Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2509 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

routinely declares he is more sympathetic towards and identifies more w/ the interests of 'some other country' than the country in which he was born

I don't think Mordy does this fwiw, this is going too far

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:23 (4 days ago) Permalink

lol sorry for insinuating the mordy might be pro-israel or a zionist, obv he's a detached observer w/ no rooting interests, obv when the issue of american funding of israel came up his first thought wasn't how it affected israel.

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:30 (4 days ago) Permalink

saying someone identifies more with the interests of another country than the one they hold citizenship in/live in is p close to calling someone a traitor just wtf is that really necessary; there is absolutely a history of that tactic being used to anti-semitic ends

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:32 (4 days ago) Permalink

like maybe calm down and take a deep breath here

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:33 (4 days ago) Permalink

dnftt

Lewis - J'Agour (crüt), Monday, 28 July 2014 18:33 (4 days ago) Permalink

obv when there was talk of america intervening in syria last year and mordy was basing his arguments on how it affected israel he was doing a character, y'know like imus, that's not how he actually thinks and feels. no way is israel the prism thru which that guy views the middle east.

xp i don't think he's a traitor. this is america, short of him endorsing acts of war or espionage against this country he's not a traitor (o wait). but for him to act after all these years like he doesn't have any sympathies w/ israel, that he hasn't parrotted likud propaganda, that he didn't just the other day declare the idf the most honest and accurate source of what's going on in the conflict, and that he didn't say hamas posting lies about israel on facebook was worthy of a military response, to call this out as bullshit isn't 'self evidently' anti-semitic. maybe i'm wrong though. maybe killing children is a central part of the jewish identity. suspect very much though that someone who said or believed this would actually be 'self evidently' anti-semitic though. unless they're mordy.

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:42 (4 days ago) Permalink

declare the idf the most honest and accurate source of what's going on in the conflict, and that he didn't say hamas posting lies about israel on facebook was worthy of a military response,

these are misrepresentations/innacurate (unless I missed some posts but I don't think I did)

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:51 (4 days ago) Permalink

in other news my man, Wallace Shawn:

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:53 (4 days ago) Permalink

it's all inaccuracies. i never claimed i don't have any sympathies w/ israel, i don't "parrot" likud propaganda, i never said the idf is the most honest and accurate source of what's going on (i did suggest that in past conflicts their fatality numbers have turned out to be closest to reality after the war), i never said that hamas posting lies about israel on fb was worthy of a military response (??? who the fuck knows where balls' got this one from)

Mordy, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:54 (4 days ago) Permalink

IDF@IDFSpokesperson Follow
Today Hamas continued firing from Beit Hanoun. The IDF responded by targeting the source of the fire.

12:34 PM - 24 Jul 14
Reply Retweet Favorite

― Mordy

Obviously we won't know anything for sure probably for months until all the facts come out. This is worth looking at:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2014/07/half-of-dead-in-gaza-are-terrorists.html#.U9KbsBZ1ZfM

As well as this from Cast Lead in 2009:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=76&x_article=1952

― Mordy, Friday, July 25, 2014 2:04 PM (3 days ago)

it turned out that in 2009 idf had the most accurate numbers after the conflict had ended

― Mordy, Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:41 PM (Yesterday)

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:57 (4 days ago) Permalink

I think it's bizarre to equate being pro-Mussolini with being pro-Israel, inasmuch as Mussolini was literally on the opposite side of a war with us.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Monday, 28 July 2014 18:58 (4 days ago) Permalink

"i did suggest that in past conflicts their fatality numbers have turned out to be closest to reality after the war" < wow! i said what i said i said. good job, balls.

Mordy, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:58 (4 days ago) Permalink

now maybe find me this one? "that he didn't say hamas posting lies about israel on facebook was worthy of a military response"

Mordy, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:59 (4 days ago) Permalink

rolling mena thread, find it yrself

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:00 (4 days ago) Permalink

gfy :)

Mordy, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:01 (4 days ago) Permalink

btw that post where you said what you said you said was when someone asked you if you really thought idf was the most accurate source of information on the conflict (after posting idf propaganda about how actually all those ppl they're killing? terrorists. you can tell cuz they're palestinian). doesn't read like a denial to me!

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:02 (4 days ago) Permalink

gotcha

Mordy, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:02 (4 days ago) Permalink

i mean maybe it's batshit or self evidently anti-semitic but i'd consider posting a tweet from idf's twitter account as a rebuttal to a claim that they're killing children parroting idf.

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:04 (4 days ago) Permalink

ok cool

Mordy, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:04 (4 days ago) Permalink

i mean if i'm distracting you from getting back to pretending some israeli bank is the real victim here when you think about it i do apologize.

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:05 (4 days ago) Permalink

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:05 (4 days ago) Permalink

great pinky showed up

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:08 (4 days ago) Permalink

My bad, I meant that for the Minecraft thread.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:09 (4 days ago) Permalink

In hopefully less incendiary anti-Semitism news, we ate at a sandwich shop in Colorado that, along with the usual, served a pastrami and cheese sandwich called the Jewish. Which is weird on several different levels.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:37 (4 days ago) Permalink

"could you make mine extra-Jewy please"

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 19:51 (4 days ago) Permalink

Is it weird to call a sub "The Italian"?

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Monday, 28 July 2014 21:51 (4 days ago) Permalink

ayyyyy! boshk!

love is how's life tonight (how's life), Monday, 28 July 2014 21:52 (4 days ago) Permalink

But an Italian sub is called that because it was made popular by Italian immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_sandwich). The Jewish (which does not exist, as such, but let's go with the name), not so much. Not least because it is brazenly not Kosher.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 July 2014 22:36 (4 days ago) Permalink

eating a Jewish person breaks kosher anyway tbf

Serious Men raised by the Issues Movement (darraghmac), Monday, 28 July 2014 22:38 (4 days ago) Permalink

I was trying to think of other situations where the descriptive adjective (Jewish) is not the same as the identifying noun (Jew) but couldn't think of any

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 23:01 (4 days ago) Permalink

Jew eat?

Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 28 July 2014 23:15 (4 days ago) Permalink

tbf if I saw a sandwich called The Jew I would probably be a little freaked out

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 23:16 (4 days ago) Permalink

The Jewish is just comically inept

Οὖτις, Monday, 28 July 2014 23:17 (4 days ago) Permalink

I had typed eating a Jew but that sounded coarse and idk not good then I changed it to eating a Jewish person and fuck me if it didn't sound delicious

Serious Men raised by the Issues Movement (darraghmac), Monday, 28 July 2014 23:20 (4 days ago) Permalink

that the case w/ most nationalities or ethnicities that don't end in 'n' right? arabic vs arab, french vs frenchman, white vs whitey. i've heard use of 'blacks' as a noun but in the singular it's pretty uncommon. seems like in english though overwhelmingly the descriptive adjective and the identifying noun both end in 'n' and are the same. i'm trying to think of examples where they aren't the same or conversely whey they (or more accurately the descriptive) don't end in 'n' and they are the same.

balls, Monday, 28 July 2014 23:27 (4 days ago) Permalink

tom green's bum was on the Swede, not the Swedish

David Schramm (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 28 July 2014 23:34 (4 days ago) Permalink

Mordy doesn't parrot propaganda, when he makes points he leaves spaces for disagreement and implies question marks all over (as far as I can see anyway, don't know if you would agree Mordy?) which is so vastly better than 99% of what yr gonna get in online chat about the Israel Palestine conflict between members of the public

cardamon, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:18 (3 days ago) Permalink

Could we also basically remember that whatever we all think of each other, no-one on this thread is actually doing the things, we're all just commentating on the things

cardamon, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:19 (3 days ago) Permalink

just saw a harrowing video of three guys emerging from a tunnel carrying guns

thank goodness there are children being bombed in response

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:09 (3 days ago) Permalink

hi

card (am0n), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:11 (3 days ago) Permalink

that the same video in which they emerged to kill a soldier?

Serious Men raised by the Issues Movement (darraghmac), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:16 (3 days ago) Permalink

Killing soldiers? Isn't that a war crime?

brimming with misplaced confidence (Phil D.), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:17 (3 days ago) Permalink

xxp card (am0n) otm

cardamon, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:19 (3 days ago) Permalink

you got me man I'm in here to cheer on the deaths of innocents too, hurrah for ilx

Serious Men raised by the Issues Movement (darraghmac), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:20 (3 days ago) Permalink

maybe? i didn't see the end. the narrator said they went on to attack a military installation of some kind. hopefully there wasn't a school in the way!

xpost lol

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:20 (3 days ago) Permalink

dear israel: get a fucking grip on yourself

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:22 (3 days ago) Permalink

yeah saw the same clip, dead soldier ensues, doubtless used as justification for another day of slaughter to rival the images of dead and wounded Palestinian families that preceded it, doubtless to be used as justification for etc and just fuck it for a heartbreaking mess obv.

Serious Men raised by the Issues Movement (darraghmac), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:23 (3 days ago) Permalink

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/israel-goes-alone-2

To some extent, such sentiments are a reflex action from a nation at war, albeit a limited war in which the vast majority of casualties are on the other side. But the criticisms of Obama also represent something deeper and more lasting: an increasingly assertive Israel that views itself as justified in its actions, besieged by international critics, and capable of following its own course without having to seek approval.

even chait is growing uncomfortable

k3vin k., Wednesday, 30 July 2014 00:07 (2 days ago) Permalink

Chait OTM. And the article he refers to, The Explosive, Inside Story of How John Kerry Built an Israel-Palestine Peace Plan—and Watched It Crumble is a great read, and I would recommend it to anyone who is somewhat interested in the conflict.

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 03:31 (2 days ago) Permalink


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