Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3812 of them)
It's very tricky. Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” -- even that isn't necessarily anti-semitic; I would saw that Islam, or any faith, really, is "intolerant" too. The Holocaust point is probably more worrying -- this was a cross-Europe poll, so held in countries considerably more culpable in this respect than the UK. Many quasi-Leftists fall on this position when attacking Israel, which is a vile position to hold, lacking in sympathy -- and I'm speaking as someone who is critical of Israel.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I've often thought the biggest problem with the often nebulous and knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism is that there is an extri special word for it (ie it ain't called Anti-Judaism). Islamophobic is incleasingly being brought in to mean a similar kind of thing for Islam - though certainly not as loaded. But there is no real offical word for hating Christians.

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's not vile to be desperately upset with Israel's treatment of Palestinians is it, given the circumstances of the founding of Israel from a political standpoint? Admittedly, the founding of Israel on the ground kinda started to whole treatment of Palestinaians thing thing, but...

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:48 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hmm, the Holocaust one I'm not entirely convinced about, Enrique. Some Jewish people argue, not that it is time to forget, but time to get out of a victim-casting obsession with past persecution. Not because they are self-haters, but because they think it helps Jewish culture move on, and because in certain hands, the Holocaust issue is almost used as a trump card in all arguments, which is obviously irritating.

I accept that “Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago” is anastily-worded statement and I'm not saying I would agree with it. And yeah, maybe it's not for gentiles to say any of these things anyway.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's a bit vile to say that Israel only exists because the Jews 'used' the Holocaust as leverage, which is what a lot of revisionist leftists do in their attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy as a nation. In its less nuanced uses, this is what the Finkelstein book does. Obviousy it shouldn't be used to justify current hostilities against the Palestinians, but I can understand why it was used back in the 1940s, when the area was a British mandate-colony.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

What we learned from the Holocaust is that it is a very wrong idea to separate people out according to religion/sexuality (remember Catholics and homosexuals also suffered there), place them in internment camps and then kill them. What we learned from apartheid is that it is wrong to separate people out by skin colour and deny them access to cities and areas and basic civil rights as if on a whim. I would suggest to Israelis of a 'pioneer' bent to learn from the Holocaust and apartheid the lesson about onetime victims relishing their turn on bully duty, and to find a way to resist.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i thought it said 'jews should stop "playing the violin" for the holocaust'... i wish they had worded it that way because i don't think nearly as many people would be in favour of stopping violins!

jeremy jordan (cruisy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Is it racist to say that a religion is intolerant? It would certianly be racist to say that Jews were intolerant.

It is not true that Judaism is intolerant, but saying it is might have all manner of motives, not necessarily racist ones. Although not excluding racist ones, either. For instance, someone might believe that Judaism is intolerant because its rituals can comes across as dogmatic and strict, such as not allowing you to use the car on a Friday. But this is not actually intolerance. To say that Judaism is intolerant implies that the religion or the culture has no sympathy for outsiders or other cultures. This is not true. Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy.

Of course, I'm not talking about any particular state or government here, just the teachings of the religions.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

How much of the fear and mistrust of Judaism comes from it being a non-evangelical religion (menkos Jews 4 Jebus notwithstanding).

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Sure it does, but the Holocaust was a major part of the ideological constellation that led to Israel being set up. As you know, the Balfour declaration was no road-map, and of course had its Nazi counterparts (ie setting up of Jewish homeland far away from Europe).

Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy. But neither are interpreted like that, or at least they aren't so often. The problem is the conflation of race and religion -- I think Ed made me think on this. I don't think it's racist to take issue with faith -- no-one will call me racist for having a problem with Christianity's views on homosexuality, for example.


Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

You're right, Enrique, about no-one calling you racist for taking issue with Christianity's dogma on sexuality. But what about the statement that Judaism might be about love and charity in principle but is is not interpreted like that? Do you mean actual Jews don't act out of love and charity? Or do you mean gentiles don't regard Judaism as about love and charity?

If you think that Judaism is about love and charity but Jews don't act as if it is, then that's already sounding like an attack on the race not the religion to me...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:14 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Pete, that's not at the heart of it at all. The Romans/Greeks didn't really 'get' monotheism, but it's the crapness of Christianity and its prostletysing that created a great deal of anti-Semitic sentiment, what with chasing the money-lenders out of the temple yada yada and people judging ALL Jews as usurers/cash-obsessed/cleverer than. I'm pretty bloody thankful I went to school with thousands of Jews, because they had in their favour a belief in the power of learning and education being a pathway to aspirations. Their parents were the best agitators for getting stuff done for everyone in my town that I've ever experienced.

Again: all bigotry is a manifestation of the bigot's insecurity, usually unsubstantiated.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So, has anybody got any idea why someone would say that Judaism is intolerant? (I'm not asking if any of you are racist, I'm just wondering if anyone has any examples or good guesses about purported Judaic intolerance... And I mean the religion, not the state or Isreal or somesuch)

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:21 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hmm, interesting. I suppose I was thinking that the idea of not wanting to spread "the good news", being a closed community pretty much marks you out as The Other, but certainly the other factors you point out seem a fair bit more convincing.

How has Christianity dealt with the Jesus as king of Jews thing?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Dave, you've already said it's intolerant of several things (like allowing you to use the car on a Friday). You also explained why this doesn't mean the same as 'intolerant' to you. I understand that, but 'intolerant' means different things to different people.

Perhaps the main point of this thread was that I hate ambiguously worded questionnaires, esp. if they're deliberately so.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't mean that it doesn't mean intolerant to me, I mean it is not what intolerant means. Intolerance is an unwillingness to endure differing opinions. Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law. Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.

If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

good point, what about forcible removal of non-jews and 'pioneer' settling though?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Is a state intolerant for forbidding someone to open his business, or restricting his hours of busines by law on the Sabbath no matter what his religion?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

in·tol·er·ant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tlr-nt)
adj.

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004 1:37 PM.


because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?
-- Stringent Stepper (stringen...), January 27th, 2004 1:30 PM.

there you go mate

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the State may well be intolerant if it restricted business hours for citizens who don't share the law of the Sabbath, but the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So, if the problem is the conflation of the state and the religion, does that mean it is racist to say that Judaism is intolerant instead of saying that Isreal is intolerant?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Huzzah, The UK is intolerant (no shock there....)

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of places in London settled by Jews had Sunday trading by dint of being closed on Saturday for Sabbath: see Brick Lane/Whitechapel, Golders Green/Hampstead.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.



Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

how could a religion as old as the hills sanction a state as young as Isreal? Still less the acts of the leaders of such a state.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Ideologies don't screen. They are productive not obstructive. Eagleton at one point uses the example of the phrase "the Prince of Wales is a nice chap". This is ideological because it produces a certain effect (support for the Royals as people) not because it hides the real social relations (Royals are social leeches, or etc). The fact that it makes no mention of politics, economics, and so on does not mean that it is a screen any more than a black and white photo can be said to be a screen against colour.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

kvetching - one of my favourites. A friend calls her young baby a kvetch box

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Every time you moan you have to put a coin in the kvetch box.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

[all babies are young, aren't they... doh!]

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.
-- Chuck Tatum (sappy_papp...), January 27th, 2004.

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Laws (attempt to) make people behave in the ways other people _think_ they should behave.

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.
-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), January 27th, 2004.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I might break the law even though I agree with it generally, but I may also break the law because I have a different opinion as to what is 'rihgt' and what is 'wrong'.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

who are these other people? Don't the laws apply to the people who write them? (Seriously)

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yes they do apply to those that write them (or they're supposed to).

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

this is the craziest shit ever. i hope ppl realize that this doesn't mean that bc he's nominally on the left it's fake antisemitism. it's left-wing antisemitism; it's not like intercept types have a big love affair w/ the jews.

Mordy, Friday, 3 March 2017 15:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Juan Thompson was fired from the Intercept for fabrication.

tweet from three days ago:

@JuanMThompson

The @SecretService visited me looked at my tweets, questioned my politics b/c some awful white woman I date reported me. I won't be silenced

Le Bateau Ivre, Friday, 3 March 2017 15:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

xp he appears to be kind of an MRA type, too? I'm not sure there's a real clear left/right divide amongst those types, but idk. In any case, that still leaves a lot of these unexplained.

Lauren Schumer Donor (Phil D.), Friday, 3 March 2017 15:10 (three weeks ago) Permalink

tweet from Feb 27:

Juan M. Thompson‏ @JuanMThompson Feb 27

Another week, another round of threats against Jewish ppl. In the middle of the day, you know who's at a JCC? Kids. KIDS.

Le Bateau Ivre, Friday, 3 March 2017 15:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

+ obviously this dude hasn't been traveling the country desecrating cemeteries. still it's insane that at least some of these lead back to a former intercept guy. it's like this shit is scripted. (oh wait.)

Mordy, Friday, 3 March 2017 15:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

This is great news. My gf just had to attend a JCC staff meeting with police last night that did nothing but freak her out more than she already was.

The Flautist of Flatus (Old Lunch), Friday, 3 March 2017 15:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

As far as I can tell, he's not implicated in the big national wave of calls, it sounds like he's an insane stalker who, seeing how much publicity the bomb threats were getting, decided to call in some more threats using his ex-girlfriend's name. What a fucking shit cocktail of terrible.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, 3 March 2017 15:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

+ obviously this dude hasn't been traveling the country desecrating cemeteries.

Yeah, probably not, but he was arrested in St. Louis, where the first cemetery attack occurred.

Cherish, Friday, 3 March 2017 16:02 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Mordy, Friday, 3 March 2017 17:29 (three weeks ago) Permalink

fuck people forever

Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, 3 March 2017 17:36 (three weeks ago) Permalink

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

softie (silby), Friday, 3 March 2017 17:36 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i sincerely think we could be headed towards a better equilibrium in jewish-muslim relations in America in the face of a common threat

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/03/02/jews-rally-support-burned-florida-mosque-18-time/98630894/

Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, 3 March 2017 17:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Please tell me that tweet is a bad joke and not the end of a thread, please tell me that tweet is a bad joke and not the... Oh for fucks sake.

Frederik B, Friday, 3 March 2017 17:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

lots of MAGA types on twitter triumphantly posting screenshots of this headline from the other day:

the article is here, under a revised headline, but otherwise unaltered, Juan Thompson being arrested doesn't really contradict anything it says

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semitic-acts-might-faked-make-movement-look-bad/

soref, Friday, 3 March 2017 17:56 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Looks like this has made it's way to the greater Cleveland area: http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2017/03/06/swastika-carved-into-door-of-lorain-synagogue

Lauren Schumer Donor (Phil D.), Monday, 6 March 2017 17:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

http://forward.com/fast-forward/366240/end-jewish-privilege-poster-circulates-on-chicago-college-campus/

it scans to me like a right-wing production (the use of the word goyim, discussing 'jews' forthright rather than using euphemisms) but it's interesting how it utilizes left-wing memes (the top 1%, 'privilege') to make its argument. this reminds me of the jacobin piece about compatibility btwn identity studies concepts & far-right racialists/racists.

Mordy, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:12 (one week ago) Permalink

'the top 1%' is hardly and identity studies concept, though.

Frederik B, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:19 (one week ago) Permalink

i was going to add a line noting the 1% something something socialism of fools vestige but i got lazy

Mordy, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:29 (one week ago) Permalink

To me it's more that abusers are always trying to turn their victims' words against themselves.

Frederik B, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:48 (one week ago) Permalink

belief in exploitative jewish conspiracy theories is not limited to white supremacists

Mordy, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:50 (one week ago) Permalink

that jacobin piece is fucking stupid

SFTGFOP (El Tomboto), Friday, 17 March 2017 00:50 (one week ago) Permalink

That's one of the things about these assholes. They insist that they're 'using the lefts ideas against it' when all it shows is that they haven't even begun to understand the terms they're using.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Friday, 17 March 2017 14:32 (one week ago) Permalink

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/israeli-man-19-arrested-in-connection-with-threats-against-jewish-community-centers-in-us-other-nations/2017/03/23/15123300-0fcb-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

A young Israeli man who also holds U.S. citizenship was arrested by Israeli police Thursday in connection with the wave of security-related threats made to Jewish communities and institutions in the United States and several other countries over the past few months, according to the FBI and local authorities.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:11 (one week ago) Permalink

bizarre

Mordy, Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:18 (one week ago) Permalink

I wonder if Trump is going to crow about this.

duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:22 (one week ago) Permalink

don't really care, just glad it's a faraway nutcase and not somebody who might actually be planning to blow up a jcc

Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:23 (one week ago) Permalink

that said, i don't think this guy got on a plane and came to america to desecrate people's graves

Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:24 (one week ago) Permalink

No, he clearly wasn't responsible for domestic acts of anti-Semitism, and that's part of why I absolutely care that Trump is obviously going to get all DO U SEE about this. Just about the fucking worst case scenario, because now he'll actually have a legitimate example to point to when dismissing hate crimes, which will just further embolden people who are inclined to do this shit.

Ambling Shambling Man (Old Lunch), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:53 (one week ago) Permalink

Has anyone confirmed the guy who called in the threats was Jewish? Or just Israeli? Is assuming every Israeli is Jewish ... anti-semitic?

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:08 (one week ago) Permalink

Or anti-Arab, one of the two.

Bill Teeters (Tom D.), Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:09 (one week ago) Permalink

The religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% belonging to minor faiths such as Samaritanism, Baha'iism or no religion/

Let's blame it on the Druze, for once.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:12 (one week ago) Permalink

toi and haaretz both have that he's jewish (and american-israeli, and supposedly was rejected from serving in the IDF) - i don't think they'd run it without knowing for sure so i think it's safe to assume the information is correct.

Mordy, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:15 (one week ago) Permalink

Psh, it's clearly misinformation being spread, since we all know the Druze run the media.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:34 (one week ago) Permalink

oh man


The teenager, who was born in Israel, has a brain tumor that can affect his cognitive abilities and lead to “irrational” behavior, his lawyer, Galit Bash, said. She would not say whether her client, who she said did not have a criminal record, had admitted or denied involvement.

...

Israeli news outlets reported that when the teenager was arrested, he tried to grab an officer’s gun.

change display name (Jordan), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:02 (six days ago) Permalink

Yikes. But also...this is a fairly elaborate and sustained undertaking to blame on a brain tumor.

Ambling Shambling Man (Old Lunch), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:06 (six days ago) Permalink

i heard they found bitcoins and stuff on his computer and there's speculation that he was being paid to do it?

Mordy, Friday, 24 March 2017 15:07 (six days ago) Permalink

fuck i hate how much i want to know who paid this kid

chip n dale recuse rangers (Jon not Jon), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:10 (six days ago) Permalink

paid/groomed whatever

chip n dale recuse rangers (Jon not Jon), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:10 (six days ago) Permalink

Front page of the London Review Of Books: article about Israel buying super expensive missiles from the US (haven't finished it yet, but didn't see anything objectionable in it so far - it's online at https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n07/daniel-soar/the-most-expensive-weapon-ever-built).

HOWEVER, on the bottom of the page, ads for two books from one publisher - one about the Hebrew language, the other about resistance and compliance within Jewish communities during the holocaust (looks interesting).

Is this probably just a coincidence of who bought the advertising space, or am I right in detecting a sort of hyper-defensive "don't you even try call us anti-semitic for this" stance in the placement?

Daniel_Rf, Saturday, 25 March 2017 18:34 (five days ago) Permalink

Princeton university press always have that advertising slot under the first page of the first article, so I think it's probably a coincidence. (though looking back over past issues there does sometimes - not always - seem to be a thematic link between the subject of the article and the two books being promoted?)

soref, Saturday, 25 March 2017 19:30 (five days ago) Permalink

i think it's reasonable to assume ppl reading about israel might also be interested in a book about hebrew + jews - i wouldn't read any nefariousness into it esp since LRB has run far more questionable articles before so it's not like they're afraid of controversy.

Mordy, Saturday, 25 March 2017 20:49 (five days ago) Permalink

Having read the whole article now it's barely about Israel anyway so I certainly jumped the gun, sry.

Daniel_Rf, Saturday, 25 March 2017 23:28 (five days ago) Permalink

kinda tendentious if you ask me

softie (silby), Tuesday, 28 March 2017 20:57 (two days ago) Permalink

Makes no mention of the swastikas/grave desecration, anything that wasn't done remotely.

JoeStork, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 21:00 (two days ago) Permalink

seems reasonable to me and no less tendentious than multitude of articles that initially blamed it on Trump. Politically inconvenient for sure but probably otm. xp

Mordy, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 21:01 (two days ago) Permalink

author tips her hand early on with the line about "media’s hysterical reaction to" antisemitic threats. if one could make the case that there was literally no increased incidence of antisemitic speech/activity in the run up to & immediate wake of trump's election, then one might reasonably characterize the response by jewish organizations and news media as excessive. but i very strongly doubt that such a case could be made. there was every good reason to be focused on the issue. that a couple of disgruntled attention-seekers took the opportunity to cause havoc doesn't negate criticisms of the trump camp's flirtations with the alt-right.

i'm also a little dubious about the author's attempt to spin this as evidence of trump as a potus of action. one might just as well say that the the suspect's recent flurry of activity - and, in turn, the news media's reaction to it - attracted the attention of the intelligence community. and, not coincidentally, put quite a bit of pressure on the trump administration.

Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Tuesday, 28 March 2017 21:29 (two days ago) Permalink

wapo article says that it's hard to a) definitively tie this or that antisemitic incident to trump's election, and b) say for certain that american anti-semitism is on the rise. i don't disagree. but nor do those points suggest that jewish political organizations and news media in general should have been less worried about the possible consequences of trump's association with the alt-right.

Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Tuesday, 28 March 2017 22:28 (two days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.