Zionism/Judiasm/Anti-Semitism

let us not blur distinctions here, opposing the policies of a nation does not equate to racism.

ptlwp said:

Friday, January 20, 2006

A few months ago, UCLA Professor Judea Pearl suggested an interesting formula to
fight racism on campus. Instead of regarding anti-Zionism as a flimsy cover for
anti-Semitism, as we usually do, we should go further and view anti-Zionism
itself as racist. "UCLA's professor of artificial intelligence offers his formula as
anti-Zionism=racism. To me it seems to compute.

I'm, personally, anti-violent-displacement-of-resident-people. If that makes me rascist, please proceed with utilising semantics against my long-held belief that such oppressive measures are both unethical and unnecessary. I do not care whether the guiding light for such actions was Zionist, Muslim or Zoroastrian in it's formation, bullying does not sit well with me.

Agree with Eoin and Lyotard.

To equate opposition to a political policy with objecting to a persons religious persuasion, is intellectually dishonest and is mischief making at best.

ptlwp said:

Friday, January 20, 2006

A few months ago, UCLA Professor Judea Pearl suggested an interesting formula to
fight racism on campus. Instead of regarding anti-Zionism as a flimsy cover for
anti-Semitism, as we usually do, we should go further and view anti-Zionism
itself as racist. "Framing anti-Zionism as racism is precisely the weapon that
our students need for survival on campus," he argued on the pages of The Jewish
Journal Of Greater Los Angeles.

Dr. Pearl, whose academic field is artificial intelligence, is the father of
Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter abducted and murdered by
terrorists in Pakistan. It happened four years ago, almost to the day. Last
night, I talked with the late foreign correspondent's father on the phone.

Like his son, Dr. Pearl believes in dialogue. He runs the Daniel Pearl
Foundation with the aim of carrying on his son's legacy, defined as "using music
and words to help people better understand one another." This may sound a bit
like the credo of a bleeding-heart liberal, but only until one realizes that for
Dr. Pearl "dialogue" isn't a code word for displaying the white flag. For the
UCLA scholar, "dialogue" means words of firm purpose, fighting words if
necessary, not words as substitute for surrender.

"Anti-Zionism is racism" is more than a neat reversal of the infamous (and
eventually rescinded) United Nations formula of "Zionism is racism." To quip
that one opposes anti-Semitism because it may lead to anti-Zionism would merely
be clever, akin to saying that Baptists oppose sex because it may lead to
dancing. But Dr. Pearl is offering a thesis, not a bon mot. As he explains it,
"Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it
grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to
nationhood and self-determination."

Dr. Pearl's words ring familiar. They echo words I heard more than 60 years ago,
inside a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Budapest, during heated debates between
my Zionist uncle and my non-Zionist father.

The year was 1944. Israel did not yet exist. European Jews were facing [censored]'s
"final solution," that is, extermination. A homeland for Jews seemed like a
lifeboat for people drowning at sea. Yet my father opposed Zionism. A liberal
internationalist, he considered any form of nationalism a disease, including
Jewish nationalism. This outraged my Zionist uncle.

"Explain to me why," he demanded. "Why isn't it a disease for Frenchmen to live
together in a country called France? Why isn't it a disease for the Dutch to
live together in a country called Holland? And if it's not a disease for them,
why is it a disease for Jews to live together in a country called Israel?"

My father, of course, considered nationalism a disease for the French and the
Dutch no less than for the Jews -- or, if not exactly a disease, an outmoded
form of social organization that would soon be as obsolete as the horse and
buggy. He saw no reason for Jews to start building, through Zionism, a type of
edifice for themselves that was about to be abandoned by everybody else.

As we now know, my father turned out to be wrong in this view, or at least
premature. Nation-states are thriving in the 21st century -- and they're also
considered to be legitimate forms of social organizations for groups to aspire
to, attain, or preserve.

All groups, that is, except the Jews, according to anti- or post-Zionists. Which
is why Dr. Pearl has a point. Anti-Zionism, whatever it may have been 60 years
ago, does have a racist tinge today. The current climate considers all national
aspirations legitimate, except that of the Jews.

This being so, one is tempted to agree with Dr. Pearl that anti-Zionism is worse
than anti-Semitism. First, it's more dire in its potential consequences. "As a
form of racism," Pearl writes, "it targets the most vulnerable part of the
Jewish people, namely, the people of Israel, who rely on the sovereignty of
their state for physical safety, national identity and personal dignity."

Next, anti-Zionism may have a greater chance of acculturation than
anti-Semitism. "While people of conscience reject anti-Semitism, anti-Zionist
rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in
Europe and in some U.S. campuses," Pearl observes.

Indeed, people who would feel traumatized if accused of anti-Semitism, might
shrug off a charge of anti-Zionism, or even embrace it with pride.

UCLA's professor of artificial intelligence offers his formula as
anti-Zionism=racism. To me it seems to compute.

This is just arrant nonsense.It's the exact same argument that the nazis used.
I suppose,using professor pearl's logic,that anti-fascism was really racism against italians,portuguese,spaniards et al?Anti-naziism was really racism against germans?Anti-communism is really prejudice against russians,cubans,.germans,poles,hungarians,chinese,vietnamese?
Zionism is a system of political beliefs which originated in northern europe amongst a group of northern europeans who had little in common with either the jews of palestine or the other semites who chose to adopt the variant of judaism,islam.Culturally,they had nothing in common with the middle eastern residents of palestine at all.The only tenuous link they ever had was religion and that was akin to the link between icelanders and patagonians who are both christians,nominally,but culturally,worlds apart.Anti-zionism is not anti-semitism.Arabs are also semites,and it is intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.It is also dishonest to hijack the word "semite" to apply it only to zionists,or,indeed to the adherents of a particular branch of a religion which also spawned christianity and islam.
The fact is,the israeli government is behaving exactly like the early stages of naziism in germany.Stockholm syndrome perhaps?
Dumping a large population of northern europeans into a small middle eastern country and allowing them to displace the original inhabitants was bound to end in conflict.It suits the us to keep this conflict going because they need a landbased "aircraft carrier" of mercenaries to maintain control of the oil-rich muslim countries.Both israel and saudia arabia are artificial creations of the west.Both would disappear without us financial support and armaments.
Israel built a nuclear reactor for the purpose of producing weapons of mass destruction long before any of its neighbours were able to do so.When israel opens its nuclear bomb plant to the IAEC,then and only then can they claim any sort of moral superiority over iran.
Pandora's box was opened the us first exploded test bombs and then used them in warfare.Eventually every country in the world is going to want them.They will all use the same argument that israel does.

If iraquis want to remain as a distinct cultural group,why do they not have the right to?If they choose to use nuclear weapons to do so,why not?
Your argument simply gives validity to the claims of every distinct ethnic group to tyrannise anyone who does not conform to their culture.
As for professor pearls argument that "the people of israel rely on the sovereignty of their state for physical safety,national dignity and personal dignity",doesn't that apply equally to every country in the world?

ptlwp said:

Friday, January 20, 2006

A few months ago, UCLA Professor Judea Pearl suggested an interesting formula to
fight racism on campus. Instead of regarding anti-Zionism as a flimsy cover for
anti-Semitism, as we usually do, we should go further and view anti-Zionism
itself as racist. "Framing anti-Zionism as racism is precisely the weapon that
our students need for survival on campus," he argued on the pages of The Jewish
Journal Of Greater Los Angeles.

Dr. Pearl, whose academic field is artificial intelligence, is the father of
Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter abducted and murdered by
terrorists in Pakistan. It happened four years ago, almost to the day. Last
night, I talked with the late foreign correspondent's father on the phone.

Like his son, Dr. Pearl believes in dialogue. He runs the Daniel Pearl
Foundation with the aim of carrying on his son's legacy, defined as "using music
and words to help people better understand one another." This may sound a bit
like the credo of a bleeding-heart liberal, but only until one realizes that for
Dr. Pearl "dialogue" isn't a code word for displaying the white flag. For the
UCLA scholar, "dialogue" means words of firm purpose, fighting words if
necessary, not words as substitute for surrender.

"Anti-Zionism is racism" is more than a neat reversal of the infamous (and
eventually rescinded) United Nations formula of "Zionism is racism." To quip
that one opposes anti-Semitism because it may lead to anti-Zionism would merely
be clever, akin to saying that Baptists oppose sex because it may lead to
dancing. But Dr. Pearl is offering a thesis, not a bon mot. As he explains it,
"Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it
grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to
nationhood and self-determination."

Dr. Pearl's words ring familiar. They echo words I heard more than 60 years ago,
inside a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Budapest, during heated debates between
my Zionist uncle and my non-Zionist father.

The year was 1944. Israel did not yet exist. European Jews were facing [censored]'s
"final solution," that is, extermination. A homeland for Jews seemed like a
lifeboat for people drowning at sea. Yet my father opposed Zionism. A liberal
internationalist, he considered any form of nationalism a disease, including
Jewish nationalism. This outraged my Zionist uncle.

"Explain to me why," he demanded. "Why isn't it a disease for Frenchmen to live
together in a country called France? Why isn't it a disease for the Dutch to
live together in a country called Holland? And if it's not a disease for them,
why is it a disease for Jews to live together in a country called Israel?"

My father, of course, considered nationalism a disease for the French and the
Dutch no less than for the Jews -- or, if not exactly a disease, an outmoded
form of social organization that would soon be as obsolete as the horse and
buggy. He saw no reason for Jews to start building, through Zionism, a type of
edifice for themselves that was about to be abandoned by everybody else.

As we now know, my father turned out to be wrong in this view, or at least
premature. Nation-states are thriving in the 21st century -- and they're also
considered to be legitimate forms of social organizations for groups to aspire
to, attain, or preserve.

All groups, that is, except the Jews, according to anti- or post-Zionists. Which
is why Dr. Pearl has a point. Anti-Zionism, whatever it may have been 60 years
ago, does have a racist tinge today. The current climate considers all national
aspirations legitimate, except that of the Jews.

This being so, one is tempted to agree with Dr. Pearl that anti-Zionism is worse
than anti-Semitism. First, it's more dire in its potential consequences. "As a
form of racism," Pearl writes, "it targets the most vulnerable part of the
Jewish people, namely, the people of Israel, who rely on the sovereignty of
their state for physical safety, national identity and personal dignity."

Next, anti-Zionism may have a greater chance of acculturation than
anti-Semitism. "While people of conscience reject anti-Semitism, anti-Zionist
rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in
Europe and in some U.S. campuses," Pearl observes.

Indeed, people who would feel traumatized if accused of anti-Semitism, might
shrug off a charge of anti-Zionism, or even embrace it with pride.

UCLA's professor of artificial intelligence offers his formula as
anti-Zionism=racism. To me it seems to compute.

And exactly why is it a disease for palestinians to live in a country called palestine?

ptlwp said:

Friday, January 20, 2006

"Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it
grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to
nationhood and self-determination."

Mr Pearl forgets to state that nations come together with geenric people.

In the case of Israel, the generic people who were in that territory were Palestinians.

An iflux of people from another separate territory (Europe) were relocated to that territory.
This is quite different to the nation building of France/Holland/Spain which mr pearl uses to equate nationhood.
The France/Dutch/Spanish people were generic to that territory - unlike the European Jews who went to Palestine in the 1940's.

ptlwp said:

As we now know, my father turned out to be wrong in this view, or at least
premature. Nation-states are thriving in the 21st century -- and they're also
considered to be legitimate forms of social organizations for groups to aspire
to, attain, or preserve.

All groups, that is, except the Jews, according to anti- or post-Zionists. Which
is why Dr. Pearl has a point. Anti-Zionism, whatever it may have been 60 years
ago, does have a racist tinge today. The current climate considers all national
aspirations legitimate, except that of the Jews.

This inaccurate and is a distortion.

A Jewish homeland - within Palestine - was agreed to by the international community.
Palestine was to have Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine - both entities within Palestine in 1947.

Jewish palestine seceded from this arrnagement - using terrorism - to form the statelet that we now know as Israel.
So for Pearl to suggest that the international community were against a homeland for Jewish people is a lie because they were given a territory within Palestine in 1947

ptlwp said:

Friday, January 20, 2006
But Dr. Pearl is offering a thesis, not a bon mot. As he explains it,
"Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it
grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to
nationhood and self-determination."

One hundred percent wrong.

His entire argument hinges on this misconception, and as a result it is utter twaddle. It appears that the article write also agrees, because they chose to bury that weak rhetoric in a ton of unrelated emotionally charged historical opera.

Zionism earns it's racist character from the very fact that it demands the ethnic cleansing of millions of Gentiles from the land they lawfully occupied.

Furthermore opposition to Zionism does not preclude endorsement of Jewish people running a country. Therefore opposition to Zionism is *not* inherently racist.

I trust that Dr.Pearl did not get a PhD for Bayesian networks by using that kind of low-grade rhetoric in his Thesis. If he did, standards have slipped to the point where PhDs are barely good enough to merit wiping your [censored] on them.

limerickman said:

A Jewish homeland - within Palestine - was agreed to by the international community.
Palestine was to have Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine - both entities within Palestine in 1947.

Jewish palestine seceded from this arrnagement - using terrorism - to form the statelet that we now know as Israel.
So for Pearl to suggest that the international community were against a homeland for Jewish people is a lie because they were given a territory within Palestine in 1947

The Arab nations never agreed to the partition of Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. Not all of the international community was for creating a Jewish homeland.

ptlwp said:

...Dr. Pearl, whose academic field is artificial intelligence...

It is a great shame that Dr Pearl bypassed real intelligence along the way. Do his statements come from Dr Pearl - the AI academic, Dr Pearl - the father of Daniel Pearl, or Dr Pearl - man on the street with an opinion? This article seems to lay claim to an expertise that is possibly misrepresented.
In my particular field, we know it as the "Hat of Knowledge" - Someone is an expert in their own particular line of work - He / she covers his / her cranium with the "H-of-K" and is instantly an expert in everything else he / she turns his / her vocal chords towards.
I'm calling "expert-alert" on this one. The academic references are completely irrelevant and were inserted in order to apply some kind of credance to the diatribe that followed.
Insert sound of Gong as Dr Pearl leaves the stage...

Quoted post said:

Instead of regarding anti-Zionism as a flimsy cover for
anti-Semitism, as we usually do, we should go further and view anti-Zionism
itself as racist. "Framing anti-Zionism as racism is precisely the weapon that
our students need for survival on campus,"

It is what it is.........:eek:

EoinC said:

It is a great shame that Dr Pearl bypassed real intelligence along the way. Do his statements come from Dr Pearl - the AI academic, Dr Pearl - the father of Daniel Pearl, or Dr Pearl - man on the street with an opinion? This article seems to lay claim to an expertise that is possibly misrepresented.
In my particular field, we know it as the "Hat of Knowledge" - Someone is an expert in their own particular line of work - He / she covers his / her cranium with the "H-of-K" and is instantly an expert in everything else he / she turns his / her vocal chords towards.
I'm calling "expert-alert" on this one. The academic references are completely irrelevant and were inserted in order to apply some kind of credance to the diatribe that followed.
Insert sound of Gong as Dr Pearl leaves the stage...

Agreed. Academic prowess in one area does not equate to a dictatorship of opinion in another field regardless of ethnicity.

EoinC said:

Insert sound of Gong as Dr Pearl leaves the stage...

You can add the squelch of him stepping on his Rhetorical Turd on the way out...

ptlwp said:

Friday, January 20, 2006

A few months ago, UCLA Professor Judea Pearl suggested an interesting formula to
fight racism on campus. Instead of regarding anti-Zionism as a flimsy cover for
anti-Semitism, as we usually do, we should go further and view anti-Zionism
itself as racist. "Framing anti-Zionism as racism is precisely the weapon that
our students need for survival on campus," he argued on the pages of The Jewish
Journal Of Greater Los Angeles.

Dr. Pearl, whose academic field is artificial intelligence, is the father of
Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter abducted and murdered by
terrorists in Pakistan. It happened four years ago, almost to the day. Last
night, I talked with the late foreign correspondent's father on the phone.

Like his son, Dr. Pearl believes in dialogue. He runs the Daniel Pearl
Foundation with the aim of carrying on his son's legacy, defined as "using music
and words to help people better understand one another." This may sound a bit
like the credo of a bleeding-heart liberal, but only until one realizes that for
Dr. Pearl "dialogue" isn't a code word for displaying the white flag. For the
UCLA scholar, "dialogue" means words of firm purpose, fighting words if
necessary, not words as substitute for surrender.

"Anti-Zionism is racism" is more than a neat reversal of the infamous (and
eventually rescinded) United Nations formula of "Zionism is racism." To quip
that one opposes anti-Semitism because it may lead to anti-Zionism would merely
be clever, akin to saying that Baptists oppose sex because it may lead to
dancing. But Dr. Pearl is offering a thesis, not a bon mot. As he explains it,
"Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it
grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to
nationhood and self-determination."

Dr. Pearl's words ring familiar. They echo words I heard more than 60 years ago,
inside a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Budapest, during heated debates between
my Zionist uncle and my non-Zionist father.

The year was 1944. Israel did not yet exist. European Jews were facing [censored]'s
"final solution," that is, extermination. A homeland for Jews seemed like a
lifeboat for people drowning at sea. Yet my father opposed Zionism. A liberal
internationalist, he considered any form of nationalism a disease, including
Jewish nationalism. This outraged my Zionist uncle.

"Explain to me why," he demanded. "Why isn't it a disease for Frenchmen to live
together in a country called France? Why isn't it a disease for the Dutch to
live together in a country called Holland? And if it's not a disease for them,
why is it a disease for Jews to live together in a country called Israel?"

My father, of course, considered nationalism a disease for the French and the
Dutch no less than for the Jews -- or, if not exactly a disease, an outmoded
form of social organization that would soon be as obsolete as the horse and
buggy. He saw no reason for Jews to start building, through Zionism, a type of
edifice for themselves that was about to be abandoned by everybody else.

As we now know, my father turned out to be wrong in this view, or at least
premature. Nation-states are thriving in the 21st century -- and they're also
considered to be legitimate forms of social organizations for groups to aspire
to, attain, or preserve.

All groups, that is, except the Jews, according to anti- or post-Zionists. Which
is why Dr. Pearl has a point. Anti-Zionism, whatever it may have been 60 years
ago, does have a racist tinge today. The current climate considers all national
aspirations legitimate, except that of the Jews.

This being so, one is tempted to agree with Dr. Pearl that anti-Zionism is worse
than anti-Semitism. First, it's more dire in its potential consequences. "As a
form of racism," Pearl writes, "it targets the most vulnerable part of the
Jewish people, namely, the people of Israel, who rely on the sovereignty of
their state for physical safety, national identity and personal dignity."

Next, anti-Zionism may have a greater chance of acculturation than
anti-Semitism. "While people of conscience reject anti-Semitism, anti-Zionist
rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in
Europe and in some U.S. campuses," Pearl observes.

Indeed, people who would feel traumatized if accused of anti-Semitism, might
shrug off a charge of anti-Zionism, or even embrace it with pride.

UCLA's professor of artificial intelligence offers his formula as
anti-Zionism=racism. To me it seems to compute.

May we begin at the beginning. You claim to have a son who is maybe 15/16 now. You also claim that 60 years ago you listened to a family debate in Budapest between your father and grandfather regarding a difference of opinion between their respective viewpoints on secular Judiasm and Zionism. So at this time in your personal history you must have been mature enough to distinguish between the polemics of both parties, and therefore I would estimate your age today would be about 75. As you have a son of about 15/16,and subtracting one from figure from the other,you would have conceived at about the age of of 60. And we all know that this is physically impossible. You are a charlatan.

Colorado Ryder said:

The Arab nations never agreed to the partition of Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine.

That is 100% incorrect, you appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming nothing has changed since 1947.

Colorado Ryder said:

Not all of the international community was for creating a Jewish homeland.

That much is true at least.

FredC said:

May we begin at the beginning. You claim to have a son who is maybe 15/16 now. You also claim that 60 years ago you listened to a family debate in Budapest between your father and grandfather regarding a difference of opinion between their respective viewpoints on secular Judiasm and Zionism. So at this time in your personal history you must have been mature enough to distinguish between the polemics of both parties, and therefore I would estimate your age today would be about 75. As you have a son of about 15/16,and subtracting one from figure from the other,you would have conceived at about the age of of 60. And we all know that this is physically impossible. You are a charlatan.

Perhaps an unattributed quote?Too grammatical too be anything else.Still wrong though.

darkboong said:

That is 100% incorrect, you appear to have fallen into the trap of assuming nothing has changed since 1947.

That much is true at least.

Not at all. I was just correcting the misconception being spread that said the international community supported the creation of Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine.

Colorado Ryder said:

Not at all. I was just correcting the misconception being spread that said the international community supported the creation of Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine.

You used the word "Never", when in actual fact they already have. If you meant something else you should have said something else.

darkboong said:

You used the word "Never", when in actual fact they already have. If you meant something else you should have said something else.

The context of my comment was correct. I stated that Arab nations never supported the creation of Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine in 1946.

She's been blasted out of the chicken soup. Lo laihem.