Re: Ted's anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attacks

Date: Mon 16 Jun 2003 - 18:20:42 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Joe's anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic attacks"

    From: "Dace" <> To: <> Subject: Re: Joe's anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic attacks Date sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:00:46 -0700 Send reply to:

    > > From:
    > >
    > > From: "Dace" <>
    > >
    > > > > From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    > > > >
    > > > > This is addressed to the host of this list:
    > > > >
    > > > > Are Joe Dees and others not enjoined from posting anti-Islamic
    > > > > diatribes from this list, and was Joe not suspended already once
    > > > > from this list for doing so?
    > > > >
    > > > > Will you enforce your rule, or are we again, on this list, to be
    > > > > subjected to this nonsense?
    > > >
    > > > Lawry,
    > > >
    > > > Joe's nonsense may be offensive, but it does prove a point I was
    > > > making.
    > > >
    > > > Here's what I wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > The principled anti-Isreali stance is a result of human
    > > > > intelligence, not memetic struggle. The unprincipled
    > > > > anti-Israeli stance results from the success of the anti-Jew
    > > > > meme. Another unprincipled stance, which is pro-Isreali,
    > > > > depends on the success of the meme that equates all criticism of
    > > > > Israel with "anti-Semitism" (the irony being that Arabs are
    > > > > themselves Semitic).
    > > >
    > > > Here's Joe's comment on my criticism of Israeli persecution of
    > > > Palestinians:
    > > >
    > > > > I simply refuse to allow Dace's blatant antijewish
    > > > > hate-propagandizing to go unanswered.
    > > >
    > > > Except for the substition of "anti-Semitic" with the more accurate
    > > > term, "antijewish," Joe illustrated my point perfectly. He
    > > > responded to my criticism of Israeli state policy by accusing me
    > > > of bigotry.
    > > >
    > > When Dace heads a post 'Nazion", one can draw no other conclusion
    > > than that it is antipathy-inspired.
    > The Nazion thesis is intended to explain why the state of Israel is
    > engaged in a Nazi-like persecution of a helpless minority group. Jews
    > were traumatized from European persecution, culminating in the
    > holocaust, and without realizing what was happening, the evil that had
    > been done to them was perpetuated onto others. In a broader sense,
    > this is roughly the thesis of C. Fred Alford's *What Evil Means to
    > Us.* Alford presents what might be known as the "hot potato" theory
    > of evil. The evil we do is largely the result of evil done to us. We
    > are made to suffer, and we find relief in imposing our suffering onto
    > others. So, for instance, your boss chews you out; you come home and
    > yell at your wife; she unfairly punishes your kid; he makes vicious
    > fun of the kid who lives around the corner, and on and on it goes.
    > Connecting postwar Zionism to Nazism is a way of making sense of
    > Israeli persecution of Palestinians without having to resort to racist
    > notions of inherent Jewish evil. Now *that* would be a hate-inspired
    > belief.
    But Israel is DEFENDING ITS CITIZENS against Palestinian genocidists; as I stated below, they decided, 'never again'; when Palestinian Islamofascists, backed by other Muslim Islamofascists, attempted to repeat the Nazi action against them, they would have none of ot. The Palestinians, and the death cult which the Wahhabists have willfully imported to them are being used as a fifth guerilla attack column by the surrounding Islamists who could not conquer Israel in five conventional wars of trying.
    > > He would like to draw the parallel
    > > between abused children growing up to be abusers themselves, and an
    > > abused Jewry adopting the mindset of their persecuters, but it
    > > simply doesn't wash. The mindset that Jews adopted instead was that
    > > they would never again be passive victims of antijewish persecution
    > > and genocide, from Nazis, Islamofascists, or anyone else, but would
    > > fight back against it henceforth. After all, they saw what passive
    > > acquiescence got them; six million mass murdered.
    > This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. As Israelis persecute
    > Palestinians they imagine they're only defending themselves. Israelis
    > think they're the victims in this struggle, though, as I pointed out
    > earlier, the oppression is entirely asymmetrical. Cancel out the
    > violence on both sides, and what's left is systematic Israeli
    > oppression of Palestinians, not the other way around. As Bernard
    > Avishai of Jerusalem points out in a recent letter to Harper's (June
    > 2003), Zionism began as a much-needed defense of the Jewish people but
    > became something else altogether after the 1967 war. "Most people
    > bring tragedy on themselves not by doing the wrong thing but by doing
    > the right thing too long." To put this in our own terms, Zionism
    > began as an idea but became a pathological meme. What started as the
    > entirely rational defense of the Jewish people mutated into the
    > unconsciously-driven onslaught on the Palestinian people.
    This also doesn't wash. Israeli Muslims enjoy all the citizenship benefits of Israeli Jews. They receive the social services, the right to vote (several Knesset members are Muslims), and everything else. In no Muslim country whatsoever, are Jews, or in fact any non-Muslims, equivalently treated. The ideas of Muslim supremacy, religious exclusion and infidel dhimmitude are always lurking in the background, if not posted in the forefront, as they are in Saudi Arabia.
    > > > His thinking on this issue is warped by memetic interference. The
    > > > same is true, as I pointed out, of people infected by the
    > > > antijewish meme. Joe's long post containing interviews between
    > > > Arabs-- many (though not all) of whom exhibit antijewish hatred--
    > > > nicely illustrates this point. The intractability of the Israel
    > > > debate is due in large part on the fact that both sides are
    > > > inflexibly memified.
    > > > However, both sides are also capable of overcoming their
    > > > prejudice.
    > > >
    > > The Hamas, Hizbullah, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyr's
    > > brigade attacks that ensue every time peace is threatened
    > > bountifully indicates who is opposed to a peaceful two-state
    > > solution. Israel would gladly accept such a solution, including
    > > dismantling Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, if it
    > > would guarantee the security of their citizens, and has stated so on
    > > numerous occasions; the aforementioned groups have openly stated
    > > that they will NEVER accept an agreement that includes an existent
    > > Israel. What is interesting is why Israelis are willing to accept
    > > Palestinians living in Israel, but Palestinians are unwilling to
    > > accept Israelis living in the West bank and Gaza. I chalk it up to
    > > religious intolerance and bigotry.
    > As the Jewish scholar Noam Chomsky has repeatedly noted, from the
    > beginning the "peace process" was designed to formalize Palestinian
    > oppression rather than end it. The latest round is no different.
    > President W. gave a speech last year, known as the June 24 speech,
    > which laid down the terms of Palestinian surrender once again.
    > According to columnist Alexander Cockburn, the speech "hedged
    > Palestinian aspirations with so many restrictions and caveats that it
    > ended up as a binding guarantee by the US government that at no time
    > in the foreseeable future would the Palestinian national flag be
    > permitted to fly over any real estate more substantial than a few
    > football fields of rubble, denied water and surrounded by freeways
    > restricted to Israeli settlers and the IDF." When the Palestinians
    > naturally reject formalization of their subjugation, they are accused
    > of being opposed to peace, thereby justifying further attacks on them.
    > It's a giant scam, though no doubt, like many scams, the scammers
    > honestly believe in their own righteousness.
    Dace quotes Chomsky and Cockburn as if they are genuine scholars rather than leftist ideologues; next he'll be pulling Fisk, Polger and Said out of his hat. Chomsky, in case anyone remembers, was an apologist for the Serbian massacres in Bosnia and opposed US 'imperialist intervention' there. He will defend any regime, no matter how atrocious, so long as it is opposed to the US. His entire vision is colored by anti-US glasses. If the US refuses to adopt the incipient anitjewish bigotry burgeoning on Europe, then they, according to Chomsky, must be wrong. If antone wants to know more about Chomsky's views and their glaring defects, they can go to:

    > > > There was no antijewish diatribe, rather an analysis of Israel's
    > > > criminal persecution of Palestinians. Instead of responding to it
    > > > rationally, you proved my point that Israel-defenders tend to
    > > > thoughtlessly equate criticism of Israel with antijewish
    > > > prejudice. That it's a culturally-shared, knee-jerk response
    > > > indicates a memetic basis.
    > > >
    > > Dace has yet to answer my point about the real genocidals being the
    > > Palestinian homicide bombers,
    > The very first point I made was that the violence is practiced by both
    > sides, so we need to get beyond outrage over the violence and examine
    > the underlying problem, which is systematic Israeli oppression of
    > Palestinians.
    No, this is to plat Switzerland and claim neutrality between genocidal bombering mas murderers and those who self-defensively hunt them down. The moment one engages in such a blatant exercise of attempted moral equivalence, they have forfeited any objectivity and credibility to which they might have aspired.
    > > Dace refuses to address the ubiquity,
    > > depth and intensity of that bigotry and the vicious murder that it
    > > spawns, perferring to characterize the Israeli self-protective,
    > > perventive and defensive actions in response as criminal,
    > Nope, never claimed that. What's criminal is the systematic Israeli
    > oppression of Palestinians. The cycle of violence is not the point.
    The cycle of violence is NOT a cycle of violence, the very term 'cycle' erroneously implies a tit-for-tat, when one side is actually hunting aspiring mass murderers and the other side is hunting crowds of citizens. As long as mass murderers continue to hunt crowds of citizens, the citizenry will protect themselves against them. The terror must stop before any other actions can be taken towards a two-state solution. If this means wiping out the terrorist organizations that sponsor and train them, then this must be done, as the only possible path to a comprehensive peace.
    > > Ted is not only antijew, but unconsciously, taken-for-grantedly so;
    > > he cannot even see that he is. However, his stance can clearly be
    > > seen when one takes into account the supposed facts that he
    > > emphasizes, and the other facts which he chooses to ignore.
    > Once again, you're projecting. That you are anti-Arab is illustrated
    > by the fact that you ignore systematic Israeli oppression of
    > Palestinians, which is the only relevant fact in this entire saga.
    Notice what is the ONLY relevant fact to Ted; not the suicide bombings, not the fact that women, children and the elderly are targeted, not the fact that the terrorists loudly proclaim that they reject a two-state solution and will settle for nothing less than the total extermination of expulsion of all jews between Egypt and Jordan, but just his warped interpretation of the measures that a free democratic society is forced to employ in order to defend itself against such a rabid quasireligious death-cult. If the Palestinians would agree to live in peace, their state would be forthcoming, Israel has stated as much. Israel would even rtemove the Jewish settlements from the west bank and Gaza while allowing the Palestinians already living in Israle proper to remain there. The fact that the Palestinians do not already have their state is squarely the fault of the terror organizations and their Palestinian supporters and sympathizers.
    > Ted
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see:

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 16 Jun 2003 - 18:28:13 GMT