Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[amorphos_ii]

What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?

So the labour guy was kicked out of the party, for suggesting that the Israelis feigned weakness before the attack that started this war. I said the same thing but with the term ‘if’ prior to it, hence it was merely a question I felt needed to be asked. We could be heading into a deeper war, so I feel such questions need to be asked. My grandmother was Jewish so I don’t think I am being anti-Semitic! I don’t think it is a good idea for the media and the Jews to be making people feel like they can’t dare say anything that may be seen as anti-Semitic. That just isn’t healthy, and what I mean by that is; IF the Israelis drag us into a potential war by false intent et al, then we would be fighting upon a false premise.

Equally, if around 1,300 people died in the attack on the 7th, that is not the same as 6,000,000 in the holocaust! Again, they should be made to put their facts right.

Another little gripe of mine is; every time the TV news mentions Hamas, they say straight away after, ‘designated as a terrorist organisation’, I mean every time. This may seam innocuous but repetitive language is at best a way of programming our subconsciousness, and at worst, propaganda.

_

[Belindi]

What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?

So the labour guy was kicked out of the party, for suggesting that the Israelis feigned weakness before the attack that started this war. I said the same thing but with the term ‘if’ prior to it, hence it was merely a question I felt needed to be asked. We could be heading into a deeper war, so I feel such questions need to be asked. My grandmother was Jewish so I don’t think I am being anti-Semitic! I don’t think it is a good idea for the media and the Jews to be making people feel like they can’t dare say anything that may be seen as anti-Semitic. That just isn’t healthy, and what I mean by that is; IF the Israelis drag us into a potential war by false intent et al, then we would be fighting upon a false premise.

Equally, if around 1,300 people died in the attack on the 7th, that is not the same as 6,000,000 in the holocaust! Again, they should be made to put their facts right.

Another little gripe of mine is; every time the TV news mentions Hamas, they say straight away after, ‘designated as a terrorist organisation’, I mean every time. This may seam innocuous but repetitive language is at best a way of programming our subconsciousness, and at worst, propaganda.

_

Little children and moribund adults are the only people who may be absolved of the moral responsibility to evaluate the sources of their information.

'anti-Semitic ' has become no more than a political weapon.

[Sy Borg]

What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?

So the labour guy was kicked out of the party, for suggesting that the Israelis feigned weakness before the attack that started this war. I said the same thing but with the term ‘if’ prior to it, hence it was merely a question I felt needed to be asked. We could be heading into a deeper war, so I feel such questions need to be asked. My grandmother was Jewish so I don’t think I am being anti-Semitic! I don’t think it is a good idea for the media and the Jews to be making people feel like they can’t dare say anything that may be seen as anti-Semitic. That just isn’t healthy, and what I mean by that is; IF the Israelis drag us into a potential war by false intent et al, then we would be fighting upon a false premise.

Equally, if around 1,300 people died in the attack on the 7th, that is not the same as 6,000,000 in the holocaust! Again, they should be made to put their facts right.

Another little gripe of mine is; every time the TV news mentions Hamas, they say straight away after, ‘designated as a terrorist organisation’, I mean every time. This may seam innocuous but repetitive language is at best a way of programming our subconsciousness, and at worst, propaganda.

_

Little children and moribund adults are the only people who may be absolved of the moral responsibility to evaluate the sources of their information.

'anti-Semitic ' has become no more than a political weapon.

No.

Anti-Semitism is entrenched in the UN. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgroun ... i-semitism

The United Nations (UN) played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish State by passing UN Resolution 181 in 1947, which called for the partition of British Mandate Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Following Israel's independence in 1948, the Jewish State became an official member-state of the international body.

At the same time, the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel. After decades of bias and marginalization, recent years have brought some positive developments for Israel to the UN.

Nonetheless, the UN's record and culture continue to demonstrate a predisposition against Israel. Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue.

Secretary Ban stated this view publicly during his visit to Israel in August 2013. “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said in response to a question about discrimination against Israel at the UN. “It’s an unfortunate situation,” Ban said, adding that Israel should be treated equal to all the other 192 member states.

In his first public address to a Jewish group, Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the World Jewish Congress in April 2017: “As secretary general of the United Nations I consider that the State of Israel needs to be treated as any other state.” And in August 2017, he stated that calls for Israel’s destruction are a form of modern-day anti-Semitism.

[Good_Egg]

What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?

So the labour guy was kicked out of the party, for suggesting that the Israelis feigned weakness before the attack that started this war.

According to the BBC, it seems that the Labour leadership defended the candidate in question when the fuss was only about what he had said about Israel.

But they turned against him when further comments came to light relating to Jewish people controlling the (UK) media from the shadows.

It's a bit hard to tell exactly what he did say, because reporting of "offensive" behaviour seeks to avoid compounding the "offence" by bringing the "offensive" words to more ears.

And the "offence" may be as much in the words used to express the idea rather than the idea itself.

But it seems that in many circles Israel - a country like any other - can be the subject of critical comment, like any other country.

But conspiracy theories about Jews and Jewishness are a no-no.

To say or imply (for example) that Israel behaves as it does because it is controlled by Jews who as a culture are devious and untrustworthy, is to apply crude stereotypes, which nobody should seriously.

To say that Israel behaves as it does from well-founded paranoia, on the other hand, is to say that anybody might do the same in the circumstances.

[Sculptor1]

There is yet another "HATE MARCH" in London today. People marching for a ceasefire and free Palestine.
But look to see who is organising it? Jews!

Antisemitism used to be a word directed at those tha hate Jews.
Now it is a word used by some Jews for people they do not like.

I am critical of the way Isreal is acting towards Palestinians. That apparently means I am antisemitic. So boohoo I am proud to be antisemitic.
When the whole world except the UK and US (who are making money from supplying arms) are against Israels' actions I know I am on the right track.

**** Starmer, **** Labour.

[Belindi]

What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?

So the labour guy was kicked out of the party, for suggesting that the Israelis feigned weakness before the attack that started this war. I said the same thing but with the term ‘if’ prior to it, hence it was merely a question I felt needed to be asked. We could be heading into a deeper war, so I feel such questions need to be asked. My grandmother was Jewish so I don’t think I am being anti-Semitic! I don’t think it is a good idea for the media and the Jews to be making people feel like they can’t dare say anything that may be seen as anti-Semitic. That just isn’t healthy, and what I mean by that is; IF the Israelis drag us into a potential war by false intent et al, then we would be fighting upon a false premise.

Equally, if around 1,300 people died in the attack on the 7th, that is not the same as 6,000,000 in the holocaust! Again, they should be made to put their facts right.

Another little gripe of mine is; every time the TV news mentions Hamas, they say straight away after, ‘designated as a terrorist organisation’, I mean every time. This may seam innocuous but repetitive language is at best a way of programming our subconsciousness, and at worst, propaganda.

_

Little children and moribund adults are the only people who may be absolved of the moral responsibility to evaluate the sources of their information.

'anti-Semitic ' has become no more than a political weapon.

No.

Anti-Semitism is entrenched in the UN. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgroun ... i-semitism

The United Nations (UN) played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish State by passing UN Resolution 181 in 1947, which called for the partition of British Mandate Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Following Israel's independence in 1948, the Jewish State became an official member-state of the international body.

At the same time, the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel. After decades of bias and marginalization, recent years have brought some positive developments for Israel to the UN.

Nonetheless, the UN's record and culture continue to demonstrate a predisposition against Israel. Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue.

Secretary Ban stated this view publicly during his visit to Israel in August 2013. “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said in response to a question about discrimination against Israel at the UN. “It’s an unfortunate situation,” Ban said, adding that Israel should be treated equal to all the other 192 member states.

In his first public address to a Jewish group, Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the World Jewish Congress in April 2017: “As secretary general of the United Nations I consider that the State of Israel needs to be treated as any other state.” And in August 2017, he stated that calls for Israel’s destruction are a form of modern-day anti-Semitism.

The Netanyahu extreme right nationalist regime is not the nation of Israel.

Israel has no legal right ((let alone no moral right) to do what it is doing to people in Gaza.

Israel- under -the- Netanyahu -regime is de facto more aggressive than any terrorist group.It's incorrect to identify Israel with its present regime , or with Jews and Judaism.

You need to be very wary of your chosen source, Sy Borg. I looked at the link you supplied and saw no affiliation to a good university or other reputable educational establishment.

[Stoppelmann]

Criticism of an apartheid regime led by known racist colonisers who declared their intention decades ago, which agrees with dissident Israeli criticism, cannot be antisemitic. Then, the dissidents would be antisemitic themselves. These criminals have even posted videos of their crimes on the internet, but we have to keep silent? No way!

[Belindi]

Criticism of an apartheid regime led by known racist colonisers who declared their intention decades ago, which agrees with dissident Israeli criticism, cannot be antisemitic. Then, the dissidents would be antisemitic themselves. These criminals have even posted videos of their crimes on the internet, but we have to keep silent? No way!

You need to be more explicit! Are you criticising British colonialism or what?

[Stoppelmann]

Criticism of an apartheid regime led by known racist colonisers who declared their intention decades ago, which agrees with dissident Israeli criticism, cannot be antisemitic. Then, the dissidents would be antisemitic themselves. These criminals have even posted videos of their crimes on the internet, but we have to keep silent? No way!

You need to be more explicit! Are you criticising British colonialism or what?

Does that fit in a thread with such a title?

[Belindi]

Criticism of an apartheid regime led by known racist colonisers who declared their intention decades ago, which agrees with dissident Israeli criticism, cannot be antisemitic. Then, the dissidents would be antisemitic themselves. These criminals have even posted videos of their crimes on the internet, but we have to keep silent? No way!

You need to be more explicit! Are you criticising British colonialism or what?

Does that fit in a thread with such a title?

Colonialism, any colonialism, fits a thread with the title . What you may like to think about proper historiography: it's better to report explicit details than to make grand generalisations.

[Stoppelmann]

Criticism of an apartheid regime led by known racist colonisers who declared their intention decades ago, which agrees with dissident Israeli criticism, cannot be antisemitic. Then, the dissidents would be antisemitic themselves. These criminals have even posted videos of their crimes on the internet, but we have to keep silent? No way!

You need to be more explicit! Are you criticising British colonialism or what?

Does that fit in a thread with such a title?

Colonialism, any colonialism, fits a thread with the title . What you may like to think about proper historiography: it's better to report explicit details than to make grand generalisations.

What has caused this sudden emotional outbreak? I wasn't making "grand generalisations" but talking about antisemitism.

[Sy Borg]

What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?

So the labour guy was kicked out of the party, for suggesting that the Israelis feigned weakness before the attack that started this war. I said the same thing but with the term ‘if’ prior to it, hence it was merely a question I felt needed to be asked. We could be heading into a deeper war, so I feel such questions need to be asked. My grandmother was Jewish so I don’t think I am being anti-Semitic! I don’t think it is a good idea for the media and the Jews to be making people feel like they can’t dare say anything that may be seen as anti-Semitic. That just isn’t healthy, and what I mean by that is; IF the Israelis drag us into a potential war by false intent et al, then we would be fighting upon a false premise.

Equally, if around 1,300 people died in the attack on the 7th, that is not the same as 6,000,000 in the holocaust! Again, they should be made to put their facts right.

Another little gripe of mine is; every time the TV news mentions Hamas, they say straight away after, ‘designated as a terrorist organisation’, I mean every time. This may seam innocuous but repetitive language is at best a way of programming our subconsciousness, and at worst, propaganda.

_

Little children and moribund adults are the only people who may be absolved of the moral responsibility to evaluate the sources of their information.

'anti-Semitic ' has become no more than a political weapon.

No.

Anti-Semitism is entrenched in the UN. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgroun ... i-semitism

The United Nations (UN) played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish State by passing UN Resolution 181 in 1947, which called for the partition of British Mandate Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Following Israel's independence in 1948, the Jewish State became an official member-state of the international body.

At the same time, the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel. After decades of bias and marginalization, recent years have brought some positive developments for Israel to the UN.

Nonetheless, the UN's record and culture continue to demonstrate a predisposition against Israel. Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue.

Secretary Ban stated this view publicly during his visit to Israel in August 2013. “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said in response to a question about discrimination against Israel at the UN. “It’s an unfortunate situation,” Ban said, adding that Israel should be treated equal to all the other 192 member states.

In his first public address to a Jewish group, Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the World Jewish Congress in April 2017: “As secretary general of the United Nations I consider that the State of Israel needs to be treated as any other state.” And in August 2017, he stated that calls for Israel’s destruction are a form of modern-day anti-Semitism.

The Netanyahu extreme right nationalist regime is not the nation of Israel.

Israel has no legal right ((let alone no moral right) to do what it is doing to people in Gaza.

Israel- under -the- Netanyahu -regime is de facto more aggressive than any terrorist group.It's incorrect to identify Israel with its present regime , or with Jews and Judaism.

You need to be very wary of your chosen source, Sy Borg. I looked at the link you supplied and saw no affiliation to a good university or other reputable educational establishment.

Hamas had no legal right to kill over a thousand Israeli civilians and kidnap and torture hundreds of others either.

Netanyahu is less extreme than Hamas, and at least he doesn't sanction throwing gays off buildings. If Hamas had the Israel's means, Israel would have been lets a smoking ruin long ago.

After seeing the extreme anti-Semitic attitudes of Ivy League university leaders, right up there with the obvious anti-Semitism in the UN, the major universities cannot be relied on in any topic that has anything to do with politics. One is left to use one's judgement. I'm old and experienced enough not to need warning about sources.

Are you denying that Secretary Ban Ki-Moon himself acknowledged a problem with anti-Semitism in the UN? They had people celebrating after the Hamas attack. They had people convinced of playing part in the attack. They had many others who were coordinating with Hamas behind the scenes. They have a standing item on Israel but they have no standing item on other nations - not Russia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Central African Republic, South Sudan ...

In fact, the UN's corrupt over-focus on Israel due to its anti-Semitism left the way open for many of these other disaster zones to unfold unchecked. Israel has done plenty wrong, but so has Palestine - and neither is causing as much suffering as some of these other conflicts that are being ignored by those who are supposed to act as watchdogs.

[Stoppelmann]

"...because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination"
Who is surprised?

[Belindi]

Little children and moribund adults are the only people who may be absolved of the moral responsibility to evaluate the sources of their information.

'anti-Semitic ' has become no more than a political weapon.

No.

Anti-Semitism is entrenched in the UN. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgroun ... i-semitism

The United Nations (UN) played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish State by passing UN Resolution 181 in 1947, which called for the partition of British Mandate Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Following Israel's independence in 1948, the Jewish State became an official member-state of the international body.

At the same time, the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel. After decades of bias and marginalization, recent years have brought some positive developments for Israel to the UN.

Nonetheless, the UN's record and culture continue to demonstrate a predisposition against Israel. Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue.

Secretary Ban stated this view publicly during his visit to Israel in August 2013. “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said in response to a question about discrimination against Israel at the UN. “It’s an unfortunate situation,” Ban said, adding that Israel should be treated equal to all the other 192 member states.

In his first public address to a Jewish group, Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the World Jewish Congress in April 2017: “As secretary general of the United Nations I consider that the State of Israel needs to be treated as any other state.” And in August 2017, he stated that calls for Israel’s destruction are a form of modern-day anti-Semitism.

The Netanyahu extreme right nationalist regime is not the nation of Israel.

Israel has no legal right ((let alone no moral right) to do what it is doing to people in Gaza.

Israel- under -the- Netanyahu -regime is de facto more aggressive than any terrorist group.It's incorrect to identify Israel with its present regime , or with Jews and Judaism.

You need to be very wary of your chosen source, Sy Borg. I looked at the link you supplied and saw no affiliation to a good university or other reputable educational establishment.

Hamas had no legal right to kill over a thousand Israeli civilians and kidnap and torture hundreds of others either.

Netanyahu is less extreme than Hamas, and at least he doesn't sanction throwing gays off buildings. If Hamas had the Israel's means, Israel would have been lets a smoking ruin long ago.

After seeing the extreme anti-Semitic attitudes of Ivy League university leaders, right up there with the obvious anti-Semitism in the UN, the major universities cannot be relied on in any topic that has anything to do with politics. One is left to use one's judgement. I'm old and experienced enough not to need warning about sources.

Are you denying that Secretary Ban Ki-Moon himself acknowledged a problem with anti-Semitism in the UN? They had people celebrating after the Hamas attack. They had people convinced of playing part in the attack. They had many others who were coordinating with Hamas behind the scenes. They have a standing item on Israel but they have no standing item on other nations - not Russia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Central African Republic, South Sudan ...

In fact, the UN's corrupt over-focus on Israel due to its anti-Semitism left the way open for many of these other disaster zones to unfold unchecked. Israel has done plenty wrong, but so has Palestine - and neither is causing as much suffering as some of these other conflicts that are being ignored by those who are supposed to act as watchdogs.

Reputable universities are the best repositories of facts. This not the same as claiming any repository of knowledge is infallible.

Naturally I'd rather live in Israel than under Hamas rule , the Israeli culture is so much more like what I have been accustomed to. Like many Israelis I'd prefer that its rulers were not performing illegal or immoral acts .

Revenge is immoral and illegal in civilised societies , and does not constitute a mitigating factor in judging illegal or immoral behaviour by states or citizens.

[Pattern-chaser]

Equally, if around 1,300 people died in the attack on the 7th, that is not the same as 6,000,000 in the holocaust.

Please let's remember that the former was an attack on Israelis, while the latter was an attack on Jews. Thanks.