alone answer what I was wondering about.

Or to put it more quickly I was saying that the two explanations have an accidental resemblance and neither explains the bad conduct of individuals unless one says that pogramers have no free will.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/24/2007 6:57:55 PM

























read deuteronomy it spells it out.

Also sartre's "anti semite & jew"






Where in Deut? Oh and as a side note I thought I heard somewhere that your version doesn't use chapter-and-verse(admitedly arbitrary, but convenient) like ours and uses a different system-if so can it be "translated" so I can find it?




Deuteronomy chapter 29, the Hebrew label for this portion is called 'Nitzavim'


Because they "abandoned the Covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers"? Well haven't we all, though there are covenants and The Covenant and all. But again, haven't we all?
But still that's kind of "Christ-killer" sort of thing, isn't it? And isn't that rather God's business? I never understood why people consider it their job to make it more excruciating. But I suppose bullies always find an excuse wherever they can get it. And I never understood that either.
Fr. John Neuhaus once wrote that he was raised to believe in "Christ-killer" doctrinally but no one in his town dreamed of thinking that gave them a right to "avenge" Christ on the Jews in his town. Which shows there are different people and different choices, and the excuse doesn't always make the action.
So again, I never understood it.

Bear in mind the significance that this was foretold three millenia past, however your theological temprements run, facts are facts. He foretold great calamity, upheaval and suffering if the Jews do not abide by their side of the bargain. It was a choice that moses offered and Judaism is pre-eminently concerned with Justice (the law) the finding of a harmony. The Jews though are still bound to the covenant and G-d does not renig on an oath made within his essence. By the way if you read further in the dialogue Moses also speaks of Gods love for his nation that inevitably would lead to a miraculous return from exile....The fact that Israel exists takes this liturgy to even greater relevancy. There is some accurate stuff found  concerning anti semitism, however you decide to churn this information it cannot be ignored within the dialogue of the origins of Anti semitism.

As it seems to me the Jew has suffered much, but has learned much. Maybe the father must demand his son to go out in the world and find that necessary wisdom to transform and become a man. For whatever reason you may subscribe too the fact is that anti semitism  has not destroyed the Jews into the oblivion of history, but rather fortified them, they are still here and have now miraculously re-established statehood.

So what you see as melovolence may be the tough love which is the necessary consequence if there is to be  free choice, consequences shaped to ensure Jewish survival. More clearly, goals to a degree justify means, which is wholly dependent on the goal in which is under debate. As the saying goes "the purist gold must go through the fiery  furnace."

I don't know if I agree with this line of thinking I was just giving you some food for thought, but in the very least I assirt that  these considerations are legitimate concerning the text and the reality which history attests to.



As it seems to me the Jew has suffered much, but has learned much. Maybe the father must demand his son to go out in the world and find that necessary wisdom to transform and become a man. For whatever reason you may subscribe too the fact is that anti semitism  has not destroyed the Jews into the oblivion of history, but rather fortified them, they are still here and have now miraculously re-established statehood.

So what you see as melovolence may be the tough love which is the necessary consequence if there is to be  free choice, consequences shaped to ensure Jewish survival. More clearly, goals to a degree justify means, which is wholly dependent on the goal in which is under debate. As the saying goes "the purist gold must go through the fiery  furnace."

I don't know if I agree with this line of thinking I was just giving you some food for thought, but in the very least I assirt that  these considerations are legitimate concerning the text and the reality which history attests to.




---------------------------------------------------------
Be that as it may, I have sometimes wonde
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/24/2007 7:05:39 PM









































read deuteronomy it spells it out.

Also sartre's "anti semite & jew"







Where in Deut? Oh and as a side note I thought I heard somewhere that your version doesn't use chapter-and-verse(admitedly arbitrary, but convenient) like ours and uses a different system-if so can it be "translated" so I can find it?





Deuteronomy chapter 29, the Hebrew label for this portion is called 'Nitzavim'



Because they "abandoned the Covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers"? Well haven't we all, though there are covenants and The Covenant and all. But again, haven't we all?
But still that's kind of "Christ-killer" sort of thing, isn't it? And isn't that rather God's business? I never understood why people consider it their job to make it more excruciating. But I suppose bullies always find an excuse wherever they can get it. And I never understood that either.
Fr. John Neuhaus once wrote that he was raised to believe in "Christ-killer" doctrinally but no one in his town dreamed of thinking that gave them a right to "avenge" Christ on the Jews in his town. Which shows there are different people and different choices, and the excuse doesn't always make the action.
So again, I never understood it.


Bear in mind the significance that this was foretold three millenia past, however your theological temprements run, facts are facts. He foretold great calamity, upheaval and suffering if the Jews do not abide by their side of the bargain. It was a choice that moses offered and Judaism is pre-eminently concerned with Justice (the law) the finding of a harmony. The Jews though are still bound to the covenant and G-d does not renig on an oath made within his essence. By the way if you read further in the dialogue Moses also speaks of Gods love for his nation that inevitably would lead to a miraculous return from exile....The fact that Israel exists takes this liturgy to even greater relevancy. There is some accurate stuff found  concerning anti semitism, however you decide to churn this information it cannot be ignored within the dialogue of the origins of Anti semitism.

As it seems to me the Jew has suffered much, but has learned much. Maybe the father must demand his son to go out in the world and find that necessary wisdom to transform and become a man. For whatever reason you may subscribe too the fact is that anti semitism  has not destroyed the Jews into the oblivion of history, but rather fortified them, they are still here and have now miraculously re-established statehood.

So what you see as melovolence may be the tough love which is the necessary consequence if there is to be  free choice, consequences shaped to ensure Jewish survival. More clearly, goals to a degree justify means, which is wholly dependent on the goal in which is under debate. As the saying goes "the purist gold must go through the fiery  furnace."

I don't know if I agree with this line of thinking I was just giving you some food for thought, but in the very least I assirt that  these considerations are legitimate concerning the text and the reality which history attests to.




As
it seems to me the Jew has suffered much, but has learned much. Maybe
the father must demand his son to go out in the world and find that
necessary wisdom to transform and become a man. For whatever reason you
may subscribe too the fact is that anti semitism  has not destroyed the
Jews into the oblivion of history, but rather fortified them, they are
still here and have now miraculously re-established statehood.

So
what you see as melovolence may be the tough love which is the
necessary consequence if there is to be  free choice, consequences
shaped to ensure Jewish survival. More clearly, goals to a degree
justify means, which is wholly dependent on the goal in which is under
debate. As the saying goes "the purist gold must go through the fiery 
furnace."

I don't know if I agree with this line of thinking I
was just giving you some food for thought, but in the very least I
a
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       6/18/2008 9:34:18 AM
This is another thread archeology. But it was inspired by recent experience, namely a web-quarrel which I would really rather forget and which made me feel rather nasty inside. But it did have the advantage of giving a thought:

 Here is one causethat is not thought of much. Simply living together in the same area. This is not quite a "blame the victim", it is more a "blame humanity"-for being human.

For many centuries Jews were obvious foreigners-sometimes the only foreigners most people knew. They were also people with whom there was an ideological difference. When that happens, there is a strong temptation to magnify day-to-day offenses, including philosophical discussions that get overheated(as is not unknown) and target a whole group. Were Jews the top-dog there would be, under this theory "anti-goyism". In fact of course there was but Jews, until recently did not have the power to be physically cruel and nowadays there is less of a less casual attitude toward cruelty(which does not necessarily mean there is less cruelty by the way-simply that it takes a different form).
The accumulation of this back-and-forth stress causes tempers to snap repeatedly. This does not just happen between Jews and gentiles. Stuart Miller, in his book on Europe "Painted in Blood" claimed that the crowding of different groups and factions together created a great deal of animosity which repeatedly snaps, storing up more animosity for later.  On this theory  at least some part of  anti-semitism is just tribal rivalry and at least some gentiles hated Jews the way they hated each other.
Obviously this cannot be a complete answer. But it plays at least some part in it.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics