What is 'racism'?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Robot Wisdom : One Thread

This is a forum for discussing my recent headline "Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?"

1. Note that it's a question, not an assertion. Are there really any questions that just shouldn't be asked? (Another example-- in an old poll I asked people at what age they would have liked to start having sex. This was criticised as dangerous-to-ask.)

2. The term 'anti-semitism' unfortunately blurs the distinction between attacking a race (genetic, unchangeable) and attacking an ideology. The ADL in particular is guilty-as-hell of exploiting this confusion, imho. Is asserting anti-Judaism really different-in-kind than anti-Catholic or anti-Islam views?

3. Judaism as an ideology teaches that the Jews are Yahweh's "Chosen People". How is this not identically as dangerous a meme as Hitler's Aryan "Master Race"? If swastikas are illegal symbols of hate-crime, why not Stars of David now, as well? How is one genocide less culpable than another?

4. The article I linked claimed that assassinating unarmed Palestinian freedom fighters is offical Israeli government policy. Israeli governments have consistently encouraged settlers to colonize occupied Palestinian territories. The people of Israel seem likely to elect a new government next year that will be even more repressive than Barak's. In what sense do Jews who disapprove of these policies share special responsibility for them?

5. The US media, in particular, presents Israel's perspective almost exclusively. What responsibility do webloggers and or US Jews have to pursue greater balance in this coverage?

-- Jorn Barger (jorn@mcs.com), December 27, 2000


I have to say that the repeated use of the words 'stupid', 'crackpot', and 'disingenuous' in the responses so far gives the appearance of trying to squelch inquiry by intimidation much more than of trying to achieve mutual understanding via mutual respect.

-- Jorn (jorn@mcs.com), December 27, 2000.

"[H]ow did the notion of one God become known to the world? Through the Jews. And according to Jewish sources, that is the meaning of chosenness: to make God known to the world. As Rabbi Louis Jacobs has written: "We are not discussing a dogma incapable of verification, but the recognition of sober historical fact. The world owes to Israel the idea of the one God of righteousness and holiness. This is how God became known to mankind."

Does Judaism believe that chosenness endows Jews with special rights in the way racist ideologies endow those born into the "right race"? Not at all. The most famous verse in the Bible on the subject of chosenness says the precise opposite: "You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth. That is why I call you to account for all your iniquities" (Amos 3:2). Chosenness is so unconnected to any notion of race that Jews believe that the Messiah himself will descend from Ruth, a non­Jewish woman who converted to Judaism.

Why were the Jews chosen? Because they are descendants of Abraham. And why were Abraham and his descendants given the task of making God known to the world? The Torah never tells us. What God does say in Deuteronomy, is that "it is not because you are numerous that God chose you, indeed you are the smallest of people" (7:7). Because of the Jews' small numbers, any success they would have in making God known to the world would presumably reflect upon the power of the idea of God. Had the Jews been a large nation with an outstanding army, their successes in making God known would have been attributed to their might and not to the truth of their ideas. After all, non­ Muslims living in the Arab world were hardly impressed by the large numbers of people brought to Islam through the sword.

The Chosen People idea is so powerful that other groups have appropriated it. Both Catholicism and Protestantism believe that God chose the Jews, but that two thousand years ago a new covenant was made with Christianity. During most of Christian history, and among Evangelical Christians to the present day, Christian chosenness meant that only Christians go to heaven while the non­chosen are either placed in limbo or are damned.

Mohammed, likewise, didn't deny Abraham's chosenness. He simply claimed that Abraham was a Muslim, and he traced Islam's descent through the Jewish Patriarch.

Nations, as well as religions, see themselves as special. When I visited China, I learned that the Chinese word for China means "center of the universe." Nineteenth­century and early twentieth­ century Americans had a belief in their "manifest destiny" to rule the North American continent.

Nonetheless, perhaps out of fear of sounding self­righteous or provoking antisemitism, Jews rarely speak about chosenness, and Maimonides did not list it as one of the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith."


-- Robert Kle (mrjuno@juno.com), December 27, 2000.

I think Jorn confuses a rage at Zionism (which I share) with a condemnation of Judaism.

The easy answer -- if the actions that upset you are all related to the apartheid state of Israel and the racist ideology of Zionism, then that is what you should attack.

If Jews is general irritate you, then you are a bigot.

Historically, Jews have been oppressed -- brutally so (the Holocaust is the most horrific instance). Any condemnation of "Judaism [as] a religion of lawless racists" is ignorant at best. It feeds into anti-Semitism.

To look at Israel in a vacuum is also a mistake. There happens to be this ideology of Zionism that is very convienent for Israel to justify what it does, etc. However, in the end, Israel exists because of US government support. The US supports Israel because of its own imperial interests in the area. If the Middle East didn't have its strategic significance, the US wouldn't send billions to Israel every year (indeed, it took a nationalist movement in Egypt before the US started sending significant aid to Israel). The US needs a Mideast watchdog -- it's Israel.

Point-by-point response.

Jorn point 1: Disengenious at best. It obviously comes across as a rhetorical question, not a hypothesis posed to encourage genuine inquiry.

Point 2: The word "anti-Semitism" has come to mean anti-Jewish -- originally by people who were proud of their bigotry. Etymology aside, that's what it means today.

Now, the ADL is a generally awful organization (with some exceptions) and has delibrately blurred the distinction between anti-Semitism (a bigotry that must be destroyed) and anti-Zionism. Zionism is a racist political ideology that should be fought as such.

Being anti-religion (Catholic, Islam, etc) depends on time and context. I think anti-Islamic views in the West tend to have a racist character to them. Revolutionaries in Afghanistan who argue against Islam in an attempt to win broader numbers to fighting the Taliban are doing something different, however.

Given the history of anti-Semitism, even today it is foolish, at best, to phrase the question the way Jorn did (and in the process, cede ideological ground to Zionists).

Point 3: The Swastika has only been used as a symbol of hate. The Star of David is both a symbol of resistance, and, when on the flag of Israel, opppression. To compare the two is patently silly. Almost all religions have a notion of exclusivity ("Find Jesus or you're going to Hell") -- indeed, Christianity has, as an ideology, been used to kill far more people than Judaism.

What also matters is the context of the ideology -- in Eastern Europe, 100 years ago, it didn't mean the same thing to say that "Jews are the chosen people" -- it was a way for people who were regular victims of lynchings (Pogroms) to hold it together at some level.

The brutality that Israel has inflicted on Palestinians is not the fault of all Jews, nor is it isolated from the pressures of capitalism and the needs of the US government.

To compare Nazism to Judaism, as Jorn does, is stupid at best.

Point 4: Jews who disapprove of Israel's policies have the same obligation to struggle against them as anyone else.

I'm not under a special burden as a Jew -- though it personally offends me that opppression is carried out in "my name."

As a US citizen, I am under a special burden to fight against all the horrible things that the US does around the world -- it's the best way to demonstration solidarity with the people who are being the brunt of that pain.

Btw -- according to the UN, 1% of the recent demonstrators have been children, but they've been 30% of the fatalities. The Israeli government is conducting a terror campaign against Palestinians.

Point 5: People in general should fight oppression. Most of that has to occur as real-world organizing, not as weblogging. People should go to local demonstrations in support of the new Intifidah, organize teach-ins, etc.

To sum up: To stand up against oppression, one must be against the state of Israel (which is organized along apartheid lines). However, to confuse anti-Zionism with anti-Judaism is to feed into racism. Further, Israel is what it is today, not because it's a bunch of racist Jews, but because the Mideast has a lot of oil, capitalism needs oil, the US wants to be the dominant world power, it wants to control the flow of oil, and it needs points-of-presence in the Mideast. Israel is useful to them because of that.

-- Jason Yanowitz (yanowitz@poboxes.com), December 27, 2000.

The original question was inflammatory, as is Point 3 above. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

-- Mike Schmelzer (schmelzer@bigfoot.com), December 27, 2000.

Regardless of whatever 'broader questions' are brought in to change the subject, the original headline question was stupid. Most Jews don't live in Israel to begin with, and most Israelis are secular, i.e. their daily lives, politics, military behavior, etc, are not governed by the orthodox tenets of Judaism. Therefore, when the underlying story is that the Israeli army has a shoot-to-kill policy towards leading Palestinian rebels and rioters, pointing to this story with the tag line "Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?" is obtuse and in fact carries a whiff of crackpot racism, regardless of whether Jorn really is one.

The weblog community does indeed have a responsibility to balance mainstream media coverage on these issues. It fails miserably at this responsibility when it offers ignorance and race-baiting as its substitute.

Rather than conduct some bogus symposium to paper over his indiscretion, Jorn should simply pull the lede and replace it with something more in keeping with the way the rest of his excellent weblog operates.

Israeli army secretly shoots-to-kill Palestinians (link)

-- Anser (anser@pobox.com), December 27, 2000.

"Orthodox Judaism dictates one's action at every moment of the day and it enforces differences between Jew and Gentile that virtually make certain the persecution of the weaker group."

-Issac Asimov

-- Arturo Volenne (volenne@yahoo.com), December 27, 2000.

Jorn wrote:

> I have to say that the repeated use of the words 'stupid', > 'crackpot', and 'disingenuous' in the responses so far gives the > appearance of trying to squelch inquiry by intimidation much more > than of trying to achieve mutual understanding via mutual respect.

In response to Jorn's whining about the sharpness of my post, I'd say the following:

1. Jorn's original post was incredibly offensive. I reacted to it accordingly. I do believe it was disingenous to say your headline was just a call to inquiry when it was CLEARLY a rhetorical question meant to make a point (a point you went onto justify in the post that started this thread). Further, some questions shouldn't be asked (in the sense that some questions are not worthy of exploration). E.g., "What's the best way to lynch a black man -- hanging or dragging?".

2. You have yet to respond to the substance of the arguments. Do you agree your original headline and subsequent justification was mistaken or do you have specific responses to my (and others') arguments?

3. I respected you enough to respond to your post with an in-depth answer. Don't ask me to respect your ideas -- I don't. They are ignorant and lead to bigotry. They set back the genuine fight against Zionism.

4. How are you intimidated? You are at no risk. It's your forum and it's the Internet. You even prioritized your response above everyone else's.

[As an aside, that Asimov quote posted by volenne@yahoo.com is awful as well. It blames Jews for their oppression. By that token, women who are raped are to blame if they were wearing a skirt (dressed differently from men).]

-- Jason Yanowitz (yanowitz@poboxes.com), December 27, 2000.

This is frankly absurd. Perhaps I will take Jorn's tack -

Is Jorn disingenuous/stupid/offensive/racist/anti-semetic?

First of all, Jorn, take some adult responsibility. Don't hide behind question marks - if you believe Jews are racist murderers, say so. And before you let yourself go off on a "he doesn't understand/I'm being repressed" tirade, remember, it is broad assertions by people like you that 'squelch inquiry'. Have you the ability to admit that you may be wrong, or are you perfect? (see, a question mark)

To answer each question: 1. It's a leading question, and your opinion is clear. If you asked: - Is it OK for Israeli army to have this policy? - Is this murder? or even - Is the Israeli army guilty of racism/lawlessness/etc? then you could reasonably claim some objectivity. However, if someone had a link to your site that said: - Is Jorn Barger a subhuman pig who should have horrible things happen to him? would you honestly treat this as an opening to a serious discussion? I don't believe so. Also, this is very similar (I have to hope and believe unintentionally) to Nazi rhetoric. Sure, Hitler and Goebbels let the people supply the answer, but they similarly led them down a primrose path. "Look at those filthy rich Jews, aren't they the cause of Germany's problems?" Again, a leading question. How about a link to Operation Solomon, where thousands of people who were starving in Ethiopia were airlifted to Israel? How about information on the charitable work that Jews around the world do? How about a link to an essay on the importance of community work (tzedek) to Judaism as a people and a religion? No, you presented a leading question and a one- sided argument.

2. Why be anti-any-large-group? Why not address discernible units? I don't like what the Taliban has done, but I'm not anti-Islam, anti- Muslim, or anti-Afghani. To hate a group of people is racism. Any sufficiently large group will always contain bad people, but that is not an excuse to hate the group.

3. Judaism teaches that the Jewish people made a covenant with God to keep his laws. This did not really give Jews free reign to act as they please. The actions of Israel do not represent all Israelis, let alone all Jews. As for the Star of David issue, others have already made adequate comment - I'll add, though, that by your logic every flag and religious symbol could be banned.

4. This is patently absurd. Do you go around beating up Catholics for the actions of the Pope? How about bombing the Netherlands for apartheid? For that matter, why not blame the moon for the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of Europeans? How can any Jew who is not an Israeli citizen bear any responsibility for the actions of Israel? I could as easily blame you for Israel's actions.

5. Jorn, go look up the phrase "begging the question". If you want to assert some sense of media bias and then tilt at whatever windmills are in your mind, fine, sure, go ahead. Just don't use racist tags. I think it is fine that you linked to this article; however, intended or not, you just blamed a race and a religion for the actions of a country. Opening a discussion is fine, but if you use Church of the Creator language, then you feed that kind of behavior, question mark or no question mark.


-- Joshua Gross (jb_gross@yahoo.com), December 27, 2000.

I thought the prompt was inflammatory and offensive. To the extent that one offends and inflames, not out of malice, but out of inadvertence or ignorance of what one has actually implied, one invites others to remedy what I would call one's error of social judgment.

I think it is mistaken to confound the actions of a political entity with a religion. I think it is mistaken to confound a religious ideology with a religion. Ideological dissenters belong to a religion though they repudiate a particular tenet of a religious ideology.

As to the prompt itself, my reading of it is that it did sort of express a perspective that one might legitimately conclude that Judaism is "simply a religion of lawless racists." A more circumscribed (and perhaps more defensible) prompt might have been, "is Israeli gov't policy based upon lawless racism?" This latter prompt would not have offended me but would have seemed a legitimate question. By framing it in terms of Judaism rather than Israeli policy you invoke populations, arguments and history that cannot but obscure the points of view you seek to bring out.

-- Max Taylor (Lmax@together.net), December 27, 2000.

First of all, Judaism is a religion, Israel is a country. The two are not synonymous.

Secondly, most western religions have exclusivity clauses. I was raised a Roman Catholic. In the 1960s, I was taught that only Catholics would go to heaven, period. One may question this belief, but it is not inherently racist. Anyone can convert to Catholicism. Anyone can convert to Judaism. You can find these beliefs appalling but they are not unique to Judaism.

Finally, although I deplore Israel’s policies, I do not hold every Israeli liable for them just as I would not like to be held liable for every action of my country. Many Israelis would agree that that their government’s treatment of Palestinians is tantamount to genocide and are actively working to change those policies.

Giving you every benefit of the doubt, I find your choice of words ill informed, at best.

-- Kevin meehan (kaliban@dandy.net), December 27, 2000.

I have to say that the repeated use of the words 'stupid', 'crackpot', and 'disingenuous' in the responses so far gives the appearance of trying to squelch inquiry by intimidation much more than of trying to achieve mutual understanding via mutual respect.

"Intidimidation"? "Mutual respect"?!? Please. You were Jew-baiting.

IMHO, the responses here have been remarkably civil and have demonstrated far more respect than your peevish defense of that horrid and ignorant tagline.

-- Mike Schmelzer (schmelzer@bigfoot.com), December 27, 2000.

To me, the question is so obviously prejudiced that it isn't worth answering at all. I don't see how you can possibly believe it's defensible on any level to frame the situation in Israel as a question of whether all Jews are lawless racists or not.

-- Rogers Cadenhead (mail@prefect.com), December 27, 2000.

Jorn's rage comes from the brutality inflicted by Israel, compounded by the use of religious justification some (but obviously not all) Israeli army commanders have been using to motivate their young shock troops. (I dont have a link on me, but go the Israeli indy media center, and search for "israel" and you'll find it)

But he is wrong with his headline. I am a virulent anti-Zionist, and I thought it was over the top. However I understand his anger in the frame of the current massacre in Palestine. But he is wrong, there is no doubt of that.

-- Zed Arabelle (zed@404fiction.com), December 27, 2000.

Jorn has changed the headline to "Are Jews incapable of polite discourse?"

Are bigots incapable of intelligent discourse?

-- Annie Zirin (anniezirin@hotmail.com), December 27, 2000.

Including full names and email addresses insures a nice civil discourse (or does Jorn censor?).

When people are being killed, apparently with prejudice, it's reasonable enough to ask a question that reflects your own inclinations on the issue. Case in point, wacko shoots seven people in an office in Wakefield, Massachusetts -- which question is more reasonable: "Why did this poor distraught man do it?" or "What's wrong with a society that allows psycho jerks like this to buy and own semi-automatic weapons?" I'd say the latter, which is a fairly parallel phrasing of Jorn's except it doesn't mention religion.

Jorn's defense may be disingenuous, but so is the claim that we need to separate Judaism from Zionism and the state of Israel from the Jewish religion. In the political context of the Middle East, there are no such distinctions. The fact is, and this is ignored by discussing the phrasing of a question rather than the issues at hand, that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are in virtually impossible situations. They both have claims to a miniscule area of land, they have competing interests in the Temple Mount and in the city of Jerusalem, they both have strong historical claims to a right of return.

Both sides must make enormous concessions if there is to be peace; the history of the process is that only tiny steps are made (with enless subsequent haggling over the details and over what was really meant); every "breakthrough" has entailed agreements to agree about the real issues at some later point in time (remember Camp David -- it was a generation ago). Now, there are only real issues left, and there is no time left. Both sides need wisdom, confidence, and willingness to risk all in order to make a true deal for peace, and it doesn't look like they have any.

Unfortunately, I believe the Israelis think their military strength (and US backing) will protect them forever and they don't need to make the breakthrough; the Palestinians believe that their religiously-inspired moral rightness (and Arab backing) will protect them and allow them to prevail; and Bill Clinton, the one guy who, with a little help from other heads of state, could tell them it's time to make a deal, has no clout left with either party. The personal political aims of each principal player kill off enough credibility to each of the others to ensure failure -- Barak is just interested in getting re-elected, say the Palestians; Arafat is losing his grip and is just interested in something that allows him to maintain power, say the Israelis; Clinton just wants his place in history, say both of them.

If either the Palestinians or Israelis could see past the ends of their noses (take that as an ethnic slur if you're so inclined), the rest of the world wouldn't even have to take notice of this little regional territorial dispute.

-- Martin C. Langeveld (mlang@berkshire.net), December 27, 2000.

At www.arabia.com, one poster suggested that the Israelis (Mossad) had bombed the Cole so that the United States would be incensed at the Arabs and give further support to Israel. Another poster suggested that Joeseph Liberman, who hold dual citizenship (he does NOT) would become president after Gore won and the Israelis had Gore assassinated!

Next, Jorn, I wait for you to suggest that the Holocaust never took place.

The British paper The Times (ultra conservative) suggested a short ime ago that Judaism is a racist religon. But this same paper was very fmuch for the Jews having a homeland and a state in Palestine during the 30 years of the British Mandate.

I had thought that the well-nown liftist Noam Chomsky was Jewish, but I guess not since he is pro-Palestinian. And the editor of Tikkun, Rabbi Lerner, also suggest a strong anti-Israel message, but perhaps he too is not Jewish.

-- fred lapides (postroad@hotmail.com), December 27, 2000.

Whenever the Israelis feel "threatened" at any time, for any reason, they simply take a bulldozer, under armed guard--of course and bulldoze any Palistian homes/farms/businesses that are in their way.

Their rationale?

Anytime they want to declare a piece of land necessary for "security reasons" they have 100% total Emmient Domain.

No questions asked. No warning given to the families inside the homes being bulldozed.

What's so racist about that?????

-- Timothy Leeery (arid_zone_ah1@hotmail.com), December 27, 2000.

There's a lot to be said here, but I'll confine myself to two points about rhetoric.

1. There's an old saying which goes: "if you ask the right question, you're 90% of the way to the answer." Unfortunately Joerg asked a question which is 90% of the way to the wrong conclusion. Tilting a debate one way or another by carefully formulating the question is the oldest trick in the book. You can turn on cable TV and watch the political talking heads do it all day long. It is very difficult to formulate a neutral question, particularly a yes/no question, and radically slanted questions are a part of our everyday language (ex.: "are you an idiot or something?") I'm not sure Joerg did this intentionally, mind you.

Moral: If you ask a Jerry-Springer-like question, don't be surprised when the guests start bitch-slapping each other.

2. Conflicts like this one center around a cycle of violence. That is accompanied by a cycle of rhetoric. Joerg wanted to stop the cycle by balancing media coverage, but he lost his cool and played right into it. What he doesn't understand is that he is now a cog in the machinery of the conflict, and that his statement makes the conflict worse.

Joerg seems to feel outrage - understandable, but not helpful. Outrage is the energy which makes the cycle turn. Each side looks at the injustices they suffer. They tell the story of their oppression to portray their enemies as a bunch of dangerous criminals, steeling themselves to strike back. If you can dehumanize the enemy through racism or other means, so much the better. Once your justifications and rationalizations are in place you can excuse yourself from moral responsibility for your retaliation. Your enemies then execute the same steps, using the same tactics, giving you an excuse to strike again.

In the linked article and Joerg's response you can see the machinery of the cycle of rhetoric, like parts of an engine spread out on the garage floor, if you have the guts to look. When he sees the similarities between the two sides he's actually on the verge of enlightenment, of really getting it. What he does not yet understand is that the Isrealis are not the bad guys, and neither are the Palestinians. There, but for the grace of God, go all of us. We are all capable of that sort of evil. The only way out of the cycle is to refuse to participate.

-- Pete McAveney (pmcaveney@usa.net), December 27, 2000.

Disclaimer: I'm an Israeli, and a born Jewish (although today I no longer describe myself as a Jewish person, I'm an Atheist).

I believe the answer to your question is Yes.

Judaism has been considered in older times to be an Anti-Human religion for many reasons, the most basic ones are that according to Jewish rules and mythology all Gentiles (Non-Jews) are lesser by nature then Jews (!); meaning they have less rights and liberties, and could be hurt for almost trivial reasons (this statement can be backed easily with quotes from Hebrew sources, I hope this summerizied English version will suffice to make my point).

This point (Gentiles are lesser then Jews) is ofcourse the Nazi point reversed - the Jewish People, as well as the Nazi dogma believe that Jews are a different race from all other mankind (one says a lower race, and the other a higher race; one has pseudo-scientific reason, and the other a theological one; The main argument and logic are the same none-the-less).

Zionism is Racism. Pure and simple. The Zionist idea of a Jewish nation is a falsehood, as well as the Zionist impression of a "People-less Land for a Land-less People" (David Ben-Gurion) - and both are racist. Zionism is a classic 19th century colonialistic and romantic movement, not much different then the movement that spawned Fascism and Nazism, with many similarities to both. In Zionism all the moral deficiencies of Judaism manifest, and the fact that the Jewish people now has the authority and power to execute their sub-conscience racist dogma should worry us all.

The US Media serve US interest (ie - MegaCorp. interest), ultimatly siding with the Israeli prespective for mostly ecomonical reasons. I hope that independent news sources, such as weblogs, will try and maintain a more equal stance, thus benefiting all parties involved.

Sorry for my English mistakes. Gilad Deneboom.

-- Gilad Deneboom (gilad_d@haayal.co.il), December 27, 2000.

Method for achieving "mutual understanding via mutual respect":

First, ask a deliberately inflammatory question. Something like

Are Blacks simply a culture of violent felons? Are Italians simply a bunch of Mafia thugs? Are Democrats simply a party of pinko traitors? Are Swedes simply a nation of drunken adulterers?

will do nicely.

Then, pretend to be surprised and aggrieved when people take exception to the premises of the "debate." Accuse your correspondents of trying to "squelch inquiry by intimidation." Stir the pot further by posing yet another pseudo-innocent question, like "are Jews incapable of polite discourse?"

Finally, sit there and whimper because the hornets whose nest you've just poked with a stick have the gall to fly out and sting you.

Inquiry? Discourse? I'd rather debate with a hornet.

-- Ned Humphrey (nhumphrey@agora-inc.com), December 27, 2000.

I am not directly answering Jorn's "What is racism?" question, simply reproducing my earlier e-mail response to him on first seeing the "lawless racists" comment.

>> >> Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists? <<

This is an outrageous comment, in and of itself, and a disservice to the point of the article to which it links. I am a thorough-going opponent of U.S. policy toward Israel, and of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine. But I do not identify Israeli policy with the religion of Judaism, and believe it is wrong and anti-Semitic to do so.

U.S. history is equally besmirched -- U.S. government intervention around the world, involving torture and assassination against people of color who stood in the way of U.S. policy or that of U.S. client states. But, despite the fact that most of the people involved in carrying out these policies are nominally Christian, I don't think asking >> Is Christianity simply a religion of lawless racists? << would contribute to anyone's understanding of the issues.

The link to which this anti-Semitic dig is attached speaks far more plainly about the truth of the situation than your question. I'm very disappointed. People who put forth an analysis of the situation in Israel/Palestine not sufficiently in line with current U.S. policy are routinely dismissed as anti-Semites. It's a terrible shame to hand the usual critics such ammunition.

Nell Lancaster <<

-- Nell Lancaster (nlancaster@rockbridge.net), December 27, 2000.

All this talk about the finger instead of where it's pointing. I saw the original linktext and nearly clicked it to find the source of the outrage, but skipped it because I figured it was probably some nutcase's essay, and I've seen enough of those. (As it is, I had already seen the article linked to, so it wouldn't have been anything new.)

I wish the outrage here could be focused on a fair resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli situation, instead of recapitulating it in another form.

-- W Tenino (tenino@booksatoz.com), December 27, 2000.

At first glance, Jorn's headline startled me. Then I recalled my own inner dialogue. The questions I've been asking myself. I also remember turning off (in mid viewing) a video my kids were watching "The Prince of Egypt". It depicted Egyptian (Arab) men, women, and children being killed by God as the fortunate Hebrews were spared this fate. God selectively killing Arabs… I asked my children if they thought any God would be racist, they didn't think this was a trait of Creation, Love, Caring, and Mercy. I see cartoons of fat Arabs in Time magazine with huge noses and grimacing looks. What would happen if these were cartoons of Jews instead of Arabs? Why is this okay in our media? I am constantly made aware of the Jewish Holocaust. I rarely hear any mention of the hundreds of millions of Native Americans (north, central, Caribbean, and south) exterminated, or the millions of black American and Africans murdered. These too were/are holocausts; deliberate and thoughtfully calculated. I will not diminish the awful truth of the Nazi's actions, but I'm so tired of this event taking and monopolizing center stage in this country's consciousness when so many of our own citizens' are living in concentration camps- prisons and reservations. If I ask questions about Israel’s brutality, Imperialism, and murder; should I be soothed or intimidated by the Holocaust Industry?

-- a brown (brazmunkee@hotmail.com), December 27, 2000.

This is an e-mail I sent Mr. Barger last week. Perhaps he will feel more comfortable responding to it in this forum: Mr. Barger, I have visited you Weblog numerous times and find it to be an insightful and diverse reference tool. That being said, I was deeply disturbed by the heading you chose for your link to the UK Times article on the Israeli army's use of deadly force. "Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?" is the kind of headline I would expect to find on any number of racist, White supremacist sites, not on site which, until now, has been intelligent and thought-provoking. Like many people, I am appalled at the indiscriminate use of force by Israeli security forces. Like many people, I do not believe that the American media's coverage of events in the occupied territories is either thorough or unbiased. That, however, is not justification to defame a faith that has 4000 years of history and a following across the globe that is as diverse in its political beliefs as any other. The next time an abortion clinic in the midwest gets bombed, will your link to the article bare the headline "Is Christianity simply a religion of violent cowards?" Will your coverage of the Taliban's shameless war on Afghani women be under the heading of "Is Islam simply a religion of chauvinist Neanderthals?" The point is that these actions reflect the behavior of a small minority of adherents of these faiths. Surely, someone of your intelligence can see that motivation for these acts of violence is more of a political, than a religious, nature. As someone who shares a high regard for the works of James Joyce, might I suggest you read through the Cyclops chapter of Ulysses once more and ask yourself what Joyce might think of your choice of words.

-- Grant Miner (pimpdaddy@angelfan.com), December 27, 2000.

The Asimov quote means that Jews will generally end up either as oppressors or opressed, depending on who is in power. It does blame the Jews for being oppressed, but also for being the oppressors. This is inevitable when a group sets itself apart and considers itself superior- whatever the group.

-- Arturo Volenne (volenne@yahoo.com), December 27, 2000.

Of course it's perfectly normal for "oppressed" people to oppress others--once they get into power, of course.

After all, just look at the New Testament. Supposedly these Christians were "persecuted" by Romans.

Now that the Christians are in power (in the U.S.) they don't call it "persecuting"....

....they call it "prosecuting".

Why should we expect the Israeli HardLiner Jews (to exclude the athiest non-violent Jews living in Israel) to be any different????

-- Timothy Leery (arid_zone_ah1@hotmail.com), December 27, 2000.

Now the tag line for this forum is "Are Jews incapable of polite discourse?" which mystifyingly reinforces the impression that Jorn may actually be (improbable as I would have thought it last week) a white-glove bigot. As in, Jews On The Brain. First, the Israeli military is discovered to have a de facto shoot-to-kill policy in force against rebel leaders and he writes "Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?" Then, people of all faiths/persuasions, no faith/persuasion, etc, light into him for such a dumb headline and he labels it "Are JEWS incapable of polite discourse?" As we say in New York, I got yer polite discourse right here, buddy.

The 5 questions he tries to "pump" you with when you post here, by the way, have nothing to do with the original issue what-so-ever. I am sure he would dearly love to steer this into some mealy-mouthed philosophical give-and-take featuring "mutual love and respect," but we are under no obligation to cooperate. I don't care about that stuff _here_. The only thing I care about is whether our blogging star (still my favorite read each day) is just clumsily insensitive or whether he really has a bee in his bonnet for those scary Hebes. In the latter case I pronounce a pox and sentence him to community service until he learns some decency.

-- Anser, one angry Anglican

-- Anser (anser@pobox.com), December 27, 2000.

From what I read about Israel and its politics, there are the ultra orthodox. They do not believe in a secular state, would as soon be under arab control and wait for the messiah to come. They do not serve in the military. Then there are the religious Orthodox who believe that the entire region is biblically their land and want not to trade any of it back for a peace accord.

Then there are the secular Jews who believe that after numberous attempts to exterminate the people of Israel, secure borders are necessary and they take a fairly hard line as to where these borders should be.

Then there are the lefties, the peaceniks who feel that the arabs are being mistreated and that accords can be worked out so that both parties can live in harmony.

Then there are those Israelis who feel that a wall of separation should exist, with the Arabs having their land and polace and the Israelis theirs because there will always be friction among and between these two peoples.

What this adds up to, then, is that any attempt to talk about Judaism (or Israelis) as this or that is just plain silly and downright stupid. There are many voices and many views. To lump them all together is to show one's ignorance as to what is taking place in Israeli politics. As of the latest polling, some 50% of Israelis do not like the proposed accords; And in the lastest Arab poll I have viewed, 50+percent do not want any kind of peace agreement. Nada.

-- fred lapides (Postroad@hotmail.com), December 27, 2000.

I'll respond to each point in turn.

1. As you posed a question, not an assertion, I will give you an answer. The answer is no. If you'd ask me to defend that answer, then I would have to ask you to defend your question.

2. Historically, the Jewish people have been attacked both as a race and as a religion, often with the same language. In the next part of your question, you use the term "Jews". Are you referring here to those who choose Judaism as a religion, those who are genetically Jewish but do not practice Judaism, or both? The 'blurriness' of the term 'anti-semitism' is a direct result of the 'blurriness' of the terminology used to discuss Judaism and Jews.

3. There is a world of difference between "four legs good" and "two legs bad". To think otherwise is to equate self-esteem with misanthropy.

4. You preface your question here with assertions. I disagree with your assertions. As for the question, I would respond that, given those assertions, they share the same "special" responsibility that you or I share for the School of the Americas.

5. Again an untested assertion, one which I'll have to address directly. I have seen an extremely wide variety of perspectives on the conflict appear in U.S. press. I've also been reasonably impressed by the degree to which many media outlets have cleaved quite closely to reporting events as they appear to happen and kept much of their analysis out of the headlines. Since I don't agree with your predicate, I can't give an intelligible answer to your question.

Thank you for your time. -p

-- phooky (phooky@podvodnik.cz), December 27, 2000.

I sent this to Jorn before I saw this page for sending to the forum, so I'm repeating it here.


I'm not going to comment on either of your weblog questions about Jews, because although I'm finding myself offended I fear that this may be an emotional response rather than a rational one. But I will note that you do seem to be equating Judiasm with Zionism, and these are NOT the same thing. Note, in particular,




-- Robert Orenstein (rlo@perforce.com), December 27, 2000.

Certainly the Israeli government is an organization of "lawless racists" but to what degree do they represent Judaism? To treat them as synonomous is like holding George W. Bush or Canada's Stockwell Day as representative of Christianity. They are not philosophical or spiritual, they are materialists with material aims.

As soon as a heirarchy is introduced into a spiritual organization, it necessarily becomes a mundane and temporal organization.

Possibly many Jews might identify with and justify Israel's actions because of the historical persecution of Jewish people. How could Israel avoid being the horror that it is? It is almost mathematically predictable, whether you use the idiom of "Karma" or "Dialectical materialism". It's important for people to try to take a "God's-eye" view of the scene, and appraise themselves of the situation as it really is, instead of continually reacting to what has gone before. "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."-St. Stephen (James Joyce, Ulysess)

-- Larry Taylor (apollodorus@home.com), December 27, 2000.

I don't know.

-- Chris Jones (chris.jones@revoltingdevelopment.com), December 27, 2000.

I believe Jorn should issue an apology, a disclaimer, and change the headlines.

Instead of repeating the criticisms above, I'll just say I support most of them. Anyone as intelligent as Jorn, who claims to understand Joyce, can't claim he's ignorant of the implications and consequences of his two blatantly offensive questions.

One consequence is that he's lost me and everyone I know as readers.

-- Tom Binkow (tpub@binkow.net), December 28, 2000.

Re: "Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?"

1) Judaism is not simply a religion. There are many streams of Judaism, e.g., Chasidism (a varied group in itself), Modern Orthodox (Senator Lieberman being a notable example), Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc., etc. (And that's just in America!) There is also the concept of the Jewish People, k'lal Yisroel, which includes wholly non-religious Jews.

2) Many streams of Judaism adhere to "halacha," which is a legal system. Halachic Judaism is most certainly not lawless. One of the legal precepts in Judaism, albeit oversimplified, is that life is of infinite value, and there is no distinction between the value of a Jewish and a non-Jewish life. My blood is not redder than yours. Jewish tradition teaches that G-d rebuked the angels who celebrated the drowning of the Egyptians at the Red Sea, as the Egyptians were no less the children of G-d than were the Israelites. However, there is also law relating to the "rodef," or pursuer. If someone is coming to kill you, Halacha teaches that you may (and in some understandings should) kill him/her first. Israel is not a theocratic state run by rabbis (cf. Iran), and Barak does not live his life in accordance with the dictates of Halacha, but the Israel's longstanding practice of assassinating folks who engage in plotting the bombing of school buses and the like is undoubtedly rooted, ethically if not legally, in the concept of the rodef. (As was Rabin's assassination, for what it's worth.) It should also be noted that if the Palestinian Authority had lived up to its obligation under the Oslo accords to extradite these terrorists to Israel, they would be jailed, not dead, just like the Israeli Jew (whose name escapes me at the moment) who killed a captured, bound Palestinian terrorist after a bus bombing several years ago.

3) Judaism is not a racist religion. While in the ordinary course one's status as a Jew or a non-Jew is hereditary, a Jew-by-birth who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew, and a gentile who converts to Judaism is a Jew. Israel's rescue of the Jews of Ethiopia, leaving behind those self-proclaimed Ethiopian Jews who had converted to Christianity, illustrates the point. Halacha holds that a convert, or Jew by choice if you will, is properly deemed to be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and may pray accordingly. It is a sin to treat a convert differently than a native-born Jew, and the Bible records that King David was descended from Ruth, a convert.

The closest thing to a racist teaching in the Hebrew Bible is the injunction to exterminate the Amalekites, but this did not give rise to a halachic obligation to engage in racial murder because the Amalekites were gone from the scene by the time that Rabbinic Judaism was taking hold. (In any event, G-d's decree against the Amalekites was in retribution for their unprovoked attack on the Israelites, and Amalek was a nation, not a race.) You would be hard-pressed to find a reputable rabbi who holds that Baruch Goldstein's Purim rampage in Hebron was a justifiable assault on Amalek, yet any number of Islamic clerics in the Middle East justify the murder of Jewish schoolchildren in the name of Jihad and hail Palestinian suicide bombers as martyrs. So which is the racist religion?

-- Ben Finkelstein (BenF@bigfoot.com), December 28, 2000.

Hey Jorn,

You ask whether there are questions that shouldn't be asked. If your goal was to offend people, you should ask questions like these. If your goal was to prompt intelligent discussion, or encourage people to actually think about these issues, you probably should find a better question.

I actually just had someone email me with complaints for RSS-ifying your headlines. I'd never do that, but the point is... Is this really the reaction you were going for?

From what I know of you, you're an intelligent, decent person who wants to make the world a better place. I also know you're very headstrong and not one to apologize. Maybe tact isn't part of your daily routine. That's fine. It seems to work for you. But why are you so surprised when people get upset about it? :)

-Michal http://www.sabren.net/

-- michal wallace (sabren@manifestation.com), December 28, 2000.

The answer to this question is very simple. Every religion is exclusive. So, in a way, every religion is racist. Zionism is a (not the) political movement of the Jewish religion. Most palestiniasn are Muslim. The question of who controls the Temple Mount is religeous. Jews and Zionists seem to be racists because the kill people from another nation. Palestinians seem to be Antisemitists because they kill Jews.

All this killing is un-nececairy.

--- Hanan Cohen - http://www.info.org.il ***Love and Peace***

-- Hanan Cohen (hananc@bigfoot.com), December 28, 2000.

why is Jorn upset?


Say what you want about the occupation's current bloodshed, it's not enough to substantially prove racism. No matter what, Israel, no matter how illegal their occupation, can defend it in the pretext of an ongoing war.

What can't be explained away is the murder of more than a dozen Arab citizens of Israel. Unarmed children were shot within the limits of Israel, as they staged a protest. They threw rocks, and some lit tires aflame and rolled them at the shock troops' armored transport vehicles, which would appear any time a large group of Arab youths would gather in protest.

Similar protests by left or right wing Jews might end in some menacing or even tear gas. The Arab protest, after police escalation resulted in what amounted to executions, according to numerous human rights groups, and specifically Physicians for Human Rights.

This is the most base racism. And that word is never applied to the situation in the United States media. Day after day this goes on, day after day Americans are fed lies about the brutal regime in Israel, which has been the world's worst human rights violator in the past year, by far.

This is why Jorn and so many others are frustrated. But does he mean what he says, and is he an anti-semite, or is he trying to provoke us due to the media blackout? I would like to believe the latter. Due to Jorn's links and endorsement of the likes of Noam Chomsky and Rabbit Lerner, I doubt Jorn doesn't understand the difference between Zionism, Israel, and Jews. While his methods are crude and maybe the slightest bit twisted, at least he has our attention.

-- Rich Goodman (rgoodman@well.org), December 28, 2000.

Jorn's headline was no accident - nor are his attempt to justify it unanticipated. See my article at http://www.mcs.net/~grossman/mjnk/mjnk0001.htm and the followup at http://www.mcs.net/~grossman/mjnk/mjnk0002.htm


-- Leonard Grossman (grossman@mcs.net), December 28, 2000.

1) Does Jorn really believe that he's asking a neutral question by singling out Jews in this way?

2) If you dislike the word "anti-Semitism," your beef is with the people who invented it. They weren't Jews: they were 19th-century Jew-haters who wanted to make their bigotry sound scientific.

3) Without doing lots of theology, I'll note that "Chosen People" is as close to "I've chosen you for a dangerous mission behind enemy lines" as to "I've chosen you to be the heir to my fortune."

4) Why do you think anyone not an Israeli citizen has special responsibility for Israeli policy? Do Muslims outside Afghanistan have more responsibility that the rest of us for opposing genocide?

5) You have the responsibility you choose to take on. You aren't doing a very good job of it.

-- Vicki Rosenzweig (vr@redbird.org), December 28, 2000.


First, my commendations on even hosting this forum. This certainly takes courage and a committment to intellectual honesty.

I for one would like to see a viable peace agreement in the next few days. Israel is a reality. And despite the severe misgivings I have about it - and its racist treatment of its own arab citizens, its failures to uphold the ideals of its own constitution, and its unwillingness, as a society, to recognize the significant amount of blood on its hands - I am hopeful that one day in my lifetime Israel and Palestine will both be prosperous and cooperative.

That said, I want to address point 5.

The US has had a special affinity for Israel. If it wasn't for direct US military aid, Israel would have lost the 3 day war (cite: Kissinger). Why do we, as a nation, have such a special affinity for a pariah nation which threatens our most essential import (oil)?

For two reasons. First, Israel has always maintained an active and vocal lobby within the US. There is nothing wrong with this... as always, our foreign policy is dictated by domestic politics (re: the discrepencies between our treatment of Cuba vs. China). However, I do know one brave soul who dared to write a letter to the editor criticizing US support of Israel at the expense of the human rights violations of the Palestinians. He received several death threats because thereafter.

Second, is religion. Many Americans are Christians. And many Christians, especially Southern Baptists, hold the view that the coming of Armageddon cannot occur unless Jerusalem is in Jewish hands, and the Temple is restored. As a group, therefore, the Christian Right sees support of Israel as a priority - which is why George W. Bush in the debates spoke as strongly as he did about the need to maintain Israeli security.

No, the US media turns a blind eye to Israel's atrocities just as it turns a blind eye to the inherent insanity in the fervently held religious views of a substantial part of the American public. Think on it: how crazy is it to fervently hope for the end of the world, for judgement day... It smacks of pride and forlorn hope.

Best to you, and to the other posters.

-- Sean Hurley (sdhurley@cindydrew.com), December 28, 2000.

Isn't it amazing how many racists stand up--and use quotes from their own religion--to "prove" that they are not racist.

Uh, huh.

Racists are racists. Whether they are Chinese, Jewish or Christian Conservative Republican.

Any questions?

-- Timothy Leery (arid_zone_ah1@hotmail.com), December 28, 2000.

The question has been answered, time and time again in at least the past 30 years.

To suggest that an entire demographic worth of people are the same, philosophically or culpably, as any subset of that demographic -- that all Jews are lawless racists, that all Irish are drunkards, that all black people like fried chicken, or that all computer geeks go on shooting sprees -- is to sterotype. It results from prejudice against the group, and is therefore, yes, racist.

Similarly, the remainder of your questions (i.e. those which don't make erratic leaps of identification) lack any acknowledgement of the expansive social debates that have dealt with their topics. Either you have deliberately ignored those debates, or you somehow have never come across them. Instead of providing you my summary of those debates, I would recommend you seek them out and at least be aware of the ground that has already been covered, and of the arguments that have no need to be rehashed here.

Lastly, to summarily discredit your critics precludes any possibility of you actually receiving their input in a constructive fashion. This is likely why you have been accused of being dis-ingenuous; one wonders what could be said that would counter your inferred argument that you would not discredit.


-- Keith D. Tyler (romulus@jerky.net), December 28, 2000.

I am writing a second time to make an apology, In my posted letter aboive I had noted that the British paper The Times had called Jews racists in their headline. I was in error. The article dealt with the issue that Israeli soldier were targeting known terrorists (hey, we would not do that to Bin Laden!). But Jorn, offering a link to this piece, titled his link Is Judaism Racist? and of course later changed his title to suggsest that it seemed impossible to have civilized discourse with Jews. My ex wife is Jewish. Jorn is right about here. There was little civilized discourse. My present wife is Jewish. Lots of loving and civilized discourse. Would love to learn about poor Jorn's upbringing that he can so readily dismiss an entire people, with of course the exception of those few he likes because they agree with his political postions (Lerner, Chomsky)...hey, some of my best friends are radicals too.

-- Fred Lapides (Postroad@hotmail.com), December 28, 2000.

> Note that it's a question, not an assertion. Are there really any > questions that just shouldn't be asked?

I validate the perspective that one ought to be suspicious when someone contends certain questions shouldn't be asked. Usually such a perspective is extensively bound up with reinforcing an existing paradigm and keeping anomalous, troubling aspects of reality outside of conscious awareness. However, I only validate this up to a point some questions ought *not* be asked because the way they are framed can only disserve the truth-revealing intent of questioning.

It is true that the prompt I found objectionable was a question, not an assertion. However, questions are not value-neutral any more than "facts" are value-neutral. Ideology consists of value judgments in the guise of statements of facts. Questions, too, can frame value judgments. An insinuation can be very much present in a question, even while providing the rhetorician who devised it a foxhole into which to dive to escape the charge that he has made a value-laden assertion.

-- Max Taylor (Lmax@together.net), December 29, 2000.

I, too, felt a twinge and said "whoa" when I saw the annotation to the link in question. It made me want to read that article. I didn't know if it was Jorn's perspective or the perspective of the article's author. I wanted to read the article to find out.

That's important. The article made me think about politics and Israel and certain double standards in the USA. It made me discuss the situation with friends in a concerned and hopefully intellectual fashion. It made me question both the issues, the article itself, and the annotation. It has also made me question this web log and the bibliographic value of blogs in general.

I don't agree with the rhetorical nature of the question and its oversimplification. But it made me think. We're not here to solve each others' struggles. Jorn Barger has his own stuff to question and explore, just as I do, as we all do. Blogs have the limitation and benefit (both, paradoxical as it may seem) of being the work of a single person, usually. There's no editor but THE editor/ writer/ producer/ etc. who takes the time and energy to put the thing together. I see now that when issues relating to Judaism, Israel, and the like are covered or linked to on Robotwisdom.com, I'll have to use the proverbial grain of salt when reading, and consider the attitudes and issues carefully.

The other result of this conflict has been a wealth of online information about Israel, Judaism, and Zionism collected at this site and linked or listed. I don't think this was Jorn's intent, but it was certainly a valuable result. This conference discussion brings to light a number of issues, and offers a place for new explorations to begin. Extreme views are listed and discussed here, emotions have been distilled into usually lucid and compelling statements which sometimes become arguments or testimonies.

I am finishing a masters degree in literature. I have done research on the bibliographic value and role of web logs for course work during the completion of this degree. I have had to research and decipher many schools of literary criticism and philosophy. With robotwisdom.com we have some issues, it seems, with authorial intent vs. reader response, at the very least. The whole site could be deconstructed, viewed from a Marxist and/or Feminist perspective, or taken in a post-colonial light. This is a hypertextual hybrid of newsclippings, journalism, bibliography and personal commentary. There's no "right" way to read this web log, and there's no wrong way for Jorn Barger to write it. We, as readers, have signed on for the duration of our "hit" and we're stuck with Jorn's pithy and revealing taglines if we want to see what he's surfed around and served up for us.

I teach first year composition at the University I attend. I use the second half of the year to challenge my students and expose them to different ideas and ideologies, then try to empower them to decide for themselves. This issue has just become part of my syllabus for the upcoming semester, and this page will probably be required reading for the class. Sometimes rhetoric and argument go out the window when emotions and identity come into play or are called into question. Hopefully some of my students will attack some of these issues in their own research papers this Spring.

The real question above, though, is ironic. It's not the point at all, in some ways, of the entire page or argument.

"What is racism?"

Funny thing is that most of the discussion isn't distinguishing between Racism, prejudice, bias, discrimination, hatred, fear, and stereotyping. These words all have distinct meanings, but media misuse and a lack of understanding of -isms in general have mingled and mangled all these words until they come to pretend to the same meaning, but result only in emotional outrage and confusion. Most of this discussion has been about hate, prejudice, and fear. These lead to discrimination and stereotypes. Racism is an ideology and a system based on power, at least as a sociological definition.

"Race" in point 2 is also misrepresented as being "genetic." Race is a social construct. We are all homo sapiens. Pigmentation and other variations in appearance are miniscule differences biologically which have been made prominent by social biases.

But my semantics don't really do much to solve the problems in Israel and Palestine, and throughout the world. They do, however, hopefully help readers and writers of online and print material express more clearly their opinions (which we see here), their beliefs (which is often a rather fine line distinction), and the facts.

Thanks for the brainfood, folks. And for reassuring me that people really give a damn.


-- Matt Duncan (chaospiral@excite.com), December 29, 2000.

Is Christianity an inherently anti-Judaic religion? Perhaps that is the question to be asked.

Your question and comments are offensive, so you are hardly in a position to squawk about "polite discourse".

For 2 millennia Christians have looted, disenfanchised, raped and murdered Jews with impunity. Christian doctrine allowed the maintenance of non-Christian slaves until after World War II.

The Lutheran Church has still not fully come to terms with the damage of Martin Luther's last book, "On the Jews and Their Lies," an anti-Semitic tract that advocated setting fire to synagogues and their congreagations on Yom Kippur. This little tome was distributed free by the Third Reich to defend anti-Jewish genocide, and went through 6 printings.

It is only after Vatical II in the 1960s that the Baltimore Catechism was replaced in teaching Catholic children and converts.

As for the "Chosen People" why don't you investigate what that is all about for yourself.

I find a religion that damns all members of other faiths to eternal damnation, as Christianity does, no matter how pious and decent these Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Hindues, Sikhs, may be, inherently teaches that they are supreme and the only ones G-d loves, saves and redeems.

Maybe you should do a little research on what Judaism teaches. My G-d does not deny you...

Don't mix your anti-Zionism with my faith, please. Too many--far too many--Jews have been murdered in this century alons.

Stop being ignorant and read some Jewish history and theology written by Jewish scholars, not be anti-Semites. You might learn something.

-- Sandi Steinberg (sandirs@hotmail.com), December 29, 2000.

Many of the more extreme responses here seem to me like examples of the collapse of political thinking into psychodrama. It's like that Doonesbury about the trial of Madame Mao where the defense examination of the main witness goes something like: "Earlier, you referred to the defendant as a murderous cur. Now you're calling her a larcenous cockroach. Which is it, Miss Huan, is she a cockroach or a cur?" Wow, wotta argument.

Come on, folks, you can't dismiss discussion with ad hominem attacks and you can't destroy an argument's credibility by finding a simple binary contradiction . . . unless you're not interested in a rational discussion at all, in which case what ARE you doing here, other than wasting your time?

Life is complex, you probably all know that, filled with contradiction, and I hope you can cope with it.

(See Phil Agre on the new jargon and its corrosive effect on civil liberties and rational discussion: . Of course if someone labels him an antisemite then I suppose you won't have to read it, will you?)

-- W Tenino (tenino@booksatoz.com), December 29, 2000.

In response to the partisan Jew who suggested "Stop being ignorant and read some Jewish history and theology written by Jewish scholars..", I must suggest that YOU are being ignorant.

If you think the persecution of Jews in the past justifies the Theological State of Israel to continue it's racist policies towards the Non-Jewish...

...you're just as ignorant and racist as the Powers That Continue Racism based on some arcane and Wrong Hebrew Religious Doctrine of "We're Jews...we're Special and You're NOT" in Israel government.

-- Timothy Leery (arid_zone_ah1@hotmail.com), December 29, 2000.

This entire page demonstrates the "more heat than light" hypothesis. Put another way: If you start with a rhetorical punch in the face you're likely to end up with a brawl.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

-- Ned Humphrey (nhumphrey@agora-inc.com), December 29, 2000.

I don't know if there are questions that shouldn't be asked; but that's not really the issue. The way the question is phrased is inflammatory. There are better ways of getting at the truth--asking "Is Jorn Barger really a stupid asshole?" is not a good way of really seeking an answer as to how smart and well-meaning Jorn Barger really might be.

You also are conflating the State of Israel and Judaism, which is a logical error. Personally, I think it's high time there was a UN (or World Court, or whatever) investigation into the Israeli's use of live ammunition against the Palestinians. I don't think that necessarily condemns Judaism, any more than the Holocaust condemns Christianity, though.

Your later comments equating "stupid" and "crackpot" with "disingenuous" are interesting. The first two are clearly invective (although to my mind they really fall below the threshold for intimidation that you claim); the last one is NOT invective. It's simply a description; an adjective characterizing the tone of your argument. False it may be, but I don't think it's an insult.

Lastly. There's a hell of a lot of difference between your inflammatory "headline" and your well-thought out 5 questions. You're too smart to have done this by accident--looking for a little publicity for robotwisdom,

-- Adam Shinbrot (shinbrot@workmail.com), December 29, 2000.

>1. Note that it's a question, not an assertion. Note: You could also ask a similar question about Islam, but you were only asking about Judaism. So it's ok to bomb Israeli school buses and to motivate this with Jihad? Does the question show any bias of the guy who was asking ???

>2. The term 'anti-semitism' unfortunately blurs the distinction >between attacking a race (genetic, unchangeable) and attacking an >ideology If you were 'only asking' about ideology then the proper name is Zionism, i guess you are aware of the differences. Incidentially the UN resolution that equates Zionism with Racism was dropped.

>If swastikas are illegal symbols of hate-crime, why not Stars >of David now, as well? How is one genocide less culpable than another? Killing armed terrorist does not go for genocied - unless you only see one side of the conflict.

>In what sense do Jews who disapprove of these policies share special >responsibility for them? I am living in Israel, and I think that ever since the lynching of Israelis in Ramallah more people approve of them, since there is nobody to talk to. The Palestinians had to be prepared with a lot of hate propaganda for such deads.

>What responsibility do >webloggers and or US Jews have to pursue greater balance in this >coverage? One move that would make sense - boycot Jorns weblog.

-- Michael Moser (michael.m@sapiens.com), December 30, 2000.

In response to W Tenino -- I have read Phil Agre on the new jargon. This discussion makes me realize that this jargon is not particularly new. The technique of using insiduous rhetoric to smear your opponents is at least as old as classic 19th century antisemitism, and Jorn's remarks fall squarely into this tradition. (For example: smearing Judaism and then, faced with angry but mostly polite responses, claim that Jews are "incapable of polite discourse").

It's sad to see that an interesting mind has been infected by these pernicious ideas.

-- Mike Travers (mtravers@mindspring.com), December 30, 2000.

It seems to me that Jorn originally posted the headline in question, in reaction to what he saw (and I agree) as a horrifically inappropriate way of dealing with so-called terrorist acts (Palestinians throwing rocks) by the Israeli Government (shooting back with live ammo). An oversimplification, maybe, but it IS truly outrageous. I feel that ALL of us, as human beings, have a responsibility to EACH OTHER to bring up issues like this: /group_A/ violently persecutes /group_B/... AS THEY OCCUR! Especially when media outlets put a definite slant on coverage...

So while I may not defend Jorn's particular choice of words, I do defend anyone's right to say any non-hateful thing they want to say about whatever!

Then again, Jorn may have chosen those particular words for the specific purpose of stirring-things-up... since I have never seen him express anything before that I would consider even vaguely racist, quite the contrary.

I have to wonder if the flak he is taking is largely "I know you are but what am I?!" childishness. Exposing the undercurrents of racism, in those that may not actually consider themselves 'racist'... only, ahem, "superior"...

As far as lumping all Jews in together, that is a bit off-the-mark, although I also have to ask, where IS the vocal (minority?) that oppose the actions of the Israeli Government? It is well known that Judaism's religious leaders have a very powerful sway over the government, so if the shoe fits... Then again, I could say the same thing about the US... on slightly different issues, though religion seemingly isn't a factor here... just plain 'ol greed.

Of course, as many have pointed out, I can't think of too many religions that DON'T have a basic "we're better than everyone else" complex. They exist, you just generally don't hear about them. Probably because they're busy doing their thing, not persecuting others... I often wonder what God thinks about all this.

So, MY question then, is: "Is religion just an excuse for one group to laud it over everyone else?"

I think the Asimov quote was _quite_ appropriate, not to mention right-on. (Don't you just love Asimov?)

Or maybe I'm not qualified to discuss this since I don't uh, "subscribe", to any religion...

-- Erik Stackhouse (erik@holistictech.net), December 30, 2000.

Back to the question . . . .

Are Jews Incapable of . . . ? ?

If Jorn had asked , " Are the Irish Incapable of . . . " , as an Irishman , I would have said , "Hell yeah ! !" I wouldn'ta been whinin about the question . See . . . there's only one single reason to exist, in the first place. To Learn , , , , to discern , . . . . the TRUTH . Without TRUTH , there is no reason to exist. As Jew , as Irish , as Catholic or Bhudda . Or Islam . Or X-tian . ( That'll piss off the X-tians ! ! ) My view on X-tianity : Themestreams Articles Scroll down to 'Christianity - Misconceptions', if you want .

ALL 'mental illness' is caused by denying the TRUTH .

As are all the problems in the Middle East . What is the TRUTH about Israel and the 'Palestinians' ? The Jews were kicked out of Israel in about 70 AD by the Romans . Because , the emperor said , they were 'Not Governable' .

The 'Palestinians' , by default , then occupied the land for the next 2,000 years. Ergo , the Jews lost ALL TITLE and CLAIM to any and all property in 'Palestine' and 'Israel' ceased to exist . For 2,000 years ! !

The truth is that the Jews are suing volkswagen, Swiss Banks, Canadian banks , American banks - - and anybody they can get their teeth into, for 'property' taken from them during and before WWII . Now , here's a jewel of a twist : The companys that are now being sued by the Jews are now - - - and some were then - - owned or controlled by Jews ! !

Well , the Palestinians are , in effect , suing the Jews for 'property' the Jews took from them - - by force - - in 1948 . Their very homes . Their property . Their Country . - - - - anybody wanta argue about that statement ? ?

If the Jews can sue - - and win - - for their losses , why can the 'Palestinians' not sue the Jews for their property, taken by force in 1948 ???

And , that is why the answer to Jorn's posted question is, 'yes' .

-- russ conner (carcomp@qwest.net), December 30, 2000.

Don't click that goddamm 'Themestreams' link . Don't work . Sorry . Their doing , not mine. ------russ

-- russ conner (carcomp@qwest.net), December 30, 2000.

The previous poster asked, "where IS the vocal (minority?) that oppose the actions of the Israeli Government?"

There are many Jews who oppose some of the actions of the Israeli government. One such organization is "Not In My Name" which recently organized rallys in front of Tribune Tower. Their website can be found at http://www.notinmyname.org . Others can be found in the Israel section of my Lengthy List of Jewish Links htttp://www.mcs.net/~grossman/jewish.html.

One reason you don't hear more about such groups is that antisemites frequently point to such groups and to legitimate criticism of Israel to justify their poisonous bilge, not unlike the way in which an apparently legitimate story alleging horrific policies in dealing with the intifadah was distorted by Jorn's headline - the implication of which was not born out by the story, even if the article is accurate.


-- Leonard Grossman (grossman@mcs.net), December 30, 2000.

Christianity - Misconceptions should work .

-- russ conner (carcomp@uswest.net), December 30, 2000.

didnt work. I give up . Last attempt, - I promise. http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/author/view_author_info.gsp?aut h_id=36100

-- russ conner (carcomp@uswest.net), December 30, 2000.

the answer to both of your 'questions,' jorn, is an emphatic NO. that is: judaism is not a racist religion and jews are indeed capable of polite discourse. however, given that you apparently dont know or agree that violence is a legitimate response to deadly attack, i'm not surprised that you'd also be taken aback by "impolite" responses to your bilious, leading and mock-innocent 'questions.' personally, i'd take 'impolite + open-minded' over 'polite + bigoted' any day...

-- d.j. turim (djturim@hotmail.com), December 31, 2000.

While Jews are not incapable of polite discourse, as many of your respondents generously demonstrate, it is almost a truism that ideologues are so incapable. And the worst ideologues, and rudest discoursers, are monotheists of all stripes.

Observant Jews, practicing Catholics, witnessing Protestants, and faithful Muslims are all prone to illiberal, paranoid hostility. I believe that that is because the god they all worship, Yahweh as he has revealed himself in their scriptures, is himself a paranoid, cowardly, misogynistic, megalomaniac being who is unworthy of worship by anyone who aspires to decency and goodness. Whether you call him Yahweh, God the Father, or Allah, he is the same god; he is mad, and he has driven his believers mad, and their madness threatens to engulf the world.



-- Leslie O. Segar (los@wmblake.com), December 31, 2000.

Whether you call him Yahweh, God the Father, or Allah, he is the same god; he is mad, and he has driven his believers mad, and their madness threatens to engulf the world

Woah. While I may not think highly of religions, and I do think that Yahweh is a total and complete bastard... (Although I am rather suspicious that the character depicted in the old testament was as mortal as you and I) I must strongly disagree that all conceptions of God are dangerous. Only PRESCRIBED conceptions of God have danger potential. In reality there IS a god, and he/she/it/they is/are whatever we truly want he/she/it/them to be! A relationship with God is exactly that. One-on-one, if one's sole connection to God comes from a book, there's a problem.

-- Erik Stackhouse (erik@holistictech.net), December 31, 2000.

>Are there really any questions that just shouldn't be asked? Yes. A question based on a false premise probably shouldn't be asked. Other than that I don't think so. Not asking a question because some people may find it offensive is bowing to fear.

-- David Gentle (davidgentle26@freeuk.com), January 01, 2001.

Bluntly? I was really WOUNDED by the question "Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?" Hurt. Upset.

I think it's the word "SIMPLY" that feels so vicious. If Judaism is "simply" a religion of racists, then it is implied that all followers of Judaism are racist. (Fill in the blank: Are _____'s simply _________?)

Here's a rephrasing of the question as a Jew might hear it: Is the faith of your parents and your grandparents and your ancestors NOTHING but a religion of hatred and illegality. Yes, hatred and misdeeds have plagued Judaism. I wonder whether any religion has been without crimes and hatred. But to ask whether it is *SIMPLY* a religion of hatred and crime is to demean generations of believers.

I hope it was unintentional, but it seems disingenuous to cloak an implied assertion in a question. I wonder if the writer realized how painful it would be to those who are Jewish. Especially those who agonize over the situation in the Middle East.

One can parse the question down to neutral words, but every reader can hear the anger in this query. The fury may be justified, but one sense that the hurtful message is almost intended as a source of pain. A revenge for a perceived injustice.

Say it ain't so, Jorn.

-- Henry Tenenbaum (soundbyte@home.net), January 01, 2001.

Since there has been so much verbiage beside the point I will repeat what I said at the beginning.

1. Most Jews don't live in Israel. 2. Most Israelis are secular - their lives, politics, etc are not dictated by the tenets of orthodox Judaism.

Therefore, when someone finds a news story about the Israeli military having an unannounced shoot-to-kill policy towards Palestinian resistance leaders, and they tag the story

"Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?"

then they have asked a stupid and needlessly inflammatory question. There is no excuse to be found by saying it's "only a question," because its premise is a cracked and warped mirror of the underlying situation. The "answer" to the question, if one were insisted upon, would be "No, Judaism is not simply a religion of lawless racists, and this question has nothing to do with the story pointed to, since the Israeli military is an agressively secular institution which doesn't ask the rabbis whom to shoot, and which will cheerfully blow you away no matter what your skin color or prayer book looks like if you appear to be threatening the safety of the state it's sworn to protect."

And when one then points to the across-the-board firestorm of criticism levelled at the first stupid question with another stupid question,

"Are Jews incapable of polite discourse?"

then the suspicion that one has Jews On The Brain seems confirmed.

I don't know whether we are going to get some kind of Weblog Checkers speech out of the low-output Mr. Barger here - "you ingrates never understood me" - but if so, it will be a waste of breath. I faithfully read the logs of many people whose attitudes towards Jews and other groups I know nothing about, and I'll continue to read Robot Wisdom even if it turns out that its proprietor is an unconscious anti-Semite. Many people are anti-Semitic, it's a big problem. Nothing will excuse it in this case, however, except directly dealing with the question raised rather than shunting it aside or upping the name-calling ante.

-- Anser (anser@pobox.com), January 01, 2001.

Mr Anser : Interesting name . Only missing the 'W'. You build an impeccable case that the phrasing of the question is insufficiently specific .

1. Most Jews don't live in Israel. Of course that's true . But , that fact was not a factor in my thoughts as to answering the question , as posed . Like Jorn , I automatically assumed that he was referring to the general populace of Israel , as a whole . Orthodox , military , gov't , citizenry , and so forth . - - NOT the City of London Real Estate office , nor the 45th St diamons brokers of NYC . Or is it 43rd St ? ? ? I forget . It's been a while . Nor did Wall Street and Madison Ave ocurr(sp?) to me .

But of course , these Jews , being 'secular' have no legal basis for establishing any claim whatsoever on the territory of Israel in the first place . Since 'these Jews' have no LEGAL claim to the territory of Israel , the BBC's question - - not to mention Jorn's - - would not exist .

2. Most Israelis are secular - their lives, politics, etc are not dictated by the tenets of orthodox Judaism . Since there has been so much verbiage beside the point I will repeat what I said at the beginning.

By your leave , then , I will repeat parts of what I have said here , previous . (couple clicks up) The Jews were kicked out of Israel in about 70 AD by the Romans . Because , the emperor said , they were 'Not Governable' . Also , a LEGAL act of the Roman government .

The 'Palestinians' , by default , then occupied the land for the next 2,000 years. Ergo , the Jews lost all LEGAL TITLE and CLAIM to any and all property in 'Palestine' ; . . . and 'Israel' ceased to exist . For 2,000 years ! !

" . . . since the Israeli military is an agressively secular institution which doesn't ask the rabbis whom to shoot, and which will cheerfully blow you away no matter what your skin color or prayer book looks like if you appear to be threatening the safety of the state it's sworn to protect."

' . . . . THE STATE it's sworn to protect . " HMmmmmnnn .

ANY state of Israel has one - - and only one - - justification to exist . Interestingly , that justification is recorded in the beliefs of Islam , Judaism , and Christianity .

Islam , Judaism , and Christianity , ALL , accept the Pentatuch . The first five books of the bible .

LEGALLY . . . by secular law . . . the Jews have no right to the territory of Israel . Roman secular law supercedes.

The only right that the Jews can claim to the territory of modern Israel is biblical . God gave it to Abraham .

A fact recognised and accepted by all three religious groups .

So , if you are a 'secular' Jew , you have no LEGAL claim, under law , on the territory .

The question Jorn has posed concerns the secular state of Israel .

Is it , and its citizenry and advocates , Incapable of polite discourse ?

Would seem so . Would seem that the Gentiles are not the only ones that have been 'dumbed down' by the NEducationalA (NEA) .

-- russ conner (carcomp@qwest.net), January 01, 2001.

"Anser" is missing a "W" in the same sense that "russ" is missing a "T," i.e. you could add another letter and make a different word, but that is not the derivation.

For the record I have absolutely no idea what mr. conner thinks or doesn't think about Israel, and I don't care -- not here. In an appropriate forum, if I thought there was something to discuss, I would do so with eager interest. This is NOT an appropriate forum because it was created as a figleaf to divert attention from a bizarrely bigoted question in Robot Wisdom. To debate the ins and outs of Israeli policy here would be to concede the diversion, which I will not do.

(I will say, though, since it addresses the issue of the underlying news item, that this shoot-to-kill policy strikes me as unwise and immoral, and it will undoubtedly be repayed in blood with interest, which is why it's important that it be brought to light as the news article did.)

The only thing that matters HERE is that a respected weblogger has inadvertently revealed that on a topic of notable controversy and sensitivity, he has his head up his ass. And that he is prepared to act to preserve the craniorectal posture without the inconvenience of actually recognizing it.

My earlier remarks were dedicated exclusively to the argument that Jorn's questions themselves were foolish, obtuse and possibly anti- Semitic; any attempt at their exegesis for other purposes is a waste of electrons.

-- Anser (anser@pobox.com), January 02, 2001.

I agree with the folks on this thread who have said that Jorn seems to have Jews-On-The-Brain syndrome, and don't want to waste philg's disk space by repeating their arguments. I especially appreciate the links that Leonard Grossman provided regarding Shahak's credentials as a commentator on Jewish fundamentalism.

Arguments about Zionism (Should Israel, as a Jewish State, exist at all? If its existence is OK, does it have any right to continue occupying the land it took in the 1967 war?) always generate more heat than light. However, I'd be interested in a discussion about the conduct of this current war without bringing in the validity of Zionism itself. (After all, if Israel has no moral right to occupy the Gaza Strip, it doesn't matter how they're enforcing the occupation -- even if unarmed Israeli settlers were sitting around Arafat's headquarters with arms linked and singing "We Shall Overcome", they would be intruders.)

Specifically, here are some questions to ponder:

-- Seth Gordon (sethgordon@lucent.com), January 02, 2001.

Seth Gordon wrote: >> However, I'd be interested in a discussion about the conduct of this current war without bringing in the validity of Zionism itself. (After all, if Israel has no moral right to occupy the Gaza Strip, it doesn't matter how they're enforcing the occupation -- even if unarmed Israeli settlers were sitting around Arafat's headquarters with arms linked and singing "We Shall Overcome", they would be intruders.) <<

"The conduct of the current war" properly includes not just how Israel is conducting it, but how the Palestinians and other parties are conducting it. Israel's behavior is determined not just by its opponents' tactics and strategy, but by the exigencies of its own bitter internal politics, as well as the strictures laid upon it by its supporters (chiefly the US). One could say that given the impossibly overdetermined matrix of pitfalls, incentives, principles, urges, goals, fears and dangers invested in every square metre, column inch, human life and calendar page of Middle East history, they're not doing too terrible a job of muddling along. Or one could say they're doing a substandard job. Either way, nothing's going to improve permanently if the surrounding powers don't make peace.

>> What are the ethics of proportionate response in a war? <<

"Proportionate response" is a sales-pitch euphemism for what subsequently gets labelled as a human-rights violation if you actually engage in it. Rubber bullets, burning hooches, pepper spray, defoliation, and the rest of the evil-empire B-roll, were all introduced as "humane alternatives" to the simpler expedient of total warfare. On the streets of Gaza, a thrown cobblestone can kill. You cannot expect a trained infantryman to hunt around for rocks to throw back.

>> Under what circumstances is a person not currently bearing arms a legitimate target in wartime? <<

The question presupposes a standard of nicety that no longer pertains (if it ever did). Under the doctrine of total war in effect as long ago as 1942-1945, the question was not raised, as the nurses of Hiroshima could tell you. Each combatant today has to balance opprobrium in the court of world opinion (or its own internal political process if it has any) against the efficacy of dirty war against its opponents. The results of this choice vary between states and over time. It may sometimes be deemed "worth it" to get a burst of inexcusable atrocity out of your system and eliminate some annoying foes, in exchange for several years of contrition and "reform" -- while you enjoy the fruits of your naughtiness. Serbia might be considered a case in point here, as might Rwanda. In fact there were Germans who felt this way post 1945, abhorrent as it sounds.

>> A leader of Hamas, in an NPR interview, claimed that all Israeli Jews are subject to the draft, there is no such thing as an Israeli Jewish civilian -- they're all legitimate military targets. <<

Say what you will about Hamas, they don't f**k around. Believing they don't have the luxury of playing diplomatic patty-cake with the Israelis, they say the hell with world opinion and let's get this done. They are the kind of opponent the British used to exterminate with a respectful salute.

-- Anser (anser@pobox.com), January 02, 2001.

So fashionable this month to be anti-Zionist, anti- the notion that Jews are entitled to one measely nation, one safe harbor on this planet. There are dozens of Islamic countries, and dozens of Christian countries-- and Jews have suffered and been targetted as vulnerable populations in nearly all of these places. How heartless and ignorant must one be deny them the right to survive--and do what they must do in order to survive--in a land of their own?

-- d.j. turim (djturim@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

I sometimes wonder whether people actually read the question and/or the thread, or whether they just show up with a canned paragraph they've been waiting to unleash on the world.

It's hard to know which is more ludicrous: a story on the Israeli military's decidedly secular shoot-to-kill order for Hamas leaders receiving the Robot Wisom tag "Is Judaism simply a religion of lawless racists?", or someone responding to the same story with "So fashionable this month to be anti-Zionist..."

-- Anser (anser@pobox.com), January 04, 2001.

Nearly everyone is making a decent point here. Most delve into 'Zionism', 'Judaism' and all these other 'isms', but by now we must all realize (because of life experience as well as an understanding of human nature/communication) that ideology should not be the focal point of this discussion. It is really futile to discuss what our man Jorn REALLY believes in, ideology-wise. We'll never really know.

But Jorn's weblog speaks volumes about him. (I don't even need to get into the connection between a person and his/her work, be it artistic, whatever).

What I, and I suspect most readers, get from Robot Wisdom, is that Jorn is an intelligent, thoughtful, intellectually adventurous man who feels strongly about certain things including JUSTICE. In addition to giving us a feel of his sense of humor (and this actually is an important point), the weblog indicates that Jorn has a kind of disdain for the proper, institutional form of religion, which I think is understandable because quite simply, formal religion IS opium for the masses and a stumbling block towards any true peace in society/on the planet. Most of us NEED religion to deal with the meaning of life, plus religion is exploited by greedy, megalomaniacal people. Blah blah.

So what about that headline? OK, maybe it lacks tact, or maybe Jorn is not that articulate. We'll never know, but here's something to think about:

1. Jorn's weblog gives much information about the way his mind works. 2. Robot Wisdom doesn't seem to be a vile instrument of propaganda (like, say, the NYT). 3. It's pretty clear what he thinks about all the political, ideological issues you brought forth above, because you know whom he lends his intellectual support to (Chomsky, etc) and whom he 'despises' like Albright and Powell, so there's no need to try and see whether he's anti-this people or pro-that people. 4. His headlines probably reflect mental states in addition to the intellectual. Can't you accept that the controversial headline is loaded with Jorn's irony and sardonic attitude towards any kind of authority?

From the weblog you should know that he has a problem with the ISRAELI government's treatment of Arabs. And rightly so. The headline may have seemed inappropriate to most people, but that's because people are taking it personal. And they shouldn't. In the context of the weblog it makes perfect sense. ISRAEL is making a mockery of Judaism by shooting at hapless Arabs, and Jorn's headline is laden with the whole 'anti-authority and who-gave- you -the-authority theme', one of the themes of his weblog. So when he popped a headline for that link, I can imagine his mental states being emotion-heavy and out comes something that reflects a passion for justice but expressed in the usual way: Again, a bunch of assholes exploit religion. The thing is, the weblog deals mainly with America, and therefore he ends up dealing with Judaism or Jewry, because it is so high profile there and the past century. You don't hear his voice, you don't see his body language, you don't live in his head, so it's easy to talk about crap not worth talking about and think things about Jorn. Communication is difficult, I know, but think again about his weblog. You'll realize that he's no racist or jackass. If you want to spend energy damning racists and jackasses, don't look at those who have any position of power or authority (moral, political, whatever) near you.

I didn't have time to compose a high-quality message but I hope you get some of my points.


-- Howard Marks (albinice@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.

Sorry, did not edit well at the end: if you seek to damn racists and jackasses, then please find the closest person in power or considering him/herself a proper authority. that's what I meant.

Recap: Don't confuse passion in and the emotional content of the headline with racism or even stupidity. In the end it is semantic, in the philosophical sense of the word. We become more alert when seeing words such as 'black' or 'jew' but it is a sensitivity caused by American media culture. So look at the headline in relation to the underlying message of the weblog, and you'll understand that the headline is innocuous.

-- Howard Marks (albinice@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.

So Jorn is perhaps not what would usually be termed "anti-semitic."

But he may well be slightly anti-semantic.

-- Ned Humphrey (nhumphrey@agora-inc.com), January 05, 2001.

Well said , Mr Marks

-- russ conner (carcomp@qwest.net), January 06, 2001.


One wonders what discussive potential there is in using a question as a headline, on a weblog which (until now) has hardly any two-way communication.

The only way to explain Jorn's inflammatory headline as a vehicle for public discourse requires, IMHO, that you also suggest that when he posted that headline, he fully expected to create a message board for the topic, so as to promote said discourse. I put it to you that that was not any part of the motivation for the titling, because it makes no sense -- how often does RW have a discussion forum?

RW is simply not a two-way means of communication, until now. It's much more likely IMO that this message board exists as a means to redirect the angry mail Jorn has received as a result.

I seriously doubt whether Jorn has revisited this page since he left the comment on 12/27 dismissing his respondents as belligerent rhetoricians. Even if one accepts that Jorn was simply trying to spawn discussion, he certainly doesn't appear to want to be a part of it.

-- Keith D. Tyler (romulus@jerky.net), January 08, 2001.

Well put, Howard Marks. Context.

Good point, Keith Tyler, though, that Jorn hasn't taken part in things since the formation of the forum.

But to support Howard and take issue with something Keith Tyler said:

I have to wonder if, in the context of the web, and the more specific WEBLOG community, and in light of online communication in general, if one cannot consider that ALL communication is two-way. No, RobotWisdom is not a forum for discussion, but the Web CAN BE a forum, ESPECIALLY in the form of blogging. Bloggers read and respond to one another all the time. So do politicians. Newspapers or reporters. Famous and infamous people. Religions.

And speaking of blogging, that rhymes with flogging, and the ISSUES of racism & anti-Zionism & anti-semitism aren't a dead horse, but that little headline might be.

What's happening on Robot Wisdom now? What's happening in Israel now? How many people just come back to this page for something to be pissed about?

I consider myself warned that I should consider the taglines on RobotWisdom carefully before I "buy into" the ideas they represent.

-- Matthew Duncan (chaospiral@excite.com), January 09, 2001.

All mono-isms are racist, bigot and nonco-operative, and that includes money ever since the good ol days of monies (1000 in Holland's golden age circulating; each note specific enough to be part of an ongoing education); I have a few books tucked away somewhere about Judaic ecologisms but haven't had heart to start reading it. When I think of eco and mono together I start seeing deserts, extending all the time, not a nice idea.

Now, I just read in some other part of this forum I guess, a ref by this fella called chess@theogony.com or something (can't find it again yet) that a link to writs claiming Jews are really egyptians passed this way, I am wondering if that leads to the same body of knowledge connected with the plural analyst Theaux who makes much of an identicality of (brace yourselves) Moses, Oedipus and Akhnaton.

Other than than if you should go ogle me and jews up you're likely to get a few fat hits; I have been guilty of trying to adress a sectionfractionfaction of Jewishness with that admittedly too general and simplistically generalizing word myself but make up for it as often (as not).

-- piet bouter (pensievepiet@netscape.net), January 10, 2001.

google results 'poetpiet jews': poetpiet's fifth linklist Poetpiet's /fifth_linklist.htm Other (only partly hypered)(more recent ... about the stuff nazi's stole off of jews under the heading: economic warfare without a ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/fifth_linklist.htm - 52k - Cached - Similar pages

Hamaker's 1985 comments on (then) current climate and ... ... the beginning of december 98 Go see what else poetpiet can puzzle you with here ... matters of law and justice?" "Certain rich Jews perceived what he was up to and ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/guest_appearances/1985_Hamaker_tectonic-c limate_comments.htm - 92k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from members.tripod.com ]

mmmm, that's a whole lot less than I expected; let's see what else I can scare up for yus .. .. .. . .

poetpiet jewish:

Poetpiet's correspendence file contents ... you reach lopping everything after /poetpiet/ from wherever you are around here ... depositionist: Kevin Macdonald and Jewish Bolshevism expert Josef Schuesslburner ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/correspondence_file_contents.htm - 65k - Cached - Similar pages

poetpiet's fifth linklist Poetpiet's /fifth_linklist.htm Other (only partly hypered)(more ... rename this category: extent of bad jewish consciences.....just kidding : ) deja.com/~weblogs ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/fifth_linklist.htm - 52k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from members.tripod.com ]

poetpiet und etwaige Korrespondenten auf Deutsch ... nennt man Kamel ;-) qwellenreitersaftschleussler poetpiet: her mit unsere Berglandschaft ... 97-112 (Orig.: Nietzsche and Jewish Culture, 1997; Übersetzer: Helmut ... members.tripod.lycos.nl/vadercats/auf_Deutsch.htm - 77k - Cached - Similar pages

The Golden Carriage ... back to the hotel, I said goodnight to PoetPiet, and then when into the bar since I ... Forget it! Look at me. I am a Jewish single mother. I need to be supported ... genesis.ne.mediaone.net/~neutopia/intimacy.html - 92k - Cached - Similar pages

Untitled ... however, I view the flag as a Jewish person would view a swastika. What are my ... the best to our making a fist. poetpiet A'dam, Holland ... www.hookele.com/netwarriors/guestbook.html - 80k - Cached - Similar pages

for those capecultculpable of a cargojargon called Dutch: over_bevrijdende_markt_van_photosynthese_en_mezelf ... over plantaardige contrasten tussen licht en donker. Joods verkeer gaat niet alleen erg ver ... internalinkrich as) 2+3+4+5 aim responses at: poetpiet@hotbot.com. members.tripod.lycos.nl/vadercats/bevrijdende_markt_van_photosynthese. htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

poetpiet jew: http://members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/fifth_linklist.htm (52K) (about 2 years old) reads in part: weblogs: Open directory project I sent'm the following as a submission: title of site: solutions for uncivil centralizations; description: Ruminations, rants and high gloss, deep polish, plurally pigmented prose poetrees, propositions and expoundings of prime and indeed primal sources to dissolve various problem areas with. ....I don't think they started listing me after last time I tried; I'm probably too jew critical for people who offer reams of hype ...ar sorry facts of course about the stuff nazi's stole off of jews under the heading: economic warfare without a mention of how some jews got so immensely out of all proportion rich nor how they made their 'clientele' part with and/or cough up all that wealth, nor why, if all their doings have so many public uses and voluntarizing benefits following in the wake of their wheedling and doodling, those same people are not simply grateful instead of 'envious'. Are they in the world but not for the world still???? And if so why? You can breed almost anything out of dogs. What are they shooting for anyway????? This paricular entry is one of four in that category which in turn is a sub of the 260 or so about war. By way of comparison: socially responsible investing carries over 600 entries and tops the list; we should praps rename this category: extent of bad jewish consciences.....just kidding : )

That ought to got you started. perhaps I'll add a few more, about that strange diggin and grubbin in ages past. The argument I remember (from the little I have followed this up) is that Jews had a lot of help from Egypt to take a troublesome colony of theirs over; that leaves unanswered wether and if so how many times for how long that colony had previously suffered hostile takeovers but oh well one just can't know it all can one now? lemme add a few extra buffering cushions: ?????????????????????????

poetpiet plural analysis:

poetpiet's second miscellany (99 correspondence) ... http://members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/heavy_heaves_for_Madonna_and_other _personalia.htm. ... table of critical analysis. It is even ... and not a plural or feminine deity ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/second_miscellany.htm - 84k - Cached - Similar pages

this_cussing_joyce s_woike ... as) 2+3+4+5 aim responses at: poetpiet@hotbot.com In other ... making a quite accurate analysis of several keys he's ... a way that singular and plural such as a noun ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/list_posts/this_cussing_joyce_his_woike.h tm - 58k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from members.tripod.com ]

Whoops, not what I had in mind, lemme try again

poetpiet theaux: members.aol.com/ankhemmaat/contents.htm work by Rohl, purportedly resembles and extends that of the earlier noted Theaux (Osman, Pope, pluralist psych.) members.tripod.com/poetpiet/logalonglongtermlongings.htm - 94k -

theaux moses akhnaton: Theaux' summaries Part.1 ATON ... THE TRUE IDENTITY OF MOSES AND OEDIPUS The Triple Identification of Moses, and Oedipus, as Akhnaton - by William Theaux (in 1985) based on Freud and Velikovsky. ... www.akhnaton.com/temp/ospro/wtsuma.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Akhnaton, the true identity of Moses and Oedipus ... Zenon Kelper - Editor : Leona Termini-Theaux. Visit eMail Training, Support ... policies and strategies The Akhnaton mystery (Moses) The "double" mystery of ... www.akhnaton.com/8artic/8akh.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.akhnaton.com ]

monotheism / Abraham/Ibrahim/Zoroaster / Jacob/Akhenaton/Moses/ ... ... William Theaux, Akhnaton, Moses, Oedipus - an evolving INTERNET site (English and French): http://www.akhnaton.com(e-mail: cybek@idt.net ). ... www.solami.com/A1~1.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Oedipus and Akhnaton ... (Dr. Theaux subscribes to the view that Oedipus=Akhnaton=Moses and that 1350 BC is a good date for all three.). ... www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/vel/oedipus.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

monotheism / Abraham/Ibrahim/Zoroaster / Jacob/Akhenaton/Moses/ ... ... William Theaux, Akhnaton, Moses, Oedipus - an evolving INTERNET site (English and French): http://www.akhnaton.com (e-mail: cybek@idt.net ) Barbara Thiering ... www.gic.ch/git/A1~1.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Egyptological identification of Moses ... about the Historical Characters : Akhnaton, Moses, Oedipus, Triple Hermes, Pages about the discoverers : Freud, Lacan, Velikovsky I & II, Osman I & II, Theaux. ... www.dnafoundation.com/members/akh/8artic/8osm.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Continuing conversation - ZORASTRE & MONOTHEISM ... http://dialog.net:85/homepage/apeiron.htm. The way in which Theaux's identification of Moses, Akhnaton and Oedipus is interesting is that there is a fundmental ... www.dnafoundation.com/members/akh/corresp/zora02.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.dnafoundation.com ]

Pharaoh Akhnaton - Earthlore Glossary Reference to Dr. ... ... 1984 Publishes the book: 'Theaux' on the psychological implications of ... 1986 Develops the theory: 'Akhnaton = Moses' - Expanded further to include the ... www.elore.com/el10gl1a.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

A New Chronology ... the true identities of the Patriarchs Trismegistus alias Akhnaton, Moses and Oedipus Dr. William Theaux's intriguing theory builds on Osman, Velikovsky and ... home.fireplug.net/~rshand/restricted/streams/thera/newchrono.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Untitled What Does Akhnaton Mean to Christianity? Public ... synthesis of Oedipus with Moses, and with the archaeology ... Akhenaten. Furthermore, Dr. Theaux has identified the ... members.aol.com/judeoroots/jocaste.htm - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

-- piet bouter (pensievepiet@netscape.net), January 10, 2001.

no need to answer the equipshun question anymore I found it again, it is here (at the bottom at the moment): http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Medley%20Discussion

turns out it was a link to a NYP article Jorn linked to the same day about Gary Greenberg who seems to fit the pattern but how cliquey they are I don't know perhaps search akhnaton for him? .. . No can't be done but wait, why not go ogle again. ... Review of Gary Greenberg's The Moses Mystery, by Norman ... ... couldn't be seen. (p. 197) goto note by William Theaux. Citing Redford, Greenberg points towards the oddly "effeminate: appearance of Akhenaton: "elongated skull ... www.dnafoundation.com/members/akh/simms/nsmomy.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

Oedipus and Akhnaton ... (Dr. Theaux subscribes to the view that Oedipus=Akhnaton=Moses and ... Ransom(5) refers to Lewis M. Greenberg's suggestion that the worship of Aton/Aten included ... www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/vel/oedipus.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Notion of Time in Collective Memory ... 1966); Goldsmith, Donald, ed., Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1977); Greenberg, Lewis M., et al., eds., Velikovsky and Establishment ... William Theaux 1949-1999. www.akhnaton.com/8artic/8vel.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Earning the Rewards ... by Mrs. Ramona M. Pease) Leslie K. Greenberg Lt. Col. Richard W. Hardman and Mrs ... Mrs. Richard Ohi, USNR-Ret.) Loree A. Theaux 1st Lt. Francis G. Palaio, USAF ... www.troa.org/Magazine/November2000/feature_rewards.asp - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Ivory Tower: NAMES INDEX ... Phil GRAMM, Gyorgy GRANASZTOI, Gordon GREENBERG, Stephen GREY, Ian GRIGG, Jean ... von THADDEN, Margaret THATCHER, William THEAUX, Barbara THIERING, Strom THURMOND ... www.gic.ch/git/names.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

Index of delayed theses ... Heather M. Theaux, Master's Thesis, 05/23/97. Mario A. Rivera ... Bezold,Maureen P. , Dissertation, March 28, 1997. Greenberg,Phyllis A. , Dissertation, May 7, 1997. ... scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/delayed/ - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

VT ETD Listing ... in Jewish Feminist Women Phyllis A. Greenberg; A Sociotechnical Approach to Evaluating the ... by Six-Month-Olds Heather M. Theaux; Real-Time Advanced Warning and ... scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/public/temp-list.html - 98k - Cached - Similar pages

not bad for 0.57 seconds; I rarely apply for a job but google can have me and they are coming to amsterdam. Haven't heard back from them yet though. 'fraid I aint teccie enough praps.

-- piet bouter (pensievepiet@netscape.net), January 10, 2001.

back already, I'm having fun here I guess.... just thought I would pass on that there is another Greenberg crossing these tacks (Lewis M) and here's a little something to whet your whistle for a visit to a site I found very early on but haven't really explored yet either (it's the global ivory tower one ((see above)) which goes on about the endless permatutions of Freud/Velikovsky/Einstein/Zoroaster/Abraham and well to make a long story shorter, HCE conflations: 2. Could it be that since aeons - then no less than now - power politics, driven by economic conditions and/or personal ambitions, in most cases was and is at the roots of myths and legends and was and is driving religious choices? (§8) in: http://www.gic.ch/git/A1~1.htm#Theaux

And now for a breather (from shade tree physics, a velikovsky netter): http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/thunk.htm a thunk tank; I'd like to see it if it does what I understand it is supposed to be doing (bendthecan right?)

-- piet bouter (pensievepiet@netscape.net), January 10, 2001.

The breather was called kitchen sink physics by the way.

One last thing: What is racism?

Better question: what is voluntary racism?

first segment of poetpiet s warriornet list altercations ... to use him to expose the pathology and racism evident in so many of his ilk ... on mutual and voluntary if not voluntarizing engagements. I suppose he just didn't ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/list_posts/first_warriornet_list_sparring s.htm - 84k - Cached - Similar pages

poetpiet's fifth linklist ... doings have so many public uses and voluntarizing benefits following in the wake of ... html (an artsy perv site about racism by activist black eurooz ) cbuzz.co.uk ... members.tripod.com/~poetpiet/fifth_linklist.htm - 52k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from members.tripod.com ]

-- piet bouter (pensievepiet@netscape.net), January 10, 2001.

I lied, only minutes later I come up with yet more corrections.

After a breather consisting of wake-list digest posts personally pixeled (bless netscape farover) as is my soothing want i am back to say that the voluntary racism is indeed non existent as yet, even in the links I posted but I HAVE made the connection as a phrase in my Dutch work:

vruchtbaarheid en vrede als metabolizatie door en niet van ... ... maar, baanbreker die ik ben. Gelukkig heb ik ook een oplossing: vrijwillig racisme, realizeerbaar door tot repatriatie verleidende maar vooral niet dwingend ... members.tripod.lycos.nl/vadercats/vruchtbaarheid_en_vrede.htm - 87k - Cached - Similar pages

(e)co-operatief capitalisme; ... gebied; waarom en hoe bijvoorbeeld oa inheemse autonomie, opgevat als vrijwillig racisme (vrije wil mobilizatie), bekrachtigd en beschermd kan en dient te ... members.tripod.lycos.nl/vadercats/ - 59k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from members.tripod.lycos.nl ]

so there.

-- piet bouter (pensievepiet@netscape.net), January 10, 2001.

I miss that thread, "Why do dumbkophs always rule web discussions ?"

Or , something like that .

Mebbe needs reposting at the beginning of this thread ? As a reminder . Made some good points.

-- ojsbuddy russ (carcomp@qwest.net), January 10, 2001.

"Are webloggers simply a collection of self-absorbed slackers?"

-- Ned Humphrey (nhumphrey@agora-inc.com), January 11, 2001.

Ned's comment isn't bad...

But I think "slacker" probably needs a definition. Have you seen the extensive website(s) Jorn's got?

Also, Robot Wisdom isn't quite a diary about "the life and times o' Jorn." There are plenty of those out there, though.

What will the news/bibliography/writing in general be like in the next 10 years? A lot like blogging.

Point taken, Ned: the label doesn't fit the individual. Might be the best response yet, and without commentary. Thanks. (you know, you should have added a link to this forum, and REALLY played up the postmodern satirical parody).

-- Matt Duncan (chaospiral@excite.com), January 11, 2001.

First off, as far as i can tell i'm the only pal;estinan answering your comments.....

So here's my view. Jews and israel are not 2 things that are different. They interlink. We don't think oh i hate that jew or israeli that killed my 12 year old. It's the same....they are one and the same.

But you have to understand something. When you are powerful you can get away with murder....when you are weak you just get murdered.

I can't tell you how amazing it is to see someone speak the truth, but didn't anyone tell you - the truth is a dangerous thing.....

The palestians know that....and we're paying for it. Some people like to expound that the haram/temple mount is not a holy site for muslims.....do thay think for 1 second that we would kill ourselves for a joke, - we'll decide what's holy to us and what's not.

As a religion is judaism racist? Well, how many other religions are there in the world that you simply CANNOT convert to, but you have to be born into it. How many other religions describe all non followers as gentiles or the like - an inferior class?

But like i said, you could do a lot of things .... kill a teenager, bulldoze a home, shoot protestors, violate sanctuaries, murder women and children in shelters - and get away with it.......but the truth?!!?!?!? How dare you.....

-- Al Nakbahs Child (x@hotmail.com), January 12, 2001.

my neigbour says: "...simply CANNOT convert to,... ", but he is wrong; I followed up some of those Nuenke texts Grossman is blackballing so Blabbersomely and it says MM (yes Marilyn) converted, surely that is no lie???

piet PS: my account of this stuff will be accesible as soon as my server is done with maintenance and/or extensions: members.tripod.com/poetpiet/encore.htm

-- piet bouter (pensievepiet@netscape.net), January 12, 2001.

In response to some questions from "Al Nakbah's Child":
how many other religions are there in the world that you simply CANNOT convert to, but you have to be born into it
Since you can convert to Judaism (both my wife and I did), I don't understand why this question is relevant.
How many other religions describe all non followers as gentiles or the like - an inferior class?
Many. Reviewing the history of second-class treatment for non-Christians in Europe, and second-class treatment for non-Muslims in the Arab world, is left as an exercise for the reader.

-- Seth Gordon (sethgordon@lucent.com), January 12, 2001.

In the "There You Go Again" department, Jorn's blogg today displays the tagline: "Israel to humans of conscience: 'Kiss my ass!'" But the article in question talks about the stance of an individual politician (Sharon).

Jorn, do you equate America with George W. Bush?

And by the way: an "interactive forum" really ought, at some point, to feature some interaction with its instigator.

-- Ned Humphrey (nhumphrey@agora-inc.com), January 17, 2001.

i agree with you ned, and with keith above--robot trumps wisdom, and i think we can declare this 'forum' fully atrophied.

-- takeAguess... (djturim@hotmail.com), January 20, 2001.

I have just spent about a half-an-hour reading this BS. The real solution is for all people to stop fighting and start sharing. This would help all the countries and peoples of the WORLD. Thank you. JF

-- Jon Francis (sparky@methow.com), January 20, 2001.


Is there some reason you stopped answering in this forum altogether? I'd be curious to know what it is.

-- Robert Orenstein (rlo@perforce.com), January 25, 2001.

Jorn did not "stop answering" this forum. He never started. Aside from the original post stating his position, and a hissy fit immediately thereafter (because he didn't like the vocabulary of his respondents), he has not contributed in any way to the discussion.

-- Ned Humphrey (nhumphrey@agora-inc.com), January 29, 2001.

If my former comment got here;

I was basically saying that the religious arguments for hatred are flawed even at their root in the texts, and are only ever excuses for hatred. Religion is a poor excuse for war. Race is a poor excuse for hate. And all of the above is a shit-poor excuse for a policy of ethnic cleansing. The Isreali (not Jewish) policy of ethnic cleansing is a stink-pot of moral rot, as is every excuse for action which rests on race or religion. Any of you reading this who considers yourself somehow justified because you are Christian, Palestinian, American, Jewish, Atheist, or whatthefuckever needs to think again. You are responsible for what you do. Israel is no more justified than the Romans were in AD70. The Holocaust was a moral horror. So was the murder of Cambodians by Pol Pot. And the murder of Soviets by Stalin. And of Kurds by Saddam Hussain. And of Kurds by Winston Churchill (oh yes, check it out.) The World is full of horror, including Israel's genocidal actions, and to ascribe it all to religion or race is the easiest kind of moral cowardice. And to ustify yourself through or by religion or race is moral cowardice. Own yourself. Don't make it God's problem. Because if (s)he exists,(s)he won't give a shit what you believe, but what you've done. And if that aint so, why do you care for it/him/her?

-- no (dan.gbh@ntlworld.com), February 08, 2001.

Right-not there where did my stuff go Answering Al Nakbah's Child So...A Jewish prophet described gentiles - that would be all non-Jewish People - as dogs. that would have been ...Jesus. Christians have no chance. Unless you're a Jew... you can't be a Christian. Jesue said so. As to the Moslems, their stuff says Jews and Christians are the "people of the book". So must be friends. And says you must poursue a jihad against the unbelivers. Well shit;it must be up to you!

-- (dan.gbh@ntlworld.com), February 09, 2001.

None of this would have happened if the Palestinians accepted Barak's generous offer. But they inisted that Israel must fork over all of East Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. Jews were not allowed to visit this site until after the six-day war of 1967. In light of the destruction of Joseph's Tomb, I can't blame Israel for regarding this demand as unacceptable.

For every assertion about the "inherent" racism of Judaism, there can be an equal charge against Islam. What about the commandment that a father must kill his son or daughter if they convert to another religion? Probably most Muslims regard this command the way most Jews regard the Old Testament command that makes homosexual relations a capital offense---something better honored in the breach than in the observance. I could also cite numerous examples to "prove" that my own religion, Roman Catholicism is "inherently" racist. I believe that religion can be legitimately criticized, but "anti-Judaism" is as equally repulsive as anti-Catholism, ant-Islam, or even (thinking of the Taliban) anti-Buddhism.

For every horror story about Palestinians being killed by Israeli's there's a story about Israelis being killed by Palestinians. If this cycle of violence and retribrution is going to end, hard compromises and realistic goals will have to be made by both sides. Race-baiting or religion-baiting remarks is not going to end this anytime soon.

I noticed that you retitled this forum "Are Jews capable of civil discourse." The answers above provide a resounding "yes." I pray that one day a Jewish and Palestinian state will peacefully co-exist side-by-side, where people of all faiths can safely visit Jewish, Muslim, and Christian sites in the Holy Land. That will be enough to satisfy me. But since Judaism and the state of Israel will still exist, I don't know if it will satisfy you. You are unlikely to listen to my words. Maybe you'll listen to the words of James Joyce:

And says he: ---Mendelsshohn was a jew and Karl Marx and Mercadante and Spinoze. And the Saviour was a jew and his father was a jew. Your God. ---He had no father, says Martin. That'll do now. Drive ahead. ---Whose God? says the citizen. ---Well, his uncle was a jew, says he. Your God was a jew. Christ was a jew lik me. Gob, the citizen made a plunge back into the shop. ---By Jesus, says he, I'll brain that bloody jewman for using the holy name. By Jesus, I'll crucify him so I will. Give us that biscuitbox here.

-- Edward J. Cunningham (eddiejc1@erols.com), March 16, 2001.

semitism came from the semites which meant the arabs. the jewish poeple made an acronym out of this word to be swalled in term as anti- jewish instead. and in islam we do recognize judaism but bear in mind that the same god jews believe in muslims do to. thus there is the reasoning that judaism was the first version of islam and christianity the second and the final version is islam. another factor one should appeal is that in christianity we do not believe that jesus was the son of god nor do we belive he was crucified.

the is doubt on the fact that it may have been judas who was crucified as he resembled jesus very much and jesus hid in a cave. thus the poeple who saw him didnt see him arisen from the dead but merely coming out of hiding.

as for the jewish poeple. the one thing i fail to understand is why they feel the need to have a nation. christains dont have their own country nor do muslims. isnt the whole idea to spread one's faith? then way take over the home of others? And why do it in a sneaky conspiring manner? Because the real question here has nothing to do with religion or that they are the promised poeple..its all about politics and economics...i must say i respect the Jewish intelligence but i loath their sneakiness. start with asking yourself why a young man like Theodore Herzl ever got the idea of writing about immigrating to Palestine all on his own in 1897? Explain why Britain took palestine as a mandate during the peace treatites in 1919 and the white paper signed in 1938 by britain promising the Jews a home in palestine within 10 years was overlooked and that subsequently 10 years later in 1948 the UN(headquarters in New York where about 3 million jews reside)passed resolution 181 giving 58% of palestine's most fertile land to jewish immigrants who were in the minority in comparison with the palestinian natives who received 42% of their own land by foreigners? and then you still ask why the arab nations attacked israel as soon as it was initiated?...its not religion its politics

-- HB (hearmeroarhiggs@wildmail.com), April 03, 2001.

Jorn's at it again:


-- Max Power (safblog@yahoo.com), April 16, 2002.

Who gave us the Idea of one God

Adam - Was he Jewish? Noah - Iraqi according to region, not Jewish Abraham - Iraqi

Ask Imaam Imam Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islaam Islam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuda

Afghanistan News Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" ar-Rasheed trust

Sunnah Deobandi Sunni Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama"

-- copy (copy@greenspun.com), July 28, 2002.

Whenever or whatever. If using a bullet against a rock thrown is right, then the one who used the bullet is wrong in my eyes and many of those who dislike any type war. Get a grip ISRAEL, and possibly those who all live in the middle-east. We must all acquire the ability to live on this ONE Planet together or we are soon to be all damned.

-- Anonymous (foo@bar.com), December 19, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ