|
Post by Drooperdoo on Nov 27, 2005 12:56:41 GMT -5
Ndrthl, Once again you show impeccable taste. I'm shocked that someone other than me knows about the poet Max Jacob. He was a close friend of Picasso and the two shared a studio when they were very poor. It only had one bed so they took shifts sleeping--one in the day and one in the night. Great write-up on their friendship in the 1910 book by Picasso's former lover Fernande Olivier, Picasso et ses amis.
P.S.--Picasso will always lose something in my esteem by the way he did nothing to help Jacob. (Other Jewish artists and writers were protected by their Gentile friends. Gertrude Stein, for instance, lived all through Nazi-occupied France. Picasso--if he had been less self-involved--could have saved his old friend. --He also abandoned another Jewish friend, Guillaume Apollinaire. Although Apollinaire wasn't threatened by the Nazis but by the Paris metropolitan police (circa 1910) when someone stole the Mona Lisa and they came to him as one of the suspects. Picasso chickened out and abandoned his friend. Little bastard! At least Picasso redeemed himself later by turning down the Nazi's offer of being a part of their propaganda effort in France, and he said no--knowing that he was turning down extra coal and food.
|
|
|
Post by zathuras on Nov 27, 2005 13:14:18 GMT -5
I disagree for first reply One thing I never understood, if Israel treats its oriental jewish populations so badly like anti-zionists claim, nobody claims this . The issue is mostly with the non-middle eastern jews Israel treats its european jewish population badly??
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Nov 27, 2005 13:15:28 GMT -5
people need to know that anti-zionism doesn't equal anti-semitism. there are jews who are anti-zionist. however, when people questions Israel, they are automatically labeled as anti-semitic I think anti-Zionism is just as bad as anti-Semites since its coming from David Duke and Syria supports this man. I judge movements by their loudest leaders. If Syria welcomes this former leader of the KKK, then I say anti-Zionism is a branch of traditional anti Semites. White supremacists always refer to themselves as anti-Zionists. There really though isn't much difference between the two movements. Just different labels. Nobody wants to be labeled an anti Semite or they will lose credibility with the general public. So they choose to call themselves anti Zionist which is just a cover for David Duke. This white supremacist is endorsed by syria, I think that speaks volumes. Anti-semitism isn't inherent. If you don't like David Duke, and hence anti-Zionism, thus connoting the two, please explain exactly what view of his unacceptable. Titles alone mean absolutely nothing, expand on the specifics of what is so "wrong" about his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by zathuras on Nov 27, 2005 13:18:30 GMT -5
I think anti-Zionism is just as bad as anti-Semites since its coming from David Duke and Syria supports this man. I judge movements by their loudest leaders. If Syria welcomes this former leader of the KKK, then I say anti-Zionism is a branch of traditional anti Semites. White supremacists always refer to themselves as anti-Zionists. There really though isn't much difference between the two movements. Just different labels. Nobody wants to be labeled an anti Semite or they will lose credibility with the general public. So they choose to call themselves anti Zionist which is just a cover for David Duke. This white supremacist is endorsed by syria, I think that speaks volumes. Anti-semitism isn't inherent. If you don't like David Duke, and hence anti-Zionism, thus connoting the two, please explain exactly what view of his unacceptable. Titles alone mean absolutely nothing, expand on the specifics of what is so "wrong" about his beliefs. Well for starters the very fact that he was leader of the KKK How can you possibly empathize with anything this man has to say?
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Nov 27, 2005 13:26:52 GMT -5
I disagree for first reply One thing I never understood, if Israel treats its oriental jewish populations so badly like anti-zionists claim, nobody claims this . The issue is mostly with the non-middle eastern jews Israel treats its european jewish population badly?? you got it all wrong. there is no problem of mistreatemnt of Jews by Israeli gov. where did you get that from?
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Nov 27, 2005 13:27:23 GMT -5
people need to know that anti-zionism doesn't equal anti-semitism. there are jews who are anti-zionist. however, when people questions Israel, they are automatically labeled as anti-semitic people need to know that anti-zionism doesn't equal anti-semitism. there are jews who are anti-zionist. however, when people questions Israel, they are automatically labeled as anti-semitic I think anti-zionism is just as bad as anti-semitism since its coming from David Duke and Syria supports this man. I judge movements by their loudest leaders. If Syria welcomes this former leader of the KKK, then I say anti-zionism is a branch of traditional anti semitism. White supremacists always refer to themselves as anti-zionists. There really though isn't much difference between the two movements. Just different labels. Nobody wants to be labeled an anti semite or they will lose credibility with the general public. So they choose to call themselves anti zionist which is just a cover for David Duke. This white supremacist is endorsed by syria, I think that speaks volumes. Here are some pictures of "Anti-semites" I guess. www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2002/07/236845.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Nov 27, 2005 13:31:56 GMT -5
Anti-semitism isn't inherent. If you don't like David Duke, and hence anti-Zionism, thus connoting the two, please explain exactly what view of his unacceptable. Titles alone mean absolutely nothing, expand on the specifics of what is so "wrong" about his beliefs. Well for starters the very fact that he was leader of the KKK How can you possibly empathize with anything this man has to say? KKK also means nothing in itself. what is it that makes Duke, the KKK, and anti-zionism unnaccptable.
|
|
|
Post by ndrthl on Nov 27, 2005 14:01:41 GMT -5
there are anti Israel Jews. 1) some ultra orthodox Jews tend to not recognize Israel. according to this site there are 4 different attitudes towards the State of Israel present within the orthodox (note the 4th attitude): RELIGIOUS MEANING OF MEDINAT YISRAEL ATTITUDE #1: The establishment of the Medinah is a step within the messianic process. The government and its laws are binding upon its citizens by virtue of their authority as melech Yisrael, expressed in the form of a Jewish-democratic state. ATTITUDE #2: The establishment of the Medinah was fulfillment of the mitzvah of kibbush ve'yishuv. It is a pre-messianic political entity in which the secular government and its laws are halakhically binding upon its citizens by virtue of contractual obligation as in any modern political state. ATTITUDE #3: The existence of the Medinah has no religious significance. But there is religious value in living in Eretz Yisrael, in studying Torah there, and in the economic support of Jews living there. The political entity of the State and its laws are binding upon its citizens by virtue of contractual obligations as in any modern political state. ATTITUDE #4: The establishment of an autonomous Jewish state was an act of rebellion against God's will, and its continuation and support will be punished by God. www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/search/diverse.cfm#Religious2) Noam Chomsky, on his own way, is rather critical of the Israeli government: "Chomsky and the Middle East Chomsky "grew up...in the Jewish-Zionist cultural tradition" (Peck, p. 11). His father was one of the foremost scholars of the Hebrew language and taught at a religious school. Chomsky has also had a long fascination with and involvement in left-wing Zionist politics. As he described: "I was deeply interested in...Zionist affairs and activities — or what was then called 'Zionist,' though the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionist.' I was interested in socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv)...The vague ideas I had at the time [1947] were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state (a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism)." (Peck, p. 7) He is highly critical of the policies of Israel towards the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. His book The Fateful Triangle is considered one of the premier texts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among those who oppose Israel's policies in regard to the Palestinians as well as American support for the state of Israel. He has also accused Israel of "guiding state terrorism" for selling weapons to apartheid South Africa and Latin American countries that he characterizes as U.S. puppet states, e.g. Guatemala in the 1980s, as well as U.S.-backed paramilitaries (or, according to Chomsky, terrorists) such as the Nicaraguan Contras. (What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chapter 2.4) Chomsky characterizes Israel as a "mercenary state", "an Israeli Sparta", and a militarized dependency within a U.S. system of hegemony. He has also fiercely criticized sectors of the American Jewish community for their role in obtaining U.S. support, stating that "they should more properly be called 'supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel'" (Fateful Triangle, p.4). He says of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL): "The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities.... The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them). "The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement." [15] See also: Middle East Politics, a speech given at Columbia University in 1999 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky3) Bobby Fischer, the famous US chess champion, is a self hating Jew, who preaches the physical extermination of American Jewry and the elimination of the Israeli state. 4) etc
|
|
|
Post by zathuras on Nov 27, 2005 14:14:34 GMT -5
I think anti-zionism is just as bad as anti-semitism since its coming from David Duke and Syria supports this man. I judge movements by their loudest leaders. If Syria welcomes this former leader of the KKK, then I say anti-zionism is a branch of traditional anti semitism. White supremacists always refer to themselves as anti-zionists. There really though isn't much difference between the two movements. Just different labels. Nobody wants to be labeled an anti semite or they will lose credibility with the general public. So they choose to call themselves anti zionist which is just a cover for David Duke. This white supremacist is endorsed by syria, I think that speaks volumes. Here are some pictures of "Anti-semites" I guess. www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2002/07/236845.jpg[/img][/quote] anti semitic is a terrible term all around anyway. hizbollah is not anti-semitic they are semites. but they hate jews. and the neturei karta has met with hizbollah so they lose all credibility, those pics are of neturei karta. they are insane.
|
|
|
Post by zathuras on Nov 27, 2005 14:24:58 GMT -5
there are anti Israel Jews. 1) some ultra orthodox Jews tend to not recognize Israel. according to this site there are 4 different attitudes towards the State of Israel present within the orthodox (note the 4th attitude): RELIGIOUS MEANING OF MEDINAT YISRAEL ATTITUDE #1: The establishment of the Medinah is a step within the messianic process. The government and its laws are binding upon its citizens by virtue of their authority as melech Yisrael, expressed in the form of a Jewish-democratic state. ATTITUDE #2: The establishment of the Medinah was fulfillment of the mitzvah of kibbush ve'yishuv. It is a pre-messianic political entity in which the secular government and its laws are halakhically binding upon its citizens by virtue of contractual obligation as in any modern political state. ATTITUDE #3: The existence of the Medinah has no religious significance. But there is religious value in living in Eretz Yisrael, in studying Torah there, and in the economic support of Jews living there. The political entity of the State and its laws are binding upon its citizens by virtue of contractual obligations as in any modern political state. ATTITUDE #4: The establishment of an autonomous Jewish state was an act of rebellion against God's will, and its continuation and support will be punished by God. www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/search/diverse.cfm#Religious2) Noam Chomsky, on his own way, is rather critical of the Israeli government: "Chomsky and the Middle East Chomsky "grew up...in the Jewish-Zionist cultural tradition" (Peck, p. 11). His father was one of the foremost scholars of the Hebrew language and taught at a religious school. Chomsky has also had a long fascination with and involvement in left-wing Zionist politics. As he described: "I was deeply interested in...Zionist affairs and activities — or what was then called 'Zionist,' though the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionist.' I was interested in socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv)...The vague ideas I had at the time [1947] were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state (a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism)." (Peck, p. 7) He is highly critical of the policies of Israel towards the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. His book The Fateful Triangle is considered one of the premier texts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among those who oppose Israel's policies in regard to the Palestinians as well as American support for the state of Israel. He has also accused Israel of "guiding state terrorism" for selling weapons to apartheid South Africa and Latin American countries that he characterizes as U.S. puppet states, e.g. Guatemala in the 1980s, as well as U.S.-backed paramilitaries (or, according to Chomsky, terrorists) such as the Nicaraguan Contras. (What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chapter 2.4) Chomsky characterizes Israel as a "mercenary state", "an Israeli Sparta", and a militarized dependency within a U.S. system of hegemony. He has also fiercely criticized sectors of the American Jewish community for their role in obtaining U.S. support, stating that "they should more properly be called 'supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel'" (Fateful Triangle, p.4). He says of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL): "The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities.... The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them). "The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement." [15] See also: Middle East Politics, a speech given at Columbia University in 1999 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky3) Bobby Fischer, the famous US chess champion, is a self hating Jew, who preaches the physical extermination of American Jewry and the elimination of the Israeli state. 4) etc Very informative post. Thankyou.
|
|
|
Post by zathuras on Nov 27, 2005 14:28:15 GMT -5
Well for starters the very fact that he was leader of the KKK How can you possibly empathize with anything this man has to say? KKK also means nothing in itself. what is it that makes Duke, the KKK, and anti-zionism unnaccptable. KKK and Duke are racists. They hate black people. The klan has lynched so many black men and raped so many black girls...I'm kind of at a loss for words. Need I say more? You don't find that unacceptable? Anti-zionism is more complicated. There are several forms. The brand preached by Duke, the Klan, and Syria, Iran all has to do with jew hatred and wiping Israel off the map. I find that incredibly unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Nov 27, 2005 14:36:05 GMT -5
I don't know about David Duke or his movement. I am talking about anti-zionism as a term. hidden intentions is something else. as I said, there are Jews who are anti-zionist. plus lets face it, there are many legitimate reasons to question Israel. (I don't want to get into this discussion though) Let me put it this way. Anti-zionism is a movement embraced by white supremacists, neo-nazis, al-qaeda, hizbollah, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, North Korea, and yes sadly even some jewish intellectuals and by every othere country with totalitarian regimes and human rights abuses. Is it anti-semitism? I don't know. These are only labels. But I don't want to follow a movement that characters like David Duke or regimes like Iran or terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda embrace. There's nothing wrong with being an anti- Zionist. The way Israel was formed is on shaky moral ground. That being said, Israel exists and no one can go back in time and change that. Instead of looking to the past people should look at the present and solve the problems that exist now. Israel is here to stay and its best to deal with it as is. Also, for all this talk about Zionists that I always hear there seems to be two camps in Israel. That's usually forgotten whenever I hear people speak about Zionism and Jews on most occasions. That's been my experience. Someone who associates with shady groups is shady himself. Although, plenty of anti- Zionists do not resort to associating with people with questionable moral fiber. David Duke is quite the character and he is far from stupid unlike others of his ilk. He watches what he says and uses tactics of his enemies, such as the ADL, and the logic of the NAACP and other black groups, for leverage. Although, he occasionally slips with statements such as this: "These Jews who run things, who are producing this mental illness - teenage suicide... all these Jewish sicknesses. That's nothing new. The Talmud's full of things like sex with boys and girls." I'm sure he conducted a study on the issue, heh.
|
|
|
Post by zathuras on Nov 27, 2005 14:50:27 GMT -5
Yeah but the way every modern state was formed is on even more shaky ground. Every historical empire period. Israel is the mildest of them all. Why are there 22 arab countries? Expansionism and Imperialism. But there is no anti-panarabism movement across the college campuses in America is there? Don't you find this a little peculiar? Why all the fuss over one Jewish state? It just seems to be always some quarrel with anything jewish. The very fact that Islam is so widespread today is due to expansionism, wars, and imperialism but why is there no opposition to this, but only opposition to one little tiny spec of Jewish land called Israel?
Who did Palestine even belong to before? The Turks?
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Nov 27, 2005 15:05:29 GMT -5
Yeah but the way every modern state was formed is on even more shaky ground. Every historical empire period. Israel is the mildest of them all. Why are there 22 arab countries? Expansionism and Imperialism. But there is no anti-panarabism movement across the college campuses in America is there? Don't you find this a little peculiar? Why all the fuss over one Jewish state? It just seems to be always some quarrel with anything jewish. The very fact that Islam is so widespread today is due to expansionism, wars, and imperialism but why is there no opposition to this, but only opposition to one little tiny spec of Jewish land called Israel? Who did Palestine even belong to before? The Turks? in Israel case, after the British gave Israel, they imported mass foreign Jews to the regions on the bases that it's the promised land for them (with no connection or roots there what so ever). the old inhabitants had to leave to neigbouring (and other) countries. Now they are not even allowed to come back. In the tiny Gaza strip they have ~1.5 million palestinas (highest ppl/land desnity I heared) compared to 5000 israelis only (even that, they had a hard time giving up)... the list goes on...
|
|
|
Post by zathuras on Nov 27, 2005 15:07:46 GMT -5
Yeah but the way every modern state was formed is on even more shaky ground. Every historical empire period. Israel is the mildest of them all. Why are there 22 arab countries? Expansionism and Imperialism. But there is no anti-panarabism movement across the college campuses in America is there? Don't you find this a little peculiar? Why all the fuss over one Jewish state? It just seems to be always some quarrel with anything jewish. The very fact that Islam is so widespread today is due to expansionism, wars, and imperialism but why is there no opposition to this, but only opposition to one little tiny spec of Jewish land called Israel? Who did Palestine even belong to before? The Turks? in Israel case, after the British gave Israel, they imported mass foreign Jews to the regions on the bases that it's the promised land for them (with no connection or roots there what so ever). the old inhabitants had to leave to neigbouring (and other) countries. Now they are not even allowed to come back. In the tiny Gaza strip they have ~1.5 million palestinas (highest ppl/land desnity I heared) compared to 5000 israelis only (even that, they had a hard time giving up)... the list goes on... No connection or roots? Where are they descended from then? Who are their ancestors if not the hebrews? Plus before the British owned palestine, the Turks had it. And there wasn't even a palestinian people back then just like there wasn't an Israeli people.
|
|