Antisemitism: Myths and facts

[Cleopatra]

While posting in this forum I discovered, quite surpised at the beginning, a couple of misconceptions regarding the Nature and the History of Antisemitism that seem to be supported in this forum too.

Some of them have been debated and addessed successfully. Some other ideas that I call misconceptions seem to prevail.

For example.

What is Zionism? Is Anti-Zionism a form of antisemitism? Are the Jews to blame for the Holocaust? When did antisemitism appear in History?

I have been thinking about this thread for quite some time now. I decided to post it in the Community Forum because that way more people will have the opportunity to visit it.

The discussion will have some rules.

First you are free to debate any of the ideas that will be presented here.

This thread is not about Middle East, is not about Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat so, the "usual suspects" are kindly requested to avoid such topics :)

I will need somebody to help me watch this thread since I post from a different time-zone. I declare in public that I will ask from davefoc and Unique to keep an eye on this thread and post their opinions of course. If Unique disagrees I will ask demon to help me keep this thread on topic.

Now.

As I mentioned above I have been thinking about this thread for some time now but it was Capel Dodger's posts that pushed me to do it :)

Capel Dodger in a series of posts, claims that Zionism in general and Chaim Weitzman in partucular share the responsibility for the Holocaust.

I found two characteristic posts of his.

This is the first one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1869920596) from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869920596&highlight=Weitzman#post1869920596)

In this post Capel Dodger suggest that the idea that Chaim Weitzman forced the Balfour Declaration by "betraying" the Germans to the Englishmen caused the antisemitic feelings in Germany.Something that declares clearly in his second post

And a more characteristic is thisone, (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870147407) from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27202&perpage=40&highlight=Weitzman&pagenumber=10 Israel and USA)

<span style="background-color: #ffff99">What happened to change that trajectory? And why in Germany and Austria?

Could it have anything to do with Chaim Weitzmann's boasts that he had secured the Balfour Declaration by winning the war for Britain?</span> A claim he made during the war. He claimed that "The Jews" controlled the grain market of Southern Russia and that they could prevent that grain reaching the Germans after the collapse of the Russian Empire. <span style="background-color: #ffff99">It was nonsense, of course, but he was promoting his vision of a Jewish State and the effect such a claim would have - with the invention of the Protocols so recent - meant nothing to him.</span>

And this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870130092), from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27202&perpage=40&highlight=Chaim%20Weitzmann&pagenumber=9)
from Cleon:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Zionism as a philosophy originated in the late 1800s. So no, it wasn't a response to the Holocaust; it was, however, a response to all-too-real European anti-semitism that culminated in the Holocaust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Capel Dodger
As you have probably divined by now, I think the extent and danger of anti-semitism in 19th CE Europe is exaggerated. Consider how old many of the communities destroyed in the Holocaust were. Consider also the extent of political emancipation, and the status of Jews in economics and academia. No doubt there were difficulties in joining certain clubs and such things, but that's snobbery. The idea "He's a Jew so I want to kill him" is of a completely different order. Given the rise of modern science and the undeveloped philosophical reaction to it, eugenics can be realistically regarded as inevitable. Genocide directed so particularly against Jews was not.

quote:

originally posted by Cleon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before Hitler's rise to power, Zionism was a tiny movement within the Jewish community
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by Capel Dodger
<span style="background-color: #ffff99">Nationalist Zionism was also condemned, not just rejected, by many because they felt it created a danger for Jews - and I agree with them.</span>


This accusation is a serious one and it can't be left just like that in an educational forum.

So, I think that before anybody posts, I must invite CD to add further comments or elaborate on his view, if he wishes.

If he doesn't respond in a couple of days, I will post my reply.

[Luciana]

What, in your opinion, fuels antisemitism nowadays? I understand there are issues dating back many centuries. There's also the Middle East. But are those the real issues behind it, and how much weight do they have?

Actually, I didn't know that modern-day antisemitism existed until I reached college. I had studied about the Holocaust. I knew there were jokes about Jews. But I never knew that antisemitism was alive and kicking in our societies. I was very surprised, the thought of it hadn't occured to me.

[UnrepentantSinner]

As I explained in my Antisemitism thread in P, CE & H, I just don't get how it could still exist (apart from the obvious political reasons). It just seems so midievel. In todays Dallas Morning News the front page carried a story about hate vandalism that occured here a month ago. Some a***** wrote "DIE JEW DIE" (which I also believe I mentioned in the other thread) on a guy's car. Apart from being terminally uncreative, I can't believe that such Europe c1550 attitudes remain today.

In a world of Sylvia Brownes and homeopathy it shouldn't surpise me, but it does.

[Dancing David]

I had never heard that Zionism produced the Holocaust, not a very well thought out idea. The Holocaust, which alos killed seven million who were of religions other than jewish, was caused by the nationalism of Hitler and some wierd quirk in world history.

The gypsies were almost exterminated in the areas of the nazis, gays, protetstants, masons, communists and all sorts of people ran afoul of Hitler/Himmler/Goebel's plan. It is very sad that they focused so much of thier hatred on so many, and especialy upon the jewish people.

I think that the major player in this event was denial, denial that Hitler would actualy do what he set out to do, thes econd major player was a quirk of history:the German people felt they really got a raw deal out of WW I and this was turned against the jews and others in the holocaust. Third: the role of autocracy in Germany.

The roots of anti semitism, I couldn't say, here in the US there is so much prejudice against so many people that I couldn't even begin to plumb that deep, I think that it has to do with certain cultures (I am not saying solely Xianity) who have a need to feel that they are the only path to salvation. In thesse cultures there are many strange power differentials, men dominate the animal kingdom, adults dominate children, men dominate the women, every one dominates the powerless. In a culture that says one particular type of human is the only one worthy of consideration and that animals are soul-less creatures, it is then very easy to take the step of saying that only certain humans are humans and you can treat the rest like animals.

I am ashamed to think that there are people who might blame the jews and others who dies in the Holocaust for the Holocaust. Very sad.

The main reason for anti-semitism is bound to be economics.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that the major player in this event was denial, denial that Hitler would actualy do what he set out to do, thes econd major player was a quirk of history:the German people felt they really got a raw deal out of WW I and this was turned against the jews and others in the holocaust. Third: the role of autocracy in Germany.

The main reason for anti-semitism is bound to be economics.

Well, 'economics'? I guess you mean the whole money-lender thang?

I think it needs to be pointed out that because Jews were seen as Christ-killers by medieval xians, they were banned from doing pretty much everything except money-lending and usuary. This of course resulted in more resentment and hatred and led to Jews being obliged to live in isolated communities seperate from the rest of society. You can easily see how this becomes a vicious cycle........ also on economics, Jews have been very succesfull and I can only speculate as to why this is, but success engenders resentment and jealousy, particularly amongst the lazy and ignorant.............

Hitlers obsession with anti-semetism originated in the age-old European tradition but soon became more rabid. The allies made a huge mistake by allowing the German army of WWI to return to Germany marching as formed units. This gave rise to the myth that the German army was unbeaten on the field of battle but was 'Stabbed in the Back' by mysterious and malicious forces. Now all we need is a convienient scapegoat to blame for the back-stabbing and it escalates from there..........

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Well, 'economics'? I guess you mean the whole money-lender thang?



Sadly, I don't think the Jews can escape (undeserved) criticism - they are historically the scapegoat-of-choice, and it appears old habits die hard. If I may quote Julie Burchill:

Jews have been blamed for everything we might disapprove of: They can be rabid revolutionaries, responsible for the might of the late Soviet empire, and the greediest of fat cats, enslaving the planet to the demands of international high finance.

They are insular, cliquey and clannish, yet they worm their way into the highest positions of power in their adopted countries, changing their names and marrying Gentile women. They collectively possess a huge, slippery wealth that knows no boundaries - yet Israel is said to be an impoverished, lame-duck state, bleeding the west dry.

Sadly, she's dead right. For some people, Jews are there to be blamed. And it's always been like that, so they must be onto something, right?

As for the idea that Zionism triggered the Holocaust, well, words fail. As David points out, the large number of people of other religions who went to the concentration camps gives the lie to that. But it all falls into the same pattern. Everything bad that has happened in history has been the fault of the Jews, so logically the Holocaust - one of the worst things ever to happen in human history - must be the fault of the Jews as well.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Hitlers obsession with anti-semetism originated in the age-old European tradition but soon became more rabid. The allies made a huge mistake by allowing the German army of WWI to return to Germany marching as formed units. This gave rise to the myth that the German army was unbeaten on the field of battle but was 'Stabbed in the Back' by mysterious and malicious forces. Now all we need is a convienient scapegoat to blame for the back-stabbing and it escalates from there..........I think Hitler just needed something to unite the German people, and a common, identifiable enemy was what he needed. The Jewish people were just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as they say. A lot of them were doing quite well financially, while the German economy was in a slump. They simply were the perfect scapegoat.

Today, many people are blaming the problems of their countries economy on new enemies, "the immigrants", who steal their minimum wage, sh*tty, slave labor jobs, which they don't want anyway, but hey, it's causing their unemployment check to shrink.

Hitler just played the people, offered them a bright, sunny future, and someone to blame for all that was wrong with the world. He showed the people the easy way out, and the people bought it. He might as well have blamed Al'Qaida, but that's a different president and a different can of worms ...

[Cleopatra]

I wouldn't like we start discussing at least for now what cuases modern antisemitism.

First things first.

We will have to resolve the matters in a chronological order :)


David this is the reason why I asked we wait for Capel Dodger to clarify his position before we proceed :)
Although his posts talk on their own, I think we must wait for his to add or to clarify things.

I won't reply to his posts before he has something to add.

In the mean time and in order to follow more or less a chronological order to the discussion I offer the first terms to debate.

Zionism and Antizionism.

[Cleopatra]

I will try to show why using the term Zionism in a derogatory manner is a form of prejudice against a whole Nation and what the term antizionism really means.

Debate :)

Zionism

The word Zionism derives from the word Zion. Zion is a section of the city of Jerusalem. We can find an early recording of the word in the Bible where is used to describe the City of David. Later on it was used to describe the Hill where the Temple stood. For the Jewish people around the world, Zion symbolised Jerusalem, the promised Land and the hope of Isrealites to return to this land, the land of Palestine.

Political Zionism was officialy introduced by a Viennese journalist, Theodor Hertzl who in 1885 wrote a pamphlet that became famous "The Jewish State" with which he launced the idea that the solution to the Diaspora of Jews and to the antisemitism was the formation of a Jewish nation. Hertzl didn't wake-up a day and decided that it was time for Jews to have a State of their own. With the identity of the journalist he was sent in Paris to cover the "Dreyfus Affair" where he confronted the fierce antisemitism of the Europeans and he realized that the assimilation of the Jews in the western societies was impossible and the only solution was a national Jewish state. The first Zionist congress took place in Basel in 1887.

The political movement of Zionism had many advenures; the first issue that split the movement was whether the land of Palestine was a prerequisite for the establishment of a Jewish State. The 1905 Zionist Congress (and not the 1903 congress as various sites mention) decided ( it was a majority decision) to turn down the British offer to establish a Jewish State in Uganda and go for the whole of the pie in Palestine.

Political Zionism faced the opposition mainly from the Orthodox Jews who believed that the land of Israel would be given to its legitimate owners the Jews, by Devine Intervention...

Also, I have to mention for the record that interestingly United Nations with the Resolution 3379 (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unga3379.html) ) were involved in the issue in 1975 by declaring that Zionism is a form of Racism. This is another example that verifies my theory that every time the Arabs lobbied had only successes to count. This resolution was called back only in 1991( United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unga46_86.html) another proof that the ideas about the Jewish lobbies that dominate the world are bubbles).

Today one could say that the term Zionism is used by the critics of Israel in a rather wrong way. Israel is established and Zionism means nothing but the efforts of the people of Israel to maintain their country. Israelis do not describe themselves as Zionists because it would be ridiculous.

So, I'd like to have a proof that the term Zionism means something else from its original form otherwise those who use the term in a derogatory way should stop doing it.

Having said all that I believe that antizionism shows nothing but an opposition to the idea that the citizens of Israel deserve to have a state of their own and therefore it expresses the most fierce hostility towards a whole nation that exists in our days.

[LuxFerum]

Are you sure about those resolution numbers??
I'm searching here (http://www.un.org/documents/index.html), but I didn't find it.

[Cleopatra]

Yes I am. You need to have an ID passport to the UN's site to access this material.

If you are interested in reading them, I can trace them in the Jewish Virtual Library that has the whole text of both resolutions along with the official Israeli answer to the first one.

[LuxFerum]

Yes, I am. :)

[Some Friggin Guy]

Living, as I do, in the US, I can't begin tounderstand the reasons behind anti-semitism elsewhere in the world. Where I grew up in Boston, I didn't witness much of it. In fact, there were towns around Boston which were so...I can't think of a better term and Jew-friendly sounds awful...that their town and city governments took Jewish holidays off as well as christian ones (though you didn't get both. They based it off your professed religion and if you were atheist, you picked which set you took).

When I moved to Canada, my next-door neighbour was a rabid anti-semite who said many times "Hitler failed because there are Jews left". The man sickened me.

Now I live in Nashville. I haven't witnessed a great deal of blatant antisemitism, but it is there subtly. There are those here (and less of a minority than you might think) who still call them "Christ-killers" and blame them for many things, but I haven't run across any open hostility towards them.

Personally, I've never had a problem with Jews. The ones I've know are all wonderfully friendly people. None of them have ever tried to force their beliefs on me, but if I've been curious, they've always given me an answer. I've known Jews who are both wealthy and those who barely get by.

So, basically, I know I haven't shed any light on the reasons for anti-semitism. I haven't because I just don't get it. It's never made sense to me.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
Yes, I am. :)


Ok I attached the links in my post. Although Virtual Jewish Library is a well-documented source that avoids extravaganzas, just for psychological reasons I avoid to use it :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Capel Dodger in a series of posts, claims that Zionism in general and Chaim Weitzman in partucular share the responsibility for the Holocaust.

I found two characteristic posts of his.

This is the first one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1869920596) from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869920596&highlight=Weitzman#post1869920596)

And a more characteristic is thisone, (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870147407) from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27202&perpage=40&highlight=Weitzman&pagenumber=10 Israel and USA)

Could you quote the particular passages in which Capel Dodger makes these claims please? I've had a couple of scans and can't find them. Thanks!

[Chaos]

From what I have heard so far, and from what Cleopatra said, I get the impression that Zionism was, in a way, a "self-defense" movement for jews.
Whereever they moved, they were among people who did not like them, and periodically, they became victims of pogroms of some sort.
As a result of that, the Zionism movement decided jews needed a nation for themselves where they are free from oppresion and persecution; their ancient homeland, Palestine, was the logical choice for that.

I do not know enough about how Israel was formed, especially how the Arab inhabitants of Palestine were treated, to judge that - the sources on this, especially in this forum, are extremely contradictory.

[Cleopatra]

Billy

Did you try to click on the links? I linked the posts and the threads for those who wish to read his posts in context. Let me know. I checked several times, I checked again and they work fine for me. Please let me know :)

Chaos there are at least 10 threads in which one can enjoy the debate about the way Israel was founded!

If you check the thread from which the first post of CD comes you will have a good introduction. That was a very good discussion because a couple of Syrians participated in it too :)

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, I have to mention for the record that interestingly United Nations with the Resolution 3379 (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unga3379.html) ) were involved in the issue in 1975 by declaring that Zionism is a form of Racism. This is another example that verifies my theory that every time the Arabs lobbied had only successes to count. This resolution was called back only in 1991( United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unga46_86.html) another proof that the ideas about the Jewish lobbies that dominate the world are bubbles).


That was a resolution about the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. It is quite hard not to associate zionism to racial discrimination, when it aid the apartheid regime in South Africa.

As in this quote from resolution3151 from 14 of december 1973 (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/28/ares28.htm) page 4
Emphasizing the collusion between Portuguese colonialism, the apartheid regime and zionism, as exemplified by the political, military and financial aid supplied to each other by Portugal, South Africa and Israel
.....
4 Condemns the actions of those States and companies which continue to provide to the Sout African regime military equipment and supplies, and assistance for the local manufacture of such equipment and suplies, or other forms of military co-operation in violation of the resolution of the General Assembly and the Security Council:
5. Condemns, in particular, the unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, South African racism, zionism and Israeli imperialism

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by exarch
Today, many people are blaming the problems of their countries economy on new enemies, "the immigrants", who steal their minimum wage, sh*tty, slave labor jobs, which they don't want anyway, but hey, it's causing their unemployment check to shrink.

I wish I could find it (and if I get chance I'll do a better search), but there was an interesting article in the Guardian some months back which compared the anti-refugee discourse used in the contemporary media with that used by pretty much the same newspapers about Jewish refugees in the run-up to the Second World War, and the similarities were... striking.

Anyway, back on topic; here's an editorial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1095694,00.html) from this weekend's Guardian by Emanuele Ottolenghi (the Leone Ginzburg Fellow in Israel Studies at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford) which equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I'm not too convinced by the way his analysis makes a number of unsupported assumptions—for instance, the equating of anti-Semitic essentialism as the heart of anti-Zionism; that anti-Zionism denies the right of self-determination to Jews; that comparisons with Nazism is holocaust denial and "retroactive justification" for it, amongst others—but it makes for interesting reading. Here's a sample quote:
The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Billy

Did you try to click on the links? I linked the posts and the threads for those who wish to read his posts in context. Let me know. I checked several times, I checked again and they work fine for me. Please let me know :)
The links worked fine for me, thank you! Like I said, I scanned (possible colloquialism? = speed read) the two posts a couple of times but couldn't see anything which explicitly supported your claim of its intent. That's why I asked if you could quote the specific passages which related to that. ALl I got was a brief political and historical context to Zionism, but I'll have a more careful read over lunch.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
It is quite hard not to associate zionism to racial discrimination, when it aid the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Where do your quotes show that Zionism supported the apartheid regime in South Africa? Is everything the Israeli government does Zionism? In which case, collecting taxes and building roads are forms of Zionism.

[headscratcher4]

Cleo:

Correct me if this is wrong...however, the "zionism" of Hertzel wasn't all that different from other "nationalist" movements in Europe emerging during the same period.

The atmosphere in Vienna, and in many European captiols of the time, was that various nationalities/peoples should have their own state, that the system of European Empire and family dynasties was not only out-dated but unnatural. FOr example, the Hungarians had developed a very profound sepratist movement within the Hapsburg Empire. Germany was emerging as a "united" Empire and creating a German nationalism that would eventually give birth to Hitlerism and Nazism. In Italy, the country had just been united as an "Italian" state. The Irish Indipendence movement was picking up steam. Countries like Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. had either just emerged or were emerging from the demise of the Ottoman Empire, and trying to create indipendent countries rather than be swallowed up by one or another of the large empires.

Also, across the globe, anti-colonial movements were just beginning in a number of places.

My point is that Hertzel, and his "zionist" movement, was not particularly unique...save that "jews" (per se) did not have a historical "homeland" in Europe -- not unlike the Gypsies (another dispised and belittled people).

Now, this is where I may be completely mistaken, but it has always seemed to me that "zionism" is a completely understandable political/nationalist philosophy that comes out of a very European context. Indeed, Israel today is a very European nation...not really a middle Eastern nation. Its history, ethics, governing principals, etc. -- even its views of Judism and its role/place in the world -- come out of a historical European nationalist tradition.

I say this, in contrast, the the governing ethic of, for example, the US. By this I mean, we here have the myth of democracy, or melting pot, etc. People come here to merge, to become equal, to find their "rights" by becoming this amalgamated indivicual that is defined as an "American". In the Erupoean concept...not an indivicualistic, but a popular ideal ...one only could become "free" if the people were free to be German, Italian, Serbian, Hungarian, Jew, etc. I.e. "freedom" from opression could only be garunteed by the power of the "nation" rather than by the power of individuals. Rights were confered by the "nation" rather than by the people on themselves, etc.

Just thinking out loud here....

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by JamesM
Is everything the Israeli government does Zionism? In which case, collecting taxes and building roads are forms of Zionism.
It is a matter of association, Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
Zionism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Zionism)

And when Israel, support the apartheid regime in South Africa, it is not hard to associate South africa with Israel, apartheid as the south africa policy, and Zionism as Israel policy.

I'm not saying that zionism=racism, but it is the same thing when Bush say he will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who support terrorism. You simply can't support racial discrimination, and not get the stigma of it.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
And when Israel, support the apartheid regime in South Africa, it is not hard to associate South africa with Israel, apartheid as the south africa policy, and Zionism as Israel policy.
Not hard. But wrong.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by JamesM
Not hard. But wrong.
That is easy to say today, when we know how history developed.
Not 28 years ago.

[Cleopatra]

Lux

The 3379 Resolution didn't come as a result of the diplomatic relations between South Africa and Israel. The "accusation" was against of the notion that Israel is a Jewish State, that descriminates its citizens on the basis of religion.

I remind you though that this is not a thread about Israel.

I mentioned the resolutions in order to be honest and fair in my short historical account of the term Zionism. Israel isn't our issue in this thread.

More later.

[Cleopatra]

I forgot to mention that I am terribly glad that davefoc agreed to give me a hand in keeping this thread on topic.

Thanks davefoc! :)

[Luciana]

Lux: If it's true that Israel supported the apartheid at South Africa, then we must agree that many other countries did the same, including Brazil. Actually, Brazil remained claiming that the apartheid was a domestic issue even when the international community was willing to take more extreme measures. The reason being that South Africa responded for more than 90% of the African commerce with Brazil, and the policy being that no ideology, of any kind, should interfere with our international trade because, when you are poor, development must be the priority. This position was even more shameful because Brazil prouded itself of being a racial democracy. Of course the situation was entirely different, as it's now generally believed that human rights are above any other interest.

All that to say that I don't think that's one of the reasons of modern-day anti-semitism.

[LuxFerum]

Yes, you are right, but I would like to remember that brazil was under military dictatorship, and would help anyone that approve the use of force in political issues like brazil did.

I know that is not one of the reasons of modern-day anti-semitism, I just wanted to say that the declaration of zionism as a racist ideology wasn't that unfair. Not corretly, but not completely incorrectly either.

[headscratcher4]

Luciana: not to get too far off topic, but wasn't Brazil a military dictatorship at the time?

A better example might be the democratic United States which tacitly and explicitly supported South Africa (and therefor its racist system) for many, many years.

Is US democracy inheintly racist? I suppose that is arguable...depending on how Marxist you are. Slearly, there are racists in the US, and there is a racist history here.

Was the US wrong? Clearly. Democratic countries make mistakes...tis the nature of the beast.

My only point is that in "realpolitics" nations sometimes make bad policy choices...supporting dictators, racist regimes, etc. Those choices may suggest certain bias, but they may not necessarilly be "racist" in the sense that those who condemn Israel and zionism mean it.

What I would like someone to explain...why is "zionism" racist (or any more racist) as opposed to the pan-Arabism expounded on by people like Nasar, Assad or Khadafi? Both philosophies, it seems to me, emerge out of oppression, colonialism, nationalism, etc.

Indeed, the Palestinian movement isn't one of embracing democracy...no one in the Palistinian camp is saying: "we welcome Jews, they will be full participating citizens in a pan-arabist/or palistinian state." How is the Palistinian movement less "racist," "nationalistic" or democratic than "zionism"?

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Capel Dodger in a series of posts, claims that Zionism in general and Chaim Weitzman in partucular share the responsibility for the Holocaust.

I found two characteristic posts of his.

This is the first one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1869920596) from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869920596&highlight=Weitzman#post1869920596)

And a more characteristic is thisone, (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870147407) from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27202&perpage=40&highlight=Weitzman&pagenumber=10 Israel and USA)

This accusation is a serious one and it can't be left just like that in an educational forum.

Oh beautiful Mediterranean flower, I must confess: I can not find the passages you refer to in the Capel One's listed postings. Could you please give us a quote, or direct us hither to the correct postings?

EDITED (since a mod moved the thread, my question about sub-fora is now redundant)

Also, I'm almost out of coffee. To the coffee decantur!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Is US democracy inheintly racist? I suppose that is arguable...depending on how Marxist you are.
Unfair provocation. Cleopatra has requested people stay on topic here.

[...]

What I would like someone to explain...why is "zionism" racist (or any more racist) as opposed to the pan-Arabism expounded on by people like Nasar, Assad or Khadafi? Both philosophies, it seems to me, emerge out of oppression, colonialism, nationalism, etc.
Imo the measure is the extent to which these movements are exclusive or inclusive, but I admit I don't have sufficient knowledge of zionism or pan-arabism to make that judgement.

Indeed, the Palestinian movement isn't one of embracing democracy...no one in the Palistinian camp is saying: "we welcome Jews, they will be full participating citizens in a pan-arabist/or palistinian state." [...]
Really? No-one at all? Can you support this claim, please?

[headscratcher4]

Really? No-one at all? Can you support this claim, please?

Touche...the rhetoric got a little ahead of provable facts...though I woud stand by my assertion, adding from what one sees and reads, generally, the Palestinian movement is an "nationalist" arab movement, and not an embracing, multi-ethnic, melting pot democratic movement...I can be proven wrong on this.

As to my point about America as racist, I was merely attempting to suggest that equating "zionism" with racism, for example, based upon support for the old South African regime, is not very convincing. Many countries...as noted, and including the US...worked with and supported that regime. They, too, maybe racist, but that charge against "zionism" based on that example, to me, seems to be weak and not really provable...again, I can be shown to be wrong....

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Touche...the rhetoric got a little ahead of provable facts...though I woud stand by my assertion, adding from what one sees and reads, generally, the Palestinian movement is an "nationalist" arab movement, and not an embracing, multi-ethnic, melting pot democratic movement...I can be proven wrong on this.

As to my point about America as racist, I was merely attempting to suggest that equating "zionism" with racism, for example, based upon support for the old South African regime, is not very convincing. Many countries...as noted, and including the US...worked with and supported that regime. They, too, maybe racist, but that charge against "zionism" based on that example, to me, seems to be weak and not really provable...again, I can be shown to be wrong....

I guess my other point, if I have one, is that many who would cite Israel's support for the old South African regime as proof of the "racism" in zionism, may -- for example in extolling the Palistinian cause -- be embracing of ideologies that are as "racist" as they accuse "zionism" of being...this is not to "exculpate" zionism from the charge of "racism", it is merely to suggest that a Arab nationalist complaining about the "racism" of zionism, may be somewhat blind or inconsistent in what they are mad about....

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JamesM
Where do your quotes show that Zionism supported the apartheid regime in South Africa? Is everything the Israeli government does Zionism? In which case, collecting taxes and building roads are forms of Zionism.
Well, in that the state of Israel is a product of Zionism (this is uncontested, yes?) and taxes and roads support that state, then it could be argued that these activities are Zionist, but that doesn't necessarily imply these activities are exclusively Zionist in nature; kind of in the way that redness can be a quality of apples, but is not exclusively a quality of apples.

But I'd have to pull my skeptic hat down over my eyes and ask what evidence is there that Israel's association with apartheid South Africa was the result of Zionism and not say, the political expediency of the Israeli government of the day?

Btw, apologies Cleopatra, but I believe this is most relevant to the question of whether anti-zionism is a form of anti-semitism; how can we evaluate this statement if we don't address the claims that anti-zionism makes?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Touche...the rhetoric got a little ahead of provable facts...though I woud stand by my assertion, adding from what one sees and reads, generally, the Palestinian movement is an "nationalist" arab movement, and not an embracing, multi-ethnic, melting pot democratic movement...I can be proven wrong on this.


Well, that's both true and false at the same time. (Don't you love politics? <g>) True, primarily the Palestinian movement is a nationalist movement. As such, though, it's neither democratic nor anti-democratic; it involves people with a wide range of views, from Marxists to Islamists to proponents of Western-style democracy.

HOWEVER. it should be noted that those who call for the expulsion of Jews (even from just the occupied territories) are very, very few and far between. Even the Islamic radicals like Hamas don't mind if Jews stay in Palestine as long as they live under Islamic law.

I would say that the vast majority of Palestinians--even those who have some sympathies for Hamas--ultimately agree with the PLO's original goal of a democratic, secular state where everyone can live together in peace. Of course, some on this board see this as clear evidence of anti-semitism. :P


As to my point about America as racist, I was merely attempting to suggest that equating "zionism" with racism, for example, based upon support for the old South African regime, is not very convincing. Many countries...as noted, and including the US...worked with and supported that regime. They, too, maybe racist, but that charge against "zionism" based on that example, to me, seems to be weak and not really provable...again, I can be shown to be wrong....

I would agree that the US, Israel, and other countries colluded with apartheid South Africa out of economic or political self-interest, and sympathies for apartheid probably weren't high on the list of reasons to do so. Countries act out of self-interest first, political ideology a distant second. Israel's (extremely profitable) economic relations with the diamond industry easily outweighed any ideological considerations.

Of course, even if Israel did back SA out of sympathy with apartheid, this says nothing about zionism; zionism is a political ideology with its own varients, and undoubtedly its more liberal adherents (like, for example, my parents) would claim that Israel's actions were incompatible with the philosophy. Much the same way libertarians claim that the drug war is incompatible with individual liberties (but still are pro-US), or the way some Marxists would claim that the USSR wasn't truly communist (but still back it against the US). The nice thing about ideologies is that they can be malleable. :)

[Luciana]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Luciana: not to get too far off topic, but wasn't Brazil a military dictatorship at the time?

A better example might be the democratic United States which tacitly and explicitly supported South Africa (and therefor its racist system) for many, many years.

I'll check my references at home. I'm not sure that's the case. But even if Brazil were a military dictatorship it's unexcusable, because some of the top military officers were mixed themselves, and because since the 1930s society prides itself in being a racial democracy. Not quite true either, but let's not derail the thread even more.

Just to thicken the plot, and go back to the plot - I've heard from the local Jewish community that Brazil is an example that Jews and Arabs can get along just fine, considering that was never an episode of hate between the two communities. Sure, the Jews are always under the attack of neonazis, but these are white spoiled middle-class boys. Not Arabs. Actually, it's legendary the number or commercial establishments run jointly by Arabs and Jews, affectionately called Isaac&Habibs.

[Cleopatra]

Billy

I do not object to discuss whether antizionism is a form of racism although in my second, longer post I chose my words carefully to avoid such a notion.

I presented a short account on how the movement started and what the word zionism defines.

In my opinion Zionism ended by the moment Israel was established and it survives only in an "anti" context something that it is wrong.

I do not wish the discussion to turn to Israel. If you want to discuss about Israel you can use one of the numerous active threads or start another one of your own.

Discussions about Israel and Middle East are very predictable, here we will attempt to discuss something else.

Having said all the above you may discuss what you wish without forgetting the frame I set for the discussion.

I repeat that the only reason I mentioned the two UN resolutions is that I didn't want to hide anything from the history of the movement. I did not want to start discussing about South Africa , Brazil or the Terra Fuego.

The issue is not existent anymore, anyway :)


Thanks

First I have to quote Capel Dodger's post and then reply to the posts above :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Cleo:

Correct me if this is wrong...however, the "zionism" of Hertzel wasn't all that different from other "nationalist" movements in Europe emerging during the same period.



edited to add: I have edited my post above in order to include a quote from CD's posts


*snipped for economy*

headscratcher

Hertzel's Zionism was indeed inspired by the nationalists movement of his Era but what distinguishes Zionism ( and here hides another serious disagreement I have with Capel Dodger ) is what caused it.

Judaism is a Religion and Jews are the followers of this Religion. Jews are not a Nation. It was the Antisemitic theories of that era that formed this idea. Those theories date back to 19th century when Religious antisemitism gave its place to the idea that Jews constitute an "nation" that plots against the societies that lives in.

Jews have been living in the margin of the European societies for centuries and when the discussion for the emancipation of the various ethnic groups started, then the question about the Jewish Problem appearead again. Jews realized that in the new nations they would have to occupy the margins again and responding to that danger Hertzl realized that the only way for Jews to avoid that was to be gathered in a country of their own.

So, I agree with Chaos , Zionism was just a reaction to procecutions that lasted for centuries.

[Cleopatra]

Given the opportunity, let me note a couple of things.( aka, let me lecture :D )

Although the term " Antisemitism" is relatively new the hatred against the Jews dates back to Antiquity.

The work of the Roman historian Tacitus and the work of the famous historian Flavius Joseph are our sources about a famous "antisemitic" libel of Antiquity composed by Apion of Alexandria and was published under the title “Egyptian History’ where he sketches the first portrait of the “Evil Jew” that will prevail until the first half of the 20th ce. “ . Poor Flavious Joseph attempted to refute Apion’s ideas by composing a two-volumed book under the title : "Against Appion" but unfortuantely his book was ignored and forgot.

The main characteristics of the “Evil Jew” during antiquity were the following:

1.Jews didn’t worship the usual Gods and this is the reason why Gods were getting mad at them but they were punishing the whole of the society.
2. In his "Symposium"(which is a lovely book BTW those who love food will love it) Plutarch states that the Jewish God was nothing but a pig. Jews worship a pig.
3. Jews were lazy, this is the reason why they didn’t work on Sabbath
4. Jews followed the Law of Moses and not only they ignored but they tried to undermine the Laws of the City-States they lived in (a belief that will prevail until the 20th ce…)
5. Jews had strange customes.
6. Jews were antisocial.
7. Jews were circumsizing the male boys in order to avoid assimilation.
8. Jews were sacrificing human beings in their temple in Jerusalem.

More or less these were the common accusations against the Jews in Antiquity. One would add that at least in Antiquity none ever implied that Jews were not humans as Hitler did probably because traitors like Weitzmann disgusted him…

Ha! Don’t be so sure.

In one of the most well-know ancient novels "The Life of Appolonius of Tyana" the author Philostratus makes exactly this claim for the first time in History that Jews are not humans: Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 5.33.

"For the Jews have long been in revolt [...] against humanity; and a race that has made its own a life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind in the pleasures of the table nor join in their libations or prayers or sacrifices, are separated from ourselves by a greater gulf than divides us from Susa or Bactra or the more distant Indies.
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 5.33; "

"Impressive", right? :)

[Dancing David]

Um, when I said economics i meant that by having pogroms people sieze property and possesions.

this is the real reason for the Americam internment of the Nippon-ese in WWII and the real reason for the deportation of mexican americans during the depression.

I am torn Cleopatra:

My realpolotik says that israel exists and therefore is a force to be reconned with, it also says that the palestinians are having thier political right denied.

I owuld say that I am anti zionist but it would be a moot point because of the fact that the state of Israel already exists.

Sorry I am not trying to derail the thread but I do feel that one can not support the establishement of a theocratic democracy and still not be prejudiced.

I feel that the USA made a huge mistake in turning away the jewish refugees in the 20s, 30s and 40s. The number of jewish people would have added to our culture the same way that all the other germans who emigrated during that time period did.

It is truely sad that our countries refusal to allow emigration led to the Holocaust.

[Luciana]

Sorry, Cleo! I'll post my answer in grey so that you don't see it! :D


Originally posted by headscratcher4
Luciana: not to get too far off topic, but wasn't Brazil a military dictatorship at the time?

No, it wasn't. In 1952, when Brazil voted in the UN defending the position that apartheid was a domestic issue only, we were under a democratic regime, and more, very proud of it. This stance was maintained until 1973 - and up to 1964 we were under a democracy. Also, until 1973, Brazil also supported colonialism in Africa - all the more shameful because we were once a colony too

*** running from the crocs here, later! ***

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Sorry, Cleo! I'll post my answer in grey so that you don't see it! :D




No, it wasn't. In 1952, when Brazil voted in the UN defending the position that apartheid was a domestic issue only, we were under a democratic regime, and more, very proud of it. This stance was maintained until 1973 - and up to 1964 we were under a democracy. Also, until 1973, Brazil also supported colonialism in Africa - all the more shameful because we were once a colony too

*** running from the crocs here, later! ***

And the purpose of posting in grey is?

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Supercharts
And the purpose of posting in grey is?

Thank you for exposing my hijacking for what it was. :p

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
HOWEVER. it should be noted that those who call for the expulsion of Jews (even from just the occupied territories) are very, very few and far between. Even the Islamic radicals like Hamas don't mind if Jews stay in Palestine as long as they live under Islamic law.


I haven't run across anything like that in my reading. Can you suggest a source for that?

Also, what does it mean for a non-Muslim to live under Islamic law?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Billy

I do not object to discuss whether antizionism is a form of racism although in my second, longer post I chose my words carefully to avoid such a notion.
Just to clarify; I was responding to Lux's claim that zionism is racist; which seems most relevant to the discussion of whether anti-zionism is anti-Semitic, in an "are anti-zionist claims supportable?" kind of way.

[...]

I do not wish the discussion to turn to Israel. If you want to discuss about Israel you can use one of the numerous active threads or start another one of your own.

Discussions about Israel and Middle East are very predictable, here we will attempt to discuss something else.
I agree, which is why I rarely participate in these kinds of threads, but chose to participate in this one.

Having said all the above you may discuss what you wish without forgetting the frame I set for the discussion.
Again, I agree; you might wish to correct me on this, but I don't see this as exclusive, only that any claims introduced should be kept relevant to the topic at hand, and not allowed to descend into the style of debate typical of many other Israeli-related discussions.


[...]
I repeat that the only reason I mentioned the two UN resolutions is that I didn't want to hide anything from the history of the movement. I did not want to start discussing about South Africa , Brazil or the Terra Fuego.
As I said, I was responding (via JamesM) to LuxFerum's claims, not to the resolutions you cited (I believe that was to support a different claim, that the UN is [apparently] anti-Semitic?).

The issue is not existent anymore, anyway :)


Thanks

First I have to quote Capel Dodger's post and then reply to the posts above :)
Thanks; I'll look forward to it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
As I explained in my Antisemitism thread in P, CE & H, I just don't get how it could still exist (apart from the obvious political reasons). It just seems so midievel. In todays Dallas Morning News the front page carried a story about hate vandalism that occured here a month ago. Some a***** wrote "DIE JEW DIE" (which I also believe I mentioned in the other thread) on a guy's car. Apart from being terminally uncreative, I can't believe that such Europe c1550 attitudes remain today.

In a world of Sylvia Brownes and homeopathy it shouldn't surpise me, but it does.

One could say the same about Hammy and his hatred of blacks. Such things are unfortunate, but I cannot see them changing in the forseeable future. For some reason, people seem to need some group to blame for everything that goes wrong in their lives.

Why are the Jews singled out amongst other groups so consistently? Historical reasons, I guess. This does not make it right, but some group has to be at the bottom of the pile of groups that get a hard time for no known rational reason. Don't forget, however, that other groups have suffered worse. We don't know that much about many of them, because they have disappeared from history. England, for example, has seen many invasions that have eliminated whole cultures.

Does that mean I just think that they are a bunch poor bastards?No, they don't deserve it. Hopefully things will change.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I haven't run across anything like that in my reading. Can you suggest a source for that?


Sure, the Hamas charter (available, the fine piece of literature that it is, at
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm).

It includes this statement:


Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.


It also comes from my many conversations with Islamists; working in the Palestine solidarity movement like I do, I run across people with such views occasionally.


Also, what does it mean for a non-Muslim to live under Islamic law?

Depends on the strain of Islamic law (I've discussed this in another thread; what constitutes "sharia" depends more on the tradition and history of the fundamentalists in question than on the Quran itself). It's not particularly pleasant; basically non-Muslims are supposed to pay a special tax, not interfere with the religious duties of Muslims, and since the government would be an essential theocracy, the role of non-Muslims to participate in any sort of politics is extremely limited. Also, if memory serves, non-Muslims are usually subject to sharia forms of punishment (amputations, stonings, fun stuff like that). This applies to Christians, Jews, probably even the Druze.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One could say the same about Hammy and his hatred of blacks.
Needless flame bait. Please hammegk, do not reply.
Why are the Jews singled out amongst other groups so consistently? Historical reasons, I guess.
As I showed in a previous post the prejudice against the Jews dates back in Antiquity. It doesn't come to my mind any other kind of racial prejudice that has lasted for so long in History.

Don't forget, however, that other groups have suffered worse. We don't know that much about many of them, because they have disappeared from history.
Pardon me? You admit that you don't know but you pressume that other groups might have suffered more. Well, although we are not after the champions in suffering, can you name a group that has been suffering for thousands of years for at least 2000 years.

Does that mean I just think that they are a bunch poor bastards?No, they don't deserve it. Hopefully things will change.

How? By duplicating stereotypes? Do you know that in the year 2003 there are politicians who argue against the Jews based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?


Mycroft and Cleon please keep on topic.

David I will reply to you later on this thread. You touched an issue I am willing to discuss!

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger

Your PM box is full but my answer to your question/proposal is "yes".

[CapelDodger]

Just to pick up on a couple of early posts:

from Dancing David:
I had never heard that Zionism produced the Holocaust, not a very well thought out idea. The Holocaust, which alos killed seven million who were of religions other than jewish, was caused by the nationalism of Hitler and some wierd quirk in world history.

from richardm:
As for the idea that Zionism triggered the Holocaust, well, words fail. As David points out, the large number of people of other religions who went to the concentration camps gives the lie to that
In practice the term "Holocaust" refers to the specific goal of eliminating Jews. The other victims were, in the main, political opponents, "social degenerates" or eugenically "undesirable". Religion had little or no bearing. Persuading people of the value and justification of eugenics is worryingly easy. Political opponents can be defined as national opponents, and thus traitors. But what persuaded so many people that "The Jews" were a dangererous force inimical to Germany? One argument was that the "Elders of Zion" existed in the form of the World Zionist Organisation, and Jews were part of a powerful trans-national organisation that saw the magnificent Germans as a threat to their domination. When that argument was made it could be supported by the example of the Balfour Declaration and the claims of Weizmann that the World Zionist Organisation had swung the war in favour of the Allies. That's a difficult argument to deal with, since the Balfour Declaration was made and Weizmann did make those claims. Consider if a forum such as this had existed in 30's Germany. That example would be posted pretty regularly by anti-semites. The rebuttal - that the Zionists represented only a tiny fraction of Jewish opinion and the Balfour Declaration was more a product of Christian Zionism than of Jewish Zionism - wouldn't have the same impact, in my opinion.

Many Germans were looking for someone to blame for their defeat in 1918, but the guilty were held to be socialists, capitalists, liberals, the reactionary officer class, Freemasons and so on depending on taste, not just Jews. Jews had fought in the trenches just like any other German or Austrian, as the soldiers knew. People had to be persuaded that the Jews were to blame, and Zionism made it easier for that to be done. I don't put the whole blame on Zionism, of course - Cleopatra sometimes uses a rather broad brush - but I don't see how it can have helped.

Cleopatra: I'm just getting onto this, and there are two pages already. I'll make a considered response soon.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Cleopatra: I'm just getting onto this, and there are two pages already. I'll make a considered response soon.

Please take your time. Let me know though if you have anything to add to my opening post or correct me if I misinterpreted your ideas.

If you have nothing further to add, I will reply to the essence of your posts.

Have in mind that I will ask you to show me on what basis you dismiss the phaenomenon of the transformation of the religious antisemitism to the political antisemitism.

On point for now( bold face mine):

In practice the term "Holocaust" refers to the specific goal of eliminating Jews. The other victims were, in the main, political opponents, "social degenerates" or eugenically "undesirable". Religion had little or no bearing.

Of course Religion had no bearing but as I claimed in a earlier post of mine during the 19th ce "the evil Jew that crucified our Lord Jesus" was replaced by the notion that "Jews were an evil Nation"

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
With the identity of the journalist he was sent in Paris to cover the "Dreyfus Affair" where he confronted the fierce antisemitism of the Europeans and he realized that the assimilation of the Jews in the western societies was impossible and the only solution was a national Jewish state.
You speak as if Hertzl was necessarily correct. If Zionism was a hindrance to assimilation and emancipation - as many outspoken Jews declared at the time - then his opinion was to some extent self-fulfilling.

Herzl interpreted the Dreyfus case according to his preconceptions. Dreyfus was framed by the French officer class - recognised even by the French as deeply wierd and anachronistic - but the case caused a storm of protest throughout Western Europe, and led to the famous J'Accuse. The frame-up could not stand, and Dreyfus was freed. Anti-semitism was no longer the tool that the French officer class had assumed. Herzl chose to see the first part of the story, and ignored the lesson of the latter part.
Political Zionism faced the opposition mainly from the Orthodox Jews who believed that the land of Israel would be given to its legitimate owners the Jews, by Devine Intervention...
I'm an atheist myself, but that's what I was taught as Judaism when I was younger. The idea, as represented to me, was that the Jews would return to Israel when a righteous world had been achieved.
Having said all that I believe that antizionism shows nothing but an opposition to the idea that the citizens of Israel deserve to have a state of their own and therefore it expresses the most fierce hostility towards a whole nation that exists in our days.
I'm anti-zionist, but not anti-semitic so there's the killer counter-example to that oft-claimed identity. Israel is a colony carved out of a hostile coast, and I have a problem with that. I regard it as something that was foisted on generations of Jews by a bunch of self-regarding loudmouths. It has led to conflict and destruction and, in my opinion, a lot of damage to what might be called Jewishness. But as ever, the past should be put behind in favour of minimising further harm. That will require Israel coming to a settlement short of its original target (including sole sovereignty over Jerusalem). Now I'll steer clear of that subject.
Judaism is a Religion and Jews are the followers of this Religion. Jews are not a Nation
Arguing with you is like trying to nail down jelly. Should Jews be regarded as "deserving" a nation or not a nation at all? (I tend towards the latter.)

Now I'll stick to anti-semitism, having dealt with the anti-zionism diversion.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Have in mind that I will ask you to show me on what basis you dismiss the phaenomenon of the transformation of the religious antisemitism to the political antisemitism.
I didn't mean to. The vicious anti-semitism adopted by the Vatican after the withdrawal of the French in the early 19thCE was political in nature. The republican, democratic ideology of the Revolutionaries (French and American) was anathema to the Papacy, and the emancipation of Jews was a part of it. Anti-semitism in the Muslim world today is more political than religious. Anti-semitism based purely on religious principles is fairly rare - after 1492 in Spain springs to mind, although there were political and economic aspects to that as well, of course. Imperial Rome's religious disagreements were political, since Roman religion was political.

With the Nazis' anti-semitism, there is a religious feel about it. Many Nazis really believed that crap, it seems to me.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:
With the Nazis' anti-semitism, there is a religious feel about it. Many Nazis really believed that crap, it seems to me.

The modern day neo-Nazis have made a religion out of it, quite literally. The "Christian Identity" movement was formed by Aryan Nations founder Richard Butler (who goes by the title of "Pastor") to provide a "Christian" justification for their beliefs. Among other things, their sect believes that Jews are the biological (not just ideological) decendants of Satan.

Also, neo-Nazi lawyer Matt Hale founded the World Church of the Creator, with similar racist/anti-semitic beliefs.

I personally find it quite amusing, in a macabre kind of way, that the only current religion that has hatred of Jews as part and parcel of its core beliefs isn't Islam, but a sect of Christianity.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
More or less these were the common accusations against the Jews in Antiquity.
I'm not so sure they were that common. Laziness, etc, was hardly obvious in the very successful Jewish communities all around the Med in those days. I think we have to consider the particular Roman point of view at the time, and we are talking Vespasian's days. Palestine had been in various degrees of revolt for the best part of a century. The Jews of Palestine were the al-Qaeda of the Roman world at that time( please try not to be outraged), complete with religious fanaticism and suicide-attacks. Before Pompey had passed through there the Maccabeans had been in revolt against the (Greek) Seleucids, so they already had a reputation. The Jewish communities around the Med did their best to distance themselves, just as Muslims around the world do now with al-Qaeda. Vespasian and Titus sponsored Josephus, of course, and made efforts to counter the sort of populist tabloid junk spouted by Apion. That's the Emperors Vespasian and Titus, as opposed to the Dungbrain Apion.

[Cleopatra]

The Jews of Palestine were the al-Qaeda of the Roman world at that time( please try not to be outraged)


Ok. I am trying not to be outraged. I bring you examples from literature and from ancient sources and I take back replies like that.

[Dancing David]

capel Dodger
In practice the term "Holocaust" refers to the specific goal of eliminating Jews. The other victims were, in the main, political opponents, "social degenerates" or eugenically "undesirable". Religion had little or no bearing. Persuading people of the value and justification of eugenics is worryingly easy. Political opponents can be defined as national opponents, and thus traitors.


But I would argue that the basis of antisemitism is cultural, it is not religous and is done for a host of reasons that are not religous, especialy when it is practised by a neo-pagan atheist like Hitler.

There were seven million who perished in the death camps other than the jews(this according to Shirer), the death camps were built in Poland for a reason! That reason being that Hitler had every intention of expterimanting the Poles and other undesirable Slavs. That is why i keep pointing out that at least half the victims of the holocaust were not jewish, the agenda had nothing to do with religion , it was political.

capel, zionism may have been an excuse but it was an effect not a cause. have you read about all the jewish germans who served in WWI, or do you just ignore them?

[CapelDodger]

from Cleon:
The modern day neo-Nazis have made a religion out of it, quite literally ...
Another good example. I know about these "Zionist Occupational Government" types and I'm glad that the Atlantic is growing wider. But it's also very noticeable that there are strongly Zionist right-wing Christian groups. I don't myself belive that those Christians have suddenly fallen in love with the Christ-killers. They seem to think that the Jews returning to Israel and getting slaughtered is a necessary step on the road to Rapture. Which prompts the question: when will they start insisting that the Jews go back to Israel?

[CapelDodger]

from Dancing David:
have you read about all the jewish germans who served in WWI, or do you just ignore them?
Previously on CapelDodger :
Jews had fought in the trenches just like any other German or Austrian, as the soldiers knew.

[CapelDodger]

I bring you examples from literature and from ancient sources ...
Well, I've touched on Apion, so as to Philostratus:
In one of the most well-know ancient novels "The Life of Appolonius of Tyana" the author Philostratus makes exactly this claim for the first time in History that Jews are not humans: Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 5.33.

"For the Jews have long been in revolt [...] against humanity; and a race that has made its own a life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind ..."
That cannot be read as declaring that Jews are not human. Apart from the phrase "rest of mankind", the term "against humanity" clearly means "against everybody else". And that was indeed the position of the Jewish religious/nationalist fanatics. Philostratus was 2nd/3rdCE, which I'm not sure counts as antiquity. After the Flavians made their mark on Palestine troubles still continued there until the place was completely devastated. Messianic movements broke out in North Africa leading to major disturbance of the peace and massacres. That's the background to this, and at the same time Jewish communities were thriving all around the Med, which rather indicates that this sort of thinking was having little effect.

The triumph of Christianity was yet to come. That's when the excrement really hit the air-conditioning.

[CapelDodger]

from Dancing David:
That is why i keep pointing out that at least half the victims of the holocaust were not jewish, the agenda had nothing to do with religion , it was political.
Nailing-down-jelly time again. I said that religion wasn't an issue because you said that people of other religions were victims, ergo Zionism was not a factor.
That reason being that Hitler had every intention of expterimanting the Poles and other undesirable Slavs.
And blacks and everybody but his lot. But not immediately. These peoples would provide serf-labour for the ever-expanding German population until they were taking up too much room. Given the collapse of the Russians in 1917, it was hard to blame the Slavs for Germany's defeat. They were simply untermensch (?). "The Jews" were scary. Shadowy powers, fiendishly clever, pulling the strings of history and the enemy of all that is good (and German). A clear and present threat to be hunted down and eliminated. Bogey-men, like communists in Mcarthyite America, or terrorists today. The idea had to be sold, and the apparent triumphs of Zionism (the Balfour Declaration, the Jewish Legion and the US entry to the war) were useful in the selling. Christianity created fertile ground, but secularism and rationalism worked against it. It's all very complicated.

[Dancing David]

Thanks capel, perhaps my reading comprhension was down today.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
But what persuaded so many people that "The Jews" were a dangererous force inimical to Germany?

The discussion about the Nature and dangers of "Jewishness" have started in Germany much earlier. During the whole of 19th century the "Jewish Problem"Der Judenfrage , was dominating the discussions in the German Society.

Do you know that? I am asking because I have started to believe that you are now aware of the German Literature of 19th ce.

Balfour's Declaration came later when the idea of the "Evil Jewish nation" was well shaped in the German society.

Consider if a forum such as this had existed in 30's Germany. That example would be posted pretty regularly by anti-semites.

I am sorry Capel Dodger but we are in 2003 and this is what you have been doing in this forum.

You claim that before the Balfour Declaration antisemitism didn't existed. The argument above is so silly that even in the Germany of the 30ies could be easily debunked. The whole of the 19th ce and the beginning of the 20th centuries the " Jewish Problem" Der Judenfrage was dominant in the German society.

I have a question and I demand a straight answer.

Do you suggest that without Balfour the Holocaust wouldn't happen?

People had to be persuaded that the Jews were to blame, and Zionism made it easier for that to be done. I don't put the whole blame on Zionism, of course - Cleopatra sometimes uses a rather broad brush - but I don't see how it can have helped.

When Germans in the late 19ce--in 1880 to be exact-- were signing in masses petitions calling for the rescission of Jewish Rights and they were sending those petitions to Reichstand it's obvious that they didn't need Balfour's Declaration to make up their mind regarding the Jews.

By the middle of the 19th century in Germany half of the eminent Jews have converted to Christianity in order escape the pressure that was exercised on them.

Tell me in honesty Capel Dodger, when you claim such things what do you want me to believe? I choose to believe that you are not aware of those facts.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

You speak as if Hertzl was necessarily correct.

Unfortunately, Capel Dodger, Hertzl was correct. The Dreyfus Affaire was just the cherry on the top of the cake. Since 1880 a new round of pogroms against the Jews have started.As I mentioned to my previous message people were collecting signatures in order the political rights of the Jews to be evoked.

The idea that Jews are a "race" was well shaped long before the First Zionists Congress that it took place very late in History.

Herzl interpreted the Dreyfus case according to his preconceptions.

Preconceptions? Is this how you call experiences?

I'm an atheist myself, but that's what I was taught as Judaism when I was younger. The idea, as represented to me, was that the Jews would return to Israel when a righteous world had been achieved.

Christians believed to the same Myth. The Crusades were based on te Apocapyptic Prophesies.Jerusalem was always the price for the righteous.
I'm anti-zionist, but not anti-semitic so there's the killer counter-example to that oft-claimed identity.

The purpose of Zionism has been fullfilled Capel Dodger. Jews have returned to Zion. Why do you insist on declaring that you are an antizionist, can't you see that when you are doing so you imply that you want the destruction of Israel and that makes you appear as an antisemite? I am not suggesting that you are one but I wouldn't be honest with you if I didn't say that I feel uncomfortable with that. What's the point of declaring that you are an antizionist? The whole matter is over.

Arguing with you is like trying to nail down jelly. Should Jews be regarded as "deserving" a nation or not a nation at all? (I tend towards the latter.)

Now it's too late. If I lived in the 19thce and if I attended any of the Zionist Congresses I would be among those that they would try to persuade people that Jews are not a nation although I'd have centuries of History against me.

For centuries people believed and they were making Jews to believe that they were different. In 19th ce they exterminated them because they formed an "evil Race".

Nobody has the right to blame the victims for how the perceived themselves. You might be right when you say that Jews are not a nation but none ever gave Jews a break in order to discover what they are.So you don't have the right to blame them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Ok. I am trying not to be outraged. I bring you examples from literature and from ancient sources and I take back replies like that.

An apt description. Some religious fanatics take on the Empire and lose. This metaphor does not categorise them as either bad or stupid. It just casts them as what they were, religous fundies who chose to pick a fight they could win by sheer force of arms.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Have in mind that I will ask you to show me on what basis you dismiss the phaenomenon of the transformation of the religious antisemitism to the political antisemitism.
I might be having comprehension problems here, but there's a number of points you make which I can't follow:

I don't see how you can neatly differentiate between religious anti-Semitism and political anti-Semitism because this kind of prejudice is always political; it's about demonising a group for some purpose; either to empower the holder of that prejudice (e.g. "We are good because they are bad, and we are not them") or to legitimise mistreatment of the group who are the victims of that prejudice (e.g. "They are bad so we can do what we want with them"). The content of a prejudice might be religious in nature, but its intent is always political; it's always about power.
Consider if a forum such as this had existed in 30's Germany. That example would be posted pretty regularly by anti-semites.

I am sorry Capel Dodger but we are in 2003 and this is what you have been doing in this forum.
As I said, this may be a comprehension problem on my part, but my understanding of the section you are responding to, is that Capel Dodger is describing how the existence of the zionist organisations and the Balfour Declaration were used by anti-Semites to justify their claims of a global Jewish conspiracy, not that the zionist organisations and the Balfour Declaration were proofs of such. I therefore don't see how you can claim that CapelDodger is doing the same thing as those anti-Semites.
You claim that before the Balfour Declaration antisemitism didn't existed.
Where? Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31558&pagenumber=2#post1870214337) CapelDodger says:
The vicious anti-semitism adopted by the Vatican after the withdrawal of the French in the early 19thCE was political in nature. [...] Anti-semitism based purely on religious principles is fairly rare - after 1492 in Spain springs to mind
which would indicate the opposite.
I'm an atheist myself, but that's what I was taught as Judaism when I was younger. The idea, as represented to me, was that the Jews would return to Israel when a righteous world had been achieved.
Christians believed to the same Myth.
Um... not quite. I was raised in the Catholic faith (although I've had arguments that Catholicism is not christianity!), and the return to Israel is a kind of metaphor for when God establishes the heaven on earth after judgment day (Israel = kingdom of Heaven). IIRC, the return of Jews to Jerusalem is supposed to be a sign of that judgement day is near, but don't quote me on that!
The purpose of Zionism has been fullfilled Capel Dodger. Jews have returned to Zion. Why do you insist on declaring that you are an antizionist, can't you see that when you are doing so you imply that you want the destruction of Israel and that makes you appear as an antisemite?
Has the purpose of Zionism been fulfilled? Sure, Jews have returned to Zion, but surely a secondary aim of Zion would be to ensure that Jews never have to leave Israel again (or it would be if I was in charge of it ;) ). Now, accepting your logic that anti-zionist want the destruction of Israel and are therefore anti-Semitic as unproblematic (I'm not too sure that the latter follows logically from the former, but that's for another post), doesn't this charge of of anti-Semitism suggest that the destruction of Israel is only of concern for Jews, because Israel was established exclusively for Jews, which implies that Zionism is inherently racist?

[Dancing David]

The idea had to be sold, and the apparent triumphs of Zionism (the Balfour Declaration, the Jewish Legion and the US entry to the war) were useful in the selling. Christianity created fertile ground, but secularism and rationalism worked against it. It's all very complicated.


That is ridiculous, I respectfuly say ridiculous! Ride the italian root for smile isn't really appropriate.

Hitler did not need to sell the Germans on antisemitism, you are just white washing a long standing and historical cultural bias, you act as though the germans had to be convinced to go afetr the Jews and that the Zionist movement was part of it , you can put the cart before the horse, but you only go backwards.
This is similar to the logic ofThe German Wars where the aythors says that the allies started the wars becaus ethey won the wars.

The point is that many European nations had and have a long standing bias against the jews, just as americans have a very long standing bias against black. You are saying something equivalent to saying that the Civil Rights Movement caused racism.

Take a look at a very simple facts
France deported jews even though they were occupied by the germans, are you going to tell me that Hitler was thier friend and that they did it because he sold them on it?
Hungary deproted so many jews that there weren't enough to establish a synagogue after the war, are saying that Hitler convinced them to do that.

Bass ackwards logic!

You can't be anti zionist any more, the state of israel is a political fact, I may disagree with thier internal policies but dude, you are gainst Israel, not an anti-zionist.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dancing David

That is ridiculous, I respectfuly say ridiculous! Ride the italian root for smile isn't really appropriate.

Hitler did not need to sell the Germans on antisemitism, you are just white washing a long standing and historical cultural bias, you act as though the germans had to be convinced to go afetr the Jews and that the Zionist movement was part of it , you can put the cart before the horse, but you only go backwards.
If this is the case, can you explain why, prior to Hitler, no other German leader institutionalised anti-semitism to the same extent?

The point is that many European nations had and have a long standing bias against the jews, just as americans have a very long standing bias against black. You are saying something equivalent to saying that the Civil Rights Movement caused racism.
Or in fact, why no other European country institutionalised anti-Semitism to the same extent as Hitler's regime? I'm not denying the levels of anti-Semitism in Europe at the time, but I find it hard to believe that levels were as homogenous as you imply (and the Europeans had to find some spare time to hate the Blacks, "Orientals" and Irish as well!).

[Cleopatra]

Gentlemen could you please indicate in your posts who are you quoting each time?It's easier for everybody to follow the discussion. Thanks!

[Cleopatra]

Let me take my evening dose of this :)

Capel Dodger I have just baked a loaf of Bara Brith.It's good. For British food, of course.

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Anti-semitism in the Muslim world today is more political than religious. Anti-semitism based purely on religious principles is fairly rare - after 1492 in Spain springs to mind, although there were political and economic aspects to that as well, of course. Imperial Rome's religious disagreements were political, since Roman religion was political.

Why do I feel that something nasty is hiding behind this comment? Why do I feel that I won't like it if I ask you to clarify this distinction?

The expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 is a turning point in the History of Jewery indeed but not in the way you interpret it.

The Jews who converted to Christianity were allowed to remain and many took advantage of the opportunity. Laws which once restricted their movement and ability to engage in commerce were lifted and Jews took advantage their new opportunities, with many entering some of the highest reaches of Spanish society.

BUT

Of course, this produced the resentment and envy among other Spanish Christians and in order to restore the status quo, the government passed laws restricting the actions of these converts - laws which defined people based upon whether or not they had "pure blood."

So, for the first time, Jews were defined not by their religion but rather as a biological group whose "blood" rendered them impure and inelligible for the same rights and privileges as other members of society.

Can you see the way the idea evolved?

With the Nazis' anti-semitism, there is a religious feel about it. Many Nazis really believed that crap, it seems to me.

I think I understood what you say I can't reject this idea. Do you see a ritual in this massacre? The only thing that makes me skeptical is its wide scale.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Vespasian and Titus sponsored Josephus, of course, and made efforts to counter the sort of populist tabloid junk spouted by Apion. That's the Emperors Vespasian and Titus, as opposed to the Dungbrain Apion.

Come-on Capel Dodger!!!!!!!

" Vespasian and Titus sponsored Josephus, of course"???? How do you know it? I am quite aware of what sort of person Josephus was and which was his role but this particular book was out of his political activities.

The reason why I mentioned Apion is because I wanted to show what sort of ideas prevailed in Eastern Mediterannean.

Well, I've touched on Apion, so as to Philostratus:

That cannot be read as declaring that Jews are not human. Apart from the phrase "rest of mankind", the term "against humanity" clearly means "against everybody else". And that was indeed the position of the Jewish religious/nationalist fanatics. Philostratus was 2nd/3rdCE, which I'm not sure counts as antiquity. After the Flavians made their mark on Palestine troubles still continued there until the place was completely devastated. Messianic movements broke out in North Africa leading to major disturbance of the peace and massacres. That's the background to this, and at the same time Jewish communities were thriving all around the Med, which rather indicates that this sort of thinking was having little effect.


AGAIN you choose to twist the obvious. Again you blame the victims for what happens to them. " The rest of mankind" is speaking of itself Capel Dodger and it shows that Jews back then weren't considered human beings. Have in mind that the "Life of Apollonius of Tyana " is a novel and not a political text, so it demonstrates the beliefs of the ordinary people. I am not suggesting that everybody believed that Jews were not humans but I want to show that the idea existed.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I don't see how you can neatly differentiate between religious anti-Semitism and political anti-Semitism because this kind of prejudice is always political; it's about demonising a group for some purpose; either to empower the holder of that prejudice (e.g. "We are good because they are bad, and we are not them") or to legitimise mistreatment of the group who are the victims of that prejudice (e.g. "They are bad so we can do what we want with them"). The content of a prejudice might be religious in nature, but its intent is always political; it's always about power.

The argumentation against the Jews was based on religious arguments until 19th ce. The arguments against the Jews were theological. This started by the first Christian Centuries, finding a justification in the gospel descriptions of how the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 27:25, for example, depicts the Jews as saying "His blood be upon us and on our children." John 8:14 depicts Jesus as saying to Jews "You are of your father, the devil."

With the secularization of the societies during 19th ce and with the discussions about the emancipation of the various groups, the arguments against the Jews weren't theological anymore. Jews were turned into an "evil race" that plots against countries and nations.

Got it? ;)

*snip the rest I have already replied and Capel Dodger can reply by himself*

Um... not quite. I was raised in the Catholic faith (although I've had arguments that Catholicism is not christianity!), and the return to Israel is a kind of metaphor for when God establishes the heaven on earth after judgment day (Israel = kingdom of Heaven). IIRC, the return of Jews to Jerusalem is supposed to be a sign of that judgement day is near, but don't quote me on that!

Um, yes indeed. I month ago I finished studying a great but huge book on this subject composed by an expert on this field. I am refering to Norman Cohn's " The Pursuit of the Millenium. Revolutionary millenarians and Mystical anarchists of the Middle Ages". Cohn explains in details how the apocalyptic theories are of jewish origin, he brings numerous examples that prove his claims. The book is not about the Jews though but about the Christians.

Has the purpose of Zionism been fulfilled? Sure, Jews have returned to Zion, but surely a secondary aim of Zion would be to ensure that Jews never have to leave Israel again (or it would be if I was in charge of it ;) ).


This is the aim of every Western country. To protect its borders and its existence. You don't need to call that Zionism. Why do you call it Zionism? If this is Zionism then Great Britain is a Zionist State for protecting its interests.

Now, accepting your logic that anti-zionist want the destruction of Israel and are therefore anti-Semitic as unproblematic (I'm not too sure that the latter follows logically from the former, but that's for another post), doesn't this charge of of anti-Semitism suggest that the destruction of Israel is only of concern for Jews, because Israel was established exclusively for Jews, which implies that Zionism is inherently racist?

First of all I didn't say that. I said that since Zionism has fulfilled its aim I see a problem when people declare that they are anti-zionists. Zionism is not inherently racist because the whole movement was established in order to give a viable solution to the procecutions Jews were facing. This was the main concern of Zionists; how to protect the Jews and the only way seemed to create a country of their own.

Don't blame the victims for what has happened to them.If Europe was a more friendly place, Jews wouldn't go anywhere but before the War you could see on walls in big cities graffities that asked the Jews to go to Palestine....

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

You attribute some statements and opinions to me inaccurately, but BillyTK has pointed those out (much appreciated) so I can deal with more substantive issues.
Do you suggest that without Balfour the Holocaust wouldn't happen?
I obviously don't make absolute claims about historical "what ifs". What I suggest is that without Zionism and its apparent (and falsely claimed) successes the Holocaust would have been less likely.
When Germans in the late 19ce--in 1880 to be exact-- were signing in masses petitions calling for the rescission of Jewish Rights and they were sending those petitions to Reichstand it's obvious that they didn't need Balfour's Declaration to make up their mind regarding the Jews.
I don't know how "mass" these petitions were, but one obvious point is that they were made against the existing emancipation of Jews. How does that emancipation weigh against the apparently repeated attempts to remove them - repeated because they were unsuccessful? Rather heavier I'd have thought. These people couldn't prevent Jewish emancipation or reverse it when it happened. The Nazis tried to exterminate Jews. What the hell happened in the meantime?
By the middle of the 19th century in Germany half of the eminent Jews have converted to Christianity in order escape the pressure that was exercised on them.
How do you know that was the reason? Had they converted or simply given up caring about a particular set of myths and superstitions? I don't know, but I would appreciate a recommended reading-list. 19thCE German social history is not my strongest suit (not that I'm entirely ignorant of it).
Unfortunately, Capel Dodger, Hertzl was correct.
There we have an example of the absolutes that I don't generally indulge in. You mention Dreyfus again without reference to the fact that his conviction did not stand, and was condemned as anti-semitic - which was already a synonym for reactionary and Neanderthal. As did Hertzl, you look at half the story and ignore what is surely the real lesson.
Capel Dodger I have just baked a loaf of Bara Brith.It's good. For British food, of course.
Jam-packed with fat and sugar and carbohydrate - food of heroes in any land. With butter and honey, I hope. I have crumpets, toasting-fork, butter and honey in the other room. More later. Promise I'm not "hitting the books". (I lie.)

[Cleon]

Regarding Zionism and the Holocaust:

It would be inaccurate to say that Zionism aided or fueled the Holocaust in any way. At the time, Zionism had very little influence in the Jewish community; it was a tiny group of (what most Jews regarded as) zealots. I'd wager most non-Jews hadn't even heard of Zionism beyond anti-semitic myths like the Protocols.

I'd say without a doubt the Holocaust fueled Zionism, but not the other way around.

Anti-semitism has a long, long history in Germany and in much of Europe. Even Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, had some choice words on the subject:


Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self_-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.


One can also look at the Inquisition--not just the period of 15th-century Spain, but the Catholic Holy Inquisition which went for centuries--to see hatred of Jews at work in much of central Europe.

So what causes anti-Semitism? Wish I knew. A professor of mine in college, though, made an interesting comparison between anti-Semitism and hatred/distrust of Roma (Gypsies) and Jont/wasi (aka !Kung) in Southern Africa. She drew the conclusion that people in positions of power have a general distrust of those whose identities go beyond political borders, and are likely to promote bigotry, distrust, and hatred of them to secure their own positions. The Jews, being one of the largest and widest-spread of such groups, would make a natural target. Now, whether this is an accurate analysis or not I couldn't say, but it does provide interesting food for thought.

[CapelDodger]

He's back and he's buttery.
Cleopatra:
Why do I feel that something nasty is hiding behind this comment? Why do I feel that I won't like it if I ask you to clarify this distinction? The expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 is a turning point in the History of Jewery indeed but not in the way you interpret it.
(this re 1492.) I was giving regard to Ferdinand's deep religiosity, which led to him requesting assistance and advice from the Papacy as to how to handle the non-Christians of his newly-consolidated realm. Christendom, unlike the Moslem world, was not used to multi-religion societies. The Papal response was religiously driven. (I don't hide my nastiness, by the way, I'm a pretty up-front nast.)
The Jews who converted to Christianity were allowed to remain and many took advantage of the opportunity. Laws which once restricted their movement and ability to engage in commerce were lifted and Jews took advantage their new opportunities, with many entering some of the highest reaches of Spanish society.
These were Christian laws. 1492 saw the final imposition of these laws on the Jewish and Moslem populations of Grenada. The converted Jews didn't gain anything (apart from not being expelled, which might well have been a better option as it turned out). The new society was drastically backward in comparison to the Islamic Spain it replaced. As you say, Jews were able to move in high Spanish Christian society (although they had no more chance of entering it than any low-born person) but that was because the local Christian aristocracy recognised how economically important they were and were also able to regard them as friends. The disaster was caused by Papal interference via the Inquisition and Ferdinand's bonehead Catholicism. As I recall.
Of course, this produced the resentment and envy among other Spanish Christians and in order to restore the status quo, the government passed laws restricting the actions of these converts - laws which defined people based upon whether or not they had "pure blood."

So, for the first time, Jews were defined not by their religion but rather as a biological group whose "blood" rendered them impure and inelligible for the same rights and privileges as other members of society.

Can you see the way the idea evolved?
Indeed I can. While the local population was generally happy o turn a blind eye to fake conversions (which were quite common), the Inquisition didn't see it that way. They were outraged, and on the standard Papal principle of "better that a thousand innocent suffer than one heretic go free" they condemned even the true conversos via this blood-definition. But that was hardly an innovative distinction when defining a people who defined themselves as descended from twelve specific tribes.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by BillyTK

If this is the case, can you explain why, prior to Hitler, no other German leader institutionalised anti-semitism to the same extent?

there was certainly enough informal prejudice against the jews prior to Hitler, my point was and remains that Hitler did not need to sell the germans on antisemitism, they were already leaning that way. The Zionist movement is not the reason for antisemitism, pogrom existed before WWII.

As to why no other German leader didn't do it before, must be that Bismark didn't think it was a good idea, or that Hitler consolidated power very quikly and got the military and the indusrialists to support heim. I don't know.



Or in fact, why no other European country institutionalised anti-Semitism to the same extent as Hitler's regime? I'm not denying the levels of anti-Semitism in Europe at the time, but I find it hard to believe that levels were as homogenous as you imply (and the Europeans had to find some spare time to hate the Blacks, "Orientals" and Irish as well!).

I singled out France and Hungary for the reason that i think they represent the opposite ends of the spectrum, one a Republic and one an autocracy, but they both did the deed. I certainly don't mean to imply that Europe nwas homgenous, I was pointing out that were nations that cooperated with Hitler and din't need to be sold on the idea.

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps its time I set out a position of my own on this subject, instead of just responding. My position is that European anti-semitism has been exaggerated, and particularly so in the last 50 years. I do not claim that it has never existed nor that it is justifiable - although there may well be occasions when I try to explain it's particular manifestations. I am no great fan of the human race, and such common human attributes as racism, tribalism, stupidity, greed and general nastiness are the reason for that. A subsidiary part of my position is a rejection of the idea that Jews have been a hunted, marginalised group who have been allowed to have no impact on European history.

People who, frankly, don't have a deep understanding of European social history will make reference to laws that restricted Jewish business and land ownership. Ownership of land in aristocratic societies, where land is a fetish like no other, is restricted for everybody. And in towns access to trades is restricted by guilds, again a restriction that applies to everybody. Land ownership is a red herring anyway, since the real money is made and the good life is found in towns and cities - and always has been. Jews, it is said, were restricted to trade, banking and the diamond industry. I'm sorry? When I heard about banking I thought "that's for me". (Discovering not long afterwards that hippy chicks were the prettiest was only a short-term distraction.) These are the reasons why Jews first spread through the Roman world, not because they wanted to buy cheap land.

On the JREF home-page there's been material about the "Africans discovered America" and the very valid point that crap like this demeans the very real achievements of African people. I don't want to see a unique and fascinating phaenomenon like Jewish society become simply about anti-semitism and suffering - the "lachrimose version" of Jewish history.

(Cleopatra: I know your "phaenomenon" was a typo, but it shouldn't be, so I've adopted it.)

[CapelDodger]

Vespasian and Titus sponsored Josephus, of course"???? How do you know it? I am quite aware of what sort of person Josephus was and which was his role but this particular book was out of his political activities.
Josephus was adopted by Vespasian. He became Josephus Flavius. He dedicated his books to his Flavian patrons. Were his Antiquities written from his political activities? It might seem surprising that the Flavians, given their experiences of the Jewish Revolt, would act in this way, but they did actually have the chance to learn that not all Jews were crazy Messianics determined on bringing Armageddon to their families and neighbours. I know who and what Josephus was, and I have no problem with him. He didn't inflict pointless death and destruction on his community in pursuit of some national-religious fantasy. He left that to others.
AGAIN you choose to twist the obvious. Again you blame the victims for what happens to them
I stand by what I said. I do not blame the victims, and let's remember no biting, no gouging, no head-butting. "The rest of mankind" can only mean the remainder of mankind when the subject (the Jews) is excluded from the whole. Your quote cannot be read as saying that the Jews were not human.
The reason why I mentioned Apion is because I wanted to show what sort of ideas prevailed in Eastern Mediterannean.
You say they prevailed. I see one quote. I can also place the quote in a pretty full context (this period is one of my stronger suits).

You are aware that Apion was a lawyer hired by the Alexandrian Greeks to make a case to Caligula that the Jews of Alexandria should lose their trading privileges (thereby much favouring the Greek capitalists)? Philo had a magnificent response ready but was prevented from making it (I think it still exists, not sure). Caligula was convinced, and that's when he ordered his statue to be put in the Temple. The Syrian governor procrastinated (realising what a powder-keg he'd be lighting) and Caligula ordered him (Petronius?) to commit suicide. The news of Caligula's assassination arrived shortly before the suicide order. I bet he made a contribution to the Temple. That's the story I've heard, anyway. But it hardly makes Apion an exemplar of Eastern Mediterranean attitudes. What with him being a proven lawyer and all.

[Cleopatra]

(Cleopatra: I know your "phaenomenon" was a typo, but it shouldn't be, so I've adopted it.)

No my dear it is not a typo :)

Phaenomenon is a Greek word of course and its first syllabe is not spelled with an epsilon -e- but with the two vowels that form the "alpha-iota" that is pronounced e ( like in red) and it is spelled like that:

<font face="symbol">fainomenon</font>.

The third syllabe is spelled with an epsilon this is why I kept it.

"alpha-iota" is converted into "ae" in the barbarian languages.

For example Cleopatra is not spelled Claeopatra because in Greek this -e- is an epsilon and not an "apha-iota-.

Judea is spelled like that because in Greek it's spelled with an "alpha-iota".
<font face="symbol">Ioudaia</font>.

Let's return to the word phaenomenon because it has a great story and according to Liddell-Scott dictionary which is the equivalent of OED--it records the history of each word-- this word is used for the first time in "Odyssey".

Listen to the most interesting part. Phaenomenon in Ancient Greek doesn't have the meaning it has today. It means something that appears to be X but the person who refers to this X suspects that something else must hide behind. It's a word that includes a skepticism in its definition. Ulysses uses this word for the first time in the dialogue he has with his dead mother when he goes to Hades .

So, I allow myself to spell it phaenomenon. I am too small to correct it into something less than its original form. I am glad that you find it more beautiful like that too and that you noticed but of course your sins are not forgiven yet.

As for the rest of your messages I will reply during the weekend. As I have told you you'd be a great corporate lawyer but a lousy criminologist and this is not necessarily an insult.

* Robert Burns.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


The argumentation against the Jews was based on religious arguments until 19th ce. The arguments against the Jews were theological. This started by the first Christian Centuries, finding a justification in the gospel descriptions of how the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 27:25, for example, depicts the Jews as saying "His blood be upon us and on our children." John 8:14 depicts Jesus as saying to Jews "You are of your father, the devil."
That's the content; what's the intent in saying those things? What are the benefits for Christianity and its believers in making those remarks?

Let me clarify here, that when I use the word "political", I don't mean in terms of party politics or representative democracy, but simply in terms of power; who holds power, who is a subject of power, how power is distributed across society.

With the secularization of the societies during 19th ce and with the discussions about the emancipation of the various groups, the arguments against the Jews weren't theological anymore. Jews were turned into an "evil race" that plots against countries and nations.

Got it? ;)
Do you think that the secularisation of anti-Semitic arguments at approximately the same time as the secularisation of European society is anything more than co-incidence? Perhaps something to do with the end of christianity (and specifically, the Holy Roman Empire) as a major political force, and maybe the popularising of the 'scientific' idea of race??

This is the aim of every Western country. To protect its borders and its existence. You don't need to call that Zionism.
True, but I haven't called it Zionism.
Why do you call it Zionism? If this is Zionism then Great Britain is a Zionist State for protecting its interests.
No, Great Britian isn't a Zionist state, because as your claim implies, protecting ones borders and existence is not precisely Zionism. Let me explain; what I'm seeking to do here is investigate your claim that Zionism ended with the founding of the Israeli, or if there is any aspect of Zionism that has been preserved and reproduced in Israeli culture, like, for instance, the idea of Israel as a physical homeland for Jews (as opposed to a divinely ordained one). If this belief is intrinsic to how people perceive the Israeli state, I'd suggest that Zionism hasn't ended, but if it hasn't, I guess I'd have to acknowledge that it has ended.

First of all I didn't say that. I said that since Zionism has fulfilled its aim I see a problem when people declare that they are anti-zionists.
Okay, here's what you said:
The purpose of Zionism has been fullfilled Capel Dodger. Jews have returned to Zion. Why do you insist on declaring that you are an antizionist, can't you see that when you are doing so you imply that you want the destruction of Israel and that makes you appear as an antisemite?
My emphasis
This is what I take your statement to mean:
Zionism was solely about the founding of the israeli state,
therefore anti-zionists are against the founding of Israel,
therefore anti-zionists want the destruction of Israel,
therefore anti-zionists are (implictly) anti-Semitic.
Is this correct? If so, what about Israeli Arabs? Surely the destruction of their country would be of concern to them as well? If not, well, why not?
Zionism is not inherently racist because the whole movement was established in order to give a viable solution to the procecutions Jews were facing. This was the main concern of Zionists; how to protect the Jews and the only way seemed to create a country of their own.
I'm not suggesting that Zionism is racist because it's a Jewish project. What I'm trying to clarify is if the Zionist idea of establishing a Jewish homeland meant establishing a homeland which was exclusively for Jews, or a homeland in which Jews could be safe from anti-Semitism?

Don't blame the victims for what has happened to them.
Could you quote where you think I've done that please?

If Europe was a more friendly place, Jews wouldn't go anywhere but before the War you could see on walls in big cities graffities that asked the Jews to go to Palestine....
Just to clarify, you're not suggesting that all of Europe were equally engaging in anti-Semitism all the time?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dancing David
[...]my point was and remains that Hitler did not need to sell the germans on antisemitism, they were already leaning that way.

[...]I was pointing out that were nations that cooperated with Hitler and din't need to be sold on the idea. [...]
That anti-Semitism existed in these countries is uncontested. My problem with this is, if anti-Semitism was so extant across Europe, then why didn't anyone capitalise on it before? Certainly Hitler was capitalising on inherent German anti-Semitism, but that in and of itself doesn't explain his rise to power; or that countries which allied themselves with Hitler did so purely out of their own anti-Semitism (which again assumes that anti-Semitism was more or less homogenous in those countries). it's good to explicate the role of anti-Semitism in European history, but I think we need to be careful to avoid assuming that European history is solely about anti-Semitism (and being careful that in using the term "European", we don't treat the area and its history as homogenous).

[CapelDodger]

from Dancing David:
[That is ridiculous, I respectfuly say ridiculous! Ride the italian root for smile isn't really appropriate.

Hitler did not need to sell the Germans on antisemitism, you are just white washing a long standing and historical cultural bias, you act as though the germans had to be convinced to go afetr the Jews and that the Zionist movement was part of it , you can
put the cart before the horse, but you only go backwards.
The idea that, say, not liking Jews because you think they're clannish and snooty, and seeing them as a danger that justifies
removing them from society completely are much the same is ridiculous, frankly. If this could have happened anytime, why
not earlier? How had the Jewish community survived? Why weren't they turned on in 1914 or 1918? The 30's was the era when "propaganda" became a vogue word, and the claim that "The Jews" had swung the Great War to the Allies was used as propaganda. It was particularly robust when the propgandists could point to well-publicised Jews who were claiming the same
thing. Who are you to know absolutely that it had no effect? Why would it not have had a considerable effect? A whole
generation were brought up with this story in the air, even if they didn't fall for it.
This is similar to the logic ofThe German Wars where the aythors says that the allies started the wars becaus ethey won the war
In what way?
The point is that many European nations had and have a long standing bias against the jews, just as americans have a very long standing bias against black. You are saying something equivalent to saying that the Civil Rights Movement caused racism.
As you say, ther is a long-standing bias against blacks in the US. There are even people - and long have been - who would like to eliminate them from the population. And yet this hasn't happened. The non-black population would have to be sold such a policy pretty hard, don't you think?
France deported jews even though they were occupied by the germans, are you going to tell me that Hitler was thier friend and that they did it because he sold them on it?
You think the French had freedom of action? Naturally the Germans saw to it that the worst elements of the French population were given the power to do this. Even in the Vichy government there were those that tried to stop it, or at least slow it. I can't see your point at all.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

(this re 1492.) I was giving regard to Ferdinand's deep religiosity, which led to him requesting assistance and advice from the Papacy as to how to handle the non-Christians of his newly-consolidated realm. Christendom, unlike the Moslem world, was not used to multi-religion societies. The Papal response was religiously driven. (I don't hide my nastiness, by the way, I'm a pretty up-front nast.)

The comment above doesn't dismiss my argument. You have become an apologist of Ferdinand and you justified the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Fine with me, it doesn't stand as an argument against my claims though.

As you say, Jews were able to move in high Spanish Christian society (although they had no more chance of entering it than any low-born person) but that was because the local Christian aristocracy recognised how economically important they were and were also able to regard them as friends. The disaster was caused by Papal interference via the Inquisition and Ferdinand's bonehead Catholicism. As I recall.


History 101: From Antiquity until the beginning of the 19th ce, the profession of the banker was disgraced and appropriate only for the slaves and the pariahs of the societies.

The fact that Jews were the bankers doesn't prove that they had an eminent position in the society by quite the contrary I am surprised that this has skipped your attention...

Find a better argument.

Indeed I can. While the local population was generally happy o turn a blind eye to fake conversions (which were quite common), the Inquisition didn't see it that way. They were outraged, and on the standard Papal principle of "better that a thousand innocent suffer than one heretic go free" they condemned even the true conversos via this blood-definition. that was hardly an innovative distinction when defining a people who defined themselves as descended from twelve specific tribes. ( bold face mine)

Every group of people has its own mythology as to its mythical ancestors.
It's high unethical from your part to imply that the legend of the 12 tribes, one of the most ancient legents of the Jewish people has anything in common with the blood definition that appeared in 1492. I am asking you to retract that comment otherwise I will ask you to show us how similar legends of the Greeks for example( the 10 tribes of Athens) have similar racist notions.


edited to add: I am thinking of your argument that the fact that Jews were bankers proves that they enjoyed a high status in the societies they lived and I am laughing, Capel Dodger.

Have you ever heard of Shylock? LOL

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Dancing David:
[
The idea that, say, not liking Jews because you think they're clannish and snooty, and seeing them as a danger that justifies
removing them from society completely are much the same is ridiculous, frankly. If this could have happened anytime, why
not earlier? How had the Jewish community survived? Why weren't they turned on in 1914 or 1918? The 30's was the era when "propaganda" became a vogue word, and the claim that "The Jews" had swung the Great War to the Allies was used as propaganda. It was particularly robust when the propgandists could point to well-publicised Jews who were claiming the same
thing. Who are you to know absolutely that it had no effect? Why would it not have had a considerable effect? A whole
generation were brought up with this story in the air, even if they didn't fall for it.


I respect your beliefs, I just disagree with them, I feel that the german population did not need to be sold on anti semitism. And why not earlier, I think it was the first indusrialised pogrom.

Although I am not sure how it happened in Rwanda, perhaps phone lines?

In what way?

As you say, ther is a long-standing bias against blacks in the US. There are even people - and long have been - who would like to eliminate them from the population. And yet this hasn't happened. The non-black population would have to be sold such a policy pretty hard, don't you think?


Unfortunately it was basicaly legal to kill black people without a trial until the end of the civil rights movement, they were called lynchings.
It is not that you have to sell actualy killing the blakcks, you just have to sell tolerance for other people selling the blacks.

You think the French had freedom of action? Naturally the Germans saw to it that the worst elements of the French population were given the power to do this. Even in the Vichy government there were those that tried to stop it, or at least slow it. I can't see your point at all.

No , just as with all the nazi collaborators it was small people making small choices that led to the deportation of the jews. had the french chosen to hide jewish citizens they could have done so succesfully.

I personaly do not feel that it takes a whole nation being racist to have a genocide, in fact it probably only takes a small active percentage, and a large percentage looking the other way.

I would like to say that I feel that the german nation was made greater efforts to deal with the Nazi crimes than say the american population has out genocide of the native americans or the lynching of black people.

[CapelDodger]

from Cleon:
It would be inaccurate to say that Zionism aided or fueled the Holocaust in any way. At the time, Zionism had very little influence in the Jewish community; it was a tiny group of (what most Jews regarded as) zealots. I'd wager most non-Jews hadn't even heard of Zionism beyond anti-semitic myths like the Protocols.
The size of the group was not important, the publicity and obvious influence it had was. Weizmann moved in the highest political circles in Britain and the US, and did achieve the very public Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the Jewish Legion to fight with the Allies against Turkey. (The latter was not at all desirable to the professionals involved, and anyway wasn't ready in time to fight. It did, however, form the basis of the later Hagana.) Most non-Jews may not have known of Zionism, but in Germany great efforts were made to make them aware.
I'd say without a doubt the Holocaust fueled Zionism, but not the other way around.
Had WW2 occurred without the Holocaust, what would the effects have been on the ground in Palestine? The question of the Mandate would still have to be answered, but would the UN (or its equivalent) have opted for partition? And would the Yishuv have accepted it? We could knock that one around interminably but it's off-thread.
So what causes anti-Semitism?
Human nature leads us to form "in" and "out" groups. As you say, this can be used by elites to divert attention from what should be people's real concerns - class interests. A clear example is Northern Ireland where the Orange tradition keeps the Proddie working class fixated on Taigs while the elite gets the goodies. Anti-semitism would result from that alone, just like anti-Roma/pikey-ism. But anti-semitism in Christendom is an inevitable result of the religion. This means that any Christian revival or reformation - which always involve a return to "basic principles" - will re-fuel anti-semitism.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
With the secularization of the societies during 19th ce and with the discussions about the emancipation of the various groups, the arguments against the Jews weren't theological anymore. Jews were turned into an "evil race" that plots against countries and nations.
Do you think it was inevitable that with the loss of the religious argument for anti-semitism a different one would be found?
The comment above doesn't dismiss my argument. You have become an apologist of Ferdinand and you justified the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Fine with me, it doesn't stand as an argument against my claims though.
I stand aghast. When did I ever justify Ferdinand - "bone-headed" Catholic was the term I used, I think. I never made any such suggestion. It was the most savage vandalism of a society that was a jewel of the world, of history. The expulsion of the Moors and Jews wrecked the economy, which made it of no political or economic interest to Ferdinand. The religious impulse surely passes the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
History 101: From Antiquity until the beginning of the 19th ce, the profession of the banker was disgraced and appropriate only for the slaves and the pariahs of the societies.
History 201: Medici. De Charetty. Fuggers. That Chinese family. The bankers of Surat. Crassus. Not to mention all our Venetian friends.
The fact that Jews were the bankers doesn't prove that they had an eminent position in the society by quite the contrary I am surprised that this has skipped your attention...
I'm surprised it has skipped anyone's attention that banking is the most profitable and powerful section of any capitalist economy. Even the Genoese could get invited into polite company. Don't try coming it with me on this subject.
Every group of people has its own mythology as to its mythical ancestors.
I can name one group - the Cardiff Unpublished Writers Bridge and Social Club - that doesn't. The New Labour party would be another. Perhaps by group you refer specifically to a "racial" group?
It's high unethical from your part to imply that the legend of the 12 tribes, one of the most ancient legents of the Jewish people has anything in common with the blood definition that appeared in 1492. I am asking you to retract that comment otherwise I will ask you to show us how similar legends of the Greeks for example( the 10 tribes of Athens) have similar racist notions.
Of course the "tribes of Athens" legends had a racist connotation. Claiming distinction by common descent is by definition racist. "Athens for the Athenians - children of the Ten Tribes" or whatever slogan a politician might want to use at some point. Of course, the people of a great trading city like Athens were deeply heterogenous, so why the legends?

When you want to persuade people to act in your interests rather than their own, how do you persuade them? If they're family you can appeal to family loyalty - who could criticise that? If they're not obviously family you can perhaps appeal to tribal loyalty or "the nation" - an extended family, with the common root lost in history. Obviously you assign high values to the particular tribe - or family - you're claiming as your own. You also assign low values to the tribe you assign your enemies to. Like I just did with the Genoese.

Thanks for the info on "phaenomenon", which I will always use henceforth. (Sorry about assuming it was a typo.) If anybody tries to correct me I can put them down with apparent erudition.

(edited to remove a crass error)

[CapelDodger]

from Dancing David:
No , just as with all the nazi collaborators it was small people making small choices that led to the deportation of the jews. had the french chosen to hide jewish citizens they could have done so succesfully.
This doesn't take much account of the actual situation the French were in. The country was closely monitored, everybody carried papers and had them checked regularly. Many French people did attempt to hide Jews (including Catholic priests), and many suffered for it. Hiding people - and feeding them - in these circumstances was very difficult and dangerous.
I personaly do not feel that it takes a whole nation being racist to have a genocide, in fact it probably only takes a small active percentage, and a large percentage looking the other way.

Which prompts the question: why not before? Was there no small minority prepared to be active (unlikely, I think), or was there not a majority prepared to look the other way? In Nazi Germany both were somehow made available.

[Cleopatra]

Good evening Capel Dodger

I tried to group my answers as much as possible in order to make our discussion easier and your evasions from the topic more difficult.

I do not have illusions that there is a possibility to persuade somebody who claims that:

originally posted by Capel Dodger

What I suggest is that without Zionism and its apparent (and falsely claimed) successes the Holocaust would have been less likely..

To be honest I am not interested in persuading you but people read this forum and I have to show them that what hides behind such claims is prejudice. This saddens me of course but this is part of what is called life, I guess.

So, let's start again. You are right for "complaining" for not mentioning my sources, I avoided it in order not to make the discussion boring but from a point it's inevitable.


Regarding the petitions I mentioned you replied:

originally posted by Caple Dodger
I don't know how "mass" these petitions were, but one obvious point is that they were made against the existing emancipation of Jews.

The best source for the petitions in Bavaria is the book of James F. Harris,The People Speak!Antisemitism and Emancipation in Nineteenth-Century Bavaria ( University of Michigan Press)

No, the petitions were not made against the existing emancipation of Jews.

" On December 14, 1849, the lower house of the Bavarian Parliament passed a bill to grant Bavarian Jews full equality. Immediately, throught Bavaria, press and popular opposition erupted and a petition campaign that was spontaneous, extreme;ly borad-based and genuine sprung up against the bill.

In a remarkable feat of political action, during the difficult conditions of a harsh winter, petitions from over 1700, ( that is nearly one-quarter) of the communities in Bavaria containing signatures, by conservative estimate, of between 10 and 20 percent of all adult male citizens of the entire Bavarian population, were collected within just three months.

The popular forces favoring Jewish emancipation, in contrast, were practically non-existent. In all Bavaria, only three communities sent petitions supporting the emancipation bill, two of which contained sizable Jewish populations."

And Harris concludes:

" In the region of Bavaria five to six Germans opposed than favored Jewish emancipation,. This outpouring of anti-Jewish sentiment and of outrage at the notion that Jews should be treated not as dangerous aliens but as Germans, occured during a period of the 19th ce when antisemitic expression was relatively low compared to other, epsecially later periods.

Those petitions make clear than many Christian Bavarians feared Jews. They desliked the Jewsih Religion, respected Jewish talents and success but regarded Jews as unalterably different

Many petitions maintained that Jews were predatory that Jews because they were talented, posed an acute damger to the well-being Germans and they would never assimilate"

Now,Capel Dodger

Thirty years later in 1880 we see that the prejudice prevails. You asked for the mass of the petititions. According to Harris again 265.000 people in Bavaria signed those petitions.

What are my conclusions?

We observe a continuity of the antisemitic feelings. The fuel is always there ready to explode.

How does that emancipation weigh against the apparently repeated attempts to remove them - repeated because they were unsuccessful? Rather heavier I'd have thought. These people couldn't prevent Jewish emancipation or reverse it when it happened. The Nazis tried to exterminate Jews. What the hell happened in the meantime?

This argument doesn't refute mine.My main argument is that antisemitism existed for centuries in the German Society before Zionism You point to other directions.

As James says, repeating your claim doesn't constitute a proof :)

All you have managed to show so far is that antisemitism wasn't THAT fierce. You can't prove that antisemitism didn't exist before Zionism

Do you want more?

A couple of months ago while I was preparing myself for a trial and I was reading about ritual murders I found the following that left me speechless:

In Germany and and the Austrian Empire, tewlve ( 12 !!!!) trials against Jews regardsing ritual murder accusations took place between the years 1867-1914!!!

One would be enough to show the extend of Antisemitism in the German society but not for you.

So, among other things this is what heppened in the meantime...

I have more of course if you wish. I can mention what antisemites writers( and I am not refering to one or two) between 1861-1895 propose as solutions to the Jewish problem when the emancipation issue was solved...

As did Hertzl, you look at half the story and ignore what is surely the real lesson.

Probably you have in mind a " J'Accuse" movie.

Hertzl was living in the societies where at the end of the 19th until the beginning of 10th ce Jews were trailed for ritual murders.

To recapitulate

As many writings, petitions even trials show, the German society was continuously antisemetic during the 19th and the beginning of the 20th ce.

The material mentioned above, describes a Jew who is competent and therefore dangerous. It's obvious to everybody that Germans didn't wait for Weitzman or a marginal group that was fantasizing its return to Jerusalem to form an opinion about the Jews.

You have to prove the opposite. You can either prove your claims, retract them or admit that you choose to believe them for your own personal reasons. Repeating them, doesn't constitute a proof :)

Of course I am not finished.

[Cleopatra]

And now let me refer to two points that have amused me tremendously.

to my claim that :
originally posted by Cleosanta

The fact that Jews were the bankers doesn't prove that they had an eminent position in the society by quite the contrary I am surprised that this has skipped your attention...

You replied:

originally posted by Capel Dodger
I'm surprised it has skipped anyone's attention that banking is the most profitable and powerful section of any capitalist economy. Even the Genoese could get invited into polite company. Don't try coming it with me on this subject.

First of all, skip the intimidating part. It makes me giggle :)

Second, profitable doesn't mean respectable. I didn't claim that bankers weren't rich, I claimed that nobody noble did this job and this job doesn't prove an eminent social status.

I happen to know very well the mentality of the people who make money out of the 0,000001% of other people's wealth and by selling services. Maybe it's you that you shouldn't try to come with me on this subject but anyway.

I am not impressed by people that they have become rich by "playing" with the 0,000001% of the wealth of the British barristers. :)

The truth is Capel Dodger that bankers need at least another century in order that their profession is considered respectable.

Diamond sellers are something else but how many of the Jews were diamong sellers. In Salonika in the eve of the WWII, there were two in a population of 90.000 Jews...


Now let me come to the other point.
Of course the "tribes of Athens" legends had a racist connotation. Claiming distinction by common descent is by definition racist. "Athens for the Athenians - children of the Ten Tribes" or whatever slogan a politician might want to use at some point. Of course, the people of a great trading city like Athens were deeply heterogenous, so why the legends?

Add to your list anothe proof you must provide. You have to show us that back then, in Antiquity people were aware of racism and that racism with its biological notion appeared that early.

I am looking forward to that proof.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
I am not impressed by people that they have become rich by "playing" with the 0,000001% of the wealth of the British barristers.
That crack about "proven lawyer" was clearly a mistake.

If that's all Greek bankers are making I clearly missed a business opportunity in my younger days. What with the great weather, beautiful women and some quite nice food I might have been up for that. Sadly it's too late now, all ambition spent ...

[Cleopatra]

Come-on Capel Dodger. I was in a good mood while composing that that's why I didn't mention how Cicero compares bankers to lawyers...but of course Cicero was a lawyer.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

First question: Cicero was quite a character, but would you want him as a dinner-guest? (That's a rather more pretentious psychometric test question than "If you were a flower, what flower would it be?")
On December 14, 1849, the lower house of the Bavarian Parliament passed a bill to grant Bavarian Jews full equality. Immediately, throught Bavaria, press and popular opposition erupted and a petition campaign that was spontaneous, extreme;ly borad-based and genuine sprung up against the bill.

In a remarkable feat of political action, during the difficult conditions of a harsh winter, petitions from over 1700, ( that is nearly one-quarter) of the communities in Bavaria containing signatures, by conservative estimate, of between 10 and 20 percent of all adult male citizens of the entire Bavarian population, were collected within just three months.

Colour me amazed. Just consider the logistics. Without mass organisations or political parties, who organised all these people knocking on doors and stopping people in the street?

Catholic Bavaria in 1849. 1848 was the "Year of Revolutions", which didn't spring up overnight. Those revolutions were the culmination of increasing stress between the republican, democratic and anti-clerical ideas inspired and/or released by the French Revolution (and spread by the Empire) and the aristocratic reaction. The Papacy, of course, was stoutly on the side of reaction. One aspect of the democratic movement was emancipation of the Jews, and I've touched on the Vatican reaction to that before. So in Catholic Bavaria we apparently have wide-spread popular opposition to the emancipation of Jews. Who was doing the knocking-on-doors? I may be wrong - it has happened - but the obvious answer would be the Catholic Church, would it not? They have representatives who cover every hectare of the territory. They have long-established chains of command. They also have the population coming to them every Sunday.

So as an example of attitudes in Germany across the whole 19thCE you put forward a petition movement organised by the Catholic Chuch (or Catholic front organisations) in Catholic Bavaria at a time of great social turmoil in which the Papacy was intimately involved. And 10% to 20% of the population, from a quarter of the communities, signed up.

Still, I say all kudos to the Lower House of the Bavarian Parliament. class of 1849.

[CapelDodger]

He Cleopatra:
Hertzl was living in the societies where at the end of the 19th until the beginning of 10th ce Jews were trailed for ritual murders.
So what? What do you have to say in response to my point - that Dreyfus was exonerated? Why do you belittle J'Accuse and the people who made sure that he was? Don't argue from authority. Herzl's pre-conceptions and intellectual limitations are very clear from his book.

[CapelDodger]

All you have managed to show so far is that antisemitism wasn't THAT fierce. You can't prove that antisemitism didn't exist before Zionism
Oh yeah, and that. I did take the trouble to set out my own position (which obviously isn't what you imply). So, can you prove that anti-semitism has not been exaggerated?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Dancing David:

This doesn't take much account of the actual situation the French were in. The country was closely monitored, everybody carried papers and had them checked regularly. Many French people did attempt to hide Jews (including Catholic priests), and many suffered for it. Hiding people - and feeding them - in these circumstances was very difficult and dangerous.

Well I wasn't born before 1958, so I did not witness it, but it seems to me that the issuesa re the same for every nation that the Nazis occupied although I could argue that the Vichy government was much laxer than the german one.
I just feel that he numbers of deportations in France, especialy in the Vichy part reflect the underlying anti semitism. Conjecture merely


Which prompts the question: why not before? Was there no small minority prepared to be active (unlikely, I think), or was there not a majority prepared to look the other way? In Nazi Germany both were somehow made available.

I would say hat both had existed before , but that it took the will and the organization to carry it out, they had existed before but they hadn't been expoited.

Which is why I mentioned Rwands, certain tribal tensions have exited there a long time, but it took the will, the government and the technology to make it feasible.

I would alos point out the the Americans commited genocide on a non industrial scale against the native americasn but as our technology improved so did our ability to commit genocide, there are some who believe that as many as 300,000 mexican americans were killed at the turn of the last century.

I would say it takes all three:
- a culture with the active haters and the tolerators
- agovernement or quasi governmental structure with the will
- the technology to put the means into effect


and of course the economics to make it profitable.
Peace

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
First question: Cicero was quite a character, but would you want him as a dinner-guest? (That's a rather more pretentious psychometric test question than "If you were a flower, what flower would it be?")

If I were a flower this would be a daisy.

When you made that proposal by PM( to pity you) I wanted to reply that I accept with the condition that you post something in that thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31685&pagenumber=1) that you pretend you haven't seen but your PM Box --the undeniable index of popularity in this forum-- was full.Of course I am joking about this PM.

Confess that you'd die to meet the man who was declaring that Pythia(of the Deplhic oracle) had advised him to ignore the opinion of the general public and to run his life the way he wish...

Now back to the arena.


To the issue of the petitions you replied that we have to blame the Catholic Church for fuelling antisemitism

originally posted by Capel Dodger
Who was doing the knocking-on-doors? I may be wrong - it has happened - but the obvious answer would be the Catholic Church, would it not? They have representatives who cover every hectare of the territory. They have long-established chains of command. They also have the population coming to them every Sunday.

So? I do not see how this refutes my argument. Isn't church part of the society and I'd say a very influential part?

Your argument proves my claim. That antisemitism was a prevailing prejudice in the German society during 19th century.

Still, I say all kudos to the Lower House of the Bavarian Parliament. class of 1849.

I know very well what do you mean and I agree with you but this is how politics work. Before Hitler, German politicans had a common sense. They were aware and many of them probably shared the antisemitic feelings but they knew very well that they couldn't or they didn't want to exterminate the Jews and if the Catholic Church was behind all this do you know why they didn't want to exterminate the Jews?

Of course you know the answer although you keep asking David the same question. Since the first Christian centuries, the church didn't want to eliminate the Jews but it wanted to convert them in order to prove the triumph and glory of God.

You might want to torture me by asking me to bring you examples from Theological Texts.Go ahead.

originally posted by Capel Dodger
So what? What do you have to say in response to my point - that Dreyfus was exonerated? Why do you belittle J'Accuse and the people who made sure that he was? Don't argue from authority. Herzl's pre-conceptions and intellectual limitations are very clear from his book.

I do not belittle "J'accuse" I just try to show you that Herztl grew-up in an environment that didn't allow him to hope that Jews would ever assimiliate in the newborn states.

You insist on naming Hertzl experiences preconceptions and I still do not like that.

originally posted by Capel DodgerOh yeah, and that. I did take the trouble to set out my own position (which obviously isn't what you imply).

No you didn't prove that in antiquity they believed in biological racism. Do you insist that the Myth of the 12 tribes of Israel and the Myth of the 10 Tribes of Athens are racist myths with the biological definition of the world? THAT is the question?

So, can you prove that anti-semitism has not been exaggerated?

Do you want me to prove your claims? I thought that you have appointed Billy as your lawyer.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Capel Dodger
I'm surprised it has skipped anyone's attention that banking is the most profitable and powerful section of any capitalist economy. Even the Genoese could get invited into polite company. Don't try coming it with me on this subject.

As a banker, may I interject that its profitability is exaggerated? Handling large amounts of money is not the same as having large amounts of money. Plenty of bankers (and banks) go under. I sell a product. If I charge too much, I lose my customers and go bankrupt. If I charge too little, I can’t cover my expenses and go bankrupt. Profitability is a balancing act, and I suspect that bankers of previous centuries faced similar challenges.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I happen to know very well the mentality of the people who make money out of the 0,000001% of other people's wealth and by selling services. Maybe it's you that you shouldn't try to come with me on this subject but anyway.

I do hope you mean that in a nice way. :)

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The truth is Capel Dodger that bankers need at least another century in order that their profession is considered respectable.

<sigh!>

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do you want me to prove your claims? I thought that you have appointed Billy as your lawyer.
CapelDodger's lawyer? Heh, that's a good one, but which one is it? Poisoning the well springs to mind. By the way, are you going to respond to my post, or is this (as I'm beginning to strongly suspect) simply another opportunity to work out your grievances with CapelDodger? If so, that's fine, but it would've been good if you could've been a little more... open about that in your opening post. :)

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft!! Please do not hijack the thread. If you wish start a thread to discuss with Capel Dodger the benefits of banking. I'd love to jump in and have the opportunity to quote Cicero :p

Billy I take your post above as an attempt to demonstrate your British sense of humor. I know you can do better than that but since it's Monday I understand :)

I never leave posts answered, I am kind of flattered that you were anticipating to read my answers to your questions. I took advantage of weekend's free time in order to address Capel Dodger's remarks that needed some reading, I am sure that between phone calls and stuff I will find the time to reply to your questions :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Billy I take your post above as an attempt to demonstrate your British sense of humor. I know you can do better than that but since it's Monday I understand :)[/b]
You are quite correct; I'm not yet yelling at you both to get a room because it is after all only Monday.

I never leave posts answered, I am kind of flattered that you were anticipating to read my answers to your questions. I took advantage of weekend's free time in order to address Capel Dodger's remarks that needed some reading, I am sure that between phone calls and stuff I will find the time to reply to your questions :)
Well, you have implicitly positioned yourself as an expert on the subject, so of course I'm anticipating your response. A committment to respond is quite acceptable; I'm not imposing a statute of limitations here. I've a few questions to ask of CapelDodger in the meantime anyway.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillyTK

You are quite correct; I'm not yet yelling at you both to get a room because it is after all only Monday.

No, you are not making such remarks because it would be highly uncalled for and you are a gentleman. :)


Well, you have implicitly positioned yourself as an expert on the subject, so of course I'm anticipating your response.

Thank you. I wouldn't say that I am an expert but as you have seen I have devoted a lot of time reading on the subject.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


No, you are not making such remarks because it would be highly uncalled for and you are a gentleman. :)
First you suggest I'm CapelDodger's lawyer, now you call me a gentleman. Are you being intentionally insulting? Do you wish to take this to the Flame Wars forum? :mad: :p

[davefoc]

I just read through this thread.

As usual, I was impressed with CD's amazing knowledge of history or at least his ability to BS me in to believing that he has an impressive and wide ranging knowledge of history.

My apologies, but I never quite got the argument against what CD was saying about Zionism. CD says that Zionism was used as part of an anti-Jewish campaign of Hitler propagandists to mobilize the German population against Jews. He never says that it was the only element of that campaign, or that even without it that the holocaust would not have happened. In fact, he says that he's not sure about that.

So the way I read it, CD is not saying anything that anybody disagrees with, even though several people did disagree with what they thought he might be saying.

Michael Hart in his book, 100 most influential people, talked about why he thought Hitler belonged on his list of the most influential people. The point he made was that before Hitler Jews were assimilating into German society very rapidly. I believe he quotes a statistic that before the rise of Hitler one third of the Jews who married were marrying a non-Jew. So Hitler and his propaganda machine had a profound effect on the attitudes and practices of Germany with respect to Jews. One element of that propaganda campaign was anti-Zionism. So who is to say whether that was an essential element. Maybe, if the Zionist movement hadn't existed, the Hitler propagandists would have just replaced that issue with something else and little would have changed. Or maybe without the Zionist issue Hitler's propagandists would have fallen just short of enough issues to generate the requisite anti-Jewish hysteria and the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.

If there is an answer to this, it would involve a complicated quantitative historical analysis and even after that people would still argue about it.

[sackett]

It's useless to pretend that anti-Semitism hasn't existed in Europe for almost two millennia. As for the Holocaust: the Germans couldn't have done it all by themselves, and they didn't. We've all read about the mass graves filled with layers of Jews killed by Russian bullets - and topped with a layer of dead Ukrainians killed by German bullets. In France, Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Poland (there were pogroms in Poland -after- WW II), Lithuania, Belgium - everywhere German boots marched, the anti-Semites rose and collaborated. They knew just what they were doing.

Murderous anti-Semitism in Europe is like a bed of coals; sometimes it flares up, sometimes it burns low, but it never goes out. Hitler fanned European anti-Semitism into a fire partly for his own purposes - give people a hated enemy and they'll fight for you like devils - and mostly out of his own bloody-minded, dim-bulb prejudices: he hated yids and he wanted to kill them, simple as that.

In the New World, Jews are not a nationality, and nothing could conceivably make them into one. That's why it's hard for non-Europeans to fathom why Europe periodically turns on its own and massacres them. In Europe, Jews are a nationality, like Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, and nothing ever seems to alter the fact, certainly not the "assimilation" we hear about over and over.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillyTK

First you suggest I'm CapelDodger's lawyer, now you call me a gentleman. Are you being intentionally insulting? Do you wish to take this to the Flame Wars forum? :mad: :p


I called you lawyer and not a banker, for Christ sake!!!

I am sorry Billy I had in mind to reply to you tonigh but I returned home at 23:00.

One word to davefoc.

Historical knowledge is admirable if : 1.Somebody has it indeed.2. If it can support claims.

Making claims for things that took place during the past without supporting them doesn't constitute historical knowledge.

Hart is not a historian but more about it tomorrow.

And one last thing to Billy. With people I have ....issues of ...freudian nature I talk about food and not about politics. ;)

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
I post the following as a visceral supporter of the Welsh Rugby Team on a day when the English rugger-buggers have been parading themselves over every news bulletin, newspaper, toilet-wall and who knows what-all. Am I a happy bunny? Guess.

I do not belittle "J'accuse" I just try to show you that Herztl grew-up in an environment that didn't allow him to hope that Jews would ever assimiliate in the newborn states.
Yet many Jews did hope to assimilate - or more accurately, gain emancipation, since assimilation implies a loss of Jewishness. Herzl's personal history and preoccupations were not universal - far from it, in fact, since the book did not sell well.
So? I do not see how this refutes my argument. Isn't church part of the society and I'd say a very influential part?
Flying straight into a mountain. Germany wasn't predominantly Catholic and 1849 wasn't typical of the 19thCE. Your logic, I venture to suggest, is flawed. Or at least a little difficult to follow.

The quote you gave, from James F Harris described the petition movements as "broad-based and popular", but you happily equate that with a petition drive organised by a European power (the Papacy). He draws attention to a press campaign, but what were the newspapers of mid-19thCE Bavaria, who owned them and/or who paid for them? After initially trying to make the printing-press go away the Vatican clued-up and were behind a lot of journals, openly or not. I don't have the book and I know little about James F Harris (although the man who co-wrote "The Book of Classical American Whiskies" can't be all bad). Given that, and the way my mind works, I find myself wondering a) why the exclamation mark (is that a quote from something?) and b) Is this guy cherry-picking anti-semitism from Bavarian history to some end (for instance, refuting arguments similar to mine)? His conclusions are rather baldly stated for an academic work. Not having the book, or being sure just what context was given to the passage you quote, or exactly what the Bavarian press was like, I'm leaving myself wide open here. The reason for that, of course, is that I was told to expect a right royal shafting in this argument, and I'd just like to get it over with.
You, oh Lioness of the Dawn Horizon, have the book, so hit me with the 1849 context he troubles to set this in. And again, kudos to the Lower House of Parliament of Bavaria, class of 1849.

Kicking this book around a bit more, we have:
The popular forces favoring Jewish emancipation, in contrast, were practically non-existent. In all Bavaria, only three communities sent petitions supporting the emancipation bill, two of which contained sizable Jewish populations.
Given that the measure had been passed, there was no particular need for petitions in favour. So here we have the fact that, while the opponents of a successful measure were moved to raise petitions, those who were in favour were not so moved. Why do you waste bandwidth on that? Why does it impress you in the first place? Why did it impress the whisky-lover?
... occured during a period of the 19th ce when antisemitic expression was relatively low compared to other, epsecially later periods
This was 1849, in the middle of major political and social upheaval in Western and Central Europe, upheaval in which the Papacy was intimately concerned. The Papacy, since 1817 at least, was obsessively anti-semitic. And yet this period is descibed as a time of low anti-semitic expression? It's rather unlikely, wouldn't you say? Considering all these petitions, for instance. Or does he mean that excepting these many petitions, activity was low? Which is some cute arguing. Reminds me of the "background radiation" beauty.

To give a little more context to the period: the French Revolution and Empire brought radical changes to all of Europe, changes which the old order tried to reverse after the Bourbon Restoration. This was impossible in the modern world. Tensions built until there was a major shake-out in and around 1848. The Vatican, naturally, allied itself with the reactionary, aristocratic faction. The opposition, in contrast, was by its nature anti-clerical - the great expression being the much-lamented separation of Church and State in the US Constitution. Clericalism meant anti-semitism: anti-clericalism meant anti-anti-semitism. Thus the Lower House of Parliament of Bavaria doing their thing, and the Catholic Church making a big noise against it.

An analogy: I know quite a few journalists, including local ones, and if they ever make the slightest disparagement of Israel or mention the Palestinian experience or even include a letter to that effect there's a s**t-storm of letters and e-mails from Lower Peoria and all sorts of places giving them the real story and calling them anti-semites. Is this really coming from the natural, broad-based Jewish reaction or is it an organised minority campaign making a lot of noise?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Confess that you'd die to meet the man who was declaring that Pythia(of the Deplhic oracle) had advised him to ignore the opinion of the general public and to run his life the way he wish...
Dying is the last thing I'd do, but I'd definitely have Cicero over if I was sure I could get behind him with an axe-handle if I really, really felt I had to. Socrates - welcome at barbecues, not for beer around the fire on a winter evening.

Faintly appropriately, you may notice I have a new sig. It completes the quote "It is ridiculous that you should quote against me the opinions of the people of Westphalia. If you listen to popular opinion you will achieve nothing. If the people refuses ..." etc. I'm no great fan of the Corsican, but after the Revolution I'm using this in the preamble to the Constitution. In Welsh.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by sackett
It's useless to pretend that anti-Semitism hasn't existed in Europe for almost two millennia...........

Murderous anti-Semitism in Europe is like a bed of coals; sometimes it flares up, sometimes it burns low, but it never goes out.

..................

In the New World, Jews are not a nationality, and nothing could conceivably make them into one. That's why it's hard for non-Europeans to fathom why Europe periodically turns on its own and massacres them.
...................



It would be astonishing if a country colonised by europeans such as the U.S. had not incorporated anti-semitism into its culture and it is rather surprising that you appear to be unaware of this fact. Perhaps this article (http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html) on the highly influential anti-semitism of Henry Ford will set you in the right direction.

To quote from the article
_________ "This paper traces the anti-Semitic activities of automobile manufacturer Henry Ford. ..... They ( Ford's articles ) also accused the Jews of conspiring to enslave Christianity and destroy the “Anglo-Saxon” way of life. The articles were later gathered into book form and published under the title: The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. This book was translated into 16 languages, and was to have a profound influence upon the growing Nazi movement in Germany. "

"__________ The testimony given by Baldus von Schirach, former leader of the Hitler Youth, was no less condemning. Von Schirach testified that he had first become an anti-Semite after reading a German edition of The International Jew translated as The Eternal Jew. “You have no idea what a great influence this book had on the thinking of German youth,” von Schirach stated. “The younger generation looked with envy to the symbols of success and prosperity like Henry Ford, and if he said the Jews were to blame, we naturally believed him.” "

I'm afraid that prejudice and suspicion of humans who are "different" is a constant in the human psyche. Ask any black person you meet. ;)

[CapelDodger]

from davefoc:
As usual, I was impressed with CD's amazing knowledge of history or at least his ability to BS me in to believing that he has an impressive and wide ranging knowledge of history.
I try to illuminate and obfuscate in equal measure. One (possibly the only) benefit of debating with Cleopatra is the way it draws me into places and periods I have only a peripheral knowledge of - such as modern Greek history or the nature of the Bavarian press.

I appreciate your comments, which confirm that I've got my point across clearly to at least one member of the jury.

Re other options Hitler had for propaganda: the full-blown Nazi story was the Jewish-Communist(!) conspiracy, so there was always the Russian Revolution to fall back on. Jews were prominent in socialist circles - which is another way of saying that non-Establishment, urbanised intellectuals were prominent in socialist circles, but it doesn't have to be presented that way. But in the end anti-semitism didn't have to be part of Hitler's path to power. The communist threat and nationalism could perhaps have been sufficient. Who, sadly, will ever know. If the concentration camps had only ever been for commies and pikeys, Hitler probably wouldn't have such a bad name. Which explains the Holocaust-denial of people who quite openly advocate what their god was supposed not to have done when he had the chance.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillyTK

That's the content; what's the intent in saying those things? What are the benefits for Christianity and its believers in making those remarks?

I think that the first Christians didn't hide why they were portraying Jews with such dark colors. If Christianity started as a Jewish sect ( this is the opinion that prevails today) they badly needed to name the Jews as the bad guys from which they had to differ.

Let me clarify here, that when I use the word "political", I don't mean in terms of party politics or representative democracy, but simply in terms of power; who holds power, who is a subject of power, how power is distributed across society.

Aristotle would say that everything that takes place in the organized society constitutes politics but I don't use this term. Politics even in the terms of power presuppose a conflict, a reaction, a process. In the case of antisemitism we didn't have a conflict but we had groups of people imposing their preconceptions on another group of people, the same group of people all the time, without giving the opportunity to the later to "apologize" or to lobby in order to change this mentality.

We can't use the term politics because in this "procedure" ( dear Lord! I am talking like a Marxist now! :p ) those who had the power didn't consider Jews as equal, in fact they didn't even consider them as humans.

Do you think that the secularisation of anti-Semitic arguments at approximately the same time as the secularisation of European society is anything more than co-incidence? Perhaps something to do with the end of christianity (and specifically, the Holy Roman Empire) as a major political force, and maybe the popularising of the 'scientific' idea of race??

Co-incidence, not at all although this deserves a discussion of its own it's interesting to see how this notion of the Volk evolved.

This thread about the National Anthems shocked me a bit and I have in mind to start a thread about it. I will just state for now that it seems to me that only real atheist in this forum must be Capel Dodger who has declared that despises the Religion of Nationalism but I am derailing the topic now.

True, but I haven't called it Zionism.

Because you have never been in the position to choose. You were born in a country that those issues were solved for good, don't underestimate that.

No, Great Britian isn't a Zionist state, because as your claim implies, protecting ones borders and existence is not precisely Zionism. Let me explain; what I'm seeking to do here is investigate your claim that Zionism ended with the founding of the Israeli, or if there is any aspect of Zionism that has been preserved and reproduced in Israeli culture, like, for instance, the idea of Israel as a physical homeland for Jews (as opposed to a divinely ordained one).

I have posted on this topic a couple of months ago. I don't want to expand for the moment, if you don't mind, because I owe an answer to David on that too, for now I will say that I see a problem here indeed. I have already said in other threads that in my opinion, a common religion is not a solid basis to establish a country. For example we, the Sephardic Jews have very little in common with the Askenazim. In fact we don't exactly adore each other and we haven't forgiven them still for establishing Israel :) BUT I will expand on that later if you don't have a serious problem with that.

could you quote where you think I've done that please?

You didn't but this was the logical conclusion.

Just to clarify, you're not suggesting that all of Europe were equally engaging in anti-Semitism all the time?

Not at all. Also, I am not suggesting that everyday for centuries Christians were burning Jews in the corners of the streets. I am suggesting that antisemitism existed for centuries before Hitler.

[BillyTK]

Hi Cleopatra, thanks for taking time to reply.
I think that the first Christians didn't hide why they were portraying Jews with such dark colors. If Christianity started as a Jewish sect ( this is the opinion that prevails today) they badly needed to name the Jews as the bad guys from which they had to differ.
Exactly; stigmatise the old religion to legitimise the new; we've seen other forms of this with the way that Christianity stigmatised the pagan religions, yet at the same time stole many pagan festivals to give christianity that extra bit of credibility, so we get Christmas, Easter, All Saints (Halloween) &c &c. Me, I call that political ;)

Aristotle would say that everything that takes place in the organized society constitutes politics but I don't use this term. Politics even in the terms of power presuppose a conflict, a reaction, a process. In the case of antisemitism we didn't have a conflict but we had groups of people imposing their preconceptions on another group of people, the same group of people all the time, without giving the opportunity to the later to "apologize" or to lobby in order to change this mentality. We can't use the term politics because in this "procedure" ( dear Lord! I am talking like a Marxist now! :p ) those who had the power didn't consider Jews as equal, in fact they didn't even consider them as humans.
I don't think (political) power implies conflict, just direction. A king has political power over his subjects; there's no conflict there (until the subjects have had enough and overthrow him) but those subjects are still the subjects of the king's power. Which is what we see with anti-Semitism; the power of a group of people to enforce their preconceptions of another group of people. Of course, it's a little more complex than that, but rather than get all Foucauldian and derail the thread, I'm happy to use "political" to mean "political" and nothing else if that suits you.

Co-incidence, not at all although this deserves a discussion of its own it's interesting to see how this notion of the Volk evolved.
No problem. My point would be that there's no disjuncture between religious and political anti-Semitism, but that it's the same basic power-relationship going on, albeit changing with the times by adorning itself with the clothes of scientific rationalism.

This thread about the National Anthems shocked me a bit and I have in mind to start a thread about it. I will just state for now that it seems to me that only real atheist in this forum must be Capel Dodger who has declared that despises the Religion of Nationalism but I am derailing the topic now.
For another thread? I'm not a big fan of nationalism either...

Because you have never been in the position to choose. You were born in a country that those issues were solved for good, don't underestimate that.
But I think I'd still be able to differentiate between nation statehood and an ideology(?) which seeks to establish a specific nation state.

I have posted on this topic a couple of months ago. I don't want to expand for the moment, if you don't mind, because I owe an answer to David on that too, for now I will say that I see a problem here indeed. I have already said in other threads that in my opinion, a common religion is not a solid basis to establish a country. For example we, the Sephardic Jews have very little in common with the Askenazim. In fact we don't exactly adore each other and we haven't forgiven them still for establishing Israel :) BUT I will expand on that later if you don't have a serious problem with that.
No problem; when you're ready. I'll look forward to it. :)

You didn't but this was the logical conclusion.
I'm not too sure that it is. For instance, if the Zionist movement was wholly a reaction to European anti-Semitism, why in heck did they want to return to Palestine? Surely that's a case of "out of the fire, into the frying pan"?

Not at all. Also, I am not suggesting that everyday for centuries Christians were burning Jews in the corners of the streets. I am suggesting that antisemitism existed for centuries before Hitler.
Agreed; is this even being contested?

[sackett]

Originally posted by Nikk


It would be astonishing if a country colonised by europeans such as the U.S. had not incorporated anti-semitism into its culture and it is rather surprising that you appear to be unaware of this fact. . . . Ask any black person you meet. ;)

Come on, Nikk, look at my location: Detroit, home of old Henry F*art himself -- and also the blackest city in the U.S. I don't need tutoring about anti-Semitism in America, or about the status of minorities. But anti-Semitism has never been cultural in this country or anywhere else in the New World the way it is in Europe. That's why I call the Holocaust and its precursors a baffling phenomenon -- unless you come from Poland or Russia or Germany.

[CapelDodger]

from BillyTK:
That's the content; what's the intent in saying those things? What are the benefits for Christianity and its believers in making those remarks?
The new religion of Christianity was being sold in the Roman world. Jesus was executed by the Romans for crimes against the State. It would seem useful (in fact vital) to transfer the blame from the Romans to some other group. The obvious target was the local population, especially as a) the target audience was far away from Palestine and could be told all sorts of rubbish (such as Pilate releasing political prisoners to please the crowd) and b) the Jews of Palestine already had a bad reputation due to their rebellions and intransigence. So it wasn't the Romans who rejected and killed the god - far from it, they were powerless to save it - but the Jews. It becomes one of the earliest and most fundamental of the religion's principles, and it's hard to imagine a more murderous one.

[sackett]

There's one thing about anti-Semitism that people don't talk about much, although they should: anti-Semitism feels good, it tastes good. How do I know that? From personal experience. Yes, I'm afraid so.

Time for a confession - not a shameful confession, first because I didn't actually do anything, second because we can't be blamed for emotions that rise up suddenly out of the psyche's hidden places; at least, I don't think we -should- be blamed.

For a short time many years ago, I had to be around a small community of the so-called Christian Jews (not Jews for Jesus, but another sect). They loudly and insistently declared that they accepted the Messiahood of Christ while remaining completely Jewish - and certainly they insisted on their Jewishness, all day long, on every occasion, appropriate or not.

One day I found myself in the home of their leader/rabbi, sitting silent among a number of these Christian Jews; I was the only gentile there, and they knew that. An unlettered old woman from Pskov or someplace did most of the talking, droning volubly on and on about their sect and its excellences. Every other word out of her mouth, and the others nodded and hummed in approval, was "goy" or "goyim;" it seems that the goyim are no damn good because, well, they fail to be Christian Jews, so nyah! Now as a white American male of Protestant extraction (not belief!) I can let a lot of hate words bounce off me; but as this bombardment, and its accompanying disparagement, went into its second hour, I began to feel some irritation. I'll call myself a goy, once, to make a joke, but then enough with the slurs already.

But I felt more than irritation. As I sat in that tattered little parlor and looked around at this gaggle of losers - frail old people, most of them, and the younger ones were no more prepossessing - I realized that a strong, hot, blood-flavored emotion was rising up in me. I felt the strength in my hands and arms; I felt the width of my chest; I think I almost felt jackboots on my lower legs. WHO THE HELL DID THIS CONCEITED PACK OF MOCKEY GODDAMNED SNIVELLERS THINK THEY WERE? In a few seconds, my unaided fists could break the necks of half a dozen of these snotty kikes! And then, still breathing easily, I could crack the heads of the rest of them, two at a time, and finish by making a caved-in shambles of that wretched house and its dime-store furniture!

What I felt, of course, was anti-Semitism. Alas for human nature, it was joy.

In the next moment, after realizing what was going through me, I collapsed inwardly; I was tired and defeated; I was stumped to know what to do with such powerful feelings. I certainly didn't break any necks or crack any skulls; I felt lessened by such desires; I was shocked that a man like me (well . . . a man of the sort I thought I was) could contain such things. Maybe this is a shameful confession after all.

But I've kept the memory of that day close at hand, to review from time to time. The lesson is easy: when the Other is seen as weak and despicable, hating him empowers you; hating him with like-minded companions makes you feel heroic. Beware the heroic hater.

[Cleopatra]

So, sackett will I be wrong to assume that you blame too the Jews for the existence of antisemitism? Also, I have never heard of the Christian Jews. I will google and I hope to come up with something.

For the moment I can't get involved in a discussion of anecdotal nature because I have a lot of things to address in Capel Dodger's and Billy's posts but why not discuss everybody's experience with the Jews :)

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger

You know that I am a passionate supporter of everything that involves a Red Dragon. Red and passion look lovely on me:)

The problem CD is that you made an extreme claim when you said that Zionism fueled Nazism and Zionism is one of the important factors that contribute to the fierceness of the Holocaust. It is a claim that you didn't make only once but three times and every time you repeated that claim, you were more precice to your accussations. As I told you, this must be resolved. I enjoy very much your theories, even your cat conspiracy theories which happen to be my favorites but I cannot take lightly anything that concerns the Pre-WWII European Jewery.


originally posted by Cleosanta:
I do not belittle "J'accuse" I just try to show you that Herztl grew-up in an environment that didn't allow him to hope that Jews would ever assimiliate in the newborn states.
and you replied:

originally posted by Capel Dodger:

Yet many Jews did hope to assimilate - or more accurately, gain emancipation, since assimilation implies a loss of Jewishness. Herzl's personal history and preoccupations were not universal - far from it, in fact, since the book did not sell well.

I agree. Many Jews not only hoped but they wanted to assimilate as well. I have mentioned before the sarcastic motto the Greek Jews had: " Palestine is for the desperate". The fact that Hertzl's book and theories didn't become as popular as he expected support my point. Common Germans and Central Europeans have probably never heard of Hertzl and his Zionism. The Hitleric propaganda didn't use Zionism as an argument against the Jews.

James F Harris (although the man who co-wrote "The Book of Classical American Whiskies" can't be all bad

Poisoning the well. I remind you that even if you arrive to dismiss all my references, this doesn't mean that you will have proven your claims, don't forget that.

I haven't google to learn about Harris. If he is a co-author of a book about whiskey then he won points in my appreciation scale. I trust people who trust apart from their brains, their senses.

You keep trying to divert the discussion. From the one hand you don't reject that antisemitism was an underlying power during the 19th ce , on the other hand though you keep to dismiss everything just because they don't fit your theories.

originally posted by Capel Dodger
Given that the measure had been passed, there was no particular need for petitions in favour. So here we have the fact that, while the opponents of a successful measure were moved to raise petitions, those who were in favour were not so moved. Why do you waste bandwidth on that? Why does it impress you in the first place? Why did it impress the whisky-lover?

No, you are wrong. Those three petitions that they were in favor of the emancipation of the Jews thy were sent before the measure passed.

originally posted by Capel Dodger:

To give a little more context to the period: the French Revolution and Empire brought radical changes to all of Europe, changes which the old order tried to reverse after the Bourbon Restoration. This was impossible in the modern world. Tensions built until there was a major shake-out in and around 1848. The Vatican, naturally, allied itself with the reactionary, aristocratic faction. The opposition, in contrast, was by its nature anti-clerical - the great expression being the much-lamented separation of Church and State in the US Constitution. Clericalism meant anti-semitism: anti-clericalism meant anti-anti-semitism. Thus the Lower House of Parliament of Bavaria doing their thing, and the Catholic Church making a big noise against it.

Again you try to evade the question. Please don't do that. How does this change the fact that the antisemitic theories were prevailing in the mentality of common people, of people who voted Capel Dodger? We are arguing here the tendancy on the society. The society was antisemitic regardless who fueled antisemitism each time. Also, if the battle was between antisemties and anti-antisemties what does this show? Please, Sir be my guest to reply this question by yourself.

originally posted by Capel Dodger:
An analogy: I know quite a few journalists, including local ones, and if they ever make the slightest disparagement of Israel or mention the Palestinian experience or even include a letter to that effect there's a s**t-storm of letters and e-mails from Lower Peoria and all sorts of places giving them the real story and calling them anti-semites. Is this really coming from the natural, broad-based Jewish reaction or is it an organised minority campaign making a lot of noise?

First of all are you sure that your journalist friends are in the position to point Middle East on the map? I am asking because the Greek Journalists can barely write their name...but I won't try to avoid the issue. Do you find lobbying an illegal activity now?

Now. Since I suffer from the "eternal student syndrome"-- a gypsy in Jerusalem had seen that in my horoscope once, I tried to do what you seem that you are not willing to do; find a decent way to prove your position or at least a couple of your claims.I chose to do this as a student because as a lawyer I wouldn't work for free for a banker.Also, the best way to verify your opinion is to start approaching from the opposite direcetion. I admit that I used the help of a couple of students in the School of Law who helped me use our brand new system" Zephyr" for tracing books in Greek Libraries and yesterday I received my first results of my queries, so,today I spent a nice day at the Library that I intend to repeat tomorrow.

So, are you interested in hearing a couple of things that support your claims?


edited to add:

P.S. In another thread somebody wondered why psychics bend only spoons and not forks or knives. I think that the answer must be searched in my Middle Ages. What do you think?

[sackett]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, sackett will I be wrong to assume that you blame too the Jews for the existence of antisemitism? . . . For the moment I can't get involved in a discussion of anecdotal nature because I have a lot of things to address in Capel Dodger's and Billy's posts but why not discuss everybody's experience with the Jews :)

You will be completely wrong to assume that I blame the Jews for anti-Semitism. I seem to have failed in what I wrote: I meant to blame anti-Semitism on the anti-Semites.

I wanted my anecdote to help explain the persistence of European anti-Semitism: the emotion can make a man, or many men, feel righteous and, much worse, strong.

After many years, perhaps I could be more generous with myself about my storm trooper experience. A room full of believers got on my nerves, and I felt a flash of anger; no, a flash of hatred. When we hate someone, we tend to hate everything about them, and the old cliches of anti-Semitism came handy. Let me repeat: it was a self-diminishing experience. It's never happened again.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by sackett


You will be completely wrong to assume that I blame the Jews for anti-Semitism. I seem to have failed in what I wrote: I meant to blame anti-Semitism on the anti-Semites.

I wanted my anecdote to help explain the persistence of European anti-Semitism: the emotion can make a man, or many men, feel righteous and, much worse, strong.

After many years, perhaps I could be more generous with myself about my storm trooper experience. A room full of believers got on my nerves, and I felt a flash of anger; no, a flash of hatred. When we hate someone, we tend to hate everything about them, and the old cliches of anti-Semitism came handy. Let me repeat: it was a self-diminishing experience. It's never happened again.

This is the reason I asked.

You know, I am a bit twisted in something. I don't call everybody who deslikes the Jews antisemites.The same way I do not call every German who served the German Army in WWII a Nazi. I have naratted in this forum a couple of times the story of the neighbour of my grandmother who was desliking Jews but Nazis almost battered her to death because she refused to reveal where some Jewish fellow citizens were hiding.

I happen to deslike communists and Bulgarians. You will hear me saying many stupid things about them but mind you if somebody tries to harm them just because they are communists or Bulgarians.

We are humans, we have feelings, we like and deslike things. I am not afraid of feelings.

edited to add: Also, I don't like Catholics because Pope is the Satan :)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by sackett


Come on, Nikk, look at my location: Detroit, home of old Henry F*art himself -- and also the blackest city in the U.S. I don't need tutoring about anti-Semitism in America, or about the status of minorities. But anti-Semitism has never been cultural in this country or anywhere else in the New World the way it is in Europe. That's why I call the Holocaust and its precursors a baffling phenomenon -- unless you come from Poland or Russia or Germany.

I noticed your location but did not consider it material. We all have the ability to overlook or reinterpret information from our surroundings in order to fulfill some inner need. The existence of irrational prejudices such as antisemitism is evidence of this.

I don't follow your point that anti-semitism in the U.S. was not cultural. It existed in all social classes and still exists in an attenuated form, much as it does in Britain. Do you simply mean it was less widespread or less deeply felt? How could immigrants from Europe not bring their prejudices with them? They were clearly well able to treat natives and blacks as untermenshen. Please note that I am not singling out the U.S. here. When a powerful culture meets a weaker one the latter is frequently oppressed and the U.S. behaved no worse than the Portugese or Spanish.

As regards your reference to the Holocaust as a baffling phenomenon (and if Cleopatra reads this .... no it does not need an extra "a" - the word has been colonised by the evil empire of english, resistance is useless! ) I can only agree.

In previous centuries christian europeans felt far more strongly about christian heretics and moslems than they did about jews. By the early 20th C jews were being integrated reasonably well into Western European society and in say 1910 the idea of mass extermination would have been laughable. While the use of jews as scapegoats in the chaotic situation of post war Germany was understandable in realpolitik terms why trouble to destroy a harmless productive law abiding minority in the middle of a war for national survival? The answer presumably lies in the quasi religious nature of Naziism and the personality of Hitler rather than in some inherent faultline in European culture.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by sackett
There's one thing about anti-Semitism that people don't talk about much, although they should: anti-Semitism feels good, it tastes good. How do I know that? From personal experience. Yes, I'm afraid so.

...............

What I felt, of course, was anti-Semitism. Alas for human nature, it was joy.

................

But I've kept the memory of that day close at hand, to review from time to time. The lesson is easy: when the Other is seen as weak and despicable, hating him empowers you; hating him with like-minded companions makes you feel heroic. Beware the heroic hater.


A nice first hand description of empowerment by hatred. I know exactly what you mean. To those emotions can be added our natural human sadism and our tendency to obey authority figures even when what they are saying defies belief.

On the other hand there are also countervailing emotions, ethical systems and religious proscriptions. As a result most people act the way you did and reject these destructive urges.

If such emotions were not routinely controlled we would all be dead, except possibly for the one last, strong, lucky person left standing!

Which of course means that we cannot really explain why the controls sometimes fail on a society wide scale.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, I have never heard of the Christian Jews. I will google and I hope to come up with something.

This is just for informational purposes and is in no way meant to lead anyone off-topic, but I happen to have as one of my customers at this moment a Messianic Rabbi who is teaching me something about these Christian Jews.

Within the United States are a couple of Messianic Judaism organizations who are essentially Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The particular Rabbi I’m dealing with stresses that they are Jews first and Messianic Jews second, and that distinction leads to some differences in doctrine from the Christians that I haven’t deciphered quite yet.

These Messianic Jews are not received well within the larger Jewish community, who see them as an assimilation threat, even though in practice they are more “Jewish” than many Jewish Jews, particularly Reform Jews. This impression is strengthened by the fact that these Messianic Jews received initial backing from Christian organizations; the Messianic Rabbi I know received his ordination from the Assemblies of God, a conservative Christian organization. Technically he is a minister, not a Rabbi.

There are also Christians who, in an effort to emulate Jesus who was a Jew who worshiped God as a Jew, have adopted Jewish practices so that in worship they’re almost indistinguishable from Orthodox Jews, complete with studies of the Talmud and other bodies of Jewish literature. Though an observer would probably not be able to distinguish these Christian reconstructionists from Messianic Jews, apparently there are important differences in doctrine.

It’s all very confusing.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I called you lawyer and not a banker, for Christ sake!!!

Don’t think I didn’t see that! :mad:

[BillyTK]

Hi CapelDodger
The new religion of Christianity was being sold in the Roman world. Jesus was executed by the Romans for crimes against the State. It would seem useful (in fact vital) to transfer the blame from the Romans to some other group. The obvious target was the local population, especially as a) the target audience was far away from Palestine and could be told all sorts of rubbish (such as Pilate releasing political prisoners to please the crowd) and b) the Jews of Palestine already had a bad reputation due to their rebellions and intransigence. So it wasn't the Romans who rejected and killed the god - far from it, they were powerless to save it - but the Jews. It becomes one of the earliest and most fundamental of the religion's principles, and it's hard to imagine a more murderous one.
Thanks for this explanation; I think it supports the point I was trying to make to Cleopatra about sifting intent from content, which makes the differentiation between religious anti-Semitism and political anti-Semitism problematic, in that it's less of a discrete break and more of an adaption to new modes of discourse.

Out of interest, would you consider christianity to be inherently anti-Semitic in light of the above, in a similar way to the manner that others consider anti-Zionism to be anti-semitic (yup, I'm intentionally question-begging now! ;) )

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by sackett
But anti-Semitism has never been cultural in this country or anywhere else in the New World the way it is in Europe.
[...]
The lesson is easy: when the Other is seen as weak and despicable, hating him empowers you; hating him with like-minded companions makes you feel heroic. Beware the heroic hater.

I've got to acknowledge that in the first quote you recognise that anti-Semitism is culturally based, but you suppose that this anti-Semitism is more explicit in European culture than anywhere else. This might well be true, but your second quote got me thinking. The obvious question is how 'the Other' achieves 'Otherness', which can only be explained in cultural terms; it's not something implicit in the group being persecuted, and it's certainly not something essential to the actor invoking this 'Otherness'–i.e. they're not born with it; it's already floating around the ether as a cultural norm. To that extent Europe and the US are no different; this norm will have spread to the US with the migrancy which populated it.

The difference seems to be the willingness of people to act on that prejudice in any kind of focussed way, and the conditions which lead people to be so willing to act on those prejudices. People in Europe have been willing to do that in the past, yet this hasn't happened in the US, although I'd suggest it's a hasty generalisation to assume it could never happen in the US. Why? Because the US has had its own specific set of prejudices to work out; and in the case of Japanese during WWII, blacks up until 1964 and (some might argue) Arabs currently, explicitly institutionalised racist practices.

So I'd argue that the norms are there, and the capacity to act on those norms are there (which I'd argue is the major component), so in that respect the US is similar to Europe. Fingers crossed that the US will never see the extent of anti-Semitism that Europe has witnessed, but hopefully I've demonstrated that it would be incautious to assume it never could happen.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
First of all are you sure that your journalist friends are in the position to point Middle East on the map? I am asking because the Greek
Not all of them could, using both hands, find their fundaments (and I said "I know journalists", not that they were my friends, although some are). Others are very knowledgeable and one takes regular holidays in Israel (but woe to him if he write about his experiences without castigating Arabs in every sentence). You miss my point about lobbying. It creates a distorted picture of what real public opinion is. It's not illegitimate, but if you're trying to get a view (however vague) of reality you have to be able to recognise it and make allowances. Come on, this is supposed to a site for critical thinkers, not people who grab at some lobby-inspired "data" because it fits their chosen world-view.
Again you try to evade the question. Please don't do that. How does this change the fact that the antisemitic theories were prevailing in the mentality of common people, of people who voted Capel Dodger?
I'm not sure if this is an attempted slur on me ("voted CapelDodger" ... "voted Hitler" ... "same thing"?) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what question it is I'm supposed to be avoiding. I was establishing some context which may not have been clear to everyone. It wasn't made clear by you or in the quotes you gave. In fact you have tried to present this unusual period as typical and the Catholic-inspired petitions as spontaneous, not to mention Bavaria being typical of Germany. You may have been spending too much time with lawyers. (If Greek lawyers are like the journalists that must be a trial.)
Also, if the battle was between antisemties and anti-antisemties what does this show? Please, Sir be my guest to reply this question by yourself.
It shows that Jews and Jewishness are not the most important subject for most people. Jewishness/non-Jewishness is not the central theme of history. Why should people who are searching, philosophically and politically, for a new form of society centre the whole thing on Jewishness? Is it your contention that the only important subjects are anti-semitism and pro-semitism? Some Jews have a problem with this idea that Jewishness (important in their personal world) is not central to the wider world. Some Brits have the same problem accepting that European policy is not all about the UK, and some Americans can't see that Kyoto and the ICC are not all about the US. CapleDodger says: get over it.
The Hitleric propaganda didn't use Zionism as an argument against the Jews.
Words fail me. Zionism was used to support the existence of the Elders of Zion. The creation of the Jewish Legion in 1917, specifically to fight for Britain against Germany's Turkish allies, was used as proof that The Jews had "stabbed Germany in the back". The Balfour Declaration was put forward as the reward "The Jews" received. To the Nazis Zionism was "The Jews".
I remind you that even if you arrive to dismiss all my references, this doesn't mean that you will have proven your claims, don't forget that.
My position is that you (among others) have an exaggerated picture of anti-semitism, past and present. If I can demonstrate that many of your pieces of evidence are themselves exaggerated my position is justified. I may not have finally proved my case, but then I'm not putting myself in that vice. Proof only exists in mathematics and philosophy. This debate is neither.

[sackett]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


. . . I don't call everybody who deslikes the Jews antisemites. . . I am not afraid of feelings.

edited to add: Also, I don't like Catholics because Pope is the Satan :)

Thank you, Cleopatra, for your prompt and humane response.

You make a good point about over-using the label "anti-Semitic." Over here, we too often apply "anti-American" to a lot of people who are, if anything, pro-American but who happen to disagree with something the U.S. is doing. Sometimes intelligent people disagree.

Yes, I know you're not afraid of feelings, and I admire that. But go easy on the Pope: he didn't create the Catholic Church, he's just stuck with it.

[sackett]

Originally posted by Nikk


. . . I don't follow your point that anti-semitism in the U.S. was not cultural. It existed in all social classes and still exists in an attenuated form, much as it does in Britain. Do you simply mean it was less widespread or less deeply felt? . . . When a powerful culture meets a weaker one the latter is frequently oppressed . . .

As regards your reference to the Holocaust as a baffling phenomenon . . . I can only agree.

. . . The answer presumably lies in the quasi religious nature of Naziism and the personality of Hitler rather than in some inherent faultline in European culture.

A very good reply to my irritated response, Nikk. Thank you for keeping calm.

Yes, I argue that anti-Semitism in the U.S. has always been a poor, largely disreputable thing. I also argue -- well, it seems to me, anyhow -- that anti-Semitism in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, is fundamental to people's sense of themselves and of their culture. IOW, I'm saying that yes, there -is- an inherent faultline in Europe (thank you for that expressive phrase) and that it grinds and shakes from time to time.

Sometimes I think about the Holocaust, and I get a terrifying intimation that at last I'm about to understand it. I draw back from that.

You're on my list, btw: I've long thought that the fate of weak societies is to suffer what looks like victimization at the hands of stronger -- and just perhaps better -- societies. But you beat me to it publishing. I'll make you pay for that, I swear it!

[Cleopatra]

Good evening Capel Dodger.

I am not sure that I will be able to contribute anything of essence in this thread tonight, just a couple of points for now.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Come on, this is supposed to a site for critical thinkers, not people who grab at some lobby-inspired "data" because it fits their chosen world-view.

I am glad you finally remembered that you are in a place that you cannot post unsupported claims unchallenged. Also, I won't comment the second part of your post. Very unappropriate.

I'm not sure if this is an attempted slur on me ("voted CapelDodger" ... "voted Hitler" ... "same thing"?) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
You shouldn't doubt that when I decide to attack I don't do it in a subtle way. Unless I missed the joke here.

In fact you have tried to present this unusual period as typical and the Catholic-inspired petitions as spontaneous, not to mention Bavaria being typical of Germany.
Obviously you need more. I will do it. Not because I expect to persuade you but because other people are reading this forum too.

You may have been spending too much time with lawyers. (If Greek lawyers are like the journalists that must be a trial.)

I quote this sentence in order that you read again what you have written.Congratulations.

It shows that Jews and Jewishness are not the most important subject for most people. Jewishness/non-Jewishness is not the central theme of history. Why should people who are searching, philosophically and politically, for a new form of society centre the whole thing on Jewishness? Is it your contention that the only important subjects are anti-semitism and pro-semitism? Some Jews have a problem with this idea that Jewishness (important in their personal world) is not central to the wider world.
The example you mentioned shows that during the specific era Jewishness was an issue. Generally I agree with you, Jewishness and and non-jewishness is not the central theme in History, everything doesn't circulate around that but when societies are in trouble they turn to "that matter" to avoid confronting their real problems.

Words fail me. Zionism was used to support the existence of the Elders of Zion. The creation of the Jewish Legion in 1917, specifically to fight for Britain against Germany's Turkish allies, was used as proof that The Jews had "stabbed Germany in the back". The Balfour Declaration was put forward as the reward "The Jews" received. To the Nazis Zionism was "The Jews".

I will need a bibliographical reference for the above. I have never seen anywhere that the Balfour Declaration has been used as an argument of the Hitleric propaganda.

My position is that you (among others) have an exaggerated picture of anti-semitism, past and present. If I can demonstrate that many of your pieces of evidence are themselves exaggerated my position is justified. I may not have finally proved my case, but then I'm not putting myself in that vice. Proof only exists in mathematics and philosophy. This debate is neither.

No. Let me reming you a couple of facts here. You haven't just claimed that antisemitism is exagerrated.

You claimed:

originally posted by Capel Dodger

What I suggest is that without Zionism and its apparent (and falsely claimed) successes the Holocaust would have been less likely.

and then you suggested that the Myth of the Ten Tribes is a racial one with the biological notion of the word.

Now. History is a Science. In order to make claims about the past you must provide proofs.

You are not obliged to provide proof, you can either retract the comments above or declare that you believe them just because they suit you well.

It's your choice.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
No. Let me reming you a couple of facts here. You haven't just claimed that antisemitism is exagerrated.
I have claimed it, though, amongst other things. My opinion that Zionism made the Holocaust more likely is irrefutable in that it is inherently not refutable. And I don't think it's unreasonable. Giving particular quotes from Nazi theory and propaganda involves the nauseating prospect of wallowing through it, and I don't keep the stuff around. I couldn't even finish Mein Kampf. However, I'll see what I can do. It would be easier if I hadn't just eaten.
I quote this sentence in order that you read again what you have written.Congratulations.
I was just trying to be cute.
but when societies are in trouble they turn to "that matter" to avoid confronting their real problems.
Not necessarily "that matter". Witch-burning is another option, for instance, or commie-hunting or Catholic-baiting. Jews aren't unique in being a potential out-group, although in Christendom they are unusual in being non-Christian. Christendom, unlike the Islamic world, has little experience in multi-religious society. Christians have probably killed more of the wrong sort of Christian than they have of non-Christians. And much the same for Communists. What a species we are.
and then you suggested that the Myth of the Ten Tribes is a racial one with the biological notion of the word
It seems to me the commonly-held understanding of "tribe" is as an extended family, with implications of common descent and thus the "biological notion". So descent from the Ten Tribes or Twelve or from the Sons of Bran or whoever carries racial implications. Not having a "tribal" instinct myself I'm having to empathise, I'll admit.

[Skeptic]

In my opinion, by far the greatest myth is that zionism, or israel, CAUSE modern antisemitism. It's the other way around. At most, they are today's current EXCUSE for hating jews, but while the excuses change, the hatered remains the same.

Today, we keep hearing "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-zionist". Before that, we heard "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-communist". And before that, "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-capitalist". You go a little more back and you get "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-christ-killer".

Antisemites ALWAYS claim that the jews "deserve" to be hated for some reason or other, but that this hatered is not "really" antisemitism because they don't hate the jews "just because they are jews", but because they are racists / zionists / communists / capitalists / Christ-killers / whatever.

But when I look at the graffiti being sprayed today in Europe, "jews out of palestine", and remember what my grandfather told me about the graffiti he saw in Europe, "jews go to palestine", it is quite clear what the REAL message is: don't be here and don't be there, in other words, don't be.

If israel suddenly disappeared, the same people who today are claiming to be "just anti-zionists" will merely switch to a new excuse to hate the jews: for example, to Indonesia's Mahatir's claim of the "secret" jewish control of the world, an old favorite, or perhaps the "unfair power" jews have in the professions, or perhaps to something completely new; after all, there is no lack of original thought when it comes to finding some reason to hate the jews.

Anti-zionism, like "anti-communism" against those "liberal jew commies" used to be, is really anti-semitism lite: all the fun of hating the jews, none of the guilty consciousness. Hell, you can even have the moral high ground by claiming that you hate those dirty jews because they're racist!

Of course, this makes about as much sense, logically, as claming you hate "*******" because they are too stupid to realize the equality and brotherhood of man, or, as Tom Lehrer says, "we all know some people don't love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that!". But logic and not being self-contradictory were never a problem for antisemites.

[Cleopatra]

Ladies and Gentlemen do you think that you reply to Skeptic without derailing the thread? :)

[CapelDodger]

from BillyTK:
Out of interest, would you consider christianity to be inherently anti-Semitic in light of the above, in a similar way to the manner that others consider anti-Zionism to be anti-semitic (yup, I'm intentionally question-begging now! )
I wouldn't say in a similar way. I think Christianity is inherently anti-semitic because its founding myths and tenets, were, let us not forget, manufactured. So was Judaism, of course, in Mosaic times but that's another story. Christianity didn't really grow from Judaism but was designed to be attractive in the Graeco-Roman world. (It's my suspicion that it came together in Alexandria and Paul just gave it a twist by including a historic god-man rather than a mythical one but that's yet another story.) Anyhoo, the Jewish susceptibility to it was inversely related to distance from Palestine, which has to say something about Christianity "evolving" from Judaism. Given the appalling reputation of Jewish religious fanaticism no such religion was worth trying. There had to be a clean break if the new religion was to make use of the Old Testament, which it needed for credibility. The break was represented by the rejection and persecution of the god-man and the final divorce of Jews from the god. The Greek Mystic aspects of the religion required that the man-god be persecuted by someone. It couldn't be the Romans, so the Jews were well and truly in the frame.

I see the anti-semitism=anti-zionism argument as mostly down to a) call them a nasty name and you can dismiss what they have to say ("self-hating" is in the same vein) and b) identifying Zionism with Jewishness and assuming the same thing in others. This doesn't really have much to do with the other argument.

I appreciate that Biblical scholars reading this would have tears of laughter running down their legs. It's just my take on things.

[sackett]

because he's already got it 100% right.

About Zionism: It was and is no more than a realistic response to European conditions. I've said that in Europe Jews are a nationality, and I've drawn the comparison with Kurds in Turkey and Iraq. We know what happens to stateless nationalities.

It's easy to see why a successful Israel scares Europeans. Israelis are the embodiment of an old European nightmare: Jews with guns. And not just little coughing slum Jews, but big mean Jews, six feet tall and raised on the farm. No wonder the Your Peens are rummaging in the bottom of the trunk for those brown shirts; it's all to be done over again, and what fun!

[Skeptic]

Well, it's more complicated than that... the real reason Europe hates israel is because it merely cares about its own immediate comfort and standard of living, and wrongly believes that if only the muslims will be allowed to butcher the jews in israel, they'll leave Europe alone and won't bother them with more demands, at least for a while.

It's the same attitude Europe exhibited towards Chechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and the Rhineland during Hitler's "bloodless conquests": take a country (that is, a country of OTHER people), give us six months of fake peace. It's the same attitude Europe exhibited towards the atrocities in Rowanda, the Congo, the Sudan, or Yugoslavia: do nothing, since the massacred millions are not killed by people who threathen our summer vacation. It's the same attitude they exhibit towards Iraq: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, ad infinitum, since as long as that's the case, perhaps Saddam will not bother us and the oil will keep flowing. After all, a few tens of thousands of dead Iraqis a year are no reason to risk paying half a Euro more for a gallon of gas for a few weeks, is it?

All the high talk in Europe about "morality", "soft power" (e.g., surrender), "world opinion", etc., is merely a cover for "we will sell anybody down the river as long as it allows us to keep enjoting the good life." For Europe, all its talk about "anti-racism" to the contrary notwithstanding, the rest of the world is made of people who don't matter. Their butchery and genocide is less important than the European immediate standard of living and material comfort.

[Chaos]

Skeptic

I say it for the last time:

Not everybody who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite!

Will this at last get into your head?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ladies and Gentlemen do you think that you reply to Skeptic without derailing the thread? :)

Why should it derail the thread? In making a distinction between an excuse and a reason for hatred, his point is probably the most on-topic mentioned so far.

The truth is that the human brain is far better at finding reasons to support a pre-existing conclusion than it is at forming conclusions from pre-existing data. Finding reasons to support what you already ”know” to be true is the normal way of thinking. It requires training to do it the other way around.

CapelDodger claims that Zionism helped fuel the anti-Semitism that led to the holocaust, but that doesn’t make any sense. A group of people wanting to live here or there isn’t a good reason to hate or kill them unless you already hate them and are looking for a reason. The hate comes before the excuse.

And even this is presuming a lot. I’ve read through a lot of Nazi anti-Jew propaganda in my time and I don’t remember even seeing Zionism mentioned. Was it?

[Skeptic]

CapelDodger claims that Zionism helped fuel the anti-Semitism that led to the holocaust, but that doesn’t make any sense. A group of people wanting to live here or there isn’t a good reason to hate or kill them unless you already hate them and are looking for a reason. The hate comes before the excuse.

This is actually ironic, since the usual palestinian "explanation" of the holocaust is that the jews actually cooperated with the nazis in trying to get the jews out of Europe and into Palestine, so they are "really" nazis. At any rate, nowhere in Hitler's voluminous writing, from "Mein Kampf" to his last will and testament, is zionism even mentioned, let alone criticized. To quote Churchill (in a telegram to Roosevelt, after noting that Hitler described the bombing of Rome by the allies as a "war crime"), Hitler is certainly an expert on the subject.

For Hitler, all jews were poisonous bacillus that must be destroyed; that included everybody from zionists to ultra-orthodox Hassidim to atheist "germanized" jews to those born in mixes marriages who didn't even know they were considered "jews". He didn't care any more about what the jews believe than an exterminator cares about what cockroaches believe. It was BEING jewish that mattered.

On the other hand, the palestinians and other "anti-zionists" learned quite a bit from Hitler: the palestinian leader at the time, Haj Amin el-Huseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, met with Hitler and with Himmler, pressuring them not to let any jews survive even when Himmler was toying with the idea of saving a few of them for war materials. Some things (like the genocidal hatered of the jews by the palestinians or their leaders being war criminals) never change.

[sackett]

After Hitler came to power, some of the less woowoo Nazis played with the idea of expelling the Jews from Europe. They approached the Zionists (who else?) for help with their wee idea. Beyond that, Zionism meant little to them.

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft, the reason why I asked this thread not to be derailed is because I don't want it to develop the way threads about Middle East do.

"Israel did that so it deserves the criticism" " No, Israel is in defense" etc etc etc.

I was having in mind to explore other things in this thread.

I have never seen too Hitleric propaganda refering to Zionism. I used to have a site that it helped you browse Mein Kampf if you inserted key-words in a search box. Let me see if I can find it...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by sackett
After Hitler came to power, some of the less woowoo Nazis played with the idea of expelling the Jews from Europe. They approached the Zionists (who else?) for help with their wee idea. Beyond that, Zionism meant little to them.


Zionist leaders came into negotiations with the Nazis twice actually. During the 30ies they tried to negotiate with the legal government of Germany ( the Nazi regime) and exchange Jews with easing the boycott in return.

It is also true that some people in the Israel Freedom Fighters group (which the English call the Stern Gang) tried to contact the Nazi Germans later, but the later were not interested.

[sackett]

oh Queen, but human discourse tends to move from topic to topic. Here in this forum especially, everyone likes to hear himself talk, and -will- talk.

No, the Middle East of today is not the subject, and posting about it tends to get people heated to no purpose -- especially if they'e living on the other side of the world from the conflict.

But I think CD has been answered, and a more general discussion of anti-Semitism is acceptable. "Hitler lead us to the edge of the abyss," as someone observed, and an abyss is a very big thing.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mycroft


That's nice, but did Skeptic ever say otherwise? If he did, I missed it, and he certainly hasn't said it in this thread. I think you've formed some preconceptions that blind you to what he is saying.

Don´t tell me anything about being blinded to somethings - after all, you are almost as bad as Skeptic.

While it is true that Skeptic has - to my knowledge - not explicitly stated "criticism of Israel is anti-semitism", he has, so far, accused everybody who has ever critized Israel of being anti-semitic (without ever proving that, of course) and has, whenever criticism of Israel came up, started ranting about anti-semitism, and claimed that posters who disagreed with him wanted all jews to die, or supported palestinian terrorism, or other similar baseless accusations.

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:
At any rate, nowhere in Hitler's voluminous writing, from "Mein Kampf" to his last will and testament, is zionism even mentioned, let alone criticized
from Mein Kampf:
.... while Zionism tries to make the other part of the world believe that the national self-conciousness of the Jew finds satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian State [sic] the Jews again most slyly dupe the stupid goiim. They have no thought of building up a Jewish State in Palestine, so that they can inhabit it, but they only want a central organisation of their international world cheating ... a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for future rogues
This thread was really quite civilised, erudite and considered for a while.

(Cleopatra: as you see, I have only so much self-control.)

[CapelDodger]

from Chaos:
While it is true that Skeptic has - to my knowledge - not explicitly stated "criticism of Israel is anti-semitism" ...
from Skeptic:
Today, we keep hearing "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-zionist". Before that, we heard "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-communist". And before that, "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-capitalist". You go a little more back and you get "I'm not an antisemite, just an anti-christ-killer".
It takes a lot of sophistry for that not to fit the criteria.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by sackett

..........

I also argue -- well, it seems to me, anyhow -- that anti-Semitism in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, is fundamental to people's sense of themselves and of their culture. IOW, I'm saying that yes, there -is- an inherent faultline in Europe (thank you for that expressive phrase) and that it grinds and shakes from time to time.

__Hmm, are you saying here that people projected much that was unacceptable in themselves onto the Jews, i.e. demonised them? A commonplace psychological mechanism to be sure but europeans had plenty of real live enemies both internal and external who could play the role of projectee.

The oldest established states in Europe are France and England/Britain, both well over 1000 years old and frequently in conflict. In these anti semitism has never been of much significance to their sense of self. Jews were simply peripheral. In England at least jews lived reasonably peacefully for centuries although subject to certain forms of legal discrimination. Much the same can be said of France where conflicts between protestants and catholics were vastly more destructive than anything the jews had to endure. Britain and the American colonies benefited greatly from the immigration of the hard working and technically skilled protestant Huegenots who left France after the revocation of the edict of Nantes. There was no such exodus of Jews.

If we move on to Germany and Central Europe we find much the same pattern, brutal intra christian religious wars but no one finds it necessary to exterminate jews. Again they are discriminated against but peripheral. The sack of Rome in 1527 when a Lutheran German army murdered 13000 catholic citizens in a city of 50,000 or so in 5 days is an example.

As regards Eastern Europe itself, i.e. Russia and the Ukraine we encounter areas which were not only primitive in their social organisation but which had also experienced invasion and occupation by the Mongols. Subsequently they were in conflict with the Turks. When they finally liberated themselves they were intolerant of any kind of dissent or non conformity. The orthodox church was a part of the apparatus of state control at the head of which was the Czar. Jews were not part of that religious community and thus an object of suspicion.

Really for anti semitism to be fundamental to a people's sense of self, jews would have to offer some sort of threat; an alternative culture, military opposition or an attractive alternative religious model. In fact they offered none of those things, they were simply unimportant.

Sometimes I think about the Holocaust, and I get a terrifying intimation that at last I'm about to understand it. I draw back from that.

You could also think about the much greater death toll in the Soviet Union which resulted from defining people by social class rather than race - obviously class prejudice was a more potent force than anti semitism in the 20thC at least.;)

You're on my list, btw: I've long thought that the fate of weak societies is to suffer what looks like victimization at the hands of stronger -- and just perhaps better -- societies. But you beat me to it publishing. I'll make you pay for that, I swear it!

Errm.... its not a new idea you know.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


This thread was really quite civilised, erudite and considered for a while.



Don't be too hard on Sceptic; when you drink kosher whisky there's a free paranoiac fantasy at the bottom of every bottle.;)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


from Mein Kampf:
.


Or this 1936 speech from a nazi periodical

here (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/zionism.htm) .

Which states inter alia:-

"Non-Jewish observers and writers on Zionism who see political Zionism only as an attempt at "national renewal" rather than an effort to establish a unified Jewish leadership as well as Jewish rule over the world, are therefore incorrect. The confusion of political Zionism with Palestine can be understood only through the Jewish prophecies in which Jewry is assured of control over all the goods of this world."

So Zionism was used to justify antisemitism. At the same time Germany was happy to encourage jews to emigrate to Palestine and to trade with the place. Life is complicated!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft, the reason why I asked this thread not to be derailed is because I don't want it to develop the way threads about Middle East do.


Neither do I. I’ve deleted my response to Chaos and I apologize for it. It was way off topic and diversionary. I regret my lack of self-control, and I can see that already damage is done. I hope we can bring this thread back on topic and avoid discussions of Skeptics alleged paranoia.

Having said that, I still feel that Skeptic’s initial post was very much on-topic. It’s easy to rationalize hate for any group, but the rationalization comes after the hate. Take away any one rationalization, and another is easily crafted to replace it.

Looking at CapelDodgers quote from Mein Kampf:
... while Zionism tries to make the other part of the world believe that the national self-conciousness of the Jew finds satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian State [sic] the Jews again most slyly dupe the stupid goiim. They have no thought of building up a Jewish State in Palestine, so that they can inhabit it, but they only want a central organisation of their international world cheating ... a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for future rogues.

The idea that the goal of Zionism is to create a refuge for “convicted rascals” and a school for future criminal rogues could only be created by someone who already hates Jews. Take away the Zionism, and it’s easily replaced by any Jewish institution; schools, synagogues, and any location anywhere where Jews are not persecuted.

[Cleopatra]

From the paragraph you quoted Capel Dodger you forgot the last phrase of Hitler that shows that he considers Zionism nothing but a joke. I will do it for you :


The Jew’s domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.

originally posted by Nikk

So Zionism was used to justify antisemitism. At the same time Germany was happy to encourage jews to emigrate to Palestine and to trade with the place. Life is complicated!

I hope that you are not suggesting that one paragraph from Hitler's work proves that if Zionism didn't exist Holocaust wouldn't occur as Capel Dodger insists to suggest without providing us the proofs...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

My opinion that Zionism made the Holocaust more likely is irrefutable in that it is inherently not refutable. And I don't think it's unreasonable. Giving particular quotes from Nazi theory and propaganda involves the nauseating prospect of wallowing through it, and I don't keep the stuff around. I couldn't even finish Mein Kampf. However, I'll see what I can do. It would be easier if I hadn't just eaten.

You must have realized by now Capel Dodger that Zionism was not the central point around of which nazis knitted their eliminationist antisemitism.

Don't try to make it look softer now. I will accept it if you admit that you were wrong in your original statement or if you accept to rephrase your original statement and you clear your position in a way that it won't imply that you are relating Zionism to the Holocaust.

We don't have a deal here yet. You will either take it back or rephrase it. If you don't want to lose your credibility in this forum you won't insist on suggesting that Zionism was the central issue in German propaganda since you know that in the same time Nazis were thinking to expell the Jews in Palestine.

This is enough to prove that your claim doesn't stand.

Witch-burning is another option, for instance, or commie-hunting or Catholic-baiting. Jews aren't unique in being a potential out-group, although in Christendom they are unusual in being non-Christian. Christendom, unlike the Islamic world, has little experience in multi-religious society. Christians have probably killed more of the wrong sort of Christian than they have of non-Christians. And much the same for Communists. What a species we are.

I don't disagree but antisemitism is the longest in time prejudice that exists in History. Unless of course you bring me another example from History.

It seems to me the commonly-held understanding of "tribe" is as an extended family, with implications of common descent and thus the "biological notion". So descent from the Ten Tribes or Twelve or from the Sons of Bran or whoever carries racial implications. Not having a "tribal" instinct myself I'm having to empathise, I'll admit.

Pam pam pam pam.

Yes, such tales carry racial implication but NOT in the modern way and not in the way the Spanish Catholic Church implied in the degree as you have claimed. In order to prove that the people who invented those tales were racists or "racists" you must prove that the notion of racism existed back then which it didn't.
Please. You know very well that I hate the discussions of the level of the kindergarden. Don't do it. Please.It's not charming it's tiring.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Chaos:

from Skeptic:

It takes a lot of sophistry for that not to fit the criteria.

I said "not explicitly stated". He was very clear, implicitly.

And that´s the end of this particular thread derailing.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ladies and Gentlemen do you think that you reply to Skeptic without derailing the thread? :)
I've no intention of responding to the combination of fallacious logic and opinion that typically constitutes a Skeptic post, except to note that in conflating all of Europe as a homogenous entity, he's invoking essentialism, which is the same category of argument that anti-Semites use against Jews.

Back to the task at hand:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[...]if Zionism didn't exist Holocaust wouldn't occur as Capel Dodger insists[...]
Just a quick question; why do you persist with this accusation when CapelDodger hasn't made any claim which could be interpreted to as this, and particularly as CapelDodger has clarified this point?

Claiming that Zionism was used to legitimise the Holocaust is not the same as claiming that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened without Zionism, and certainly different to claiming that the Holocaust only happened because of Zionism.

[Cleopatra]

originally posted by BillyTK
Claiming that Zionism was used to legitimise the Holocaust is not the same as claiming that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened without Zionism, and certainly different to claiming that the Holocaust only happened because of Zionism.

Billy

Things are not as simple as you put them. Capel Dodger's posts demonstrate clearly that he believes that Zionism played a key role in the final result of the Holocaust.He has repeatedly stated in this forum ( check the posts I quoted in my opening post) that Zionism and Weitzman harmed the Jews to the point to turn the Nazis against them.

The logical conclusion to his posts is that he believes that if Zionism didn't exist Holocaust wouldn't turned to a massacre, he believes that the Holocaust wouldn't take place since the name Holocaust indicates a high scale massacre.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk


Or this 1936 speech from a nazi periodical

here (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/zionism.htm) .

Which states inter alia:-

"Non-Jewish observers and writers on Zionism who see political Zionism only as an attempt at "national renewal" rather than an effort to establish a unified Jewish leadership as well as Jewish rule over the world, are therefore incorrect. The confusion of political Zionism with Palestine can be understood only through the Jewish prophecies in which Jewry is assured of control over all the goods of this world."

So Zionism was used to justify antisemitism. At the same time Germany was happy to encourage jews to emigrate to Palestine and to trade with the place. Life is complicated!


Hmmmm I decided to read the whole article in order to read those... inter alia. Yes Zionism is used to justify antisemitism but do you want to know on what basis?

The author doesn't bring Zionism as an example of how dangerous for the Germans Jews are but he wants to prove that they are so stupid that they needed " avdifference race" the British, to correct their idealization!!!

It states among other things that Zionism is a woo-wooism

In the ideology of political Zionism, Palestine fulfilled the role of an indispensable part of prophecy, just as certain rules are the guarantee for success of the magical ceremonies of primitive peoples.

The author calls the Zionists woo-woos

and this is how he describes the Balfour Declaration:

This is also clear from the text of the state treaty Jewry concluded with England, the so-called Balfour Declaration: "His Majesty's Government favors the establishment of a national home in Palestine for the Jews, and we will make the greatest efforts to reach this goal, although it is clearly understood that nothing will be done that will affect the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political standing of Jews in any other country."

That provides a correction to the idealization of Zionism, which springs from a different race.

and it continues

From a political standpoint, it would be in the interests of the whole world, of all the host peoples, if the Jews now scattered throughout the whole world were to voluntarily emigrate to some habitable territory. If political Zionism were not interested in such a solution to the Jewish Question, it would be in the interests of the host peoples to point it in that positive direction. The only question would be whether Palestine is the proper gathering place, which no one would likely maintain. Palestine is not able to absorb all the Jews in the world, entirely aside from the fact of increasing Arab opposition to Jewish infiltration. The Arabs are after all the undisputed owners of the land. But what other territory would be appropriate? And at the instant Palestine ceased to be the the goal of Jewish emigration, political Zionism would collapse, since Palestine is seen as a means for the fulfillment of prophecy. Without that, the whole enterprise would lose its point. Jewry itself would make the most passionate and bitter attacks, and before long any undertaking that ignored Palestine would be crippled by Jewry itself. Palestine incorporates for Jewry its special position. Ignoring this would be ethnic suicide for Jewry, since political Zionism also has as a goal maintaining and strengthening Jewry's special situation.


It analyzes, criticizes and then dismisses Zionism as ridiculous. So, according to the Nazis, Zionism wasn't a threat for the Germans but a proof that Jews were woo-woos and stupid for believing they could conquer the world with such a silly ideology.Nazis believed that Zionism was a joke.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra: Where you have "a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks" my quoted translation was "a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for future rogues". I got it from The Siege, by Conor Cruise O'Brien. He continues:
Hitler's interpretation of Zionism was not original; it seems to have been a cliche among anti-semites of the less subtle variety.
He then quotes Baron von Neurath, a Nazi Foreign Minister:

The formation of a Jewish state or a Jewish-led political structure under British Mandate is not in Germany's interest, since a Palestitinian State would not absorb World Jewry but would create an additional position of power under international law for international Jewry, somewhat like the Vatican State for political Catholicism or Moscow for the Comintern.
Hitler's "scoundrels and crooks" is just his usual vitriol, the meat of his statement is as expressed in this second quote. Zionism sought to create a secure base from which International Jewry could co-ordinate its increasing power. The same idea is expressed in a journal called Der Schulungsbrief (a 1,000,000 circulation Nazi rag):
[Quoting Herzl] "I do not wish to write about the history of the Jews. It is familiar. I must mention only one thing: In our two thousand years in the Diaspora, there has been no unified leadership. That is what I think is our primary misfortune." To overcome this "misfortune," Herzl founded political Zionism. Non-Jewish observers and writers on Zionism who see political Zionism only as an attempt at "national renewal" rather than an effort to establish a unified Jewish leadership as well as Jewish rule over the world, are therefore incorrect. This is also clear from the text of the state treaty Jewry concluded with England, the so-called Balfour Declaration
Notice the description of the Declaration as a state treaty between "The Jews" and Britain (at the time, of course, an enemy of Germany).

I found some other stuff along the same lines but it was really messing-up my mental state.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Hmmmm I decided to read the whole article in order to read those... inter alia. Yes Zionism is used to justify antisemitism but do you want to know on what basis?

The author doesn't bring Zionism as an example of how dangerous for the Germans Jews are but he wants to prove that they are so stupid that they needed " avdifference race" the British, to correct their idealization!!!

It states among other things that Zionism is a woo-wooism



The author calls the Zionists woo-woos

and this is how he describes the Balfour Declaration:



and it continues




It analyzes, criticizes and then dismisses Zionism as ridiculous. So, according to the Nazis, Zionism wasn't a threat for the Germans but a proof that Jews were woo-woos and stupid for believing they could conquer the world with such a silly ideology.Nazis believed that Zionism was a joke.


I did actually read the whole article and you really are grossly oversimplifying. Interesting that we interpret the same source so differently.

The argument is that "Political Zionism" (PZ) is a smokescreen in so far as there is no genuine intention of using it as a national territory for all jews as it is too small and already occupied by Arabs. The real intention of PZ is to acquire a small territory as a headquarters from which the fiendish world domination plot can be directed. The inference to be drawn is that not all jews are a part of the PZ plot but that to achieve the objective of acquiring the headquarters they need to be fooled into believing it is to be a safe haven and national homeland. We can go through this sentence by sentence if you like but is it necessary? Try holding your nose and reading it again.

As regards your earlier question of whether I think that Zionism contributed to anti semitism the honest answer is that I really don't know. I suspect that to an obsessive anything is grist for the mill and many people regarded Zionism as evidence of a plot as outlined above. But if there had been no Zionism the refusal of the jews to leave would have been evidence of their desire to bleed the germans dry I expect. What I am curious about is whether the Balfour declaration was seen immediately post WW1 as evidence that the jews had played a major role in defeating Germany.

Here inthe german catechism (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/catech.htm) ( widely circulated in schools) the defeat is blamed on jews but there is no mention of Zionism as such. It states inter alia:-

"What other guilt does the Jew bear?

While the German people was fighting a life and death battle during the World War, the Jew incited people at home and seduced them into treason. The November Revolution of 1918 that brought about Germany's collapse was the work of the Jew.

In countless newspapers in Germany and abroad, he brought everything German into the mud, slandering us and inciting our enemies even more than they already were. His lackeys in leading positions in the Reich persecuted the National Socialist movement, bringing the fighters for a new Germany before judges and throwing them into prison.

He corrupted Germans through bad books, and mocked true literature and German music, replacing it with ungermanic music. Everywhere, his influence was destructive......".

It would be interesting to have some evidence of anti semitism in 1919 and the early 20's. I don't know how much Hitler used it as a hot button issue that early although I know of course that it was exploited.

[BillyTK]

Hi Cleopatra,

Billy

Things are not as simple as you put them.
No, that's my point. You are inferring a direct causal relationship were none has been suggested.
Capel Dodger's posts demonstrate clearly that he believes that Zionism played a key role in the final result of the Holocaust.
It would be more accurate to say he considers it a factor, in the same way for example, that black Africans' skin colour, physiogonomy and lack of technological sophistication was a factor in the development of racist ideology. This certainly doesn't mean that those factors caused racist ideology.
He has repeatedly stated in this forum ( check the posts I quoted in my opening post) that Zionism and Weitzman harmed the Jews to the point to turn the Nazis against them.
Unless you're going all Straussian on us, then you're inferring a causal relationship where none has been implied.

The logical conclusion to his posts is that he believes that if Zionism didn't exist Holocaust wouldn't turned to a massacre, he believes that the Holocaust wouldn't take place since the name Holocaust indicates a high scale massacre.
Would that be lawyer "When did you stop beating your wife"-style logic? :p ;) I'd also ask you to be cautious about attributing beliefs to people, unless you're a telepath :). Anyhow, nowhere have I found any suggestion from CapelDodger that without Zionism, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. I therefore respectfully request that you quote from CapelDodger's posts the content which you believe supports your inference.

Oh, and have a nice weekend! :D

[CapelDodger]

Thanks again to BillyTK for saving me time.

Hi Cleopatra:

The quotes from Mein Kampf, etc, show that the Nazis already had a party line on Zionism by 1923, and surely before that. The party line is that Zionism is a plan by the International Jewish Conspiracy (IJC) to strengthen their own position by creating a base in which they could operate subject to no scrutiny or laws other than their own. This would enable them to further their fiendish plots.
It analyzes, criticizes and then dismisses Zionism as ridiculous. So, according to the Nazis, Zionism wasn't a threat for the Germans but a proof that Jews were woo-woos and stupid for believing they could conquer the world with such a silly ideology.Nazis believed that Zionism was a joke.
It does not dismiss Zionism. On the contrary, it describes it as a plan to further strengthen the IJC, which they already claimed as a deadly threat to humanity. What they ridicule is the idea that the real aim of Zionism is the gathering-in of Jews to Palestine. They do this to justify their own interpretation - that Zionism is a creation of the IJC. (Zionists themselves did not claim that such a gathering-in was feasible immediately or perhaps ever - it would have made them look ridiculous if they had.)

The reference to prophecy - woo-woo - simply points out that the Zionists are using woo-woo to motivate their own people (and, by extension, Christian Zionists). This does not make the idea ridiculous in the eyes of the Nazis, who had a great appreciation of the power of woo-woo. They made great play with it themselves. None of this indicates a dismissal of Zionism. The Nazis - many of whom actually believed this stuff - were not about to dismiss anything they saw as strengthening the IJC.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Thanks again to BillyTK for saving me time.




A hint: When I want to talk to my friends on the phone, I never ask my secretary to call them and pass them to me. I pick-up the phone and I call them myself. It would save me a lot of time to have my secretary do this for me but it would be inappropriate.Of course I don't expect you to understand those tiny details but people who read that might understand.

From now on I will reply to the issues you touched in your posts addressing Billy since you appointed him as the person who saves time for you.

So, Billy, now you will have tolerate me :)

[Skeptic]

Well, you're correct: Hitler DID mention zionism... a couple of times in his rather unreadable tome, "Mein Kampf". (By the way, I keep wondering: if Hitler had been a better writer, could his book have actually been READ AND UNDERSTOOD by those who could have stopped him in time?). But clearly, he didn't believe "zionism" is anything else than the latest manipulation of the "evils of jewish criminality", and that, in fact, it was merely a "cover" for it.

Surely, it was not zionism that caused him to hate the jews; as he makes clear in MEIN KAMPF, his pathological hatered of jews had two other origins, namely a). his experience in Vienna as a youth of the "filthy jews" that are ruining it, in his view, and b). his conviction that Germany was "stabbed in the back" by the jews in 1918. Neither of these have anything at all to do with zionism. Since he believed the whole "zionism" thing is a really fraud by those he already considered to be human scum, there isn't even any reason to believe zionism increased his already homocidal hatered of jews.

To give an analogy, the argument that zionism "caused" the holocaust is like looking at the writings left by a KKK leader, finding out that in one paragraph in hundreds of page he claims "Oh, and those ni--ers take all the medals in sports, too!", and concluding that, therefore, if only blacks had not distinguished themselves in sports, slavery and lynchings wouldn't have happened. If anybody argued that this is the case, then surely they would be blamed (correctly) for "blaming the victim" (the blacks) for being hated. Similarly, claiming zionism somehow "caused" or "influenced" Hitler to hate the jews is blaming the victim: it's the claim that, if only there weren't all these nasty zionists, the holocaust could have been averted.

Let me clarify what I mean here by "blaming the victim". I certainly don't think it is an intional blaming, or a crude idea of the "if it wasn't for your bad behavior, jews, it would never have happened!". The person who made the claim that zionism "caused" the holocaust certainly doesn't mean to imply that, even if true, it was a JUSTIFIED reaction to zionism. What I am claiming, rather, that this "causal chain"--Hitler deciding on the holocaust due to zionsim--is NONSENSICAL. It has about as much factual truth as the claims, occasionally heard from some researchers, that the "real origins" of Hitler's antisemitism is in a failed sexual encounter with a jewish prostitute, or discovering that he had syphilis from it, or his mother's death when treated by a jewish doctor for cancer, or in his fear that one of his ancestors was actually a bastard sired by a jewish landlord who "violated" his grandmother when she worked as a sevant in the jew's house, etc.

The real motive for finding such "explanations" for the holocaust is not hatered of jews (or zionism) but the attempt to find something, ANYTHING, that could "explain" such monstrous evil, no matter how nonsensical. But it is nevertheless irresponsible, and distasteful, to continously find the "real reason" in the "bad behavior" of the jews, whether of the zionists Hitler probably never heard of until long after he became a rabid antisemite, or of a poor Vienna prostitute that probably never existed at all. As understandable as the motive is--it is hard to live in a world where such evil can occur without reason--there is SOMETHING wrong here. After all, if a man beats his wife, you don't start looking 20 years back into some minor insult she might have caused him for the "real reasons" he did it; why do so with Hitler's actions?

[CapelDodger]

For your benefit, Skeptic, in Mein Kampf Hitler does not mention Zionism not at all, nor does he mention it a couple of times, he mentions it precisely once, in the quote as given. Your innaccuracy is unerring.

Zionism did not make the Nazi Party anti-semitic, nor did Hitler create the Nazi Party, nor did he make it anti-semitic after joining it. A mistake that is being made here is to equate the Nazi Party with Germany. The Nazi Party was a political party - 3000 members in 1920, overwhelmingly in Munich, when Hitler became leader - which needed to gather votes and therefore needed to persuade people of its message. The influence of Zionism on the Nazi Party is not a relevant issue, the real issues are the influence of Zionism on the German electorate and the influence of Zionism on Hitler. Without a remarkable character like Hitler the Nazi Party would never have coagulated from the slurry of nationalist, mostly anti-semitic organisations that squabbled over the bottom-feeders of society.

Anti-semitism in 19thCE Germany is, of course, undeniable, and I have never denied it. But it also undeniable that the political history of Germany from the 1850's on was dominated by the rise of the SPD, the Social Democratic Party. An avowedly anti-discriminatory party, in fact an avowedly Marxist party that rejected nationalism and racism as tools of the class-enemy. After the 1880's it actually drew strength from its opposition to discrimination against Catholics, who were unsurprisingly anti-discriminatory when they became the victims.

Something I keep forgetting to do is recommend a few books. I recommend the novels Gossip from the Forest by Thomas Keneally, The Loser by Peter Ustinov (yes, that Peter Ustinov, who also wrote Krumnagel) and The Tin Drum by Gunther Grasse.

[CapelDodger]

from sackett:
Come on, Nikk, look at my location: Detroit, home of old Henry F*art himself -- and also the blackest city in the U.S. I don't need tutoring about anti-Semitism in America, or about the status of minorities. But anti-Semitism has never been cultural in this country or anywhere else in the New World the way it is in Europe. That's why I call the Holocaust and its precursors a baffling phenomenon -- unless you come from Poland or Russia or Germany.
The sort of anti-semitism demonstrated by Henry Ford has a cultic quality to it. His location is really irrelevant. At some point in his life somebody fed him this interpretation of the world and its history, and also fed him the idea that normal, unilluminated people were just too stupid and manipulated to see the obviousness of it all. The same kind of mind will tell you it's all down to Freemasons, or aliens, or whatever. I'm sure there are people who, having spent the Cold War seeing commies everywhere on the verge of world domination, still claim the fall of the Berlin Wall was a trick. Henry Ford was clever, and able to see beyond the received wisdom of his day, so he was vulnerable to the idea that his cleverness had enabled him to see something nonsensical as real. (Brian Josephson, you poor exploited chap.)

If we turn to the anti-semitism of Eastern Europe we find something different. There the cerebral, conspiratorial anti-semitism of Henry Ford et al is replaced by the anti-semitism of the blood-libel and the Christ-killing. The Nazis exploited this sort of thing at the base level (if they ever had any other level) but the German C1/C2 voters weren't going to buy it. It was the sort of thing that only Poles would believe. For the Germans you needed at least an apparently rational case to make.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Skeptic
At any rate, nowhere in Hitler's voluminous writing, from "Mein Kampf" to his last will and testament, is zionism even mentioned, let alone criticized. To quote Churchill (in a telegram to Roosevelt, after noting that Hitler described the bombing of Rome by the allies as a "war crime"), Hitler is certainly an expert on the subject.

A simple Perl script run on an English translation of Mein Kampf turned up a few instances of Zionism. Here are all of them:

But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was strongly represented in Vienna.

To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewry itself. Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.

...

When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Gentile.

There are, on the other hand, 535, that's five=hundred thirty-five references to Jews.

[Cleopatra]

Billy

I edited my opening post and I included and highlightened some posts of Capel Dodger.

But Let me make your life easier. Click here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870210750) to review it.



originally posted by Billy TK

It would be more accurate to say he considers it a factor, in the same way for example, that black Africans' skin colour, physiogonomy and lack of technological sophistication was a factor in the development of racist ideology. This certainly doesn't mean that those factors caused racist ideology.
No it wouldn't be more accurate to say that since nowhere in his posts suggested that it was just a factor. He never made the distinction between a factor and a cause, why should I do that for him, why are you doing that for him?
originally posted by Billy TK
Unless you're going all Straussian on us, then you're inferring a causal relationship where none has been implied.
No I just read his posts, something that I invite you to do as well.
originally posted by Billy TK
Would that be lawyer "When did you stop beating your wife"-style logic?I'd also ask you to be cautious about attributing beliefs to people, unless you're a telepath Anyhow, nowhere have I found any suggestion from CapelDodger that without Zionism, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. I therefore respectfully request that you quote from CapelDodger's posts the content which you believe supports your inference.

When somebody suggests--as the examples I provided demonstrate-- that Europe was a friendly place for the Jews until the appearence of Zionism and the later not only failed in defending the rights of the Jews but it caused a great danger to them and it put them in trouble, then he suggests that if Zionism didn't exist the massacre wouldn't take place, so we wouldn't have a Holocaust.Capel Dodger haven't found the time so far even to type that it's not that that he means so, I suggest that you'd be cautius about interpreting beliefs that belong to other people, unless you are a telepath :)

His last post to Skeptic where he attempts to amuse the impressions his attitude has caused doesn't address the issue that he put on the table and therefore it's dismissed as irrelevant.

edited for the code

[Skeptic]

For your benefit, Skeptic, in Mein Kampf Hitler does not mention Zionism not at all, nor does he mention it a couple of times, he mentions it precisely once, in the quote as given. Your innaccuracy is unerring.

Indeed so. While Hitler mentions jews, in general, 535 times in Mein Kampf.

Surely, then, if the critical issue is, as you say (and I agree), "the influence of zionism on Hitler", it is clear that it was virtually nil.

How, then, did it "contribute" in any way to the holocaust?

[epepke]

For your benefit, Skeptic, in Mein Kampf Hitler does not mention Zionism not at all, nor does he mention it a couple of times, he mentions it precisely once, in the quote as given. Your innaccuracy is unerring.

It's in two somewhat distinct passages. Hence the ellipsis in what I quoted. Check what the Home Deopt sold you before you cast stones.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Surely, then, if the critical issue is, as you say (and I agree), "the influence of zionism on Hitler", it is clear that it was virtually nil.

How, then, did it "contribute" in any way to the holocaust?

Indeed, the passages look a lot like rationalizations. Especially since much of the rest of Mein Kampf was about creating a racial state; Hitler could only have been ticked off that those scummy Jews wanted one, too.

[CapelDodger]

from epepke:
It's in two somewhat distinct passages. Hence the ellipsis in what I quoted. Check what the Home Deopt sold you before you cast stones.
Mea culpa. I relied on O'Brien, who writes that there is only one reference to Zionism in Mein Kampf. Who can one trust?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
No it wouldn't be more accurate to say that since nowhere in his posts suggested that it was just a factor. He never made the distinction between a factor and a cause, why should I do that for him, why are you doing that for him?
Quote from me in your reference:
Of course Weitzamn couldn't have predicted what was going to happen, and I'm in no position to claim that this behaviour - and that of other Zionists - had any specific degree of influence over what subsequently happened, I cannot see it being zero.
from you:
When somebody suggests--as the examples I provided demonstrate-- that Europe was a friendly place for the Jews until the appearence of Zionism and the later not only failed in defending the rights of the Jews but it caused a great danger to them and it put them in trouble, then he suggests that if Zionism didn't exist the massacre wouldn't take place, so we wouldn't have a Holocaust.
Quote from me in your reference:
As you have probably divined by now, I think the extent and danger of anti-semitism in 19th CE Europe is exaggerated
Exaggerated, not non-existent.

Can we move on now?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk

I did actually read the whole article and you really are grossly oversimplifying. Interesting that we interpret the same source so differently.

I didn't imply that you haven't read the article, sorry if it appeared that way. Let us see if I am oversymplifying indeed.

When I started browsing the bibliography, I posed myself two questions, the second came-up during this discussion:

1. What would be a satisfying proof of what Capel Dodger claims. If Zionism had such a fatal results to the Jews what somebody must expect to find while searching the era?

2. If antisemitism in 19th ce wasn't exaggerated as I claimed, why we didn't have a Holocaust back then. Capel Dodger posed this question and I found it legitimate.

So, I didn't really "grab at some lobby-inspired "data" because it fits my chosen world-view" as CD accused me. CD is really talented in composing insults, I wish he demonstrates an equal talent in providing us with proofs or in retracting his arguments. We will have to wait in order to see that.

Regarding the first question.

Capel Dodger suggested that Jews themselves didn't see any danger in Europe at the beginning of the 20th ce, the situation was tending to get to normal and many of them were looking forward to the assimilation but it was Zionism and Weitzman's attitude that put them into troubles.As he says, Weutzman didn't exactly cared of the danger he was putting the Jews in.

I remind you how he put it (bold face mine)

originally posted by Capel Dodger
To the vast majority of Jews, danger did not seem at the time to be hiding in Europe. Emancipation - not just of Jews but of all citizens - was the most obvious future. Clericalism was fading, rationalism and democracy were synonymous with success. Places like Russia where anti-semitism was used as a political tool were seen as backward. The Dreyfus affair led to a furore across Europe, and French Catholic power went into steep decline. What happened to change that trajectory? And why in Germany and Austria?

Could it have anything to do with Chaim Weitzmann's boasts that he had secured the Balfour Declaration by winning the war for Britain? A claim he made during the war. He claimed that "The Jews" controlled the grain market of Southern Russia and that they could prevent that grain reaching the Germans after the collapse of the Russian Empire. It was nonsense, of course, but he was promoting his vision of a Jewish State and the effect such a claim would have - with the invention of the Protocols so recent - meant nothing to him.

So, what one expects to find when he studies the antisemitic propaganda of the beginnings of the 20th ce. Of course you'd expect that Zionism would be the key point in their propaganda, you'd expect that Zionism would attract all the criticism and the hatred but what do we have instead?

Two paragraphs in Mein Kampf and a couple of articles that are rather ridiculing the attempt of the Jews to fool Goyim( to use Hitler's expression) with Zionism.

The paragraphs that Hitler devotes to Zionism come from the 9th Chapter of the second volume of Mein Kempf that is under the title:"Nation and Race"

Read the relative chapter here.

You can see by your self that in a list of reasons that Hitler lists Zionism doesn't appear of such a great importance.

Am I the one who oversimplyfies ? I think that the texts are talking by themselves.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleoptra
A hint: When I want to talk to my friends on the phone, I never ask my secretary to call them and pass them to me. I pick-up the phone and I call them myself. It would save me a lot of time to have my secretary do this for me but it would be inappropriate.
A hint: this is about your claim from your opening post that;
Capel Dodger in a series of posts, claims that Zionism in general and Chaim Weitzman in partucular share the responsibility for the Holocaust.
I guess it becomes problematic when the person being accused is available to challenge your claims, but if it's more convenient for you, you could always request that that person stays out of the debate. And your insinuation is both incorrect and innapropriate.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No it wouldn't be more accurate to say that since nowhere in his posts suggested that it was just a factor. He never made the distinction between a factor and a cause, why should I do that for him, why are you doing that for him?
You have already done that for him; you did that with your claim in your opening post. As a good skeptic all I have to do is examine the evidence you provide to support your claim. So far I've found my reading doesn't support your claim. If you'd prefer I accept your claim in an unconditional manner, well, ermmmm, sorry, I won't do that.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No I just read his posts, something that I invite you to do as well.
I have been doing. This seems to be the bone of contention.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I suggest that you'd be cautius about interpreting beliefs that belong to other people, unless you are a telepath :)

In a couple of his posts, Capel Dodger has confirmed that my reading of his words is correct–no paranormal powers required :)

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:
Indeed so. While Hitler mentions jews, in general, 535 times in Mein Kampf.

Surely, then, if the critical issue is, as you say (and I agree), "the influence of zionism on Hitler", it is clear that it was virtually nil.
What this demonstrates is that Hitler was a ranting anti-semite in 1923. He mentions Zionism - ahem - twice. The quote I gave gives the party-line on Zionism. This is "Don't depend on Zionism to remove the Jews from Germany - only the Nazi Party in government can do that for you". Once that has been stated, why should it be mentioned again? "The Jews", on the other hand, will be mentioned over and over - The Jews did this, they did that, they will do this and that, they're like this, and so on. Skeptic has provided a classic example of the non-sequitur.

The other mention provided by epepke is, presumably, another attack on Jews in general. I say "presumably" because I can't make any sense of it - unsurprisingly, given its source. He states that an apparent majority of Jews opposed Zionism because it endangered Jews yet didn't repudiate Zionists as fellow Jews, therefore ... well, I don't know.

This second quote finishes:
This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.
which sounds really peculiar, as if Hitler feels he's been let down. As I say, I can't make much sense out of this.

epepke: your quote starts with "But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point ...". Can you provide us with the previous passage, setting out what that "point" is? It might help (but probably not).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I guess it becomes problematic when the person being accused is available to challenge your claims, but if it's more convenient for you, you could always request that that person stays out of the debate. And your insinuation is both incorrect and innapropriate.

First of all I do not like the word " Accuse". I didn't accuse him of anything. Challenging somebody doesn't constitute an accusation. Also, I'd like you to show me where I have asked him to stay out of the debate, on the contrary, I want him participating in the discussion. My comment had to with the practice but I admit I am weird when it comes to attitudes, I tend to observe the details :)

originally posted by Billy TK
You have already done that for him; you did that with your claim in your opening post. As a good skeptic all I have to do is examine the evidence you provide to support your claim. So far I've found my reading doesn't support your claim. If you'd prefer I accept your claim in an unconditional manner, well, ermmmm, sorry, I won't do that.

I didn't claim anything. Do you want me to quote Capel Dodger's post again? He made a claim, he said that he can't see that Weitzman's attitude had a zero influence. This doesn't answer his original claim, that Zionism was a catalyst in the way things turned out for the Jews. I am sure that as a true skeptic you can see the fallacy here :)


originally posted by BillyTK
In a couple of his posts, Capel Dodger has confirmed that my reading of his words is correct–no paranormal powers required :)

Could you quote the parts of his posts that address the issues he has set in his previous posts?

You know. There is a poem of Hoederlin that I like very much. In this poem Hoederlin says that the sin that even God refuses to forgive is to upset the peace of mind of your friends and of the people that you love.

So, I have been trying really hard to find a way to get Capel Dodger out of this situation.

The problem is in this post.

originally posted by Capel Dodger
To the vast majority of Jews, danger did not seem at the time to be hiding in Europe. Emancipation - not just of Jews but of all citizens - was the most obvious future. Clericalism was fading, rationalism and democracy were synonymous with success. Places like Russia where anti-semitism was used as a political tool were seen as backward. The Dreyfus affair led to a furore across Europe, and French Catholic power went into steep decline. What happened to change that trajectory? And why in Germany and Austria?

Could it have anything to do with Chaim Weitzmann's boasts that he had secured the Balfour Declaration by winning the war for Britain? A claim he made during the war. He claimed that "The Jews" controlled the grain market of Southern Russia and that they could prevent that grain reaching the Germans after the collapse of the Russian Empire. It was nonsense, of course, but he was promoting his vision of a Jewish State and the effect such a claim would have - with the invention of the Protocols so recent - meant nothing to him.

It's difficult to get away with it without retracting it.

Since I have discussed with Capel Dodger a lot, I know that this view springs from his main idea that many evils in History sprung from Nationalism. In other discussions we have had he had admitted that he is a hedgehog ( I don't know if you know what does this mean, I will clarify it if you wish) but he admits that if a key view to interpret the world doesn't work, one must get rid off it. I suspect that it's really difficult to reconsider his views regarding Nationalism because of Zionism and not because he deslikes Jews or anything of sort. It's just that Zionism in particular pisses him off because he believes that it has put the Jews in great danger.

I can offer my help, if he wishes. There is no way to prove that Zionism fueled antisemitism but there is a way to prove that Zionism was a very"evil" movement--this won't address his views but it's something... Of course he will have to ask me to get him out of this situation :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


First of all I do not like the word " Accuse". I didn't accuse him of anything. Challenging somebody doesn't constitute an accusation.
It's this bit here from your opening post:
Capel Dodger in a series of posts, claims that Zionism in general and Chaim Weitzman in partucular share the responsibility for the Holocaust.

I'd consider that to be an accusation rather than a claim, but if you feel that the use of "accusation" is inappropriate here, then in future I'll use "person about whom a claim is being made" :)instead.

Also, I'd like you to show me where I have asked him to stay out of the debate,
Odd. I've never suggested that you did. What I said was that this might be something you might want to onsider in the future if CapelDodger's participation is a problem for you.
on the contrary, I want him participating in the discussion.
Good. That's settled then.
My comment had to with the practice but I admit I am weird when it comes to attitudes, I tend to observe the details :)
What would those details be?

I didn't claim anything.
Yes you did; that bit about "Capel Dodger in a series of posts, claims that Zionism in general and Chaim Weitzman in partucular share the responsibility for the Holocaust." That's the claim there, where you make a claim about the meaning of CapelDodger's posts.
Do you want me to quote Capel Dodger's post again? He made a claim, he said that he can't see that Weitzman's attitude had a zero influence. This doesn't answer his original claim, that Zionism was a catalyst in the way things turned out for the Jews. I am sure that as a true skeptic you can see the fallacy here :)
There's a number to choose from, but the one I see being committed here is the strawman fallacy.

Could you quote the parts of his posts that address the issues he has set in his previous posts?
I can quote where Capel Dodger has confirmed that my reading of his words is correct, if that's what you mean? If not, I'm sorry because I don't know what you mean. :(
You know. There is a poem of Hoederlin that I like very much. In this poem Hoederlin says that the sin that even God refuses to forgive is to upset the peace of mind of your friends and of the people that you love.
So Hoerderlin wasn't a catholic then.

So, I have been trying really hard to find a way to get Capel Dodger out of this situation.

The problem is in this post.



It's difficult to get away with it without retracting it.
Get away with what, exactly?

Since I have discussed with Capel Dodger a lot, I know that this view springs from his main idea that many evils in History sprung from Nationalism. In other discussions we have had he had admitted that he is a hedgehog ( I don't know if you know what does this mean, I will clarify it if you wish) but he admits that if a key view to interpret the world doesn't work, one must get rid off it. I suspect that it's really difficult to reconsider his views regarding Nationalism because of Zionism and not because he deslikes Jews or anything of sort. It's just that Zionism in particular pisses him off because he believes that it has put the Jews in great danger.
Would you agree or disagree that this is a legitimate view to hold?

I can offer my help, if he wishes. There is no way to prove that Zionism fueled antisemitism
Can you prove this?
but there is a way to prove that Zionism was a very"evil" movement--this won't address his views but it's something... Of course he will have to ask me to get him out of this situation :)
"Evil" in what way?

[davefoc]

I have been following this discussion closely, but my apologies, if I didn't quite follow everything that has been said.

My guesstimate based on the above discussion of Cleopatra's and CD's position as regards Zionism and German anit-semitism prior to and during world war II.

Percentage of total German anti-semitism attributable to Zionism:
Cleopatra - 0%
CD - 25%

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by davefoc

Percentage of total German anti-semitism attributable to Zionism:
Cleopatra - 0%
CD - 25%

More or less correct, it seems, but that's just the point: CD's figure is vastly exagerrated.

[CapelDodger]

from davefoc:
Percentage of total German anti-semitism attributable to Zionism:
Cleopatra - 0%
CD - 25%
I'm not sure numbers are of much use here. I've stated that I can't see the effect being zero. A zero effect would imply that not one single German was persuaded of The Jews "selling Germany out" by the pro-British position of Weitzmann - a self-declared spokesman of Zionism. Was there not one person who asked "Why would do they do that?" to be told "To get the Jewish Homeland" and was persuaded by it? It's not as if the Balfour Declaration is anything but a unique phaenomenon.

Hi Cleopatra:

I think it's safe to say that I simply don't make unequivocal statments such as you claim. (Given recent embarrassment here I may be even more equivocal in future.) You highlight three sentences which end in question-marks and start with "What", "And why" and "Could it have" as amounting to a definitive statement. I was, at the time, trying to justify the matter as at least worthy of discussion (which is something we have been doing here). BillyTK interprets my posts in the way I intended them to be, so at least I'm not being utterly obscure. And that's my final reply on that matter.

So, I didn't really "grab at some lobby-inspired "data" because it fits my chosen world-view" as CD accused me. CD is really talented in composing insults ...
Why, thank you. (I get a lot of it from my mother.) However, this was not directed at you, it was directed at the author of "The People Speak!". I don't expect many people to react to "Europe 1849" in the way I do - lots of connotations - but this guy is meant to be a historian. I don't have his book so I don't know the context he put around the quote you gave, but I'm prepared to go out on a limb and question its adequacy. (See what I mean about equivocation?) I've expressed other doubts previously.
There is a poem of Hoederlin that I like very much. In this poem Hoederlin says that the sin that even God refuses to forgive is to upset the peace of mind of your friends and of the people that you love.
I regard poetry in the same way as I regard thinking in Greek - where did it ever get anybody? I suspect some of my friends like me because I do disturb their peace-of-mind. Others just think I'm joking. This isn't the first time I've brought these ideas up, and I have in the past had food thrown at me as a result. I guess this sort of thing is going to happen on a forum like this (the peace-of-mind thing, not the food-throwing).
It's just that Zionism in particular pisses him off because he believes that it has put the Jews in great danger.
And we've hardly touched on what has happened to Oriental Jewry in the last century, particularly post-1948 and even more particularly post-Shah. Which opens up a horrifying second front, and should perhaps be put aside. But Zionism pisses me off for many other reasons.
Two paragraphs in Mein Kampf and a couple of articles that are rather ridiculing the attempt of the Jews to fool Goyim( to use Hitler's expression) with Zionism.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not about to go ploughing through every back-copy of Der Schulungsbrief or the works of the "theorists" that informed Nazism. My mental health is important to me. But the matter-of fact way in which Der S. refers to the "state treaty" between The Jews and Britain implies that this matter has been presented previously. This journal was intended to provide its readers with the arguments to present to their workmates, their friends, their neighbours and their families. What we really need, of course, is somebody's history thesis on "Zionism and its Influence on German Politics 1919-1939" or equivalent. Without that I'm left with my gut-feeling that Zionism, and particularly the Balfour Declaration which linked it with Britain, must have had some effect. Not just in the "selling out Germany" claim but in the more general claim that there was a central Jewish command structure that Jews gave their real loyalty to - the "Elders of Zion" pitch.

I've been re-reading The Jewish State (it really is as awful as I remembered it), and was struck by a particular passage:
(from Hertzl) At the same time, the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded.
Which is, of course, exactly what happened in Germany 40 years later. Herzl was wrong. Zionism's opponents - many and varied - argued that nationalist Zionism would increase the risk that citizenship rights might be removed from Jews because they could be judged as being non-nationals. That did happen, which doesn't prove them wrong.

So why does Herzl make this point, when the whole of his tract is intended to make Jews feel more insecure? Obviously because he knew what the argument was - it's not as if Herzl invented this idea - and was trying to dismiss it. His justification for this statement was:
Not only because their withdrawal would be opposed to the spirit of our age, but also because it would immediately drive all Jews, rich and poor alike, into the ranks of subversive parties.
Which is puerile. When the Nazis became a threat, rich and middle-class Jews didn't flock towards the Communist Party. They assumed that sense would prevail - and the Nazis never did get a majority of votes. When the constitution was subverted and Hitler came to power, they still expected that the whole nightmare would be transitory. That's how people are. He also recognises the "spirit of [his] age", which is the spirit that has actually informed the spirit of our own age. Nazism didn't triumph - perhaps it couldn't. Even Native American rights are respected these days. But it wasn't because socialism triumphed. Or was it ...

More people should read Herzl. With a lawyer's eye.

[CapelDodger]

from S:
More or less correct, it seems, but that's just the point: CD's figure is vastly exagerrated.
The figure was davefoc's, not mine.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


I think it's safe to say that I simply don't make unequivocal statments such as you claim. (Given recent embarrassment here I may be even more equivocal in future.) You highlight three sentences which end in question-marks and start with "What", "And why" and "Could it have" as amounting to a definitive statement. I was, at the time, trying to justify the matter as at least worthy of discussion (which is something we have been doing here). BillyTK interprets my posts in the way I intended them to be, so at least I'm not being utterly obscure. And that's my final reply on that matter.

I wish you didn't do that. Anyway, since you pretend you don't remember , let me remind you a couple of things.

You posted the first of the sentences I quoted months ago, you saw the reactions then you re-posted your claims, the third time you did that not only you tried to clarify your position, not only you didn't point the existence of question marks but when I told you that I plan to start a discussion about that you invited me to knock myself out.In this very discussion it took 6 pages to state the above but again you haven't adressed the issue. Mind you! I am not interested in making you admit that you are wrong, I just want to show that many of your claims are nothing but fireworks.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Please. Give me a break. History is the science that explores the past based on evidence.

I'm left with my gut-feeling that Zionism, and particularly the Balfour Declaration which linked it with Britain, must have had some effect. Not just in the "selling out Germany" claim but in the more general claim that there was a central Jewish command structure that Jews gave their real loyalty to - the "Elders of Zion" pitch.

Out of the 25 arguements of Hitler , Zionism is only one, hardly a central issue.

I've been re-reading The Jewish State (it really is as awful as I remembered it), and was struck by a particular passage:


Zionism in general wasn't our issue in this thread but we talked about Zionism's possible connection with antisemitism. Again, you don't miss the opportunity to practice your hobby.

But Zionism pisses me off for many other reasons.

You really wish to destroy all of my illusions regarding yourself, don't you? You can hardly hide your despise towards a whole nation. I am the last person that will judge you for that because I am the last person who will boast about my fights against racism and prejudice.

[Zero]

Quick question:

Does wanting to pave over the 'holy' land count as anti-semitism? I say it doesn't, some people say it does.(I am assuming that the folks living there get out of the way of the steamrollers first.)

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Zionism in general wasn't our issue in this thread but we talked about Zionism's possible connection with antisemitism. Again, you don't miss the opportunity to practice your hobby.
In the thread header:
Capel Dodger in a series of posts, claims that Zionism in general and Chaim Weitzman in partucular share the responsibility for the Holocaust.
I claim a degree of freedom.
Out of the 25 arguements of Hitler , Zionism is only one, hardly a central issue.
If that's the 25 Nazi Principles, I think the pledge was to remove all Jews from German Society in an unspecified manner, not a reference to Zionism. As we've seen, the Nazi attitude to Zionism was that it would not itself remove all Germans to Palestine, so if that was your aim there was no point in supporting Zionism rather than the Nazi Party. Many supporters of Zionism were non-Jewish and supported it for precisely the reason that it would remove all Jews from their societies - or at least make it easier to do so. The Nazis wanted their votes.

This doesn't address my point, which is that it seems incredible that nationalist Zionism would not have an effect on anti-semitism. We are presented with a Europe that is dripping with anti-semitic hatred and yet anti-semitic agitators are apparently not taking advantage of an obvious propaganda tool. Why would this be so? There is a degree of wisdom in "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The fact that we only currently have a few quotes, specifically from Nazis, does not provide evidence that something we would expect to be there isn't. Is there any evidence for, or theory to explain, the implausible scenario I've described?

To get back to the mainstream and my clearly stated opinion that European anti-semitism has been exaggerated: re the quotes from James F. Harris (The People Speak!Antisemitism and Emancipation in Nineteenth-Century Bavaria) on page 3. A detail from 1848 is the formation of Pious Societies, named after Pious 9th. (I recommend people look him up - a nasty piece of work. Probably a saint by now.) They are credited with raising 250,000 signatures on petitions in 1848, so they were experienced in such matters. It would be remarkable if they weren't involved in the raising of the petitions your quote refers to. Yet Harris describes them them as "spontaneous, extremely broad-based and genuine". What evidence does he provide for that opinion?
... when I told you that I plan to start a discussion about that you invited me to knock myself out.
I just meant go ahead. No offence meant.

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger

Do you mind if I return to this discussion after the 25th ? I have a gigantic turkey to cook and many other delicious dishes and... drinks!

Iechyd da!

Did I pronounce that right? http://pirate.planetarion.com/SMILIES/XMAS/xmastongue.gif

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Greeks cooking Turkeys ... there's a joke in there somewhere.
You can hardly hide your despise towards a whole nation.
Zionism is not a nation. The term "nation" itself covers a lot of ground, so to speak. Zionism is a project, and Israel is a product of it. It is not a "nation" like the UK or Wales or the US - all of which are very different things. It was designed from abroad and implemented with no concern for the people that lived there. It designates a "people" with all the racial and nationalist zealotry of the 19thCE right and then claims to represent their invented group with no concern for individual wishes or the effects it might have. It has condemned generations of Israelis to conflict in pursuit of a colony carved out a hostile land. Let alone what it's condemned the original inhabitants of that land to. No, I've got no time for it.

[Skeptic]

A zero effect would imply that not one single German was persuaded of The Jews "selling Germany out" by the pro-British position of Weitzmann - a self-declared spokesman of Zionism

Oh, come on. We're not talking about "Zero" literally here. If you meant it absolutely literally, you'd have to say that, apart from zionism, Buddhism, Zoroasterianism, Ra-worship, and Japanese flower arrangements also had a "non-zero effect" on Germany at the time. SOME people were involved with that, too, at the time, and it is concievable that at least ONE person became an antisemite as a reaction to such "non-German" activities suddenly occuring around him. That hardly means that Buddhism "effected antisemitism in Germany" in more than the most trivial sense.

Let's put this another way. According to the index of my English translation of "Mein Kampf", "zionist" appears three times. "Mice, Hitler's reflection on" appears twice, "Greek, Ancient" three times, "Turkey" and "Slackers" three time each, "Chinese" and "Muhammadian" (Muslim), once, "Monarchism", four times. This compares to numerous mentions each of "jews", "race", "nationalism", "Germany", "army", "Aryan", etc.

So, technically, "zionism" had SOME effect on Hitler--e.g., he mentions it--but he also mentions, with the same frequency, Turkey, Mice, and Slackers. Nobody in his right mind would say this means the Turks have somehow "encouraged" or "had an influence" on Hitler's thought, any more than mice or slackers did, except perhaps in the most trivial technical sense of the word.

Why, then, single "zionism" out as having "influenced German antisemitism" and not mice or Turks?

[Malachi151]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/understanding_fascism.htm

[davefoc]

Malachi's link consists of a long discussion of facism followed by a long discussion of anti-semitism.

The link discusses a bit of the history of anti-semitism. It includes largely anti-semitic quotes from various people including Martin Luther and Henry Ford. The views of Churchhill were somewhat interesting. For the most part he seemed to admire the Jews ability to succeed, even in the face of great difficulties, but he saw problems with inter-national Jews that were engaged in a "sinister confederacy". The sinister confederacy seems to be Marxism.

The relevance of the link to this thread seems limited. I suppose since zionism wasn't mentioned with respect to the section on Hitler's anti-semitism one might take that as an indication that the author didn't see zionism as an important element of Nazi anti-semitism.

[davefoc]

CD said with regard to the 25% estimate of his view of the role that zionism played in Germay:
The figure was davefoc's, not mine

The reason that I attempted to put a number on your position and Cleopatra's was that the discussion seemed to be bogged down in a series of exchanges that sounded like this to me:

CD: Zionism played some role
Cleopatra: No, Zionism played no role
CD: It couldn't be zero, even a tiny effect is more than zero
Cleopatra: Don't weasle, you said significant role
CD: I never said I was sure or how much
Cleopatra: yes you did
and on and on

I thought if a quantitative estimate was made of each of your apparent views the discussion would move in the direction of both of you realizing that the difference between your views wasn't that great. As skeptic said when cleopatra was saying zero she didn't probably didn't mean absolutely zero and when you were arguing for a significant role maybe it wasn't that large compared to other factors, such as an existing undercurrent of antisemitism and maybe your number wasn't really that different from Cleopatra's

[davefoc]

I hope that this is not too far off the topic of this discussion and I truly hope that I don't offend anyone with my thoughts on this.

I think that both CD and Cleopatra miss the point a bit. Whether or not Zionism was a significant factor in the German anti-semitism around the time of World War II, it wasn't a primary cause but it might be seen as a symptom of what I see as the primary causes of anti-semitism.

The principle causes of anti-semitism, as I see it, have to do with certain unusual aspects of Judaism with respect to other prominent world religions. The most significant difference between Judaism and other major world religions is the degree that Judaism promotes isolation.

When the Jews are returning from Babylon after the exile they are encouraged to give up their non-Jewish spouses. This emphasis of maintaining the isolation of the Jewish faith continues to this day with many religious Jews not wanting their children to marry non-Jews.

Judaism has no tradition of missionaries or the encouragement of new members from non-Jewish faiths.

Judaism promotes the idea that Jews have their own personal god. This idea seems to promote a sense of community and cohesiveness in Jewish culture but it also serves to isolate the Jewish community from its neighbors who may have their own god or no god at all.

So there is a sense amongst the non-Jew that the Jews' true loyalties are not with the country but with larger Jewish confederations, of whcih Zionism was an example of exactly what the non-Jews were concerned with. Churchill seemed to see Marxism has an example of this kind of larger Jewish confederation.

[CapelDodger]

from davefoc
... the discussion seemed to be bogged down in a series of exchanges ...
I can't argue with that.

Jews have certainly been subject to unique levels of discrimination in Europe, but then they form a unique group, in longevity and distribution. This continued identity is, of course, due to a high degree of social isolation which is not only due to the Christian population. The first Polish ghettoes were designated by the rabbis as a means of limiting Jewish and Christian interaction. Fear of assimilation runs strongly through The Jewish State and is still expressed by some prominent Jews. Jews have also been the only major non-Christian community in Europe until recently. Jews may have been despised but Muslims were the great enemy and were almost unknown in Christian Europe, while Jews and Christians existed in large numbers within Islam. This goes some way to explaining the differing experiences of Western and Eastern Jewry.

Looking at pre-Christian anti-semitism, the Romans seem to have been irritated by the public religiosity of Jews. Roman religion itself was based on the family and the home and was regarded as a private thing. That said, the ancient nature of Judaism gave it status and there was a lot of Roman and Greek interest in it. It's from these "god-fearers", who didn't become fully Jewish but attended the synagogues, that Christianity seems to have been formed. Judaism was also given latitude that other religions weren't - for instance, the Emperor's statue was not displayed in the Jerusalem Temple as it was in other temples but prayers for the Emperor were accepted instead.

As is no doubt clear by now, I put the major blame for anti-semitism on Christianity. Anti-semitism is fundamental to the religion. Any group that sets itself apart from majority society is going to have troubles, the human race being what it is, but add in the religious element and it's amazing that there were any Jews left in Europe by the time of the Enlightenment. Both Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies used anti-semitism for political purposes so it's not surprising it transferred from the religious to the political in the 19thCE.

There's a rather horrifying Guardian report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1112412,00.html) today which demonstrates a continuing fear of miscegenation.

Chinese workers at a company in Israel have been forced to agree not to have sex with or marry Israelis as a condition of getting a job.

[davefoc]

Fist, I would like to apologize to anyone that I offended with my previous post. Based on a PM it appears that what I said might have offended some people, and to the degree that I have done that I am truly sorry.

Secondly, I would like to thank CD for his post. It was both interesting and put into words in a more clear way ideas that I was trying to express.

It seems to me that what is going on here is a kind of synergy between disparate factors that created long term anti-semitism. Part of this is the tendency toward isolationism and non-expansion of Judaism that I talked about in my previous post. Part of this was this whole "the Jews killed Jesus" or worse "the Jews don't believe in the divinity of Jesus" so they became a target of racism not only because of their isolation but because their beliefs made the neighboring cultures uncomfortable.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
The principle causes of anti-semitism, as I see it, have to do with certain unusual aspects of Judaism with respect to other prominent world religions. The most significant difference between Judaism and other major world religions is the degree that Judaism promotes isolation.

To a point I agree with this. Isolation leads to ignorance, which leads to distrust, fear, and then hate. The problem with ascribing this as a major contributing factor in the Holocaust is that by that time there was a good sized portion of the Jewish population that wasn’t isolationist at all, but participated fully with the greater society.

Originally posted by davefoc
When the Jews are returning from Babylon after the exile they are encouraged to give up their non-Jewish spouses. This emphasis of maintaining the isolation of the Jewish faith continues to this day with many religious Jews not wanting their children to marry non-Jews.

You need to make a distinction between isolationism and resistance to assimilation, they are two different things. Catholics, for example, resist conversion to other forms of Christianity, but they are not at all isolationist.

It’s the same for Jews, but it’s perceived as different within a society that is predominantly Christian Christians have a tendency to see religion as a choice between atheism and Christianity, and they’re not sure what to do with someone who is religious but not Christian. When the subject of intermarriage comes up, if the Jew doesn’t convert, not only are they seen as rejecting Christ, but they could be pulling a Christian away from Christ as well, and that’s a big deal.

Anyone who is sincere in their faith will resist conversion, and will want their children to marry within their faith. With different denominations of Christianity, it’s not as big a deal because nothing is going to threaten that fundamental belief in Christ. But the problem isn’t Jewish resistance to conversion, it’s Christian attitudes to non-Christians.

It’s worth noting that contemporary religious tolerance is based more on de-emphasizing the importance of religion rather than actual acceptance of other religions.

Originally posted by davefoc
Judaism has no tradition of missionaries or the encouragement of new members from non-Jewish faiths.

I agree here. I believe there would be less anti-Semitism if Jews were evangelical as Christians are. It used to carry a death penalty, though.

Originally posted by davefoc
Judaism promotes the idea that Jews have their own personal god. This idea seems to promote a sense of community and cohesiveness in Jewish culture but it also serves to isolate the Jewish community from its neighbors who may have their own god or no god at all.

I think Jews would disagree with you on this. Christianity is based on the idea that people choose God (Jesus). Judaism is based on the idea that God chose you (the Jew). This choice doesn’t really carry any special privileges, but it does carry special responsibilities. But the God that chose the Jews is still the God of everyone.

Originally posted by davefoc
So there is a sense amongst the non-Jew that the Jews' true loyalties are not with the country but with larger Jewish confederations, of whcih Zionism was an example of exactly what the non-Jews were concerned with. Churchill seemed to see Marxism has an example of this kind of larger Jewish confederation.

And that’s a common theme among anti-Semitic literature, that because they are different their loyalties are different. You see this today on conspiracy websites where people point to Jews in government or the media and use it to “prove” that Jews are united to do something evil, something against the majority non-Jewish society. But it’s not because Jews are isolationist, non-evangelical and resist assimilation. It’s because they are Jews. The conspiracy theory comes from the observer, the details needed to flesh it out will come from whatever is at hand. The cause is the conspiracy theorist, not the subject of the conspiracy theory.

[davefoc]

Mycroft said:The problem with ascribing this as a major contributing factor in the Holocaust is that by that time there was a good sized portion of the Jewish population that wasn’t isolationist at all, but participated fully with the greater society.


Yes and no. We agree that Jews were rapidly assimilating into German life at about the time of WWII. Evidence of this is that Jews were serving in the military at the beginning of the war and the large number of Jewish/Non-Jewish marriages.

But one might argue that it was that assimilation that saved a number of Jews. As I understand it about 50% of the Jews in Germany were murdered during WWII. The percentage rises substantially in the Eastern European countries where Jews were more isolated from the general population.

Mycroft said in response to my comment about Jews having their own personal god.I think Jews would disagree with you on this.

Hmm, I will take your word for it that the majority of Jews today would disagree with my thought, I think that this is probably right. However, several stories in the Old Testament suggest to me that this was exactly a belief of Judaism at some time. One that comes to mind here is the story of Jerico. God assists the Jews with the complete massacre of the inhabitants(excluding a few people that assisted the Jews). The only justification for this action offered is that God acts for the Jews and not for the non-Jews and that's just the way it is. It has never been clear to me what the Jews of the bible believed about the god of the non-Jews, but I don't know of any writings in the bible (old testament) that talk about a God that works for Jew and Non-Jew alike.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
But one might argue that it was that assimilation that saved a number of Jews. As I understand it about 50% of the Jews in Germany were murdered during WWII. The percentage rises substantially in the Eastern European countries where Jews were more isolated from the general population.

Since the topic is the cause of the Holocaust, I think to make that argument you would have to demonstrate that assimilated Jews would have been exempt. The Nazis were fixated on race, they were looking at ancestry, not if they had assimilated or not.

It’s been a while since I’ve read any Nazi history, but that 50% survival rate seems high. Do you have a source for that?

Originally posted by davefoc
Hmm, I will take your word for it that the majority of Jews today would disagree with my thought, I think that this is probably right. However, several stories in the Old Testament suggest to me that this was exactly a belief of Judaism at some time. One that comes to mind here is the story of Jerico. God assists the Jews with the complete massacre of the inhabitants(excluding a few people that assisted the Jews). The only justification for this action offered is that God acts for the Jews and not for the non-Jews and that's just the way it is. It has never been clear to me what the Jews of the bible believed about the god of the non-Jews, but I don't know of any writings in the bible (old testament) that talk about a God that works for Jew and Non-Jew alike.

With the exception of Moab, I think it’s safe to say that the Israelite conquest of Jericho was a very strong contributing factor of anti-Semitic feelings among the former inhabitants of that city. However, since the topic is 20th century anti-Semitism, I think it’s important to make a distinction between modern and ancient Judaism.

One thing ancient and modern Judaism has in common is the prohibition of adopting the religious practices of peoples of other religions, but as far as having a different God, remember that the predominant religion of 20th century Europe is Christianity, which worships the same god that made his covenant with Abraham.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
Since the topic is the cause of the Holocaust ...

... since the topic is 20th century anti-Semitism ...
The topic is anti-semitism in general. The effect of Zionism on anti-semitism is simply one aspect.
To a point I agree with this. Isolation leads to ignorance, which leads to distrust, fear, and then hate. The problem with ascribing this as a major contributing factor in the Holocaust is that by that time there was a good sized portion of the Jewish population that wasn’t isolationist at all, but participated fully with the greater society.
A fact that contributed to the appearance of Zionism as a reaction against assimilation. This fear of assimilation isn't only a religious response, since the founders of Zionism were mostly secular, but also includes fear of miscegenation - of a "mongrel people". It's not hard to see why Zionists and racists could work so well together, since they shared so many of the same beliefs - in particular the idea of "pure blood", be it Jewish, Aryan, Anglo-Saxon or whatever. (I, incidentally, am very happy to be a mongrel.)
You need to make a distinction between isolationism and resistance to assimilation, they are two different things. Catholics, for example, resist conversion to other forms of Christianity, but they are not at all isolationist.
Yet they put Jews in ghettoes to isolate themselves from them, they expelled Jews and Moors from Spain after the reconquest, they annihilated the Albigensians and tried the same on the Protestants, expelled Jews and Muslims from Jerusalem and attempted the same with the Orthodox during the Kingdom. Off the top of my head. As in all religions, the intention is to allow only their set of superstitions to be presented to their flock.
Anyone who is sincere in their faith will resist conversion, and will want their children to marry within their faith
Whereas anyone whose primary concern is with their children will provide them with an education and allow them to make their own minds up. They will wish their children to marry the right person for them, not the person that satisfies their own needs. Be those concerned with blood-purity or their particular superstition.
When the subject of intermarriage comes up, if the Jew doesn’t convert, not only are they seen as rejecting Christ, but they could be pulling a Christian away from Christ as well, and that’s a big deal.
My experience has been with women converting to Judaism to keep their in-laws happy, never the other way around. But that's only the modern situation. Obviously a Jewish-dominated society would be concerned that if a Christian doesn't convert they're potentially pulling a Jew from the Torah. Even worse the Chinese, what with their sweet-and-sour pork and spare-ribs.
It’s worth noting that contemporary religious tolerance is based more on de-emphasizing the importance of religion rather than actual acceptance of other religions.
It's only when religion is taken seriously that it leads to really bloody results. The less seriously religion is taken - ultimately to the point where it's seen as cute mythology - the less damage it does. The advance of religious tolerance comes from those with no religion, not those who accept "other" ones. But it does lead to the inter-faith societies that try to bring a secular notion of tolerance into religion, which is a pretty hopeless task but probably does some good.
I agree here. I believe there would be less anti-Semitism if Jews were evangelical as Christians are. It used to carry a death penalty, though.
Whereas converting a Jew only deserves a good stoning. And converting a Muslim gets the same, I think, or perhaps beheading.
And that’s a common theme among anti-Semitic literature, that because they are different their loyalties are different.
Well, duh. And up pop the Zionists to say "Yes, their loyalties are different, they are loyal to us and the powerful Jewish Cabal that we represent". And if Jews are saying it - well, it must be true, mustn't it?
It’s because they are Jews
An opportunity to pose a question which I've never received a good answer to: why should it be that Jewishness automatically causes dislike, and a reason to justify that dislike has to be manufactured? Is there any theory that might explain this?

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
With the exception of Moab, I think it’s safe to say that the Israelite conquest of Jericho was a very strong contributing factor of anti-Semitic feelings among the former inhabitants of that city.
Even after they've been killed by the Israelites they still hate them. That's a really deep hatred, that is.
One thing ancient and modern Judaism has in common is the prohibition of adopting the religious practices of peoples of other religions, but as far as having a different God, remember that the predominant religion of 20th century Europe is Christianity, which worships the same god that made his covenant with Abraham.
Gods are mental constructs, and there is very little in common between the Judaic and the Christian versions. Even if there were it would make no difference to the lumpen majority. They want simple "we're right, they're wrong" messages. So the Jews believe in the Christian god but then betray it - worse than not believing in it at all.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The topic is anti-semitism in general. The effect of Zionism on anti-semitism is simply one aspect.

That may be what the forum title suggests, but the thread was started so Cleopatra could challenge you on the issue of the effects of Zionism on the Holocaust.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
A fact that contributed to the appearance of Zionism as a reaction against assimilation. This fear of assimilation isn't only a religious response, since the founders of Zionism were mostly secular, but also includes fear of miscegenation - of a "mongrel people". It's not hard to see why Zionists and racists could work so well together, since they shared so many of the same beliefs - in particular the idea of "pure blood", be it Jewish, Aryan, Anglo-Saxon or whatever. (I, incidentally, am very happy to be a mongrel.)

Oh please, you’re just baiting me. You can’t seriously be claiming that secular Jews who had the least reason to fear assimilation were motivated by racist ideals.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Yet they put Jews in ghettoes to isolate themselves from them, they expelled Jews and Moors from Spain after the reconquest, they annihilated the Albigensians and tried the same on the Protestants, expelled Jews and Muslims from Jerusalem and attempted the same with the Orthodox during the Kingdom. Off the top of my head. As in all religions, the intention is to allow only their set of superstitions to be presented to their flock.

Wanting to isolate another group is different from wanting to isolate your own group.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Whereas anyone whose primary concern is with their children will provide them with an education and allow them to make their own minds up. They will wish their children to marry the right person for them, not the person that satisfies their own needs. Be those concerned with blood-purity or their particular superstition.

Your personal disdain for religion is noted, however my point was to illustrate that Jewish resistance to assimilation is no different from the desires of any other religious groups desire to pass their traditions and beliefs on to their children. In that context, your feelings on the correctness of that desire is irrelevant.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
My experience has been with women converting to Judaism to keep their in-laws happy, never the other way around. But that's only the modern situation. Obviously a Jewish-dominated society would be concerned that if a Christian doesn't convert they're potentially pulling a Jew from the Torah. Even worse the Chinese, what with their sweet-and-sour pork and spare-ribs.

My own experience is quite different from what you describe. It’s only anecdotal evidence, but I recently attended a conversion ceremony of a friend who actually cried as he embraced Judaism. Within the States, the primary source of conversion to Judaism is marriage, but a great many of those conversions are sincere.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It's only when religion is taken seriously that it leads to really bloody results. The less seriously religion is taken - ultimately to the point where it's seen as cute mythology - the less damage it does. The advance of religious tolerance comes from those with no religion, not those who accept "other" ones. But it does lead to the inter-faith societies that try to bring a secular notion of tolerance into religion, which is a pretty hopeless task but probably does some good.

You make an excellent illustration of my point that religious tolerance is based on the de-emphasizing the importance of religion rather than actual acceptance of other religions. Again, your personal disdain for religion is noted.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
An opportunity to pose a question which I've never received a good answer to: why should it be that Jewishness automatically causes dislike, and a reason to justify that dislike has to be manufactured? Is there any theory that might explain this?

I don’t think it’s a very mysterious. To make an analogy, if a white supremacist evokes fears of miscegenation as an excuse to hate blacks, it presumes that there is something wrong with race-mixing. It’s circular logic. You yourself point out that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, should it be a surprise that they manufacture reasons in addition to the fundamental fact that Jews don’t worship Christ?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Even after they've been killed by the Israelites they still hate them. That's a really deep hatred, that is.[/B]

I wrote that tongue-in-cheek. I forget that my humor isn't always recognized as such.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Gods are mental constructs, and there is very little in common between the Judaic and the Christian versions. Even if there were it would make no difference to the lumpen majority. They want simple "we're right, they're wrong" messages. So the Jews believe in the Christian god but then betray it - worse than not believing in it at all. [/B]

I would add that the lumpen majority doesn't understand that there is such a difference between the Judaic and Christian versions of God.

[davefoc]

Mycroft said:I would add that the lumpen majority doesn't understand that there is such a difference between the Judaic and Christian versions of God.

Speaking as somebody raised roughly in the Christian culture whose parents best friends were Jewish, I would agree completely. For most of my life I saw Judaism as roughly Christianity without Christ.

About a year ago I took a small interest in biblical history and as a result read a little of the bible. I was flat out amazed. The god in the old testament bares almost no relationship to the god in modern Christianity. My assumption is that reformed Judaism envisions a god similar to the modern Christian god. But the god in the old testament and I assume the god of earlier Judaism is a very different god. He is taken to flights of petty vengence, seems pretty much ok with some pretty violent behavior as long as it's done in the name of religion and is pretty much the god of the Jews who are writing the stories. Its not clear to me, and I stand to be corrected here, that he will intervene for non-Jews regardless of their actions.

At least that's the way this member of the lumpen minority sees it.

(Straining a bit there to get lumpen into a sentence, I don't know how I got to be 54 and have never used it or even heard it. But I guess I'll just have to add that to the list of arcane information that I can thank CD for.)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
He is taken to flights of petty vengence, seems pretty much ok with some pretty violent behavior as long as it's done in the name of religion and is pretty much the god of the Jews who are writing the stories. Its not clear to me, and I stand to be corrected here, that he will intervene for non-Jews regardless of their actions.


Do keep in mind that those same texts are holy to both religions, so the text alone isn't really helpful in distinguishing between the different concepts of God. Perhaps a comparative religion class would help?

[Cleopatra]

originally posted by davefoc
(Straining a bit there to get lumpen into a sentence, I don't know how I got to be 54 and have never used it or even heard it. But I guess I'll just have to add that to the list of arcane information that I can thank CD for.)


Lumpen.

A word introduced by Marx to describe the condition of the Proletariat...it became a chewing gum in the mouths of the marxists during the '70ies...then, they found fancy jobs in the stock market business and in banking and the word was used by the conservatives to parodize the bankrupted marxist theories. BUT to paraphrase my grandma's wisdom : "You might leave marxism but its mentality never leaves you " :) [She used to say that about the poor peasants that flew to the cities when they became rich. "you might leave the village but the village never leaves you..." She believed that some people might leave their village but the village mentality is so all over them that they don't really change--Of course she wanted to say that money isn't enough to send you to the upper class and it's education and the family background that makes the difference--this is a pure jewish mentality BTW--the devotion to the education I mean]

I still find amazing what sort of things impress Americans :)

[Cleopatra]

originally posted by Capel Dodger
I claim a degree of freedom.

I don’t understand that do you mean that you have the freedom to have your opinion? Of course you have. As Hal says, you have the right to have your opinion but not your own facts. Seriously, I respect your opinion Capel Dodger, that’s why I spend time to compose my responses to your thoughts.

originally posted by Cleopatra:
Out of the 25 arguements of Hitler , Zionism is only one, hardly a central issue.
to which you replied:
originally posted by Capel Dodger[/I]
[quote]If that's the 25 Nazi Principles, I think the pledge was to remove all Jews from German Society in an unspecified manner, not a reference to Zionism.
No, I was referring to the chapter of Mein Kempf in which Hitler mentions Zionism. If Zionism was such a catalyst in Hitler’s propaganda it would have a central position in it and it would be mentioned several times. Something that doesn’t happen and you know why? Read below.

As we've seen, the Nazi attitude to Zionism was that it would not itself remove all Germans to Palestine, so if that was your aim there was no point in supporting Zionism rather than the Nazi Party. Many supporters of Zionism were non-Jewish and supported it for precisely the reason that it would remove all Jews from their societies - or at least make it easier to do so. The Nazis wanted their votes.

Even if this is true I don’t see how it changes anything regarding what we are discussing now. The above doesn’t show that Zionism was a serious issue in the Nazi propaganda and it doesn’t explain why it wasn’t.

originally posted by Capel dodger
This doesn't address my point, which is that it seems incredible that nationalist Zionism would not have an effect on anti-semitism. We are presented with a Europe that is dripping with anti-semitic hatred and yet anti-semitic agitators are apparently not taking advantage of an obvious propaganda tool. Why would this be so? There is a degree of wisdom in "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The fact that we only currently have a few quotes, specifically from Nazis, does not provide evidence that something we would expect to be there isn't. Is there any evidence for, or theory to explain, the implausible scenario I've described

Two things for those they have just jumped in the discussion:
1. I am not the one who started the discussion about the percentages of influence Zionism had in the formation of the Nazi propaganda and to the final lethal result for the Jews.
2. The burden of the proof to your theories doesn’t belong to me Capel Dodger but I am really interested in this matter.

I believe that the reason why Zionism didn’t have such a great influence on the Nazi propaganda and the reason why it didn’t play any role in the final result is that the antisemitic theories that were central to the Nazi propaganda were formatted much earlier, during the second half of the 19th ce. As a response to the whole movement of the emancipation of the Jews in Germany. Although I do believe that mentioning the name of Wilhelm Marr would be enough, the case of Adolph Stoecker says it all. Hitler copy and pasted whole passages of the work of Stoecker.

Also, have in mind that the Jews didn’t embrace Zionism. It was marginal among the Jews too and the whole idea caused a major embarrassment to the Jewish communities. The embarrassment reflects even to Hitler’s reference. Although Hitler is very descriptive in its characterizations of everything Jewish, it refers to Zionism in a rather vague way.

Zionism was problematic like Israel and I do not mean that the way you do Capel Dodger. Zionism was a reflex response to the prosecutions but unfortunately Jews at the end saw themselves with the eyes of their enemies and I find this a very painful reality and truth. Europeans named Jews a nation something that they weren’t and Jews responded by becoming the way their enemies visioned them.

Israel, Capel Dodger, is the greatest embarrassment of Western Civilization but Jews are the last to blame for its creation, don't forget that please.


I will reply to the rest of your message in another post. I also want to reply to a question you posed. If anti-Semitism was so serious in 19th ce why didn’t we have a Holocaust earlier. This questions tortured me a bit and I finally found an answer.

[Elektrix]

Just to add to this, I've seen a few posts here where the assumption seems to be that Judaism was really focused just on "the Jews" and basically had no care for other people (which I guess would be a natural conclusion to take, especially from some stories in the old testament with various people being massacred, etc.).

The bit about the "chosen people" also is probably often misunderstood (and again probably understandably, as it is one of those things that sounds elitist).

But as a larger point, one of the messages that God tells the Jewish people (through the various prophets, etc.) is that what they were chosen to do was to act as a moral example for other people, and basically to spread the concept of monotheism.

Even though it may not always be clear, God, even in the Old Testament, where there is plenty of wrath, etc. did not want to isolate the Jews alone......... he wanted the Jewish people to go out and serve as examples and in fact spread the concept of monotheism around.

This is especially what many of the prophets in the Old Testament do, going from town to town, country to country, trying to pass messages from God on to them. For example, the prophet Jonah was sent to Nineveh to try and get them to repent and follow God's word, etc.

One reason that you can come away from the Old Testament especially with a different view of God is because so much of the time, God is frustrated with the Israelites and angry with them for not following his commandments, living up to the ideal that has been set for them, etc.

God does make mention of them being special to him, and a holy people, but more specifically he refers to them as servants of the almighty, and tasks them with being priests..... not kings or rulers, but priests, as in teachers.

Aside from that, it is worth taking into account the different time periods that these books were written in. Especially between the 5 books of Moses, and the later books of the various prophets........ the time periods of these books ranges widely. Thus, the ideas reflected in, say Leviticus, are quite different from those in, say, the Book of Job or Isaiah or Ecclesiastes.

As it is, Judaism evolved and changed as things progressed. One thing in particular is that in many ways, Jesus came about at the same time as Rabbinic Judaism (the notion of Judaism without being run by a priestly class responsible for making sacrifices and running the Temple... but instead rabbis, or teachers, who merely help to teach the rest of the community the word of God, etc.). Many of Jesus's sayings have a lot in common with other Jewish rabbis who were either contemporaries of him or a generation or two earlier.

A lot of the Judaism in the old testament really is archaic, and it is a lot of why Judaism today is quite different from thousands of years ago.

Anyway, just wanted to bring this up, since I figure it was worth responding to some of these issues.

-Elektrix

P.S. This doesn't answer every question, but there is a very nice FAQ from the soc.culture.jewish newsgroup which does give at least a window on some Jewish thought (including the various debates and different points of views within Judaism on various issues): http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/intro.html

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
... this is a pure jewish mentality BTW--the devotion to the education I mean
Actually it's also a Celtic tradition to respect education. One of the most consistent exports of Wales over the centuries has been teachers. Also priests, lawyers, bureaucrats and pedantic know-alls.
Lumpen ... became a chewing gum in the mouths of the marxists during the '70ies ...
I use it because it's such an evocative word. It needs no explaining. I would apply it to very few people who get as far as this forum. Some may be barking, some may be evil, but only a few are lumpen - and they know who they are ...

More to come.

[CapelDodger]

At the risk of getting wildly off-thread, I'd like to put across my take on original Judaism, or the Mosaic Revolution.

Something went on in Sinai when the first Covenant and Commandments were drawn up. It was a new prescription for running a society (in many ways analogous to the US Constitution) and was probably the first visible result of theories worked out over the previous couple of centuries (again, see the US Constitution). What it did was replace the god-king concept with a god as king. No corporeal ruler. At the time the typical political system comprised tribes and cities owing allegiance to local rulers who in turn owed allegiance to Great Kings - Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians and what-all. The Covenant introduces the same thing, thereby embracing anyone who is prepared to offer allegiance to a god and follow the rules it lays down. It was potentially a world-system.

This is not monotheism - the Great Kings might declare themselves rulers of all mankind, but they clearly weren't. But it does provide a stable structure. It originally bound together people from different backgrounds, and it was able to easily absorb the conquered populations of Palestine (massacre was not universal). There were no problems over succession. The King didn't go insane or fall under the influence of evil counsel. The priests were the equivalent of courtiers linking the non-corporeal ruler with its subjects. The ruler was just - hard, but fair - and demanded a moral code that most people find natural. (A classic example of a religion taking normal human decency and feeding it back as its own idea.)

When a local king accepted, say, the Hittite Great King, the Great King would issue a proclamation to the ruler that would be carved on a stele to be set up in the local capital, and regularly read out to the people. The form was basically:

I (fill in name) am your sovereign lord, and you shall owe allegiance to no other lord.
You shall not make war on me or any of my other subjects.
You shall pay up what I say, when I say.
You are granted the use and rule of (fill in description of territory, cities, etc)
In return I shall not screw you and your lands over most horribly, as you well know I could if I wanted to, oh yes. And I shall protect you from those that do want to.

Of course, the whole thing was subverted fairly soon by an hereditary priesthood and by warlords like Joshua, Saul and David, but that subversion was never complete. Samuel himself saw the error of his ways, and the judges and later prophets by-passed the established priesthood. The new Judaism that Ezrah and Nehemiah brought back to Jerusalem had got rid of the ideas of kingship and sovereignty, and that carried over into rabbinic Judaism after the disastrous re-emergence of nationalism under the Maccabeans. It has never got back the open quality it originally had, though.

Wrong thread, probably, since there's a lot in this subject. But it's not theology, it's history and arguably current affairs.

[Cleopatra]

Very nice post Capel Dodger, thanks Elekrix.

CD you cheat (no pun intended) :) I'd love to have this discussion about what happened on Sinai along with happened after this Jesus was crucified, it seems that all the good "cooking" in Religion and Philosophy took place in Alexandria-Egypt.

But I will close with the issue we have opened and then I'll add my two cents in that although such discussions are not nice via Internet. Athenaeus would die to host such a discussion in a symposium of his....

[Troll]

I'm not sure if this is gonna fit into the topic as the topic was intended to be,but I have some experience and insight on some anti-semitism in the US.

For the most part, not all encompassing, in the US, the anti-semitist views are based upon two things. Religious ignorance and jealousy. I know the latter better than the former so I'll start with it then ask about the former when I post about it.

There's that damned ignorance of stereotyping. Jews have all the money, jews control hollywood, jews have enough ,money to control the politics. Generally in this case they've been taught to hate to begin with. The examples given are just the talking points of the racist bastards that led the morons to believe the same. They seem to forget people like Jackson, Tarantino, Woo, Coppola, etc. and focus on Spielberg. dumb, I know, but then so is real hate and racism.

The religious aspect confuses me, and I have questions for those that know more about the bible and history than I do. I grew up a baptist. I left it when I had a change of preachers and suddenly the same passages took on different meanings. A friend of mine from my high school days stayed with it. Now as kids we were damned near identical on opinons and views. 10 years ago I dropped him off the radar because he figures Jews are going to hell for killing Christ.

I spent some time in california penal facilities due to some dumb ased stuff involving alcohol and no victims about the same time my friend and I parted ways. I was introduced to several Aryan nation fellas who also held the same belief that jews sucked because they killed christ.

So as far as the US goes, I'd say the anti-semitism is based upon that misconception.

Now here comes my question and my ignorance on the subject. To the best of my knowledge, one Jew betrayed Christ, but it was the romans that killed him. Is that correct?

Now here's one of those walking on eggs questions and don't think I'm trying to put anyone on the spot, I'm just asking for knowledge. Is it that it was a fellow jew that betrayed christ that has created a sense of denial of christs first coming amongst the jewish faith, from a historical view? Or is the denial thing I've heard just from the racist twits that mentioned that as a reason to me?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Troll
Now here comes my question and my ignorance on the subject. To the best of my knowledge, one Jew betrayed Christ, but it was the romans that killed him. Is that correct?


My opinion, for what it's worth:

The question itself is irrelevant. According to Christian theology, Jesus was supposed to die as the final sacrifice to redeem mankind, or at least that portion that agreed to worship him. From that point of view, it was neither the Jews nor the Romans but God who killed Jesus. That it was the plan all along explains why Jesus spoke the prayers he did in Gethsemane, why he didn’t defend himself when the soldiers came, and why he seemed bent on irking Herod when asked to explain himself.

One could be poetic and draw a simile between God sacrificing Jesus and God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, saying that God fulfilled the task he was too merciful to require of Abraham.

One could also ask if Judas is truly damned for betraying Christ. Christian tradition holds that he is, but if he was fulfilling a role assigned to him by God, maybe he’s not?

[CapelDodger]

You think the effects of the solstice-soup have worn off, then you find you've made posts like my last ones. Cleopatra: I don't know this Athenaeus, but I'd be interested in a discussion around this subject.

from Mycroft:
According to Christian theology, Jesus was supposed to die as the final sacrifice to redeem mankind, or at least that portion that agreed to worship him. From that point of view, it was neither the Jews nor the Romans but God who killed Jesus.
That may have been the intention of Paul (or his mentors) and modern Christian apologists but is not the message of the Gospels, which make Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus absolutely clear.
That it was the plan all along explains why Jesus spoke the prayers he did in Gethsemane, why he didn’t defend himself when the soldiers came, and why he seemed bent on irking Herod when asked to explain himself.
The historical Jesus remains a mystery since Christianity has been able to obliterate almost all primary sources. The Gethsemene prayers and the interview with Herod: who took the minutes? The interview most likely derives from a later encounter between James and the Herodians (a lot of James's story has been subsumed into the Jesus construct). The Gethsemane story could have been written at almost any time to fit the established theology. Judas is in there as a dramatic device.

[CapelDodger]

from Troll:
I grew up a baptist. I left it when I had a change of preachers and suddenly the same passages took on different meanings. A friend of mine from my high school days stayed with it. Now as kids we were damned near identical on opinons and views. 10 years ago I dropped him off the radar because he figures Jews are going to hell for killing Christ.
I can't fathom this Baptist franchise. It seems to cover everything from happy-clappies to Calvinists. I guess it's the First Amendment that allows churches to preach this sort of stuff. I doubt if you'd get away with it over here for long. And yet Europe is supposed to be anti-semitic while the US isn't.

It would be remarkable if anti-semitism hadn't made it to America, given that the Puritans weren't against religious intolerance per se, just against having it applied to them. Perhaps they wouldn't have taken to witch-hunting if they'd had more Jews or Catholics around. In the second half of the 19thCE over a quarter of the huge influx of US immigration was from German peasant and small-town stock (the most likely Germans to be anti-semitic), and a whole bunch more were Russian peasants (and we all know about them). Anti-black racism has inevitably crossed with anti-semitism. And I've a suspicion that a fair proportion of the Zionist Christians in the US are anti-semitic. (Which, as ever, prompts the question: when are they going to start insisting that all Jews go back to Israel?)
Is it that it was a fellow jew that betrayed christ that has created a sense of denial of christs first coming amongst the jewish faith, from a historical view? Or is the denial thing I've heard just from the racist twits that mentioned that as a reason to me?
The mainstream Christian view is that the "Messiah" was sent via the Jews because of their special status, but the Jews blew it by remaining wedded to the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant of the sacrificial saviour, as we get from Paul. By clinging to their old "chosen" status rather than see the message carried to the whole world thay have proved unworthy. I don't think this can be blamed on Paul as much as the later Chritians who had to distance themselves from the rebellious Jews so as to survive in the Graeco-Roman world. There are some apparently anti-Jew remarks in Paul, but their provenance and interpretation is uncertain.

You, on the other hand, have been obliged to commune with loonies. Which the US has no shortage of, I gather. Keep a clean nose, watch out for the plain-clothes.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Troll:

I can't fathom this Baptist franchise. It seems to cover everything from happy-clappies to Calvinists. I guess it's the First Amendment that allows churches to preach this sort of stuff. I doubt if you'd get away with it over here for long. And yet Europe is supposed to be anti-semitic while the US isn't.

It would be remarkable if anti-semitism hadn't made it to America, given that the Puritans weren't against religious intolerance per se, just against having it applied to them. Perhaps they wouldn't have taken to witch-hunting if they'd had more Jews or Catholics around. In the second half of the 19thCE over a quarter of the huge influx of US immigration was from German peasant and small-town stock (the most likely Germans to be anti-semitic), and a whole bunch more were Russian peasants (and we all know about them). Anti-black racism has inevitably crossed with anti-semitism. And I've a suspicion that a fair proportion of the Zionist Christians in the US are anti-semitic. (Which, as ever, prompts the question: when are they going to start insisting that all Jews go back to Israel?)

The mainstream Christian view is that the "Messiah" was sent via the Jews because of their special status, but the Jews blew it by remaining wedded to the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant of the sacrificial saviour, as we get from Paul. By clinging to their old "chosen" status rather than see the message carried to the whole world thay have proved unworthy. I don't think this can be blamed on Paul as much as the later Chritians who had to distance themselves from the rebellious Jews so as to survive in the Graeco-Roman world. There are some apparently anti-Jew remarks in Paul, but their provenance and interpretation is uncertain.

You, on the other hand, have been obliged to commune with loonies. Which the US has no shortage of, I gather. Keep a clean nose, watch out for the plain-clothes.

We all have our share of loonies. If you merely toss them aside as such, you cannot formulate a means of dealing with them properly. If you cannot deal with them properly, they feel encouraged to expand their numbers. Even the best of veterinarians can only neuter one dog at a time.;)

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
As a banker, may I interject that its profitability is exaggerated?
You don't meet the right kind of banker.
Your personal disdain for religion is noted ...
It hardly requires intuition.
.. however my point was to illustrate that Jewish resistance to assimilation is no different from the desires of any other religious groups desire to pass their traditions and beliefs on to their children. In that context, your feelings on the correctness of that desire is irrelevant.
The assumptions you make that there is nothing wrong with these atavistic feelings and that they have no effect prompts my response. There is something wrong with them, they do have effects and I see no reason not to point that out.
Wanting to isolate another group is different from wanting to isolate your own group.
They annihilated the Albigensians. "Kill them all, God will know his own." Your claim that Catholicism is not isolationist does not stand up to scrutiny. The important question is why they didn't annihilate the Jews of the Catholic world, but instead isolated themselves from them physically and figuratively.
You can’t seriously be claiming that secular Jews who had the least reason to fear assimilation were motivated by racist ideals.
Of course I am. Zionism is not Judaic, it's 19thCE European. People like Hertzl, Weizmann and Ben Gurion accepted the European assumption that only nationhood confers status on a group. With that nationalism came the principle of common descent and racial purity. (I'll leave aside here their personal ambitions to be founders of said nation.)

I have a link (http://www.mideastfacts.com/zistrngallianc.html) which you probably have a response to.
When Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, served in Paris as a correspondent for a Vienna newspaper, he was in close contact with the leading anti-Semites of the day. In his biography of Herzl, The Labyrinth of Exile, Ernst Pawel reports that those who financed and edited La Libre Parole, a weekly dedicated "to the defense of Catholic France against atheists, republicans, Free Masons and Jews," invited Herzl to their homes on a regular basis.

Alluding to such conservatives and their publications, Pawel writes that Herzl "found himself captivated" by these men and their ideas: "La France Juive struck him as a brilliant performance and--much like Duhring's notorious Jewish Question 10 years later--it aroused powerful and contradictory emotions...On June 12, 1895, while in the midst of working on Der Judenstaat, [Herzl] noted in his diary , 'much of my current conceptual freedom I owe to [Edouard] Drumont, because he is an artist.' The compliment seems extravagant, but Drumont repaid it the following year with a glowing review of Herzl's book La Parole Libre."

In the end, Pawel argues, "Paris changed Herzl, and French anti-Semites undermined the ironic complacency of the Jewish would-be non-Jew." Yet Herzl was not entirely displeased with anti Semitism. In a private letter to Moritz Benedikt, written in the final days of 1892, he writes: "I do not consider the anti-Semitic movement altogether harmful. It will inhibit the ostentatious flaunting of conspicuous wealth, curb the unscrupulous behavior of Jewish financiers, and contribute in many ways to the education of the Jews...In that respect we seem to be in agreement."

This Herzl guy was clearly an ignoramus and an idiot. I don't yet have The Labyrinth of Exile but I'm looking out for it.
Herzl's book Der Judenstaat, was widely disparaged by the leading Jews of the day, who viewed themselves as French, German, English or Austrian citizens and Jews by religion--with no interest in a separate Jewish state. Anti-Semites, on the other hand, eagerly greeted Herzl's work. Herzl's arguments, Pawel points out, were "all but indistinguishable from those used by the anti-Semites." One of the first reviews appeared in the Westungarischer Grenzbote, an anti-Semitic journal published in Bratislava by Ivan von Simonyi, a member of the Hungarian Diet. He praised both the book and Herzl and was so carried away with his enthusiasm that he paid Herzl a personal visit. Herzl wrote in his diary: "My weird follower, the Bratislava anti-Semite Ivan von Simonyi came to see me. A hypermercurial, hyperloquacious sexagenarian with an uncanny sympathy for the Jews. Swings back and forth between perfectly rational talk and utter nonsense, believes in the blood libel and at the same time comes up with the most sensible modern ideas. Loves me."
It seems many anti-semites were making a big issue of Zionism as a solution to the "Jewish Question", but they were also also very enthusiastic about the ideas expressed in The Jewish State. Which, given that they were racists, supports my interpretation of said publication. Herzl was impressed by racists and they were impressed by him.
My own experience is quite different from what you describe. It’s only anecdotal evidence, but I recently attended a conversion ceremony of a friend who actually cried as he embraced Judaism. Within the States, the primary source of conversion to Judaism is marriage, but a great many of those conversions are sincere.
Who cares? What the deluded do is their own lookout, and there's no shortage of them. The primary source of conversion in this modern age is a desire to keep problems with the in-laws to a minimum, which doesn't require any delusion. That said, I've had my ear bent for hours at a time about the years of evening-classes required to acquire a degree of religious knowledge way beyond that of the husbands who were simply Jewish as soon as they were warm. (I never met a male who converted. Just happenstance, I guess.)
You make an excellent illustration of my point that religious tolerance is based on the de-emphasizing the importance of religion rather than actual acceptance of other religions. Again, your personal disdain for religion is noted.
Try and get a grip. Secularism cannot accept "other" religions. The importance of religion is de-emphasized by its own reduced capacity to do harm, a reduction that is brought about by secularism.
I don’t think it’s a very mysterious. To make an analogy, if a white supremacist evokes fears of miscegenation as an excuse to hate blacks, it presumes that there is something wrong with race-mixing. It’s circular logic. You yourself point out that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, should it be a surprise that they manufacture reasons in addition to the fundamental fact that Jews don’t worship Christ?
I am at least aware of logic( one of us should be if only to keep the public entertained), although I don't indulge in the circular variety unless I'm joshing somebody. You attempt to rebut me by mentioning Christian anti-semitism and connecting it with the non-Christian variety. Is it your argument that all anti-semitism is Christian? And non-Christian anti-semitism is due to ...? Your statement was blunt - "It's because they are Jews". What is your justification for that?
Again, your personal disdain for religion is noted.
You note this a lot. Have you passed these notes to anybody? Because, believe me, they've already got me on file. I've been told by what I regard as a reliable source.

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger.Your sources are a joke. Since when do you study marginal , antisemitic sites?

I expected somebody that accused Harris for being... a whisky expert to be more careful to his sources.

So, I pressume that you return to your previous position from which you seemed to back off for a moment.

[Cleopatra]

What a coincidence! Some time ago I found a similar , almost identical article with the one Capel Dodger quoted, in a site of historical revisionism...

This is where your article , CD, comes from.

http://vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad7.html

We should always be careful with the rubbish that circulates around Internet.

[CapelDodger]

from Troll:
Even the best of veterinarians can only neuter one dog at a time.
But cats don't deserve the same consideration, with them it's down to length of blade and thick gloves.
We all have our share of loonies. If you merely toss them aside as such, you cannot formulate a means of dealing with them properly
Agreed, but over here these days it's anti-Islamism that attracts the loonies - and nothing so complicated as knowing why they get two days off at Easter. There are some real nasties about, particularly a bunch known as Combat-18, the "1-8" referring to the letters "A-H" (Adolf Hitler) but they're of fading significance. In the 70's and 80's there were still Hitler-worshippers who gained the occasional council-seat but nowadays the populist G-spot is Muslims. This is a process in which the US is playing catch-up with Europe for a change.

(For general reference: I am of the "about 50" generation that never mistook fascism for a joke. We also saw civil rights marches getting assaulted in the US and the UK. Complacency is not my watchword. This is not intended as an assault on you, Troll, I'm just making a general point so I won't have to address it again.)

[Chaos]

Capel Dodger

I beg to differ on the assumption that anti-semitic violence is no longer "attracting the loonies".

Just this summer, German police busted a would-be right-wing terrorist group that planned to bomb the ceremony of laying the foundation stone for a new synagogue in Munich in autumn - which was attended by, among other, the leading member of the Zentralrat der Juden and several high-ranking politicians, including President Johannes Rau.

The loonies are still very attracted to anti-semitism. But the right-wing loonies (at least in Germany) are mostly either too dumb for more than spraying swastikas on synagogue walls (which is bad enough) or too well known to federal police and too closely watched to do anything, or already in jail. While there is no violence against jews in Germany (at least none that became public - Cleopatra, correct me if I am wrong!), it is certainly not because there were no loonies who´d like to do it.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
So, I pressume that you return to your previous position from which you seemed to back off for a moment.
I've completely lost track of what my position is meant to be, what counts as previous and what generally is going on. I assumed Mycroft would have the response to the link but the truth is, be it pungee stick or Jumping Jack you don't get to determine who finds it.

(Lawyers. You have a response ready to a question they don't ask, and not for the one they hit they you with. I was never worthy.)

from Mycroft:
Nothing pertaining to the "Well, duh." line.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Troll:

But cats don't deserve the same consideration, with them it's down to length of blade and thick gloves.

Agreed, but over here these days it's anti-Islamism that attracts the loonies - and nothing so complicated as knowing why they get two days off at Easter. There are some real nasties about, particularly a bunch known as Combat-18, the "1-8" referring to the letters "A-H" (Adolf Hitler) but they're of fading significance. In the 70's and 80's there were still Hitler-worshippers who gained the occasional council-seat but nowadays the populist G-spot is Muslims. This is a process in which the US is playing catch-up with Europe for a change.

(For general reference: I am of the "about 50" generation that never mistook fascism for a joke. We also saw civil rights marches getting assaulted in the US and the UK. Complacency is not my watchword. This is not intended as an assault on you, Troll, I'm just making a general point so I won't have to address it again.)

Understood. and no offense taken.

We've had and have, as it's far from over, our share of racism and racists asserting their beliefs here. Sadly, or not so sadly, it's hard to say really, I'm glad they have the right to speak and voice their opinions. I've said before that the first amendment is the greatest tool we have in locating and identifying idiots. There's anti-muslim behavior at the forefront right now and people are focusing on it, they seem to have all but forgotten that anti-semitism still runs the gambit here, and being this alleged melting pot, just increases the number of morons speaking as they feel they have more to speak about. And it's not all one sided. I know some that actually live here and hate me for being a white guy, some hate me for not beleiving the same about other races, religions, sexual preferences and they are of the same race and still proclaim they speak for me. I learn a little from them as to how the mind can stray and excuse itself for some really moronc concepts. as I stated earlier, in the US anti-semitism is based upon a false jealousy where some feel they have all the wealth and power, or a religious concept where they feel that the jews actually killed christ. It's cooled off a little because the focus, for the racists, is now again back to skin tone. I've seen mexicans and puerto ricans get crap for being muslim from the idiots that are racist. They're not always the brightest of the bunch, the few that are somewhat intelligent are leading them. I go back to the vet analogy in saying that we can only neuter one at a time. People have a misconception that you can make a broad or public attempt to stop it but you gotta stop it from spreading first, then fix those that are already infected. To do so means taking out the ones that recruit and preach first. But in taking them out we can't force them to stop exercising their rights to piss us off.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:

I've completely lost track of what my position is meant to be, what counts as previous and what generally is going on. I assumed Mycroft would have the response to the link but the truth is, be it pungee stick or Jumping Jack you don't get to determine who finds it.

(Lawyers. You have a response ready to a question they don't ask, and not for the one they hit they you with. I was never worthy.)

from Mycroft:
Nothing pertaining to the "Well, duh." line.

You know that I am honest when it comes to my feelings. The source you quoted while replying to Mycroft came as a shock to me. I don't know what to think. The source is a joke.

Since you lost track of the discussion( I doubt it but anyway...) I will recap tomorrow for everybody.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll


Understood. and no offense taken.

We've had and have, as it's far from over, our share of racism and racists asserting their beliefs here. Sadly, or not so sadly, it's hard to say really, I'm glad they have the right to speak and voice their opinions. I've said before that the first amendment is the greatest tool we have in locating and identifying idiots. There's anti-muslim behavior at the forefront right now and people are focusing on it, they seem to have all but forgotten that anti-semitism still runs the gambit here, and being this alleged melting pot, just increases the number of morons speaking as they feel they have more to speak about. And it's not all one sided. I know some that actually live here and hate me for being a white guy, some hate me for not beleiving the same about other races, religions, sexual preferences and they are of the same race and still proclaim they speak for me. I learn a little from them as to how the mind can stray and excuse itself for some really moronc concepts. as I stated earlier, in the US anti-semitism is based upon a false jealousy where some feel they have all the wealth and power, or a religious concept where they feel that the jews actually killed christ. It's cooled off a little because the focus, for the racists, is now again back to skin tone. I've seen mexicans and puerto ricans get crap for being muslim from the idiots that are racist. They're not always the brightest of the bunch, the few that are somewhat intelligent are leading them. I go back to the vet analogy in saying that we can only neuter one at a time. People have a misconception that you can make a broad or public attempt to stop it but you gotta stop it from spreading first, then fix those that are already infected. To do so means taking out the ones that recruit and preach first. But in taking them out we can't force them to stop exercising their rights to piss us off.

Wow, pretty impressive post!! The one thing I would add is that people need to be careful, when defending a group against racism, not to mistake honest and meaningful criticism of a specific smaller group as being racism directed at the larger group. Being against specific policy of Israel is not always being antisemitic, any more than being against oppressive Middle Eastern governments is being anti-Arab.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
You don't meet the right kind of banker.

As a matter of fact, I do. I just haven’t become that type of banker. Yet. In every industry there is a small percentage whose income is impressive, and a much larger percentage that is much more modest. Give me a few more years.

I can only guess why you felt this comment important enough to dig up.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The assumptions you make that there is nothing wrong with these atavistic feelings and that they have no effect prompts my response. There is something wrong with them, they do have effects and I see no reason not to point that out.

It is the duty of parents to teach their children many things, religion among them. I’m sure you make an effort to teach your children (if you have any) your atheistic creed just as I teach my theism, and I have no doubt that each of us feels the other is doing their children a disservice.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
They annihilated the Albigensians. "Kill them all, God will know his own." Your claim that Catholicism is not isolationist does not stand up to scrutiny. The important question is why they didn't annihilate the Jews of the Catholic world, but instead isolated themselves from them physically and figuratively.

There is nothing “isolationist” in killing heretics. If you disagree then perhaps we have a language barrier to work through.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Of course I am. Zionism is not Judaic, it's 19thCE European. People like Hertzl, Weizmann and Ben Gurion accepted the European assumption that only nationhood confers status on a group. With that nationalism came the principle of common descent and racial purity. (I'll leave aside here their personal ambitions to be founders of said nation.)

So you were not joking? Well, I’m sure you wouldn’t dream of making such an assertion without backing it up. I look forward to it.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I have a link which you probably have a response to.

Other than to wonder why you think the article has anything to do with our discussion? Yes, but I think I’ll hold off for a bit.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It seems many anti-semites were making a big issue of Zionism as a solution to the "Jewish Question", but they were also also very enthusiastic about the ideas expressed in The Jewish State. Which, given that they were racists, supports my interpretation of said publication. Herzl was impressed by racists and they were impressed by him.

"My weird follower, the Bratislava anti-Semite Ivan von Simonyi came to see me. A hypermercurial, hyperloquacious sexagenarian with an uncanny sympathy for the Jews. Swings back and forth between perfectly rational talk and utter nonsense, believes in the blood libel and at the same time comes up with the most sensible modern ideas. Loves me."

He describes her as being a lunatic who sometimes says something smart. How impressed do you really think he was?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Who cares? What the deluded do is their own lookout, and there's no shortage of them. … (I never met a male who converted. Just happenstance, I guess.)

You brought it up. It seems bad form to grouse at me for giving a counter-example to your own personal experience.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I am at least aware of logic( one of us should be if only to keep the public entertained), although I don't indulge in the circular variety unless I'm joshing somebody. You attempt to rebut me by mentioning Christian anti-semitism and connecting it with the non-Christian variety. Is it your argument that all anti-semitism is Christian?

Not at all. I’ve noticed a fair degree of anti-Semitism among atheists. I can only imagine that it irks them to see this culture of people so fanatically devoted to education, which produces such a disproportionate number of doctors, lawyers and scientists yet still clings to their religion. That’s only speculation, of course.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
And non-Christian anti-semitism is due to ...? Your statement was blunt - "It's because they are Jews". What is your justification for that?

That racism isn’t that mysterious. Being different is enough. The excuse can be made up later.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
You note this a lot. Have you passed these notes to anybody? Because, believe me, they've already got me on file. I've been told by what I regard as a reliable source.

Consider it shorthand for: I recognize you are an atheist and that the preceding statement comes from atheistic prejudice. While I disagree with your atheism, I can’t imagine any activity less productive than arguing religion with an atheist, so I will simply point out your bias and move on. No, I don’t take literal notes.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:
Nothing pertaining to the "Well, duh." line.

I assume you mean something more than just to remind me of previous rudeness. I’ll look it over later, it’s late.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Since you lost track of the discussion( I doubt it but anyway...)
After 7 episodes of Firefly back-to-back on Sci-Fi Channel and too much port and stilton to be healthy, oh yes I did.

The source you are so outraged by is fromThe Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, July/August 1998, pp. 48-50. You may regard that as an anti-Zionist site, but it's surely common ground by now that anti-Zionist is not anti-semitic. Almost all the quoted sections are quotes from The Labyrinth of Exile or Herzl's diaries. Admittedly, I don't yet have The Labyrinth (the bookshops in town were crammed with slack-jaws cashing in their Christmas book-tokens for the latest bit of celebrity life-style crap - no, they're good people if they buy books - no they're not, nasssty, nasssty humans they are, we'll kill them then all the precious books will be ours ... Sorry, it's that bloody solstice-soup again). However, I doubt if Allan Browning has been daft enough to mis-quote. The same goes for Herzl's diaries.

[CapelDodger]

from Chaos:
I beg to differ on the assumption that anti-semitic violence is no longer "attracting the loonies".
I was being a little parochial in my use of "over here". In the UK the neo-Nazis are mostly represented by the British National Party which makes its living off the issue of "asylum-seekers" and anti-Islamism. Anti-semitism is rather too complicated a subject for most of the BNP's target audience, although there are uglier and more intellectual types lurking at the top - including some of the usual suspects from the 60's and 70's. In France anti-Islamism and pro-Sharonism played a large part in Le Pen's campaign. Germany and Austria are a bit different. (It's been a while since I pointed out that a Jewish Homeland established in Austria in 1948 would have been more reasonable than Israel. If the Austrians want to be German fine - they can piss of to Germany.) Apart from the (mostly secular) Turks in Germany they don't have such a large Muslim community as the Mediterranean states, and of course the whole Nazi construct was designed specifically to appeal to them.

[Cleopatra]

Hello Capel Dodger glad to find you in high spirits :)

Originally posted by CapelDodger

The source you are so outraged by is fromThe Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, July/August 1998, pp. 48-50. You may regard that as an anti-Zionist site, but it's surely common ground by now that anti-Zionist is not anti-semitic. Almost all the quoted sections are quotes from The Labyrinth of Exile or Herzl's diaries. Admittedly, I don't yet have The Labyrinth (the bookshops in town were crammed with slack-jaws cashing in their Christmas book-tokens for the latest bit of celebrity life-style crap - no, they're good people if they buy books - no they're not, nasssty, nasssty humans they are, we'll kill them then all the precious books will be ours ... Sorry, it's that bloody solstice-soup again). However, I doubt if Allan Browning has been daft enough to mis-quote. The same goes for Herzl's diaries.
I am very well aware of the WROMEA, it's a notorious site that advocates hatred between the two communities by hosting articles of historical revisionism--as the one you provided us and of people like Abu Sitta whose views on the Middle Easter conflict are proverbial( " Israel should be destroyed" )

The fact is that I came across to the article I posted and it's identical to yours ( coincidence? ) three weeks ago. I wanted to post it in order to show you who embrace the views you imply--because you are never clear about your views regarding Israel and antisemitism-- Two people advised me not to post it --one from forum, if you don't believe me I will call him as my ...witness--because I would offend you and it wouldn't be right. So, I didn't post it in order to avoid offending you. After three weeks I found you quoting it. Everything goes to your battle against Zionism, Capel Dodger, even historical revisionism.

Oh well, that's life I guess :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
In France anti-Islamism and pro-Sharonism played a large part in Le Pen's campaign.

That's a lie Capel Dodger.The Representative Council of French Jewish Groups has declared its opposition to Le Pen many times.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
... because you are never clear about your views regarding Israel and antisemitism ...
Oh come on, I've made prodigious efforts to define my position clearly. I have no time for anti-semitism or any form of prejudice and I regard Zionism as a disaster and Israel as a European colony carved out of a hostile coast. I seem to recall that my first ever post replying to you was "No" (I considered "Nuts" but that's been done) and my second, somewhat fuller contribution contained the above almost word-for-word. It's long-rehearsed.
That's a lie Capel Dodger.The Representative Council of French Jewish Groups has declared its opposition to Le Pen many times.
No it is not a lie. I was following the campaign closely, mostly in translation admittedly. The Council may have condemned him - who wouldn't? - but there are other issues than attitudes to Moslems and Israel. Such as: the man's a fascist demagogue.
After three weeks I found you quoting it. Everything goes to your battle against Zionism, Capel Dodger, even historical revisionism.
Pungee sticks and Jumping Jacks, remember? A revisionist site makes a reference to an article in the WROMEA and the WROMEA article is apparently poisoned by association. The quotes I selected from it - I did make clear that I expected people to have responses to the article as a whole - are effectively quotes from The Labyrinth of Exile, which now apparently becomes poisoned by association. Unless said book is complete bollocks - and I've left myself wide open on that, I'll admit - I really don't see that there's any significance in the identity of the people that quote from it.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
I assume you mean something more than just to remind me of previous rudeness. I’ll look it over later, it’s late.
Here it is:
And that’s a common theme among anti-Semitic literature, that because they are different their loyalties are different.
From me:
Well, duh. And up pop the Zionists to say "Yes, their loyalties are different, they are loyal to us and the powerful Jewish Cabal that we represent". And if Jews are saying it - well, it must be true, mustn't it?
Since you wish to regard this thread as being about the effects of Zionism on anti-semitism I'd have thought you'd see this as a core issue. To believe the Protocols, for instance, you had to accept the existence of a Jewish Cabal, and Zionists such as Weizmann popularized exactly that notion in pursuit of their nationalist goal. They had to, since their aim could only be achieved with the assistance of Christian powers that needed persuading that the Zionists had something to offer. Even if it was only "the Jewish vote" in the US or preventing the Kaiser from buying Ukrainian grain - both mythical.
It is the duty of parents to teach their children many things, religion among them.
It is the duty of a decent society to prevent children from being indoctrinated. Be it with any kind of woo-woo. It is not reasonable to expose infant minds to charlatanry of any kind because their parents have some sort of rights over them. Children should be introduced to religion gradually, not fed it from talking-age as a given. Teaching them to think critically is the first objective.
There is nothing “isolationist” in killing heretics. If you disagree then perhaps we have a language barrier to work through.
We sure do. I always feel more isolated after an annihilation. Maybe that's just me.
You brought it up. It seems bad form to grouse at me for giving a counter-example to your own personal experience.
It's your lachrimose convert I don't care about. Your original post implied that out-marrying Jews have to convert to Christianity because that's the majority religion. In my experience that isn't so.
That racism isn’t that mysterious. Being different is enough. The excuse can be made up later.
So where you posted "It's because they are Jews" you meant "It's because they are different"? You could save a lot of time if your wording were more precise. The way it was put implied that there was something specific about Jews, not just difference, that prompted antagonism.

"... atheistic creed ..." "... atheistic prejudices ...". Both noted.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Well, duh. And up pop the Zionists to say "Yes, their loyalties are different, they are loyal to us and the powerful Jewish Cabal that we represent". And if Jews are saying it - well, it must be true, mustn't it?

Oh now I remember why I ignored this. I couldn’t think of an example of where this actually happened, so I dismissed it. Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve read up on pre-WWII German politics, so I may have forgotten.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Since you wish to regard this thread as being about the effects of Zionism on anti-semitism I'd have thought you'd see this as a core issue. To believe the Protocols, for instance, you had to accept the existence of a Jewish Cabal, and Zionists such as Weizmann popularized exactly that notion in pursuit of their nationalist goal. They had to, since their aim could only be achieved with the assistance of Christian powers that needed persuading that the Zionists had something to offer. Even if it was only "the Jewish vote" in the US or preventing the Kaiser from buying Ukrainian grain - both mythical.

So sixty or seventy years later, you can look back in time and say it was mythical, yet somehow the powers of the time were not so sure? It seems to me you’re making an argument that it could have been a factor and passing it off as an argument that it was a factor. If this were the case, wouldn’t we expect to see evidence of it in the literature of the time? I see the same sort of reasoning from conspiracy theorists all the time.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It is the duty of a decent society to prevent children from being indoctrinated. Be it with any kind of woo-woo. It is not reasonable to expose infant minds to charlatanry of any kind because their parents have some sort of rights over them. Children should be introduced to religion gradually, not fed it from talking-age as a given. Teaching them to think critically is the first objective.

Did I mention that I thought arguing religion with an atheist to be a waste of time?

Yes, you’re an atheist. Being an atheist you naturally think that another’s right to freedom of religion is trumped by your right to freedom from religion, and you have no problem with invoking the power of the state to make sure that the next generation is more likely to conform to your way of thinking.

The funny thing about freedom, though, is that it invariably implies the freedom to make choices you don’t agree with. The freedom of speech implies the freedom to say things you don’t agree with, the freedom of assembly implies the freedom to hang out with people you don’t like, the freedom to be secure in your home implies you might be doing something in that home that the state doesn’t like… In short, freedom is freedom to be an idiot and engage in all sorts of anti-social behavior. People that love freedom accept this because they understand that one persons idiot is another persons sage, and that sometimes that anti-social behavior leads to reforms that make everyone’s life better. Making everyone conform to the same standards of behavior and belief is very much like fascism, and while it may make the trains run on time and produce a prodigious number of tanks in the factory, it doesn’t create a high quality of life.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
We sure do. I always feel more isolated after an annihilation. Maybe that's just me.

Someday you will have to tell me of your annihilation experience. In the meantime, I’ll point out that annihilating someone else is not isolating ones self.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
So where you posted "It's because they are Jews" you meant "It's because they are different"? You could save a lot of time if your wording were more precise. The way it was put implied that there was something specific about Jews, not just difference, that prompted antagonism.

Sorry. I thought the analogy with a different kind of racism made that clear.

Originally posted by CapelDodger "... atheistic creed ..." "... atheistic prejudices ...". Both noted.

;)

[Cleopatra]

Good evening Capel Dodger!

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Oh come on, I've made prodigious efforts to define my position clearly. I have no time for anti-semitism or any form of prejudice and I regard Zionism as a disaster and Israel as a European colony carved out of a hostile coast.

Allow me to remind you that you were invited to this thread, you were not forced to participate in the discussion. If you don't have time for discussing about antisemitism then don't post opinions that you don't have the time to explain or to support. As I have told you many times, it would be enough to declare that some of your ideas are based on your beliefs and not on facts or logic.

Israel is not just a European colony. It's the place the Europeans sent the Jews to get rid of them.

No it is not a lie. I was following the campaign closely, mostly in translation admittedly. The Council may have condemned him - who wouldn't? - but there are other issues than attitudes to Moslems and Israel. Such as: the man's a fascist demagogue.

I have followed the campaign closely too. You say and I agree that Le Pen is a demagogue but what do you mean that this fact made him appealing to the French Jews? Did you notice--since you were following the campaign closely--- that Jews and Moslims were united to their stance towards LePen? Did you notice that although Le Pen tried during the last week before the elections to appeal to the jewish population by stressing on the islamic danger the jews replied that " we know that after LePen we will be his next target?"

Why you post such things then?

Pungee sticks and Jumping Jacks, remember? A revisionist site makes a reference to an article in the WROMEA and the WROMEA article is apparently poisoned by association.
Please don't twist what I said. I said to my previous post that this site promotes the hatred between the two communities. All of their artricles are speaking pro the destruction of Israel. I didn't expect this article in order to have an opinion about this site!It's well known among those who follow the Middle eastern conflict. The layout of the home page should have been a warning to you regarding its content. I thought that you were observing such things.

The quotes I selected from it - I did make clear that I expected people to have responses to the article as a whole - are effectively quotes from The Labyrinth of Exile, which now apparently becomes poisoned by association.
Leave the legalistic tricks aside when you are addressing me, please.

The article belongs to the category of historical fiction and if you want me to comment on whether Hertzl invited antisemites to his house you will have to start a thread in the Paranormal Forum. There maybe there is a believer( aka woo-woo) who might be willing to contact the spirit Herzl and question him because this is the kind of proof this articles of yours provides.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:
Oh now I remember why I ignored this. I couldn’t think of an example of where this actually happened, so I dismissed it. Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve read up on pre-WWII German politics, so I may have forgotten.


When Balfour first heard Weizmann's nationalist ideas and Weizmann's claim that the Zionism movement represented the desire of The Jewish People, Balfour said "But the Jews I meet don't think that". Weizmann replied "You don't meet the right kind of Jews". He then went on to persuade Balfour that he, Weizmann, represented the Zionist leadership which in turn represented the powerful Jewish Cabal. All this is documented in biographies, published diaries and Cabinet papers. After the collapse of Tsarist Russia Weizmann claimed that the Cabal controlled the grain market in the Ukraine and Southern Russia, which was potentially available to a starving Germany, and that the Zionist movement could prevent that grain getting to Germany in exchange for what is now known as the Balfour Declaration. In the process he sent telegrams, in clear, to the Ukraine ordering what must have been bemused colleagues to prepare the (mythical) Jewish controllers of the market for the deal. He also sent telegrams in clear to the US detailing his actions. This is all documented, since the censors inevitably picked up and reported on the outgoing messages. Which was the idea, of course. German intelligence must have picked them up as well, which may have been intended (other Zionists in Germany were trying to persuade the Germans to pressure the Sultan into the same sort of deal, not realising that the idea had been considered and finally dismissed. The Sultan was simply not going to give up Islamic lands to non-Muslims.)

There was strong opposition to the Declaration within the British Cabinet, most of which did not believe in the Zionists' power and simply saw it as a pointless complication in an area that hadn't even been conquered at that point. (Edwin Montagu argued that it was anti-semitic.) Promises of independence had been made to the Arabs, who were already making a noticeable contribution to the war (as opposed to the promises of Weizmann). The Cabinet finally agreed to accept the Declaration if the US approved it - assuming this was a sure-fire way to stop it. Lloyd George, always luke-warm on the matter, consulted the President's office, which, for the obvious reasons, said" No". That seemed to be that, but Weizmann contacted a US Supreme Court Judge called Brandeis, who was another victim of the super-schmoozer. Brandeis, knowing how things really worked in Washington, had the matter taken directly to the President (Wilson) where the "Jewish Vote" was offered - as if was in the Zionists' gift. So the State Department's refusal was over-ridden within days by the President. Something for which Weizmann took great and voluble credit. What sort of effect could that be expected to have in persuading the unconvinced that the Zionists really were powerful?
So sixty or seventy years later, you can look back in time and say it was mythical, yet somehow the powers of the time were not so sure?
I think that's been covered. Unless your implication is that there was a powerful Jewish Cabal, which doesn't frighten me. The grain market of southern Russia was not controlled by Jews (there was no Jewish Cabal and never has been). The Germans were unable to avail themselves of the grain because there was a civil war going on, the transport system, such as it had been, was shot away and the Germans would have had to pay for the grain with specie, which they didn't have.
Being an atheist you naturally think that another’s right to freedom of religion is trumped by your right to freedom from religion, and you have no problem with invoking the power of the state to make sure that the next generation is more likely to conform to your way of thinking.
Your attempt to represent my comments as being about freedom of religion when they were nothing of the sort is noted. What I would deny is the right to indoctrinate. You recognise that generations not indoctrinated with religion are more likely to think my way - the way of the Wise - rather than your way - the way of the Fool. It is not contentious that the overwhelming majority of believers follow the religion of their parents. No religion has a majority of believers, so a majority of believers are in some measure believing in something that isn't so - as a result of the bias in their education. As a believer, surely you would prefer that this not happen - that mature individuals should be exposed to your religion at the same time as that of their parents, and recognise the superior quality of yours. Less error would result, and soon everybody would believe in your (correctly understood) Great Invisible Odourless One. Rather than their parents' heritical ones.

In fact, what you desire is the opportunity to plant your ideas in your offspring before they know anything of the world or of your limitations. In this way you ensure that when they do find out about the world they understand it through the filter you have already established. When children ask me things they do it because they like and respect me. They do that because I don't tell them lies - when I tell them stories, they know that's what I'm doing. And mine are much better than the insipid crap you get fed by religions.
Sorry. I thought the analogy with a different kind of racism made that clear.
This how you put it:
And that’s a common theme among anti-Semitic literature, that because they are different their loyalties are different. You see this today on conspiracy websites where people point to Jews in government or the media and use it to “prove” that Jews are united to do something evil, something against the majority non-Jewish society. But it’s not because Jews are isolationist, non-evangelical and resist assimilation. It’s because they are Jews.
See how much clearer it would have been to use "different" rather than "Jews" as the last word in that quote? Thereby making clear that you see anti-semitism as just another tribal prejudice, not one that is specific to Jews. The analogy remains ... indiscernable.

The smiley at the end convinces nobody.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Some a***** wrote "DIE JEW DIE" (which I also believe I mentioned in the other thread) on a guy's car.

No, that's just "The Jew, the."

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Israel is not just a European colony. It's the place the Europeans sent the Jews to get rid of them.
Surely that means that Herzl, Weizmann and all the other Zionists were dupes. Which is indeed possible. I once said that Israel was the last concentration camp, and the Jews would put up the fence themselves. 30 years on and what do you know ...
You say and I agree that Le Pen is a demagogue but what do you mean that this fact made him appealing to the French Jews? Did you notice--since you were following the campaign closely--- that Jews and Moslims were united to their stance towards LePen? Did you notice that although Le Pen tried during the last week before the elections to appeal to the jewish population by stressing on the islamic danger the jews replied that " we know that after LePen we will be his next target?"
The pro-Sharonist position is meant to appeal to anti-Islamic feelings, not just to Jews. Le Pen has no problems with Arik and would like to project himself as the same kind of Strong Leader who knows how to deal with Muslims. Before that gets interpreted as calling Sharon is a fascist demagogue, I would like to point out that in my opinion Sharon is a fascist demagogue.
Leave the legalistic tricks aside when you are addressing me, please.
Sorry but, as the scorpion said to the fox, it's just my nature.

And thank you LFTKBS. As a German speaker, you are no doubt a very nice person.

[davefoc]

Just wanted to say that I found the Elektrix and CD takes on historical Judaism interesting. Thank you for your posts.

In particular I found two things interesting about these comments:
1. The rise of rabbinical Judaism about the time of Jesus. That might be common knowledge in some circles but I didn't know about it at all.

2. Both of you seem to believe more or less in the histoirical reality of Moses and some of the earlier biblical stories. My own somewhat uninformed view on all this is that there's not much real substance to these stories. Personally I think there is more historical accuracy in the Trojan war stories than in the early biblical stories.

I think it's pretty reasonable to see the David stories and anything predating them as just populist propaganda put together to foster the political goals of the time they were written. Interestingly, it looks like those stories that were created to serve the propaganda needs of Jewish leadership 2500 years ago are being used for similar purposes today.

[Cleopatra]

This thread is not about Judaism but about antisemitism.

[davefoc]

This thread is not about Judaism but about anti-Semitism.

In one of my earlier posts, I said that I thought that the nature of Judaism was one of the causes of anti-Semitism. It seems that therefore that Judaism was at least tangentially related to the topic at hand.

Notice how I tied in the topic to its use today as a source of propaganda to unify Israel in a similar way that it had been used in earlier times. I thought that the unification of a population to act against external populations contributes to bad feelings against the propagandized population. So in the present situation it seemed that Judaism itself is being used to justify externally unpopular actions, so it is reasonable to say that the religion of Judaism contributes to anti-Semitism.

But the real reason that I brought up all this was that I find the topic interesting and I thought I might sneak it into your thread. I have now been caught and I will withdraw in peace to the wood shed, feeling properly chastised.

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by davefoc
Just wanted to say that I found the Elektrix and CD takes on historical Judaism interesting. Thank you for your posts.

In particular I found two things interesting about these comments:
1. The rise of rabbinical Judaism about the time of Jesus. That might be common knowledge in some circles but I didn't know about it at all.

2. Both of you seem to believe more or less in the histoirical reality of Moses and some of the earlier biblical stories. My own somewhat uninformed view on all this is that there's not much real substance to these stories. Personally I think there is more historical accuracy in the Trojan war stories than in the early biblical stories.

I think it's pretty reasonable to see the David stories and anything predating them as just populist propaganda put together to foster the political goals of the time they were written. Interestingly, it looks like those stories that were created to serve the propaganda needs of Jewish leadership 2500 years ago are being used for similar purposes today.

Regarding point 1......... yes, I guess some people might not think of that, but that really is a core thing to Christianity. Jesus was a Rabbi after all, and a lot of his viewpoints and teachings reflected what was going on in Judaism at the time, and the split among the people who were developing the concept of Rabbinic Judaism and the priests. One of the subtexts of the whole Jesus story is, after all, some of the political differences and infighting between some of the different groups in Judaism at the time.

Regarding point 2..... as Cleopatra said, that's not really what this thread is about. But in terms of "historical reality", I don't necessarily consider a ton of the early Bible stories to have too much historical reality behind them (I mean, certainly, we can already tell obviously various stories that had their origins in earlier Babylonian, etc. stories that were adopted into the culture). I don't think the historical reality of some of those early Bible stories is particularly important, just as the historical reality of, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, is particularly important. When Noah, Isaac, etc. etc. etc. all existed and if so, in what form, isn't really as important, as I think a book like the Bible is more meant to convey some moral lessons, etc. to the people it was written for, and less to be a history book.

Having said that, I don't think it would be crazy to think there might be some historical basis to some of the stories....... especially that there in fact might have been some sort of historical "Abraham".

It is of course your right to classify everything as populist propaganda, although the tone with which you say the whole point of these is to serve the "propaganda needs" of Jewish leadership, then and today, comes off as a bit disturbing. I.e. it's basically like "this is the Jews' book of lies to manipulate people and get what they want" - hopefully you could see how that might come across as disturbing.

I mean, my personal view is that the Bible in general is not particularly a historical document, and we of course now know a lot more about how it was written, when different parts of it were written (there are Biblical scholars who have spent a ton of time identifying different writers of the Old Testament by their writing style...... and also been able to identify things like the time period something was written in based on the historical details around it).

Is all of it true? Nope, probably not. But to lump everything together as propaganda I think is a bit unfair, as like with other religious texts, some of it was to try and get some sort of oral history down, to write down stories that had been told for generations, to try and codify a moral code, etc. And I guess it could be seen as "propaganda" in some sense, but the implication still troubles me.

Either way.... ALL religions and cultures at that time had their share of myths and made up stories.... and of course, many still do. I don't know why you would highlight Judaism's myths and stories in particular as particularly worthy of criticism.

Whether Jewish leaders today use this as "propaganda", I don't know if that's fair to single them out that way or not. I don't think it would be any better or worse than similar things from Christian and Muslim leaders.

Certainly there's a valid point to criticize any religion on the grounds of using stories that most likely aren't true........ but some leeway is warranted. Did Mohammed really ascend to heaven at the Dome of the Rock? Well, probably not, but a lot of Muslims believe this.... and this certainly causes some conflict because of the question of the religious significance of the Temple Mount (and its connection to Solomon's Temple).

So certainly, any religion is going to be a mix of reality and mythology, and religions will use it of course to further their own agenda. But at the same time, it's certainly plausible that there is some basis to the existence of some of these people..... there isn't a ton of reason to think that David didn't exist at all in a historical context, even if certainly some of the stories about him are legend or at least greatly exaggerated.

I've read some theories where many of the older figures in the Bible, for example, were actually locally gods and goddesses whose history and stories were sort of adopted into Jewish culture and stories (i.e. sort of like the story of Esther, the basis for the holiday of Purim...... this is a story that became adopted into Jewish culture and history from Persia, and most people believe it is a direct connection to the goddess Ishtar..... also related to the Christian holiday of Easter).

Anyway, sorry to ramble on....... just figured I might as well clarify my own beliefs, since I guess I gave the impression that maybe I'm one of those people who believe everything in the Bible must be exactly historically accurate. To sum it up, I think it is really a mix of things, but I don't think the purposes of the document are as nefarious as being created just for propaganda purposes...... and I don't think I would say the same thing about any culture's religious and mythological stories.

-Elektrix

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by davefoc


In one of my earlier posts, I said that I thought that the nature of Judaism was one of the causes of anti-Semitism. It seems that therefore that Judaism was at least tangentially related to the topic at hand.

Notice how I tied in the topic to its use today as a source of propaganda to unify Israel in a similar way that it had been used in earlier times. I thought that the unification of a population to act against external populations contributes to bad feelings against the propagandized population. So in the present situation it seemed that Judaism itself is being used to justify externally unpopular actions, so it is reasonable to say that the religion of Judaism contributes to anti-Semitism.

But the real reason that I brought up all this was that I find the topic interesting and I thought I might sneak it into your thread. I have now been caught and I will withdraw in peace to the wood shed, feeling properly chastised.

I see what you mean, thanks for clarifying what you meant about its use in terms of propaganda. For what it's worth, plenty of people use Judaism in Israel to argue against those externally unpopular actions (I note you say "externally", but I hope you can realize many actions are unpopular "internally" as well). I mean, really, one of the tenets of Judaism really is debate about the religious justification for things, and there's plenty of debate certainly among Jewish people, in and outside of Israel about many of these topics.

Certainly though there's a valid point in there, and the use of Islam as a religion to justify many of the things happening in and around Israel probably also contributes a lot to a certain anti-Islamic sentiment as well. So I think it's fair to say in both cases that the religious justification of various actions can cause some debate and dislike.

Of course, if we want to get into propaganda, there's of course plenty of that too going on that is used to justify a lot of the actions against Israel, some of it blatantly false (i.e. stories published in state run newspapers about how the Jews kill innocent muslim babies to use their blood, etc.). Certainly if you really want to get into propaganda, there's plenty of it to be found pushed by many of Israel's neighbors and the Palestinian Authority.

I think that kind of propaganda certainly contributes a lot to anti-Semitism, and is fueled by it..... which is of course the topic of this thread. Certainly if I was a kid growing up, being taught by other Arabs about how evil the Jews are, taught a certain viewpoint of history...... I'd harbor a lot of anti-semitism too most likely.

-Elektrix

[CapelDodger]

from Elektrix:
Having said that, I don't think it would be crazy to think there might be some historical basis to some of the stories....... especially that there in fact might have been some sort of historical "Abraham".
I think there are strong grounds for thinking that Moses existed historically, although that name is probably some sort of title (it's from the Egyptian for "son" or "heir", as in Ra-meses or Tut-moses). Some new movement seems to have been launched in southern Sinai, perhaps among people who had recently been expelled from Egypt. Other, older stories will have been attached to the whole affair over time - consider how quickly Christianity absorbed existing stories into the Nativity.

To keep the a tentative link to the thread, David (who surely did exist) subverted the whole thing. He was king of Judah (under the Philistines originally then in his own right and might), then became king of Israel (the movement started in Sinai), but he was basically a feudal warlord. He captured Jerusalem using his own personal troops, not levies from Judah or Israel, and it was his personal possession. He had the Ark brought there from (I think) Shiloh and established the capital of his empire there. The fetishisation of Jerusalem and the House of David started then - reinforced by Solomon's building of the Temple - and is still expressed in Zionism today. Had it not been for that a deal could probably have been done after Oslo. The idea that Judaism is fundamentally concerned with Jerusalem is simply wrong - it was even a Canaanite hold-out from Joshua's day. Which connects the subject to any anti-semitism that is currently generated by the Palestinian question (phew, just squeezed the connection in).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by davefoc


In one of my earlier posts, I said that I thought that the nature of Judaism was one of the causes of anti-Semitism. It seems that therefore that Judaism was at least tangentially related to the topic at hand.

Notice how I tied in the topic to its use today as a source of propaganda to unify Israel in a similar way that it had been used in earlier times. I thought that the unification of a population to act against external populations contributes to bad feelings against the propagandized population. So in the present situation it seemed that Judaism itself is being used to justify externally unpopular actions, so it is reasonable to say that the religion of Judaism contributes to anti-Semitism.

But the real reason that I brought up all this was that I find the topic interesting and I thought I might sneak it into your thread. I have now been caught and I will withdraw in peace to the wood shed, feeling properly chastised.


My post wasn't intended as pun. Whilst I find your view Nazist ( I do not mean that you are a Nazist!!! it's just that you follow the long antisemitic tradition that climaxed with Nazism) I respect it but I think that Judaism per se is a vast topic that deserves to be discussed in a separate thread, that's all. I cannot forbid you to discuss what ever you wish.

Edited to add To my knowledge, that I dare to boast that is not limited when it comes to History , antisemitism is the only ideology/obsession that its victims are asked to apologize for the crimes that are committed against them.

Jews are asked to apologize for being Jews.This is the ultimate expression of antisemitism.

I am sorry davefoc but I won't follow your logic therefore I will abstain from discussing Judaism as a pathogenic phaenomenon.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Surely that means that Herzl, Weizmann and all the other Zionists were dupes. Which is indeed possible. I once said that Israel was the last concentration camp, and the Jews would put up the fence themselves. 30 years on and what do you know ...

You can continue behaving like young JAR Capel Dodger this is your choice. One could claim that they were "dupes" if Europe was a paradise for Jews during the 19th ce but as we have been demonstrating in this thread this wasn't the case. They could have been dupes or crazy if Jews didn't go to trial for alleged hate crimes or if they weren't experiencing orchestrated attacks against them, something that unfortunately is not the case.

The pro-Sharonist position is meant to appeal to anti-Islamic feelings, not just to Jews. Le Pen has no problems with Arik and would like to project himself as the same kind of Strong Leader who knows how to deal with Muslims. Before that gets interpreted as calling Sharon is a fascist demagogue, I would like to point out that in my opinion Sharon is a fascist demagogue.

It's good that you left ambiguity aside for a moment. I hope that you stick on this new fashion It's better. It saves us times and bandwidth.

Again you twist facts. LePen might admire Sharon although he has never said that but this doesnt mean that French Jews found him appealing as you claimed in a previous post of yours, on the contrary they didn't bite the bait.
Another unsupported claim in the endless row of your unsupported claims that you refuse to retract....


And thank you LFTKBS. As a German speaker, you are no doubt a very nice person.

Yes Capel Dodger, the truth is that where Unrepentant Sinner lives, in Texas people are speaking German and not English so this graffiti on the wall didn't ask for jews to die but it was the german article "the".

You are getting paranoid, Capel Dodger but I like you still because you are becoming the " couleur locale" of the politics forum. :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
[To get back to the mainstream and my clearly stated opinion that European anti-semitism has been exaggerated: re the quotes from James F. Harris (The People Speak!Antisemitism and Emancipation in Nineteenth-Century Bavaria) on page 3. A detail from 1848 is the formation of Pious Societies, named after Pious 9th. (I recommend people look him up - a nasty piece of work. Probably a saint by now.) They are credited with raising 250,000 signatures on petitions in 1848, so they were experienced in such matters. It would be remarkable if they weren't involved in the raising of the petitions your quote refers to. Yet Harris describes them them as "spontaneous, extremely broad-based and genuine". What evidence does he provide for that opinion?



Capel Dodger what difference would it make if the Catholic Church was behind the petitions. Yes it was. How does this make the petitions less genuine?

Since you were so impressed ( and sarcastic) towards my mentioning those petitions read what else I have found while I was trying to answer to the question why didn't we have pogroms in the 19th ce.

It seems that those petitions failed to have the desired immediate results for those that they signed them in 1848 but in 1901 the Bavarian Parliament with 77 votes against 51 adopted the proposal of a MP that belonged to the Catholic Centre with which the number of judges of Jewish origin was limited. In fact Bismarck's government earlier, during the years that followed the presentation of the petitions to the Parliament , refused to appoint Jews --even converted one-- to the higher positions of the German Government.

Jacob Katz in his book "From Prejudice to Destruction: Antisemitism,1700-1933" ( Harvard University Press) mentions in p.90

" During the 1880's and 1890's there can be little doubt that without the [German] State's neutrality and its maintainance of Law and order, where necessary by force, a number of pogroms would have swept Germany with incaculable results"

As an example --among others but I liked this one very much-- he brings the Case of Count Pueckeler:

"Mere words,however, did not satisfy the Count--he thirsted for action.But the pleasure of striking the Jews physically was denied to him by the Imperial Government which, while condining barking against Jews, would not tolerate the beating of them. Count Pueckeler, therefore,chose to vent his passions through make-believe gestures. At the head of a troop of mounted peasants, whom he had especially arrayed for such occasions and to the fanfare of trompets, he would lead cavalry charges against imiaginary Jews, striking them down and trmpling them under foot. It was a spectacle affording apsychic equivalent for murder. It was also a remarkable prefigurement of the Final Solution".

[Cleopatra]

I owe an answer to Bill and Dancing David.

originally posted by Billy TK

No, Great Britian isn't a Zionist state, because as your claim implies, protecting ones borders and existence is not precisely Zionism. Let me explain; what I'm seeking to do here is investigate your claim that Zionism ended with the founding of the Israeli, or if there is any aspect of Zionism that has been preserved and reproduced in Israeli culture, like, for instance, the idea of Israel as a physical homeland for Jews (as opposed to a divinely ordained one).

I tried to give an answer to that in the thread about this Israeli firm that forbid its Chinese employees to have sex with Israelis but in that thread the discussion was ridiculous so I had to leave.

The main idea of Zionism was to establish a Jewish State in which Jews would be safe from procecutions. The notion of a state popped up among the Zionist leaders just because the question of the National States was widely discussed.

Although the initiative and cause of Zionism was right ( the procecutions existed) the whole idea-- in my opinion-- was wrong. It was wrong because Jews saw themselves with the eyes of their enemies. Jews were not and those who live outside Israel still aren't --a Nation. A nation cannot be established only on a common Religion.
For centuries, Jews were living all around the world, in the margin of the societies but in specific societies.

The creation of Israel is a problem by itself because Israel was created to be a Jewish State. A State in which Jews would be protected but yet Jewish.

I have to admit that the notion of a jewish state doesn't refer to an open society or let me put it in a different way. The notion of a Jewish State is by definition against the idea of the open society.This is the truth.

I wish that Israel didn't exist. No, wrong. I wish that the need to establish Israel didn't exist but I am afraid that in 2004 when Synagogues are still burnt in Europe and antisemitism is rampant who can seriously suggest that Jews are safe?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Capel Dodger what difference would it make if the Catholic Church was behind the petitions. Yes it was. How does this make the petitions less genuine?
My point was that the petitions were described as "spontaneous" and "broad-based" when they were nothing of the sort. During the 1880's and 1890's there can be little doubt that without the [German] State's neutrality and its maintainance of Law and order, where necessary by force, a number of pogroms would have swept Germany with incaculable results
And if the British Government hadn't maintained order in Northern Ireland in the 20's and 60's the Catholics would have been slaughtered. No doubt Poles would have been attacked in Germany in the 1880's and 90's without law and order, and Catholics generally. Without law and order there's anarchy which some people will use to promote inter-communal violence. And people - particularly young males - are easily roused to such violence. The crucial point is that there was law and order, with the support of the mass of the population, and the law's protection was extended to all citizens.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elektrix


It is of course your right to classify everything as populist propaganda, although the tone with which you say the whole point of these is to serve the "propaganda needs" of Jewish leadership, then and today, comes off as a bit disturbing. I.e. it's basically like "this is the Jews' book of lies to manipulate people and get what they want" - hopefully you could see how that might come across as disturbing.

-Elektrix

I don't find it disturbing at all, it was just one of the first of many such documents that have been created throughout history. Just as you would hope that people would take Fox for what it is, and question it's aims and what it promulgates as 'news', one would also hope that religious Jews would question the basis for their faith, and maybe reach a more just settlement in the Middle East. I have read quotes from Israelis who say things like 'I am now looking out over the same scene that David did thousands of years ago'. Not a very rational basis for settling a current day conflict, and totally ignoring the fact that even the bible records that the David/Solomon dynasty died out pretty damm quickly.

I was brought up a Catholic, and every Sunday we had our reading from the old testament. I was very pleased to reach the same conclusion about the old testament, that it was very much a political document, because it was just one more debunking nail in the coffin of my 'faith'.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

My point was that the petitions were described as "spontaneous" and "broad-based" when they were nothing of the sort.

Petitions are always organized by somebody as for the broad-based I think that the number of the signatures indicates that they weren't marginal either.

And if the British Government hadn't maintained order in Northern Ireland in the 20's and 60's the Catholics would have been slaughtered. No doubt Poles would have been attacked in Germany in the 1880's and 90's without law and order, and Catholics generally. Without law and order there's anarchy which some people will use to promote inter-communal violence. And people - particularly young males - are easily roused to such violence. The crucial point is that there was law and order, with the support of the mass of the population, and the law's protection was extended to all citizens.

You mention specific examples in History only to support my point.They were occassions in every country's History that law and order should be imposed by force. Obviously Jews were protected in the 19th ce but when Hitler came and he wanted a scape-goat, Jews were the easiest possible target. You know, you cannot perform a genocide of such a large scale if you don't have the consent of the general public about the target, I think that you will agree on that. It was easy for Hitler to persuade the masses that the Jews were the real danger that should be eliminated because antisemitism in Europe is part of its cultural background.

[davefoc]

Cleaopatra said in response to my assertion that the nature of Judaism is a contributing factor to anti-semitism:
Whilst I find your view Nazist

I, assuming even a fairly inclusive definition for the word Nazi, disagree.

I do not know how you define Nazi, but at a minimum it seems to me the common use of the word would be to describe views something like this:

1. Jews should be harmed, discriminated against or otherwise mistreated for their religious views or racial makeup.
2. There is a Jewish race that is somehow intrinsically bad.

In fact, my own views are the opposite of the above, and the view that I expressed in no way says anything like the above.

What I did say is that two aspects of Judaism may play a role in antisemitism.

1. The relgion doesn't promote conversion the way other religions do that have gained widespread acceptance so Judaism is predestined to remain a small religion by world wide standards with its adherents likely to be in the minority. The religion itself, in some ways, promotes the idea that being Jewish is racial and not a choice. Obviously if being Jewish has a racial requirement then the conversion of non-Jews to Judaism is made even that more difficult.

2. The religion promotes the idea of Jews as a special people. This leads to more isolation by its adherents and to possible resentments from people not in the religion.

For me, the creation of religious mythology is a random affair. Exactly what gets into a religion is not based on racial makeup or environment. It's just that for some reason certain stories and philosophies develop traction and they just stick. So I place no blame or credit on members of the Jewish faith for Judaism. It is the nature of human populations to develop religions and this set of beliefs and traditions just happened to be the ones that came together for Jews. My point was that the nature of this particular set may have caused problems for Jews.

I thought this was obvious, but it appears that it may not have been so I will state it here. In no way do I think that the nature of Judaism is remotely any excuse for the mistreatment, discrimination or harm of Jews.

Just as some aspects of Judaism may have contributed to anti-semitism it seems like certain aspects of Christianity also contributed to Anti-Semitism. The whole Jews killed Jesus mythology is obviously a contributing factor.

So to sum up, what I am saying is that to the degree that anti-semitism exists and is stronger than other biases against minority populations, the nature of the Jewish and Christian religions are contributing factors.

[Skeptic]

What I did say is that two aspects of Judaism may play a role in antisemitism.

1. The relgion doesn't promote conversion the way other religions do that have gained widespread acceptance so Judaism is predestined to remain a small religion by world wide standards with its adherents likely to be in the minority.

You are confusing cause and effect, first, and setting up a lose/lose dilemma, second.

First of all, the fact that judaism doesn't seek converts is seen by you as "one of the reasons" for antisemitism. But on the other hand, what happened when judaism DID seek converts--as it did, during certain historical periods? then, of course, judaism was hated for trying to tempt others to leave the "true faith" of Christianity, or Islam, or whatever. Lose/lose situation: if judaism seeks converts, it "causes" antisemitism by trying to turn people into jews and thus earning the hatered of gentile society who wants them to remain christians; if it doesn't, it "causes" antisemitism by NOT trying to turn people into jews and thus "remaining a minority".

Second, it is NOT the lack of proselyting that caused hatered of jews, it's hatered of jews that caused lack of proselyting. In fact, historically, jewish WAS a proselyting religion in the past. That came to an end when the Roman emperors in the 2nd century decided to crack down on it and prosecuted the jews for it (although there were also other reasons). The jews then decided against proselyting. Of course, in the middle ages, and in the Muslim world to this day, converting a christian or muslim to judaism was (or is) a capital offense. Small wonder judaism has this "annoying characteristic" of not seeking converts, don't you think?

The religion itself, in some ways, promotes the idea that being Jewish is racial and not a choice. Obviously if being Jewish has a racial requirement then the conversion of non-Jews to Judaism is made even that more difficult.

First of all, there AREN'T any racial barriers to conversion (see below). Second, I am reminded of Israel Zangvil's reply, when someone asked him why jews are so clanny and suspicious of outsiders: "two thousand years of Christian charity made us suspicious"; once more, you're confusing cause and effect and setting up a false lose/lose dilemma.

The "racial seperateness" of jews is much more the EFFECT of antisemitism and forced isolation for thousands of years, not its cause (it's sort of hard to intermingle when you live in the ghetto). jews in America or Europe today, for instance, are certainly far less "clannish" than jews used to be--due to less antisemitism and lower social barriers to assimilation.

And, of course, like with proselyting, here too there is a lose/lose situation for the jews: if they keep to themselves, they're clannish and paranoid; if they DON'T keep to themselves, they "don't know their place", "think they are REAL Poles/Germans/English/whatever", "are inflitrating and ruining our noble christian society", etc., etc., etc.

Finally, WHAT racial requirement are you talking about? There isn't any. An Angolan, a Japanese, a Mexican, or an American can all convert to judaism with the same ease (or difficulty). There is no barrier due to (previous) creed, or skin color, or race, or anything else, in converting to judaism. Anybody can do it.

2. The religion promotes the idea of Jews as a special people.

And that is different from other religions... exactly how?

Virtually ALL religions--certainly all monotheistic religions--consider their own believers better (in the sense of believing the "one true religion") than others. Why should this a characteristic of judaism in particular which "promotes antisemitism" when, at the same time, no similar hate--at least nothing as general--was shown to Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims or Christians (where they were a minority)?

And, of course, here, too, it's a lose/lose situation: jews who DID convert to other religions, and accepted the superiority of Christianity or Islam, hardly made the rest of the jews look better. On the contrary: they were used by the authorities to prove to the jews that "even other jews agree" Judaism is inferior (much like useful idiots like Chomsky are used today by Arab and other propganda to "prove" that "even other jews agree" israel is horrible and evil).

So if jews had accepted the superiority--or equality--of other religions, they deserve to be punished for not converting even after "admitting" judaism is inferior. But when they claim judaism is superior, they deserve to be derided for their "elitism" and "stubborness".

This leads to more isolation by its adherents and to possible resentments from people not in the religion.

Again, and to repeat, you are confusing cause and effect. The isolation of jews was due to antisemitism, not antisemitism due to the isolation. Jews were forbidden to live with christians, forced into their own ghettos, forced to wear distinctive clothing, repeatedly massacred, etc., etc., etc... and then were blamed for keeping to themselves and not trusting gentile society.

Well, what the hell did you expect if not "isolation"? But why is this the jews' fault, and not the general society's fault? What we have here is antisemites forcing jews to live in ghettoes and then whining that they isolate themsevles... just like racists forced blacks into menial labor and then claimed the fact that blacks are menial laborers proved their inferiority, or like chauvinists refused women access to education and then claimed the lack of educated women proves they are intellectually inferior.

And, to repeat what is said above, when jews did NOT isolate themselves and DID try to assimilate, was the result greater acceptance? Of course not! It was shock that the "upstart" jews "don't know their place" and need to "go back into the ghetto", of course.

For me, the creation of religious mythology is a random affair. Exactly what gets into a religion is not based on racial makeup or environment. It's just that for some reason certain stories and philosophies develop traction and they just stick. So I place no blame or credit on members of the Jewish faith for Judaism. It is the nature of human populations to develop religions and this set of beliefs and traditions just happened to be the ones that came together for Jews. My point was that the nature of this particular set may have caused problems for Jews.

To repeat, that would have made more sense if:

1). The alleged isolationist, clannish nature of judaism was not far more the RESULT of antisemitism that its cause; and

2). Whenever jews DID try to assimilate or DID try to proselyte, they were hated just as much for that as for not proselyting and not assimilating.

Once more, you got cause and effect wrong: it's not that the jews are hated becuase of reason X. They are hated first, and THEN reason X is tacked on as the "real reason": the jews are hated because they are clannish... and because they try to assimilate and falsely claim to be "real" Poles (or whatever). The jews are hated because they don't convert, showing they consider themselves superior to others in their religion... and becuase they convert to Christianity and spoil the "mother church" with their evil. The jews are hated becuase they don't proselyte... and because they do. The jews are hated because they're capitalist opressors of the workers... and because they are dangerous bolshevisk revolutionaries. The jews are hated because they don't go back to Palestine to set up their country like every other nation... and because they are opressing the Palestinians when they do just that. And so on and so forth.

No, it isn't this reason or that reason that makes people hate jews. It's hating jews that makes people invent reasons to rationalize their hatered.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
You know, you cannot perform a genocide of such a large scale if you don't have the consent of the general public about the target, I think that you will agree on that.
Actually I don't. The Holocaust was carried out by a minority of Germans (and a somewhat larger minority of Austrians) and for most Germans during WW2 The Jewish Question was hardly their first concern. The Nazis never gained a majority of the popular vote, and there was a great deal of opposition to their racial policies (less in Austria). The Nazi policy of "Night and Fog" was intended to keep the reality from the general public.
Petitions are always organized by somebody as for the broad-based I think that the number of the signatures indicates that they weren't marginal either.
I'm satisfied that I've shown the quote you gave from Harris to be misleading due to lack of context, mis-describes the petitions (as you apparently accept) and drew conclusions that were not supported by the "evidence". As to the numbers, I really don't find them that impressive. One quarter of the communities, 10-20% of the population. (And no particular knowledge as to how many signatures were of the "Donald Duck" variety.) Given that most of the population will have grown up with the kind of religious indoctrination favoured by Mycroft that must surely have been disappointing.
... but this doesnt mean that French Jews found him appealing as you claimed in a previous post of yours ...
I've looked back, and I cannot find anything that could possibly be so interpreted. Posting obvious untruth is not going to advance your case.
Count Pueckeler, therefore,chose to vent his passions through make-believe gestures. At the head of a troop of mounted peasants, whom he had especially arrayed for such occasions and to the fanfare of trompets, he would lead cavalry charges against imiaginary Jews, striking them down and trmpling them under foot.
I'm no psychiatrist, but I reckon this guy was a lunatic. Not exactly a powerful example.
... in 1901 the Bavarian Parliament with 77 votes against 51 adopted the proposal of a MP that belonged to the Catholic Centre with which the number of judges of Jewish origin was limited. In fact Bismarck's government earlier, during the years that followed the presentation of the petitions to the Parliament , refused to appoint Jews --even converted one-- to the higher positions of the German Government.
Hardly a creditable position taken by the Catholic Centre, but then one seldom hears of Catholic organisations taking creditable positions. Nice to see how well the Bavarian Jews were doing in the legal profession, though. As for Bismarck, I'm no apologist for him or his government but the figure I have for Jews converting to Christianity is 22,000 during the entire 19thCE in what later became the German Empire. Most of these apparently did so in order to take up official positions, which were often restricteded a particular Christian creed. (I'm taking that from "History of Germany 1780-1918 : The Long Nineteenth Century" by David Blackbourn. A more anodyne subtitle than "From Prejudice to Destruction", but none the worse for that.)
It's good that you left ambiguity aside for a moment. I hope that you stick on this new fashion It's better. It saves us times and bandwidth.
I'll save future bandwidth by not replying to this kind of canard. I'll let my contributions stand on their own merits.

[davefoc]

Skeptic, Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Assume, that the Jews are a minority population. Are they more or less likely to suffer at the hands of the majority than another similar minority population?

I truly don't know the answer to this. Clearly the holocaust would argue that the answer is more. But even today massive brutality towards non-Jewish minority populations goes on, so maybe the holocaust is not proof that the Jews are subject to more harm by surrounding majority populations than other minorities. Also the Jews were not the only group brutalized by the Nazi's. Gypsies were another group that suffered enormously.

Perhaps you are sure that Jews do suffer more at the hands of the majority population than other groups.

If that is what you believe then why is it that Jews suffer more at the hands of majority populations than non-Jewish minorities?

The question seems complicated to me. Perhaps all that is going on here is that Jews suffer more where Christians make up the majority population. So perhaps the problem is just the particular make up Christian theology? Is this your thought?

Right now, the most widespread, explicit anti-Semitism seems to be sourced in the non-Christian Arab world. That suggests that the theory that anti-Semitism is totally the result of the characteristics of Christianity might not be correct. Perhaps most of the anti-Semitism in the Arab world today is the result of the opposition by Arab countries to the formation of Israel and is not really directed at Jewish religion, culture or race? So the main proponents of anti-semitism based on race and/or religion are still mainly Christian?

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by davefoc

Right now, the most widespread, explicit anti-Semitism seems to be sourced in the non-Christian Arab world. That suggests that the theory that anti-Semitism is totally the result of the characteristics of Christianity might not be correct. Perhaps most of the anti-Semitism in the Arab world today is the result of the opposition by Arab countries to the formation of Israel and is not really directed at Jewish religion, culture or race? So the main proponents of anti-semitism based on race and/or religion are still mainly Christian?

That would be an interesting theory, except that the anti-Semitism seems to stem from prior to the formation of Israel. Many Arab countries had expelled their Jewish populations at periods of time well before the formation of Israel. More specifically, I would say there is a common thread between countries that expelled the Jews who lived there and who then opposed the notion of the formation of Israel.... the common thread being "we don't want Jews in the Arab Middle East"

Which is not to say that this is a fundamental charactertistic of Islam....... it seems to be more with a certain type of it. There have of course been other periods of time where Jews were healthy parts of these societies and worked and lived alongside Arabs (after all, there had to be a good reason there were any Jews in these countries to expel in the first place). It seems that most often what would happen would be a new regime coming into power or some other change.

And of course, during Islam's golden age, there was a lot of cooperation with Jews.

-Elektrix

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Assume, that the Jews are a minority population. Are they more or less likely to suffer at the hands of the majority than another similar minority population?

That’s a great question. I think you can always find another population that gets it as bad as the Jews, but what sets anti-Jewish bigotry apart is its endurance. Racism against other populations tends to work itself out and go away, generations later nobody remembers (for example) that the Irish were once despised in the United States. Jews, on the other hand, have faced racism in one kind or another for two thousand years.

One could argue that Christian/Muslim animosity has persisted for as long, but the difference there is that there have always been lands where these religions were dominant. If Christians in Baghdad were being persecuted, they could seek refuge in Paris, if Muslims in London were persecuted, they could move to Istanbul.

Which brings us back to Zionism. Its purpose was to give Jews a place to go to escape persecution, a place where they could not be persecuted because they were the majority.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
…
After the collapse of Tsarist Russia Weizmann claimed that the Cabal controlled the grain market in the Ukraine and Southern Russia, which was potentially available to a starving Germany, and that the Zionist movement could prevent that grain getting to Germany in exchange for what is now known as the Balfour Declaration. In the process he sent telegrams, in clear, to the Ukraine ordering what must have been bemused colleagues to prepare the (mythical) Jewish controllers of the market for the deal. He also sent telegrams in clear to the US detailing his actions. This is all documented, since the censors inevitably picked up and reported on the outgoing messages. Which was the idea, of course. German intelligence must have picked them up as well, which may have been intended (other Zionists in Germany were trying to persuade the Germans to pressure the Sultan into the same sort of deal, not realising that the idea had been considered and finally dismissed. The Sultan was simply not going to give up Islamic lands to non-Muslims.)…

This seems to be the thread you’re hanging your argument on, but it seems a pretty thin thread to me. German intelligence must have picked up on this, and it fed the idea of Jewish cabal, but the same German intelligence smart enough to pick up on it were not smart enough to recognize it as a fraud? Fake or not, it would have been excellent propaganda material, so how come it wasn’t?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Your attempt to represent my comments as being about freedom of religion when they were nothing of the sort is noted. What I would deny is the right to indoctrinate. You recognise that generations not indoctrinated with religion are more likely to think my way - the way of the Wise - rather than your way - the way of the Fool…

A quick observation: Atheism is, I think, the only religion that expects to get converts by insulting those they want to convert. :)

Originally posted by CapelDodger
… As a believer, surely you would prefer that this not happen - that mature individuals should be exposed to your religion at the same time as that of their parents, and recognise the superior quality of yours.

I did laugh out loud when I read this. A sales pitch! How delightful!

I don’t care what your religion is, or even that you lack religion. I do object to your advocating that the state be involved in any way with a persons religious life. To paraphrase what I said earlier, freedom is the freedom to choose what you don’t approve of. Anything else is not truly freedom.

My own family is made up of people from many religions and traditions. Among my in-laws and step-family there are Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists and others. From personal experience I have seen that those who do as you suggest, who try to raise their children not to favor any one faith or tradition inadvertently teach their children that none of these faiths or traditions have any value. I chose not to rob my child in this way.

If you disagree with that, your disagreement only affirms the necessity for our respective religious freedoms. I will respect your desire to raise your children as atheists if you respect my freedom to raise my kids as theists. If you can’t agree to that then I will point out that it is you, not I, who is intolerant.